CASA Recreational Licence

[rhysmcc]

Does the RPL remain current if the RA Cert is expired/not renewed i wonder

 

 

[facthunter]

The RAAus medical has nothing to do with it. There is a path using the training you have done as an RAAus pilot. to the RPL which would involve some further training. From the PPL or above, it is easier ( as one would expect)

 

The medical for the RPL is done by a GP (who is willing) and is a tick ALL boxes event. NO if's or but's. This is just processed and goes through if complete. IF he/she (the GP) can't do it, you have the option then of doing the PPL (class2) or even a class one medical,(if you decide to be GA instructor) where you will be dealing with AVMED the same as it always was..and, if you pass that,will get your PPL or higher licence when you do the appropriate flight review, if a renewal .

 

. This is nothing like what I expected as I have been following this for years. I can't see the logic of it at the moment. In fact, there are many unsatisfactory aspects to it. I won't be going into them here unless some interest is shown and I don't think it will, but I will probably discuss it with the AOPA when I can be bothered. To say I am disappointed would be a monster underestimate. Like so many outcomes in the last four or five years . The problem with the medicals for the GA licences has always alleged to be that they were too related to RAAF standards. this solution is a covering your Ar$e exercise, that won't serve the original purpose. Apart from saving a few dollars with a DAME if you are the exception, and it works for You.

 

rhysmcc once you are a RPL holder you fly GA planes, under CASA.. To fly RAAus planes you must still hold a RAAus certificate (same as NOW).Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Remember also if you want both then 2 BFRs needed. One by an approved RAA instructor and one by a CASA GA instructor (minimum grade 2 I think but wouldn't argue)

 

 

[Camel]

Remember also if you want both then 2 BFRs needed. One by an approved RAA instructor and one by a CASA GA instructor (minimum grade 2 I think but wouldn't argue)

Ga BFR covers HP RAA BFR

 

 

[rankamateur]

Ga BFR covers HP RAA BFR

Wonder will that still be the case when RAA does away with perforance catagories.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Ga BFR covers HP RAA BFR

Too true, I forgot, but remember to send a copy of the logbook entry to RAA as the logbook entry for GA does not satisfy them.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

so what restrictions are placed on an rpl holder compared to a ppl holder? If all the medically fit ra cert holders progress to the rpl rather than a ppl, is the ppl on its way out. im thinking i just wasted about 15k converting from ra to ppl when i could have just waited for this and had it handed to me...

 

Further, if we're all talking about the same license (the aopa pushed fly my 182 without a class2 med) license then i can see facthunters point. for the typical ppl holding aopa member it was supposed to keep them flying thier vh aircraft with the rpl long after they lost thier class2 as long as they were still legal to drive to the hangar.

 

I thought the ra proposal was to get cta for the ra cert holders flying ra planes rather than letting ra cert holders fly 1500kg vh planes without a ppl?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Above 1500kg, night, IMC .

 

This is not about RAA - it is a GA licence, but 61.480 gives recognition to prior learning for holders of a licence (cert) issued by authorised organisations such as RAA.

 

 

[rdarby]

So this still only applies to VH planes?

 

Can I get the RPL and drop my RAAus Pilot Certificate and still fly my 24 registeted plane?

 

I doubt it but wanted to make sure. If no this is nice if you want to move to bigger and more expensive and away from the spirit of what an RAAus plane is.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Can I get the RPL and drop my RAAus Pilot Certificate and still fly my 24 registeted plane?"

 

No.

 

 

[rdarby]

Thanks Frank. In that case it's not for me. I don't want the cost of a VH plane, and the CTA endorsement isn't something I really need.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Dazza being 38 you'll be fine mate.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Dazza being 38 you'll be fine mate.

43 actually. LOL I was 38 when I first joined here.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Haha, you need to update your name each year.

 

 

[Guest nunans]

Above 1500kg, night, IMC .This is not about RAA - it is a GA licence, but 61.480 gives recognition to prior learning for holders of a licence (cert) issued by authorised organisations such as RAA.

we already have recognition of prior learning for ra cert towards ppl minimum hours, so it makes sense that we would also have recognition for our ra hours towards rpl minimums also.

 

initially i thought that rpl was geared towards existing ppl holders, maybe thats been extended to ra holders also.

 

 

[dazza 38]

we already have recognition of prior learning for ra cert towards ppl minimum hours, so it makes sense that we would also have recognition for our ra hours towards rpl minimums also.initially i thought that rpl was geared towards existing ppl holders, maybe thats been extended to ra holders also.

AKAIK RAA holders were always going to be recognised. I have mentioned this here on this site a few times over the last few years. DJP has mentioned this as well over the last few years. I'm not sure where the rumour came form that it was only going to be for PPL holders.

 

 

[frank marriott]

we already have recognition of prior learning for ra cert towards ppl minimum hours, so it makes sense that we would also have recognition for our ra hours towards rpl minimums also. initially i thought that rpl was geared towards existing ppl holders, maybe thats been extended to ra holders also.

If you are interested in this licence class, I would suggest you read in detail what it states - It is a big difference from recognition of prior RAA hours, subjects also (PPL nav and bak) The recognition is now (or will be) in legislation.

 

I have no personal interest in this amendment as I hold a CPL and class 1 medical, I only put it up here for those who wish to gain CTA access. If one has no interest in CTA and only fly 2 seat RAA registered aircraft why would you bother.

 

 

[68volksy]

From reading it would appear that converting from RA to RPL may not be a simple paperwork thing. The little "Note" at the bottom of the section talks about having to have completed a flight review for the aircraft class prior to getting issued the licence. From talks with CASA people it's something they are going to supply more detail on. Sounds like it will be a normal conversion process of getting up to speed on a GA registered aircraft and then sitting an AFR on that class.

 

On the medical requirement I wouldn't be at all surprised to see RA-Aus adopting very similar requirements to CASA in the near future or CASA reducing their requirements. Allowing two different definitions of "Fit to drive a motor vehicle" I see as a little odd...

 

My thoughts were that the impetus behind it all was keeping the GA guys who couldn't pass their medical flying the aircraft they're used to flying rather than bulking up the membership of RA-Aus. I'm also hoping it'll lead to a bit more investment in Australia in GA 2-seaters like the Diamond DA20. Will certainly see a greater emphasis on the "fully certified" tagline when people are deciding between GA and RA.

 

 

[facthunter]

Regardless of what the impetus was , the reality is that unless you have no medical issues you won't pass the RPL. I cannot see that this result is workable. Anyone who has kept away from a doctor for most of their life may have a chance. If you do the right thing and check on things when symptoms appear you get a "history" which bars you from getting full travel insurance and the RPL medical. It even says in the document, that if you don't get the RPL, do the class 2 This gives you the structure to argue your case... Nev