RPL Announced (again)

[Roundsounds]

I find it interesting to read many RAAus pilots seem to be under the impression the CASA rules and regs only apply to GA pilots. Aside from those mentioned in a couple of exemptions, most of the CASA rules and regs apply to all aviators.

 

 

[Spriteah]

Isn't the RAA a member organisation? And if so then if enough members what more privileges then are they not entitled? Going off Geoffs comments he should be flying under 500ft and not crossing roads, is that what you do? Or are you now happy and do not desire more change? If that is the case I dare to say sounds very selfish.

 

Just because you are happy does not mean we all have to be happy. My two cents worth is change is good (sometimes) and the more privileges we can get the better. However, I do not support mandatory further training and compulsory endorsement with one exception = maintenance. If you want to maintain your own plane I do want you to be able to demonstrate that you have that skill set.

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I thought this branch of aviation was called RECREATIONAL ? I read here with horror about 1500kgs mtow, RPL's, transponders, aviation medicals , desire for flight in controlled airspace, What the hell is going on? When I got my certificate 8 years ago I thought i was joining up with a bunch of blokes that wanted to fly aeroplanes (WTF does that word come with a red underscore?) as simply as possible , to stay far away from complex regulations. If I had wanted to meet with and socialise with GA pilots I would have joined something else. So why don't you blokes go and form a society for the adoration of G.A. And let Recreational pilots have the enjoyment of flying as unregulated as possible?....................

I thought this branch of aviation was called RECREATIONAL ? I read here with horror about 1500kgs mtow, RPL's, transponders, aviation medicals , desire for flight in controlled airspace, What the hell is going on? When I got my certificate 8 years ago I thought i was joining up with a bunch of blokes that wanted to fly aeroplanes (WTF does that word come with a red underscore?) as simply as possible , to stay far away from complex regulations. If I had wanted to meet with and socialise with GA pilots I would have joined something else. So why don't you blokes go and form a society for the adoration of G.A. And let Recreational pilots have the enjoyment of flying as unregulated as possible?....................

You can blame Middo for all this GA wamnbe crap. He regularly preached in his magazine blurb about his "tomorrow the world" dreams. He also has a problem with CASA after he got a DCM when he worked for them. Of course all the GA rejects cheered him on.

 

 

[coljones]

snip snip snip " I transit Williamstown now, often. Don't know about Coffs , Haven't been there yet." snip snip snip

You transit Williamtown? In a RAA plane? With just a Cert? above 1500 feet? Coffs doesn't have a lane.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I want to think of recreational aviation as just that and only that.

Surely the local butcher who likes to go for a fly in his 30 year old Piper Archer is a pilot who flys for recreation not profit?

Compare him with the cocky who hunts cattle round trees in his Foxbat and does so with an RA Pilot Cert.

 

I believe that there is NO PLACE for GA wannabees...... If you and your supporters want G.A. weight aircraft and G.A. privileges than get a PPL and a G.A. aircraft.........

Well, Geoff, I have no desire to fly a VH registered aircraft so that must rule me out as a "GA wannabe"? I fly a Tecnam Sierra with 600kg MTOW and it does everything I need it to do. It has a design empty weight below 35okg. Can you tell me that if it had a design empty weight of 400kg and an MTOW of 650kg and the extra weight had gone into strengthening the aircraft that it would be a less safe aircraft? Or might it just be a stronger one and safer for the extra strength?

 

If you had your way would you have us all flying single seaters under 300kg MTOW?

 

. . . And it bloody well does affect me and what I want to do. The continuing push for higher MTOW, " in the interests of safety" (Yeah right) I transit Williamstown now, often. Don't know about Coffs , Haven't been there yet. All this "Pushing the envelope " will bring with it more regulations, higher standard of medicals, Age limits? more costs. Blanket ASICS, god forbid........

Sounds like an assertion unsupported by any evidence. How has, for example, being allowed to fly over a public road and fly up to 10,000 ft degraded RA-Aus? What extra medicals, age restrictions, etc., did they bring down on us?

 

Don

 

 

[geoffreywh]

Don't be silly Don. I am not being nasty to you, why are you trying to belittle me.... You keep going on about me wanting 300kg ultralights, that really is not the case..(600kgs is fine) .but so was 544 and so was 300 I will fly within the rules and be safe because I fly within the aircraft's capabilities.............. I fly an aeroplane just a big as yours, just as heavy because that's what the rules allow. ............. You say that I can rule you out as a GA wannabe . OK . BUT you are chasing GA like privileges are you not? You champion the cause of heavier aircraft,( Or have I read the posts incorrectly?) And really, heavier doesn't automatically make stronger or more airworthy Your Sierra is testimony to that. You are chasing access to controlled airspace. For that you WILL require radio and transponder . More training, a couple of endorsements ..A stricter medical.. These ARE GA like requirements. For GA like rewards. ....Or if taken to your extreme views of what I want..... If I could only fly just a little bit higher in my just a little bit bigger aircraft that weighs just a bit more and go just a little bit closer to that big airport and go where all the big boys go, then i'll be happy......Please don't take serious offence. I don't want my particular boat rocked.......................................As a post script, NO the butcher who wants to fly his Piper CANNOT do it with a Pilot Cert. He is outside the criteria. IF he wants to fly with RAA privileges then he must conform to RAA rules. He is Not an ultralight. The butcher wants the mountain to come to Mohammed, not gonna happen.. I hope...

 

 

[king_daniels]

geoffreywh

 

You speak a lot of crap, when are people going to get away from the mentality that RAA flying is different to PPL flying. If you want to do this or that get a PPL licence, whey is it a privilege to fly an aircraft in a free country? If you tick the boxes, then no one can stop you from flying. I would call that a right. Believe me it is not as easy as getting a PPL, there are a lot of schools out there that will put you through the ropes, there are a lot of ex-GA aircraft that are now registered RAA, there are a lot of PPL pilots that fly on an RAA certificate. The rules should be changed e.g. if you're flying an aircraft that can carry 700kl MTOW, why the hell are we restricted to 600kl MTOW.

 

The argument if you want to go into controlled airspace 'get a PPL' is the biggest load of crap out. What you're basically saying, is that it's safer flying outside controlled airspace with various types of other aircraft than flying inside controlled airspace with an air traffic controller helping you keep look-out, keeping you separated from other aircraft.

 

I know of pilots who have done the PPLA exam, got their English proficiency test, have got over 1600hrs in flying time and have done many other exams, bi-annuals etc. but unless they shell out thousands of dollars for training in an aircraft with letters on, they get roped over the coals and they still will not end up with a flight test outside controlled airspace, why would you get a PPL? So they re-register their VH registered aircraft back to RAA and they're flying their aircraft with the same rights as a PPL pilot. So if we wanted to do a controlled airspace endorsement, night flying, I will even go so far as saying aerobatics and we have got the account for all the requirements for that flying, it's a bit hard to believe that we cannot continue to further educate ourselves, to make ourselves safer pilots other than going to get a PPL. As I said at the beginning 'What a load of crap'.

 

Daniel

 

 

[dodo]

Daniel,

 

It's a bit hard to take seriously someone who shows such contempt for the opinions of others, so I won't bother to correct you, beyond the blindingly obvious.

 

Getting a PPL is not that hard; it is more expensive, and you need to follow the GA maintenance and medical requirements.

 

I'll just point out a lot of our RA exemptions were based on our lower risk to the public. Once we start flying in areas where we present a risk to that public, we should expect the equivalent responsibilities - medical,maintenance etc.

 

At that point, there doesn't seem to be much difference to getting a PPL.

 

I will say one thing again for clarity: if you so such contempt for the opinions of others in poor English, with an absence of reasoned argument, I am not sure your opinion is worth reading.

 

dodo

 

 

[king_daniels]

dodo

 

That's fine don't read it.

 

I'm writing on the assumption that the aircraft is well maintained to the same standards and requirements of a training aircraft VH or RAA, that the pilot has done all the appropriate exams and has a minimum class 2 medical, has done all the flying to the syllabus including instrument flying, even having a ASIC card, so you have an RAA certificate. Why can't that mate of mine just go to any GA training organisation and do a flight test for outside controlled airspace, what's the reasonable argument, that he can't do it in his or her own plane, say if it's maintained at the same level as a VH aircraft and it was a VH registered and it was changed to an RAA registered, I can't see the safety risks whether he does it in his plane or not,

 

but we must remember that we don't fly recognised aircraft, we fly ultra lights.

 

Further study and education and training can make us a safer pilot, attitudes and playing politics and rule making for rule making's sake, where there is no benefit can be very unsafe and serve no purpose.

 

Daniel

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don't be silly Don. I am not being nasty to you, why are you trying to belittle me....

Geoff, I take no offence from being told not to be silly nor do I offer any when I try to extract an understanding of another person's genuinely held opinion.

 

What I see is two people whose views are a fair way apart and I'm looking for a better meeting of minds. What I see is two people who share the same passion. If we weren't passionate about aviation (in whatever form) we wouldn't get excited in defence of "our" aviation sector.

 

You keep going on about me wanting 300kg ultralights, that really is not the case..(600kgs is fine) .but so was 544 and so was 300.

What I thought I detected from your posts was that you were against progress, if you define progress as 300kg to 540kg to 600kg to 1500kg.

 

BUT you are chasing GA like privileges are you not? You champion the cause of heavier aircraft,( Or have I read the posts incorrectly?) And really, heavier doesn't automatically make stronger or more airworthy Your Sierra is testimony to that.

The only sound basis for allowing a person to fly an aircraft is if there is a reasonable level of safety. Risk Assessment and actions to mitigate risk are how you judge relative risk and reduce it to an acceptable level. This involves two parts - demonstrated knowledge and skill and health of he pilot and airworthiness and maintenance of the aircraft.

 

In the USA, ten years experience with a real drivers licence medical standard gave them the confidence to say that it was adequate for people who fly for recreation as long as certain risk mitigating factors were enforced. They are now looking at broadening the use of the Drivers Licence Medical in place of Class 2.

 

The risk mitigation factors include 1 passenger, below 10,000 ft and day VFR. They also limited it to light single, piston engine aircraft. Maintenance by the builder rather than a LAME equivalent. Sound familiar? Whether such a pilot in such an aircraft should be allowed to fly in controlled airspace depends on whether there is a demonstrated need and with Coffs Harbour that is easily demonstrated. Next question is what are the risks and how might they be mitiged? Training and examination, demonstration of knowledge and skill. The essential equipment of radios, transponders and even, in time TCAS or ADSB.

 

But, if you don't need to go through or land in CTA, why would you be forced to achieve the medical standard (whatever that might be), fit the radio or transponder, do the training and pass the examination and flight test?

 

I still can't see how my doing any or all of the above affects people who want to stick to Class G.

 

Now, RA versus GA. These terms do not originate in the Bible. And, like the Bible, they are terms invented by men, in this case Dept of Civil Aviation or CASA (mostly) men. The public servants may or may not claim the same divine inspiration. There is no reason on this Earth why these terms can't be redefined by CASA or it's successor in the ordinary meaning of the words "Recreational" i.e. people who fly for fun as opposed to "Commercial" i.e. people who fly for profit.

 

I don't think anyone except possibly John McCormick and a few of his admirers thinks the bottom end of GA is under-regulated. I have heard plenty of GA pilots who fly for fun ask why they can't have the same privileges as RA. I don't have an answer for them.

 

Don

 

 

[djpacro]

In the USA, ten years experience with a real drivers licence medical standard gave them the confidence to say that it was adequate for people who fly for recreation as long as certain risk mitigating factors were enforced. They are now looking at broadening the use of the Drivers Licence Medical in place of Class 2.

Better than that in the USA.http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=85f2f758c7572cf6fd784c355d1c55a1;idno=14;region=DIV1;q1=61.23;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A2.0.1.1.2.1.1.17

Class 1 required here for CPL instructors cf Class 2 in the USA.

 

Class 2 required here for PPL cf Class 3 in the USA.

 

Some-one may like to comment on the specific standards here vs USA but my experience is that their Class 2 is similar to our Class 2 and I guess that Class 1 is an ICAO ATPL standard (class 3 here not comparable as its for other flight crew).

 

Special aviation DLM required here for RPL cf just a real automobile license in the USA for sport pilot certificates, including instructors.

 

.... the ordinary meaning of the words "Recreational" i.e. people who fly for fun as opposed to "Commercial" i.e. people who fly for profit.

Recreational must therefore include aerobatics.

 

I have heard plenty of GA pilots who fly for fun ask why they can't have the same privileges as RA. I don't have an answer for them.

As far as I know, CASA's policy of parallel pathways is still valid and it is happening with the RPL.

[01rmb]

I have said this elsewhere, but, it is ludicrous that I can learn to fly in controlled airspace at a class D airport under an exemption provided to the flight school but once certified I can't continue to do so under my own qualifications. Are we sure CASA does not mean 'stupid bureaucracy' !! Surely allowing a controlled airspace endorsement to RAA pilots with the relevant aircraft, training and equivalent medical conditions as a RPL pilot makes sense. Let alone the stupidity of me having an aircraft with numbers on the tail restricted to 600kg whilst the same aircraft looked after by the same people with letters on the tail is allowed an extra 100kg.

 

If you live in the country and don't go anywhere near controlled airspace then don't do the endorsement or get the medical but for those that live 10 minutes from a controlled airfield with controlled airspace to the north, east, south and west it would be real handy to be able to have access to these areas as any other 'recreational' GA pilot does. If the RPL and RAA pilot certificate are meant to be equivalent then make them equivalent and don't force RAA pilots to have to do a RPL/PPL just to get access to controlled airspace.

 

Same pilot, same training, same aircraft, same maintenance, same medical but different rules - no sense... If you don't want the extra entitlements then don't do them up but for those that do then why can't the rules be applied the same across the whole airspace.

 

 

[facthunter]

There is nothing wrong with progress. The weight issue is simple mathematics and common sense. WHO wants to go back to what was available in the beginning and just stick with that. Once a plane like a Jabiru was capable of getting a couple of people across Australia as quickly as a 172, things had to change. They can't sit still.

 

Many embellish their arguments in this matter with a few exaggerations from both sides, IF you have a good argument it should stand alone by force of reason. Classifying people with TAGS can be a bit rude really.

 

We are not getting the young folk so if you piss off the oldies you won't have much left.

 

I don't believe the CASA of the last few years was prepared to accept the concept we espoused. We are not GA. We are not complex aircraft used for hire and reward. Building and learning and availability of flying cheaply is part of the deal. I think McCormick rejected that ( and said so) I don't believe he comprehends the "soul" of this movement. so we are where we ARE at least in part because of that. I warned of the danger years ago and unfortunately I was not wrong. We didn't do ourselves any favours on occasions I recall as well. Like the Ferris wheel, Benambra and a few others that I know of and many others will have their own list.

 

Name calling and classifying some as UNDESIREABLES won't do us any good either. There should be tolerance of others views. I have never advocated night flying for us or anything but crossing (transiting) CTA for safety reasons. EDUCATION rather than REGULATION is preferred in most matters, but those who deliberately ignore REGS don't belong in an aviation environment. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I hope that the new CASA director we get to replace John will be more friendly and understand the RAA movement better than John did.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't forget RA put on a display for John good enough to last him the whole of his tenure; I couldn't blame him if he was turned off.

 

 

[kgwilson]

There is only one problem with flying for fun in Australia. CASA!! Go for a trip to the US & see what freedoms there are. Heck just go to NZ. 2 x RA organisations working with CAA & GA. One registration system for all. Controlled airspace no problem. Just have a radio & transponder. RPL in operation now for over 6 years. The complexities & bureaucracy here are over the top for reasons known to no-one really but justified in the name of what the 3rd letter in the authorities acronym stands for. They really should add another letter in front of the S & that would be a B.