R.A.A. Pilot certificate is it correct?

[Keith Page]

In the April addition of "Sport Pilot" the RAAus magazine.

 

The is an article written by Dafydd Llewellyn and at the end of the article there is a reply by the CEO.

 

This article brings with it, a lot of history and I will add my part by mentioning this history.

 

Beginning....... A few years ago this gentleman was flying a RAAus plane without a pilot certificate how ever he had a PPL hence everyone near and far got to hear about this even CASA.

 

So the next chapter there was surveylance set up to catch the culprit. After a bit of chasing the culprit was apprehended. There was joy in both organisation that they had caught their bad person.

 

So here is funny bit --- so once caught.... "What will be the charge?". There was a lot of discussion by the capturers so they went and asked the "Department of Public Prosecution" for advice"..

 

Their advice from the DPP ----

 

"Drop the charges or you will make fools of yourselves."

 

There is no charge for that crime.

 

The only wrap over the knuckles the pilot got was a letter put on his file for flying a plane without an appropriate endorsement because the RAAus plane was a tail dragged and he did not have a tail wheel endorsement. The RAAus board of that day made the comment to keep that one quiet as usual all secrets leak out.

 

This case is archived somewhere so there is a president sent.

 

Just remember some of these regulations are just a wish list.

 

Hence the CEO may be being a bit foolish as well,with that reply to Dafydd.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[dazza 38]

It was a interesting read.

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

It was a interesting read.

So was Lord of the Rings.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Strange they couldn't find a charge or 2, my reading of the CAO, if you don't comply with the requirements (such as a pilot cert and being a member), then the rest of the CAO doesn't apply, thus you are flying an unregistered (illegal) aircraft under the Regs.

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

I know a pilot who was charged, found guilty but with no conviction recorded. Only cost him a fine and a very large bill. (his and theirs)

 

 

[Keith Page]

I know a pilot who was charged, found guilty but with no conviction recorded. Only cost him a fine and a very large bill. (his and theirs)

This fellow was flying a registered RAAus aircraft. He had a PPL.. But no tail wheel endorsement.

 

That pilot if he has a PPL and the aircraft was registered he has grounds for appeal as the precident has been set.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

This fellow was flying a registered RAAus aircraft. He had a PPL.. But no tail wheel endorsement.That pilot if he has a PPL and the aircraft was registered he has grounds for appeal as the precident has been set.

Regards

 

KP.

Courts follow precedents set by other courts. As your fellow was not charged, he did not go to court, so no precedent I would have thought. How about a bit more detail, such as date and place, type of aircraft etc? Could it be the case was not proceeded with because of other factors such as sloppy collection of evidence and that was the reason for not proceeding?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It seems perfectly clear from all previous thread discussions that a PPL who is a member of RAA can fly an RAA plane without a pilot certificate. I am amused by the circuitous arguments that insist otherwise. There doesn't seem to be a skerrick of supporting legal evidence.

 

 

[Keith Page]

It seems perfectly clear from all previous thread discussions that a PPL who is a member of RAA can fly an RAA plane without a pilot certificate. I am amused by the circuitous arguments that insist otherwise. There doesn't seem to be a skerrick of supporting legal evidence.

In the case I just mentioned,, old mate was not a member of RAAus..

 

Yes pmccarthy ...... I think it is a case of ... if people wake up and have the courage to take the authorities on the results could be surprising.. But have the PPL with all the i's dotty and t's crossed.

 

I like, "Skerrick of supporting legal evidence".. Tells a story..

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

In the case I just mentioned,, old mate was not a member of RAAus..Yes pmccarthy ...... I think it is a case of ... if people wake up and have the courage to take the authorities on the results could be surprising.. But have the PPL with all the i's dotty and t's crossed.

I like, "Skerrick of supporting legal evidence".. Tells a story..

 

Regards

 

KP.

Keith, please give us a skerrick of evidence to support your story.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I thought I had told you enough.. I can not put names or towns in the information..

 

I think I have said too much already, the mechanics of the happenings is all there, as I see it people names and town name are missing.

 

Happyflyer...... I will not give any names.

 

I thought the PPL information was enough for you.

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[SDQDI]

I know that things are happening, they are big things, I can't tell you what things they are but they are happening..........

 

Sorry for my cynicism Keith, but was it not you who a few months ago told us about some big thing that were going to ruin RAA and change things forever but once the need arose for evidence we just had to trust you?

 

If it wasn't you I apologise, but this subject has been covered quiet a few times and it is annoying when subjects pop up that aren't really any benefit to anyone and seem to be aimed at causing unease amongst RAA members.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As i keep saying Far103 type and LSA experimental and LSA LSA's to have RPL and VH rego. life simple then.

 

 

[rick-p]

Maybe there should be a new organization started up, it could be called the ELAAA and run a parallel course with RAA. That would provide some competition on the playing field and a choice to the now dissatisfied members (if any) of that other organization. What do you think, it's a good idea?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It seems perfectly clear from all previous thread discussions that a PPL who is a member of RAA can fly an RAA plane without a pilot certificate. I am amused by the circuitous arguments that insist otherwise. There doesn't seem to be a skerrick of supporting legal evidence.

 

6.1 The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, are subject to the following general conditions:(b) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person holds a valid pilot certificate and, subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate;

I haven't quoted the whole CAO, but subsection 3 relates to the exemptions from CASR/CARs, including the requirement to be registered (VH). To me it seems clear, if you don't have a pilot certificate then you can't use the exemptions. There are other points such as having to comply with the Ops Manual (which has it's own requirements to needing the pilot certificate. The pilot certificate is defined in the instrument:

 

pilot certificate means a pilot certificate issued by the RAA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual.

Clearly a PPL issued by CASA doesn't meet this requirement.

Note: This relates to the CAO issued 24/02/2015 and I don't have the old one at hand to see if any of the above is new

 

 

[kgwilson]

The only way to be assured that the regulations are enforceable is to test them in a court of law. Clearly in Dafydds case the DPP felt there was insufficient evidence within the Act and regulations to secure a conviction. Presumably this situation continues to exist as there have been no changes affecting this type of scenario. I have a PPL & am a member of RA-Aus & did my 5 hours conversion a few years ago but never got around to doing the flight test with the CFI. I was planning to do this once I get my aircraft completed but I now wonder if it is really necessary. So long as I do a BFR & get my class 2 medical that should be sufficient on the basis of what I understand from the letters to the editor & Sportpilot article & this thread.

 

 

[Downunder]

things are happening, they are big things, I can't tell you what things they are but they are happening...........

OFF TOPIC........... but that sounds like the "presidents report"........ for the last 10 years.......

 

 

[rick-p]

So was Lord of the Rings.

Yes but it was Fiction!

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes but it was Fiction!

I think that was his subtle point.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, please give us a skerrick of evidence to support your story.

Yes Happy,

 

The first post in this thread written by myself, read that in conjunction with Dafydd letter and consider the comments written by the CEO there is the answer for you.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I think that was his subtle point.

Yes Rick-P.. I think he is having a dig at me, we will see.

Regards,

 

KP..

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes Happy,The first post in this thread written by myself, read that in conjunction with Dafydd letter and consider the comments written by the CEO there is the answer for you.

Regards,

 

KP.

Yep, can't argue with that. You win.

 

 

[Geoff13]

The only way to be assured that the regulations are enforceable is to test them in a court of law. Clearly in Dafydds case the DPP felt there was insufficient evidence within the Act and regulations to secure a conviction. Presumably this situation continues to exist as there have been no changes affecting this type of scenario. I have a PPL & am a member of RA-Aus & did my 5 hours conversion a few years ago but never got around to doing the flight test with the CFI. I was planning to do this once I get my aircraft completed but I now wonder if it is really necessary. So long as I do a BFR & get my class 2 medical that should be sufficient on the basis of what I understand from the letters to the editor & Sportpilot article & this thread.

Yep I can see the Judge now. Oh it was in letters to the editor and on the internet. No worries old mate if you saw it there it must be right. Case Dismissed. ("Yeah Right")

 

 

[rick-p]

I think that was his subtle point.

Yes, that may well be but that was my only point namely the thread was not fiction and I wasn't being subtle about it.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Yep I can see the Judge now. Oh it was in letters to the editor and on the internet. No worries old mate if you saw it there it must be right. Case Dismissed. ("Yeah Right")

Well that is a very cynical view. If you have ever had anything to do with a court of law you would understand that a case is only brought by either side after a lot of research through various legislation, regulations, case history and common law of torts. Any barrister who fails to do this will not remain one for long. The fact is that there has been a lot of research albeit by individuals trawling through the mire of CASA regulations & trying to relate these back to legislation and to date found no compelling evidence that a PPL cannot fly an RA-Aus registered aircraft. Plus the fact that no-one has been convicted of this is reason enough to doubt the validity of the statement in CAO 95.55. It has to be proven that this complies with the act & only a judge will make that decision once all evidence for and against has been submitted.