Pseudo GA

[Happyflyer]

From CASA:

 

Can I use my RPL to fly in another country?

 

The RPL is not an International Civil Aviation Organization licence and is not recognised by other countries. To fly in another country you need to get approval from that country’s aviation authority.

 

 

[coljones]

Same problem with gliding certificates as I recall.Was something happening about that...memory stretch?

 

Kaz

As I recall glider pilots are offered a licence under part 60 that is ICAO compliant so that pilots can do their stuff overseas - as it is with the RPL and PPL.

www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/licence-types

 

 

[kaz3g]

As I recall glider pilots are offered a licence under part 60 that is ICAO compliant so that pilots can do their stuff overseas - as it is with the RPL and PPL.www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/licence-types

"Part 61 includes a glider pilot licence (GPL), which is ICAO compliant. To obtain the licence, you must be at least 16 years old.

 

You are also required to have (amongst other things that apply to all licences, such as aviation English language proficiency and a background security check):

 

• a pilot certificate issued by a recreational aviation organisation that administers glider activities
   
   
  
• undertaken at least six hours of flight time, including two hours solo, as well as 20 launches and 20 landings in a glider or motorised glider.
   
   
  

 

 

As an ICAO compliant licence, the GPL is expected to be recognised by foreign aviation authorities and this will assist Australian pilots wishing to participate in gliding competitions overseas."

 

So if you want to fly gliders here, your certificate is sufficient, but if you want to fly them o/s then you can get a CASA licence.

 

Kaz

 

 

[billwoodmason]

We need to start a petition to stop RAAus continuing down this path of self destruction of the organisation as we knew it. No one was consulted about these changes, we are being dictated to by Monck and Linke. It's time they were both sent on their way.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Right now, I am a member of GFA to fly the Libelle and a member of RAAus to fly the Jabiru.

 

It would really be a big saving to just belong to one lot. Is there a chance the ELAAA might achieve this?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Right now, I am a member of GFA to fly the Libelle and a member of RAAus to fly the Jabiru.It would really be a big saving to just belong to one lot. Is there a chance the ELAAA might achieve this?

CASA could easily do this and it actually would make good sense if the Regulator had a different mind-set towards all forms of recreational aviation. One licence with endorsements and one driver licence health standard for those that hold it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

ELAAA still don't have any information, despite a statement on Facebook that it was coming 7th Oct. The only info I have received from them is that they will cover my GA aircraft with a VH rego (VH-numbers) and maybe our 95-10 but nothing of any substance beyond that - eg what licence, assessments, tech manual etc.

 

My concern for years, when people talk about having a separate "minimal aircraft" group is the cost of belonging to so many to fly similar aircraft. I think ELAAA is aiming to be 'everything' for a fee. I am also concerned about jumping out of the pan and into the fire. Going under another organisation may mean it is hard to go back, particularly a VH aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

ELAAA still don't have any information, despite a statement on Facebook that it was coming 7th Oct. The only info I have received from them is that they will cover my GA aircraft with a VH rego (VH-numbers) and maybe our 95-10 but nothing of any substance beyond that - eg what licence, assessments, tech manual etc.My concern for years, when people talk about having a separate "minimal aircraft" group is the cost of belonging to so many to fly similar aircraft. I think ELAAA is aiming to be 'everything' for a fee. I am also concerned about jumping out of the pan and into the fire. Going under another organisation may meait is hard to go back, particularly a VH aircraft.

I'm not sure that ELAA have realised the duty of care obligations they will own when they register an aircraft.

 

 

[old man emu]

CASA could easily do this and it actually would make good sense if the Regulator had a different mind-set towards all forms of recreational aviation. One licence with endorsements and one driver licence health standard for those that hold it.Kaz

That's pretty much what I said in Post #205 above.

 

OME

 

 

[DonRamsay]

(edited...mod) ,you really want to fly under the Sydney harbour bridge don,t you,,,,is all this drive to turn raa into ga , just so you can cross another item off your bucket list? AND whilst talking about the death of RAA ,,,I really don't think he is talking about casa doing the killing,,,more like a better fairer cheaper way forward {ELAAA] Has come into being and if raa keep going GA with regulation/rules/costs, etc example the recent email from RAA about medical review ,,,WHY under the present system no attributable accidents caused by medical incapacitation are happening everday,,,SO why the need ,no cause /no regs[your Quote there] ..Will see so many jumping ship so quick the rats will feel very lonely very quickly and RAA will not be able to pay the bar bill after all ah Mr Ramsay...................lol

Mr BULL,

Firstly, I had nothing to do with RAAus wanting to look at how they can help their members make their health standard declaration.

 

Secondly, Aren't the aircraft in the E&LAAA going to be VH registered?

 

Can there be anything more GA than that?

 

 

[bull]

Mr BULL,Firstly, I had nothing to do with RAAus wanting to look at how they can help their members make their health standard declaration.

Secondly, Aren't the aircraft in the E&LAAA going to be VH registered?

 

Can there be anything more GA than that?

VH regoed ,,yes but under the same guidelines set down by casa for raa, without the empire building of raa, mr ramsay.........

 

 

[jetjr]

So the same as SAAA or RAA?

 

 

[kasper]

What rego you display has nothing to do with the underlying requirements under which it is permitted to fly or you are permitted to fly it - simply the register on which it is placed and who manages it.

 

If its VH- regn then the register is the CASA register and under that general umbrella you get anything from a hot air balloon to an A380 plus all the gliders and GA home builts - all operating under different CAOs/Regs etc and under entirely differing maintenance and operational limits ... and some of them are not even internationally recognized as of right so the 'internationality' of the VH- display is not what it once was.

 

So it MIGHT be perfectly acceptable for ELAAA in negotiation with CASA to use VH-12345 etc to open up an additional 99,999 registration options without interrupting the current VH- register ... or even something like VH-E12345 to readily identify that the register series 'belongs' to ELAAA separate from for example a change in RAAus that might be envisioned of moving to VH-R12345 and HGFA moving to VH-H12345

 

Once you consider the box is not your confines (VH-ABC or 55-1234 ot T1-1234 etc) there are a lot of options that are a lot more broad and provide that addition of international recognizable 'aircraft' label

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

I'm not sure that ELAA have realised the duty of care obligations they will own when they register an aircraft.

Registration is not proof of airworthiness it simply records detail of ownership, type etc. (see Part 47 CASR)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Registration is not proof of airworthiness it simply records detail of ownership, type etc. (see Part 47 CASR)

Correct, the duty of care applies to airworthiness of the aircraft on your register, and duty of care applies to the standard of flying, applies to very single aspect where a person may be hurt or hurt someone else. If you bring it into being, manage or control it, you become the defendant/co-defendant.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I just hate how the predatory law lot are making everybody responsible for other people's actions.

 

Please leave me alone. I want to be responsible for what I do and be free to go about my business unmolested.

 

The end result of all this legal interference is poverty as people are deterred from doing anything productive.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I just hate how the predatory law lot are making everybody responsible for other people's actions.Please leave me alone. I want to be responsible for what I do and be free to go about my business unmolested.

The end result of all this legal interference is poverty as people are deterred from doing anything productive.

Well I can understand how you would be nervous; if you give a Newstart person a chainsaw, without any training or safety gear, when his history is being a city librarian, the cheap labour concept isn't so cheap.

 

On the other hand many more workers are going home to their families each night instead of being maimed or killed, so there's not going to be a turn around to the past.

 

 

[Riley]

Well I can understand how you would be nervous; if you give a Newstart person a chainsaw, without any training or safety gear, when his history is being a city librarian, the cheap labour concept isn't so cheap.On the other hand many more workers are going home to their families each night instead of being maimed or killed, so there's not going to be a turn around to the past.

turbs, it's rare that I take a different view from yours but I gotta jump ship on this one. If an ex librarian is so dumbass as to pickup a chainsaw without first ensuring (either thru employer-provided training or self investigation) that he/she is going to be sufficiently aware not to cut their knee off, then they are eventually going to be carried home to their family in a basket for any number of self-inflicted woes. You cannot effectively lecture on common sense. Should the rest of society be held responsible for either an employer's greed or a Newstart recipient's lack of self-preservation? I am not my brother's keeper when it comes to stupidity.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

There will be a turning back, but not while food is so cheap it's almost free. Bureaucracy grows like a cancer until some big event causes a reset. It is after these resets that progress takes place.

 

In the meantime. I agree it is very risky to employ anybody. The risk doesn't need to be as obvious as a chainsaw, the employee can hurt his back lifting a fallen branch.

 

And Turbs, the legal profession is free of this duty of care stuff you like seeing foisted on the rest of us. There are several examples of incompetent lawyers and unjustly convicted clients. And examples of people murdered by insane violent people let loose by incompetent judges.

 

 

[turboplanner]

turbs, it's rare that I take a different view from yours but I gotta jump ship on this one. If an ex librarian is so dumbass as to pickup a chainsaw without first ensuring (either thru employer-provided training or self investigation) that he/she is going to be sufficiently aware not to cut their knee off, then they are eventually going to be carried home to their family in a basket for any number of self-inflicted woes. You cannot effectively lecture on common sense. Should the rest of society be held responsible for either an employer's greed or a Newstart recipient's lack of self-preservation? I am not my brother's keeper when it comes to stupidity.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not offering legal advice on why this is so.

Personally if I wanted someone to cut up trees with my chainsaw, I would ask if he has an ATO (Authority to Operate) for a chainsaw, and if he didn't, I'd say no thanks; so no potential liability.

 

You have the duty of care to make sure an operation is safe; He has the opportunity to go away and get some appropriate training so he can use the chainsaw safely.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There will be a turning back, but not while food is so cheap it's almost free. Bureaucracy grows like a cancer until some big event causes a reset. It is after these resets that progress takes place.In the meantime. I agree it is very risky to employ anybody. The risk doesn't need to be as obvious as a chainsaw, the employee can hurt his back lifting a fallen branch.

And Turbs, the legal profession is free of this duty of care stuff you like seeing foisted on the rest of us. There are several examples of incompetent lawyers and unjustly convicted clients. And examples of people murdered by insane violent people let loose by incompetent judges.

An interesting comment; I don't know if there have been any cases, but the law is sitting there to go after negligence.

 

 

[2tonne]

Bruce, anyone in the legal profession can be sued for negligence and it does happen. It is why all legal firms (and patent attorney firms etc) pay for professional indemnity insurance (which is expensive!)

 

 

[bull]

All this legal talk and litigation and liability and so forth,,,,,,Makes me wonder how many aircraft and pilots are dropping off the register with raa, because of frustration with the system and are going back to the old days anyway and flying around their own patch in that little plane that they lovingly maintain and pander ,as they have safely been doing for many years,..And are just saying #$^^#@them if they want to sue /prosecute me ,well go ahead,,getting anything out off a stone or pensioner with bugger all assets to lose,will be a challenge for them and if they threaten jail time ,,,,,Well so be it i,ll probably be eating better then I am now and wont have to worry about the power bills etc ,,,,,,,,lol,,,,,clear prop..................

 

 

[kaz3g]

Registration is not proof of airworthiness it simply records detail of ownership, type etc. (see Part 47 CASR)

Neither is it proof of ownership...Kaz

 

 

[Yenn]

The difference between RAAus registration and VH rego is that RAAus own their register, while CASA I suppose also owns theirs, but they cannothide any details on it.

 

If your plane is RAAus registered the omly people who can fly it are pilots with an RAAus certificate. A VH plane can be flown by anyone with a pilots licence.

 

What that means is that as soon as your membership of RAAus lapses you can't fly ant RAAus plane.

 

A GA licence does not expire and there is no membership required.

 

What this tells me is that if you eventually fly with ELAAA, you may not be able to fly an RAAus plane, so if you change to ELAAA you will have to change your plan over to them as well. I have been told that ELAAA would accept an RAAus certificate as proof of competence to fly their planes, but we still do not know how the RAAus and ELAAA will interact in the future.