Proposed Utility Endorsement

[facthunter]

I agree. I was quite surprised about the position taken and did say so. I strongly disagree with it, and I think I have been around long enough to back my opinion with experience. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

Considering the RAA has just come off a bumper year of fatalities, this new direction seems to being tempting fate with CASA.

I think there is general agreement that training will reduce incidents - in any particular aspect of flying you like to choose. eg, instrument flying is a CASA requisite for all CASA licences. Given that CASA recognise the level of accidents involving flight into non-VMC, and the value of IF training and currency in reducing this problem - why not expand training to cover the other high risk sector? My proposition is that they should treat low level training in exactly the same way as IF and include RAAus in it for good measure.

 

happy days,

 

 

[fly_tornado]

fair point, so we should have spin training included because there are plenty accidents where RAA pilots are doing low level stall turns whilst checking the state of an animal/fence/bore drain and get into a spin without sufficient altitude, not endorsing this sort of flying but you know *wink, wink* gotta keep pilots safe right?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I don't think spin recovery training will help for losing it at low altitude maybe more training on stall recognition and prevention for this case. Bit less of that bootfull of rudder when overshooting the base to finals turn, hey

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

IMO needing a 'genuine reason' to get a ll endo is rediculous and to say an instructor doesn't need it or shouldn't have it is criminal!

Yes SDQDI ...and many agree with you...like I say things are ongoing....

 

 

[poteroo]

..and in my opinion a low level endorsement with suitable safety training would increase the ability of any pilot so choosing to do it. I would support it as raising a pilots overall skill and awareness level.

I think we're agreed on that. We might even be able to negotiate better insurances for those who complete LL? Something for the Board to consider perhaps?

 

happy days,

 

 

[facthunter]

Recovery from a spin at say below 500 feet won't happen, ( you don't have the height) but there are lots of things you can do before it gets to that stage. Slow speed manoeuvering can be confidently done if taught right, and you are on the ball and I would say if you can do it well you could cope with just about anything because you involve all the principles of control of 3 axis like unloading the wing and further effect of rudder .Once the nose is pointing at the ground, it's a bit late at low level, to effect a recovery no matter who you are. Of course all of this is not practiced at low level, because you have no margin for error.

 

LL training involves other factors, like illusions of faster/slower speed, slipping and skidding, windshear effects, correct use of power. etc. Nev

 

 

[farri]

I`ve quoted, in part, from Sport Pilot: "It has been agreed RA-AUS should provide training for members involved in operations relating to property management for private landholders. The new endorsement will be rolled out as the syllabus is developed. It will offer education in the areas of stock spotting, fence checking, aircraft selection, etc. and is intended for landholders conducting operations on their own properties. It is not an endorsement which will provide an avenue for employment by a third party for commercial purposes."

 

 

The way I read it, this endorsement is intended only for landholders conducting operations, of, stock spotting, fence checking and aircraft selection, on their own properties, therefore, it should not be an additional endorsement to all of us who are not conducting those operations.

 

 

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Frank, spot on...

 

Quite a few of our members become members to use a more cost effective aircraft and licensing regime around their own propertys....fence inspections....water hole and trough inspections etc.

 

These people will probably do LL wether trained or otherwise, and it was contended that it would be in our best interest to provide appropriate training to those who genuinely need to know....I seem to recall that CASA started the conversation about this not RAAus....

 

Insurers wont probably know exactly who within the membership is doing what but they do know the accident rates for the whole membership and price accordingly. If we do something that results in the reduction of accident rates then logically there is room for discussions of increasing coverage, or reducing price (and logically more of the former and very little of the later is on the insurers agenda.....)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So if I go to a flight school and say that my dad/brother/uncle owns a property and he doesn't fly, how can they knock me back, it's a family farm right?

 

 

[kasper]

OK.

 

Q. Why should we NOT have another category under the ops manual for this?

 

A. Because besides it not be required on the reading of the LL endorsement AND the LL endorsement itself is not enforceable against the RAA members already as it is one of the glaring errors in the Ops manual (pointed out to RAA by me over the past years and several ops manuals and ops managers).

 

Anyone saying hang on a minute follow this logic through - I'll use a CAO95.10 single seater as a template answer - other CAOs are available with slightly different paragraph numbers but same outcome applies:

 

For the purposes of this walk through I will call the Act and Orders under which CASA operate the 'enabling legislation'.

 

I am strapping into the 95.10 registered sapphire and for the sake of argument I am in currency on my RAA pilots certificate and the aircraft is current on its RAA regn. and I want to go out and fly around my back paddocks (more than 100m from roads etc) at tree top level looking at the cattle, fences and water troughs ... and I do not have a Low Level endorsement nor any proposed Utility Endorsement ...

 

Q1. What operations are LEGAL under the enabling legislation?

 

A1. personal carriage of the pilot and the aerial inspection, conducted as a private operation, of stock, fencing or farm or pastoral equipment that is located on land owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or a member or members of the pilot’s immediate family [CAO95.10 (5)©(i)&(ii)]

 

OK - I meet all of those

 

Q2. What are my flight height restrictions

 

A2. Not below 500ft AGL unless in the course of actually taking off or landing or flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot (or occupier has given permission) or

 

flying over a part of a flying training area over CASA has authorized as a low flying area [CAO95.10(7.1)(a)-(d)]

 

I own the aircraft, I own the land so Woo hoo! looks like the enabling legislation is OK to roll

 

Now you all yell "What about the requirement to operate in accordance with the Operations Manual as part of the pilots certificate?"

 

Well yes, there is a requirement that the aircraft 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 CAO95.10 operates in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate [CAO95.10(5)(d)]

 

But those bold words are a VERY important get out of Ops Manual Endorsements free card ... IF I operate under under 500ft in accord with CAO 95.10 7.1 (a)-(d) whilst it is a contravention of the Ops Manual it does not invalidate the pilot certificate and the fact that the bold words are in the CAO I can argue very nicely that the provisions as set out in the CAO when complied with override conflicting requirements in the OPs Manual as that document is subservient to the CAO!

 

Now yes, I am leaving myself open to a disciplinary from the RAA ... BUT if they want to push it then lets see what an actual magistrate or judge will make of the fairness of a set of rules punishing a certificate holder for something that is permitted under the CAO under which the rules of the organisation derive power ...

 

So look - RAA already have a can of worms on enforcing part of the OPs Manual that are in direct conflict with the CAOs and adding another on onto the list is not in my opinion good form - particularly as they already have a LL endo and rather than add to it I suggest that they look at what it covers and amend that to address any real issues ...

 

oh and fix the actual legislative basis of the Ops Manual properly to stop smart ar$es like me playing emperors new clothes at the legal basis for the enforceable character of the rules - I do not want to give lawyers like me a bad name but you can only point out the errors for so many years before we snap and say enough is enough, see you in court.

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps a "Cattle and other mustering " endo but the skills of LL should be in the syllabus for ALL and not an endo because "ALL" need it. ( same as GA) The instructor more than most as they have to pull rabbits out of hats at short notice, in situations having nothing to do with counting cattle. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

It seems the training industry is already servicing this market

 

http://lpc.edu.au/course/Pages/Course_Page.aspx#k=4db6e7d7-3b84-e511-96ed-0050568c0384

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Wow......had a look at that link and the costs tab.......$16k3 for the vanilla RPL component of the course (excluding all the actual study stuff) ...clearly no profit margin in that...Not!!!

 

Its been a few years since I got my RPC and it was done through an aeroclub so instructors were volunteers.....I think I probably spent maybe $4k in total... How much will it costs for a newbie to get an RPC today? would it be $6k? seems to me that there is a big delta between the two....not sure if its just me that has the issue and there really is another $10k of cost, or .......

 

 

[Geoff13]

Wow......had a look at that link and the costs tab.......$16k3 for the vanilla RPL component of the course (excluding all the actual study stuff) ...clearly no profit margin in that...Not!!!Its been a few years since I got my RPC and it was done through an aeroclub so instructors were volunteers.....I think I probably spent maybe $4k in total... How much will it costs for a newbie to get an RPC today? would it be $6k? seems to me that there is a big delta between the two....not sure if its just me that has the issue and there really is another $10k of cost, or .......

I did my RPC last year from June to October.

 

I could give actual costs to me but I saved a few dollars as my training was done in a syndicate aircraft in which I purchased a share which cut my aircraft hire rate by about 30% over the period.

 

Since purchasing my own aircraft, I sold my share at a modest profit so I have used that in the formula to calculate my savings at about 30% on aircraft hire.

 

Had I paid the full rate my costs would have been as follows:-

 

RPC $5717.00

 

Pax Endo $ 800.00

 

X Country $3693.00

 

Theory books membership examinations etc approx $800.00.

 

So about $11,000.00 over 3.5 months.

 

To me it was worth every cent.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I am in the process of assessing the cost of getting my RPL but do not really have a full grasp of that as prices differ so much from one place to the next.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Wow......had a look at that link and the costs tab.......$16k3 for the vanilla RPL component of the course (excluding all the actual study stuff) ...clearly no profit margin in that...Not!!!Its been a few years since I got my RPC and it was done through an aeroclub so instructors were volunteers.....I think I probably spent maybe $4k in total... How much will it costs for a newbie to get an RPC today? would it be $6k? seems to me that there is a big delta between the two....not sure if its just me that has the issue and there really is another $10k of cost, or .......

The Longreach college is smart, they know that rich parents will send the kids to uni to get them out of the house for 3 years and the kids can't get work in the bush with just a PPL so they whip up a decent profitable course with some basic farming skills and some flying. Giving the rich kids that don't want to go to a real uni what they want.

 

The RAA schools don't seem so keen about making a profit, I'll give you an example, the local RAA flying school in Toowoomba has nothing to do with the asian students at the local uni, the aussie students that are stuck going to USQ are generally working to get through uni so they haven't got any cash.

 

The students, from all over asia, are all on an extended holiday studying business, most of them aren't allowed to work so they have plenty of free time.

 

 

[poteroo]

The RAA schools don't seem so keen about making a profit, I'll give you an example, the local RAA flying school in Toowoomba has nothing to do with the asian students at the local uni, the aussie students that are stuck going to USQ are generally working to get through uni so they haven't got any cash.

FT - care to expand on these points?

 

Are any of the RAAus schools 'linked' with the GA schools so that RAAus becomes the entry point for ab initio training, then students converts to RPL? The Asian students probably don't understand the new RAAus to RPL pathway and have signed up for the full GA pathway simply because the end point is a 'Licence' and not a Certificate. I take it that USQ doesn't offer any 'aviation' degree? Funny how poor old Aussie students still manage to party while broke.

 

In any event, we're now off subject by some miles. This thread was intended to obtain comment on the RAAus intention to create a 'utility' or 'rural' endorsement. The unanswered questions including - that it would/would not, contain all of the current LL endorsement, or, that it would be a stand alone endo which required/didn't require a LL endo beforehand.

 

happy days,

 

 

[fly_tornado]

there are no asian students flying at any of the schools in Toowoomba, GA or RAA.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

In any event, we're now off subject by some miles. This thread was intended to obtain comment on the RAAus intention to create a 'utility' or 'rural' endorsement. The unanswered questions including - that it would/would not, contain all of the current LL endorsement, or, that it would be a stand alone endo which required/didn't require a LL endo beforehand. happy days,

From what is written in the latest Sport Pilot magazine, the utility endoresment will only be able to be used by the ower of a rural property in his own plane over his own property. Unsure if you will be able to get the endoresment without this until they come out with some more info.

 

 

[terryc]

From what is written in the latest Sport Pilot magazine, the utility endoresment will only be able to be used by the ower of a rural property in his own plane over his own property. Unsure if you will be able to get the endoresment without this until they come out with some more info.

They can already do all of that without an endorsement

 

 

[SDQDI]

They can already do all of that without an endorsement

And that is why a few of us have expressed doubts as to whether it is really needed. Why add a new endorsement? what is this endorsement going to cover that the ll endo doesn't? Would it be more sensible to tweak the ll endo?

 

 

[rankamateur]

I take it that USQ doesn't offer any 'aviation' degree?

The vice chancellor has approved aviation degrees to begin at USQ next year. My youngest is a USQ student ambassador and they have been pushing aviation degrees to prospective students even before the approval came through. She isn't keen for me to go hanging around up there starting the degree though, might cramp her fun.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

So you buy an old airworthy 95:10 Thruster 83 for around 5 grand and to get legal it cost how much?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

USQ's aviation degrees are orientated at getting work in the airline business, I don't think there is any flying involved