RAA and PPL

[Guest Crash Lander]

How many people here have a RAA certificate only?

 

This question occurred to me this morning.

 

If you only have a Recreational Pilots License, and no PPL, how can you flyin to airshows such as Avalon etc? Or you just simply cannot without the PPL as well?

 

 

[skootaroo]

It's not that bad, I don't think they allow 95-10 aircraft into avalon any other day of the year anyway!

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Sometimes Mr. Crash Lander exemptions are made by organisers to allow RA aircraft to fly into such events. Avalon was one such event where RA aircraft were allowed to fly in during certain times of the day which was usually outside tower hours.

 

Avalon East was operating as a GAAP airfield during the event.

 

Many an RA pilot read that it was a 'modified GAAP' for the event with no restrictions on who and when can fly in. I believe this was misinterpreted by most RA pilots that flew in, with them thinking that the 'no restrictions on who can fly in' meant any ultralight! Not so, I believe!

 

I know of many RA aircraft that flew in without PPL which was a little concerning, unless I was totally wrong with my interpretation.

 

I was of the belief that 'modified GAAP' meant that there weren't contra-circuits, versus a normal GAAP which does have them. I'd like for someone to clarify at some stage.

 

 

[Guest Crash Lander]

Thanks skootaroo. So I guess my answer is that a RAA Registered a/c can only fly into Avalon for the airshow if the pilot has a PPL aswell.

 

Seems a bit strange to me.

 

If that is the case, why isn't there an endorsement for RA Pilots to allow them to fly in controlled airspace? There's an endorsement to carry passengers, and an endorsemenmt to travel cross country etc. Why not an endorsement to allow a RAA pilot to talk to ATC?

 

What other differences are there? Is it really that hard for a RAA pilot to follow instruction from a controller?

 

 

[Guest Crash Lander]

Sometimes Mr. Crash Lander exemptions are made by organisers to allow RA aircraft to fly into such events. Avalon was one such event where RA aircraft were allowed to fly in during certain times of the day which was usually outside tower hours.Avalon East was operating as a GAAP airfield during the event.

 

Many an RA pilot read that it was a 'modified GAAP' for the event with no restrictions on who and when can fly in. I believe this was misinterpreted by most RA pilots that flew in, with them thinking that the 'no restrictions on who can fly in' meant any ultralight! Not so, I believe!

 

I know of many RA aircraft that flew in without PPL which was a little concerning, unless I was totally wrong with my interpretation.

 

I was of the belief that 'modified GAAP' meant that there weren't contra-circuits, versus a normal GAAP which does have them. I'd like for someone to clarify at some stage.

Interesting brentc.

 

Would those RA pilots that flew in that were 'technically' in breach of regulations get in any trouble?

 

I guess is I was to ever want to/be in a position to be able to fly into an event like this, I'd be able to get proper confirmation from CASA or the organisers.

 

It's just something that popped into my head this morning.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

As brentc said (while you were typing your reply no doubt), there were exemption periods for ultralights to fly in.

 

Most airshows are held at non-controlled airports. Where this is not true, exemptions are often made.

 

Regarding an endorsement for RAA certificate holders to enter CTA, that is currently under consideration. Of course in addition to a CTA endorsement, you would need to be flying a certified aircraft with a radio and transponder.

 

Once this happens though, there will be almost no need for a PPL for recreational use (as it should be), unless you want to carry more passengers.

 

Ross

 

 

[skootaroo]

If there's a need for a control tower then do we really want to fly there under the RAA?

 

There are places that have less than six flights a day and a control tower! I guess it takes a while to correct these things.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

As brentc said (while you were typing your reply no doubt), there were exemption periods for ultralights to fly in.Most airshows are held at non-controlled airports. Where this is not true, exemptions are often made.

Regarding an endorsement for RAA certificate holders to enter CTA, that is currently under consideration. Of course in addition to a CTA endorsement, you would need to be flying a certified aircraft with a radio and transponder.

 

Once this happens though, there will be almost no need for a PPL for recreational use (as it should be), unless you want to carry more passengers.

 

Ross

Hi Ross,

 

we have to be careful using the phrase "certified aircraft". To many people including CASA I think that implies an FAR23 certified aircraft - i.e. those sorts of aircraft like a C172 and all the other myriad of similar aircraft.

 

RAA aircraft are not generally certified. With the exception of the Tecnam JS and JR aircraft and those tend to be bought and registered VH anyway.

 

Chris may have a more complete answer than this. But the key point is if it is certified and registered VH then you need a PPL to fly it!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Thanks Mike.

 

I thought there was some sort of certification they were talking about including as part of the deal in allowing RAA planes into CTA - something along the lines of the certification required to do training in them?

 

Remember I'm still somewhere in the middle of the journey from ignorant to informed.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Interesting brentc.Would those RA pilots that flew in that were 'technically' in breach of regulations get in any trouble?

I guess is I was to ever want to/be in a position to be able to fly into an event like this, I'd be able to get proper confirmation from CASA or the organisers.

 

It's just something that popped into my head this morning.

Yes Crash Lander, technically they are in breach of the rules, CAO's, CAR's etc. Assuming that CASA didn't catch them and the RA-Aus found out about it, I'd say that a potential suspension of their certificate would be in order.

 

Avalon East when active would have to be the busiest airport in the country with a significant number of movements. Anyone flying in without controlled airspace training and or experience would be tempting fate considering the complexity of the airspace. There were designated reporting points, holding areas, frequency changes plus a number of large aircraft to mix with such as Chietain's, Caravan's, Bonanza's and Airvans etc. If you overshot base, you'd be mixing it with anything, inluding a Galaxy, F1-11 or something more deadly!

 

As for certified aircraft-

 

Not quite. A 'certified' aircraft is not a requirement for entry into controlled airspace, however you must comply with the requirements as per 95.55 etc, such as Private Pilot's LICENCE (not certificate) transponder for class c and e and approved engine etc. There have been several other threads on this subject to date.

 

The only 'benefit' of the 'certified' models of Ultralight that you speak of is to allow you to train in them online. There's no requirement for certification for any other purpose that I can think of.

 

Back to your original question about how many people have an RA certificate versus a PPL, interesting question.

 

My guess would say that it depends on where you fly from.

 

I'd say airfields closer to Melbourne and suburbia it would be higher and out more in the country less likely.

 

You'll probably find that more GA pilots have got their RA cert, versus RA cert holders getting their PPL's.

 

That's my observation anyway.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

As for certified aircraft-

Not quite. A 'certified' aircraft is not a requirement for entry into controlled airspace, however you must comply with the requirements as per 95.55 etc, such as Private Pilot's LICENCE (not certificate) transponder for class c and e and approved engine etc. There have been several other threads on this subject to date.

 

The only 'benefit' of the 'certified' models of Ultralight that you speak of is to allow you to train in them online. There's no requirement for certification for any other purpose that I can think of.

I think that this is not quite the case also. As I understand it: In order to train the general public in an RAAus aircraft it must factory built and therefore type approved. That is different to certified.

 

So for instance the Tecnam P92 that I trained in is factory built and type approved by RAAus they are not certified and do not have a certified engine. However Basair for instance trains in Sierra JF aircraft which are VH registered and of a certified type with a certified engine. That's different.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Here is the technical explanation from the RA website which explains:

 

I was merely suggesting that you can't train in an aircraft unless it's factory built. This includes a type certified or type approved model, all the same when it comes to training in RA.

 

Type Certification and Certificate of Type Approval

 

Type Certification is the assessment of an aircraft [or engine or propeller] design, for compliance with an international airworthiness minimum Design Standard recognised by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Type certification design standards are a set of commonsense rules, graded according to the activity for which the aircraft is designed, that have evolved over the past 90 years or so, which – while not providing absolute safety in all conditions – do provide an airworthy and reasonably stable and controllable aircraft if it is operated within the specified flight envelope and appropriately maintained. The Type Certificate is issued to the manufacturer in the country of origin.

 

For commercially manufactured aeroplanes the design (and prototype aircraft) must be type certified (or type accepted) and the manufacturer issued with a Type Certificate before an individual production series aircraft can be issued with a Certificate of Airworthiness [CoA] for its intended operating category by the authority – CASA in Australia.

 

Similarly Type Acceptance is an acceptance by a national airworthiness statutory authority that an imported aircraft conforms to a recognised national design standard. A Certificate of Type Approval or Certificate of Type Acceptance is issued by CASA to a foreign manufacturer to allow operation in Australia.

 

However RA-Aus is authorised to issue Acceptance Certificates signifying that a particular aircraft type/model is accepted for registration by RA-Aus under CAO95.55 para xx on the basis of a Type Certificate or Type Acceptance issued by a national authority. The same certification/acceptance processes apply to commercially manufactured aircraft kits supplied to amateur builders.

 

The Certificate of Airworthiness for an individual factory built aircraft is issued on the basis of evidence that the individual aircraft complies with the Type Certificate and that it has been constructed and assembled satisfactorily by the holder of a Production Certificate for manufacturing and given an individual serial number. The airworthiness categories and designations in which Australian CoAs may be issued are described in detail in Advisory Circular AC 21.1 “Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Categories and Designations Explained”.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Brent,

 

all well and good, however the difference still remains. Most RAAus aircraft are not Certified, but approved or accepted.

 

See here for a manufacturer's listing of the different types and their approval or certification.

 

http://www.tecnam.com/ing/index.cfm

 

Pull down the aircraft menu and you will see alternatives for "Ultralight" and "Certified". The Certified are tested and certified as meeting JAR-VLA (CS-VLA) and the ultralight will have been designed to but not certified to that standard.

 

Similarly with Jabiru - the J170C is certified and the J170 is not for example.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

This information is of little or no consequence. The point was raised about requiring a certified aircraft for CTA which I said wasn't a requirement. Any aircraft, be it kit built or factory built can fly into CTA.

 

The J170C versus J170 is not a good comparison, as the J170 is a kit built aircraft and therefore not factory built, however both can legally fly into CTA.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Brent that's quite right. There is a misconception however that you require a certified aircraft for, among other things, flight training. This isn't so. And the reason why I reckon it's worth understanding that is that not only are they not required to be certified they generally are not.

 

So when we tell some punter - as I have heard done - that "this is a certified aircraft" as we load them aboard for a trial flight then we are misleading them. The aircraft we fly do not have to demonstrate that they reach the same standards as a certified aircraft and with the exception of LSA they don't and can't hold an airworthiness certificate. I am talking about RAAus aircraft only here.

 

So call me a pedant if you like but it is a real distinction that we should understand as the people who fly these aircraft.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I'll still continue to tell everyone that the Jabs they get into are CASA certified, including the J160 and LSA55. That ought to keep them happy. People like to hear the words 'CASA certified.' Rod Stiff didn't spend $1.5m certifying the J160 for nothing! The LSA category must be a bit of a kick in the guts to those manufacturers that have put in the hard yards and dollars for full type certification.

 

Speaking of which (informed passengers), there's a new AOC system on the cards for GA which is in theory at the moment. You pretty much won't need an AOC for flight training and other activities including dangerous ones if the passenger is considered to be 'informed.' There are 3 levels of this system - the completely un-informed (Qantas RPT for eg), moderately informed, say a joyflight passenger and well informed, such as a student learning to fly. There pretty much won't be a full AOC required for the latter two in theory. It will be interesting to see how long it all takes to get pushed through.

 

 

[barandbrew]

I was under the understanding the Gazelle was type and CASA certified . Am I missunderstanding the rule my Gazelle was orginally VH-MCO so I believed it was CASA certified ?????

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Yes, the Gazelle was / is CASA certified. There was a period there where it looked like the type certificate was going to be lost when a few ailerons fell off but it appears that all blew over. That's partially why a few years back you'd see them on the market for sub $30k, then for a while they were bringing high 40's to low 50's.

 

 

[Guest J430]

Back to the topic

 

As for RAA pilots flying into CTA, as I understand it, an RAA pilot, if holding a current medical AND PPL (with NIL airspace restrictions) or higher, can fly an RAA registered a/c in CTA provided he/she have a radio for Class D and GAAP zones and also a working Transponder for class C and E airspace.

 

Basically thats it in a nut shell.

 

Now there are other regs about flying your converted lawn mower engine powered a/c over populated areas, which generally mean you won't be in CTA also. However the Rotax, Jabiru etc are OK along with any Lycoming etc.

 

Flying in CTA involves much more than just following some simple instructions from the tower, its even more involved at times than just transitting a class D zone, in C it can be even more interesting especially close to say BNE or SYD or MEL terminal areas. I have taken some of my RAA mates for a burn around Brisbane and when the workload gets up they were quite amazed at all the things needed to be done with codes, clearances, tracking requirements, holding an accurate heading and altitude.........yes I know it sounds simple, and its not hard, but it does require in my opinion a fair bit more training than most folk realise. Other wise the VCA's will spiral out of the ASA office like a stream of sausages from a sausage factory.

 

Now please do not take offense at this, most of my flying friends are RAA only folk and its not an US & THEM attitude I am trying to impart. It is just the facts and reality of things.

 

As for AVALON, unless there are exemptions, if its tower time its class C. If for any reason you wishto transit Class C without a transponder, you can ring and ask, but I would think any major city will be a polite sorry unable to assist, but maybe AVALON or similar you maight get through, but you will need to phone ahead not just rock up on the boundary. Same for Class D. Coffs or Maroochy may let you through with prior permission and a good reason, otherwise I suggest you enjoy your class G, after all that is what RAA is all about......not higher workload GA flying.

 

Cheers

 

J

 

Sneeks outside and into the bunker with flak jacket and tin hat!

 

 

[Ross]

Question on Engine Compliance to ASTM LSA Standard

 

Hi J430

 

Jabiru has a Service Bulletin JSB 010-1 dated 19th April 2005 listing engine numbers that comply with ASTM Standard F2339-04.

 

There is also a paragraph of conditions that need to be read in conjunction with the statement above on the RAA website.

 

The engine numbers listed that comply are:

 

Jabiru 2200A model. Serial number 22A1845 and above.

 

Jabiru 3300A model. Serial numbers 33A722 and above.

 

Does this have implications for Jabiru powered aircraft in controlled airspace in Australia??

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

Yes, CTA can be OK Subject to..

 

Personally I have flown into Essendon (Class C CTA) and Moorabbin (Class D GAAP CTA) in an LSA55 Jabiru.

 

Requirements to fly a recreational aircraft in CTA

 

1 Pilot holds PPL as well As RAA cert

 

2 Radio must be fitted and used

 

3 Transponder is required (though for procedural class C e.g. Albury

 

you may be able to make other arrangements if you ask the tower staff beforehand.)

 

4 Aircraft and engine are to be type certified.

 

Regards,

 

AusDarren

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Almost.

 

No transponder required for Albury, as it's Class D. They don't have radar. Above that is Class C. Same for Coffs and others (there's not many that fit this category anyway) No Transponder for Moorabbin, Bankstown GAAP either. Technically, GAAP is not controlled airspace either.

 

Aircraft and engine are not required to be type certified which is why my J400 Experimental can fly legally into CTA. The only part of it that is certifiable, is me.

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

my J400 Experimental can fly legally into CTA. The only part of it that is certifiable, is me.

Well if you want to say your certifiable, Who am I to Say your not! ;)

 

However the rules that apply to your VH registered Aircraft all be it experimental, are not the same as if it was Homebuilt on the RAAus register.

 

*smile*

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Yes and no. They are not the same rules, however a homebuilt 'ultralight' can be legally flown into Essendon, Tullamarine, or Kingsford Smith if it is piloted by a PPL & RA with transponder, radio and approved engine.

 

If you don't believe me, meet me at Tooradin at 9am Saturday and I'll fly you into Tullamarine in a RA Registered home-built SP Jabiru. You can pay the $180 landing fee and it's a done deal. When we get there I'll ring the bell on the CASA field office and we can talk it over! We will either fly out of there in the Jab, or I will be escorted in the back of a divvy van.

 

I'm feeling confident, how about you?

 

Hopefully the owner won't mind me flying through the rain with his timber prop. It's gonna bucket soon.

 

 

[Admin]

Guys