Part 61 whats changed

[rhysmcc]

Apparently you can convert from RA-Aus licence to a RPL with a check flight and CASA paperwork. I assume all endorsements and class ratings come across with it.

Not quite, for the Nav Endorsement you require 2hours IF time (which you can't do under RA-AUS) and for the Radio Endorsement you need English Proficiency Level 4 (which you don't have from your RA-AUS radio endorsement). However you don't need either these endorsements to get the RPL converted and could get them signed off during the Flight Review.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I heard English proficiency level 4 over Ballarat last week. "Where you?" " I here down wind" "where?" "downwind runway 05 and 36" and then an Aussie voice "confirm you are down wind on two runways"

 

 

[ayavner]

I heard English proficiency level 4 over Ballarat last week. "Where you?" " I here down wind" "where?" "downwind runway 05 and 36" and then an Aussie voice "confirm you are down wind on two runways"

wow....

 

 

[robinsm]

Thats multitasking with a vengence...lol

 

 

[Pearo]

Not quite, for the Nav Endorsement you require 2hours IF time (which you can't do under RA-AUS) and for the Radio Endorsement you need English Proficiency Level 4 (which you don't have from your RA-AUS radio endorsement). However you don't need either these endorsements to get the RPL converted and could get them signed off during the Flight Review.

Probably cant get your IF signed off in a flight review, unless you want to go up for 3 hours! I had English Proficiency Level 4 signed of as part of my RPL flight test..

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Probably cant get your IF signed off in a flight review, unless you want to go up for 3 hours! I had English Proficiency Level 4 signed of as part of my RPL flight test..

You could as long as you did 2 hours of it. There are no time frames on flight reviews, you could do 5 hours over a period of a couple weeks. A flight review isn't an examine, a certain level of training outcomes is expected.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

CASA put it in writing that the RPL & RPC are "equivalent" and we know they are always correct. It is now RAAus job to make that happen.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

With reference to the simulated instrument flight, there are no minimum hours stipulated under Part 61 for an RPL. All you will need to do is demonstrate proficiency, how you gain the skills is not legislated. It's worth reading the MOS to determine what you are required to demonstrate proficiency.

 

With reference to the English language proficiency, CASA delegates (ATO's, Flight Examiners or what ever qualification the person assessing you holds) can only certify to Level 6. You need to be assessed by a qualified linguist for a level 4 standard (ie level 4 is more difficult to assess - a bit like the downwind 05/36 example).

 

 

[Happyflyer]

With reference to the simulated instrument flight, there are no minimum hours stipulated under Part 61 for an RPL. All you will need to do is demonstrate proficiency, how you gain the skills is not legislated. It's worth reading the MOS to determine what you are required to demonstrate proficiency.With reference to the English language proficiency, CASA delegates (ATO's, Flight Examiners or what ever qualification the person assessing you holds) can only certify to Level 6. You need to be assessed by a qualified linguist for a level 4 standard (ie level 4 is more difficult to assess - a bit like the downwind 05/36 example).

There is a minimum of 2 hrs instrument time under Part 61 if you want an Nav endorsement. See below c(ii).

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.

 

(2) An applicant for a recreational pilot licence endorsement must:

 

(a) have passed the aeronautical knowledge examination for the endorsement; and

 

(b) have completed flight training for the endorsement; and

 

© if the endorsement is a recreational navigation endorsement—have completed, in addition to the flight time mentioned in paragraph 61.475(2)(d):

 

(i) at least 5 hours of solo cross‑country flight time; and

 

(ii) at least 2 hours of dual instrument time, 1 hour of which is conducted during dual instrument flight time; and

 

(d) if the endorsement is a flight radio endorsement—have a current aviation English language proficiency assessment.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Happy flyer, agree on the I/F times with reference to a Navigation Endorsement. You can complete 1 hour in a suitable simulator and 1 hour in flight.

 

There are plenty of suitable aircraft on the RAA register for delivering basic I/F training, just need to train the instructors, amend the Ops Manual and gain CASA blessing. If done properly this exposure to I/F would provide enough skills to keep things upright whilst doing a 180 degree turn to get out of IMC, but more importantly demonstrate to pilots I/F is a skill requiring way more than 2 hours instruction to master and would deter flight in IMC.

 

This would also lead to a simpler transition to the GA RPL. I'm quite confident that RAA pilots would continue to fly under RAA should they convert to GA. The costs/regulations would see to this, I would see the main reason to go GA would be to gain access to CTA and extra seats.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

And what instruments are required in an RAA aircraft? What calibration requirements would be needed for I/F training? Surely it's easier for those people who want it to go and get it as part of their RPL flight review rather then complicate the RAA aircraft requirements.

 

As we've seen recently with the MARAP process, trying to "fix" things can be an unwanted burden on other members, I think RAA should adopt a policy of not gaining "extras" if it means others are forced into the extra burden. As much as I'd like to see CTA in RAA, I don't expect other members to be forced into stricter regs, considering there is another way to achieve it already.