Cancelled PPL

[blue sky]

Hi all, hoping to tap into the accumulated knowledge and experience here.

 

A couple of questions, I can find no information on CASA website regarding a cancelled PPL and if it can ever be reinstated like a drivers license can. Secondly, you can fly under the GFA umbrella with said cancellation, would the cancelled PPL license effect the ability to obtain a recreational power license, now or some time in the future. I have heard that CASA are planning to add a question to the RAA medical, if and when they take control, regarding previously denied and cancelled medicals and PPLs .

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi all, hoping to tap into the accumulated knowledge and experience here.

A couple of questions, I can find no information on CASA website regarding a cancelled PPL and if it can ever be reinstated like a drivers license can. Secondly, you can fly under the GFA umbrella with said cancellation, would the cancelled PPL license effect the ability to obtain a recreational power license, now or some time in the future. I have heard that CASA are planning to add a question to the RAA medical, if and when they take control, regarding previously denied and cancelled medicals and PPLs .

Generally, only reason a PPL is cancelled is by CASA taking legal action against the holder...otherwise it is essentially a licence in perpetuity. What expires and must be periodically renewed are your Class 2 medical and your ability to exercise the privileges of the licence, both of which ordinarily occur at two-yearly intervals.

 

I cant help with the rest of your inquiry.

 

kaz

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Generally, only reason a PPL is cancelled is by CASA taking legal action against the holder...otherwise it is essentially a licence in perpetuity. What expires and must be periodically renewed are your Class 2 medical and your ability to exercise the privileges of the licence, both of which ordinarily occur at two-yearly intervals.

I cant help with the rest of your inquiry.

 

kaz

Yep. I was under the same impression. 

 

Blue Sky 

 

Can you give some detail as to how it was “cancelled” and when and why?

 

 

[rgmwa]

That's my understanding too. The PPL is forever unless CASA takes it off you for some reason, but it's having a current medical that allows you to `exercise the privileges' of the licence.

 

The medical can now be a Basic Class 2 issued by a GP.

 

 

[Yenn]

The only way I can think of a PPL being cancelled is by CASA actually cancelling it, which I assume would involve a court case, or if you had a PPL many years ago and when you tried to re use it CASA could not find any record of you having one. If you ever had an ARN CASA have your records. It seems we use the ARN now rather than the licence number.

 

My original licence was no 20325, but I never use it, just the ARN, which is longer and different. I see in my old licence that it has a page of Periods of validity and they ran for two years.

 

I also see that I was endorsed on C180 / 182 / 185. Not bad seeing that I did my licence test on a C150 and for the first few years didn't fly a tail dragger. It would have been interesting to see me fly a C180 with no experience.

 

 

[blue sky]

Yes there was a court case but the licence was cancelled before the case went to trial, it was a criminal trial in the District Court not one instigated by CASA.  At the trial the CASA rep for safety committed perjury under oath when he denied he knew the penalty for flying below 500', presumably because it would damage the crown case for manslaughter,which the pilot was found not guilty of but guilty of," reckless flying endangering life", received a suspended sentence over turned on appeal in Supreme Court to a 2 year Intensive Correction Order (ICO). 

 

So if you are considering an off airport landing be very careful because they now consider flying below 500' at an area not designated as an airport as reckless flying, under aviation law it can receive up to a 14 year sentence

 

 Thank you all for taking the time to rely.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Yes there was a court case but the licence was cancelled before the case went to trial, it was a criminal trial in the District Court not one instigated by CASA.  At the trial the CASA rep for safety committed perjury under oath when he denied he knew the penalty for flying below 500', presumably because it would damage the crown case for manslaughter,which the pilot was found not guilty of but guilty of," reckless flying endangering life", received a suspended sentence over turned on appeal in Supreme Court to a 2 year Intensive Correction Order (ICO). 

So if you are considering an off airport landing be very careful because they now consider flying below 500' at an area not designated as an airport as reckless flying, under aviation law it can receive up to a 14 year sentence

 

 Thank you all for taking the time to rely.

 Not guilty of manslaughter and guilty of reckless flying endangering life seem to indicate that a person died as a result of the low flying (below 500’). 

 

Flying below 500’ in itself is not reckless flying as there are exemptions including when taking off or landing, and stress of weather. But reasonable care must be exercised in doing so.

 

Flying below 500’ without cause, doing so recklessly, and killing another person in the process is what attracts the very serious penalty.

 

If the Court confirmed the loss of licence, I expect the person who lost their licence would need to apply to a Court for reinstatement similar to a driver’s licence.

 

if the Court made no order, the person will need to apply for reissue and take CASA to the AAT when they refuse it as they no doubt will.

 

kaz

 

 

[KRviator]

Yes there was a court case but the licence was cancelled before the case went to trial, it was a criminal trial in the District Court not one instigated by CASA.  At the trial the CASA rep for safety committed perjury under oath when he denied he knew the penalty for flying below 500', presumably because it would damage the crown case for manslaughter,which the pilot was found not guilty of but guilty of," reckless flying endangering life", received a suspended sentence over turned on appeal in Supreme Court to a 2 year Intensive Correction Order (ICO). 

Why does this sound suspiciously like the case of Patrick Crumpton who was fart-arsing about at low level over the Clarence river and hit a powerline killing his young passenger?

 

So if you are considering an off airport landing be very careful because they now consider flying below 500' at an area not designated as an airport as reckless flying, under aviation law it can receive up to a 14 year sentence

Any time you are flying below 500AGL and not in the process of taking off or landing, you're breaking the rules, with a few notable exceptions, none of which apply to your typical junket around the patch on a weekend. If you are below 500AGL to your mates strip and you hit a powerline, you're covered as the rules permit it. If you're under 500AGL and you hit a powerline being a stuntc*ck, you deserve everything you get.

 

 

[kasper]

If you do not have a ppl for any reason there is no bar to you joining RAAus and obtaining a pilots certificate.  Your prior experience is valid to count towards RAAus certificate hours so you really only have to prove competence to the CFI on the entire syllabus and do the flight test to get the restricted certificate.

 

 You can’t use any now non-existing licence to get endorsements but cross country will be relatively easy to complete as is passenger. 

 

If your old cancelled  licence was old school you will find that you have a pilots licence and a seperate radio operators licence.  Check to see if the cancellation did applied to the radio licence as well.  If it did not then it is still valid and you can get the radio endorsement off the back of that.  

 

So there you go.  You can have access to some flirt in oz after some retraining and certification.  

 

Only one BIG flag on everything above ... you have to be accepted as a member of RAAus ... and if you have a cancelled casa licence they MAY refuse membership based on that being evidence of a lack of honest agreement to abide by the RAAus governing rules etc and bringing the RAAus into disrepute.  It’s unlikely but it’s possible ... and would be challengable in court if they did.  But casa can’t force RAAus to refuse membership or not issue a certificate so IF you are serious then RAAus is a way back to flying non-GA in oz. 

 

 

[Thruster88]

 BIG flag on everything above ... you have to be accepted as a member of RAAus ... and if you have a cancelled casa licence they MAY refuse membership based on that being evidence of a lack of honest agreement to abide by the RAAus governing rules etc and bringing the RAAus into disrepute.  It’s unlikely but it’s possible ... and would be challengable in court if they did.  But casa can’t force RAAus to refuse membership or not issue a certificate so IF you are serious then RAAus is a way back to flying non-GA in oz. 

 I certify that subject to the rules of RAAus there is no impediment to me holding any certificate if issued by RAAus. This application is made on the basis that there is no limitation, existing or threatened from any Authority in relation to any right I have to operate an aircraft in Australia. Should that occur I accept that any licence, certificate or authority granted to me by RAAus shall automatically be equally limited until the action noted above is resolved.

 

seems clear enough. I applied for membership to see what the requirements were.

 

 

[kasper]

 I certify that subject to the rules of RAAus there is no impediment to me holding any certificate if issued by RAAus. This application is made on the basis that there is no limitation, existing or threatened from any Authority in relation to any right I have to operate an aircraft in Australia. Should that occur I accept that any licence, certificate or authority granted to me by RAAus shall automatically be equally limited until the action noted above is resolved.

seems clear enough. I applied for membership to see what the requirements were.

Unfortunately they can write tripe like that till the cows come home - the actual governing documents do not include that requirement so the statement is very much subject to challenge. 

 

In particular as it would imply that there is a class of membership that has limited entitlements to pilots certificates that are not in the ops manual. 

 

Hate to say say it because it’s coming close to me pointing at the management and board of RAAus and either  

 

Saying  emperors new clothes 

 

or

 

basically calling them incompetent.  

 

I chose to to lean towards emperors new clothes as I actually fear that i am at risk of being challenged by RAAus managment for bringing RAAus into disrepute

 

but basic problem remains that the core documents are still as flawed as they were when adopted AND management appear to be just putting what they like into practice on the basis it’s what they intend.  

 

 

[onetrack]

https://www.casa.gov.au/enforcement-action/standard-page/decisions-suspensions-and-cancellations

 

 

[kasper]

And if I was being really picky on the board and management I’d point to the “policy” document they created that garbage in and point out they didn’t even read it well enough to notice how they refer to the key documents of the member charter ... and they all ignore the supremacy of the constitution and the fact that whilst the constitution allows for management documents those documents can’t be at direct conflict with the constitution ... ask yourself what type of member is he/she to become ?   Never any announcement of seperate membership groups so if you’re a member you’re a member and the ops manual does not have the limited ops aspects envisaged by the statements.  

 

Basically I’d hate to be RAAus defending the group of documents we have in any court.