CASR Pt 61 RPL - 25Nm limit?

[Head in the clouds]

I'm sure I must be missing something here but I have searched the site and can't find that this has been answered elsewhere, and I've only just started to have a look at the new licencing structure of Pt 61.

 

At face value it would seem that holders of the new RPL can only fly within 25Nm of the departure point and I can't find anywhere saying that you can get a cross-country endorsement. The relevant passage is shown below and links to the Handbook and Reg.

 

I can't see that an RPL would be any use with an area restriction. Can anyone shed some light on this please?

 

Changes to Licence types

 

CASR Pt 61 Pilot Licencing Booklet

 

From 'Licence Types' -

 

For a recreational pilot licence (RPL) you must be at least 16 years old. You must have a current medical certificate (this may be either Class 1 or 2, or a recreational aviation medical). However, there are conditions on the number of passengers you can carry if you hold a recreational aviation medical certificate only.

 

Applicants must:

 

• have 25 hours’ flight time (comprising 20 hours dual and five hours solo),
   
   
  
• pass an aeronautical exam with the associated rating,
   
   
  
• pass a flight test.
   
   
  

 

 

RPL holders are limited to:

 

• 25nm from the aerodrome where the flight began, the designated training area, or a direct route between the two,
   
   
  
• day VFR private operations in a single engine aircraft. If an individual already holds a pilot certificate issued by a recreational aviation administration organisation or a GFPT, they will be able to exercise the privileges of a RPL after they have conducted a flight review.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[djpacro]

Currently overseas on my iPad so relying on my poor memory: effectively, the RPL replaces the GFPT. Do the nav training and get a PPL. Look at the part of the reg dealing with medicals - if only a driver licence medical rather than Class 2 then additional restrictions apply.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You might be referring to a Restricted Pilot Licence HITC

 

 

[frank marriott]

Try reading 61.470

 

(1)

 

(b).........................

 

only if the holder also holds a recreational navigation endorsement.

 

Only my opinion of reading the section, not fact, but as I see it a RPL holder can do a nav endorsement without doing the PPL licence - what the difference is will be in the detail.

 

Again only my unqualified opinion, but I see the possibility of a RAA certificate holder [with Xcountry end.] using the listed recognised qualifications obtaining a RPL after doing the GA flight review, and doing a CTA endorsement and [with a suitably certified and instrumented aircraft] gaining CTA access.

 

This is assuming the RAA Xcountry endor. is also recognised to give a "recreational navigation endorsement". There is a few assumptions there and may well be WRONG. A suitably qualified CFI would have or will have guidelines relating to this [again another assumption only]

 

I haven't attempted to get a ruling on this as it doesn't apply to myself [hold CPL] but you can read it and form your own opinion - and if interested seek qualified advice.

 

All this not before December anyway.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

You might be referring to a Restricted Pilot Licence HITC

No, that's a PPL® or RPPL, which will/has been replaced by the GFPT (General Flying Progress Test). See my OP, the RPL is the Recreational Pilot Licence, the second half of that post is a direct copy/paste from the CASA site - see the links also posted.

 

It would appear that as DJP has said above, that the RPL is nothing more than an interim step and the only use of the 4th Dec changes to many of us is that we can use our CPLs and PPLs with a car driver's medical (instead of Class 1 or 2) to fly GA planes at reduced weight ( 1500kg (ish?) instead of 5700kg) with one pax only. So those of us with a CPL or PPL won't be bothering with getting an RPL at all. And anyone who does get an RPL either does so as a stepping stone to a PPL or plans to fly circuits for the rest of their life.

 

Like I said I must be missing something, I can't believe they'd bring out a new licence so people can fly circuits ... but there's no reference that I can find to doing navs for a XC endorse.

 

Try reading 61.470(1)

(b).........................

 

only if the holder also holds a recreational navigation endorsement.

 

Only my opinion of reading the section, not fact, but as I see it a RPL holder can do a nav endorsement without doing the PPL licence - what the difference is will be in the detail.

 

...........

Yes perhaps, my interest is also for the future up and coming pilots - if they choose to start flying and gain a RPL to fly light GA planes and with one pax, this licence doesn't seem to offer any means of doing a nav and/or XC endorse, so what's the use of it? Do those people have to also join RAA or another recflying organisation and get their pilot certificate so that they can do their navs so that they can get a XC endorse (which doesn't seem to exist) on their RPL?

 

I haven't attempted to get a ruling on this as it doesn't apply to myself [hold CPL] but you can read it and form your own opinion - and if interested seek qualified advice.All this not before December anyway.

Yes, December is only a couple of months away. I'm CPL too but I'm still interested in how the industry is going to move in the future. I had visions of a lot of folk starting with a Rec Pilot Licence and some going on to PPL, CPL, whatever, and some perhaps staying Rec, but who would ever stay Rec if they can't go anywhere? Come to that how many people won't even bother flying at all if they only considered aiming for Rec and then discover they won't be able to go anywhere without going on to the full expense of a PPL?

 

 

[Neil_S]

I'm sure I must be missing something here but I have searched the site and can't find that this has been answered elsewhere, and I've only just started to have a look at the new licencing structure of Pt 61.At face value it would seem that holders of the new RPL can only fly within 25Nm of the departure point and I can't find anywhere saying that you can get a cross-country endorsement. The relevant passage is shown below and links to the Handbook and Reg.

 

I can't see that an RPL would be any use with an area restriction. Can anyone shed some light on this please?

 

Changes to Licence types

 

CASR Pt 61 Pilot Licencing Booklet

 

From 'Licence Types' -

 

For a recreational pilot licence (RPL) you must be at least 16 years old. You must have a current medical certificate (this may be either Class 1 or 2, or a recreational aviation medical). However, there are conditions on the number of passengers you can carry if you hold a recreational aviation medical certificate only.

 

Applicants must:

 

• have 25 hours’ flight time (comprising 20 hours dual and five hours solo),
   
   
  
• pass an aeronautical exam with the associated rating,
   
   
  
• pass a flight test.
   
   
  

 

 

RPL holders are limited to:

 

• 25nm from the aerodrome where the flight began, the designated training area, or a direct route between the two,
   
   
  
• day VFR private operations in a single engine aircraft. If an individual already holds a pilot certificate issued by a recreational aviation administration organisation or a GFPT, they will be able to exercise the privileges of a RPL after they have conducted a flight review.
   
   
  

Hi HITC,

 

I attended one of the CASA lectures about this stuff. Holders of the RPL can subsequently get a XC endorsement, same as RA-Aus certificate holders. So no problem there that I can see. They can also get a Controlled Airspace (CTA) and Controlled Aerodrome (CTR) endorsement, which we can't.

 

To be sure, I suggest you contact CASA - the 2 guys doing the talk I attended were very happy to take questions by phone or email.

 

They were Michael White and Tim Penney

 

[email protected] and [email protected]

 

Cheers

 

Neil

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Hi HITC,I attended one of the CASA lectures about this stuff. Holders of the RPL can subsequently get a XC endorsement, same as RA-Aus certificate holders. So no problem there that I can see. They can also get a Controlled Airspace (CTA) and Controlled Aerodrome (CTR) endorsement, which we can't.

 

To be sure, I suggest you contact CASA - the 2 guys doing the talk I attended were very happy to take questions by phone or email.

 

They were Michael White and Tim Penney

 

[email protected] and [email protected]

 

Cheers

 

Neil

OK, thanks Neil, I'll give them a call because if you have a look through the two links I posted in the OP, there is a complete list of all possible Ratings, Categories, Features, Type Endorsements and Operational Endorsements and absolutely no mention of a Nav or XC endorse for any Licence level and a very specific restriction to 25Nm made as the first of only two items permitted by having an RPL.

 

I knew about the CTA endorse through other discussions, but also haven't been able to find where that is detailed, so I guess both endorses are mentioned somewhere ... a bit strange though, that they're not mentioned in either the Handbook or the description of Licence Types.

 

I'll post what MW or TP have to say. Cheers.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The real issue as I see it : What would be the cost saving between a RPL [with Xcountry endorsement] and a normal PPL, very little if anything I would suspect.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just the saving on the medical cost. Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

Big savings to be had over PPL. The endorsements are found in Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1):

 

61.485 Kinds of recreational pilot licence endorsements

 

The following are recreational pilot licence endorsements:

 

(a) a controlled aerodrome endorsement;

 

(b) a controlled airspace endorsement;

 

© a flight radio endorsement;

 

(d) a recreational navigation endorsement.

 

You can get one or all of the endorsements. Cross-country endorsement is 5 hours same as RA-Aus. I know a school at Bankstown is already looking to put online a GA registered Jabiru, Tecnam or Sportstar to take full advantage of the RPL. Anyone with a GA licence will simply be able to "fall back" to the RPL at any time without undergoing any additional training or tests. For many an hour or two in a Sportstar will be enough and they'll be off and flying!

 

 

[djpacro]

Thanks 68, my memory had failed me.

 

 

[frank marriott]

1. if the endorsement is a recreational navigation endorsement—have completed, in addition to the flight time mentioned in paragraph 61.475 (2) (d), at least 5 hours of solo cross-country flight time; and
    
    
   Same as the listed min for PPL. Plus the training.
    
    
    
   

 

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

yes, ive had a good look into it as i was concerned about the claims "its gunna be the end of the RAA".. Alas, there is no smoking gun, its all a bit of a stuff around and seems to me they have pretty much ended up in the same place after a lap around the block..With a few minor exceptions.

 

 

[David Isaac]

My understanding was that an RA Aus Pilot certificate would only give you a base RPL equivalent to the old GA GFPT with the 25NM limit. If you want to do cross country or CTA you have to do the PPL endorsements for same (there is no RA Aus CTA endorsement) and the PPL x country endorsement is a lot more onerous than the RA Aus one. My understanding is the RPL is no where near what it has been cracked up to be and will NOT see a large migration from RA Aus.

 

If you cant hold down a Class 2 medical you wont get a CASA approved drivers medical either and would need to resort to class 2 medical resolution processes such "as or with co-pilot" endorsements.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

In case you hadn't noticed by now, you don't get much off the government without there being a LOT of strings attached, and CASA is just a branch of government. I'm more than happy with what the RAA privileges allow me to do currently, and am not in the least interested in some chintzy CASA pumped-up RPL.

 

The original recreational pilots license in the US is a very workable idea, because it was very clear and kept as simple as it needs to be. KISS theory applies here !!..

 

In true CASA style they will take a simple idea, complicate it unnecessarily , and by the time it hits the street, it won't be worth having !......read: all the same hoops as needed to get a PPL but in sheepskin clothing.....thanks but no thanks...........Maj...

 

 

[facthunter]

They're not happy, till you're not happy. I just think they don't get it. No imagination No need to. Their "charter" doesn't include promoting or advancing AVIATION. That is where the problem starts. The "regulator' does what? Regulates... No more, no less. The problem goes back to the legislation. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

My understanding was that an RA Aus Pilot certificate would only give you a base RPL equivalent to the old GA GFPT with the 25NM limit. If you want to do cross country or CTA you have to do the PPL endorsements for same (there is no RA Aus CTA endorsement) and the PPL x country endorsement is a lot more onerous than the RA Aus one. My understanding is the RPL is no where near what it has been cracked up to be and will NOT see a large migration from RA Aus.If you cant hold down a Class 2 medical you wont get a CASA approved drivers medical either and would need to resort to class 2 medical resolution processes such "as or with co-pilot" endorsements.

 

In case you hadn't noticed by now, you don't get much off the government without there being a LOT of strings attached, and CASA is just a branch of government. I'm more than happy with what the RAA privileges allow me to do currently, and am not in the least interested in some chintzy CASA pumped-up RPL.The original recreational pilots license in the US is a very workable idea, because it was very clear and kept as simple as it needs to be. KISS theory applies here !!..

In true CASA style they will take a simple idea, complicate it unnecessarily , and by the time it hits the street, it won't be worth having !......read: all the same hoops as needed to get a PPL but in sheepskin clothing.....thanks but no thanks...........Maj...

 

They're not happy, till you're not happy. I just think they don't get it. No imagination No need to. Their "charter" doesn't include promoting or advancing AVIATION. That is where the problem starts. The "regulator' does what? Regulates... No more, no less. The problem goes back to the legislation. Nev

Hang on folks ... lets stick to the facts. Volksy provided the information for us to find out what the truth of it is - the endorse info is in Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2013 (No. 1):

 

If you download the Legislative Instrument (top link of the three on the page) and start reading at Pt61.460 -

 

61.480 deals with the transfer of a pilot certificate to an RPL

 

61.500 deals with transfer of XC endorse from pilot certificate to RPL (and transfer of other endorses incl flight radio)

 

So let's not make out it's worse than it is before arming ourselves with the relevant documentation.

 

Now that I've had the source document pointed out to me it all seems to be a very workable situation. Several people have already got their car driver's medical and all have said it was a painless affair, that means many RAA people could get an RPL with Radio and XC endorses simply by applying for it and then go and do the CTA and Controlled Aerodrome endorses (only if they wanted them), re-register their planes as GA experimental and not have to pay aircraft Rego or RAA fees ever again.

 

And - that exodus would take the pressure off RAA's rego debacle and let RAA get back to doing what I think it should be doing - overseeing ultralights! Yay!

 

 

[David Isaac]

HITC,

 

My understanding, which means just that ... is that it is not that easy, if not so onerous as to be not really viable, to transfer an aircarft from RA Aus rego to GA 'VH' Exp. The reverse of course is a simple process if you are within the weight limits.

 

Whilst many RA Aus pilots may be able to get the CASA version of the Drivers Medical, many will not. Those that can get a CASA Drivers license medical are also highly likely to be able to get a CASA Class 2 medical ... so where is the advantage other than being able to get a CASA Drivers license medical from any GP.?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

HITC, I hear what you are saying and would agree that there would be some who now fly under the RAA banner, Probabily better off with RPL.

 

However many like myself, are quite happy right where they are now, and have not been crying out for any improvements, and the RPL doesn't appear to offer many over the current RAA freedoms. Many really can't see the hill for the trees, and what we really have right now is a 'Recreational Pilots License' in respect to what it allows us to do.

 

Sorry but CASA does not have a history of doing things for our benefit, so it is very much a case of buyer beware. I stand by the words of my post # 15, and only time will tell. if I'm barking up the right tree or not. I'll stick it on the fridge door for reference in about two years time................Maj...

 

 

[frank marriott]

"that means many RAA people could get an RPL with Radio and XC endorses simply by applying for it "

 

It may not be that simple. The statement from CASA rep at the presentation last night "do a GA flight review to see they are up to standard" may be a stumbling block, at least for some. From my observations quite a few Xcountry endorsements (especially from years ago) were very basic and would fall short of the "up to standard" required.

 

I note the syllabus being applied now (by most schools anyway) would comply but it certainly wouldn't be seamless across the wider numbers. But then if those with the old ultra light very basic endorsements don't wish to convert it may never raise it's head.

 

I don't see the new RPL as a threat to RAA certificates - just another option to fly heavier aircraft and/or gain CTA access for those few that may want to. In my case for example I need a RAA certificate to fly my RAA aircraft and not interested in changing rego.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

HITC,My understanding, which means just that ... is that it is not that easy, if not so onerous as to be not really viable, to transfer an aircarft from RA Aus rego to GA 'VH' Exp. The reverse of course is a simple process if you are within the weight limits.

Whilst many RA Aus pilots may be able to get the CASA version of the Drivers Medical, many will not. Those that can get a CASA Drivers license medical are also highly likely to be able to get a CASA Class 2 medical ... so where is the advantage other than being able to get a CASA Drivers license medical from any GP.?

Sorry David, no offence meant to anyone.

 

Previously you said "My understanding was that an RA Aus Pilot certificate would only give you a base RPL equivalent to the old GA GFPT with the 25NM limit. If you want to do cross country or CTA you have to do the PPL endorsements for same" that is what I was referring to i.e. no you don't have to do the PPL XC endorse, your RAA one would transfer over automatically. EDIT - Frank responded while I was writing this - yes I can see that they may want to check the extent of some peoples' nav training, particularly those only trained in some of the early days ultralight schools. Many people rely solely on GPS these days and might be a bit 'lost' if the satellites switched off and they had to revert suddenly to procedural nav ...

 

 

 

Above you say "Whilst many RA Aus pilots may be able to get the CASA version of the Drivers Medical, many will not". OK, if you submit that is the case, should those people be driving a car if they wouldn't pass a driver's medical? And more to the point, if they were a bit suspect about whether they would pass a driver's medical should they be signing the annual RAA statement confirming that they are fit to drive a car? Why would these people that you suggest are OK to fly an LSA under RAA not be able to pass a Driver's Medical? There's no ECG in a driver's medical as far as I know and cardiac conditions would be the main matter for concern wouldn't they?

 

 

 

As far as transferring an LSA to GA exp. I hear you. I hadn't considered that side of it. It'd be no problem if you build it from an ELSA kit and first register it as VH, different matter of course.

 

 

 

 

Sorry but CASA does not have a history of doing things for our benefit, so it is very much a case of buyer beware.

 

 

Perhaps the experiences with CASA vary according to how different people have approached them. I have had some excellent outcomes when dealing with them and the ones that weren't so good were at least perfectly fair.

 

 

 

In 1990 I was completing my CPL(H) and found that I could reduce my required heli flight training hours by 35hrs if I had a PPL(A). The PPL was 45 hrs but the hours were much less expensive so there was a cost saving. However I already had a couple of thousand hours ultralight time including instructing so I didn't feel I should need to have to be taught to fly again. Consequently I submitted an application for a dispensation to reduce the hours in the PPL training as a reduction for Rec hours facility didn't exist at the time. They approved the dispensation and allowed me to go straight to the flight test without any training hours at all, so I chose to do an hour's training to get to know the Cherokee and passed the flight test the same day and I saved a small fortune.

 

 

 

Later I set up my own helicopter 'airline' with several remote bases, AOC (ASL) etc and the Regulator was of great assistance in providing information to help me to get my Company Ops Manuals correct and approved, they also gave a lot of help in my personal preparation as CP and for the fleet check and training. And, with the right advance notice my requests for operational dispensations were nearly always granted, as was flexibility in the timing of annual Ops Inspections/Audits to fit around my busy seasonal work.

 

 

 

What CASA doesn't get along well with is people who only get to know half the Regs or Orders and then harangue them with incorrect information. If you take the time to be certain of your subject, which is what I started this thread for, and approach them duly respecting that they do know their job almost certainly better than anyone else, then you will generally find them to be extremely helpful. As I see it, it's a bit like dealing with the police. People who are not sure of their legal position tend to fear them and keep well clear, staying under their radar so to speak, others find that the police are a wonderful asset to society because they recognise the anarchy that would result if we didn't have them.

 

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

That old brindle dog living under the house has learnt the hard way over the years, to stay well away from the ever- changing and moody old cat. The many scars on his nose are testament that his decision is well founded.

 

Until the old cat dies, and is replaced by a much friendlier new cat, he will be happy to stay under the house and not make too much fuss..............Maj....

 

 

[peter]

Epilepsy, seizure free for 2 years = fit to drive a car

 

Renal colic/calculi = fit to drive a car

 

Type 1 diabetes, no daytime hypoglaecaemic attacks = fit to drive a car

 

Cancer in remission = fit to drive a car

 

Cancer undergoing therapy, in many cases = fit to drive a car

 

There will still be a very big gap between the standard for RAA and a class 2 medical or the new RPL " drivers license " medical

 

Peter

 

 

[68volksy]

Does anyone know where the RA-Aus medical requirements are documented? There's a niggling little thought in my mind that they require the holder of a Pilot Certificate to be fit to drive a motor vehicle also? Just wondering if the legislation also infers that they need to be able to pass a drivers licence medical?

 

Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see the RA-Aus requirements change as if a person is not fit to drive a motor vehicle then they're not really fit to take control of an aircraft are they? It just seems to be a rather obvious loophole with extremely severe consequences...

 

Edit: Just found this document on the old RA-Aus website http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/students/AFTDrive.pdf

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Does anyone know where the RA-Aus medical requirements are documented? There's a niggling little thought in my mind that they require the holder of a Pilot Certificate to be fit to drive a motor vehicle also? Just wondering if the legislation also infers that they need to be able to pass a drivers licence medical?Personally I wouldn't be surprised to see the RA-Aus requirements change as if a person is not fit to drive a motor vehicle then they're not really fit to take control of an aircraft are they? It just seems to be a rather obvious loophole with extremely severe consequences...

My point exactly - and every time someone renews their pilot certificate (annually) they have to sign a 'self-assessment' form in which they state that they are fit to drive a car. Which means, as I pointed out in post #20 above, that if you happily sign that statement at renewal time each year, and you're not actually capable of passing the RPL Driver's Medical then you are in breach and liable for action to be taken against you by any injured party if anything happens ... and for Criminal (or maybe it would be Civil, I'm not a lawyer) prosecution too, even if anything doesn't happen but you are just found to be insufficiently healthy to pass a Driver's Medical.