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

[rick-p]

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.

Speaking from a little experience that's correct a case is usually only commenced if it is relatively clear that the matter has teeth and there is precedent that is on all fours with the action.

 

It would be in my humble view somewhat of a test case as all aircraft now are treated for the purpose of the statutes and reg's as Australian Registered aircraft which includes RAA aircraft.

 

The uncertainty is in the exemptions and prima facia having to be a member of RAA.

 

It's al a question of interpretation.

 

 

[440032]

CAO's 95.10. 95.32 and 95.55 all have a "Licence not required" clause in them, referring to Section 20AB of the act (the Civil Aviation Act).

 

Guess what? There is no such thing as 20AB now, it's gone. It was about flying without a licence, in other words, on something else, a pilot certificate.

 

My thought was, regarding the "flying without a licence" exemption, if you already had a CASA licence - you didn't need to use the CAO's exemption (fly on a pilot certificate). That's what it said (It still says it today - but is no longer valid by its own demise). You can't wave the 20AB card now, because it's gone. It was about permitting those without a CASA licence, a way to fly. So, now that there is no such thing as 20AB, the rest of the CAO's apply to everyone, and they clearly say that you must have a pilot certificate. CASA has quietly closed this loophole.

 

Case closed.

 

 

[farri]

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?

Good and bad being relative,to the object, I don`t know that it`s either.

 

Back in the late mid eighties I wanted to break away from the AUF and form our own organisation, in Queensland. It couldn`t be done because the department of the day ( If I remember correctly, it was then called the 'Department of Aviation) had approved the AUF and they would not allow any other organisation to administer Ultralight Aircraft.

 

I don`t know the details but to my knowledge, that was later challenged as being a monopoly and so eventually a new organisation could be formed, but it had to be done by the rules of the then department controlling civil aviation. I don`t remember their name, I used to call them,the department of name change..... Maybe someone on here knows more about it and has more details.

 

If anyone wants to form a new organisation, go for it! I wish you luck.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

It is possible to form a breakaway still. It has already happened some time back in Skydiving. Along with the APF there is also the Australian Skydiving Association based in Euroa Victoria. Has also been rumbles in the HGFA camp as well. Would not be surprised if it happens soon.

 

 

[farri]

Ozzie, I reckoned you`d you know a bit more.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

CAO's 95.10. 95.32 and 95.55 all have a "Licence not required" clause in them, referring to Section 20AB of the act (the Civil Aviation Act).Guess what? There is no such thing as 20AB now, it's gone. It was about flying without a licence, in other words, on something else, a pilot certificate.

My thought was, regarding the "flying without a licence" exemption, if you already had a CASA licence - you didn't need to use the CAO's exemption (fly on a pilot certificate). That's what it said (It still says it today - but is no longer valid by its own demise). You can't wave the 20AB card now, because it's gone. It was about permitting those without a CASA licence, a way to fly. So, now that there is no such thing as 20AB, the rest of the CAO's apply to everyone, and they clearly say that you must have a pilot certificate. CASA has quietly closed this loophole.

 

Case closed.

I found 20AB with a quick google search. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caa1988154/s20ab.html

Why do you say it is gone?

 

 

[winsor68]

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

Come on Keith...it isn't a secret. It was in the news wasn't it.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I think the "intent" of the legislation is fairly clear.

 

Should a defence to an action be successful the it would only result in a amendment as is usually the case with any legislation.

 

Up to the individual to decide the intent of the legislation and the risk/cost of challenging it.

 

 

[440032]

Act 20AB.....

 

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR................... I was looking at it all yesterday, in depth, at the current thing....... I didn't see it. You know what, I think I was looking at underneath a Section 20A, which is a few items BELOW 20AA,AB,AC. What a crock. Silly me thought in the alphabetical world that first came A, then came AB and so on....

 

Section 20AB of the act IS still there folks. Happyflyer - good pick up dude!

 

20AB Flying aircraft without licence etc.

 

(1) A person must not perform any duty that is essential to the operation of an Australian aircraft during flight time unless:

 

(a) the person holds a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform that duty; or

 

(b) the person is authorised by or under the regulations to perform that duty without the civil aviation authorisation concerned.

 

civil aviation authorisation means an authorisation under this Act or the regulations to undertake a particular activity (whether the authorisation is called an AOC, permission, authority, licence, certificate, rating or endorsement or is known by some other name).

 

From the three CAO's:

 

Licence not required

 

For section 20AB of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aeroplane to which this Order applies without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsections 5 and 6.

 

So, it is saying that to fly, you need something, (licence or certificate) - you cannot fly on just fresh air: no licence or no certificate.

 

If you do have a CASA licence, there's really no need to read any further to the other sections, they do not apply to you. That's what it says. "You can fly without a licence (from CASA), if you..........."

 

You know how all this probably came about - back in the days of the formation of AUF, etc, the ones that wanted to fly light, inexpensive, home made or cheap kit aircraft, they had no licence, at all, nothing. So the CAO was written for them. If you don't have a licence, don't worry, here's what you need to do...... And it hasn't been updated much, if at all.

 

Would I be legally comfortable flying a mates aircraft on only a PPL? Yes, I would, if he'd let me. Would I be covered by RA-Aus insurance? NO! Is that wise? NO! So you see, it's all not quite so black and white in the long run. This is an interesting discussion for sure.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

You need to read the whole CAO not just cherry pick the parts out. In order to operate the aircraft under the exemptions you need a pilot certificate (and operate as per the Ops Manual) . No pilot certificate, no exemptions.

 

Registered Aircraft is not the same as an Australian Aircraft. RA-AUS aircraft are considered an Australian Aircraft, but not so a Registered Aircraft. This was pointed out on the other thread on this issue

 

 

[kasper]

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.

Ok here are a few skerricks of evidence of the issues facing a PPL holder flying a 95.10 registered aircraft without an RAA pilots certificate:

1. you are not flying on a pilots certificate so you are not subject to para 5 of CAO95.10 so good fun - while the aircraft has to be registered with RAA it is not subject to the tech manual and you are not subject to the ops manual as compliance with them is just part of operating within para5 to get the para3 exemptions ... and as you are in a 'rule breaking' mood tear off the warning sign about it being a 95.10 aircraft as that is also not required for this flight as that is under para5 and you are being a rebel

 

2. you are not operating within para5 so the exemptions under para 3 do not apply to your flight so you have to comply with all the bits in teh regs that para3 exempts pilot certificate holders from ...

 

para 3 - exemptions under reg 308

 

I am not complying with para 5(d)(i) So I AM required to comply with each of the bits under para 3 that I would be exempted from if I had a pilots certificate ... so here are the bits of CAR 1988 I have to comply with because I have a Pilots Licence and not a pilots certificate:

 

(a) Parts 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 5;

 

4 Airworthiness requirements - issues - heaps - eg anyone who did not hold a CASA certificate to do ANY maintenance on that aircraft EVER makes it airworthy within the regs … flying an un-airworthy aircraft is against the regs - pilot in trouble.

 

4A Maintenance issues - heaps - eg maintenance releases by authorised personnel - a maintenance release doesn't exist for RAA and you just took off without a required documents - pilot in trouble.

 

4B Defect reporting Probably not so much an issue for the pilot - they are not being maintained by controlled people

 

4C Flight Manual issues - heaps - eg there is no approved flight manual, it probably was not carried on the flight (because it doesn't exist) - pilot in trouble

 

4D Removal of data plates Not so much - the data plates are not in place because they reg that requires them does not apply to RAA registered aircraft

 

5 Balloon flight crew licences Not so much an issue really

 

(b) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment;

 

issue - must hold FRTOL - I have one of those as I have a PPL so no issue

 

© regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157;

 

133 Registration marks 133(1)(a) requires nationality and regn marks as per Part 45 …

 

"45.015 Australian nationality mark

 

The Australian nationality mark is the capital letters VH.

 

45.020 Registration mark

 

The registration mark of an Australian aircraft is the group of characters that is assigned to the aircraft under Part 47."

 

So any RAA aircraft cannot comply with this so issue - illegal flight

 

133 rating by crew 133(1) requires crew to hold all appropriate ratings for the aircraft … check my PPL for tailwheel if reqd …

 

139 documents to be carried in the aircraft PIC must carry in the aircraft the cert of reg (it does not exist for RAA) the cert of airworthiness (it does not exist for RAA) the maintenance release (it does not exist for RAA) the radio equipment licence - lots of issues for the pilot

 

155 aerobatic manourvers I will assume we are not going to be doing this …

 

157 low flying I will assume we are not going to be doing this …

 

(d) paragraph 166A (2) (f) in respect of powered parachutes;

 

(e) Division 4 of Part 13;

 

Dsiplaying lights etc Assume that the issues possible here are not arising

 

(f) regulations 207, 208 and 230;

 

207 Operational type Assume that the issues possible here are not arising eg not used for commercial BUT as CASA have not authorised the RAA aircraft specifically (because they wrote this to be exempted) it might be a bit messy

 

208 number of crew operating Minimum crew issues do not apply - it’s only got 1 seat …

 

230 starting and running engines Assume that the issues possible here are not arising

 

(g) subregulation 242 (2);

 

242(2) radio fault rectification Hmmm. If your radio check comes back faulty then only an approved person can fix it AND they have to certifiy it fixed … best not check the radio then because I can't change a fuse legally here …

 

(h) regulations 252 and 258;

 

252 Provn of emergency systems Bascially its about life vests and liferafts directed by CASA … assumed not to be an issue

 

258 flgiht over water Assume that the issues possible here are not arising

 

(i) regulation 322. no longer applies

 

So you are flying an illegally marked aircraft with multiple document problems and its technically unairworthy ... thats just YOU as pilot ... by flying it as an Australian Aircraft not under the exemptions of para3 you have also just opened up to challenge anyone who maintained or worked on that aircraft since it was registered ... probably the CASA and DPP will just go after you but technically your flight just impacted all people who worked on the aircraft back to date of registration as all their work was unrecognised due to either the person being non-approved or the process being undocumented - or both.

 

So dear PPL pilots, go fly an RAA aircraft and maybe the DPP will not go after you but be very aware, you are NOT flying it legally and to say otherwise is to be an idiot.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree with Frank...RAAus membership costs $210 a year...Lawyer costs...$800 per hour......likely hours spent.......you guess but many more than in a working day...seems to me that a victory in law is almost certainly a complete disaster financially.......and victory imho is no sure thing...especially as CASA have the ability should they choose to, of bankrupting you before you get to declare victory in law, which of course means you will never declare victory in law..........

 

So, good to talk about....a disaster to actually do...... Pretty much the same reality for an alternate RAAO......

 

I've been hearing for ages about MB's ELAAA but an ABN search yesterday (ELAAA cant exist without an ABN and actually function as a business...which is sort a prerequisite to be an RAAO) shows again that it is still doesn't seem to exist.......

 

 

[gandalph]

Keith, Your opening post is a little ambiguous in that you refer to Dafydd Lewellyn's letter in the latest edition of Sport Pilot and then go to refer to "this gentleman" and his alleged misdemeanours. Several people have posted asking you to be more specific as to who the person might be, and KGWilson in post# 16 has reasonably assumed that you are referring to Dafydd Llewellyn as the miscreant in your story. If you are saying (but, as usual, not saying in you own inimitable - "I've got a secret a but I I cant tell you about it" - fashion) that Dafydd was the transgressor then you should cut out the coy nonsense and say so. If it was not Dafydd then you should man up and say so. Dafydd no longer contributes to these forums for reasons that have not been made clear. That is our loss. He is therefore unable to defend himself or the slur on his reputation. I imagine that having people either wittingly or unwittingly (wittlessly?) libelling him here would be reason enough for him not to want to return.

 

If you have an agenda then either publish it or shove it.

 

 

[rick-p]

I agree with Frank...RAAus membership costs $210 a year...Lawyer costs...$800 per hour......likely hours spent.......you guess but many more than in a working day...seems to me that a victory in law is almost certainly a complete disaster financially.......and victory imho is no sure thing...especially as CASA have the ability should they choose to, of bankrupting you before you get to declare victory in law, which of course means you will never declare victory in law..........So, good to talk about....a disaster to actually do...... Pretty much the same reality for an alternate RAAO......

 

I've been hearing for ages about MB's ELAAA but an ABN search yesterday (ELAAA cant exist without an ABN and actually function as a business...which is sort a prerequisite to be an RAAO) shows again that it is still doesn't seem to exist.......

I have no idea where you get your information from but you must know some damn dear lawyers.

 

Also what or who is MB's?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

http://www.legallawyers.com.au/legal-topics/law-firm-sydney/solicitor-prices/

 

The price I quoted is one of the numbers listed....but for argument sake lets just say I was wrong and make it$200 per hour...does that in anyway make the financial result anything but still horrendous?

 

Ignore the MB comment

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hello gandalph

 

In short Dafydd was not the person in mention regarding flying a RAAus aircraft just with a PPL.

 

I simply mentioned Daffyd in a congratulatory manner for producing such a good article and how the CEO chimed in saying Daffyd was wrong. I am sticking up for Dafydd.

 

I thought I made that clear.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, Your opening post is a little ambiguous in that you refer to Dafydd Lewellyn's letter in the latest edition of Sport Pilot and then go to refer to "this gentleman" and his alleged misdemeanours. Several people have posted asking you to be more specific as to who the person might be, and KGWilson in post# 16 has reasonably assumed that you are referring to Dafydd Llewellyn as the miscreant in your story. If you are saying (but, as usual, not saying in you own inimitable - "I've got a secret a but I I cant tell you about it" - fashion) that Dafydd was the transgressor then you should cut out the coy nonsense and say so. If it was not Dafydd then you should man up and say so. Dafydd no longer contributes to these forums for reasons that have not been made clear. That is our loss. He is therefore unable to defend himself or the slur on his reputation. I imagine that having people either wittingly or unwittingly (wittlessly?) libelling him here would be reason enough for him not to want to return.If you have an agenda then either publish it or shove it.

Go back and refer to my post No:- 11..... May be that is what you are having a problem with.

 

kgwilson's post was only mentioning Dafydd by fact of Dafydd's article not a crime..

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[dazza 38]

If what Dafydd says is proved correct, the RAA will lose a shipload of members.

 

 

[Keith Page]

If what Dafydd says is proved correct, the RAA will lose a shipload of members.

Yes Dazza 38 what I have read and gleaned I think you not to far off the pace.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[gandalph]

Hello gandalphIn short Dafydd was not the person in mention regarding flying a RAAus aircraft just with a PPL.

Regards,

 

KP.

Thanks for quickly clarifying that Keith.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

If what Dafydd says is proved correct, the RAA will lose a shipload of members.

But we know it's not, CASA and RAA have both said so, any judgement otherwise will just see the regulation tightened anyway.

 

 

[Keith Page]

But we know it's not, CASA and RAA have both said so, any judgement otherwise will just see the regulation tightened anyway.

One or both could be fibbing?? Just consider that..

 

Look what 440032 came up with he had one story regarding the regulation now with thorough reading look what has been revealed.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Keith, if CASA want it a certain way, you take it to court and win, they can just change the regulation to get what they want.

 

I've posted parts of the regulations which I believe exclude PPLs from operating RAA aircraft, I've yet to see anyone post something in the regulations to support your argument.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, if CASA want it a certain way, you take it to court and win, they can just change the regulation to get what they want.I've posted parts of the regulations which I believe exclude PPLs from operating RAA aircraft, I've yet to see anyone post something in the regulations to support your argument.

As I have said many times a lot of regulation is only a wish list..

 

Have you ever tried to get regulations changed??

 

I have to ask you what have I not made clear ----- with only mate flying the tail dragger after he was apprehended CASA and RAAus were trying to work out what to charge him with, DPP advised them drop the charges or they will make fools of them selves.

 

I do acknowledge the fact I have not revealed the person name, aircraft make and location, how ever all the mechanics of the saga are revealed.

 

For revision read my first post in this thread and Dafydd's very good article in the RAAus magazine I think you will have your answers there. If not get on to the DPP.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[kasper]

As I have said many times a lot of regulation is only a wish list..Have you ever tried to get regulations changed??

I have to ask you what have I not made clear ----- with only mate flying the tail dragger after he was apprehended CASA and RAAus were trying to work out what to charge him with, DPP advised them drop the charges or they will make fools of them selves.

 

I do acknowledge the fact I have not revealed the person name, aircraft make and location, how ever all the mechanics of the saga are revealed.

 

For revision read my first post in this thread and Dafydd's very good article in the RAAus magazine I think you will have your answers there. If not get on to the DPP.

 

Regards

 

KP.

There is a world of difference between what is legal under the act and regs and what the authority chooses to enforce by court vs enforce by letter and modification to behaviour with and even then what the DPP chooses to actually prosecute even if the authority wishes.

Take a look at the items listed in my post that apply to a PPL flying a 95.10 ultralight because the exemptions do not apply to the flight - several of those are offenses of strict liability - no intent required (though as a PPL you damn well know you are not flying a VH reg aircraft when you take off in something with numbers down the side) so feel free.

 

If you or anyone is certain in your view that there is no breach of the law with a non-pilot certificate but PPL holder flying an RAA registered aircraft and that in fact any prior case you know of is not just the authorities choosing not to enforce through court then fill yer boots. Write a letter to CASA, get the media around to show the world the beauty of RAA aircraft available to PPL holders ... then we can see who is correct ;-)