Glider Pilots - Licencing

[Admin]

FS 12/21 - Early Implementation of CASR Part 61 provisions - CASA Glider Pilot Licence

[poteroo]

This appears to be a sensible move by CASA - industry has asked for it, and it only changes the medical standards.

 

Seems to make a case for an RAAus Pilot Certificate being upgraded to an internationally recognised 'licence' to operate in (LSA) category aircraft. Now all we need is to vary the Australian GA licences,(to exactly the FAA licence ), and we can all fly anywhere in the world?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I can already go to the USA and commence flying the same little beast i have here without doing anything except go fly.

 

FAR103 rocks!

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

This appears to be a sensible move by CASA - industry has asked for it, and it only changes the medical standards.Seems to make a case for an RAAus Pilot Certificate being upgraded to an internationally recognised 'licence' to operate in (LSA) category aircraft. Now all we need is to vary the Australian GA licences,(to exactly the FAA licence ), and we can all fly anywhere in the world?

 

happy days,

poteroo,

 

It is not quite that simple.

 

ICAO recognises gliders, including a Annex I license, and the CASA proposal fixes a long standing problem for glider pilots for an internationally recognised bit of paper, and hence the need to have a second class medical, an ICAO requirement. The lowest ICAO level of license for a powered aircraft is a PPL, and CASA isn't about to turn an RAOz Pilot Certificate into an honorary PPL, for those traveling - even if you do hold a CASA second class medical.

 

To have an RAOz certificate recognized to fly LSA in US would take a bi-lateral agreement, such as exists (outside EASA) between a number of EEC states.

 

Ozzie

 

Re. FAA FAR 103 devices, read carefully, the FAR Part 103 is limited to single seat, max weight 254lb for a powered aircrafts. Also read carefully the US security rules for flying in the US, its applicability seems to me to cover all flying, not just flying what FAA recognises as an aircraft --- which a Part 103 isn't.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Max weight for FAR103 UNPOWERED RECREATIONAL VEHICLES is 155lbs. you can have a glider type FAR103 recreational vehicle. It can be towed conventionally, winch launched or foot launched

 

As FAR103 RECREATIONAL VEHICLES are not classed as aircraft they are not covered by the US security rules for flying in the US. If you make it through customs and immigration without being tossed out as a security risk then that is enough to satisfy Homeland Security

 

I had a chat with two FAA gents at AirVenture about me flying powered FAR103 in the USA when i was at Oshkosh last year as i was hoping to fly Dale Kramer's electric Lazair after the show. Not a problem as they (RECREATIONAL VEHICLES) are not govened by the FAA. The interpretation is they are not piloted they are operated.

 

Take into mind that Homeland Security or the police, can consider anyone to be a security threat all it takes is for Homeland Security to have a hunch.

 

So I will say again. I can go to the USA and borrow or buy a "Recreational Vehicle" that complies with FAR103 (and my Lazair does) and operate within in those rules without any problems.

 

Pilots that wish to pilot LSA or GA have to jump through the hoops before they can fly by themselves and that includes satisfying Homeland Security.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

ozzie,

 

I'm not arguing with you, have a look at what I actually said. I didn't bother quoting the un-powered weight limit for Part 103 was simply because my post was about RAOz certificates v the licensing situation with gliders.

 

The area that is "uncertain", to put it mildly, is Homeland Security rules ---- the fact that the applicability of FAR 103 defines a non-aircraft, as far as FAA is concerned, is quite a different issue to the views of Homeland Security as to what is "flying" --- you almost got there yourself.

 

By all means, chance your arm, but knowing the draconian approach Homeland Security operatives take, combined with less than clear and concise rules, the wide degree of discretion given to operatives, take very great care. Remember, FAA and the opinions of FAA types have no bearing on the enforcement of Homeland Security regulations. Further, given my observations on the apparent average IQ of a Homeland Security employee ( seems to me to be about the same as a security screener at an Australian airport ) and a very xenophobic approach to "foreigners", I would be going through the hoops as if I was going to fly a conventional GA aircraft, then I would be as close to being fireproof as you are likely to get.

 

Cheers,

 

Note also that the way we use the term Ultralight in AU is completely different to US usage, as Part 103 make clear.

 

FAR 103

 

Sec. 103.1 Applicability.

 

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles

 

in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle

 

is a vehicle that:

 

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a

 

single occupant;

 

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

 

© Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

 

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

 

(e) If powered:

 

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety

 

devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic

 

situation;

 

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

 

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full

 

power in level flight; and

 

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated

 

airspeed.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

All my FAR103 friends have no security checks as like the GA types.

 

As it has been explained to me, just don't draw attention to yourself.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

All my FAR103 friends have no security checks as like the GA types.As it has been explained to me, just don't draw attention to yourself.

Ozzie,

 

That's fine if you are a legal resident of the US, not for a visitor. As I have said, what Homeland Security see as "flying", versus the FAA, is where the traps are, and it is Homeland Security regulations that apply, not FAA Part 103 "applicability"---- All I can do is repeat what I have already said; Don't chance your arm, it's simply not worth the risk. There is no common sense, no measure response, the approach taken is really quite frightening, and the cost of lawyers to get out of detention will put a serious hole in your bank account. You will get no help from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

 

You should examine, very carefully, the detailed conditions of your entry to the US, via the Visa Waiver Scheme, or on a visa, if you don't qualify for the waiver, you might find it instructive.

 

It is time consuming, but not difficult, to get the necessary Homeland Security clearances, it is actually a lot easier than a flying visitor to Australia getting an AVID/ASIC.

 

The good old Australia "She'll be right, mate" is not a smart policy response to this situation.

 

It might seem like I am banging on about this, but I do have some experience in the area, including having to sign for deportees being loaded on my aircraft, and the details of why they were in the situation, in which they found themselves.

 

Cheers,

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Bill, DHS/TSA applies only to flight schools. Even if i obtain this clearance it would still not protect me from over zealous security guards/ dipstick sheriffs and the like.

 

Your concern is noted and appreciated.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

From all the replies i've recieved it's not a problem, it's clowns like this that are a bigger threat.

 

http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport

 

 

[dazza 38]

That would make a great movie story line I reckon. I do have a question, why are their soooooo many different law enforcement agencies in the USA. Why have State Police and County Sheriff departments. Not to mention, FBI, NSA, CIA, HLS, CG, ATF, CBP (they love their acronyms over there as well)even the bloody Life Guards love to give out fines/citations to people on the beaches having fun. Jeez they love their shiny Badges over there.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When i was in the States i saw adverts to attend what is basically TAFE course to be qualified as a Sherriff or local county police officer.

 

 

[damkia]

That would make a great movie story line I reckon. I do have a question, why are their soooooo many different law enforcement agencies in the USA. Why have State Police and County Sheriff departments. Not to mention, FBI, NSA, CIA, HLS, CG, ATF, CBP (they love their acronyms over there as well)even the bloody Life Guards love to give out fines/citations to people on the beaches having fun. Jeez they love their shiny Badges over there.

It is a nation whose economy runs on the basis of distrust and fear. As a nation they are ALWAYS afraid of someone, and fully defended in preparation.

 

First it was the black Africans, then the Russians, then the Japanese, then the Vietnamese, then the Islamic Middle East, then the North Koreans, and now the Chinese to a degree.....

 

Basically trigger happy.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

It is a nation whose economy runs on the basis of distrust and fear. As a nation they are ALWAYS afraid of someone, and fully defended in preparation.

Sounds just like us here in Australia where we are so terrified of possible 'global warming' we have brought in thousands of new government regulations and a tax in a desperate bid to control the worlds temperature.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

It is a nation whose economy runs on the basis of distrust and fear. As a nation they are ALWAYS afraid of someone, and fully defended in preparation.First it was the black Africans, then the Russians, then the Japanese, then the Vietnamese, then the Islamic Middle East, then the North Koreans, and now the Chinese to a degree.....

 

Basically trigger happy.

I'm sorry, this post does not make sense to me... And I am finding it difficult to identify any truth in it... But as an argument starter... Hey, way to go damkia...