CASA recreational licencing?

[djpacro]

Refer the attachment for a bit of history - this was coming about a decade ago.

 

58-59.pdf

 

58-59.pdf

 

58-59.pdf

[johnprop]

We have been down the Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL) road with CASA before with a Discussion Paper Mar 2002, an NPRM July 2003, Responses to the NPRM July 2003, a Draft MO July 2003 and a Draft Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Regulation (Not for signature) 2003. RPL was then killed off or left to wither either by people within CASA or by politicians.

 

Now we go down the same path once again. The latest being RPL being shunted off to a CASA GA task force.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Clive

 

 

[kaz3g]

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.

Exactly! The old GA Restricted Pilots Licence had an area limitation on it and required a class 2 medical just as GFPT does now. The new licence will require a doctor's assessment as "fit to drive" and will be able to be upgraded to include CTA. It will be limited to 4-seaters and maximum 180 hp at this stage according to AOPA Pilot Extra but it will be able to interact seamlessly with PPL and CPL. Only pilot and 1 x passenger allowed unless a control seat is occupied by a second pilot who holds PPL or greater. Normal maintenance requirements continue at this stage.

 

There is some discussion about relaxing certain maintenance requirements for aircraft of 6 seats or less in another CASA forum but I think that is quite a way off.

 

This will all be managed by CASA, at least for some time, but may eventually be hived off in a similar manner as RAAus, GFA, SAAA, Warbirds, etc and it may even be added to the responsibilities of one of the existing groups if they can demonstrate the ability to manage the processes.

 

kaz

 

 

[eightyknots]

Whats the use of being allowed to fly a 4 seater aircraft with only 1 pax maximum...... That defeats the purpose of being able to fly a 4 seater aircraft...

The reason is the owners of 4 seat aircraft may continue flying a GA plane but, due to certain restrictions, are limited to one passenger.

 

 

[Mazda]

Almost but not quite. The RPL does not have a horsepower restriction, but it does have a weight restriction of 1500kg. It is in Part 61, so will come out whenever that does, which looks like being late 2013.

 

It is in keeping with the drivers licence medical which should be out much sooner, maybe March this year? This also allows 1500kg 4 seaters and one pax. If you want to carry more pax there needs to be an appropriately licensed pilot in a control seat, who holds a Class 2 or Class 1 medical. The pilot does not have to be a PPL, just appropriately licensed I believe. Same goes for aeros.

 

Controlled airspace will be available a long as the pilot holds suitable qualifications and the aircraft is suitably equipped e

 

 

[shags_j]

Controlled airspace is a win for me. I will drop ra in a heartbeat for CTA.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Maybe I am cynical but I can't see CTA being given by CASA without a min of a Class 2 medical [or with pax with a Class 2] at a cost of over $200 every 2 years.

 

A CTA endorcement I imagine would be to the standard of a GFPT? Cost?

 

Being able to fly larger aircraft on a RPL would be a plus but watch the fine print. To do Xcountry a RPL would still have to do "Nav, Met, Airlaw etc" I would assume and as such you may as well do a PPL. The main use that comes to mind is a PPL/CPL who can no longer pass the Class 1 or 2 medical would still be able to fly but with the listed restrictions.

 

"Controlled airspace will be available a long as the pilot holds suitable qualifications and the aircraft is suitably equipped " as Mazda said.

 

This is avaibale now with an RA certificate however the "suitable qualification" in currently a min of a PPL.

 

I am watching with interest as the only reason I renew my medical each year is for CTA access.

 

A CTA endorcement on a RA certificate makes sense but what would be the extra requiremens is anybody's guess [Class 2 medical????].

 

Frank

 

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Controlled airspace is a win for me. I will drop ra in a heartbeat for CTA.

Not quite sure I understand your reasoning...

You can do CTA in an appropriate (approved engine, instruments and transponder) RAA registered aircraft as long as you have an eligible PPL as well as a Certificate.

 

The only reason CASA RA licensing looks attractive is for the "driver's licence medical" for an aircraft that requires GA registration, but that won't get you into CTA. For that you would need at least a Class 2 medical, so why not just a PPL?

 

 

[shags_j]

I wanted the easier to obtain recreational license but the ability to go for a fly without driving for over an hour (to my nearest non cta airstrip). I'm cool with a class 2 medical, but I believe the RA license will have a lower flight time requirement. The most important part for this is approval for CTA.

 

Point is, if I want to fly in CTA, I need CASA licensing, why would I maintain my RA at the same time (unless I want and RA Aircraft). Just my thinking at the moment. I guess I don't have to make my mind up till much later.

 

Admittedly I am looking into flying with Pathfinder Aviation instead of at YCAB (but I hate jabs!) which will be a lot easier for me but I must admit I am not sure of what their hirees are or aren't able to do within the CTA (ie. once checked out on their aircraft can I rent them and head off anywhere, only entering CTA at YBAF, asuming i have XC endo of course?).

 

 

[shags_j]

BTW: I know we've had the arguments on various of these forums over the years of whether RA shoudl go for CTA or not, surely this is a great alternative. Does it really matter if RAAus loses members? Surely a bit of competition can only be good for the consumer?

 

 

 

[nathan_c]

Im flying with pathfinder shags. Once checked out you can indeed hire an aircraft and fly somewhere, though you can only fly in ybaf class d, no other cta areas are allowed. Best bet would be to give them a call! Daves a nice bloke and has always answered any of my queries(which were exactly what you just asked, I.e. hiring conditions) in as much detail as he could!

 

 

[shags_j]

I've actually popped in to say hello. I need to do my Navs and was thinking of using them since they are so close. it's just hard cause I love the aircraft from Go Fly and the staff there are fantastic (I guess you get used to what you know...). I have no doubt the Pathfinder guys are also (i've heard from many).

 

It's just a shame I live so damn far away from YCAB!

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I wanted the easier to obtain recreational license but the ability to go for a fly without driving for over an hour (to my nearest non cta airstrip). I'm cool with a class 2 medical, but I believe the RA license will have a lower flight time requirement. The most important part for this is approval for CTA.Point is, if I want to fly in CTA, I need CASA licensing, why would I maintain my RA at the same time (unless I want and RA Aircraft). Just my thinking at the moment. I guess I don't have to make my mind up till much later.

 

Admittedly I am looking into flying with Pathfinder Aviation instead of at YCAB (but I hate jabs!) which will be a lot easier for me but I must admit I am not sure of what their hirees are or aren't able to do within the CTA (ie. once checked out on their aircraft can I rent them and head off anywhere, only entering CTA at YBAF, asuming i have XC endo of course?).

As you say, I guess we'll have to see how it pans out.

If you can have lower flying hours for CASA RA, then there's no argument left against implementing the shelved RAA CTA endorsement. It will look just about the same except for the aircraft.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Point is, if I want to fly in CTA, I need CASA licensing, why would I maintain my RA at the same time (unless I want and RA Aircraft). ".

 

Shags

 

Apart from membership there is nothing to do to maintain a HP RAA licence except from sending a copy of your logbook entry for a CASA AFR to RAA.

 

LP is a different story.

 

Frank

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

There are a lot of misconceptions in many of these posts, mostly as a result of people not being up to speed on what is going on.

 

For the full story, call Peter John or Marilyn Anderson at CASA, 131757, for the unadulterated facts, Peter is responsible for the project, which is supposed to hit the book "real soon now".

 

Firstly, the concept of a "Recreational Pilots License" ( a sub-ICAO Annex I license) has been around since the mid-1990s, and the form it takes right now is very similar to the license proposed to the CASA Review/Program Advisory Panel in 1996, it is NOT really a parallel path to the RAOz pilot certificate, it will not entitle you to fly RAOz aircraft without being a member and conforming to all the requirements of RAOz.

 

It is not intended to replace the RAOz "Pilot Certificate", but, as a license, it will definitely compliment and compete with the RAOz certificate.

 

Interestingly, while it will have some limitations, it will be far less limiting than the FAA RPL, let alone the FAA Sports Pilot License.

 

It will apply to VH- registered aeroplanes, and in no way changes anything about the airworthiness requirements for a VH- aircraft, including increasingly bureaucratic and expensive maintenance.

 

The pilot standards (except for the medical) will be the same as the PPL.

 

The biggest change will be the medical standard, which will be the national drivers license standard, but it will NOT be self certification with limitations, as per RAOz, but will require you visit a GP and get some form of certification that you do meet the said national standard.

 

About the only aircraft limitation, as I recall the CASA presentation, at YSBK several months ago ( I didn't take notes), was single engine, max gross 1500kg, two persons, even if it was a four seat aircraft. No speed limits, VP prop or retractable undercarriage limits. I don't recall if it was limited to VFR.

 

There will be no airspace class restriction as such, the rules will be as per the PPL.

 

Cheers,

 

Bill Hamilton

 

PS: The reason the original FAA RPL effectively failed, is that the FAA proposal for using the US national drivers license was defeated by the US equivalent of DAMEs lobbying DoT and politicians, and FAA was forced to maintain the same medical certificate as for the FAA PPL. It has taken all the years since (15 years plus) for the FAA/US to catch up with Australia and RAOz, ne AUF.

 

 

[shags_j]

Thanks Bill. Some good info there.

 

 

[djpacro]

A related discussion point - here in Aus we need a Class 1 medical for GA charter and flying training and a Class 2 medical for private flying. In the USA it is one level down - Class 2 for commercial pilots and Class 3 for private pilots - only airline transport pilots require a Class 1 there. (I haven't compared the detailed standards of each Class but I have undergone medicals in the USA so I know it is a valid point regarding the different requirements.)