What`s going on!

[farri]

I`ve just received my March edition of the Sport Pilot magazine and in the President`s Report, Mr Steve Runciman has said, and I quote from the report.

 

"There are a number of other matters which will affect the organisation, including the introduction of the Recreational Pilots Licence by CASA and a legal matter currently being delt with by our insurers and solicitors".

 

Question: .....Will the introduction of a Recreational Pilot Licence mean that all of us who currently hold an RAA pilot certificate will need to obtain a Recreational Pilot Licence from CASA, or, will there be two seperate licencesing systems, one from CASA and one from RAA?

 

What is the legal matter and can we talk about it?

 

What is going on?.....Does anyone know?

 

Frank.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I`ve just received my March edition of the Sport Pilot magazine and in the President`s Report, Mr Steve Runciman has said, and I quote from the report."There are a number of other matters which will affect the organisation, including the introduction of the Recreational Pilots Licence by CASA and a legal matter currently being delt with by our insurers and solicitors".

 

Question: .....Will the introduction of a Recreational Pilot Licence mean that all of us who currently hold an RAA pilot certificate will need to obtain a Recreational Pilot Licence from CASA, or, will there be two seperate licencesing systems, one from CASA and one from RAA?

 

What is the legal matter and can we talk about it?

 

What is going on?.....Does anyone know?.

I have no idea what the legal matter is but I don't believe the Recreational licence will have any more impact on the RA certificate than does a GFPT or PL today. One is GA and one is RA.

 

The question of who will administer the Recreational licence is an interesting one, though. Will it be CASA or will it be outsourced and, if the latter, to whom? My guess is that it will be a contest between RAAus and SAAA if CASA decide they really want to be a regulator and not an administrator.

 

Kaz

 

 

[coljones]

I`ve just received my March edition of the Sport Pilot magazine and in the President`s Report, Mr Steve Runciman has said, and I quote from the report."There are a number of other matters which will affect the organisation, including the introduction of the Recreational Pilots Licence by CASA and a legal matter currently being delt with by our insurers and solicitors".

 

Question: .....Will the introduction of a Recreational Pilot Licence mean that all of us who currently hold an RAA pilot certificate will need to obtain a Recreational Pilot Licence from CASA, or, will there be two seperate licencesing systems, one from CASA and one from RAA?

 

What is the legal matter and can we talk about it?

 

What is going on?.....Does anyone know?

 

Frank.

The current situation is that those without class 2 medicals cannot fly VH planes solo. With the proposed RPL they will be able to fly planes on the VH register (within limits) with only a driving licence level medical. It is still unclear what the rules will be for controlled airspace but it may mean they can fly but not into C and D space airports unless they have a class 2 medical.

 

In Sydney, this will mean that some pilots may go back to CASA (or whoever) RPL licences but will now fly VH planes out of places like The Oaks, Warnervale, Wollongong or Wedderburn rather than Camden or Bankstown. The Oaks is grass and it will be interesting to see what condition they will leave the strip after all the rain we have been having.

 

The water is under the bridge but maybe we should reflect upon the closure of Hoxton Park and the restricted access to Camden, behaviours by CAS and the government that have proven very damaging to the industry and the sport.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shags_j]

There is a more detailed thread in the governing bodies forum.

 

I highly doubt we will find out the legal issue (Secret squirrel business and all).

 

The only affect I can see the RPL having on RAAus will be losing some members (already discussed why I would change quite quickly).

 

Cheers,

 

Shags

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...The question of who will administer the Recreational licence is an interesting one, though. Will it be CASA or will it be outsourced and, if the latter, to whom? My guess is that it will be a contest between RAAus and SAAA if CASA decide they really want to be a regulator and not an administrator.

Kaz

Somewhere else, when exlaing the difference between a Recreational Licence and a Pilot Certificate, it was stated that "only a government body can issue a license." If that is the case, then neither RAA nor SAAA can administer an RA.

There's also a subtle difference in the medical requirement. While under most circumstances, a recreational pilot only has to self-certify health status, I believe that the RA will require a GP to certify the fitness for a drivers license. So it's a mid way point. Doesn't require a DAME, but does require a "medical", but less stringent than a Class-2.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Somewhere else, when exlaing the difference between a Recreational Licence and a Pilot Certificate, it was stated that "only a government body can issue a license." If that is the case, then neither RAA nor SAAA can administer an RA.There's also a subtle difference in the medical requirement. While under most circumstances, a recreational pilot only has to self-certify health status, I believe that the RA will require a GP to certify the fitness for a drivers license. So it's a mid way point. Doesn't require a DAME, but does require a "medical", but less stringent than a Class-2.

Yes, David, it's made interesting by the fact that a licence is generally deemed to be "property" and, if the Commonwealth interferes with a person's property such that it diinishes in value, it must pay compensation on just terms by virtue of the Commonwealth Constitution. States are not thus bound in constitutional terms, more's the pity.

 

So RA issues a certificate which, to all intents and purposes is a licence but if the powers take it off you than you are not entitled to compensation. It's all a matter of roses... by any other name?

 

Perhaps CASA will only be interested in future once pilots go commercial... unless they do something contrary to the regs and then they'll leap in? Dunno, but's interesting.

 

kaz

 

 

[farri]

Thank you David and Kaz, I didn`t know that about Licence versus Certificate, now I know a bit more.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Yenn]

In the US a pilot flies with a certificate, not a licence. The main effect of the RPL will probably be that pilots who now fly RAAus will be able to fly GA aircraft with just about all the same priveledges as RAAus, but the licence is perpetual. No need to be a member of RAAus and no need to pay for a licence each year, nor any need to renew the registration each year, that is also perpetual. I have a GA licence, but haave been flying RAAus for several years , for two reasons. 1 I built my plane which could be GA or RAAus and it was easier to build at that time under RAAus. 2 I have little need to fly into controlled airspace so an RAAus certificate allows me to do all the flying I want without needing to get a medical every 2 years. I save costs on the medical, but lose out on the registration and membership fees. Now I am building a plane which is just a bit too heavy to register RAAus as the rules stand now, so I will have to get the medical, and therefore will no longer need to be a member of RAAus unless I want to still fly the occasional ultralight. If the Recreational lience comes in I will be able to fly my new GA registered plane for even less cost.

 

RAAus has been very good for pilots over the years as it has allowed us to keep current at much les cost than if they were GA, but the RPL will in my opinion lead to a lessening of RAAus membership numbers. No doubt those old guard stalwarts will be happy to lose the plastic fantastics, but I don't think it will be of any benefit to them. I have always been of the opinion that RAAus should look after all recreational aircraft, such as C150, C172, Piper Cherokee etc. That would give them more clout and be better for the truly recreational pilot.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Yes, David, it's made interesting by the fact that a licence is generally deemed to be "property" and, if the Commonwealth interferes with a person's property such that it diinishes in value, it must pay compensation on just terms by virtue of the Commonwealth Constitution. States are not thus bound in constitutional terms, more's the pity.kaz

CASA (Act and Regs) go to great lengths to ensure that a CASA "licence" is a "privilege" and the licence remains the property of CASA, not the person maned on the licence.

 

I have put a detailed explanation, as per the CASA briefing on the RPL, on the other thread on this subject.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[eightyknots]

The current situation is that those without class 2 medicals cannot fly VH planes solo. With the proposed RPL they will be able to fly planes on the VH register (within limits) with only a driving licence level medical. It is still unclear what the rules will be for controlled airspace but it may mean they can fly but not into C and D space airports unless they have a class 2 medical.In Sydney, this will mean that some pilots may go back to CASA (or whoever) RPL licences but will now fly VH planes out of places like The Oaks, Warnervale, Wollongong or Wedderburn rather than Camden or Bankstown. The Oaks is grass and it will be interesting to see what condition they will leave the strip after all the rain we have been having.

 

The water is under the bridge but maybe we should reflect upon the closure of Hoxton Park and the restricted access to Camden, behaviours by CAS and the government that have proven very damaging to the industry and the sport.

 

Cheers

...not to mention the closure of Schofields aerodrome in Sydney's north-west a decade ago.

 

 

[facthunter]

I can't see what the RPL has got to do with RAAus. It's essentially based on the PPL with restrictions applied to balance a less stringent medical. Yenn covered the way it affects him. If it had got here a few years ago I would have been 50K better off.I had to sell my plane at a big loss, and I'll most likely never be able to buy such a thing again.

 

Many pilots will welcome this as a sensible result after a longish path. As I see it, the major credit goes to the SAAA. Some of the affected pilots who can now keep flying their Austers C-182's etc would have never come over to RAAus anyhow. Some RAAus current people may leave as they have another alternative. This will be as it is. If I find that the RAAus has/would oppose it, I would be totally unimpressed to say the least.

 

There are some misconceptions out there about the medical standards relating to RAAus and The RPL. You can make a declaration that "you meet the medical standards to drive a private motor car". up to a certain age and/or untill you have certain medical conditions. with RAAus. After that the requirements look identical to me.ie you need a statement from a doctor that" you meet the medical standards to drive etc" Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but my reading of the RPL is only to allow pilots who are unable to pass a class 2 medical to continue to fly their VH registered aircraft, all be it with some restrictions?

 

The aircraft, as I read it, would still have to be maintained by a LAME etc [cost] as per normal VH requirements and as such does not have any bearing on us with RAA registered aircraft

 

OR have I missed something in my readings?

 

Although at present I still carry a Class 1 medical I know as I get older this will become a problem so I am very interrested with what is actually proposed. I thought the option proposed was simple - have I missed something?

 

FrankM

 

 

[David Isaac]

Correct Frank, RA Aus certificate holders will NOT be eligible for the RPL unless they do the PPL exams and sylabus

 

 

[djpacro]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but my reading of the RPL is only to allow pilots who are unable to pass a class 2 medical to continue to fly their VH registered aircraft, all be it with some restrictions?

My guess is that it will not be that simple. First refer to CASA's March briefing:

While CASA is yet to make a final decision on adopting a medical for some private pilots based on the drivers licence standard, a lot of work has been done to assess both the merits and risks of the proposal. The advantage would be that eligible pilots would be able to get a medical certificate from their general practitioner that confirms they meet the unconditional medical standards required to drive a motor vehicle, with some additional requirements to take into account the different risks in flying and driving. Once a pilot had this certificate, they would simply electronically inform CASA and carry the certificate whenever flying. There would be no fee attached to this process. This new type of medical would be available to private pilots flying aircraft up to 1500 kilograms, day visual flight rules and generally with one passenger.

If some-one failed an aviation medical I can't imagine CASA providing this exemption - my understanding is that the initial implementation is by exemption to the current rules.Additional info has been on SAAA's website since around September last year:

 

Any endorsements the pilot has obtained under his PPL continue unchanged under the exemptions. And, of course,all the other requirements for remaining current, bi-annual AFR etc, remain unchanged.In the longer run, these exemptions would be incorporated into a Light Aircraft Pilot Licence (LAPL)which would have the exactly the same level as the current PPL but with the restrictions above and no Class 2 medical.

Peter said that the way Pilots could opt in to this system and obtain the exemption would be that they visit a doctor, probably their local GP (not necessarily a DAME) and obtain a certificate or written statement that they meet the drivers licence medical standard. Then log on to the CASA website, supply their ARN, and acknowledge that they have this certificate, and agree to abide by the restrictions. That' it!!

 

The Doctors certificate must be carried while flying, exactly like the Class 2 medical certificate must be carried.

 

The exemption will have a validity of 2 years, and can then be re-applied for (if LAPL is not available) by repeating the process.

 

You can hold both a Class 2 medical certificate and have the exemptions at the same time. Of course, a valid Class 2 means you do not have to comply with the restrictions of the exemption. But if the Class 2 expired, you could continue to fly under the exemptions. If you subsequently re-obtain a Class 2 medical, then the exemptions with the restrictions automatically cease to apply.

Now for the new rules.

 

61.360 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences — medical certificates — recreational and student pilot licence holders

(1) The holder of a recreational pilot licence or student pilot licence is authorised to exercise the privileges of the licence only if the holder also:

 

(a) holds a class 1 or class 2 medical certificate; or

 

(b) meets the requirements of subregulation (2); or

 

© holds an authorisation under regulation 61.365.

 

(2) For paragraph (1) (b), the requirements are that:

 

(a) the holder holds a current certificate from a medical practitioner to the effect that the holder meets the medical standards for the issue of a private motor vehicle driver’s licence; and

 

(b) before exercising the privileges of the licence, the holder notifies CASA, in writing, that the holder has been certified as meeting the standard mentioned in paragraph (a); and

 

© the holder carries the certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) on the aircraft when exercising the privileges of the licence; and

 

(d) the holder complies with any limitations stated on the certificate; and

 

(e) the holder is not aware of any medical condition that would affect the holder’s ability to exercise the privileges of the licence safely.

etc etcPart 61 of the new rules has been around in draft form for a decade or so. The Government Aviation White Paper (does anyone remember that?) states that the suites of CASA's regulations on licensing and flight operations were to be finalised by the end of 2010. CASA's April (this year - 2012 isn't it?) briefing stated that

 

I have flagged before that over the next few years a large body of work will be completed in the modernisation of Australia's aviation safety regulations. Coming relatively soon will be a suite of new operational regulations, firstly covering flight crew licensing and training and then flight operations. Updating these regulations will bring a wide range of benefits to the aviation industry, while improving and refining our safety systems. CASA is not seeking to rewrite the rules for the sake of the exercise. We are adopting the most appropriate international standards, bringing our rules into line with evolving technologies and and best regulatory practice, while consolidating and simplifying the existing rules we are retaining. The end result will be a more mature Australian aviation safety system that is keeping pace with the requirements of safety and the needs of the aviation industry in the 21st century.

However, bringing in whole new suites of safety regulations will require change on the part of almost everyone and, to a greater or lesser degree, change throws up challenges. One thing everyone in aviation must recognise and accept is that there will be a need to transition to the new regulations. In some cases, this will be very simple and require little action. In other cases, there will be some effort required on the part of individuals and organisations. Last year, we successfully moved all licensed aircraft maintenance engineers to new licences issued under Part 66 of the new maintenance regulations. Right now we are working with a range of organisations on the transition to other parts of the maintenance regulations. While I will not pretend there are no challenges, the process of transition is underway. What I can assure everyone is that CASA will provide appropriate education, training, advice and support to people and organisations as they transition to the new regulations.

 

To make sure everyone in aviation gets the support they need I have appointed an executive manager to a newly created position. This position is known as program director, Operational Regulations Implementation. Greg Hood, our current executive manager Operations, will take up this role on a temporary basis to direct and co-ordinate the planning that is starting right now on the implementation of the next suites of the new rules. Greg's goal will be to build a platform for the launch of an efficient and effective transition to the new regulations over the next five years. We will be identifying your needs and finding the best ways to give you the information, tools and support required to move to the new rules in a manner that does not disrupt your normal operations. This will be our aim for all people and organisations, from the largest airline to the recreational pilot. There is a lot of work to be done but it is underway right now.

 

Recently, I delivered a speech to the Aviation Law Association of Australia and New Zealand, which sets out the regulatory development agenda. Please read it to find an update on what is coming in the next few years.

 

Aviation Law Association of Australia & New Zealand 2012 Conference

From that can anyone tell me his schedule for getting the licensing and flight operations regulations issued?On to the transition between an RAA certificate and the new RPL (when Part 61 comes into effect). The draft 61.425 states:

 

61.425 Grant of recreational pilot licences in recognition of pilot certificates issued by certain organisations

(1) This regulation applies to an applicant for a recreational pilot licence if:

 

(a) the applicant holds a pilot certificate, granted by a recreational aviation administration organisation that administers activities involving aircraft of a particular category; and

 

(b) in accordance with

 

{provisions to be drafted in Parts 103/149}, the certificate permits the holder to act as the pilot in command of an aircraft of that category while the aircraft is carrying a passenger.

 

(2) For subregulation 61.420 (2), the applicant is taken to have passed the aeronautical knowledge examination and flight test for the licence and the aircraft category rating for that category of aircraft.

Obviously needs the RAA certificate etc to comply with whatever is in the new Part 103 and 149. Don't hold your breath.

[Guest davidh10]

But to hold an RPL, it isn't a requirement to fail a Class 2 medical. (just the way you have expressed it, Frank) While being able to pass a "drivers License" medical, but not a Class 2 would be one reason for opting for an RPL, it could be a choice simply not to take a class 2 medical. Having said that, I don't really see the point in not having the full PPL, unless you are unable to medically qualify for it.

 

*Edit: Ahh.. A reason is in DJP's post: If you have a PPL and your Class 2 exires, you can get a Drivers medical, notify CASA and keep flying on an RPL.

 

 

[kaz3g]

CASA (Act and Regs) go to great lengths to ensure that a CASA "licence" is a "privilege" and the licence remains the property of CASA, not the person maned on the licence.I have put a detailed explanation, as per the CASA briefing on the RPL, on the other thread on this subject.

Cheers,

Hi Bill

 

That's very true. The fact that we don't "purchase" it is a serious impediment to a successful claim under s51 (xxxi) and, probably more importantly for most of us, so too is the fact that CASA has very deep pockets.

 

But, there is an intrinsic injustice in legislated powers allowing the removal of licence "privileges" by administrative action alone. It is made worse by an appeal system that almost invariably sees the "merits" of such a decision upheld without testing the evidence before a court (beyond reasonable doubt) rather than a tribunal (balance of probabilities).

 

Kaz

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Are there going to be any navigation exemptions on the RPL?

 

 

[poteroo]

Are there going to be any navigation exemptions on the RPL?

There probably won't be, neither will they be needed, because the majority of RPL's will be taken up by 'full' PPL's who cannot/or don't wish to, meet the Class 2 medical standard. I'd think it highly unlikely that a pilot would undertake the entire PPL theory, plus the full PPL flight syllabus - and then settle for an RPL instead of a PPL. Seems a total waste, and that's what I'd advise any intending starters.Therefore, the RPL will simply become a repositry of medically unfit PPL's, who are accepting the 1 pax condition because they want to keep flying, no matter what. In time, it will die a natural death because of the many restrictions.

 

happy days,

 

 

[David Isaac]

..... In time, it will die a natural death because of the many restrictions.

Not sure it will Pots, because we will have a continuing aging PPL and CPL stream ... the young PPLs and CPLs today will be old in 30 years and they will feed the continuing RPL stream into the future. It means that older experienced guys will be able to fly a few more years before hanging up their licence.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Correct Frank, RA Aus certificate holders will NOT be eligible for the RPL unless they do the PPL exams and sylabus

I understood current RA-Aus pilot certificate holders will be grandfathered into the new RPL with a few training updates to cover CTA etc. But I might have it wrong of course.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Amazing that you can log in, self certify that you have a medical certificate, not pay anything and be right to go. So why can't class 2 holders log in, upload a copy of our current DAME certificate, not pay a $75 fee for CASA to process it, and carry our DAME certificate with us like the proposed RPL medical holders? Self certifying that the document we are uploading is legit would surely be quicker, cheaper and more practical for so many of us.

 

And that is without even starting on the argument that my own GP is probably a much better judge of my medical fitness than a stranger I see once every two years....

 

 

[facthunter]

poteroo, I don't think it will die a natural death either, but general aviation is diminishing, in a country where distances would indicate it is needed.. Anything that can give it a shot in the arm to keep it going is a help.

 

Shane, I guess the class 2 and higher gets more complex You often have to persist and fight for those medicals. It's logical that where the question is yes/no, that is the end of it. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Nev, it is just another example of a bureaucratic process that could be streamlined I guess. I would still go to a DAME to be checked out, but instead of sending the cert in with $75 for CASA to process it, the ability to upload a copy, certify that it is genuine, and carry the original with me seems to make more sense.

 

I used to keep up my level 1 medical, until I came to the conclusion that I would never fly commercially. I guess it is conceivable that if I can exercise the priviliges of my licence and only ever carry one pax (Alpha only has two seats anyway), then going to a GP medical and RPL could be a viable alternative for me.

 

I have read in forums of aviators in the USA who were aware that they may not pass a medical, so chose to let it expire to work on their health before going in to renew, rather than fail a medical and fight the FAA to get clearance later. Does anyone have any experience of what happens with CASA if you fail a medical? Especially if it is something that can be rectified, and whether it is near impossible to get a medical again?

 

 

[David Isaac]

........ Does anyone have any experience of what happens with CASA if you fail a medical? Especially if it is something that can be rectified, and whether it is near impossible to get a medical again?

Yes plenty do and Nev and I in particular, although I have been finally cleared, but it took two years to get a clearance after I admitted that I had four migraines over five months to my DAME. Some say it would have been smarter if I had delayed my Class 2 medical, fixed the migraine problem, got a clearance from my Neurologist and then gone to my DAME with nothing wrong ... I would have been back in the air in 6 months. The one problem with what was suggested that I 'should have done' is that you are supposed to declare any health issues to the DAME whether cleared or not and that would have no doubt still had me grounded for two years. Plenty of CPL holders have migraines and still fly ... the difference being they just don't tell their DAME. The national statistic for migraine sufferers is 5%, why do you think the national average for migraines in pilots is only 2% ... because the other 3% don't tell CASA.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I understood current RA-Aus pilot certificate holders will be grandfathered into the new RPL with a few training updates to cover CTA etc. But I might have it wrong of course.

Not the case buddy, you must be at least PPL qualified in order to exercise the privileges of RPL.