CASA recreational licencing?

[Ben Longden]

Just having a browse through the latest RAA magazine (the one with the bloody stunning cover pic) and noted in the minutes of the AGM there was this stunning revelation.

 

"A short discussion was held on another upcoming agenda item, the proposed recreational Pilots Licence issued through CASA"

 

WTF?

 

At first look, is this a proposal for CASA to issue their equivalent of the RAA certificate?

 

Whats the story?

 

Ben

 

*Apologies if this has been diiscussed before, but Ive been out of the loop for a while due to work committments)

 

 

[sseeker]

I'm also concerned about this. If CASA goes ahead and takes over the recreational sector, does this mean they will change the solo age to 16 and licence age to 17? If this is the case I lose my certificate and ability to fly solo which would **** me right off.

 

-Andrew

 

 

[tvaner]

This also caught my eye and thanks for posting about it, Ben. Hopefully, someone who was present or one of the board members will be able to add some flesh to this for us.

 

Further down in the minutes under upcoming agenda items advised by the president is item 7. "Ensuring none of the RA-Aus qualifications are more difficult to attain than through CASA." Is this item associated?

 

 

[djpacro]

Its been CASA policy for many years to have "parallel pathways" so people have a choice.

 

The Rec Licence that CASA proposed around a decade ago allowed, from memory, up to four seats, fixed gear. Aerobatics of course.

 

I'm looking forward to it.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Why would there be two issuers of certificates? RAAus and CASA. I think that CASA had it pointed out to them that monoplies are illegal in this country. CASA pulled the 'parrallel paths' about 12 months ago and forced some glider pilots to rejoin GFA against the pilots wishes. It may have been pointed out that CASA must provide an alternate. Say you have a problem with the RAAus board and you end up being expelled for whatever reason. what you going to do? take up knitting?

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

This a two page article so I have tried to hit only the salient points:

 

took me awhile to dig it up....

 

PRESIDENTS REPORT "AIRSPORT" (SAAA) June/July 2010

 

"The Licence will have similar priveleges to the current GFPT (General Flying Progress Test) qualification but will allow for unsupervised operations limited to aircraft with a maximum of four seats...A qualification with reduced training requirements, based on the lower risk factors associated with limited recreational activities, allows a lower cost option for those wishing to fly for recreation." The licence will remove restrictions on pilots who currently operate on a SPL (Student Pilot Licence) and a GFPT allowing for Cross Country capability limited to Class G airspace to be added with additional training. There was also discussion on the possibility of lower medical requirements than a Class 2 medical etc...

 

I personally don't see this as a threat to RAA or our style of aviation. It is GA's way of trying to survive. If you currently are only operating in Class G but would like to fly bigger aircraft with more passengers this would be an attractive option. Not as good as the US system of 'sport pilot' mind you but a start...

 

 

[facthunter]

Parallal Paths

 

The parallel paths thing is an intrinsic principle to prevent the establishment of a monopoly. How it works in reality I can't begin to outline but there is supposed to be an option. (An alternate path). If you cannot stand RAAus (hypothetically) you can still do it another way. IF CASA had established monopolies by edict, I could imagine the howls of protest.

 

The Recreational pilot LICENCE has been "in the Pipe" for a while. They have it in the states. I believe that there is likely to be a bit of over-reaction to this and feeling threatened by it is over the top. CASA are only responding to an application by SAAA and perhaps other bodies.

 

There will be restrictions on it (as there is and should be with the recreational certificate) and they will be negotiated.

 

IF there is opposition by the RAAus to this I would regard it as extremely POOR form. I have advocated higher weights for RAAus and had ALL the papers filled out for the Citabria I OWNED, only to have the whole thing pulled out from under me, at the last minute, when McCormick put everything on hold. With the aircraft I have /had both have been held up by rules "freezing" I have lost and stand to loose considerable dollars, which I can ill afford.

 

Plenty of people opposed a weight increase and other things and a common theme has been that IF you want what PPL's have go get a PPL and don't stuff up my situation in RAAus. Well I would NEVER want to spoil what others have, believe me. HOWEVER..

 

IF it occurrs that RAAus OPPOSE this move I will have NOTHING to do with an organisation that behaves in that way. It would be purely territorial. RAAus, IF it has a good product is NOT THREATENED. They do not have the right to oppose people trying to achieve what RAAus does not provide. Does RAAus WANT to be the BIG administrator of ALL GA? RAAus has sought member increase constantly, fair enough, but in the light of some recent events, has it grown faster that it's capacity to manage efficiently?

 

I have been very supportive of RAAus but you can't take anything for granted. High handed action could result in things going pear shaped fast. This might just need a new thread. Nev

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

Totally agree Nev, I also think that calling it a Recreational Licence was a bad move...causeing a bit of confusion. Maybe PPL (Restricted) or something similar would have been more appropriate. When you look at the RAA Cert and the proposed CASA Rec Licence, they really are two different beasts...

 

 

[facthunter]

true. It is a modified PPL. Recreational is a very generic term which will require further clarification from time to time. I don't think it was done that way on purpose. Nev

 

 

[Relfy]

I gotta admit, the greater seating capacity is very attractive to me. With a number of aircraft that would suit this (jab230, morgan cougar) it would open up rec flying to families. i know the option of ppl is there but it also at a greater cost.

 

 

[Admin]

I believe one big consideration is that with the SAAA/CASA/Warbirds etc Recreational License you will still have to follow the Maintenance Rules as apposed to RAAus where you can do your own maintenance...that is a big differentiation between the two BUT it has been going on for about 5 years now and still nothing has been decided yet so it is going to be interesting what the eventual terms/restrictions end up being

 

 

[dazza 38]

So i wonder why they got rid of the PPL restricted licence in the first place.This sounds very similar apart from it sounds like a x-country attached. The reason im saying this is because i held a SPL with GFPT passed for a couple of years,then i decided to just fly AUF/RAA which i attained certificate a couple of years earlier.The main reason was that it to me seemed pointless that i had to have check rides every 30 days or what ever it was.When i didnt do that with RAA as i held a Certificate apart from BFR and friends of mine had a Restricted PPL who didnt have to do check rides either apart from the BFR.They did the same test for their Restricted PPL as i did for my GFPT. They only thing i thought was, is that CASA didnt want PPL Retricted Guys flying around, they wanted them to finish Navs a get a full PPL.For reasons they will only know i guess.

 

 

[sseeker]

Why would anyone want CASA to govern their organisation? CASA is chaotic already just handling the GA guys. Could you imagine if they got rid of RA-Aus (that's if they are gonna do that) and took on a whole new group of 10,000 odd member? A mate of mine waited 3 MONTHS to have his CIR paperwork approved. What will happen to the executives that currently work with RA-Aus? Will they still have job? No one has answered my questions regarding age either.....

 

-Andrew

 

 

[maddogmorgan]

RAA is not going anywhere, this IS a GA licence issued by CASA. It DOES NOT replace the RAA Pilot Cert...It is two different classes of licences. So in GA you will have a CPL, PPL (FULL) PPL(REC) etc etc...This is a licence which will allow you to fly a 4 seater GA aircraft in Class G Airspace and XC endorsement. You can then if you so desire continue training to a full PPL with CTA etc etc. It basically is a GFPT with Passenger and Nav that's it! There is no plot by CASA to take over RAA!!! The term Recreational Licence (CASA) was just poorly picked as previously explained...RAA Certs will be exactly the same.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

This has been mooted for some time now and from memory the Part 130 / 149 discussions (specifically the latter) went into it in some detail. Do a search on Part 149 on this site, see if you can find the links to the CASA discussion papers and read away.... From my recollection there was nothing sinister or problematic

 

Andy

 

 

[ave8rr]

This proposal follows on from what UK, Canada, USA and more recently NZ have introduced.

 

The licence is the same as a Full PPL but has limitations on the number of passengers ( NZ is 1) the MTOW of the aircraft and the operating of an aircraft of a lesser performance. Basically it allows a PPL (or higher licence) to be issued with a RPL when the holder can no longer hold a class 2 medical. This allows the holder to still operate an aircraft that they may have owned or flown for years e.g. C150/172 or PA28 series aircraft etc.

 

If this licence is ever created here in Aus then it will be a PPL with down graded medical and the restrictions that go with that.

 

Here is a link to the NZ Brief as published in the NZ flight Safety Mag when the licence was created a few years back. http://www.caa.govt.nz/GA/Sport_&_Rec/RPL_SepOct07_Vector.pdf There is more on the NZCAA Web site for those who may be interested.

 

Cheers

 

 

[kaz3g]

true. It is a modified PPL. Recreational is a very generic term which will require further clarification from time to time. I don't think it was done that way on purpose. Nev

A PPL in its basic form is for Class G and E only. Entry into C and D is achieved by log book endorsement. The big potential difference is in a lesser medical requirement similar to what exists in RAAus now and th main limitations will be S/E and max 4 seats.

 

kaz

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon if Casa does this... coupled with experimental "sport" aircraft... Ra-Aus could have some serious competition on their hands.

 

 

[John Brandon]

I reckon if Casa does this... coupled with experimental "sport" aircraft... Ra-Aus could have some serious competition on their hands.

I don't think that is true. When the FAA brought out the Recreational Pilot Certificate, about 1990, it was most unsuccessful. I seem to remember that only a few hundred pilots were certificated in the first three years or so and in 2005 or 2006 it was largely replaced by the Sport Pilot Certificate concept. With that history in the US I can't see why CASA would bother to repeat much the same exercise. (For those who are not aware of it, the FAA does not have pilot licences ( nor even licenses) only certificates.)

 

cheers

 

John Brandon

 

 

[Spin]

John, I'm not familiar with the FAA versions except that I understand that their Sport Pilot is similar in intent to our RA certificate. How did the Recreational Certificate differ from that?

 

Personally the Casa version as sketched out above, is something that would interest me. As I've said elsewhere, I like RA type flying, have virtually no need for controlled airspace but would like at least one more passenger due to my family circumstances. As things stand, I'm in the throes of deciding where to spend the money to regain my PPL.

 

 

[John Brandon]

John, I'm not familiar with the FAA versions except that I understand that their Sport Pilot is similar in intent to our RA certificate. How did the Recreational Certificate differ from that?Personally the Casa version as sketched out above, is something that would interest me. As I've said elsewhere, I like RA type flying, have virtually no need for controlled airspace but would like at least one more passenger due to my family circumstances. As things stand, I'm in the throes of deciding where to spend the money to regain my PPL.

The FAA Rec. Flying Certificate allows day VFR flight in an aircraft under 5700 kg but limited to 4 seats (but only one passenger), fixed gear and one engine up to 180 hp.

 

Thirty hours minimum for the basic certificate (vs 40 for the Private Pilot) then endorsements/ratings for cross-country beyond 50 nm, entry into controlled airspace, aerobatics etc. Class 3 medical required.

 

There aren't many active certificates; perhaps no more than 5oo; a PPL would be more logical and cost effective.

 

cheers

 

John

 

 

[jetjr]

Talking to SAAA the other day, yes this is still being proposed, for some reason they feel it is close now, importantly you are still restricted to 1 PAX, but unlike RAA it can be in a 4 seat AC. Im not sure maintenence has anything to do with it, same rules apply, so Id guess an owner built Experimental still has self maintain. He thought it allowed controlled airspace access too.

 

It may or may not have reduced medical requirements.

 

This being the case Im not sure how attractive it is as all it really achieves is to allow access to controlled areas, it may mean this is off the cards for RAA though?

 

 

[eastmeg2]

I suppose you could take your pet dog and a lot of luggage too . . .

 

 

[Yenn]

What the SAAA is trying to do is get the Sport Pilot licence brought in, so that ageing pilots who have own a plane can continue to fly it with lower medical standards. It seems sensible to allow those who have owned and flown their own plane for years to continue to fly that plane, even if their health doesn't allow them to hold a PPL.

 

Personaly I would like it as I am building an RV4, which is too heavy to allow a passenger and still be RAAus registered. At over 75 years I don't know what hoops I would have to jump through to get my medical, but it would probably cost a small fortune, even though I am very fit.

 

 

[jetjr]

It would let you fly a 5 tonne 4 seat aircraft!!! More than full fuel and a few dogs Id say

 

Theres also not stall limit so brings in some higher perfromance options too.

 

With this discussion I can see the fit for it, it would asist in keeping people with health issues flying thier existing VH aircraft RATHER than migrating to RAA.