Pilot Licence or Certificate - Sports Pilot Dec14

[coljones]

There is an interesting article by Carl Nilsson on page 32 of the latest "Sports Pilot" magazine.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Interesting read but I don't know why he got that much space in RAAus's own magazine as he is saying you can fly an RAAus aircraft on a CASA licence and I presume while not a member of RAAus. While there is comment at the end of the article that CASA and RAAus disagree they do not give any legal opinion or example to shoot him down. Guess it would have to be tested in court. Pretty sure insurance would be an issue too

 

 

[dazza 38]

It is simple really, only government departments can issues licences. Everybody else can only issue certificates. And no I haven't read the article. Us rednecks in QLD get the magazine late.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I haven't read it either for the reason above, but you can't fly a RAA aircraft with just a CASA license... The CAO has all the requirements listed clearly.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I think the gentleman is mistaken.

 

6.1(b) of CAO 95.55 clearly states that a person must not operate a RAAus registered Aeroplane unless the person holds a valid pilot certificate, and subject to other conditions in this order, operates it within the limitations and privileges of the certificate

 

6.1(d) says the Aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RA Operations Manual.

 

Kaz

 

 

[eightyknots]

I believe it has already been tested in court and the result was that the PPL or higher is a higher class of Licence and this over-rides the certificate.In reality when you think about it.... It is a higher class. I'm trying to think of something similar, perhaps a coxwains certificate issued by a federal body would over-ride a state based boat license perhaps.

 

As noted, insurance could be an issue.

 

(This is not legal advice)

Perhaps, Deborah, a truck driver's licence allows her to drive an ordinary car?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I found the article to be persuasive and expect that lots of GA pilots will be flying or buying RA reg aircraft before too long without going through the RA certificate hoops. And it would be a good thing for all of us.

 

 

[djpacro]

I believe it has already been tested in court and the result was that the PPL or higher is a higher class of Licence and this over-rides the certificate.

I'd heard that rumour before but could never find a reference to it. Regardless, that was before Part 61 which is fairly clear as to the scope of a Part 61 PPL (although people disagreed with me in another thread).

[shags_j]

Isn't there a sentence in the CEO report from this issue (don't have it with me) that specifically says you cannot fly an RA Reg ACFT with anything but a pilot certificate?

 

 

[SDQDI]

Perhaps, Deborah, a truck driver's licence allows her to drive an ordinary car?

I would think it would be more like a car or truck licence allowing you to drive a motorbike

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In summary the article says that my PPL allows me to fly aeroplanes under a certain weight, and RAA reg aircraft are, in fact, aeroplanes. We will never know the legal position until it is tested in court, and I don't intend to be the bunny, but I expect that we will then find that the PPL applies to flying RA aeroplanes. As I said before, it would be a good thing and would benefit everyone through creating more demand for RA aeroplanes and more activity in our hobby.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

In summary the article says that my PPL allows me to fly aeroplanes under a certain weight, and RAA reg aircraft are, in fact, aeroplanes. We will never know the legal position until it is tested in court, and I don't intend to be the bunny, but I expect that we will then find that the PPL applies to flying RA aeroplanes. As I said before, it would be a good thing and would benefit everyone through creating more demand for RA aeroplanes and more activity in our hobby.

Not necessarily pmcarthy...a PPL allows you to fly a VH registered aircraft not an RAA registered aircraft. For that you clearly need to have an RAA certificate and be a current member of the RAA. Clearly stated. Additionally it would not be a good thing to simply have PPL holders jump in an fly RAA registered aircraft. There is a known accident / incident rate in our type of low- inertia aircraft with GA trained pilots doing just that ( regardless of how good they think they are ) which would add to our accident statistics, balloon out our accident rate figurers and injure/ kill those pilots concerned. Also there is a requirement to recieve an endorsement or check out in an aircraft type....from who ?.....an RAA instructor/ CFI. To do that you need an RAA certificate. Any other method of operation would be unsafe in my opinion, and against CASA and RAA regs and therefore highly illegal.

 

 

[kasper]

Rights and wrongs aside the two arguements from a drafting point as I see them are:

 

For PPL permission

 

- I have a licence under the Act/Reg

 

- my licence entitles me to fly aeroplanes under weight X

 

- an ultralight is an aircraft under weight X

 

- I can fly it with my licence as the CAOs on the aircraft can't limit my licence under the Act/Reg

 

Against PPL permission

 

- You have a licence BUT operation of the aircraft are subject to limitations:

 

- the aircraft allow for flight without licence if you hold certificate

 

BUT

 

operation as pilot in command requires holding certificate and complying with the ops manual (HGFA or RAA as appropriate)

 

SO

 

You may see the Ultralight as an Aircraft BUT these particular aircraft have additional requirements on ANY person acting as pilot in command of

 

- you hold a Licence OR a Certificate; (basic) AND

 

- you hold a Certificate (Ha Ha, this overrides your Licence)

 

- you operate in compliance with Ops Manual (Ha Ha, you have to hold appropriate aircraft Groups and Endorsements on your Certificate and be a financial member of the RAA)

 

So basically the Against PPL arguement accepts that a licence may trump a certificate as a base to build from under the act (this is due to the certificate being in the CAOs as an exemption to holding the Licence) BUT they have effectively limited the operations of the aircraft (not the pilot) to those with Certificates who are and remain financial members of the appropriate body and comply with the ops manual.

 

Personally I would not like to be a PPL holder trying to operate without the additional RAA Certificate as in addition to the risk of CASA tapping your shoulder to have a chat before the magistrate you clearly will not have any 3rd party insurance on your operations and any hull insurance will almost certainly be void due to policy terms and conditions.

 

And FYI my interpretation is that the CAOs are not in conflict with the Act and Regs (if they were they would fail) as they do not abrogate the Licence but create additional conditions on the aircraft operations that require the RAA/HGFA certificates and compliance with ops manauals.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

I believe there have been a few GA pilots jump into Jab LSA55 aircraft and found themselves in trouble. There's a huge difference from a docile Cessna 172 type to a high performance "ultralight'. Flight training on type would have to be a necessity to avoid an increased accident rate. Perhaps, this needs to be written into the RAA cert' rules.

 

 

[RickH]

A truck drivers license does allow you to drive an ordinary car. A licence for a manual car allows you to drive an automatic but not vice versa. And I fail to see why a PPL should not allow operation of RAA Acft the Low Inertia argument is a firfy I Have heard this argument many times and have yet to see some one actually quote a specific case. This is about empire building not furthering the sport. Any GA pilot would know to read the Flight manual of the acft in Question in order to familiarise themselves with the Handling characteristics of the machine. I also fail to see the relevance of the Type endorsement argument. After all what does this entail, Single engine or twin (not relevant to RAA), Nose or tail wheel etc.

 

Like I say empire builders. I don't often read this forum. The reason being, every time I do It's the same old story.

 

Some one starts a topic and you only have to look at who is posting a comment to know which way they are going to vote and it's the same Handlfull of people argueing for or against. Those who want to keep it simple and avoid further regulation and those who want to push regulations down our throats whilst trying to build their little corner of the empire. And guess what it never changes because to actually do something constructive would mean there is less to bitch and moan about. No doubt this post will give you plenty to jump on me for like the mis-spelt fourth word, I'm going to leave it that way just so I don't disappoint the inglish teachers out their. Although Kasper has hit the nail on the Head.

 

 

[facthunter]

A GA licence allows you to fly " certified" and airworthy aircraft below a specified weight. Most of these fly predictably well and are heavier and larger (with a few exceptions), than the RAAus fleet

 

The more basic and smaller aircraft fly very variably from GA types some requiring care and skill way beyond anything that most GA pilots have experienced or would want to experience. The smaller and lighter a plane is the more difficult to fly especially in variable wind conditions. Some of the lighter ones should only fly in calm conditions. Some are not well designed and don't handle to the standard a certified aircraft does. The freedoms we have are because of relaxed requirements. Pilots have to be programmed to adapt to the new world of flying they are getting into.

 

Some won't touch it with a barge pole. That's THEIR choice. My point is there is a fair bit of adaptation to go through if you don't start here. For most, to just jump in and fly would not have a good outcome. Most current GA pilots haven't flown a tailwheel, or flown things like a Cub or Tiger moth. Nev

 

 

[aj_richo]

"Low Inertia argument is a firfy?"

 

Would you let a PPL 172 driver jump in your Texas Midwing without a thorough briefing on the flight characteristics, assuming there is no flight manual, in particular the need to shove the nose down immeadiately if the engine fails and so on?

 

 

[RickH]

I have allowed a couple to this albeit with a briefing and I think shoving the nose down on engine failure I imagine is the correct cause of action in any aircraft. And pardon my ignorance but in my limited experience I have never yet heard of an acft where you do the opposite. And may I add there some pilots I have met who claim all sorts of experience whom I would not allow with in 50 feet of an acft let alone fly one. Any I've said my peace so I'll let some one else have the last say. It will help their ego

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I seem to have mucked up editing and deleted my post. Here it goes again.

 

I think the argument about the need for special training is a furphy. Every new type needs "conversion" training, though the word is not used much anymore. I had as much trouble as anyone transitioning to low inertia and needed a few hours training. More than a retractable or constant speed endorsement, but less than a twin endorsement. There is no reason it could not have been done under a PPL. I don't deny the need for it, but it shouldn't need a new "licence".

 

The argument that this can only be done by RAAus instructors seems to be defending a patch. GA instructors would need to have the right experience of course, just as they would to teach twin or night VMC. Similarly, the need to log GA and RAA hours separately is highly artificial.

 

The fact that the article was published suggests that RAA believes it is a valid topic for discussion, and is not making a case that is "obviously"wrong.

 

 

[facthunter]

Get some of your GA guys to jump into Skyfox T/W or a Taylor mono or Yenn's Starlet and I could list about 20 less conventional types. . Where, do tell, is my argument empire building in nature, or ego based? Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Same as a PPL with C172 experience jumping into an RV9 or a Cirrus or a V-tailed Bonanza.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would suggest it is worse by some considerable degree. You haven't listened to the thrust of my argument. Nev.

 

 

[Geoff13]

A truck drivers license does allow you to drive an ordinary car. A licence for a manual car allows you to drive an automatic but not vice versa.

"snip"Yes but to get a truck licence it is a requirement that you first hold a car licence.

 

 

[facthunter]

I like the analogy IF you can drive a truck does that mean you could handle a motorcycle and sidecar outfit?

 

 

[Yenn]

Of course pilot licence holders can safely fly RAAus rego aircraft. My own aircraft can be registered either RAAus or GA. So both licence and certificate holders can fly that type.

 

To fly an RAAus plane you need a certificate, or maybe if some of those posting here are correct, a licence. So try flying an RAAus plane with a certificate and it must be registered. Can a non RAAus person register or hold the registration of that plane? I suspect the answer is no, so he must become a member to own the plane. Where is the advantageto him?