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

[Keith Page]

My personal view.... RAAus training is competency based, with a catchall minimum hours........It is rare indeed that competency is likely to be judged as evident before or on the minimum hour mark.A number of instructors I know who I have faith in suggested that the minimum hours are in reality not really needed in our manuals because if something is competency based then it matters not one jot whether you have achieved it in 5 mins or 55hours....when your judged as having it then requirements are met.....

 

I always find it interesting that we all try our hardest to get the instructor out of the aircraft as quickly as possible, because we all know the measure of manliness and the judged length of your........., is a direct function of how long it took you to.........and then we spend the next hours from time to time wishing he was back in!

 

Andy

................................. and that is when we start learning Andy.

The instructor will only let us go when he knows that we are super super cautious and there is a lot of paranoia about. It is only when we are half smart is when the problems creep in.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

HappyflyerThe answer is in (3) and the definitions of "group" & "type". There will be people who might want to argue, I will not, but read the definitions and decide for yourself. I gained my certificate under the old manual so it doesn't involve me to any great extent.

Frank. The only reason it bothers me is that it is an unnecessary expence for a competent GA pilot to join us. Para (3) says "recreational aeroplane" of the same group and type. The ops manual has a definition of "recreational aeroplane". If you look at the definition you will see how badly written this section is. Cheers.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

you won't be feeling well for a while, you'll be surrounded by men in gowns, and then you'll be stuffed.

Sounds like a visit to Pakistan. Don't go there with a goatee. Sorry OT, couldn't resist.

 

On topic just need s few of you PPL / non-Raa types to try this one out for us and report back.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

OK, I'm no lawyer and I do not hold a PPL or higher but, just for fun, let's consider a theoretical situation.

 

- A person as rich and as aviation experienced as, say, Dick Smith does a few hours at Bankstown in a VH registered Tecnam Sierra as a type familiarisation using his PPL. Passes with flying colours.

 

- Bankstown subsequently decide that they have no further use for that particular Sierra and put it up for sale. A mate of Dick's buys the aircraft and registers it with RAAus.

 

- The fictional Dick character then does a few solo circuits in his mate's the now RAAus registered Tecnam Sierra.

 

- RAAus hears about it and gets the hump and has a moan to CASA.

 

- CASA feels compelled to take action against the "offending" pilot.

 

- The Pilot hires a team of QCs and says "bring it on".

 

Now try and picture the meeting at the DPP's office when CASA explains the facts of the matter to the DPP. The DPP asks to be reminded what the "offence" was. CASA quotes a heap of Regs at them. And the DPP then asks a few questions:

 

- Is there even the slightest doubt that the Pilot when flying with his PPL in a VH registered Tec Sierra was 100% competent? Answer: "no doubt at all of competency".

 

- Is there any significant technical difference between the aircraft when VH registered and when RAAus registered? Answer: "No, aircraft is unchanged in any way".

 

- the DPP then throws the CASA fellow out of his office (via the window on the 10th floor) and says "don't come back - ever".

 

Moral of the story is that undeniably, a PPL is clearly a superior aviation qualification to a Pilot Certificate and a prosecution of a PPL for flying an RAAus registered aircraft for which there is no doubting the PPL's capability to fly that particular aircraft would get laughed out of Court if it ever got that far.

 

Surely, the courts would (eventually) come to the conclusion that the Regs were an abuse of power and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal or higher would have no difficulty throwing in the bin where they belong any Reg that supported an otherwise nonsensical prosecution.

 

You don't need to look at Regs to work out what is right or wrong. You need to step back and have a hard look from a great height at the whole picture. No politician is going to thank CASA for making them look like morons to the world at large and Judges in particular.

 

Just my uninformed opinion.

 

As somebody said, we need somebody like Dick to take on this sort of silliness and resolve it.

 

I honestly doubt that a law could be written successfully that could reverse the fact of a PPL being a superior qualification to a Pilot Certificate.

 

The justification for the 5 hour conversion from GA and the need to hold a RPC is based on the fact that a PPL or CPL pilot might have been used to flying heavier MECIR aircraft and a rag and tube aircraft is a very different thing. But, since the difference between RA and GA has been blurred at the edges, that logic would have a hard time being defended on the grounds of Safety.

 

This issue could create a significant problem for RAAus if it ever was clearly resolved, unfavourably from an RAAus point of view. But, in the long run, common sense should prevail and a PPL should be able to operate an RAAus aircraft as long as they have proved they are competent on type.

 

 

[coljones]

Don, My CFI told me that I need 3 different hats - 1 for the Warrior, 1 for the Foxbat and 1 for the Jabiru and don't wear the wrong one on the wrong day in the wrong plane.

 

You are correct about the blurring between heavy/powerful RA and less powerful lightweight GA. I don't have a LP RAA rating but I would imagine that the step from say a Warrior to a Drifter might take a little time to master.

 

Perhaps RAA, in its continual review of services, might examine the range of services it provides to work out which ones are core (registration, licencing, advocacy) and those which could be regarded as non-core eg insurance and charge a fee for service for non-core. RAA has, for instance, already decided that the paper magazine is non core and thus separately chargeable.

 

If your illustration of PPL(only) in an RAA plane holds true is the insurance compromised or is that attached to the hull and therefore not a logical charge against the pilots and FTFs but rather a charge against the hull owners?

 

 

[Keith Page]

This could all be settled easily by those who 'know' that they can fly RAAus aircrft purely on a PPL or higher. Advise CASA and RAAus when and where you are going to to it and then do it!

That is a good idea because you will have a lot of peace. As soon as they hear about the big event no one will be seen because of the dust haze created by their departure.

The reason being they do not want to make fools of themselves in front of us mob.

 

Will happy flyer have a chuckle too??

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped ...Now try and picture the meeting at the DPP's office when CASA explains the facts of the matter to the DPP. The DPP asks to be reminded what the "offence" was. CASA quotes a heap of Regs at them. And the DPP then asks a few questions:

 

- Is there even the slightest doubt that the Pilot when flying with his PPL in a VH registered Tec Sierra was 100% competent? Answer: "no doubt at all of competency".

 

- Is there any significant technical difference between the aircraft when VH registered and when RAAus registered? Answer: "No, aircraft is unchanged in any way".

 

- the DPP then throws the CASA fellow out of his office (via the window on the 10th floor) and says "don't come back - ever".

 

clipped

The question will not, assuming the putative Dick did not do any low flying at night without lights etc, run as you indicate because it will not be a prosecution on airmanship but on the compliance of the airframe as they are the factual core of the are areas of contravention that will be put to the DPP for prosecution. The CASA woman or man will point out that they have evidence of deliberate and intentional contravention of multiple areas of the act and regs that are strict liability and on that basis it is not appropriate for us to deal with it by warning.

As for the airframes being technically unchanged the CASA gal or guy will also if questioned say that the RAA aircraft was not maintained in accord with the required schedule or by the appropriately qualified personnel.

 

I know as a thought experiment you have constructed it to be as minimally different between the two aircraft to highlight the closeness at the edge.

 

How about this one:

 

I am an RAA pilot who has been a member for 15 years and flown the same 95.10 facet sapphire that I have registered and maintained over those 15 years. I go out and learn to fly a few hours in a citabria at Camden and get my PPL. I then decide 'to the hell of it' and decide not to renew my RAA membership or registration on the sapphire ... but I continue to maintain it exactly as I have for 15 year. CASA find me having a coffee at Mittagong after flying down from The Oaks ...

 

Logically from a safety situation the pilot is just as 'safe' now flying the sapphire as he was for the last 15 years but has no RAA certificate

 

Logically from a safety situation the sapphire airframe is maintained in exactly the same way and to the same standards as is allowed and required under RAA tech Manual

 

Is this any different? Is the lack of registration or the expiration of registration suddenly making a safety difference day-to-day? Just removing the same airframe from the equation where your thought experiment ran and plugging in a very different airframe should make no difference to the outcome if safety were the ONLY reason for regulation.

 

Its not - that is why SOME contraventions in many areas of law are 'intention' based and others are strict liability.

 

Otherwise EVERYTHING comes into challenge ... move to the road - safety is the reason for the speed limit ... its 2 in the afternoon and I am driving a car that is demonstrably designed to drive in excess of 150kph in safety and I am delighted to come over a rise while driving out of Shepparton heading out on the midland highway and see that there is about 25km of dead straight flat road with no vehicles either direction and I floor it ... a police office with radar happens to be sitting behind a milking shed just past the Tatura turn off as I tear past at 185kph ... perfectly safe, no risk to anyone ... should I be allowed to argue that there was not risk to others therefore the speed limit of 100kph should not apply to me?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Since when does common sense come into it Don? The rules are quite clear, if you want to pilot a RA-AUS aircraft you need a RA-AUS Pilot Certificate. If you have a PPL, you need to fly a registered aircraft. Whether the rules should change or not is something completely different, doesn't make it any more legal today though.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Since when does common sense come into it Don? The rules are quite clear, if you want to pilot a RA-AUS aircraft you need a RA-AUS Pilot Certificate. If you have a PPL, you need to fly a registered aircraft. Whether the rules should change or not is something completely different, doesn't make it any more legal today though.

Those are indeed the rules that I do and will follow. I'm not sure it is as clear cut though as that.

It may be dreaming but I just feel that somewhere buried in the legal system at the highest level there is room for common sense and the striking down of administrative arrangements that are just plain ridiculous.

 

After all, it's the vibe!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

It may be dreaming but I just feel that somewhere buried in the legal system at the highest level there is room for common sense and the striking down of administrative arrangements that are just plain ridiculous.

!

cracks me up that does. better rearrange the tea cups and ice vo vos to make room for it Don.

 

 

[facthunter]

I hope you mean ICED vo vo's. Do we take that as a put down ozzie?

 

If we want no rules to apply at all to us as individual responsible persons, because WE will do it right, how do we cope with the outcome from the behaviour of others less skilled and sensible when the inevitible backlash happens to their antics .It's easy to call for freedoms but you don't have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road , or ignore red lights no matter how clever you are. Who decides who is clever and sensible?. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

So if therewas common sense applied as you suggest, would it do us any good. If I could fly my RAAus reg Corby on my PPL legally, I would. That means that RAAus would not get my membership fees. RAAus loses out on membership fees and what does that do to the average member. Possibly to provide the same service the fees for the members would have to go up. That of course would lead to all sorts of doom and gloom, people saying there should be an alternative administrator etc. I don't think it is in the interests of RAAus members for PPLs to be able to fly RAAus planes.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Missing the point again. If someone is an RAAus member and a PPL, should be no problem with law or insurance. RAA should welcome and encourage PPL and RPL members.

 

 

[SDQDI]

If they are a member then why not have the certificate? I mean c'mon it's 5 hrs.

 

Simple if you want to fly a plane with numbers on the side, get a certificate. If you already have a ppl well and good that may open up further privileges for the numbered plane but what harm does having the certificate do?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

If there was common sense at the higher levels then would we be having these discussions? No . Iced Vo Vo. A number one favorite of the public servant sector or it was when i used to visit the Dept in Golbourne St long ago. RAAus certificate is only good for pseudo GA, can't use for anything else or anywhere else. PPL on the other hand can be used in many countries and on many types. So maybe they should be used on RAAus aircraft. Often wonder what makes GA so special that it does not need mandatory 3rd party insurance. What does it say about RAAus pilots if it has to be compulsory for them? The whole game is shattered and fragmented. There is no continuance in the system, you can scramble up the ladder from RAAus certificate and use those hours towards PPL or Commercial but you can't step back down without having to pay again. No credit for your GA hours?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We in RAAus today have separate certificate classes for different aircraft types. We do that because being a 3 axis pilot doesn't make you a trike pilot, and a 3 axis pilot who believes he can just jump in a trike and go is statistically likely not much longer for this world.... and that's focusing on the differences...if we focus on the similarities they are substantial, you just need to be taught to deal with the differences. Same issue with tail dragger vs nose wheel....rag and tube vs plastic fantastic and imho bigger heavier GA vs lighter RAAus 3 axis aircraft.

 

The training required for RAAus to move across classes is the same as someone coming from GA....IMHO its logical and appropriate, with the one exception that competency based training is based on competency and not hours.......If an instructor judges you competent after 1 hr then no need for the next 4...

 

That said instructors I have discussed this with say that RAAus minimum hours are just that a minimum and if they were to average the hours required for students to become competent then that average would likely be much higher than the minimum...but there is always an exception...just as there are those whole will never achieve the required competence.

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

GA hours do count with RAAus. I believe many RAAus planes are significantly more difficult to fly than a certified aircraft is. Some are almost identical, but is that the issue? It appears to be an anomaly, but they do operate under a different system which WE (If a member ) pay for it to exist. IF you fly one and don't know what is going on, how will it be compliant? How would you know?. You aren't in the system.

 

SAAA operate under the VH rules with basically all having PPL/RPL or higher The SAAA don't have to get involved with pilot standards.

 

We don't do it that way, and I think we are better of to have the options we have, although there is some work to do there.. It's not reasonable to have that available for the taking by someone who has a PPL and doesn't want to contribute to RAAus. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

A very large part of the problem here and one of the reasons this discussion goes on are the RAAus membership fees. As far as I'm concerned I get good value for the component that goes towards the Magazine (digital or hardcopy) and the Insurance (pax cover is very low and low risk for the insurers). If the other bit was funded by CASA/Dept of Transport as it is for GA then there would be no issue worth spending time on.

 

I take Andy's point: it should be a question of competency on type not what organisation you do or don't belong to.

 

For all that, it is what it is. Them's the rules. If you don't like the rules and I don't and it really bothers you, campaign for the rules to be changed. There is an excellent good argument for PPL's to fly RA aircraft on their PPL - once they have demonstrated competency to a CFI. In the meantime, you don't really have a choice unless you have very deep pockets and are prepared to take it to the High Court.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There is an excellent good argument for PPL's to fly RA aircraft on their PPL - once they have demonstrated competency to a CFI.

Good point.

 

PPls will usually have a massive advantage in BAK, MET, Radio and Nav training, but that's it. Most PCs could fly a Cherokee after a couple of hours conversion, but VERY few PPls could get the low inertia aircraft proficiency without spending enough time that they may as well get the PC as well. I've heard plenty of braggers, but I've also seen the results.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbs, on that subject I believe there would be SOME who might never get up to speed. You can bang around in a Cessna 172 or Cherokee, or Tripacer and do landings (the ground is down there somewhere) for years and get away with it but never be safe in a Jabiru or Yenns Starlet. or a taildragger RV for that matter. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, on that subject I believe there would be SOME who might never get up to speed. You can bang around in a Cessna 172 or Cherokee, or Tripacer and do landings (the ground is down there somewhere) for years and get away with it but never be safe in a Jabiru or Yenns Starlet. or a taildragger RV for that matter. Nev

Yes, I'd agree, the lighter aircraft require a substantially higher level of skill to cope with all conditions including weather and runway placement.

 

 

[Yenn]

Yenns Starlet could be GA registered and in fact I believe there are more GA Starlets, than RAAus. But the point is valid. I doubt a piper or cessna driver could jump into a drifter and fly it, in fact I would not try to do that without an instructor with me, and I have aver 200 hours on a thruster.

 

Where does the idea that we have to have third party insurance come from. It is not mandated, our representatives, ie RAAus have done a good deal with an insurance company. It is not mandated by law, only comes as part of the registration. A good thing too in my opinion.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I believe it's a requirement given by CASA (maybe in the deed?).

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I can confirm that the majority of 'good ol days' ultralights or minimum aircraft as they were correctly labeled back then that were damaged or written off was at the hands of GA pilots stepping down. Most were tri gear pilots stepping into little tail draggers that had a castoring tail wheel and no brakes that also had a high end power loading that caught many out. Their attitude played a big part. Toy aeroplane scoff scoff. Rebuilt many a Stolaero and Condor demo machine.

 

The other way around was a little different. Some of us proved that when we spent some time at Illawarra training. Hardest part was distraction, playing with flaps and carby heat. But none of us that afternoon scared the guy in the right seat. The Citarbria and C180 afternoon created some entrainment but no one damaged anything. And when it came to theory, most had various books on the subject. Even today i would be hesitant to let a GA pilot 'go for it'.

 

 

[dazza 38]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Since GA pilots and above do not need to be a member of any club or association to fly an aircraft, then neither should pilots wishing to fly an RAA aircraft.