RPL is comming... But what's it bringing?

[Kenchhidu]

At the Casa safety seminar they had a small slide show of some up coming changes. One of which was the RPL and it's restrictions. It will be limited to Day VFR, single pax, mtow 1500kg and the drivers licence medical. The pilots who want to 'downgrade' will need to tell casa. The thing is they still need to go to there GP every two year to get a certificate saying there healthy enough to drive. That doesn't sound that bad untill talking afterwards when he said RAA will be getting the GP medical requirement too.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So now the dollars in an RAA subscription assume a lot more significance, and you can keep up your handling skills recency in a Cherokee in about a third the hours of a Jab if you're renting. This will change things.

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

I wonder what the conversion from RAA to RPL will entail, i'm guessing the medical declaration from your doctor and pass the RPL/PPL exams and relevant flight tests, much like the conversion to PPL except no controlled airspace

 

 

[facthunter]

There was a "path" proposed from the RAAus certificate as well as the PPL. Whether this has survived to the "final" form we have to find out. It may be a bit academic as the requirements would be a substantial update which might be almost as much as getting the PPL anyhow.

 

I reckon this is a good thing though for aviation. of the "leasure" type.

 

IF you have had any circumstances with your health that impacted your ability to drive any vehicle ( legally) you would have to get a statement from your doctor anyhow for the RAAus cert. so nothing has changed there for those people.

 

The others have had to affirm/state that they meet the medical standard to be able to drive. If you perjured yourself you would be liable to proscecution and insurance wouldn't be valid etc. so I don't know if or why that would be affected, but it may have. These things we will have to find out also. Nev

 

 

[pete8862]

Can someone tell me, where you say single passenger do you mean pilot only or pilot & single passenger??

 

Pete

 

 

[Admin]

This is sounding really good...except I wonder about the aircraft maintenance aspects of an aircraft...presuming that this is just a limited version of the PPL then the only thing RAA will have over it will be the aircraft maintenance aspects of do it yourself

 

 

[Kenchhidu]

Yes. Pilot and one passenger. I should have mentioned he said RPL also INCLUDES controlled airspace, except eperemental etc. I'm just repeating what casa have said, which means nothing untill it's in writing...

 

 

[djpacro]

The draft is in writing.

 

 

[dazza 38]

So the part which says " recreational Pilot licence to be introduced to replace passenger carrying privileges for student pilots. " Does that mean GFPT holders get the new RPL.

 

 

[djpacro]

No mention of the transition

 

 

[pete8862]

Pilot and single passenger is my understanding Pete.

I hope so, I have been keen to get a 150 Cessna, so this might be what I have been waiting for.

Pete

 

 

[Ben Longden]

The draft is being written?

 

Thats all fine and dandy until it becomes legislation..... Now WHEN that happens is anyones guess.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

I was at an aeroclub annual dinner recently where AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association) president Phillip Reiss was the guest speaker, he talked about the draft and the negotiations with casa that he among others is involved with in regard to the new licence. He mentioned that alot of his members are getting to the stage of being worried about the class 2 medical etc and that he feels if they change over to RAA when they can no longer pass the medical then they should still be allowed to fly the cessna's and pipers with which they are familiar. I took that as "sure they like the idea of no medical but they don't want to risk thier lives in some agricultural ultralight".

 

I haven't yet done much reading but It'll be interesting to see if the new licence is only for people who currently hold PPL or if it will mean the RAA crowd will get a much needed new CTA and 1500kg MTOW catagory for RAA registered aircraft :)

 

 

[Deskpilot]

This is sounding really good...except I wonder about the aircraft maintenance aspects of an aircraft...presuming that this is just a limited version of the PPL then the only thing RAA will have over it will be the aircraft maintenance aspects of do it yourself

In no way is this good. Let's keep CASA out of our arena. I can see that some of you will want to fly into controlled airspace (I'm assuming that will be allowed for PPL pilot who down grade) but the majority of us who only fly locally, it's not needed. A couple of days ago I had to have my first medical to drive a car (70 in January) and it was no big deal and didn't cost me anything. Others may not be so lucky if medicals are bought in.

 

Our rights are slowly being eroded due to the number of ex GA pilots wanting more and more, faster airplanes, less travel restrictions etc. Perhaps this new category should only apply if you fly a new LSA type of plane. Can you imagine young pilots looking for their first plane, a Thruster for instance, and being forced out of the because it's suddenly become so expensive and bound up in CASA rules to even dream of owning their own. Perhaps I'm going over the top but like I said, let's keep CASA out of our arena.

 

 

[facthunter]

The approach was made by the SAAA. None of what they proposed would impact on RAAus except to provide another option for some pilots to continue flying "certain" planes with some extra restrictions imposed on the privileges they exercise their licence under.

 

THAT licence is administered by CASA. Nothing has changed there. It's essentially a variation to the PPL.

 

How much CASA buy directly into what RAAus do depends on the relationship they have with each other. RAAus has to negotiate with CASA to achieve changes so under that process some things may be "imposed" on the RAAus as a condition... What RAAus decide to "push" will be up to the management in response to what the members indicate they want, and what they think is possible/ achievable.

 

CASA have the responsibility to "oversee" ( AUDIT) RAAus so CASA are "in our arena" at any time, In fact we act on their behalf in the administration of the planes we operate and are funded for that service, so we have the "two hats" function of administering and serving the membership at the one time.

 

Clearly this has the potential for some interesting/conflicting situations. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

If or when this becomes law it will impact on RAAus. I am building an RV4, which can be registered RAAus, but only as a single seater. If I get my medical I can fly it on my PPL and carry a passenger, plus go into controlled airspace, But I have to get the medical and that is not cheap. If this new legislation goes ahead I can register it GA and fly with only the same requirements as a drivers licence. I won't need to be a member of RAAus, nor pay an annual registration fee to RAAus. Being the builder and having jumped through the required hoops, I can do my own maintenance. The only downside is that I can't go into controlled airspace or do aerobatics, and I have lived with that for quite some time now.

 

As far as I can see, it would be better for RAAus to look after all recreational flying, even of Cessna 172 size. That way RAAus would get the revenue from a wider base and CASA would be relieved of some of the work load. I know there are a lot of RAAus members who don't want anything to do with faster, bigger aircraft, but looking at the RAAus fleet it is obvious that a lot of members can afford to buy and run planes that are very similar to the GA fleet.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think you've put your finger right on it Yenn.

 

 

[djpacro]

X

 

 

[Sloper]

Goodaye all

 

As someone going for there PPL it would give me more options.

 

l will proberly loose my medical when my current hip replacements wear out, do l try and get back my PPL or go with RPL?

 

My Couger will be registed GA experimental and l will get my tickets to maintain it.

 

Going RAA would be a inconvenience, as my children will be flying the Couger too, down grading the weights dont thrill me either.

 

As for govening bodies and turf wars l dont care as long l can still fly safley and legaly.

 

regards Bruce

 

 

[ave8rr]

As far as I can see, it would be better for RAAus to look after all recreational flying, even of Cessna 172 size. That way RAAus would get the revenue from a wider base and CASA would be relieved of some of the work load. I know there are a lot of RAAus members who don't want anything to do with faster, bigger aircraft, but looking at the RAAus fleet it is obvious that a lot of members can afford to buy and run planes that are very similar to the GA fleet.

I think you are right on it Yenn. The only reason the SAAA (AOPA) are pushing for this class of licence is so that their members who own and fly aircraft like Vans RV's etc that have MTOW's between 600kgs and 1500kgs will still be able to fly their aircraft but with the proposed restrictions. NZ (UK) went down this path two or three years ago as I understand it.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest nunans]

looking at the RAAus fleet it is obvious that a lot of members can afford to buy and run planes that are very similar to the GA fleet.

That's very true, RAA is growing and I think alot of the growth is in $70K+ aircraft rather than new pilots building new 2-stroke powered kit planes.

 

The RAA alternative is gobbling up the poorer end of the GA private operators or the GA operators who can't renew the aviation medical. Either way these pilots are often affluent buisness people etc who are used to paying the VH price for everything, and who are being squeezed into no-mans-land. The planes they want to fly don't fit into the 600kg RA limit and under VH rego and a PPL they are subject to endless red tape wrapped around them by CASA who is concerned primarily with the safety of the fare paying passenger.

 

DJP I see your point and you probably would be safer flying the planes you are used to than learning how to handle some of the high drag low inertia RA planes out there, though there are some RA pilots who would be insulted by the idea that GA pilots don't see thier homebuilt RA aircraft as "airworthy".

 

It seems that the AUF decided to ditch the name to make us sound more appealing, but they forgot to ditch the weight limit which means we're all still really flying ultralights.

 

 

[robinsm]

DJP I see your point and you probably would be safer flying the planes you are used to than learning how to handle some of the high drag low inertia RA planes out there, though there are some RA pilots who would be insulted by the idea that GA pilots don't see thier homebuilt RA aircraft as "airworthy".

 

 

Correct!!!!

 

 

[Yenn]

There is no doubt that RAAus planes are airworthy. The problem is that some GA pilots are not experienced at flying those slow, draggy, low inertia planes. Also they are not really interested in learning. I think they make you a better pilot, but cross countries are a bit of a pain, especially when the GPS is telling you it is now longer to get to your destination than it was a few minutes ago.

 

 

[dazza 38]

For Clarity, before I flew a Savage Cub. I read a test report in a magazine. The Pilot was our very own DJP, he as a individual had no problem what so ever converting to a HP LSA .DJP after all is a aircraft engineer and a top notch aerobatic instructor .I understand the difference between RAA and GA.I have flown both.I agree with the above comments.Small flight envelope etc.But there are GA guys out there that realy know there stuff.The 5 hour rule, is there for safety.And i totally agree with it.Too many accidents have happened back in the old days.Those olds days where old 95.10, 95.25 etc aircraft. .With the modern HP aircraft in RAA.Whether the aircraft has letters or numbers on the side.Does not make a world of difference.IMO

 

 

[Litespeed]

For myself, I think the RPL is a great idea.

 

I would be unlikely to get a full medical pass and I am only 41. A embolism in my right kidney following a flight has seen to that, leaving me with one good kidney and a history of arterial embolisms. I reckon that means a snowball in hells chance of GA unrestricted.

 

The ability to fly what I consider heavy metal would be fantastic, especially if it meant any weight up to 1500kg, thus light stuff that is to0 fast for the RA regs on stall etc would be usable.