Driver Licence Medical

[pmccarthy]

I was told that there is a critical date in December for the Driver Licence Medical exemption CASA ex68/12. Apparently after that date CASA might find it easier to move recreational flyers over to a limited GA licence and closer regulation. Is there anything in this or is it just pub talk?

 

 

[djpacro]

Exemption won't be needed as the new licensing rules come into effect in December.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The Sport Aviation section on the CASA website says quite a bit under pilots/sport aviation about RAAOs and its ability to terminate arrangements if they don't meet their safety obligations. So is it possible that after December we will all be required to migrate onto the new recreational GA licence? If that happened, what would become of aircraft registrations? Would they need to be Experimental? I'm told that Warbirds and RAAus cold both be reorganised because of incompetent leadership. I don't know enough about this to know whether the threat is real.

 

 

[coljones]

And the new recreational pilots licence (RPL) is more a restricted private licence than an Ultralight Licence issued by CASA. An RPL won't allow a pilot to fly an RAA registered plane unless you hold a RAA cert.

 

You can seek to mirror your RAA Cert. into an RPL, including endorsements, but this is subject to a successful CASA flight review.

 

There is a draft manual of standards under which GA flight training centres must operate and there will be local rules in operation. The devil will be in the detail. I expect that some orgs will welcome interest from RAA pilots and some will be oblivious to RAA. It will be worthwhile eyeballing a range of schools as December approaches to determine whether they are going to be helpful in the RAA to RPL transition or not.

 

In any case you will need a Drivers Licence (DL) medical or better for the RPL. The DL medical is not expensive and is much better than the one offered by the CFI or the people at the car licencing office or your mother.

 

(*notice the cheeky use of "and" to start the first sentence) ......* "you will, of course,"

 

 

[dazza 38]

And the new recreational pilots licence (RPL) is more a restricted private licence than an Ultralight Licence issued by CASA. An RPL won't allow a pilot to fly an RAA registered plane unless you hold a RAA cert.You can seek to mirror your RAA Cert. into an RPL, including endorsements, but this is subject to a successful CASA flight review.

 

There is a draft manual of standards under which GA flight training centres must operate and there will be local rules in operation. The devil will be in the detail. I expect that some orgs will welcome interest from RAA pilots and some will be oblivious to RAA. It will be worthwhile eyeballing a range of schools as December approaches to determine whether they are going to be helpful in the RAA to RPL transition or not.

 

In any case you will need a Drivers Licence (DL) medical or better for the RPL. The DL medical is not expensive and is much better than the one offered by the CFI or the people at the car licencing office or your mother.

 

(*notice the cheeky use of "and" to start the first sentence) ......* "you will, of course,"

It may be a good idea to seek out a dual RAA/GA school, for a GA flight review because some GA schools dislike the RAA and feel that the pilot may be disadvantaged .

 

 

[AlfaRomeo]

I was told that there is a critical date in December for the Driver Licence Medical exemption CASA ex68/12. Apparently after that date CASA might find it easier to move recreational flyers over to a limited GA licence and closer regulation. Is there anything in this or is it just pub talk?

At this stage I would say just pub talk but anything is possible in time. When the Board met with CASA yesterday, CASA made it plain that they wanted RA-Aus to be successful in managing its safety responsibilities. There was no suggestion of a takeover or a take-back of privileges other than as an absolute last resort. We should get a full report on that critical meeting on the RA-Aus website any day now

 

Interestingly, SAAA is asking CASA for the right to train and test for RPL. Similarly, RA-Aus will be looking to get approved to convert Pilot Certs to RPLs for those who want them. I might be interested in having both just to experience the heavier and potentially safer GA aircraft (up to 1,500 kg MTOW).

 

The RPL (Part 61) comes into force on 4 December 2013. CASA are doing the rounds and making presentations at the Aero Clubs over the next few months. Have a look on the CASA website for dates. I know Mudgee has one of the early ones on Tue 30 July.

 

 

[poteroo]

At this stage I would say just pub talk but anything is possible in time. When the Board met with CASA yesterday, CASA made it plain that they wanted RA-Aus to be successful in managing its safety responsibilities. There was no suggestion of a takeover or a take-back of privileges other than as an absolute last resort. We should get a full report on that critical meeting on the RA-Aus website any day now Interestingly, SAAA is asking CASA for the right to train and test for RPL. Similarly, RA-Aus will be looking to get approved to convert Pilot Certs to RPLs for those who want them. I might be interested in having both just to experience the heavier and potentially safer GA aircraft (up to 1,500 kg MTOW).

 

The RPL (Part 61) comes into force on 4 December 2013. CASA are doing the rounds and making presentations at the Aero Clubs over the next few months. Have a look on the CASA website for dates. I know Mudgee has one of the early ones on Tue 30 July.

The intent of Part 61 seems to be CASA finding a way to disguise that they made a colossal blunder back in 1990 when they did away with the Restricted PPL, (RPPL), and introduced the GFPT. This happened despite most instructors voicing opposition to it. Now, they will surreptitiously bring in the Recreational Pilot Licence,(RPL), and run a series of training seminars to inform us of this completely new concept. So much for 'consultation with industry'. And to add insult to injury - they have the temerity to name the RPL in such a way that it creates confusion with the real Recreational Pilot Certificate, (RPC). Just ask Google to look for these and you'll note that, like industry, it's also confused! But we all know that CASA thrives on ambiguity and the subsequent confusion and division of opinion within the industry.

 

I suggest that those of you who attend these meetings ask CASA why they just don't 'fess up, and name the RPL for what it really is - the Restricted Pilot Licence. Then, once the navigation qualification is completed - it converts to an unrestricted PPL, (UPPL,or just PPL). If it is CASA's intention, and even da Vinci wouldn't care to prognosticate on that, to create a truly recreational sector, then we need to hear that. There is no reason why it couldn't be done by merging our RPC into an RPL and then a PPL without CTA priveliges. Then there will be the question of what level of aircraft build and maintenance would be allowable to permit training of all pilots. Would current RAA 24 rego's be allowed to train RPL's? I'm told it's really just paperwork, gasp!!. as most modern LSA and RAA aircraft are equipped more than adequately to train a day VFR pilot not needing any IFR instruction.

 

Everyone is just guessing at how it will all work in relation to the conversions GA to RAA and I'm here to say that CFI's are all IFR as well! I expect that it will be a shifting situation where changes are introduced on the run. There will be rulings, exemptions, delegations and all sorts of artifices to disguise what should have been good regulation in the first instance. Yes, it will probably be easier for those of us lucky enough to be dual qualified and operating joint GA+RAA schools to make some progress with this. Any argument should turn on the word competency. I for one, am amazed that we have a regulator, and an industry, still happy to talk the competency talk, yet walk the old minimum hours walk. It's quite incompatible to be applying minimum times to skills which should be recognised on competency alone. Competency is competency - the hours minima is just extortion!

 

Now to the SAAA role in this. Forget about the RPL per se - what they are really seeking is to allow their own internally chosen instructors, (PPL or higher), to conduct transition training on amateur built aircraft, ie experimental, all of which should be possible under the new Part 61. Yes, a PPL will be able to instruct in formation, low level, and aerobatics, and probably on design feature endorsements such as tailwheel, floating hull etc. But under 61 there will be certain requirements - it does not appear to be open slather where old mates train old mates. The other part of the SAAA application is to allow these same instructors to conduct BFR's on the same aircraft category - which may be a more contentious step. My understanding is that CASA have spent over 3 years in discussion on this - and have yet to fully agree to the details. NB: this is not the same as the transition training rules that EAA has been able to introduce with the blessing of the FAA. That is a quite different approach - allowing approved, (but already qualified), instructors to use their own experimental category aircraft for transition and review flying.

 

And in regards to comment made previously about use of RAA aircraft, or experimental aircraft, for travel purposes - it's all about what constitutes a commercial v's a private operation. In GA, you can travel to see clients without having more than a PPL because the flying is only secondary to your role as a professional. Some would argue that a person may win employment over others because of holding a flying qualification, and that means the person is acting in a commercial manner. The test is whether the flying is only secondary, and the pilot is unpaid for the flying activity.You can carry your tools of trade, be they paper, tools, sample goods. But, if you decide to buy an Airvan and deliver even your own goods around the country - that's commercial and you need a CPL and AOC. Under RAA there's no restriction on using your aircraft for travel - the purpose of which is unspecified. And, we know the RAA aircraft can't be used for 'charter' - but that does bring into question the practice of 'joyflights' which are really charter if dollars change hands. That's for another place.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Some would argue that a person may win employment over others because of holding a flying qualification, and that means the person is acting in a commercial manner. The test is whether the flying is only secondary, and the pilot is unpaid for the flying activity.You can carry your tools of trade, be they paper, tools, sample goods. But, if you decide to buy an Airvan and deliver even your own goods around the country - that's commercial and you need a CPL and AOC. Under RAA there's no restriction on using your aircraft for travel - the purpose of which is unspecified. And, we know the RAA aircraft can't be used for 'charter' - but that does bring into question the practice of 'joyflights' which are really charter if dollars change hands. That's for another place.

Regarding the buying an Airvan and delivering your own goods around the country - surely that's Aerial Work and can be done on a PPL if you're not getting paid for it. I understood it would only be Commercial Aerial Work if you were hiring out your services for those deliveries i.e. for hire and reward, and only then would you would need an AOC?

 

 

[poteroo]

Regarding the buying an Airvan and delivering your own goods around the country - surely that's Aerial Work and can be done on a PPL if you're not getting paid for it. I understood it would only be Commercial Aerial Work if you were hiring out your services for those deliveries i.e. for hire and reward, and only then would you would need an AOC?

You are correct re aerial work but there are many shades of grey. The fact is that you have no restrictions at all with using any form of aviation to move yourself around in order to carry out your business activities. I'm sure this applies in both RAA and GA. There are many PPL's and PC's doing just that with reportedly no difficulties with ATO or CASA.

 

CORRECTION: I mentioned in para 4 of my first post that there would be an opportunity for PPL's to do low level - that's incorrect. The draft legislation says only CPL and ATPL.

 

Just looked at the original draft legislation re Part 61 and found this:

 

61.425 Grant of recreational pilot licences in recognition of pilot certificates issued by certain organisations. (87)

 

I won't type it all into here, but it states that your PC, (assuming RAAus is such an organisation), can be acceptable for the grant of an RPL, including the category rating, the class rating,and the design features on your PC. It appears to say that your PC obviates the need for any theory or flight test as indicated in 61.420 (2) of the doc. This where we need to see just how the final Part 61 reads, ie, is it the same or has it been diluted? If so - it appears to me that there is a straight conversion path to RPL.

 

happy days,

 

 

[coljones]

snip snip snipJust looked at the original draft legislation re Part 61 and found this:

 

61.425 Grant of recreational pilot licences in recognition of pilot certificates issued by certain organisations. (87)

 

I won't type it all into here, but it states that your PC, (assuming RAAus is such an organisation), can be acceptable for the grant of an RPL, including the category rating, the class rating,and the design features on your PC. It appears to say that your PC obviates the need for any theory or flight test as indicated in 61.420 (2) of the doc. This where we need to see just how the final Part 61 reads, ie, is it the same or has it been diluted? If so - it appears to me that there is a straight conversion path to RPL.

 

happy days,

It is designed to be a clean conversion of your certificate and endorsements BUT you ARE REQUIRED to do a flight review (and, therein, the devil may be well in the detail)