Moratorium on unregistered planes and/or uncertificated pilots ... and other news

[Pearo]

If you have and RPL with CTA endorsement, is the endorsement still valid a drivers licence medical? I just had a gander at the CASA website and it seems to suggest that your only restriction is you must remain below 10000' AMSL. I have not looked at the CASR's though.

 

 

[planesmaker]

A

 

If you have and RPL with CTA endorsement, is the endorsement still valid a drivers licence medical? I just had a gander at the CASA website and it seems to suggest that your only restriction is you must remain below 10000' AMSL. I have not looked at the CASR's though.

A rpl drivers medical is not the same as what RAAus have as being fit to drive a car. RPL medical is not much different from PPL medical class 2.

 

 

[Pearo]

A

A rpl drivers medical is not the same as what RAAus have as being fit to drive a car. RPL medical is not much different from PPL medical class 2.

Looks fairly different to the Class 2 medical I have. For a start, you dont need a DAME.

 

CASR Part 61 provides for an additional medical standard called the Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate that allows appropriately licenced pilots to exercise the privileges of the recreational pilot licence without the requirement to hold a CASA Class 2 medical. The Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate is based on a modified unconditional driver’s licence medical certificate for a private motor vehicle.

 

How to qualify

 

To qualify for the exemption, pilots must register online with CASA (which must be acknowledged by CASA), and renew, a modified form of unconditional private motor vehicle driver licence medical certificate known as a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate issued by a medical practitioner.

 

Medical examination

 

You will need a Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate confirming your fitness to fly, issued in accordance with the conditions in CASR Part 61 and Part 67 subpart D. When applying for this medical, you must tell the doctor of any condition that may adversely affect your ability to fly safely. Examples include but are not limited to diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, stroke, eye problems (such as cataracts), psychiatric disorders, blackouts or fainting.

 

The certificate issued by a medical practitioner uses the uniform Australian private motor vehicle unconditional driving licence medical standards contained in the Austroads Inc. publication Assessing Fitness to Drive for Commercial and Private Vehicle Drivers, but modified by additional CASA-designed medical standards. This type of medical examination can be undertaken by any general practitioner and is similar in form to the Austroads Inc. driver licence medical examination.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Sounds simple enough in theory.....

 

 

[jetjr]

Some indicate class 2 is easier to pass

 

Do you still need C2 medical for CTA with RPL?

 

 

[facthunter]

We have been over and over this "CAR" medical thing. Its' a tick the box if no issues or go to class one and two thing. No issues means no visits ever on the matter. The latest AOPA magazine has an article on it, if you want a serious view. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Planesmaker. The RAAus medical requirement is to be of a standard that will allow a car drivers licence. The rpl is just the same with some extra questions about drug use etc, so it must be harder to get.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Some indicate class 2 is easier to passDo you still need C2 medical for CTA with RPL?

You can use your RPL CTA endorsement with any of the CASA pilot medicals (Drivers, class 2 and class 1). With the Drivers medical you can only take one passenger (with some exemptions). The only thing you can't do with the Drivers medical is aerobatics.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

No you are wrong. The CASA modified Ausroads medical basically procludes you if you have had any heart operation and also many other conditions that the "drivers medical" does not take into account. I can pass the Ausroads medical..to drive a Bdouble but can not pass the CASA RPL Ausroads version which means the only avenue to me is a class 2 and it would be a waste of money with the current climate as I would be rejected...read the thread Dr Zoo has just started

 

 

[kaz3g]

Good point, do they have any restrictions?, not sure they wouldnt cause problems gliding into say essendon.

There are a series of endorsements necessary before a glider pilot may fly in CTA. The most common is flying in A class whether in thermals or, more likely, in wave. Maximum heights in wave are around 50,000 feet but greater than 30,000 is more the norm. Clearly they must be on oxygen over 10,000 and have an airways clearance. You can read all about it in the GFA MSOP on their website.

 

I'm sure I had to have a class 2 when I was instructing 30 years ago but I had one for my PPL anyway so could be wrong. I gather GFA use something like the RPL medical now but couldn't find anything to confirm this. Exadios will know, I'm sure.

 

A suitably endorsed glider pilot could fly a motor glider into Essendon if complying with the CARs etc but not a sailplane. A Solto used to regularly demonstrate its aerobatic capability at Avenel Air Show years ago...don't know if it still goes down there but it was always a great thrill to watch it trade energy for height during low level stuff.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Roundsounds]

If we get cta I reckon you can say goodbye to the drivers licence medical. Why oh why are people not satisfied with the status quo? Enjoy what we have before it all ends up as GA with costs approaching those of GA.Be happy with our limits and fly within them, if you want more get a ppl or rpl.

Both the Australian Gliding and Balloon Federations have controlled airspace privileges now, using only a self certified medical. They have never been restricted in their operations in CTA/CTR. The question should be - " why are RAAus operations restricted?"

 

 

[Roundsounds]

They do have some significant restrictions that I am not sure RAAus would want.1. The need to be a member of a club and unless they hold an "independent operator" rating have to have a level 2 instructor on the field at all times.

2. They can't do owner maintinance and need to do significant training/courses to do an annual inspection.

 

3. Have to do annual flight reviews.

 

The reality is that GFA entry into controlled airspace is pretty limited. It allows flying at places like Camden where there was gliding long before the tower. They don't regularity get clearences into class c as far as I know.

If you're comparing pure gliders with RAAus, you are correct. However, with a little effort an RAAus pilot could acquire a motor glider, have it placed on the GFA register and complete a conversion course. At the end of the course the pilot could operate independently from controlled airports without restriction on a GFA issued certifcate and a self certified medical - no GA RPL/PPL required. The only time a CASA medical is required for glider operations (provided you have reasonable health) is for any commercial type Op's (air experience or instructional flights).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

If we get cta I reckon you can say goodbye to the drivers licence medical. Why oh why are people not satisfied with the status quo? Enjoy what we have before it all ends up as GA with costs approaching those of GA. Be happy with our limits and fly within them, if you want more get a ppl or rpl.

Sorry to be so late to the party but I couldn't let this one go by especially as this is such a widely held sentiment.

I hope I can destroy this notion once and for all but I realise how unlikely that is. But allow me to try and feel free to tell me where my thinking is askew.

 

The overwhelming concept that needs to be grasped here is that in a free society like ours, you are free to do anything you like. Any restrictions on those freedoms need to be justified. We have remarkably free speech but it is not without reasonable restrictions. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire and you can't defame a person without repercussions.

 

So, with regard to access to CTA and heavier MTOW, we are looking for the elimination of an unjustifiable restriction on our freedoms - not the granting of a "privilege". That being the case, the onus is on the party wishing to apply the restriction to justify the need for the restriction on public benefit basis considering risk management principles.

 

Yes, with an RPL, you can do two endorsements and have access to CTA and towered airports. But, according to CASA, the RPL and the RPC are equivalent. The RPL (in theory at least) is not superior to the RPC. So, the restrictions that apply to RPC should be no more than those that apply to the RPL and the restrictions on both should be justified on a risk analysis basis not ancient history.

 

The first obvious risk that has to be avoided is lack of capability addressed by ensuring that you are trained, tested and proved to be able to do the task competently. In concert with having the skill is that is that your aircraft is suitably equipped to operate in CTA without causing undue risk to paying air travellers. Similarly there are other risks that need to be managed including health standard. Pilots around the world have been operating in CTA with drivers licence medical standards for more than 10 years and the experience has not seen a heap of Boeings and Airbuses being knocked out of the sky by Trikes. Australia is just about unique in the world in not allowing recreational aircraft into CTA.

 

RAAus has already trained more than 700 LSA/Ultralight pilots at places like Camden and Coffs Harbour and more than 10 other airports without safety issues. Yet when the trainee pilots go from solo student to pilot certificated they must never again enter the airport they learned to fly at. Nuts!!!

 

600 kg MTOW? The only thing that an overly restrictive MTOW attacks is airframe robustness and fuel carrying capacity. And that is also NUTS!!! By all means manage/reduce risk by restricting to pilot plus one pax but why restrict the strength of the aircraft they fly in? A 700kg two seat aircraft has the potential to be much stronger than a 600 kg (or 450 kg) aircraft and carry enough fuel to get there and back with good reserves. Surely that is a safer for everyone in the aircraft or on the ground.

 

OK so, lets assume for the moment that we get the restrictions changed to, say, 760 kg and CTA. How is that going to affect the person who is happy flying his rag and tube aircraft in the back paddock? The simple answer is "not in any way". He/She is not going to be forced to buy a 750 kg LSA nor fly into CTA. However, if they want to do either or both and are prepared to do the training and fly an appropriately equipped aircraft and have passed the endorsement why on earth would you want them restricted from doing that?

 

Would people prefer that we went back to single seat aircraft flying below 300ft and not crossing public roads?

 

The only thing that should determine what you are not restricted from doing with an airplane is what you have been trained successfully to do. Personally, I'd have one non-commercial aviation licence, call it what you like. In addition to the generic right to fly an aircraft within 25 NM of the airport you took off from you would have a range of options - endorsements for aircraft type (FW/WS/RW and NW/TW etc), where you can fly (XC/CTA/IFR/ ALT), how you can fly it (aeros, LL, etc).

 

This is a change from the ancient past where our aviation licensing comes from and, if you ask me, not before time!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I do have a few issues with RAA and I have been loathed to say it here to date, but the main one is the body itself handling accident and incidents. There is a good reason that the ATSB exists, and that is so it can make independent decisions on safety without bias from departments like CASA. The same arrangement needs to exist for RAA.

This is not the choice of RAAus. For fatal accidents, the Police are the investigators and provide a report for the Coroner. RAAus assists the Police at the request of the Police. The ATSB considers themselves budget constrained and that is the reason they don't investigate most RAAus accidents. Where there is high publicity and there is a chance of the serious public injury e.g. Old Bar Ferris Wheel, they do investigate and report.

 

RAAus would welcome ATSB involvement and the ATSB do provide technical assistance even if they don't lead the investigation.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

CASA wont relax class 2 for CTA,If they did it would make a mockery of their mantra for many years. They appear renown to follow a flawed track rather than reassess. Would also seem unreasonable that PPL still required one if they allowed less for RPL or RPC

Having a silly medical for PPL does not justify having a silly medical for recreational aviation.

 

 

[RickH]

If we get cta I reckon you can say goodbye to the drivers licence medical. Why oh why are people not satisfied with the status quo? Enjoy what we have before it all ends up as GA with costs approaching those of GA.Be happy with our limits and fly within them, if you want more get a ppl or rpl.

I voiced these very same sentiments a couple of years ago.And could not agree more. CTA and higher weight limits is all CASA need to wipe out RAA. More sophisticated acft more sophisticated regulations I totally agree be very careful what you wish for. But as I also stated previously the LearJet Set will not be happy until they have totally screwed things for everyone.

And please someone be the first to object to my reference to the LearJet Set comment I would love to know who you are.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't forget CASA proposed the weight limits be increased to 762 kgs. A weight increase allows much greater flexibility in design with LESS complexity and cost, and more safety. The only way to get a good payload under the current figures is to use construction with things like carbon fibre and a very light complex and expensive engine, meaning no low cost flying available to builders in this country, if you want a plane carrying two persons. The previous CASA CEO did a fair bit to wipe out a movement (us) he hadn't any affinity with and was also the reason the inflexible medical for controlled airspace happened.. Nev

 

 

[RickH]

I seem to recall much lobbying by both the members of RAA and members of this forum for weight increase long before CASA put forward any such proposition

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I voiced these very same sentiments a couple of years ago.And could not agree more. CTA and higher weight limits is all CASA need to wipe out RAA. More sophisticated acft more sophisticated regulations I totally agree be very careful what you wish for. But as I also stated previously the LearJet Set will not be happy until they have totally screwed things for everyone.And please someone be the first to object to my reference to the LearJet Set comment I would love to know who you are.

Firstly, the following comment is a personal view and not necessarily the view of the RAAus Board.

My thoughts:

 

I can not disagree more with this suspicion. I refer to it as a suspicion because to call it a superstion might be seen to be harsh. But, my mind tells me that this feeling that the removal of unreasonable restrictions on our flying, eg low MTOW and no access to CTA, will somehow damage those who want to fly rag and tube. I cannot see any logical connection. Flying an aircraft capable of operating at, say, 730 kg in CTA would not be *compulsory*. You do it if you want to and if you've done the training and your aircraft is suitably equipped. The question of medical is an important one. RAAus and AOPA should be campaigning to have the Claytons DL medical otherwise known as the RAMPC recast so that it is a genuine DL medical. The movement in the USA is to make medicals cheaper and less restrictive and CASA's RAMPC imposed by the hostile leadership of the previous DAS is way out of step with that trend and anything that can rationally be justified.

 

A higher MTOW and access to CTA are NOT privileges we are chasing. We want the removal of unreasonable restrictions imposed on our flying safety. Simple as that. CASA agrees in principle with this approach and are committed to working with us to get it done.

 

You may recall that the RAAus CEO who first put the case for 760kg to CASA was Lee Ungermann.

 

While McCormck, when DAS, made it very clear that no favours were to be done for RAAus, the current DAS has no such prejudice and, in my estimation, is a genuine aviation enthusiast and that bodes well for an association of aviation enthusiasts such as RAAus.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not that is is critical, but I think we asked for 750 and CASA came back with the 762Kgs which coincides with a Piper Tomahawk and a certain Cessna weights. I don't wish to join the concern with alleged Rotting old Cessna's etc but our treatment of them is the most severe in the world and what ever they need they need , regardless of under which banner they fly. They are a finite number and if in good order may outlast many new creations we are now offered. My desire to increase allowable weight is based around the weight of people ,fuel gear and the basic airframe weight of conventional construction from cheap materials and the sums have been done many times. The current limits are not written in stone and just evolved grudgingly over time like a wisdom tooth being pulled, Safety Cost and function, including repairability and a wider choice of engines. is a need for the future, unless we ALL just buy of the shelf. I like a lot of what EAA have done over the years A good model to have a good look at. Nev