VH, RA reg.

[Mriya]

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.

This really sounds like it should be a new thread, however the simple fact is that RAAus needs to generate income from somewhere to support its administration functions. They have chosen an annual rego fee as a part of that structure. CASA have their own income structure including exam sitting fees for various pilot and maintainer licences (over the last 4.5 years I have done around 30 CASA LAME Basic exams at $100 per exam). So it is all 'swings & roundabouts' when it comes to debating how the money is collected. We would all love for it to be at nil cost to us, but reality says both RAAus and CASA need to set fees and charges in a fair and equitable way that distributes the cost of administration as fairly as possible across the membership. To that end an annual registration fee seems like a perfectly reasonable way to spread out these costs.

Comparing individual fees between RAAus and CASA has little merit. A better indicator is the total cost of flying per hr for the owner. Once you factor in the need for paying a maintenance organisation to maintain your VH aircraft alone, you will be well in front with RAAus despite the annual rego fee.

 

RAAus meets the needs of recreational aviators by making it cheaper to fly than would be the case if you follow a full VH/GA route. It should be understood that as costs are reduced, limitations will also be applied. As Metalman put it so well, if you wish to have the full privileges of a PPL, go out and get one.

 

 

[Tomo]

Ahrr... rules are rules, ma hearty.

 

At the end of the day, the plane doesn't know if the pilot even has a license at all, or whether it's current. So yes, it is up to the pilot to be responsible for the privileges that s/he has. GA has been around a long time, AUF/RAA has been around a long time, the two now work in relation to each other in a reasonable fashion.

 

Go GA if you want to fly GA, it's not that hard, especially if I can even do it!

 

 

[Mriya]

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

'qualified' is an interesting choice of words. In order to be qualified to fly an RAAus aircraft one must have a RAAus pilot certificate, so I'd have to disagree with your claim to be qualified. Having said that I am in no way suggesting that you don't have the 'skill and experience' that are prerequisites to becoming qualified.

In my organisation we have a CASA approved FTC which among other aircraft operates a VH registered Flight Design MC aircraft. Our CFI has many thousands of hrs total flight experience and he flys our MC regularly, however he is not a member of RAAus and does not hold a RAAus Pilot Certificate. Therefore he is not qualified to fly a RAAus aircraft despite the fact that he is qualified to fly an identical VH registered aircraft. On the other hand, I am the only person in our organisation with a RAAus Pilot Certificate and so with my grand total of 80hrs logbook time, am qualified to fly an RAAus aircraft, however I am not allowed to fly our VH registered MC. This illustration shows that 'qualified' vs 'skilled & experienced' are not always one and the same thing.

 

 

[Admin]

I can see clearly what Stevron is getting at...it shouldn't matter what is on the side of the aircraft as long as the pilot is flying within the constraints of his certificate/license.

 

An RAAus certified pilot who is endorsed on a RAAus registered Jab should be allowed to fly a same VH registered Jab within the constraints of his certificate...however, a PPL license holder should NOT be allowed to fly an RAAus registered Jab within the constraints of his license...why? Because a VH registered Jab requires a certified maintenance regime and extra equipment i.e. Transponder etc

 

The only clause I can see that you can hang on this would be the insurance aspects with an RAAus certified pilot flying a VH registered aircraft as RAAus insurances come in to play.

 

So in summary my thoughts would be that an RAAus certified should be allowed to fly a VH registered aircraft that he is endorsed on and only within the limitations of his certificate...apart from insurances

 

 

[Yenn]

If RAAus pilot wre allowed to fly GA planes within their RAAus limits, how would an air trafic contoller or anyone else know what the legal limitations were applying to that plane at that time.

 

Secondly there is no compulsion for a GA plane to have a transponder, but if it does then it has to be checked either every 2 or 3 years depending on certain regulations.

 

Obviously there are anomalies in the system, but you pays your money and take your choice. If you want RAAus and GA then you have to do both.

 

 

[68volksy]

If RAAus pilot wre allowed to fly GA planes within their RAAus limits, how would an air trafic contoller or anyone else know what the legal limitations were applying to that plane at that time.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Yenn. It was a pretty simple equation prior to RA-Aus putting almost 100% of it efforts over the past 10 years into getting access to controlled airspace.

 

 

[metalman]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Yenn. It was a pretty simple equation prior to RA-Aus putting almost 100% of it efforts over the past 10 years into getting access to controlled airspace.

Would've been nice if they'd put 100% effect into just getting the regs right and running the damn thing properly, I used to be all for RAAus getting CTA ,now I would just prefer that we would do the right thing ,follow the regs as we are meant to, and enjoy our aviating as we supposedly say we do rather than bitch about what the PPL holders can do

 

 

[REastwood]

Ok, here is a twist on the above (it maybe slightly off topic but related...). I have both a PPL and RA-Aus Certificate. The rules say that if I do a Flight Review in a GA Aircraft then that is accepted as a flight review for a high performance RA-Aus aircraft. The Civil Aviation Rules state that a test or renewal of a licence is considered a Flight Review. So, I go and get a Command Instrument Rating, upon passing the test I have been considered to have also conducted a flight review. I send in a copy of my log book showing the successful passing of a CIR test only to be informed by RA-Aus Operations that a Command Instrument Rating renewal or test doesn't count as a Flight Review for RA-Aus as it is "not appropriate".

 

So (and this is the link to this thread) CASA will allow me to fly a VH registered Jabiru, tecnam etc. in Day VFR and consider my licence up to date if I have done a CIR renewal or test but RA-Aus will not, because somehow RA-Aus flying is different to GA flying. Paraphrasing Mriya's post above, I have the qualifications (both PPL and RA-Aus certificate) to fly both a VH registered and a RA-Aus registered HP Aircraft, but according to the Ops team I may have the skill to fly a VH registered Jabiru but not the skill to fly an RA-Aus one!

 

 

[ave8rr]

In NZ all aircraft are registered ZK. PPL or higher holders can fly ultralights if endorsed. No requirement to hold an ultralight certificate or belong to the ultralight association. Why can't PPL or higher licence holders fly RAAus reg aircraft here if endorsed and not have to do a certificate? Endorsement onto type YES by all means to show they can handle the LIGHTER TYPE aircraft.

 

As far as I know ultralights in NZ only have to have a transponder to have access to CTA. Operations in control zones is included in pilot cert trg.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Mike, The only reason I can see why PPL holders and above (or GFPT) are not allowed to fly HP RAA registered aircraft is simply because the RAA would miss out on money as they would not have to pay membership fees to the RAA.

 

 

[poteroo]

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.

I'd think a fair guide to any CFI would be whether the CFI of the pilots' past school was also a GA rated instructor as well. I don't see any need for different 'levels' of BFR - my current expectation is that the pilot can conduct operations safely, regardless of licence, certificate or aircraft type or model.

 

happy days,

 

 

[stevron]

To all RA devotees, I am more than happy with the current situation, all I was pointing out is, a single engine 152 Cessna looks and in some way handles the same as my 610 lycoming powered brumby highwing but I can't fly the 152 but I lay money on it that I have the skills to fly it , I was not and am not talking about air rules ie controlled air space, just skills to fly planes and that VH reg jab is the same as RA reg jab etc. GA have ppl , cpl for VFR , IFR, these are pilot endorsements and they can fly a 152 but can not fly a RA plane but I bet they can . Thanks very one its been great talking to you all , we have seen some serious development in RA flight and one biggest thing i like about RA devotees have over GA is , RA pilots are a happy contented lot that enjoy more hours flying than a lot of Ga pilots and do it cheaper. Thanks I am moving on to the next topic , clear sky's Steve