Sport Pilot Licence

[Guest browng]

So as not to drag another thread off topic (ADS-B), I have taken the post below, and started a new thread here;

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by pelorus32

 

I'm interested in a couple of comments that you've made about the "impending Sport Pilot License". I would be interested in comment from John McK and others here as I had understood that this was a kite that had been flown but not really picked up. :end quote

 

I too would be interested in comment on this from those more informed than me. I have spoken to flight crew licensing at CASA about a possible 'Sport Pilot Licence' within the past few months, and got the impression that while not a current project, it was definitely not off the agenda, especially from the experimental GA perspective. With part 103 and part 149, CASA have clearly committed to a "parallel path" for aircraft registration and administration.

 

"3.4.4 Proposed CASR Part 103 will also establish a pathway for CASA to administer these activities in the case of individual participants who, for whatever reason, choose not to participate as members of these organisations – the “Parallel Path Principle”. This is further explored and explained in a draft Advisory Circular as Guidance Material, and is intimately involved in the conceptual relationship between CASR Parts 103 and 149."

 

In other words you could own an RAAus 'type', but decide not to join RAAus and elect to have it administered by CASA under essentially the same conditions as by RAAus. What then about administering the pilot? It seems logical that CASA will have to have some kind of equivalent to a pilot certificate in order to offer a parallel path for aircrew certification, and this logically would be the SPL. I make no claim that this conclusion is based on anything but the existing NPRM's, and simple logic as I see it, but I really can't see CASA implementing a parallel path for aircraft administration without aircrew administration. My 2c worth and no more though.....

 

As to International standardization potentially being a factor in any proposed increase of MTOW beyond the LSA compatible 600kg, from Part 103;

 

"Whilst the focus of the RRP has been on international harmonisation with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards and practices, there are very few applicable international standards for these activities. The approach taken by Australia in devolving the administration of sport and recreational aviation to the aviation community, and applying simplified forms of the ICAO rules, has been adopted by a number of other advanced aviation countries who have also reviewed their regulatory framework over the past decade. Thus the proposed rules in this NPRM bear a practical harmonisation to the rules of other developed aviation nations and form a workable template for nations whose aviation regulatory framework is less sophisticated."

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I spoke with a CASA guy this morning on another issue. He made a comment however about the parallel path option. He said that the whole intent and purpose was to devolve administration - both at the pilot level and at the a/c and rego level to RAO. He said that if it ever had to come back to CASA it would take 5 years or more to organise because there ius nobody left there to do it!!

 

Name withheld to protect the innocent.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest browng]

I spoke with a CASA guy this morning on another issue. He made a comment however about the parallel path option. He said that the whole intent and purpose was to devolve administration - both at the pilot level and at the a/c and rego level to RAO. He said that if it ever had to come back to CASA it would take 5 years or more to organise because there ius nobody left there to do it!!Name withheld to protect the innocent.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Interesting, my "CASA guy" gave a completely different picture, and I am beginning to suspect a schizm along RAAus versus 'SAAA & friends' lines. Having a foot in both camps I would not be at all surprised, as there is certainly some deeply entrenched opposition there. The issue seems to be that the Experimental Category guys (where type convergence is greatest), want the benefits of devolved administration, but do not want to get involved with RAAus. Maybe the idea is that to avoid the burden of the 'parallel path', the SPL will be administered by them, not by CASA?, and there are certainly moves afoot the get an increased MTOW there, all the way to 5700kg!, although I somehow doubt they have a hope in hell of getting it. Personally I don't see the problem, my J3 will stay 'VH' until an MTOW of greater than 600kg is possible under the exemption provision in Part 103, (it is 630kg and already exempted by the FAA) but my Experimental Category Jodel will be going over to RAAus in the very near future. I still doubt however that a 'blanket' increase beyond 600kg will happen, that is what the exemption provision in Part 103 is for, to allow CASA control on an individual type basis, in line with FAA regulations, and no impediment to standardization.

 

 

[Guest browng]

Ok, it seems I now have the 'definitive' answer from 'A.W' at CASA on the Sport Pilot License. It has NOT gone away, it is in CASR Part 61, and it is just waiting for Part 103 and Part 149 to be implemented before taking centre stage. The SPL will have absolutely nothing to do with RAAus or any other recreational aviation admin body, it will be administered solely by CASA, and apply solely to CASA administered aircraft. It will quite literally be a truncated PPL, i.e. it will be issued to a PPL student at that point in training where he would currently be issued with passenger carrying privileges, and it will be up to the student to choose to progress from that point to a full PPL, or not as required.

 

 

[John Brandon]

Ok, it seems I now have the 'definitive' answer from 'A.W' at CASA on the Sport Pilot License. It has NOT gone away, it is in CASR Part 61, and it is just waiting for Part 103 and Part 149 to be implemented before taking centre stage. The SPL will have absolutely nothing to do with RAAus or any other recreational aviation admin body, it will be administered solely by CASA, and apply solely to CASA administered aircraft. It will quite literally be a truncated PPL, i.e. it will be issued to a PPL student at that point in training where he would currently be issued with passenger carrying privileges, and it will be up to the student to choose to progress from that point to a full PPL, or not as required.

Isn't that the proposed Recreational Pilot Licence not a Sport Pilot Licence or Certificate?

 

 

[Guest browng]

Isn't that the proposed Recreational Pilot Licence not a Sport Pilot Licence or Certificate?

Yes you are correct, it is now an RPL not an SPL as originally proposed, I am a bit slow to absorb change. It is basically an 'LSA' PPL, designed to provide owners of LSA's and equivalent aircraft (e.g. some GA Experimental) the promised 'parallel path' if they do not want to join RAAus or equivalent organization. It will only be usable with 'VH' registered aircraft, an RAAus pilot will still require a Pilot Certificate even if he holds an RPL. I'm not sure why anybody would register an LSA with CASA though, as it seems the normal CASA maintenance requirements will still apply. i.e. the requirement for a LAME.

 

 

[John Brandon]

Yes you are correct, it is now an RPL not an SPL as originally proposed, I am a bit slow to absorb change. It is basically an 'LSA' PPL, designed to provide owners of LSA's and equivalent aircraft (e.g. some GA Experimental) the promised 'parallel path' if they do not want to join RAAus or equivalent organization. It will only be usable with 'VH' registered aircraft, an RAAus pilot will still require a Pilot Certificate even if he holds an RPL. I'm not sure why anybody would register an LSA with CASA though, as it seems the normal CASA maintenance requirements will still apply. i.e. the requirement for a LAME.

The RPL proposal is not something new, it has been in official existence at least since 1998, it appeared in the Part 61 discussion paper released in 2000. In Part 61 [Flight crew licence structure] it has nothing to do with any sport pilot concept. I believe it is primarily meant to tidy up the ICAO regulatory anomaly where currently Australian SPL [i.e. student pilot licence] holders who have passed the General Flying Progress Test are allowed to carry passengers when operating in the vicinity of their home base.

The US FAA also released an RPL in the '90s but I think that was a fizzer.

 

I would be interested to know if some organisation is trying to add a Sport Pilot Licence [in addition to the RPL] to the Part 61 proposal. By the way there is no existing Sport Pilot 'Licence' associated with LSA, in the US it is a Sport Pilot Certificate which in concept is practically identical to the RA-Aus Pilot Certificate.

 

John Brandon

 

 

[Guest browng]

The RPL proposal is not something new, it has been in official existence at least since 1998, it appeared in the Part 61 discussion paper released in 2000. In Part 61 [Flight crew licence structure] it has nothing to do with any sport pilot concept. I believe it is primarily meant to tidy up the ICAO regulatory anomaly where currently Australian SPL [i.e. student pilot licence] holders who have passed the General Flying Progress Test are allowed to carry passengers when operating in the vicinity of their home base.The US FAA also released an RPL in the '90s but I think that was a fizzer.

 

I would be interested to know if some organisation is trying to add a Sport Pilot Licence [in addition to the RPL] to the Part 61 proposal. By the way there is no existing Sport Pilot 'Licence' associated with LSA, in the US it is a Sport Pilot Certificate which in concept is practically identical to the RA-Aus Pilot Certificate.

Just when I thought I had it pegged. I'm now just as confused as I was to begin with! I think I'll just wait and see what transpires, and hope it does so before the Alzheimer's gets a grip.:;)2: