RPL recognition of Cross Country Endorsement

[facthunter]

How would older pilots pass the medical? You have to tick ALL boxes or revert to class 2 or 1. If you have had ANY medical issues " investigated" you have history which excludes the RPL for you. It did start out as a restricted PPL with supposedly a driver's licence type medical. That got distorted hopelessly under Mc Cormick

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Rhysmcc....Once again you have misunderstood what I have stated. I didn't say CASA ( or any other Gov department) was a monopoly, rather that the RAAus was seen as a manopoly which was against government policy. So they came up with a poorly thought out RPL program which is still suffering from ongoing development and is way less successfully than anticipated at this time. Additionally the actual benefits of holding an RPL ( over an RAA cert) and the medical requirements thereof are also still unclear.

Sorry for misunderstanding your original post.

 

The benefits of holding an RPL are quite clear. You gain access to Controlled Airspace endorsement, you gain access to larger aircraft (up to 1500kg). The benefits to RA-AUS are none but why should they be. It was never about RA-AUS.

 

 

[turboplanner]

How would older pilots pass the medical? You have to tick ALL boxes or revert to class 2 or 1. If you have had ANY medical issues " investigated" you have history which excludes the RPL for you. It did start out as a restricted PPL with supposedly a driver's licence type medical. That got distorted hopelessly under Mc Cormick

Older pilots without medical issues then. If you can't meet the medical requirements, you're out.

 

 

[SDQDI]

If they are older GA pilots without medical problems wouldn't they just stay on their ppl?

 

 

[Camel]

It's a GA rating for GA pilots and makes perfect sense in that arena, allowing older GA pilots to keep flying.It's RA people who have produced all the conspiracy stories, and tried to do the equivalent of gutting a rabbit from the outside.

Turbo you are right but the conspiracy is not, it's in black and white, as you say " read the regs"

 

What is a recreational pilot licence (RPL)?

 

A recreational pilot licence (RPL) is a new flight crew licence introduced on 1 September 2014. It authorises pilots to

 

fly light, single-engine aircraft as the pilot-in-command independently of a flying school, without supervision.

 

The RPL replaces the student pilot licence and general flying progress test (GFPT) that existed under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. It is also available to pilots who have an RA-Aus pilot certificate.

 

Before operating independently of a school, new RPL holders should make sure they are fully aware of their new responsibilities. Initially, pilots need to complete a flight review with an instructor and make sure they are familiar with the new regulations and their responsibilities when exercising the privileges of their RPL.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I heard people say that it shouldn't be allowed to teach in a piper, the first one I landed I was surprised how easy it was and that is the problem, they are too easy to land compared to other aircraft.

They are pretty easy to land - but I don't see that a 152 is going to be any harder. (Never flown a 152, mind you.)

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Sorry for misunderstanding your original post.The benefits of holding an RPL are quite clear. You gain access to Controlled Airspace endorsement, you gain access to larger aircraft (up to 1500kg). The benefits to RA-AUS are none but why should they be. It was never about RA-AUS.

In case you hadn't noticed during the ramp up to the RPL, CASA was actively recruiting from the RAAus ranks. They made no secret of it being offered as an alternative to an RAA certificate.

RAAus certificate pilots in their droves have not at this time taken up their offer. Additionally CASA does not like the 'drivers License ' medical standard which we currently operate with, they would like us all to ultimately undergo a 'real' medical. Medical standards is the one big tool that CASA have to ground pilots with, and they do.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

In case you hadn't noticed during the ramp up to the RPL, CASA was actively recruiting from the RAAus ranks. They made no secret of it being offered as an alternative to an RAA certificate.

The alternative was always there (PPL), CASA have just created a PPL targeted more to the recreational pilot. I believe it was actually the SAAA who were the big drivers for the RPL, however with most things CASA the end goal was lost along the way (DL Medical).

 

RAAus certificate pilots in their droves have not at this time taken up their offer.

I'd be interested to see what facts you have to support this case? RA-AUS would only be able to tell the number of members who haven't renewed, but would have no way of seeing if it's because they have got a RPL or in fact the number of members who hold both a RPL and RA-AUS.

 

Additionally CASA does not like the 'drivers License ' medical standard which we currently operate with, they would like us all to ultimately undergo a 'real' medical. Medical standards is the one big tool that CASA have to ground pilots with, and they do.

I hope that's not the case as it will no doubt mean the complete demise of RA-AUS. I'm sure our board and the management will fight tooth and nail on the members behalf to ensure any changes have a strong safety case to back up additional regulation.

 

 

[poteroo]

It's just a little touch of revisionism by the regulator. They were the ones who couldn't leave well enough alone, and just had to fix something that wasn't broken in the first instance. When we had only the PPL course - it was broken up into an RPPL, (Restricted PPL), which was achieved by a full blown flight test, and then you did navigation in order to 'cancel' the restriction which was typed into your PPL licence. The RPPL allowed a pilot to carry passengers within the training area or within 25nm (?).

 

Then the make work brigade in CASA decided to call the RPPL a GFPT - which was no longer a licence, and required you to continue being signed off by an instructor. You could bypass it, and many did, by doing your navs and then sitting the 'full quid' PPL. There were many issues with this brilliant bit of fiddling the old RPPL. It made extra work for instructors,(thanks CASA), and achieved nothing of value for pilots.

 

So, when CASA came under pressure to modify medical standards, and provide a 'level' of PPL which would allow all we old fogies to continue to fly our SAAA experimental category aircraft - CASA hit upon a thinly disguised re-introduction of the old RPPL. But, in case there were still a few oldies with sound memories, they fiddled further with names and minor requirements. Now we have a medical which isn't worth the proverbial 2 bob, (as Nev stated - you need a Class 2 if you have any significant problems), and an RPL which they have unbelievably equated to an RPC. ('recognition' is such a wonderful weasel word).

 

Their pirating of the term 'recreational' raises my ire every time. If they are going to segregate flying by way of activities, then why have weight limitations on aircraft within the licence or certificates? If I had the money, I'd probably be doing my 'recreational' bit in a Beech Baron - which would be recreational when I used it on the weekend, but commercial when I logged in with a charter flight on Monday. What makes my Brumby any more recreational than the Baron when flown by the same pilot for the same 'recreational' purposes? What makes my Brumby remain recreational when on Monday I use it for fully recompensed flight training - surely a commercial activity? It's a major blunder as it fails to truly recognise the category of flight to which each aircraft is applied.

 

Everything old is new again! A familiar theme in Canberra.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Their pirating of the term 'recreational' raises my ire every time. If they are going to segregate flying by way of activities, then why have weight limitations on aircraft within the licence or certificates? If I had the money, I'd probably be doing my 'recreational' bit in a Beech Baron - which would be recreational when I used it on the weekend, but commercial when I logged in with a charter flight on Monday. What makes my Brumby any more recreational than the Baron when flown by the same pilot for the same 'recreational' purposes? What makes my Brumby remain recreational when on Monday I use it for fully recompensed flight training - surely a commercial activity? It's a major blunder as it fails to truly recognise the category of flight to which each aircraft is applied.

I suspect the weight limit is a proxy complexity limit; otherwise the BAK exam pre-RPL may as well be a PPL exam without the nav portion.

 

As for your Brumby... is that not purely a sop to traditional ultralight schools, not requiring them to have CPLs for all instructors?

 

 

[poteroo]

As for your Brumby... is that not purely a sop to traditional ultralight schools, not requiring them to have CPLs for all instructors?

I'm not sure of your meaning here. What I was alluding to is that the term 'recreational' has been given many meanings. However, in respect of instructor starting points - how can CASA allow 'recognition' (for the RPL) of the RAAus RPC when it's trained by a PPL level instructor - yet the RPL requires a CPL start point and the full works of a GA instructor rating? If there is acceptable equivalence between the PC and RPL, then surely they need to reassess whether the RPL can be taught by similar 'level' instructors.

 

CASA have now moved to allow 'PPL instructors' under Part 61, although they will only be allowed to conduct 'flight activity' and 'design feature' training, ie, any training for which a flight test is not required.

 

If they set out to muddy the waters - then they've been most successful.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I've not come across the "PPL instructors" in my readings. Are you saying a PPL holder can gain an Instructor Rating? Or are you using the term "PPL instructors" to describe non CFI's who can now conduct design features?

 

I wouldn't describe RA-AUS instructors as just a PPL if that was your meaning, they have minimum hours and go through an instructors course just like the GA instructors.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I'm not sure of your meaning here. What I was alluding to is that the term 'recreational' has been given many meanings. However, in respect of instructor starting points - how can CASA allow 'recognition' (for the RPL) of the RAAus RPC when it's trained by a PPL level instructor - yet the RPL requires a CPL start point and the full works of a GA instructor rating? If there is acceptable equivalence between the PC and RPL, then surely they need to reassess whether the RPL can be taught by similar 'level' instructors. CASA have now moved to allow 'PPL instructors' under Part 61, although they will only be allowed to conduct 'flight activity' and 'design feature' training, ie, any training for which a flight test is not required. If they set out to muddy the waters - then they've been most successful.

The only reason you can instruct on a "recreational" certificate is because AUF renamed itself to RAAus as a territory grab. Otherwise you're an ultralight instructor, or a hang gliding instructor, or whatever - not a description of the flight activity, but a description of the aircraft class.

 

It seems that the difference between a fully endorsed RPL and a PPL is that the RPL is not useful for full private transport duties because it cannot have NVFR/PIFR/SECIR added onto it.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

I wouldn't describe RA-AUS instructors as just a PPL if that was your meaning, they have minimum hours and go through an instructors course just like the GA instructors.

You don't have to have passed the PPL theory or equivalent to be an RAAus instructor, only if you want to go to SI. That's a bit terrifying.

 

 

[tillmanr]

Be terrified but don't try to change history. When I started at Royal Casey in GA the instructors were PPLs who were working for chips to get their hours up for commercial not vastly qualified in anything. Amazingly we survived and went on to bigger and better aircraft or other things. Is this any different today. Low hours and full of importance.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

It's just a little touch of revisionism by the regulator. They were the ones who couldn't leave well enough alone, and just had to fix something that wasn't broken in the first instance. When we had only the PPL course - it was broken up into an RPPL, (Restricted PPL), which was achieved by a full blown flight test, and then you did navigation in order to 'cancel' the restriction which was typed into your PPL licence. The RPPL allowed a pilot to carry passengers within the training area or within 25nm (?).Then the make work brigade in CASA decided to call the RPPL a GFPT - which was no longer a licence, and required you to continue being signed off by an instructor. You could bypass it, and many did, by doing your navs and then sitting the 'full quid' PPL. There were many issues with this brilliant bit of fiddling the old RPPL. It made extra work for instructors,(thanks CASA), and achieved nothing of value for pilots.

 

So, when CASA came under pressure to modify medical standards, and provide a 'level' of PPL which would allow all we old fogies to continue to fly our SAAA experimental category aircraft - CASA hit upon a thinly disguised re-introduction of the old RPPL. But, in case there were still a few oldies with sound memories, they fiddled further with names and minor requirements. Now we have a medical which isn't worth the proverbial 2 bob, (as Nev stated - you need a Class 2 if you have any significant problems), and an RPL which they have unbelievably equated to an RPC. ('recognition' is such a wonderful weasel word).

 

Their pirating of the term 'recreational' raises my ire every time. If they are going to segregate flying by way of activities, then why have weight limitations on aircraft within the licence or certificates? If I had the money, I'd probably be doing my 'recreational' bit in a Beech Baron - which would be recreational when I used it on the weekend, but commercial when I logged in with a charter flight on Monday. What makes my Brumby any more recreational than the Baron when flown by the same pilot for the same 'recreational' purposes? What makes my Brumby remain recreational when on Monday I use it for fully recompensed flight training - surely a commercial activity? It's a major blunder as it fails to truly recognise the category of flight to which each aircraft is applied.

 

Everything old is new again! A familiar theme in Canberra.

 

happy days,

We are stuck with what CASA have chosen to give. Now we have to understand it and use it as best we can. An RAAus instructor can train a student to an RPC which CASA have said is equivalent to an RPL. However if that RAAus instructor wants to teach the same person to the same level in a GA aircraft he can't unless he becomes a GA instructor.

CASA gives almost no recognition for his RAAus instructor qualification, even if he already has a CPL. I am hoping this will change and RAAus instructors with a CPL will more easily gain GA instructor ratings, without having to do an extra 40 hrs of training plus 200 hrs of ground school. The new regulations make it possible to recognize the RAAus training but CASA staff have difficulty letting go of the past. It will happen but may take some time.

 

 

[djpacro]

... Are you saying a PPL holder can gain an Instructor Rating?...

Yes indeed, but just a few specific training endorsements.

 

... RA-AUS instructors .... they have minimum hours and go through an instructors course just like the GA instructors.

Nope, not just like a CASA instructor rating.

[Ada Elle]

Be terrified but don't try to change history. When I started at Royal Casey in GA the instructors were PPLs who were working for chips to get their hours up for commercial not vastly qualified in anything. Amazingly we survived and went on to bigger and better aircraft or other things. Is this any different today. Low hours and full of importance.

What I mean is that a basic RAAus instructor might not have passed any more theory than the BAK.

 

What would have been nice would be to import the EASA LAPL wholesale (see other thread).

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Yes indeed, but just a few specific training endorsements.

That's really interesting, I'm assuming they can't charge for this service since not holding a CPL?

 

Nope, not just like a CASA instructor rating.

The Ops Manual requires a minimum of 100 hours prior to undertaking the flight exam for the issuing of Instructor Rating (RA-AUS), as well as successfully completing "an approved RA-Aus Principles and Methods of Instruction (PMI) course" and "ground and in flight Instructor training". Is this the same course and hours GA instructors need? No. Does it need to be? No.

 

 

[Kununurra]

I took up the option and for now can't see anything but positive.We are all different and all have different levels of both wants & needs, it is not 1 size fits all so I am sure there will be discussion either way but I am happy to say suits my needs.

 

Cheers

 

 

[djpacro]

... I'm assuming they can't charge for this service since not holding a CPL?...

No law that says a PPL can't earn money, they are just limited to private ops (there was another thread where commercial ops was discussed - pilot did not earn any money but the situation required a CPL).

 

... Is this the same course and hours GA instructors need? No. Does it need to be? No.

Exactly my point, not "just like it".

[rhysmcc]

Being paid to provide flight instruction surely doesn't count as private ops.

 

 

[djpacro]

Black and white in the regs for training for endorsements previously mentioned plus some other things.

 

The new Part 61 specifically lists the training endorsements for a PPL with a flight instructor rating.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

The new Part 61 specifically lists the training endorsements for a PPL with a flight instructor rating.

I presume the only people with such ratings are going to be former CPLs with lapsed medicals.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbo , The RPL medical is tick all boxes if NO issues. That means you have NEVER had any issues reported, investigated or checked. It would in fact go beyond that as you make a declaration that you have never had any issues. Will all pilots answer this honestly?

 

Pilots are not supposed to fly if they think they may have issues of any kind, that may affect their ability to perform flying duties, so anything that rewards not being responsible should not be a part of the structure. CASA SAY you revert to the class 1 or 2 provisions if the SIMPLIFIED GP, Non DAME process embodied in the RPL is not applicable to the person involved. You don't just exit flying. Their are plenty of post Cardiac Bypass operative pilots in the Airlines, and this started to be possible in the late 80's, safe and well managed within the system. Nev