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

[facthunter]

Sorry it may be ambiguous. Put "there is" in front of the first line. I'm not suggesting YOU are, at all. I will edit it. Now that's done.

 

Some of the engines designs go back a long time before 1940. The flat fours from the USA go back to 2 main bearing sidevalves of about 45 HP.

 

In fairness there have been some improvements in weight and performance. since but it would be a hard game to be in with regulation and low production figures for each model.

 

The Wright J5 was made in about 1927 and for reliability I think they would stand up even today as very good.. Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

Hi nunans,

 

Going with a school that does both RA-Aus and GA makes a lot of sense. They do both at my school and I'm pretty sure the conversion process is nowhere near as hard as you mention. I know one guy just did the conversion so he could fly his Jabiru into Canberra and it was only a short transition - a couple of navs into controlled airspace and instrument time pretty much covered it from memory. If the CFI believes you are competent I think they can recommend you for the GFPT or PPL test.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think you are on the button there Volksy. The problems as I have seen are with those GA schools who do NOT do RA-Aus training and additionally have a noticeable bad attitude towards RAA activities and those pilots that fly them, increasingly getting 'caught out' because there is an increasing number of GA folks migrating to the RAA types.

 

In my view they have missed a golden opportunity to be constructively involved in the cultural transition from the old AUF reputation to the new RA Aus culture with the improved syllabus and training.

 

It is amazing how you can have progressive GA organisations see the opportunity and take it e.g. Royal Newcastle Aero Club and then you have those recalcitrant GA schools who want nothing to do with RA-Aus and do their level best to convey their bad attitude in almost every respect, and we have one of those close to here as well.

 

The Central Coast Aero Club has recently introduced microlight training to Warnervale airport and Paul Crowfoot has been training RAA in the Skyfox initially and now Jabiru for some years. There is huge potential for growth in RAA and a real decline in GA. I wonder what recognition or reception an RAA pilot wanting to convert to GA would get at Warnervale these days ... one would hope that recognistion would be based on demonstrated competency ... is there any other measure?

 

You wonder why some people just can't get off their prejudiced platforms and smell the roses. Times have changed, you either learn to embrace change and move on or reject it and risk losing opportunities that you are blinded to by your prejudice IMHO.

 

 

[Louis Moore]

I do not really see the point of having a GA RPL in the first place. It sounds like you have to jump through nearly all the same hoops as a PPL except maybe CTA. Silly thing is you can actually get a PPL with an exclusion of CTA if you to scared to tackle it in your flying training. The only benefit really seems to be the medical issue of only having to hold a drivers license. Which is great for all those who have medical issues but for those guys complaining about the cost!!!! It is more to join and register an aircraft with RAA per year than it is to get a CASA medical!

 

Also I have to say I am not a fan of these seating restrictions in smaller GA aircraft. I feel there just asking for people to brake the laws set onto them. Were saying, here you go take your RPL and fly your nice 172 in the isolated area and we will take your good will as to the fact you will never put people in those rear seats, SURE!!! Also I can not figure out how we as people can decided upon a level of training or education that makes it okay to kill only one person as opposed to three. Surely were training every pilot to a level that should mean it really does not matter how many bums in the aircraft??

 

The whole reason we went from having an RPL to a GFPT was because pilots stopped getting the required training to go to a full PPL but flew as if they had anyway!

 

I honestly fail to see how the RPL is going to be of a huge benefit to pilots out there, why not just drop the medical requirements for PPL, the is basically all the RPL is doing.

 

 

[Camel]

It is the SAAA pushing, the bloke who built his RV7 does not want to sell it and buy RAA aircraft and get RAA pilot cert. it's a step down not up to keep the heavy metal without medical for old home builder. And sounds fair to me.

 

 

[facthunter]

The RPL has a pax restriction but not as severe a weight restriction,as RAA. The idea is to allow some to keep flying their 182's etc which they are competent in. It is a well thought out thing that the SAAA has been working on for years. It really is a PPL with restrictions. Perhaps non revenue ( PPL) may get a greater concession, one day. but the passenger restriction is in line with RAAus and sensible. If another licenced pilot is carried who is a ppl (or above). then the restriction is lifted. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Louis,

 

The RPL advantage that perhaps you may not see would appear to have its origins in mature PPL holders who may have flown or owned GA aircraft for some time. They may have owned and flown a Piper or Cessna 172/182 for years. A medical incident occurs that precludes them from maintaining a Class 2 medical and that could be as simple as a migraine headache or two (as was in my case), a problem with the vision in one eye, a minor cardio or blood pressure issue etc. To then get a clearance to re-obtain that Class 2 could take two years or more in some cases and in some never. This will effectively ground the PPL holder. Alternatively CASA may issue an 'as or with co-pilot' condition on the PPL holder medical, but that is of no value on a tandem seat aircraft such as a Citabria, Piper Cub or Pitts because the 'as or with co-pilot' restriction requires side by side seating. So the PPL holder now may not be able to keep his Piper or Cessna 172/182 and if he wants to fly has to get an RAA Certificate and purchase an aircarft with a MTOW <600 Kgs.

 

This is where the RPL comes in; the RPL allows the PPL holder to continue to fly his Piper or Cessna 172/182 or any aircraft up to 1500 Kgs MTOW, with the restrictions of NO CTA, NO NVFR and NO IFR, which makes total sense. BUT you still must sit and pass a medical standard for a drivers license, not just say you hold a drivers license like in RA Aus. I am not sure about the PAX restriction on RPL I am hearing mixed information on that, it could be the same as RA Aus, but I cannot see why it could not still be PIC + 3 PAX.

 

The PPL training syllabus has a higher requirement than RA Aus and that coupled with a real medical should justify keeping the PPL for up to 1500Kgs with PAX, other wise why is an RPL allowed up to 1500 Kgs, hard to use all those Kgs up with just two bums.

 

So in my case I could have continued to fly the Citabria doing aeros because even though my migraines at the time precluded me from a Class 2, it did not preclude me from my HR drivers license.

 

So there is a real place for an RPL buddy and it is of real value for someone who finds themselves in the position I did 3 years ago. I have since been cleared of the 'as or with co-pilot' pilot restriction by CASA as long as I pass the Class 2 medical which I will have no trouble doing now.

 

EDIT: Just saw Nev's post, looks like it is a two seat restriction for RPL, not sure why that is necessary.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'M NOT sure that I am correct there either David. We have to check that out, but there IS a limit. I meant in the same principle ( exposure to risk and liability) that a passenger limit embodies.. The RAus is dedicated to low cost, whereas the RPA does not have that as an aim. Nev

 

 

[Guest nunans]

David your example of the prime applicant for the RPL is exactly how Phillip Reiss (aopa) explained it to my local aeroclub recently, The push for the RPL is from GA operators who can no longer renew thier medical but are none the less GA operators wanting to fly GA aircraft. And I can understand that.

 

From an RA point of view we can already fly an RA registered aircraft without a medical or a ppl so we're living the good life. Primarily this RPL is a solution for a GA problem (the medical) and i'm not sure if the rpl is really of much benefit to most RA operators. If the 600kg+ cessnas and pipers that can be flown with an RPL still have to be VH registered (with all the hurdles and cost that goes with it) then the appeal for an ra operator, alot of whom could get a class 2 medical, is small. If they wanted to trade thier jabs in for VH-182's then they'd get a ppl.

 

I'd love to know the portion of RAA membership who are involved in RA only because they can't pass a medical. I've no doubt it would be getting bigger and bigger as the RA restrictions are eased and the RA aircraft are becoming more expensive and less agricultural every year. I often ponder is RA really growing or is it just being swollen by cessna pilots being squeezed out of GA?

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not just those who wouldn't make the medical, it's the "BS" that goes with doing it is a deterrent in itself, if you have had a check relating to something (which you should do if you have any doubt) and even though you are not found to have any problem you have to prove you never did. Older RAAus pilots have to provide evidence that they meet the medical standard too, and in this instance it is the same (Now).

 

Whether it has any effect on RAAus membership , you can speculate on, and I would suggest you will lose some.

 

Discussions on what should be the upper weight limit for RAAus planes was riddled with "Rusty Cessna's" talk and also some quite uncalled for GA vs RAAs comments. My view (as I have always expressed it) is that a higher weight would have permitted the construction and operation of wood fabric and steel tube, Types like Cub replica's Pietenpols etc.that would be safer and cheaper than a lot of current RAAus allowable planes

 

We are all in this together people. Some people would say "good riddance" to anyone who leaves. That sort of attitude, is mean spirited, disappointing,and short sighted, and holds all of us back from something that will happen eventually, being done properly. Nev

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

...Discussions on what should be the upper weight limit for RAAus planes was riddled with "Rusty Cessna's" talk and also some quite uncalled for GA vs RAAs comments. My view (as I have always expressed it) is that a higher weight would have permitted the construction and operation of wood fabric and steel tube, Types like Cub replica's Pietenpols etc.that would be safer and cheaper than a lot of current RAAus allowable planes

We are all in this together people. Some people would say "good riddance" to anyone who leaves. That sort of attitude, is mean spirited, disappointing,and short sighted, and holds all of us back from something that will happen eventually, being done properly. Nev

Hear hear...

 

 

[Chrism]

I'M NOT sure that I am correct there either David. We have to check that out, but there IS a limit. I meant in the same principle ( exposure to risk and liability) that a passenger limit embodies.. The RAus is dedicated to low cost, whereas the RPA does not have that as an aim. Nev

The CASA guys running the seminars at Natfly on this subject definitely said it was to be only 1 pilot +1 pax in a 4 seater aircraft.

 

Chris

 

 

[Bryon]

Ask yourself this

 

1. does it impinge on your ability to fly
    
    
   

 

 

If you said no, what is the problem

 

We are all pilots and this class BS is all BS

 

Up in the air, we are all the same

 

We fly because we want to......

 

Enjoy!

 

 

[facthunter]

Thats putting it pretty right. I certainly see nothing to be "problemmed" about by what SAAA have achieved. Competition ( if that is what it is) is good for business.

 

Perhaps I could qualify that. Any group in the world that moves ahead gives something for others to use as a stepping stone, by using it as an example of a successful move. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

The CASA guys running the seminars at Natfly on this subject definitely said it was to be only 1 pilot +1 pax in a 4 seater aircraft.Chris

To me this two POB restriction for the RPL is unreasonable.

An RPL holder still has to pass a drivers medical, unlike in RAA, where all we have to do is declare we are medically fit to hold a drivers license. If an RPL has to sit and pass a medical for a drivers license it is no less than an aviation medical the only difference being CASA is NOT involved.

 

We all know the CASA Class 2 medical has no relevance to mitigating risk it is based on the military exclusion criteria and from a medical view point has little relevance to your ability to fly . RPL has a 1500 Kgs MTOW limitation which will allow up to about a C182 even possibly a lightly laden C206, so why the two bum restriction? I believe it is unreasonable given the other restrictions like NO NVFR, NO CTA and NO IFR and the higher level of training and perhaps arguably competency for PPL holders.

 

 

[Yenn]

lots of things are unreasonable in life. This one is because a line had to be drawn somewhere, in the same way that RAAus is restricted to a lesser weight. I have not seen the final wording yet as it is not law at the moment, but I guess that if you are aware of any defect with your health, you will be required to disclose it. I can't see that CASA would allow ailing pilots to just fly on a drivers licence. In Qld once you reach 75 you have to have a medical for your drivers licence and passing it is nowhere near as difficult as passing a pilots medical.

 

 

[facthunter]

Nor should it be Yenn. The medical standards relate more to an airforce entry situation in the past, than a real application of safety related considerations.

 

I am not suggesting that there should be a larger number of Pax allowed at this point in time,( as david is). I'm not opposing it either, but sometimes you have to be happy with what CAN be achieved rather than what you would like to be achieved, at that point in time.

 

IF you are flying in a passenger jet you might expect that there is a pretty high medical standard applying to the pilots, up front. However,

 

I personally know of pilots who have dropped stone dead whithin weeks of passing the class 1 medical.( Airline aircrew). I know of pilots who have passed all previous medicals and had a massive heart attack at age 28. class 1 also.

 

The drivers licence requirement is not so simple as some think it is. When you attain a certain age (as Yenn says) certain criteria apply and must be satisfied for you to drive a car. this is certainly less stringent than a PPL or ATPL standards but CASA have finally allowed the standard to relate to that for a car, ( with operational restrictions in the aviation environment, which they consider appropriate). The term "ailing pilots" is emotive and doesn't paint the situation in a true light.

 

example A one eyed (monocular) pilot can hold a PPL. he doesn't have to be an " Ailing" pilot. He is just a pilot who is allowed to fly in a certain environment that doesn't require ( need) a higher standard. SEE it as a concession if you like but it is a considered and balanced one. (At last) Nev

 

 

[Camel]

The aviation medical is a joke, it can only be done by a DAME but any nurse is capable of the check-up. The Bus and coach Driver medical is done by a normal doctor, it has more potential to injure more people than an experienced pilot flying out bush. The DAME's rub their hands together when they take your money and the way CASA charge to administer this is and was a joke as they did reduce the price due to backlash they received but is still a joke.

 

A lot of people would pass medicals if they were based on true facts e.g a pilot who has cancer, or a mild heart attack, or migraine headaches will loose their medical and be fit to fly many years to come but go through a battle to retrieve their medically fit status. I myself went to a STUPID DAME he would not issue my initial medical for finding trace of blood in Urine, he insisted on ECG's, Blood tests, Ultrasound and all was good but he had sent a report to CASA so on it went back forward until after a long while I used another DAME who belonged to the human race and gave the all clear. The initial DAME later missed diagnosed a friend and he died because of that Doctor.

 

The serious lesson here is the system CASA has with DAME's is not really the system that is knowing the real health of a person as he may not know of illness you have unless you disclose it, he will never know you have migraines unless you tell him. Moral of the story, don't use a DAME as you normal doctor as he will know what wrong with you.

 

 

[Yenn]

I wonder what will happen if the government proposed sharing of medical records happens. For my part I think it would be a good idea for doctors to have access to a patients records, if he was treating them, but not their normal doctor. Also it would be no problem for pilots unless they had something to hide.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I wonder what will happen if the government proposed sharing of medical records happens. For my part I think it would be a good idea for doctors to have access to a patients records, if he was treating them, but not their normal doctor. Also it would be no problem for pilots unless they had something to hide.

It will be especially interesting to see the system created to hold the records and the privacy safeguards. The latter aspect has been among the main stumbling blocks to date.

 

 

[68volksy]

Just been hearing some more about the RPL. Primary purpose still seems to be to keep pilots flying and to keep them flying GA-registered aircraft and to give new pilots another option. Perhaps brought on by RA-Aus seeming to have been becoming an increasing headache to government types (CASA, ATSB etc.). The guys I've talked to in these organisations give the impression that the directors of these organisations still respect the original reason for RA-Aus starting out and the aircraft types and pilots it was aimed at however the super-fast-lightweight brigade has been raising eyebrows from the start. These guys seem to be considered more GA-light rather than RA-Aus heavy however legislating for them would be a major headache. I know the ATSB has been waiting around for a few years for an accident like the one at Old Bar (they didn't have to wait too long unfortunately) to get stuck into. An accident/incident that would allow them to properly investigate how well an RA-Aus aircraft was put together and how the training standards held up under scrutiny - to "test" the RA-Aus mandate really.

 

RPL primarily means the GA guys who can't or don't want to bother with the medical side of things can keep flying the aircraft they're used to. Believe it or not GA aircraft have unbelievably onerous maintenance standards built over 100 years of aviation and for this purpose are seen by many people as safer. I know the flying school has a great many guys who hang around or drop in for a visit on occasion who have simply stopped flying rather than convert to RA-Aus. There are numerous others who have made the decision to fly RA-Aus purely on medical grounds - not the right way to decide between the options in my view.

 

It'll be interesting to see the impact this has on the Tecnam/Sportstar/Jabiru fraternity most of all for me. If a GA pilot can buy/keep an old Piper/Cessna for $50,000 and keep flying until they've had enough will it have an impact on the $100k-plus alternatives they're faced with in entering RA-Aus? The 'new breed' might be cheaper to run but $50k is a whole lot of fuel/maintenance costs to make up. I understand the RPL guys will also still be able to fly all the GA planes they always have been able to (including all the bigger/faster things) so long as they have another full-GA pilot in the right-hand seat which is pretty common when you're travelling with more people. Also means they can own and fly all the normal 4-seaters and simply have to arrange another pilot for fly-aways etc.

 

 

[Yenn]

The GA pilot does not have to pay RAAus Rego and membership fees. He does have to have an ASIC, but a lot of RAAus members need one.

 

He does have to have the plane maintained by a LAME, unless he built it himself and has approval to self maintain it. As far as quality of maintenance goes, I can remember several instances of very poor maintenance by LAMEs and whenever a plane comes out of maintenance you need to give it a very close inspection.

 

I don't think RAAus maintenance is any worse or better than GA and the accident statistic seem to suggest that maintenance is not a major cause of failure.

 

One thing in RAAus's favour is the fact that fuel costs are usually lower than the GA Lycoming or Continental powered aircraft.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I am curious, will the RPL allow holders to fly overseas?

 

 

[ave8rr]

I am curious, will the RPL allow holders to fly overseas?

I would suggest not as you need a minimum of a class 2 medical and an ICAO licence in most countries.

That would be at least a PPL.

 

Cheers

 

 

[fly_tornado]

That's what I thought.