Pilot Licence or Certificate - Sports Pilot Dec14

[kasper]

Back in the good old days of GA, you 'self-endorsed' by reading the AFM/POH, then with a few words of wisdom from your CP/CFI or SP - you fired it up and 'felt' your way into the air. Every ag aircraft presented a new challenge, but I can't remember anyone losing sleep over it. I'll be surprised if there are not many forms of 'self-endorsement' used within RAAus from hereon in. Any experienced instructor should be capable of doing it, and safely too. Any experienced instructor should be able to formulate a training plan for any new 'type' soon after they fly it themselves. Have faith. We mustn't become overly prescriptive just because of a fear of litigation. happy days,

Yep, thats how it always has been. Much remember the first flight in the HM290FB flying flea ... lots of chatting to people who have flown similar aircraft before and thought about what I would do if/when things went a bit differently. It did go a bit differently and what I had thought through was what I did - It works.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Personally I think that all aircraft should be issued a Type certificate and that you should be rated to fly that type. This is carried out by a flight instructor who then certifies your logbook that you now have a type rating for the particular aircraft. This is what I grew up with & is still current in NZ.

 

Learning to fly a Skyfox Gazelle & then jumping into a Sting doesn't mean you can fly the Sting just because it is tricycle undercarriage fits into the RA-Aus definitions of MAUW 600Kgs, Stall 45 kts or less etc. The performance envelopes and flying characteristics are totally different.

 

Have a look at the Type Certificate for a Bantam and also the CAA Type rating Demonstration of Competency guidelines NZ instructors must comply with before signing off a Type rating. They define what types you are legally able to fly and that you have demonstrated competency in that type. There is no guesswork. It works. Ra-Aus could just copy it.

 

A-13_Bantam_B22S_B22J.pdf

 

Type_Rating.pdf

 

A-13_Bantam_B22S_B22J.pdf

 

Type_Rating.pdf

 

A-13_Bantam_B22S_B22J.pdf

Type_Rating.pdf

[kgwilson]

I also agree with the assertions made in the Sportpilot article. I don't mind being a member of RA-Aus to fly an Ra-Aus registered aircraft but I don't think I need a Pilot certificate as well as my PPL or maybe an RPL if I can't get my next Class 2 medical. I do think that I should have a type rating for the RA-Aus aircraft that I fly though.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I also agree with the assertions made in the Sportpilot article. I don't mind being a member of RA-Aus to fly an Ra-Aus registered aircraft but I don't think I need a Pilot certificate as well as my PPL or maybe an RPL if I can't get my next Class 2 medical. I do think that I should have a type rating for the RA-Aus aircraft that I fly though.

The issue I have with the article is that it's not what the author thinks should be the case, but he is saying under the current regulations that you don't need a Pilot Certificate, which is just wrong and may lead someone into following his "version" of the rules and end up either with a massive fine and/or no insurance payout should it be required. It's one thing to share your opinion on what changes we should be looking towards, it's another to get the regs wrong and try and convince others to break the law.

 

 

[facthunter]

Why do people keep thinking they can get an RPL if they don't get a class2 medical. You WON'T, unless the present situation changes and I have no news of that happening. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Personally I think that all aircraft should be issued a Type certificate and that you should be rated to fly that type. This is carried out by a flight instructor who then certifies your logbook that you now have a type rating for the particular aircraft. This is what I grew up with & is still current in NZ.Learning to fly a Skyfox Gazelle & then jumping into a Sting doesn't mean you can fly the Sting just because it is tricycle undercarriage fits into the RA-Aus definitions of MAUW 600Kgs, Stall 45 kts or less etc. The performance envelopes and flying characteristics are totally different.

 

Have a look at the Type Certificate for a Bantam and also the CAA Type rating Demonstration of Competency guidelines NZ instructors must comply with before signing off a Type rating. They define what types you are legally able to fly and that you have demonstrated competency in that type. There is no guesswork. It works. Ra-Aus could just copy it.

Personally I can think of nothing worse than moving in this way for Australian ultralights:

 

Firstly the single aircraft endorsement is a very out dated concept from GA (even they don't do this any more)

 

Secondly it is completely at odds with the core of experimental/home built and minimal interferance that is the core of ultralights

 

Thirdly it is impossible to apply effectively to single experimental reg aircraft as from a practical perspective every aircraft will be different - even if it started out as a kit.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Why do people keep thinking they can get an RPL if they don't get a class2 medical. You WON'T, unless the present situation changes and I have no news of that happening. Nev

I believe you only need a class 1 or 2 medical for flight above 10,000ft for the RPL otherwise the road transport licence(aviation) is ok.

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

This has been covered b4. It's not a road transport licence. Its a tick all boxes or revert to class 2 and sort it out. if you fail a class 2 you won't get it. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Why do people keep thinking they can get an RPL if they don't get a class2 medical. You WON'T, unless the present situation changes and I have no news of that happening. Nev

What is the point of an RPL medical then? I thought it was able to be provided by your GP and it says that basically you are fit to drive a motor vehicle, whereas a class 2 medical has to be issued by CASA via a DAME. Is this not the case?

 

 

[facthunter]

In answer to your first question I would say virtually NO point at all. It has been covered before. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Personally I can think of nothing worse than moving in this way for Australian ultralights:Firstly the single aircraft endorsement is a very out dated concept from GA (even they don't do this any more)

Secondly it is completely at odds with the core of experimental/home built and minimal interferance that is the core of ultralights

 

Thirdly it is impossible to apply effectively to single experimental reg aircraft as from a practical perspective every aircraft will be different - even if it started out as a kit.

So you are happy with someone with a 3 axis pilot certificate being able to jump into any aircraft & attempt to fly it. The water is a bit more muddied with homebuilts I agree, but with type ratings one type generally covers many variants. There have been more Cessna 172 variants than most people have had hot dinners, some with CSUs & retractable gear but the one rating fits all.

 

 

[Geoff13]

So you are happy with someone with a 3 axis pilot certificate being able to jump into any aircraft & attempt to fly it. The water is a bit more muddied with homebuilts I agree, but with type ratings one type generally covers many variants. There have been more Cessna 172 variants than most people have had hot dinners, some with CSUs & retractable gear but the one rating fits all.

I was of the impression that the CSU and retractable were still endorsements.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Personally I think that all aircraft should be issued a Type certificate and that you should be rated to fly that type. This is carried out by a flight instructor who then certifies your logbook that you now have a type rating for the particular aircraft. This is what I grew up with & is still current in NZ.Learning to fly a Skyfox Gazelle & then jumping into a Sting doesn't mean you can fly the Sting just because it is tricycle undercarriage fits into the RA-Aus definitions of MAUW 600Kgs, Stall 45 kts or less etc. The performance envelopes and flying characteristics are totally different.

 

Have a look at the Type Certificate for a Bantam and also the CAA Type rating Demonstration of Competency guidelines NZ instructors must comply with before signing off a Type rating. They define what types you are legally able to fly and that you have demonstrated competency in that type. There is no guesswork. It works. Ra-Aus could just copy it.

Nothing to stop you getting "an endorsement" on every aircraft you wish to fly, and getting an insturctor to write something along these lines in your logbook, if that is what you want. Just that it is not required by law and many prefer not to go down that line. One doesn't need every detail layed down in a manual to use commonsence.

 

 

[kgwilson]

I was of the impression that the CSU and retractable were still endorsements.

True, but type ratings are no longer required in GA for a specific single engine A/C under 1500kgs I think, just endorsements for CSU, RG, tailwheel etc.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Nothing to stop you getting "an endorsement" on every aircraft you wish to fly, and getting an insturctor to write something along these lines in your logbook, if that is what you want. Just that it is not required by law and many prefer not to go down that line. One doesn't need every detail layed down in a manual to use commonsence.

Fair comment. based on some of the flying I have witnessed there are plenty of pilots who could benefit from a bit more instruction, even a check ride would be better than nothing.

 

 

[SDQDI]

IMHO I can't see what is wrong with having set endorsements (tail wheel, in flight adjustable prop, retractable undercarriage ect) and then leaving it up to the pilot to ensure they have sufficient mentoring in what they are/will be flying.

 

I would have thought that if I am flying my hornet and I wanted to go for a fly in a lightwing even if in the same configuration that I would still want someone (I would think a current owner would be a good choice I think limiting this person to being a CFI is silly) to fly me around personally for at least three circuits just to make sure I could handle their (lightwings) awesomeness ()

 

It just seems to me that trying to mandate a pilot examiner for each individual aircraft change (j160 to a j170) is a bit over the top.

 

Rhysmcc has explained what seems to be a sensible system (which seems to be the correct interpretation of the ops manual) once you have the correct endorsement for each eligible feature you are then ok to change aircraft brand without seeing a CFI as long as the features (TW or NW ect) are the same. Obviously it would be prudent to do that with someone who was familiar with that particular plane

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Personally I can think of nothing worse than moving in this way for Australian ultralights:Firstly the single aircraft endorsement is a very out dated concept from GA (even they don't do this any more)

I don't quite understand what your trying to say here. This is exactly how GA works, you get a single engine endorsement (now called class rating) which lets you fly single engine aircraft (with some exclusions). All that is required is that the pilot is competent in operating the aircraft, there is no test nor training requirements (the onus is on the pilot to get the training they require). There are also Design Feature endorsements which may be required depending on the aircraft (61.755 lists what these are, IE retractable, tailwheel etc).

 

Why do people keep thinking they can get an RPL if they don't get a class2 medical. You WON'T, unless the present situation changes and I have no news of that happening. Nev

What is the point of an RPL medical then? I thought it was able to be provided by your GP and it says that basically you are fit to drive a motor vehicle, whereas a class 2 medical has to be issued by CASA via a DAME. Is this not the case?

I think there is some confusion to what facthunter meant to say. People who can't pass a class 2 medical will not be able to pass the Driver's Aviation Medical (Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate).

If you meet the requirements for the RAMPC then Yes you can get a Recreational Pilots License and fly with 2 pax under 10,000 feet, and won't need the Class 2 Medical. The catch being the RAMPC is not just fit to drive a motor vehicle, there are a lot more requirements in place.

 

Fair comment. based on some of the flying I have witnessed there are plenty of pilots who could benefit from a bit more instruction, even a check ride would be better than nothing.

I think one of the issues RA-AUS is trying to overcome are the pilots who have learnt to fly in a particular aircraft and then gone out and bought something different, have got no instruction and have been caught out on their way home with the new aircraft.

 

IMHO I can't see what is wrong with having set endorsements (tail wheel, in flight adjustable prop, retractable undercarriage ect) and then leaving it up to the pilot to ensure they have sufficient mentoring in what they are/will be flying.I would have thought that if I am flying my hornet and I wanted to go for a fly in a lightwing even if in the same configuration that I would still want someone (I would think a current owner would be a good choice I think limiting this person to being a CFI is silly) to fly me around personally for at least three circuits just to make sure I could handle their (lightwings) awesomeness ()

 

It just seems to me that trying to mandate a pilot examiner for each individual aircraft change (j160 to a j170) is a bit over the top.

 

Rhysmcc has explained what seems to be a sensible system (which seems to be the correct interpretation of the ops manual) once you have the correct endorsement for each eligible feature you are then ok to change aircraft brand without seeing a CFI as long as the features (TW or NW ect) are the same. Obviously it would be prudent to do that with someone who was familiar with that particular plane

The onus should be on the pilot to get the training their require for a new aircraft, rather then a blanket rule. However history has shown pilots have not always shown the best judgement with more then a couple "incidents" on trips home after a new purchase.

 

 

[kasper]

much snipped ...

I don't quite understand what your trying to say here. This is exactly how GA works, you get a single engine endorsement (now called class rating) which lets you fly single engine aircraft (with some exclusions). All that is required is that the pilot is competent in operating the aircraft, there is no test nor training requirements (the onus is on the pilot to get the training they require). There are also Design Feature endorsements which may be required depending on the aircraft (61.755 lists what these are, IE retractable, tailwheel etc).

i think you read my comment to mean single engine endorsement - I did not mean that - I meant single aircraft endorsement eg PA28 then C152 then c172 etc. My point is that this type of endorsement is very old school and the GA now looks at groups of aircraft (single engine under Xkg) and then looks at add ons CSU, retract, turbine etc

Thats what Ops 7 has and I like that. I wish it was much clearer in the manual and reasons for deleting HP, LP and NW were explained clearly ... particularly as I can see them as more value worthy than the retaining of ATA ..

 

 

[facthunter]

The older endorsements were Auster ALL (excJ5F) Cessna 150 152 172 etc but you get into C/S And RG and turbine and pressurised and M/E. If you only have HULL can you just jump into a N/W? Tin of worms alright. Again should be covered by NOT requiring any rules more stringent than VH does. That was supposed to be the deal.

 

C-150, Jab LSA55, Foxbat all the same or similar? You might come unstuck with that one with low experience pilots..

 

The organisation for benefit of it's members, should have on file and available freely, all the quirks and different features of the handling of all the aircraft we may fly. Like the yearbook put out in the USA but right on the flying aspects, not just pictures and weights and stall speeds.. Nev