RPL? OK what about some aircraft

[Kyle Communications]

RPL starts on Monday.....I spoke with someone at CASA yesterday about what it is and what you must do and it actually seems quite simple. The real boon for RPL is You can now fly a heavier aircraft. So you can now go to the "experimental" built it yourself category.

 

From what I was told yesterday RPL is quite simple. You already have a RAAUS certificate..like me and I fly on a drivers medical certificate. Ok step 1 all I need is to be able to comply with the heavy vehicle medical conditions and CASA has a couple of add ons to it but not really affecting me. Step 2 is to be able to show that you can control the aircraft and can practice good VFR procedures and of course this is to be done by a instructor that is rated for GA or one that can do both GA and RAAUS in a aircraft that complies with RPL regulations. So essentially all you need is to go to a GA school and get a type rating onto say a C172 and prove that you are competent to fly it and you can have a RPL. The proviso is a aircraft no heavier than 1500 kg MTOW it can be a 4 place aircraft but you can only ever have the pilot and one passenger

 

This opens up a whole new world of aircraft to a RPL pilot. So a Vision for WAC that can carry up to 750kg but can only be used within RAAUS rego at 600kg is now a real possibility especially for fat buggers like me...and I didn't say the mrs was but you know what I mean. So the 270kg available that was available under RAAUS can now be 420 kg !!!!!!!!! now you are talking also with a bigger internal a much more comfortable aircraft and to be able to take full fuel AND baggage.....There would also be a lot of other STOL style that can be built and it would then come under the experimental and builders can do their own maint...basically RAAUS but on steroids

 

What other aircraft that one could build that would have stl performance and could be up to 1500kg MTOW?

 

Mark

 

 

[ave8rr]

RPL starts on Monday.....I spoke with someone at CASA yesterday about what it is and what you must do and it actually seems quite simple. The real boon for RPL is You can now fly a heavier aircraft. So you can now go to the "experimental" built it yourself category.From what I was told yesterday RPL is quite simple. You already have a RAAUS certificate..like me and I fly on a drivers medical certificate. Ok step 1 all I need is to be able to comply with the heavy vehicle medical conditions and CASA has a couple of add ons to it but not really affecting me. Step 2 is to be able to show that you can control the aircraft and can practice good VFR procedures and of course this is to be done by a instructor that is rated for GA or one that can do both GA and RAAUS in a aircraft that complies with RPL regulations. So essentially all you need is to go to a GA school and get a type rating onto say a C172 and prove that you are competent to fly it and you can have a RPL. The proviso is a aircraft no heavier than 1500 kg MTOW it can be a 4 place aircraft but you can only ever have the pilot and one passenger

 

This opens up a whole new world of aircraft to a RPL pilot. So a Vision for WAC that can carry up to 750kg but can only be used within RAAUS rego at 600kg is now a real possibility especially for fat buggers like me...and I didn't say the mrs was but you know what I mean. So the 270kg available that was available under RAAUS can now be 420 kg !!!!!!!!! now you are talking also with a bigger internal a much more comfortable aircraft and to be able to take full fuel AND baggage.....There would also be a lot of other STOL style that can be built and it would then come under the experimental and builders can do their own maint...basically RAAUS but on steroids

 

What other aircraft that one could build that would have stl performance and could be up to 1500kg MTOW?

 

Mark

Depends on what engine you are looking at Mark. If Lyc o320 or similar then there is the Murphy Rebel to name one.

Maybe the Piper Cub variants but these are tandem seated. Not sure Denise would like looking at the back of your head for hours on end though. Cheers Mike

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I don't think the tandem seating would be a problem...in actual fact it would probably give us both more wriggle room in the aircraft. I would like to stay away from traditional aero engines if I can they are too expensive and bring other issues with them. A viking or some other auto conversion maybe using a 6 cyl commodore engine with a redrive. Similar to what they are putting into the glider tugs now and all the glider tug guys love them and wear by them. Still chasing a aircraft that has pretty good STOL ability. Speed is not all a necessary thing but short landing and takeoff is what I want

 

Mark

 

 

[turboplanner]

The Medical can be a bit tricky so it would pay to research this before jumping off into no man's land.

 

Facthunter had the best handle on this, but he's away. I found some on "RPL is comming (sic) but what is it bringing" #86. #93 and "What's going on" #11, but couldn't find the one where he explained it the best.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I will find out more with the medical...I already have a heavy vehicle licence and the medial exemption..the fine print of course I haven't seen but was told by the CASA man it wasn't difficult unless you have had cancer the rest is pretty much no problem.

 

Mike said the murphy rebel.... I have just been researching it...looks pretty good actually...never really considered it before. It goes well with big engines but can be flown with 80hp but I think a Viking 110 might be a good fit for it

 

 

 

Mark

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't think you need a HGV licence. When I turned 75 and had to have a medical to drive, I told the Dr I didn't need the HGV any more and she did the normal medical. So I now have a car licence, but I have done the medical for a drivers licence flying madical and it seemed mostly to be a load of questions, mainly about drinking habits. Maybe what I have is not an RPL, but it allows me to fly my homebuilt experimental 2 seater on my PPL

 

 

[DonRamsay]

It would be the DL (Aviation) medical. You can only get it if you don't have a history of heart or stroke problems and several other matters. Can be done by your GP not a DAME.

 

I think most would find getting a Class II easier.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"but you can only ever have the pilot and one passenger"

 

This restriction does not apply with a class 1 or 2 medical - 61.465 (2)

 

 

[Camel]

Here is the link to info and forms.

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/WCMSwr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/misc/form166.pdf

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I note on that if you have ever had a kidney stone you can not get a medical clearance....what a load of crap...some of the things these guys come up with are just beyond normal considerations

 

 

[coljones]

And here is a link to the NSW RMS site for MV medicals and licences

 

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/licensing/healthmedicals/

 

and here is the AusRoads "‘Assessing Fitness to Drive" site http://www.austroads.com.au/assessing-fitness-to-drive

 

and the associated FAQs site http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/licensing/healthmedicals/fitness_to_drive_faqs.html

 

Despite what you have been told the Class 2 medicals are tested to a higher, and more expensive level than the DL medical. There are some exclusions however, which would also make a class 2 harder to get anyway.

 

if your flying needs are modest and can be accomplished with a DL Medical go that route, take your chances and front the DL medical (a lot cheaper than a Class 2).

 

I don't think most would find getting a Class II easier.

 

 

[David Isaac]

......I don't think most would find getting a Class II easier.

time will tell Col. 'Most' is probably a generalisation that should not have been used in that sentence, but I am certain there will be a lot that will have no choice but to go the class 2 route when you read all the documents.

[coljones]

time will tell Col. 'Most' is probably a generalisation that should not have been used in that sentence, but I am certain there will be a lot that will have no choice but to go the class 2 route when you read all the documents.

Funny, I feel the same about class 2 and I have been down both routes. I would expect that a large proportion of RAA pilots would clear the hurdles of a DL medical with ease.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Col, I have a similar issue. If you have any issue passing a Class 2, there will be no way that you would get a CASA DL medical, that is pretty clear from the documentation. The CASA DL medical is a tick box medical and if there is any issue class 2 may be a way forward.

 

The CASA DL medical is not as simple as many think, but time will tell.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

As an example, take a person who has had coronary heart disease but has had it repaired either by stents or open heart surgery. A year has elapsed and all is well. Chances are Class II is possible but DL is not possible. Any number of medical issues will rule a pilot out from a DL.

 

In the USA, they are looking to extend DL medical to more classes of aviation. And theirs is a true DL medical not the AvMed grab for power that the Aus DL med is.

 

 

[Camel]

They were pressured to bring in a DL medical, so what do the smart ar-- CASA do, they make it harder than a class 2. Nothing changes with CASA, it is a joke, they know more about nothing than most people, when safety is concerned they couldn't care less, they just want to make it difficult for all.

 

I know of people that continue to fly GA without medicals or AFR as they think they won't get caught and I don't think they will as again only the honest suffer. So we have ASIC to prove we are not criminals, medical to say we are fit.

 

So the dishonest are still active and CASA sit in their comfy office chairs thinking they have made it safer.

 

For those that have knowledge of medical requirement, I would love to know why a class 2 has to be done by a DAME, without the BS, even my DAME said there is no reason a nurse could not do a aviation medical let alone any doctor.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I don't think it is fair to say that CASA don't care about safety but it is apparent to me that they know nothing of the science of risk management. CASA seems to be predicated on nobody flying is safe aviation. They need a rejig of their reason for being. It should be to maximise access to aviation with balanced risks. Safe is always going to be a relative thing if there is activity. Sometimes even doing nothing is unsafe.

 

So, paramount in their thinking needs to be balanced risk not absolute safety. The FAA seem to have a grasp of this concept by introducing the DL medical and, after more than ten years of experience they are so happy with it that they are seriously considering extending the DL medical to more non-commercial aviators.

 

The CASA approach is to see what the yanks have done and then implement the CASA version of a DL medical that is a joke and nothing like the FAA put in place and has no basis in prudent risk management.

 

In my judgement, McCormick has been the worst thing ever to happen to CASA and sensible aviation. The spin he has been putting out each month is aggravating and nauseating. Thank all mythical omnipotent beings that he is finally going away.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Ahhh yes, such a gift with the English language Donny ... LOL

 

 

[turboplanner]

In my judgement, McCormick has been the worst thing ever to happen to CASA and sensible aviation. The spin he has been putting out each month is aggravating and nauseating. Thank all mythical omnipotent beings that he is finally going away.

The problem is further up than McCormick' this morning one of the newspapers had a scorecard for each of the current Ministers.I don't have to tell you Truss has been no better than Albanese, and both, in opposition, have virtually just tickled each other with feathers until not just aviation, but the whole transport industry has slid into disarray.

 

However for Truss's scorecard his Department was just titled " Infrastructure" so we've slid from having a Minister for Transport and a Minister for Aviation to just a Minister for Transport, to a Minister for Transport and Regional Services, to a Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Services - no mention of transport at all.

 

 

[ave8rr]

This thread has gone from Mark's original question re a suitable aircraft for the RPL to a medical discussion.

 

Back to topic PLEASE.

 

 

[AVOCET]

This thread has gone from Mark's original question re a suitable aircraft for the RPL to a medical discussion.Back to topic PLEASE.

Are you telling us to go sit back under our toad stools and suck our thumbs !

 

LoL

 

Its all relevant isnt it ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Have a look at the array of GA aircraft - that's what it was designed for.

 

The reason the medical came up was the original post angled from an RA perspective; it isn't quite as easy as it sounds.

 

Far better to discuss all aspects than to have a $100,000 white elephant.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Piper Super Cub would be a great aircraft for the RPL flyer.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Have a look at the array of GA aircraft - that's what it was designed for.The reason the medical came up was the original post angled from an RA perspective; it isn't quite as easy as it sounds.

Far better to discuss all aspects than to have a $100,000 white elephant.

Try $300.000 white elephant with stripes !!!

 

 

[RKW]

 

Piper Super Cub would be a great aircraft for the RPL flyer.

Great if you like looking at the back of someone's head. Sorry dazza, I couldn't help myself.