VH, RA reg.

[stevron]

It seems ridiculous that as RA pilot I can not fly a Jab with VH reg, yet I can if its RA reg. In a loose way I can understand the difference between the licence s, but you should be able (after a check flight) be able to fly any thing you have a endorsement on. As its not the plane, it's the peanut steering that's the problem, (as is in motor vehicle driving). As a RA pilot and if I have a GA ppl I can fly my RA reg Jab in to controlled air space, so that shows it is the steerer that has the controlling authority not the plane. A plane is plane just like a car and ute are the same as far as liciencing is concerned. The rest just B.S and over control by some power crazed Govenment dept. Common-sense should prevail and get on with promoting aviation and stop strangling it.

 

 

[Ultralights]

the difference is not just in the aircraft handling, but in the rules for VH are far more complex than Raaus. the level of theory work for a PPL is higher, navigation for a start. PPL requires 3 hrs of instrument flying under the hood.

 

 

[Mriya]

It seems ridiculous that as RA pilot I can not fly a Jab with VH reg, yet I can if its RA reg. In a loose way I can understand the difference between the licence s, but you should be able (after a check flight) be able to fly any thing you have a endorsement on. As its not the plane, it's the peanut steering that's the problem, (as is in motor vehicle driving). As a RA pilot and if I have a GA ppl I can fly my RA reg Jab in to controlled air space, so that shows it is the steerer that has the controlling authority not the plane. A plane is plane just like a car and ute are the same as far as liciencing is concerned. The rest just B.S and over control by some power crazed Govenment dept. Common-sense should prevail and get on with promoting aviation and stop strangling it.

Although you do highlight 'quirks' that arise through the administration of different sectors of aviation by different authorities, the reality is that they are bound to happen when different authorities control overlapping activities. One thing that is important to realise though is that RAAus DO NOT issue a Pilot Licence, but rather a Pilot Certificate which then authorises you to operate a RAAus aircraft under their rules which are in turn approved by CASA. Also it is important to note that not all RAAus aircraft are not eligible to be flown in controlled airspace, with all of the following being considered before you venture beyond Class G airspace:

 

• Aircraft certification design standard;
   
   
  
• Engine design and manufacture standard;
   
   
  
• Radio communications equipment requirements;
   
   
  
• Transponder requirements;
   
   
  
• Pilot licence requirements;
   
   
  
• Pilot airspace qualification requirements; and
   
   
  
• Pilot currency requirements.
   
   
  

 

 

You may therefore find your RAAus Jab is not allowed into controlled airspace for multiple reasons from the above list (ie. experimental vs factory built, VHF Comms functionality, AD/RAD/47 transponder check currency, plus CASA pilot licence requirements and currency).

 

The bottom line is that RAAus rules allow a limited operation within the recreational realm of aviation for those who do not wish to jump through all the hoops that CASA demands. If however you wish to have the full privileges that a CASA Pilot Licence affords, then you have little option but to go out and get a CASA licence.

 

 

[stevron]

the difference is not just in the aircraft handling, but in the rules for VH are far more complex than Raaus. the level of theory work for a PPL is higher, navigation for a start. PPL requires 3 hrs of instrument flying under the hood.

the difference is not just in the aircraft handling, but in the rules for VH are far more complex than Raaus. the level of theory work for a PPL is higher, navigation for a start. PPL requires 3 hrs of instrument flying under the hood.

That is still up to the the pilot not the plane, the plane is a machine it does not know if your a ppl or a RA pilot and as such once you have been skilled to fly a make and model it should not make a difference what licence you have.the pilot may require more information and skill to fly a plane (no matter weather a RA or VH ) at certain locations . Navs are navs , landings are landings etc, if you have the skill to carry out these activities the plane does not care if your a RA or PPL . That's my point , it's the pilot that needs the skills , not the plane

 

 

[Mriya]

That is still up to the the pilot not the plane, the plane is a machine it does not know if your a ppl or a RA pilot and as such once you have been skilled to fly a make and model it should not make a difference what licence you have.the pilot may require more information and skill to fly a plane (no matter weather a RA or VH ) at certain locations . Navs are navs , landings are landings etc, if you have the skill to carry out these activities the plane does not care if your a RA or PPL . That's my point , it's the pilot that needs the skills , not the plane

As per my previous post, the aircraft also needs to meet particular equipment and certification standards before being operated in controlled airspace.

I do not deny that quirks will happen about who can fly what, but once you recognise that RAAus exists to allow a person to do some recreational flying without having to jump through all the CASA hoops, you will be thankful that the RAAus option exists if that is all you are after. If you want to fly beyond what RAAus allows a PPL is the only option, and then you can be thankful that for dual RAAus / PPL pilots the option does exist to use your RAAus aircraft (if it qualifies) in controlled airspace as well. I don't really see any problems with the system as it stands.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Doesn't the VH on the side imply that you carry a PPL, just as driving without red P plates displayed implies that the driver carries an open licence. A few more years, a few more tests and they will have their open unrestricted licence.

 

 

[Mriya]

Doesn't the VH on the side imply that you carry a PPL, just as driving without red P plates displayed implies that the driver carries an open licence. A few more years, a few more tests and they will have their open unrestricted licence.

Interesting analogy... Someone with thousands of hrs RAAus flying who has never needed or wanted a PPL may not totally agree with the comparison, but in the very least, yes VH aircraft are not allowed to be piloted independantly by less than a PPL trained person, where as a lower training requirement exists for RAAus.

 

 

[rankamateur]

I was probrably having a go at the OP but with a bit over 20 hours PIC time my pilot pride is fairly pliable and I can see why CASA wouldn't want me flying around in a VH rego Jabiru.

 

 

[pylon500]

Bureaucratic anomalies like this exist everywhere, me as an RAAus Senior instructor with 3000+ hours and around 80+ types, am not recognised by the FAA and as such can not legally fly any of their LSA class aircraft.

 

Even though I do most of my instructing in the same aircraft.

 

Guess that's just the way it is.....

 

 

[rgmwa]

It seems ridiculous that as RA pilot I can not fly a Jab with VH reg, yet I can if its RA reg.

Works both ways. I can't fly your RAA reg aircraft either.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[djpacro]

The new Part 61 licensing rules go some way towards eliminating anomalies.

 

 

[stevron]

Works both ways. I can't fly your RAA reg aircraft either.rgmwa

The new Part 61 licensing rules go some way towards eliminating anomalies.

That comment goes towards what I am saying. RA planes are just planes, cessnas and pipers are just planes, so there is no reason a pilot could not fly either RA or GA, the principles are the same. Power , angle attack etc. As I see it's matter us and them. A plane is a plane and a plane does not know if its a GA or a RA , it may handle different , perform slightly different but it's still a plane. So scrap the RA and GA just have endorsements or performance based licences because its the pilot that is the common denominator not the plane.

 

 

[stevron]

Doesn't the VH on the side imply that you carry a PPL, just as driving without red P plates displayed implies that the driver carries an open licence. A few more years, a few more tests and they will have their open unrestricted licence.

The plane does not know its a RA or GA plane , it's a plane , only the pilot knows.

 

 

[stevron]

Doesn't the VH on the side imply that you carry a PPL, just as driving without red P plates displayed implies that the driver carries an open licence. A few more years, a few more tests and they will have their open unrestricted licence.

So does that mean you with the appropriate training can not fly it, its a plane. A jab VH or RA reg it just a plane it does not know what reg it is, it's a plane. I am not saying a pilot that is not trained to fly into Sydney , can grab a plane and fly in Sydney air space, but if they did it would not matter if it was a GA or a RA plane it's plane the pilot needs the skills

 

 

[stevron]

the difference is not just in the aircraft handling, but in the rules for VH are far more complex than Raaus. the level of theory work for a PPL is higher, navigation for a start. PPL requires 3 hrs of instrument flying under the hood.

Your talking about the pilot skills and knowledge ,a plane is a plane , there should not be RA or ga planes there just planes.w

 

 

[poteroo]

So does that mean you with the appropriate training can not fly it, its a plane. A jab VH or RA reg it just a plane it does not know what reg it is, it's a plane. I am not saying a pilot that is not trained to fly into Sydney , can grab a plane and fly in Sydney air space, but if they did it would not matter if it was a GA or a RA plane it's plane the pilot needs the skills

Not really. It's the airspace category which dictates both the installed equipment and the pilot qualifications. As outlined by posts #3 and #5 above. In any case, there are some things you can influence, and some you cannot. Amalgamation of recreational and general aviation is unlikely given that CASA has created these categories and wishes them to be self administered entities.

 

I fail to see the reason for your angst. If you want to barrel into CTA/CTZ - then upskill yourself, and upgrade your aircraft to the standards required. The other 98% of Australia is open slather with your PC and a registered RAAus aircraft.

 

happy days,

 

 

[AVOCET]

What about the Maintanance issues ,

 

I had a fellow who had a j200 VH rego & I couldn't do the maintenance as a level 2

 

So he changed the rego to 19- xxxx and hay presto , I can do the Maintanance !

 

That gripes me a bit . Go figure.

 

Cheers Mike

 

 

[Mriya]

Stevron,

 

I'm not sure that you really appreciate what you are suggesting. By suggesting that RAAus & GA become one you are by default saying you wish for RAAus with its simpler operations, training and maintenance processes which are customised for recreational aviation to cease to exist. CASA has already set the bar at a particular height with regards to VH aircraft which need to be operated and maintained in accordance with particular standards. With CASA standards comes extra privileges and options (ie: controlled airspace, night, IFR, etc) however it also comes at extra cost (ie: pilot training, medical, LAME, etc). You really can't expect to mix and match the advantages of both systems, while ignoring the bits you don't like. VH & RAAus both have a purpose. At times there is overlap and some provisions are made to accomodate that (ie: RAAus who also holds a current PPL can enter controlled airspace if the aircraft meets CASA design and equipment standards).

 

Without RAAus being allowed to self regulate recreational aviation with their own set of standards and procedures, we would all have to comply with the VH regs (ie: PPL training syllabus, LAME maintained aircraft (unless you built it).

 

RAAus and its lesser demands fulfills the desire for people to engage in aviation with a minimum of fuss and expense. As I mentioned earlier parallel systems will always create 'quirks'. For example as a B1.1/B1.2 LAME I can't currently sign for any Radio system (VHF, intercom, transponder, etc) or structural composite repairs on VH aircraft, yet as a L2 I can do any of this work on an RAAus aircraft. Overlapping systems will always result in these 'quirks' and we need to accept them and work within their limitations. The only way to eliminate them is to eliminate RAAus and the result of that would be less affordable flying for a group of people who don't want all the 'bells and whistles' that are attached to a full PPL.

 

 

[planedriver]

Your talking about the pilot skills and knowledge ,a plane is a plane , there should not be RA or ga planes there just planes.w

I'm sure many on here, can understand what you are saying up to a point stevron.

 

If one is used to flying in a sparsley populated area, the stickers on the side don't make it perform differently to the same type you may have already been trained on. We realise that.

 

However, like it or not, whenever rules are made, invariabley someone on the fringe of what they were written for, could be a bit put out and want something slightly different, and flying that same aircraft into controlled airspace is a certainly a different ball game, and the training has to reflect this.

 

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

There is lot more skills a pilot need to learn, other than basically being able to fly a particular type safely.

 

Having said that, i'm sure there'd be a few owners of VH reg J230's and the like, that would have to accept that they can't jump straight into a RA reg version of the same aircraft.

 

I would say, simply enjoy the privelages you have, and like everyone else, accept that rules are rules.

 

I think even CASA & RAAus realise "You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time"

 

 

[Mriya]

What about the Maintanance issues ,I had a fellow who had a j200 VH rego & I couldn't do the maintenance as a level 2

So he changed the rego to 19- xxxx and hay presto , I can do the Maintanance !

 

That gripes me a bit . Go figure.

 

Cheers Mike

Yes as a L2 you can do the maintenance once it is 19-xxxx however you will also find that extra restrictions now apply to the aircraft ops (ie: no night ops, no flight over 'built-up' or closely settled areas (see extract from RAAus website below) without written authorisation). As a LAME and L2/L4 I note various differences in what I am allowed to certify with either of these authorisations. Equally, the owner of the j200 you refer to needs to operate within the restrictions that are now placed on their aircraft due to 19-xxxx rego being applied.

Flight over the built-up area of a city or town

 

Note: while CAR 262AP uses the term 'built-up area of a city or town', the subordinate 95 series CAOs use the term 'closely-settled area' meaning an 'area in which, because of man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles, and the characteristics of the aeroplane; the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aeroplane or damaging property in the area'.

 

•Flight over closely-settled areas is prohibited to all CAO 95.10 aircraft.

 

•CAO 95.55 subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) and (h) aircraft [i.e. those with 28-nnnn and 19-nnnn registration] plus CAO 95.32 paragraph 1.3 and 1.4 aircraft [i.e. E-LSA and 51% owner-built powered parachutes and trikes] are — for the purpose of flight over closely-settled areas — all regarded as 'experimental' and may not operate over such areas, unless holding a written authorisation to do so.

 

CAR 262AP deals with operating limitations for experimental aircraft; subregulations 4 and 5 state:

 

(4) A person must not operate an experimental aircraft over the built-up area of a city or town unless authorised to do so under subregulation (5).

 

(5) CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations CASA or the authorised person considers necessary for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water.

 

The penalty for non-compliance is 50 penalty units [about $6000].

 

For RA-Aus registered aircraft the Technical Manager is the authorised person who may issue the written approval. The period of validity for an authorisation is variable, the approval will expire when or if cancelled by CASA or the authorised person.

 

An aircraft must not be flown over a closely-settled area at a height from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area and the minimum height is 1 000 feet above ground level. 'Suitable landing area' means an area in which an aeroplane can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane.

 

 

[metalman]

It seems ridiculous that as RA pilot I can not fly a Jab with VH reg, yet I can if its RA reg. In a loose way I can understand the difference between the licence s, but you should be able (after a check flight) be able to fly any thing you have a endorsement on. As its not the plane, it's the peanut steering that's the problem, (as is in motor vehicle driving). As a RA pilot and if I have a GA ppl I can fly my RA reg Jab in to controlled air space, so that shows it is the steerer that has the controlling authority not the plane. A plane is plane just like a car and ute are the same as far as liciencing is concerned. The rest just B.S and over control by some power crazed Govenment dept. Common-sense should prevail and get on with promoting aviation and stop strangling it.

Not that I have any interest in defending CASA, but the only reason you can fly you jab without a pilots licence is because of the exemptions to the regulations, this discussion crops up pretty regularly and really it's simple to live with , just fly what your allowed to fly ,where you allowed to fly it , when your allowed to fly it and remember its a priveledge not a right.

If anyone wants all the priveledges that come with having a pilots licence then spend the time and money and get one, on another point as a group ,we ultralighters, have not shown the regulator that we can play by the rules, let alone be lobbying for more concessions.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The new Part 61 licensing rules go some way towards eliminating anomalies.

The new rules as pointed to by DJ will be interesting to see how they are applied by industry. The recognition of an unrestricted RAA certificate as qualifying for a RPL has the qualifier of a GA BFR.

 

The unknown area is what standard of knowledge will be required by the GA school to approve this licence. I guess there will be guidelines issued - the problem (possible ) as I see it is the large variables in standards / theory that exists with RAA certificates depending on WHEN & where the certificate was obtained.

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I guess time will tell.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Probrably more importantly, Is there any justification for the 24 registered Jabiru having to be registered for a fee every year while the same plane registered VH is registered for life. Both need their maintenance kept up to remain airworthy, but neither airframe is any better than the other. That point is worth discussing.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Stevron, On the flip side, the RAA is closer to GA these days than it used to be. I remember in the late nineties when we couldn't fly a Skyfox Gazelle because it was too heavy, but a TW Fox was OK.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Works both ways. I can't fly your RAA reg aircraft either.rgmwa

Me neither, yet I would like to think I am reasonable well qualified!