Pilot Licence or Certificate - Sports Pilot Dec14

[Karl]

I started my flight training in RA and moved on to GA , I've been checked out in a Tecnam,Flight Design CTLS and Cessna 172

 

I've registered my CTLS in GA and have not renewed my RAA pilot certificate.

 

All I fly now is my LSA Flight Design CTLS with my PPL licence but I'm not allowed to fly a RAA registered Tecnam or CTLS because I don't hold a current pilot certificate ,or am I ?

 

One big advantage of flying GA is I'm flying in safer GA airspace .

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In my opinion it would break down barriers. A flying club could own an RAA registered LSA which could be flown by RA certificate holders and GA pilots after conversion to type. Many will not want to get an RA pilot certificate but would be happy to fly the plane. Why wouldn't they want an RA certificate? For the same reason many on this forum look down on GA pilots and tell LSA owners to go GA. There is a barrier, created by the system of licenses, which we should try to break down.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I believe there is a Drifter or Fisher Mk 1 with VH rego. So there does the theory that a GA pilot is incapable of flying a low inertia aircraft without an RAAus certificate. As and earlier poster has said it's just about getting yourself familiar with whatever you are about to fly.

 

 

[facthunter]

The low inertia thing is really only applicable to a few and now rarer types. Of course all pilots if they are worthy of the name can fly anything, but it takes a bit of experience across a lot of types to be comfortable and safe. The other point is many RAAus planes don't have particularly nice habits in some aspects of their handling and nearly ALL have weak nosewheels and some bulldozer drivers wreak havoc on steerable nosewheel linkages and pedals.. GA planes have most of the vices ironed out of them, and don't have as many nasty surprises..

 

There is a bit of bagging of GA and Airline types here. You can generalise, if it pleases you. but you might need to eat your words occasionally. Many high hour Flying Block of Flats Drivers do pretty well at flying gliders and U/L's Some wouldn't do it if you paid them. Horses for Courses. Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

I believe there is a Drifter or Fisher Mk 1 with VH rego.

The VH drifter used to perform aerobatics which are not allowed under RAA, and I doubt many GA pilots could have ridden it through it's performance either.

 

 

[facthunter]

That was a class act. I must add the plane wasn't exactly standard either. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

I believe in NZ GA pilots can fly ultralights as long as they take some dual and are issued a rating (endorsement) on type. No issue with registration as ALL aircraft in NZ are registered ZK-xxx and are either a class 1, (single seat) 2 (two seat) or LSA. Those aircraft will have a MTOW of 600Kgs or less. There is NO requirement to belong to a microlight organisation of which there are two in NZ to my knowledge.

 

 

[rankamateur]

All very civilised!!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

So there we are. All we need now is a volunteer GA pilot to tell CASA they will go fly an RAA aircraft, send in the pics confirming it, and wait to see what happens. If nothing, then we are a big step forward toward the Kiwi model of togetherness and mutual support.

 

 

[facthunter]

PMcC that's terribly optimistic. Pilots make the lines of discrimination no matter what the system is. SAAA wouldn't want our lack of rules and we wouldn't want their restrictions and rules, as an example

 

We should all be under one big umbrella as we a have a lot of common interests and are stronger united than separate, but the sections can(IF they do the job properly) look after specific interests better. Individuals can lose identity in a crowd, but a crowd can resist a bigger force when it has to be done. Co-operation rather than unity. Even in our ranks we have many who feel dispossessed of something they used to have. Don't forget NZ has the population of Melbourne. Well actually less as Melbourne is growing too fast.. Nev.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I got out of Melbourne 15 years ago and would not go back. Worked in NZ for a while once and loved it. I agree there are factional interests, but the total numbers in flying are really too small to allow artifical and meaningless divisions to make it worse.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

GA and RAAus aircraft do meet in the middle. Sportstar and Skyfox aircraft and others are registered with both. If a GA pilot is checked out by an RAAus CFI he or she should be able to fly an RAAus aircraft provided he or she is a financial member of RAAus. That would protect revenue and cover insurance issues. There should be no need to hold two licences, just a log book entry by an RAAus CFI. Simple! Just need to make sure legislation allows this.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sure and how many concessions would just go in the big melting pot? If I was happy with what SAAA have I would just go there. RAAus has the basis of what I think is the best all round relaxed with commonsense . I won't fly if I can't work on my plane. That's a big safety thing for me. When it's your neck you make YOUR luck by being careful. If there's a mod done I want part of how it's done. If it's GA unless you go exp there's no mods. Life's too short for that. Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

1.425 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—unregistered aircraft

The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft only if the aircraft is registered.

registered means registered under Part 47.

 

47.015 Requirement for aircraft to be registered

(1) For paragraph 20AA(1)(b) of the Act, an aircraft is required to be registered unless it is one of the following:

 

(a) an aircraft that is not intended to be used as an aircraft;

 

(b) an aircraft that, under Subpart 200.B, is exempt from these Regulations;

 

© an unmanned free balloon;

 

(d) a permanently tethered balloon;

 

(e) a kite;

 

(f) a model aircraft;

 

(g) a parachute;

 

(h) a rocket;

 

(i) a UAV other than a large UAV;

 

(j) an aircraft that is registered under the law of a foreign country referred to in subregulation (2);

 

(k) an aircraft that satisfies all the following conditions:

 

(i) it has been manufactured in Australia for delivery outside Australia to a foreign operator;

 

(ii) it is registered under the law of a foreign country referred to in subregulation (2);

 

(iii) it displays nationality and registration marks in accordance with the law of that country;

 

(iv) it has no certificate of airworthiness issued, or rendered valid, under the law of that country;

 

(v) it is flown within Australia only for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 21.197(1)(b) or ©.

 

200.014 Certain ultralight aeroplanes

An aeroplane to which Civil Aviation Order 95.55, as in force from time to time, applies is exempt from CASR if the conditions in that Order are satisfied.

 

200.025 Flying unregistered aircraft

For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:

 

(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body’s operations manual.

 

200.030 Flying unregistered aircraft—offence

 

A person commits an offence if:

 

(a) the person pilots an unregistered Australian aircraft; and

 

(b) a sport aviation body administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

© the person does not:

 

(i) hold a pilot certificate granted by the sport aviation body; and

 

(ii) operate the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body’s operations manual.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

So to connect the dots.

 

• A PPL (pilot license) only allows someone to pilot an aircraft that is registered.
   
   
  
• Registered is defined as meeting the requirements of Part 47.
   
   
  
• An aircraft is not required to be registered if it's exempt under Part 200B, which RA-AUS are (200.014).
   
   
  
• 200C then further states under what conditions are required to be met in flying an unregistered aircraft, holding a pilot certificate and operating in accordance with the operation manual are both clearly stated.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I think most people accept that a PPL holder only cannot (legally) fly an RAAus aircraft. I personally would not object if this was change to allow a PPL or CPL holder to fly RAAus aircraft if they were financial members and had been checked out. It might get a few more RAAus aircraft on the register. If you want to work on your own aircraft you should have an RAAus certificate and at least L1 maintenance privileges.

 

I do think those that say they would only fly if they can work on their own plane are limiting themselves a bit. No flying in mates planes, no flying with Qantas, no flying a variety of interesting and exciting aircraft. But, each to their own.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Are we all missing the obvious.

 

Any PPL, CPL, ATPL etc can fly an ultralight right now. All they have to do is a conversion and join RA Aus.

 

 

[GAFA]

If you look around the world, Tecnams, Sportstars, Pipersports, Skycatcher's and the like are registered as per that countries normal aircraft registration and carry that countries normal registration ie in the USA 'N'. Australia is unique in having a separate body issuing aircraft registrations and pilot certificates.

 

To move forward RA-Aus needs to change and one easy step would to allow PPL holders and above to be able to fly an RA registered aircraft without the need to be issued a separate pilot certificate. By dong this, it would reduce the administration burden and reduce costs.

 

The argument about the light weight and or high performace of same RA aircraft is stupid, as just in the GA world, before any school will allow you to fly one of their 172s, PA28 etc you are required to do a check ride for insurance purposes. So the GA pilots will expect to do the same before flying any RA aircraft.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

But what does RA-AUS gain by doing that? Loss of income and membership? Why a PPL and not RPL?

 

I'm all for removing the pilot certificate but there needs to be some protection for RA-AUS, ie pilots still require membership to operate RAA aircraft and follow the Ops Manual. This would be a requirement for the operation of said aircraft which are not registrated (as per CASR)

 

Edit: And of course the exemption for requiring any additional medical

 

 

[GAFA]

Agree, they would still need to be members, but the cost reduction/saving would come from the need not to produce a pointless pilot certificant. The OPS Manual would require some changes such as not stiputating a minimum number of hours required before you could fly an RA aircraft, but rather allowing the flying school to determine the applicable training required, based on the experience level of the licence holder.

 

 

[robinsm]

ok so where does the guy/guyess that has medical probs that dont stop them from flying but no suitable for a PPL get permission to fly.? Leave the certificate alone, find something else to change and winge about.!!

 

 

[pmccarthy]

At present a club can own two identical aircraft, one VH reg and the other with numbers, and the GA pilots can only fly one and the RA pilots can only fly the other. It is crazy!

 

 

[Geoff13]

At present a club can own two identical aircraft, one VH reg and the other with numbers, and the GA pilots can only fly one and the RA pilots can only fly the other. It is crazy!

And the RPL guys who have stepped across from the pilots certificate, can fly both.

 

 

[David Isaac]

The RAAus Pilot Certificate will always have a place, and those who have one will always be able to fly RAAus registered aircraft. There is no valid reason why a RPL, or PPL or CPL. etc should not be able to fly any RAAus aircraft with an appropriate conversion perhaps based on type weight or performance, no reason why a pilot certificate should be necessary for them.

 

BUT if they want to fly an RAAus aircraft, it is entirely appropriate they have to become an RAAus member and pay the membership fees which gives them the insurance they would not otherwise have.

 

I think what I am attempting to describe is a reasonable proposition. Both sides win because the RPL or other holder gets to own or fly an RAAus registered aircraft without having to do an other license type and RAAus wins because they gain a new member. No one loses.

 

 

[SDQDI]

So without me bothering to look up the current rules, what is the current minimum hours for a GA pilot to do when transferring to RAA before they are deemed competent for a certificate? As I have said I haven't looked up these rules but I would have thought for a reasonably experienced GA pilot that a flight review similar to a BFR would have been sufficient?

 

IMO if a GA pilot is going to be a financial member of RAA so they can fly RAA planes they might as well do enough to have a certificate otherwise I would think there would be another division in the ranks inasmuch as the whole "supposed/alleged" GA mightier than thou attitude.

 

I put supposed/alleged in there because I personally think that we have as many snobs in RAA And I also think they have as many cowboys in GA

 

 

[David Isaac]

Sam, a very interesting question. Under the last Ops Manual I have had substantial arguments on this issue as I can prove there was NO actual hour requirements for a High Performance RAAus conversion, but there was a minimum number of hours for Low Performance. I haven't read the new Ops Manual but the conversion should be simply based on compentency, hours are irrelevant.

 

I had been flying LP ultralights way back in the early 8os when I had a PPL and there was no such thing as a pilot certificate in those days, so years later when I wanted to start flying Ultralights again, I had to do a conversion to get the Pilots Certificate. I did it in a Drifter because that was one of the original Ultralights I flew back in the 80s and simply then did a check flight in a Foxbat of about three circuits to get my PC.

 

This "them and us" thing is quite destructive and really pisses me of. I have flown both types for more than 40 years, but then again my principle motivation for flying is fun and the challenge.

 

You certainly are right about dickheads and cowboys in both camps ... I have seen plenty over the years.