interpretation of CAO 95.55 (Training Aircraft)

[corvairkr]

Hi All,

 

I'm having a discussion with RAA head office regarding the interpretation of CAO 95.55 section 6 and what aircraft can be used for training.I have recently bought an Xair i hold a pilot certificate and was hoping to do my cross country endorsement in it.Not a massive drama if i cant ill just use the school aircraft it just would have worked out a bit cheaper.

 

My interpretation as was Lee Ungermann's when he was operations manager is that you must do your initial training in a factory built "24" rego aircraft to PILOT CERTIFICATE level UNLESS you built the aircraft yourself or were part of a group of builders in which case you could start from scratch in your "19" rego aircraft.

 

Then once you had gained your pilot certificate future endorsements could be completed in your "19" rego aircraft whether you built it or not, as long as your instructor was prepared to train you in it.

 

The current administration say all training must be in a Factory built unless built by the owner, including future endorsements.

 

Below the the CAO 6.1 (a) (ii) states only a PILOT CERTIFICATE and no additional endorsements are to be conducted in a factory built aircraft.

 

6.1 The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, are subject to the following general conditions:

 

 

 

(a) the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than:

 

 

 

(i) private operations including glider towing but not aerial application operations; or

 

 

 

(ii) if the aeroplane has been wholly built and assembled by a commercial manufacturer — flying training to enable a person to obtain a pilot certificate;

 

 

 

6.2 In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training.

 

So what are your interpretations? can a pilot certificate holder gain their cross country endorsement in their own "19" rego aircraft ?

 

Jason

 

 

[frank marriott]

Have a look at definition of aerial application operations in CASR 137

 

 

[DWF]

Have a look at definition of aerial application operations in CASR 137

Why?

 

Aerial application ops are ag ops. eg cropdusting

 

They have nothing to do with RAAus flying training.

 

 

 

The question is what is the intention of the CAO?

 

 

 

To me it looks like you can't use a 19- aircraft for (any) flying training unless you built it yourself; however it is probably one of those questions the lawyers/judges will sort out at the subsequent inquiry.

 

 

 

DWF

 

 

[frank marriott]

Yep - Disregard my post above.

 

For some reason I was reading aerial application as a new term for AWK - (Too many amendments in licensing at present , expecting changes)

 

Information is wrong , needs removing.

 

 

[bilby54]

The current administration say all training must be in a Factory built unless built by the owner, including future endorsements.

Below the the CAO 6.1 (a) (ii) states only a PILOT CERTIFICATE and no additional endorsements are to be conducted in a factory built aircraft. Jason

Ah, they have changed their mind again!!!

 

You are correct and need to get a legal definition for 'Training' and for 'endorsement'. For some reason or other, they are making things over complicated

 

 

[fly_tornado]

re training in a #19 aircraft

 

Can do an endorsement in the aircraft but not until you have been issued

 

with Pilot Certificate.

 

Regards,

 

Mick Poole Feb 2010

 

 

[bilby54]

re training in a #19 aircraftCan do an endorsement in the aircraft but not until you have been issued

 

with Pilot Certificate.

 

Regards,

 

Mick Poole Feb 2010

Exactly!!

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Would training for your cross country or other endorsement be considered private operations or some other type of operation (i.e. training), therefore wouldn't come under:

 

(i) private operations including glider towing but not aerial application operations

 

Just what I came up with after a first read. You could also argue it wouldn't come under (ii) therefore it must be considered a private operation, unless it was there intention not to let you gain any endorsements after your pilot certificate of your own built aircraft.

 

 

[REastwood]

This is another case of the Operations "Team" thinking that they are the sole interpreters of the operations manual and corresponding regulations. They think that their policy is the law, despite what the regulations actually say, or what the operations manual says. I have previously written to the board pointing out this arrogance in relation to a similar matter, but nothing has been done in writing despite the fact that those board members I spoke to agreed with my reasoning. When will the Operations "Team" start standing up for the members rather than trying to limit what we are allowed to do according to the regulations?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

it depends if the law written only to define what's illegal, everything else must be legal.

 

 

[corvairkr]

I have been giving this some more thought .Head office have gone from a totally logical common sense workable approach to a potential safety and legal minefield which i think needs to be addressed ,probably a little over dramatic but something worth considering .

 

We have reverted from being able to obtain further training post pilot certificate to none at all in "19" rego aircraft (unless built by the owner) with no explanation as to why.I would like to think the decision came down from above and was not the interpretation of a single RAA staffer as they are meant to be trying to find avenues to make it easier and safer for all of us not harder.

 

So endorsements aside, if a new pilot or any pilot for that matter buys a second hand "19" rego aircraft and its a new type for them and they want to do the right thing and stack the odds in their favor by getting some dual time with an experienced pilot ....they cant.

 

We have this idiotic state of affairs where the instructor cant do it because its "19" rego.

 

So what about plan B and find an experienced pilot to ride shotgun? To the letter of the law wouldn't they then be deemed to be masquerading as an instructor and what would the ramifications be if you rolled the aircraft up in a ball ? in Ga land it would be near enough to instructing for a type endorsement and i wouldn't think it would be to hard for a litigious party to build a case if they so wanted.

 

If a trained professional instructor is willing to jump in an "19" rego aircraft and instruct whether it was built by the owner or not surely that is up to them and RAA should be moving heaven and earth to make it possible .

 

So what are the other options to legally transition safely into second hand "19" aircraft ?

 

Jason

 

 

[djpacro]

CASA defines "training" in the regs.

 

Not all dual with an instructor is training.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

safety versus profits. I think we all know where the RAA stands

 

 

[facthunter]

You don't like the RAAus f t? Some of your posts have to be disregarded as looking like you are a troll. Your above statement is BS. If you believe it back it up with facts. I don't know where the RAAus stands . Enlighten me. Nev..

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Move on Nev m8 move on

 

 

[Downunder]

So what about BFR's. Are people getting them in their own purchased 19 rego aircraft? Is this training?

 

Or in 24 club aircraft?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its all has to be illegal, if the RAA catch your instructor in your #19 plane they could loose there teaching privileges and you no doubt might be severely penalised.

 

 

[M61A1]

Its all has to be illegal, if the RAA catch your instructor in your #19 plane they could loose there teaching privileges and you no doubt might be severely penalised.

How would that be so? You may be hiring the instructor,but you're not hiring the aircraft. I think the legislation is designed to stop amateur built aircraft being put online at flying schools, not to stop YOU training in YOUR own aircraft.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

That's what you would think, that's the common sense approach but is that now happening? Check with your local rep

 

 

[M61A1]

For the original question ......the tech manual 3.3.1-3 "existing aircraft" para's 2&3 , allow the "owner to be trained for a pilot certificate. I you go to the ops manual, sect 2.05 & 2.07, endorsements are "levels" of the pilot certificate. If they don't want people to do it, they better change the rules, because the rules say you can. Have a read.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

For the original question ......the tech manual 3.3.1-3 "existing aircraft" para's 2&3 , allow the "owner to be trained for a pilot certificate. I you go to the ops manual, sect 2.05 & 2.07, endorsements are "levels" of the pilot certificate. If they don't want people to do it, they better change the rules, because the rules say you can. Have a read.

Despite what the Tech Manual says, the CAO doesn't allow it and that would take precedence.

 

The Tech manual is currently being rewritten so perhaps this is one of the contradictions which is being clarified (& hence the apparent change of policy from RAAus HQ) ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[M61A1]

Despite what the Tech Manual says, the CAO doesn't allow it and that would take precedence.The Tech manual is currently being rewritten so perhaps this is one of the contradictions which is being clarified (& hence the apparent change of policy from RAAus HQ) ?

Cheers

 

John

According to CAO 95.55 para 6.2, if you pull assemble it it'll be ok. So with that sort of rule you could disassemble it then put it back together, then it's all fine.

 

 

[corvairkr]

For the original question ......the tech manual 3.3.1-3 "existing aircraft" para's 2&3 , allow the "owner to be trained for a pilot certificate. I you go to the ops manual, sect 2.05 & 2.07, endorsements are "levels" of the pilot certificate. If they don't want people to do it, they better change the rules, because the rules say you can. Have a read.

Thanks Mate....i didn't see that at all i'll ask head office for some clarification on it and let everyone know,at the moment its just a can of worms.

Jason

 

 

[M61A1]

Despite what the Tech Manual says, the CAO doesn't allow it and that would take precedence.The Tech manual is currently being rewritten so perhaps this is one of the contradictions which is being clarified (& hence the apparent change of policy from RAAus HQ) ?

Cheers

 

John

According to CAO 95.55 para 6.2, if you pull assemble it it'll be ok. So with that sort of rule you could disassemble it then put it back together, then it's all fine.

I must've not proof read what I wrote there, too late to edit..... CAO 95.55 para 6.2 says if you ( or a group) assemble it, you can use it for training. To assemble it, you may need to disassemble it.

 

Not such a big deal with an X-Air.

 

Yes, I'm nit picking. I wouldn't expect CASA to say "Oh, it'll be OK then".

 

 

[winsor68]

Informative yet again...my observation is that few within Ra Aus seems to have any solid idea of the rules...

 

Should this be a concern?