RPL recognition of Cross Country Endorsement

[motzartmerv]

is it just me or is there a major hole in this system? DJ? Whats the skinny mate? If a student was ready for solo tomorrow, how would you send him? On what licence?

 

 

[dazza 38]

yep, you will get it for free. Then you need the English test and radio licence and .....

And Imo is where the problem is. GFPT holders have already demonstrated that they can operate the radio and obviously are fluent in english.I reckon that rule came in because of all the foreigners coming here to fly in the sausage factories.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

yep, PC gone mad!!!

 

 

[blueline]

CASA student licence no longer reguired. Now you just need an ARN and a medical to go solo.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

So an un licensed pilot can PIC the aeroplane?

 

 

[djpacro]

is it just me or is there a major hole in this system? DJ? Whats the skinny mate? If a student was ready for solo tomorrow, how would you send him? On what licence?

There is stuff in the regs on the obligations of instructors - including approving a student to conduct a solo flight: 61.1225. One new item is a dual check within the last fortnight.

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Personal view, not RAAus board view.....

 

I think the issue is that in RAAus when we undertake a BFR I don't (as far as I know) have to do a full nav as part of the BFR.....Even when I went to a new RAAus instructor who has never set eyes on me before.......Last time exactly that was the case, he did however hand me a WAC, tell me I am going to fly a biagass triangle to points A B and C so show me the process you go through to plan the flight, by doing it and then talk me through flying it..... I thought at the time...Wow that's more than I've ever been asked before......In SA when I did my BFR's we were close in to Adelaide around the northern suburbs Mil zones and I used to be asked to describe the various classes of airspace, when they are active, how I found out if they were active ...etc... but I don't recall ever doing a nav segment...All I could find in the exemptions(95.10, 95.32 etc) was a reference "the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988"

 

For the GA guys when you guys do a BFR do all aspects of the MOS and the endorsements you hold get tested everytime? I mean how would you show all the type endorsements etc... I semi suspect that if GA flight review is the same "the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988" then I wonder why we have to pass a flight review when the standard of attainment is supposed to be the same......

 

Andy

 

 

[rhysmcc]

the flight review requirement is to establish recency in my view. A student who first gains a RPL is considered recent since they just completed the flight test, they now have 2 years before the next review is due. For a RAA holder converting, that recency has not been established, thus a flight review is required.

 

Converting the Nav Endorsement is impossible, as no RAA holder will have 2 hours dual instrument time without doing the GA training, in which case it's just the same as everyone who applies for a RPL, you need the time and get signed off.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Establishing recency is as simple as providing the appropriate page from your log book. Which I pressume is the same one you will continue to use.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

But as has been established in another thread, RAA aircraft are not considered registered aircraft for licensing purposes, thus can't be used to establish recency (ie flight reviews) for part 61 licensees.

 

 

[01rmb]

The RPL and pilot certificate are considered equivalent so why can't the training and issuing of recreational pilot certificates/licences be aligned so that RA-Aus just issues a RPL? The theory of flight is the same, an aircraft is an aircraft, a radio is a radio and flying cross country still works pretty much the same no matter whether is is letters or numbers painted on the tail so why the difference.

 

The ideal solution is that RA-Aus Instructors are able to train and assess the competency of pilots for the issue the RPL under the Part 61 standards on behalf of CASA. The Controlled aerodrome endorsement, Controlled airspace endorsement, Flight radio endorsement and Recreational navigation endorsement should then just be able to be added following the applicable standards.

 

It still leaves the question of medical standards being different although if flying with a true drivers licence medical is safe enough under the current RA-Aus system then the same should apply for the RPL. Don't know how that would go down with CASA but maybe with new medical director it has a chance.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The RPL and pilot certificate are considered equivalent so why can't the training and issuing of recreational pilot certificates/licences be aligned so that RA-Aus just issues a RPL? The theory of flight is the same, an aircraft is an aircraft, a radio is a radio and flying cross country still works pretty much the same no matter whether is is letters or numbers painted on the tail so why the difference.The ideal solution is that RA-Aus Instructors are able to train and assess the competency of pilots for the issue the RPL under the Part 61 standards on behalf of CASA. The Controlled aerodrome endorsement, Controlled airspace endorsement, Flight radio endorsement and Recreational navigation endorsement should then just be able to be added following the applicable standards.

 

It still leaves the question of medical standards being different although if flying with a true drivers licence medical is safe enough under the current RA-Aus system then the same should apply for the RPL. Don't know how that would go down with CASA but maybe with new medical director it has a chance.

Sounds like a great plan, not sure GA and CASA will agree though. I think the plan to move from CAO to Part XXX would include doing away with the RPC and everyone be on a RPL. Seems like a sensible approach and will save RAA money from duplication. But like you said, the medical will be the main issue.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

But as has been established in another thread, RAA aircraft are not considered registered aircraft for licensing purposes, thus can't be used to establish recency (ie flight reviews) for part 61 licensees.

These and other arguments in my opinion are just artificial roadblocks that are being put in place by those who have a bent to ensure that equivalent doesn't necessarily mean equivalent.....

 

I mean a J230 with 24 on the side is a completely different beast from a handling and flying perspective than a J230 with VH on the side....I mean its as plane as the nose on your face.......It therefore seems to me that it must be about the person sitting in the RH Seat.......

 

Andy

 

 

[djpacro]

I don't see where it says that, even if that is what some people would like. If you have to demonstrate the competency and knowledge in the MOS, in what way is it a "recognition of other qualifications"? What else would you have to do in addition to demonstrating "competency and knowledge required by the Manual of Standards" if you didn't have the other qualifications?

If some-one meets the requirements of reg 61.500 for a nav endorsement at the time that CASA gives that person the RPL then CASA should also give that person the nav endorsement.However, if some-one rocks up out of the blue and any little bit of additional training is required for a nav endorsement such that the instructor must sign the endorsement form then that instructor should note the requirement of reg 61.195:"... the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor ..." and consider his/her liability.

 

 

[dazza 38]

the flight review requirement is to establish recency in my view. A student who first gains a RPL is considered recent since they just completed the flight test, they now have 2 years before the next review is due. For a RAA holder converting, that recency has not been established, thus a flight review is required.Converting the Nav Endorsement is impossible, as no RAA holder will have 2 hours dual instrument time without doing the GA training, in which case it's just the same as everyone who applies for a RPL, you need the time and get signed off.

True but if you're a RAA cert holder and have also passed the GFPT, then the minimum 2 hours under the hood has been completed and tested.

 

 

[Sloper]

Goodaye all

 

Sat down with the CFI at my school, to convert my GFPT to RPL.

 

Was due for a flight test and did the reveiw the week before so only needed to fill in paperwork.

 

Was current on my medical and have a ASIC.

 

Spent a hour doing paperwork and then did the english test (l thought it was good laugh but not worth the cost)

 

It was recorded and will be kept on file for CASA if required.

 

Discussed the extra privlidges and my responsibilities and we were done, paperwork off to CASA

 

Seemed painless but we will see.

 

Will wait till the new year to do my Navs as that side of it has not been setup yet.

 

regards Bruce

 

 

[aro]

If some-one meets the requirements of reg 61.500 for a nav endorsement at the time that CASA gives that person the RPL then CASA should also give that person the nav endorsement.However, if some-one rocks up out of the blue and any little bit of additional training is required for a nav endorsement such that the instructor must sign the endorsement form then that instructor should note the requirement of reg 61.195:"... the applicant has been assessed as competent in each unit of competency by the instructor ..." and consider his/her liability.

I don't see anywhere under 61.480 or 61.500 where you are able to reject someone based on competency. As I read it, if they have the RAA nav endorsement, and the 2 hours instrument time, they qualify for the endorsement. If they don't have the 2 hours IF you can do the instrument time with them, but when 1.9 clocks over to 2.0 instrument time *bing* they qualify for the endorsement regardless of standards.

This does actually make sense - the "recognition of other qualifications" is basically saying "we trust the training and testing of this other organisation" and if you are allowed to fly a Jabiru to Broken Hill, you will be allowed to do the same in a 152.

 

If you decide that they need to demonstrate again that they meet the standards (61.480 says they are taken to have passed the flight test) then you are no longer recognising the other qualifications.

 

What do you do if they don't meet the standards? I suppose the same as you do when a PPL comes in for e.g. a tailwheel endorsement and you feel their overall flying is not up to scratch - whatever that is.

 

As far as liability goes, I would have thought your liability increases the more training and assessment you do. If 61.500 gives you no discretion - and I don't see any there - the responsibility is on the organization that issued the qualifications being recognized.

 

 

[facthunter]

The system is basically standards based. When you meet a required level of proficiency the box is ticked, and you work your way through the syllabus and whatever other qualifications you choose. From time to time you may still be required to demonstrate proficiency. If someone holding the required authority is aware that you have failed to meet a standard, your status then becomes that you can't exercise some (or ALL) of the privileges of the Licence till something else happens. (further training etc). Nev

 

 

[aro]

The system is basically standards based. When you meet a required level of proficiency the box is ticked, and you work your way through the syllabus and whatever other qualifications you choose. From time to time you may still be required to demonstrate proficiency.

Yes, but 61.480 says that RAA navigation endorsement is recognised as meeting the required level of the proficiency and ticking the boxes. You may still need to demonstrate proficiency separately via a flight review, but 61.480 says that you have passed the flight test for issue of the license.

 

If someone holding the required authority is aware that you have failed to meet a standard, your status then becomes that you can't exercise some (or ALL) of the privileges of the Licence till something else happens. (further training etc).

As far as I know there isn't a way an instructor can actually ground you once you have a license, short of reporting you to CASA.

 

If you fly in for a tailwheel lesson in your 172, the instructor can't stop you from flying home again. If you want to rent an aircraft from a school they can ask you to take a check ride, they can refuse to rent you an aircraft, but they can't take your license away. They can advise you that you shouldn't be flying, they can tell you your flying is rubbish, they can report you to CASA as needing remedial training but I don't think they can ground you themselves.

 

I have a PPL so the RPL issue doesn't affect me, but it does annoy me when CASA and others ignore what the regulations say because they would prefer they were different. If RAA pilots need to demonstrate proficiency before they are issued the endorsement that's fine, write it in the regs. But if you write regs that say that you trust RAA, then follow through and trust RAA.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

These and other arguments in my opinion are just artificial roadblocks that are being put in place by those who have a bent to ensure that equivalent doesn't necessarily mean equivalent.....I mean a J230 with 24 on the side is a completely different beast from a handling and flying perspective than a J230 with VH on the side....I mean its as plane as the nose on your face.......It therefore seems to me that it must be about the person sitting in the RH Seat.......

 

Andy

I wouldn't class myself as one of those bent, but after researching whether the RPL could be conducted in a RA-AUS aircraft, I found it quite clear in the regs. I don't have the actual regulation with me now but happy to go find it again if you don't trust my motives.

 

If you have the 2hours instrument time and the RA-AUS Nav endorsement, then I very much agree you should be issued it on the RPL, however that doesn't appear to be the practice, as for these endorsements (such at Nav and Flight Radio) a separate form is required which must have an instructors approval. I doubt any instructor will provide their signature without at least seeing you fly a Nav.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I wouldn't class myself as one of those bent, but after researching whether the RPL could be conducted in a RA-AUS aircraft, I found it quite clear in the regs. I don't have the actual regulation with me now but happy to go find it again if you don't trust my motives.If you have the 2hours instrument time and the RA-AUS Nav endorsement, then I very much agree you should be issued it on the RPL, however that doesn't appear to be the practice, as for these endorsements (such at Nav and Flight Radio) a separate form is required which must have an instructors approval. I doubt any instructor will provide their signature without at least seeing you fly a Nav.

Sorry if it came across I was attacking you I wasn't....just the circumstances....... I understand what may be the case legally, but my question is more about sanity....in an ideal world they would be the same

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Sorry if it came across I was attacking you I wasn't....just the circumstances....... I understand what may be the case legally, but my question is more about sanity....in an ideal world they would be the same

Totally agree. In an ideal world we would all have a RPL and operate with the same privileges and exclusions as we do today (medical), without the duplicated licensing system. Maybe you could raise it at the next board meeting for something the Ops manager/CEO could investigate with CASA.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

RAA issuing RPL's would solve a lot of the problems:) Wink wink!!!!

 

 

[djpacro]

I don't see anywhere under 61.480 or 61.500 where you are able to reject someone based on competency. As I read it, if they have the RAA nav endorsement, and the 2 hours instrument time, they qualify for the endorsement. If they don't have the 2 hours IF you can do the instrument time with them, but when 1.9 clocks over to 2.0 instrument time *bing* they qualify for the endorsement regardless of standards.

If the reg used the word "qualify" as you did or even said that "CASA will give it to them" then I would agree with you - and CASA would grant them the endorsement, not an instructor, but it uses the word "eligible".If I need to sign the endorsement form then I consider the words of 61.170: "... the .... instructor .... may .... grant the endorsement; and

© the applicant meets the requirements ..... for the grant of the endorsement." meaning the applicant has all the competencies specified for that endorsement. Any number of reasons why I may not sign the endorsement form.

 

If you decide that they need to demonstrate again that they meet the standards (61.480 says they are taken to have passed the flight test) then you are no longer recognising the other qualifications.

61.480 effectively states that CASA will give them an RPL with no endorsements. It goes on to state that a new flight review is required so that is where an instructor will get involved. "flight review means an assessment of the competency of a flight crew member to perform:(a) for the holder of a pilot licence or flight engineer licence—an activity authorised by a flight crew rating that the crew member holds;"

 

What do you do if they don't meet the standards? I suppose the same as you do when a PPL comes in for e.g. a tailwheel endorsement and you feel their overall flying is not up to scratch - whatever that is.

If they meet the standards for a tailwheel endorsement they get the tailwheel endorsement (quite broad competencies and knowledge required if you look at it) but it will take longer if their overall flying is not up to scratch. Of course they will only get the endorsement if they are eligible i.e. have an RPL and medical and do the training specified in the MOS. Incidentally, a tailwheel endorsement counts as a flight review.

 

If 61.500 gives you no discretion - and I don't see any there - the responsibility is on the organization that issued the qualifications being recognized.

An instructor is not required to recognise qualifications, simply accept that the person is eligible.

 

As far as liability goes, I would have thought your liability increases the more training and assessment you do.

Nope, it starts when the training and assessment finishes.So, I suggest don't rock up out of the blue and try to get CASA to issue endorsements first.

 

 

[aro]

If you have the 2hours instrument time and the RA-AUS Nav endorsement, then I very much agree you should be issued it on the RPL, however that doesn't appear to be the practice, as for these endorsements (such at Nav and Flight Radio) a separate form is required which must have an instructors approval. I doubt any instructor will provide their signature without at least seeing you fly a Nav.

According to 61.170, they "must grant a flight crew endorsement ... if ... the applicant meets the requirements mentioned in this Part for the grant of the endorsement." (my bold)

 

The requirements in the Part appear to be met by 2 hours instrument time and a RAA navigation endorsement, so by my reading there is no "should" about it, the regulations say "must".

 

Asking you to fly a nav is the same as passing your PPL flight test then being asked to do another nav to make sure before the license is issued. You have met the requirements, the license should be granted.

 

Years ago I did my GA tailwheel endorsement. The instructor who did the tailwheel training didn't have authority to issue sticky labels. So I had to get a different school/instructor to issue the label on his say so. They didn't ask me to demonstrate tailwheel proficiency before they issued the label - they trusted the instructor who provided the training. Same deal here. The regulations say that CASA trust RAA to provide adequate training for a RPL navigation endorsement. So they need to either trust them, or change the regulations.