RPL recognition of Cross Country Endorsement

[aro]

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

I don't think that's a good idea. While RAA and GA are different (weight limits etc), there is a logical justification for the RAA medical requirements being different. I fear if the RAA/RPL qualifications are merged and it is 1500kg across the board the RPL medical standard will be applied and a large number of RAA pilots will be grounded.

 

 

[facthunter]

aro, once you demonstrate incompetence, (fail to meet a standard) on a check ride. You are grounded. This would happen under an Air Operator's Certificate the wording of which is approved by the Authority. If you think about it. How could it be otherwise?. Whether an individual instructor could alone may be a mute point. There should be an avenue of review.. With a BFR I'm not clear, but there is no way that a demonstrated lack of competence would not be treated seriously.. If a bit of remedial or agreed extra training is the answer, until that requirement is met , the system could not permit further exercising of their privileges of the certificate or licence.. Be the same as letting a drunk get back in his/her car and drive off (in principle). Nev

 

 

[aro]

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.

That goes without saying, but the question is whether you can stop them from flying home in their 172 if you think their flying is not up to PPL standards?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't think that's a good idea. While RAA and GA are different (weight limits etc), there is a logical justification for the RAA medical requirements being different. I fear if the RAA/RPL qualifications are merged and it is 1500kg across the board the RPL medical standard will be applied and a large number of RAA pilots will be grounded.

I don't think "RAA" would ever be able to issue RPL's, however they could operate like a Part 141 organisation and have examiners who are able to issue licensing under CASA. It would mean RAA CFI's would need CASA instructor privileges of some kind. While I doubt this would come about quickly, in my opinion it would be a logical step for RAA to pursue. Focus more on aircraft registration and less on the licensing.

 

2 Main hurdles:

 

• Getting CASA onboard to reduce the medical requirement of the RPL inline with what is required now for RAA - Ie Medical declaration, with similar restrictions (1 pax, VFR 10,000 ft or below, no CTA). These restrictions could be lifted for Class 2 Medical Holders.
   
   
  
• Insuring current Instructors (RAA) can continue to operate under the CASA system without undue costs (Having to gain CPL, Class 1 Medical, Registered as Part 141 flight school etc)
   
   
  

 

 

Aircraft would still be operated under CAO (minus the RPC requirement), pilots would need need to be RAA members and operate according to the Ops Manual (in RAA registered aircraft).

 

 

[facthunter]

Motz, the RPL is a degraded PPL but it's still a licence administered by the CASA.. The RAAus uses a certificate. The idea that the RPL and RAA cert are related is confusing. There are two PATHS to the RPL One from the PPL or higher and another utilising SOME of the RAAus training, (adjusted where needed)?? Nev

 

 

[aro]

aro, once you demonstrate incompetence, (fail to meet a standard) on a check ride. You are grounded. This would happen under an Air Operator's Certificate the wording of which is approved by the Authority

I don't operate under an AOC. I can see how that would be required for a commercial operation, but what about private? If you do your AFR a month before it is due, and the instructor isn't happy with your practice forced landings, are you allowed to rent an aircraft and go and practice until 2 years from your previous review, or are you grounded?

 

 

[facthunter]

. My view is you are grounded technically but in reality perhaps a more workable (and perhaps corruptible) arrangement happens.. I only quoted the AOC to show how the system works in one section of aviation.

 

Just imagine in the case you cite the student kills themselves flying the next day when an engine fails and he mucks it up, when it becomes known you found him wanting when the check came up the previous day .At the Court Case is where you want to protect yourself. If some of the things done are gonna look bad, and jeopardise the show for everyone, if it comes unstuck...don't go there. Any person in an Aviation situation noticing an unsafe practice or occurrence is REQUIRED to report it to the authority. That is the LAW. The instructor has observed an unsafe practice and would be expected to be proactive in correcting it by further training then or at a later time. DUAL would be indicated rather than solo in such circumstances. That is the only way you are covered. IF he hadn't come for the check no one would know of the lack of skill, but that isn't the point. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

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)

I guess I should've discussed that "must" earlier. I read that in conjunction with the other bits of the regs that I mentioned wrt what I must also do in granting an endorsement.

 

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".

But the reg does not say that the requirements have been met. The word "eligible" is used. A CASA definition of eligible that I am familiar with is "

Eligible Exam Applicants

 

Candidates shall possess an ARN and the relevant CASA pre-requisite qualifications before they may book and attempt most flight crew exams."

 

That is a different (but similar) context so what definition of "eligible" applies to Part 61?

 

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.

Just like CASA giving people an RPL based on an RAA certificate and then requiring a flight review before it can be exercised.

 

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.

Sure, I trust RAA to have provided adequate training but it does not negate my obligation per the regs to ensure competency to the standards in the regs if I am asked to grant an endorsement. CASA may grant endorsements per their regs so get them to do it.It is worth asking CASA how it is supposed to work.

 

 

[aro]

But the reg does not say that the requirements have been met. The word "eligible" is used. A CASA definition of eligible that I am familiar with is "Eligible Exam Applicants Candidates shall possess an ARN and the relevant CASA pre-requisite qualifications before they may book and attempt most flight crew exams."

That is a different (but similar) context so what definition of "eligible" applies to Part 61?

That wasn't how I interpreted eligible. Correct? I'm not sure. What other requirements and standards should be used to determine whether they should be granted the endorsement? 61.495 specifically excludes people eligible under 61.500:

 

61.495 Requirements for grant of recreational pilot licence endorsements

 

(1) This regulation applies to a person other than a person who is eligible to be granted a recreational pilot licence endorsement under regulation 61.500.

 

So the requirements set out in 61.495 don't apply. Are there any other requirements?

 

I looked for some other uses of the word eligible in these regulations to see if I can work out what it means...

 

61.280 The holder of a commercial pilot licence or an airline transport pilot licence granted by the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand is eligible for an equivalent Australian licence and equivalent ratings and other endorsements

 

Seems to be a pretty close match in usage and intentions. Do they have to do a flight test to demonstrate that they meet the standards, or do they just have to apply?

 

Just like CASA giving people an RPL based on an RAA certificate and then requiring a flight review before it can be exercised.

That is written in the regulations and it basically makes sense because normally the flight test counts as a flight review, so if you didn't do a GA flight test you don't have a GA flight review. And it is a logical place to have a proficiency check, and allows an instructor to verify that they really do meet the standards. This issue only really arises if you get the RPL, and then do a RAA nav endorsement - which bypasses the navigation component of the flight review.

 

Sure, I trust RAA to have provided adequate training but it does not negate my obligation per the regs to ensure competency to the standards in the regs if I am asked to grant an endorsement. CASA may grant endorsements per their regs so get them to do it.

So you wouldn't issue a sticker for a tailwheel endorsement if requested by another instructor, without conducting a flight test yourself?

 

I agree that CASA should be granting the endorsements - they seem to be the logical people to be issuing licenses and endorsements in recognition of existing qualifications, not individual schools/instructors...

 

 

[facthunter]

This all seems to be getting complicated. I would say a lot of this RPL issue hasn't been properly thought though when it was done. (there is a fair bit of evidence to justify that conclusion.

 

Some statements on this matter, seem to be wishful thinking, rather than fact.

 

Some things are accepted in a log book for GA but must go through head office for RAA. We were assured some time ago the rules and requirements for RAA would never be more stringent than for CASA.

 

There should not be an easy way around the requirements either. IF GA requires a certain instrument flight level of performance to get the PPL/RPL, then the RAA path must not short circuit it. obviously.

 

If something is prescribed in print, it should be able to be relied upon. So much isn't clearly and unambiguously expressed though. If you ask CASA You still might not get a response that you can't rely on I'm afraid. Verbal statements aren't worth anything in this game. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I think the confusion is around 61.500 and the fact the form required for endorsement doesn't support 61.500.

 

Getting the RPL was the easy part (convert from RAA), it's the endorsement that is confusing.

 

 

[facthunter]

The RPL medical is extremely disappointing. It will only be available to youngish people or some who may have a friendly GP who they call a favour on.. If you have done what you should responsibly do as a pilot and have ANY possible symptom looked at that might be an issue, even though cleared, you won't get the essential tick to the box required by the RPL procedure..

 

The default position is the class 2 or class 1.. Back to square one after years of hope that something SENSIBLE would be the outcome. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

That wasn't how I interpreted eligible. Correct? I'm not sure. What other requirements and standards should be used to determine whether they should be granted the endorsement? 61.495 specifically excludes people eligible under 61.500:61.495 Requirements for grant of recreational pilot licence endorsements

(1) This regulation applies to a person other than a person who is eligible to be granted a recreational pilot licence endorsement under regulation 61.500.

 

So the requirements set out in 61.495 don't apply. Are there any other requirements?

Good point, so get CASA to grant the endorsement. I think you have convinced me that I can (may, must?) grant it also and fill in that form at the time they apply to get an RPL (if the applicant has the 5 hours solo and 2 hrs IF to satisfy 61.500).

 

I looked for some other uses of the word eligible in these regulations to see if I can work out what it means...61.280 The holder of a commercial pilot licence or an airline transport pilot licence granted by the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand is eligible for an equivalent Australian licence and equivalent ratings and other endorsements

Seems to be a pretty close match in usage and intentions. Do they have to do a flight test to demonstrate that they meet the standards, or do they just have to apply?

Good point, CASA has the action there.

 

That is written in the regulations and it basically makes sense because normally the flight test counts as a flight review, so if you didn't do a GA flight test you don't have a GA flight review. And it is a logical place to have a proficiency check, and allows an instructor to verify that they really do meet the standards. This issue only really arises if you get the RPL, and then do a RAA nav endorsement - which bypasses the navigation component of the flight review.

Or do the nav endorsement with the GA flight review.

 

So you wouldn't issue a sticker for a tailwheel endorsement if requested by another instructor, without conducting a flight test yourself?

Good question. Under the old system, the sticker process was quite clear per CASA's rules and issue of the sticker was as a CASA delegate so came with their indemnity. Under the new system (as with the old) several instructors at the one school could share the training and each would certify elements of competency as appropriate. Under the old system the last instructor got to certify that the training was satisfactorily completed. Similar now but the last instructor also gets to grant the endorsement. We get to see the training records and certifications of competency. We have a training syllabus where the last flight is an assessment by the last instructor who gets to make a decision on the competency demonstrated on that last flight, supported by training records with certified competencies of the other elements.While I'm on tailwheel training - if a RPL or PPL holder with only Piper PA-28 experience rocks up I recommend that they go away and learn how to fly something like a Cessna 150/152 to save some money rather than chew it up at a higher rate on the Decathlon. And, when I send the endorsement form to CASA I attach a letter stating that I deviated from their standards because I considered some aspect to be stupid and dangerous.

 

I agree that CASA should be granting the endorsements - they seem to be the logical people to be issuing licenses and endorsements in recognition of existing qualifications, not individual schools/instructors...

Yep.Our school regularly clarifies stuff with CASA as it comes up and this particular issue hasn't arisen for us yet.

 

 

[DrZoos]

. If you have done what you should responsibly do as a pilot and have ANY possible symptom looked at that might be an issue, even though cleared, you won't get the essential tick to the box required by the RPL procedure..

Totally agree

 

The current system where by CASA requires every past issue to be documented with 40 paragraphs declaring you symptom free by each person you saw including the specialist which often costs $300 plus and $300 for the report, plus up to 8 months to see , only encourages everyone to lie and deny. I know CASA attitude definitely impacts on every thought i have about mentioning anything to a doctor these days...

 

 

[facthunter]

You are right there. It has the opposite effect of what would be desirable and in the pilot's best interests, That is IF you have a something you are not sure of check it out, but the result of your doing that is recorded as if you have the problem you were cleared of. Nev

 

 

[ExJourno]

Its all spelled out on the CASA site. (Does anyone ever actually go there before posting here?)Its quite clear, a flight review is required.

Here:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101585

 

"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."

 

Took me 30 seconds to find this info..

I'm a few weeks behind on this thread... but surely you jest.

 

It is as clear as regulatory authorities are a circus, that almost no-one bothers to look for information first before racing off not-even-half-cocked to discuss/debate/profess-to-have-knowledge on a given topic.

 

I particularly enjoy the ones in which people post about what the "rules" around <any given topic> happen to be... in complete contrast to what the "rules" of <that topic> actually are...

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The english proficiency test is a bit of a joke, drummed up by some CASA clown. Why would anybody born and bread in Australia have take the test. What a insult. CASA can shove their RPL up their ar$e.

Maybe because some people born and bred in Australia don't know how to spell 'bred'?

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The english proficiency test is a bit of a joke, drummed up by some CASA clown. Why would anybody born and bread in Australia have take the test. What a insult. CASA can shove their RPL up their ar$e.

Maybe because some people born and bred in Australia don't know how to spell 'bred'?

 

 

[dazza 38]

Maybe because some people born and bred in Australia don't know how to spell 'bred'?

Good point. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a waste of money and I never said my spelling was perfect so you can stick it.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Maybe because some people born and bred in Australia don't know how to spell 'bred'?

Good point. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a waste of money and I never said my spelling was perfect so you can stick it.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Lol Dazza if you dish it out sometimes you have to take it too:wink:.

 

But otherwise I fully agree with you. Seems to me that CASA must have a sadistic form of humour.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Lol Dazza if you dish it out sometimes you have to take it too:wink:.

 

But otherwise I fully agree with you. Seems to me that CASA must have a sadistic form of humour.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Lol Dazza if you dish it out sometimes you have to take it too:wink:.

But otherwise I fully agree with you. Seems to me that CASA must have a sadistic form of humour.

True, just a little bit if sunday afternoon banter.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Lol Dazza if you dish it out sometimes you have to take it too:wink:.

But otherwise I fully agree with you. Seems to me that CASA must have a sadistic form of humour.

True, just a little bit if sunday afternoon banter.

 

 

[Kununurra]

The funny thing is the English test is about listening and understanding someone who does not speak very good English go figure