drifter_driver Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 CAO 95.10 says you dont need a license for 95.10 aircraft but at the same time requires that the person holds a valid pilot certificate any takers for interpretations!! quote:civil aviation order 95.10 3A Licence not required 3A. 1 For the purposes of paragraph 20AB of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aircraft to which this section applies without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsection 4. 3A.2 In spite of paragraph 3A.1, a person must hold a flight radiotelephone operator licence if he or she makes airborne radio transmissions on aeronautical HF frequencies. 4 General conditions of exemption 4.1 The exemption given by subsection 3 in relation to an aeroplane is subject to the following general conditions: (a) there must be clearly displayed in the aeroplane, in a position visible to the pilot when occupying the control seat, a sign stating that: (i) neither CASA nor the RAA guarantee the airworthiness of the aeroplane; and (ii) the pilot operates the aeroplane at the pilot’s own risk; (b) the aeroplane must not be used in agricultural operations; © the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than: (i) the personal carriage of the pilot; or (ii) the aerial inspection 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; (d) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person: (i) holds a valid pilot certificate; and (ii) subject to the other conditions set out in this section, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate; also got this info from RAAus website Quote: with current RA-Aus registration documents may be flown by an unlicenced, but RA-Aus certificated pilot, in day VMC, generally below 5000 feet amsl – unless considered unsafe to do so, and not over cities or towns. The aircraft must be operated only in Class E and G airspace.
Guest brentc Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 No interpretation needed :big_grin: RA-Aus issue "pilot certificates" and not licences, so what you have read is exactly correct. Check your certificate and you'll see. The bottom quote means very little other than that if you don't have any licence whatsoever, you need a certificate!
Guest aircraft1 Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 To the best of my knowledge the ONLY flying "device" that doesnt need a licence is a paraglider, eg a parachute with an engine on your back. Some time ago a guy went ripping around Perth and when the police got him they couldnt charge him with anything because there were no rules in place that could be applied to him because you dont need a licence, from memory he landed at one of the footy fields if memory serves me correctly
Guest Crezzi Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 To the best of my knowledge the ONLY flying "device" that doesnt need a licence is a paraglider, eg a parachute with an engine on your back. I'm pretty sure that to operate a paramotor (which I believe is what you are refering to) you do require a paragliding certificate with a motorised endorsement. Cheers John
Guest TOSGcentral Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 It is worth enlarging on this a little for the benefit of newcomers. Most of the confusion comes from casual terminology such as 'my pilot license'. CASA issue flying licenses. The honory control bodies (eg RAAus, GFA, HGFA etc) Issue 'certificates'. These amount to the same thing but importantly have the requirement that you have to be a current financial member of the issuing organisation in order to legally use the certificate (plus what you fly has to be currently registered with the issuing organisation). The overall effect allows us to operate under relaxed (or different) air legislation but a key point of the certificate requirements bind you to complying with the controlling organisations rules - which you obviously have to be a member of so you can be made to comply if needs be. I would like to clarify on one point Brent (probably unintentionally) implied in his post above. It does not matter what license you may have - you MUST also have a valid certificate to operate aircraft registered by the various controlling authorities. This can become confusing and at times appears idiotic. Here are a few examples: You have two virtually identical Jabs standing side by side, outside a flying school office. One is registered VH and the other is registered with RAAus and so has a string of numbers on the side. The school has two instructors. Instructor A is not an RAAus member so can only fly in command and instruct on the VH aircraft under his PPL (License) and CASA instructor rating. Instructor B does not have a PPL but is an RAAus pilot certificate holder and has an RAAus instructor certificate. He still cannot fly in command of the VH aircraft nor instruct in it. Now let us make the Jabs two identical taildraggers. The school has an ex graduate who hires from time to time. This guy has both a PPL and RAAus certificate. The certificate has had the nosewheel restriction lifted so he can legally fly the RAAus aircraft. However his PPL does not have a taildragger endorsement therefore he cannot fly in command of the VH registered aircraft! As a case in point - I had a run in with a highly experienced GA instructor a few years ago. This guy was flying and instructing in an AUF Lightwing. He was doing so on the assumption that his GA credentials allowed him to operate any fixed wing tri axis below 5000kg MTOW and so had no AUF membership nor certificates. If there had been a bingle there would have been no insurance, the instructor would have been criminally liable for prosecution for flying 'unlicensed' (no certificates) and non of the work done with students would be counted towards those students gaining their own certificates! Along with freedom comes responsibility. The prime responsibility is that you understand how the system works and comply with it. Tony
Guest Crezzi Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Or another example of 2 identical trikes. One is HGFA registered (T2-xxxx) & the other is Raa registered (32-xxxx). The holder of an Raa pilot certificate with weightshift endorsement cannot legally fly the HGFA trike and an HGFA member (with the equivalent training and certificate) cannot legally fly the Raa one ! John
eastmeg2 Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 The appropriate HGFA pilot certificates are required to fly a Hang Glider or a Paraglider. A motorised endorsement is required on these certificates to fly with a motor. If the motorised HG or PG is below 70kg empty wieght it does not require registration even if it has a pilot seat and undercarriage, ie, a trike base. Rgds, Glen
Guest brentc Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 If there had been a bingle there would have been no insurance, the instructor would have been criminally liable for prosecution for flying 'unlicensed' (no certificates) and non of the work done with students would be counted towards those students gaining their own certificates! Interesting point Tony. I agree about the insurance although I'm of the belief that this has been tested before where the pilot of a UL had a PPL and was in essence 'un-touchable' because his licence class was higher than that of the UL he was flying. (he didn't have an AUF cert)
Guest airsick Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 I agree about the insurance although I'm of the belief that this has been tested before where the pilot of a UL had a PPL and was in essence 'un-touchable' because his licence class was higher than that of the UL he was flying. (he didn't have an AUF cert) I asked CASA for clarification on this sometime ago and this is the response I got back via email: "If you wish to fly an ultralight aircraft (Registered through the Australian Ultralight Federation), then you will need to be licensed through the AUF (Now called the Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.). You cannot fly a RAA registered aircraft with a CASA issued PPL." I think the confusion stems from the fact that the legislation says: "For the purposes of paragraph 20AB (1) (b) of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aircraft to which this section applies without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsection 4." Part of subsection 4: "the aeroplane 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 this section, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate." This 'could' be read as saying if you do have a flight crew licence (a CASA issued licence) then you can fly an UL aircraft using it but, and this is a big but, this interpretation would be wrong. It does NOT say that if you DO have a flight crew licence you are exempt from subsection 4. Subsection 4 requires you to have the certificate so the answer is no, you can't fly the UL with a PPL - just what CASA told me! Exactly the same logic applies to CAO 95.10 as quoted by DD in his original post. All of this can be read at: CAO 95.55 - http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9555.pdf CAO 95.10 - http://casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9510.pdf
Yenn Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 It is a very poorly worded piece of legislation as far as I can see and can be interpreted 2 ways, so I will stick with my RAAus cert, rather than try to fly with my PPL.
Guest brentc Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 I wouldn't condone flying without a certificate, but if push comes to shove and you didn't have one and got 'caught' I'd be surprised if there would be a judge in the country that would lock you up for flying un-licenced or un-certificated. It would be an interesting court case, however RA-Aus policy is to not take people to court, so there would need to be action from CASA and this would need to be pushed by RA-Aus so it would be a tricky political mess, however this site isn't political, so always fly with a certificate and you'll be fine!
Guest airsick Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 The biggest issue here is that it is CASA legislation. In the end (in my view anyway) I think it is pretty clear. The problem is that you have to wade through mountains of legislation to get to the point like every other law, clause and act to do with aviation. I agree with Brent, fly with a certificate and you'll have no worries. I am not about to be the test case. :big_grin:
Guest TOSGcentral Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 It is worth making note that this is not all blind. idiotic attempts at paper shuffling to make everyone's life a hassle! There is some sound safety, training and standards implications wrapped up in this as well. If we go back to the early days of AUF a fair percentage of the death and injury rate (certainly not all of it) was from the GA camp. There were people who were experienced PPL holders and because they flew Bonanzas et al (and some of them also flew four jet heavies) then the ultralight was just a toy that you mess about with around a paddock! They self taught themselves that the high drag and low inertia was an entirely different ball game even if the controls did work the same way. They paid in blood for that knowledge and we wound up with a stinking reputation that ultralights were inherently dangerous to the point we had to change our name in a stupid attempt to get away from it. By certification requirements forcing people into the AUF system, that automatically made them subject to the specific training and operating requirements of what is in fact a different class of aircraft - although perhaps not quite so obvious as a weight shift, glider or gyro! But we wasted bloody years and did not really develop our own syllabus with the required BAK backing specific to ourselves and most importantly the interface between BAK and actual flight training. We also ignored the opportunity to make our training totally orientated to recreational aviation customer needs that would have clearly stamped it as our own. It was obviously deemed to be more suitable to appear to be a lower level clone of GA. There was simply not the staff nor money to do this and the process of keeping members uninvolved continued - yet our membership is the largest resource if it would only be used. I had got to extreme levels of frustration by hammering away at a tail dragger endoresement, and even after the Skyfox fiasco it was still a few years before we got one - under a different name. We still have no laid down float training syllabus and neither do we have any standard instructor training syllabus. There is not yet a lot for weight shift and virtually nothing for powered parachutes. This is not something 'we are getting around to' - it has gone on for over 20 years! But my disgust knew no bounds when the expansion really started happening because what became RAAus wanted EVERYTHING that it could lay it's hands on. The start was the steady weight increases and along with them the systems complexity and different operating that came with them - no support for training on those systems to keep our members safe - because the market was experienced GA pilots who were already trained. No thought to the innocents who would come along and be trained from scratch, not the people who in a very few years time will have complex and worn out aircraft devalued to be within their financial range but outside their training range. Our members have virtually free rein to buy and fly what they like within their certificate permissions and may do so exclusive of any training requirement. The system is built on 'member responsibility'. Those times are changing with the introduction of new Certificate categories - but I see NO signs of much happening in the training support area. The motor gliders were another issue. I saw the implications of this coming because I specialised in this breed. Grab, grab, grab! I put pressure on the Office immediately because I had been there and done that. The main issues were running out of height in the circuit engine off and approach control generally with very high glide angle aircraft - both of which are essential training in the gliding world and both of which are known killers. I got no response so went a bit futher. I offered to write (free) a draft of an inclusion in the Ops manual (and a consequent training syllabus) to cover this area. I did not even get an acknowledgement of the offer. Damn! I did not expect people to fall at my feet in gratitude but I was one of the turkeys who in 1970 (along with Piggot, Scull and Valentine) started proving and welding together practical ab-initio and advanced training procedures when practical two seat motor gliders came out. Then there was a response. That response was effectively an order that the engines of motor gliders could not be deliberately switched off in flight - and - that a 'back yard' deal was done with an anxious GFA that retracting engine motor gliders would not be registered in AUF/RAAus. Great! That made no allowance for what happened if the engine did stop of its own accord and you had to get it into a paddock. Nor did it cover the fact that such aircraft had already been accepted and registered - so the importers were left on the beach with aircraft already on the water, plus the members who had already bought them. What came out of that appears to be a rather polarised background 'impression' that certain people were just greedy bastards trying to rort the system and generally cause upheaval. But who actually caused the fight? My frustration knew no bounds when, at a Board Meeting, we were 'told' that we were taking on ultralight helicopters! I was on my feet enquiring where the instructors, schools and training support infrastructure was coming from. The Board was told that would happen. Seven or more years later NOTHING has been done! OK so where are we at? Is this just another 'Tony Hayes knocking RAAus' session? No it is not! What I am saying particularly is do not become impatient with requirments for certification that seem to be 'picky' or make no practical sense! Those requirements are sound and were placed in good faith. But they were placed in the belief that the 'other half' would do it's thing - and the other half (us) did not! So we are a bit out of balance and the members have been left to work it out. If they cannot work it out then they apply their own interpretations in practical terms and potentially get into trouble! Personally I am not inhibited. I do much as I please. I fly freely as much as I wish to; I design and modify aircraft; I do test flying; I am able to give people specific orientation on the aircraft types that I specialise in; I buy and sell aircraft; I manufacture and supply legal spare parts. But I stay strictly within the confines of my movement and my approvals (plus lean on an extensive aviation background to keep myself personally safe). I know the system inside out and I know how to get what I want most of the time. How many others do? May be time you started finding out? Aye Tony
icebob Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Thank you Tony for the illumination. I have another for you to consider, if i could ask you? a group of military members construct an ultalight - shall we say a Volksplane - use military purchased items for the construction. flown by military pilots and other ranks, in military airspace with a military ID number and military paint scheme. The canteen fund at the depot has the aircraft registered as a recreational vehicle(air). So pilots are qualified military pilots. All hardware to construct the aircraft was militry stock. Flown in military air space only. Other flying the aircraft have been authorised by the pilots. Registered within the military system and it's own stock ID and registration. Is that asking for trouble with CASA or are they untouchable as they are? Bob.
Guest TOSGcentral Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Hi Icebob, I personally see no hassle with the scenario outlined and it should not affect CASA at all because it is military aircraft. The situation (to myself at least) seems to be an exact parallel with operations off your own property. You can build a flying machine out of packing case bits, any engine you can find and go fly it and even carry passengers - but only on your own property and do not dare take it anywhere else! If you happen to lose control and kill the mail man etc etc then that becomes a personal liability issue - not a CASA issue just because an aircraft was involved. If the machine and crew is kosher under the military umbrella and flights are duly authorised, and the aircraft remains in the 'military back yard' then I cannot see CASA having any interest. If the machine goes out of the military backyard (say to a fly in) then I see no difference between it and any other military type that visits civilian gatherings - if it does damage then it is the military responsibilty (insurance in our terms) to provide recompense. As it is an authorised part of the military then CASA equally would have no say over what it was. Just my knuckles dragging on the ground views Tony
drifter_driver Posted May 9, 2008 Author Posted May 9, 2008 Looks like the catchy phrase "license not required" in the 95.10 headings might be the culprit to give the first wrong impression, however reading the fine print few more times have clarified the matter. If regs had "RAAus Certificate Required" as opposed to ‘license not required’ in the heading, would not have caused any confusion.
icebob Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Hi Tony, thanks for that, I was thinking along the same lines. This group are in the process of building another aircraft now and got a bit nervous about CASA and the implications. As far as insurance they are covered and for 3rd party too because the aircraft is within the military inventory as a recreational vehicle (air). Thanks for the information. Bob.
Guest TOSGcentral Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Hmmm! Icebob - that was not information, it was personal opinion. However I will expand a little more and that may put the scene in sharper focus. Many moons ago I was rebuilding gliders that I had imported and doing so under the province of the RAF. All of my work was inspected by an approved RAF airworthiness bod, the aircraft were allocated RAF recreational serial numbers, and some done the same way even carried full roundels. HOWEVER! They were recreational even though totally under the auspices of the military. We had our own military flying training and instructor training to go through to fly them. Once there we could do much as we liked with them - take them away on expeditions, competitions, just a weekend away etc - BUT - we had to comply with the civilian Law of the Land when we did so! So the UK equivalent of CASA may not take us on on rego, airworthiness etc but would most certainly take us on for breaching the equivalent of our CAOs and CARs and we would not have had a leg to stand on. Tony
icebob Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Thanks Tony, No these aircraft will not be leavinig military airspace and if they do it will be by road. As was pointed out flying on your own property bears the same rules. Bob.
Guest brentc Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Thanks Tony,No these aircraft will not be leavinig military airspace and if they do it will be by road. As was pointed out flying on your own property bears the same rules. Bob. Not quite so, this has been tested long ago. Once you leave your own property and head for the skies within your own boundaries you are in airspace the all the rules and regs apply. No licence / certificate and no rego will land you in jail. The military scenario is an interesting one. It would need a military certificate of airworthiness and militart registration.
icebob Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 Hi Brentic, yes the aircraft has an airworthy certificate from the military and a registration number allocation. The group were worried that the second aircraft may be bound by other rules other than military aircraft rules. A letter sent to CASA got a response of sorts but did not pin down exactly what was needed? So they are as I understand it going ahead and getting all inspections gone through the military system and a militry rego number. Bob.
Vorticity Posted May 9, 2008 Posted May 9, 2008 The last thing in the world I would want is any recreational aircraft of mine operating on the state register. This is not because it is lacking; far from it. My concern would be that the regulatory framework required to support registration on that register would be out of control. For instance, changing a set of plugs on your VP-1's engine would require three people. One signed for doing the job, one to supervise the person doing the job and another to do a final check that this was done. Fair enough when our military aircraft are doing such critical missions and placing so many lives at risk but why would you ever place this burdon onto your recreational aircraft?
icebob Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 Hi Vorticity, For you or me i would have to agree about maintenance, however they do not see it that way the aircraft is just slotted in to the normal maintenance routine and is used officially as an "instructional aid". Up until a few years ago there was no RAA approved flight school within reasonable distance so they could get the pilots certificate and dot the I's and cross the tees so everything was left as it was. Anyway it is a nightmare getting something off the military system inventory. I spoke to a couple of the guys early this morning and both have more than 10 hours with the local school and the second aircraft will in deed be registered with RAA. Bob.
Guest Graham Lea Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 You have two virtually identical Jabs standing side by side, outside a flying school office. One is registered VH and the other is registered with RAAus and so has a string of numbers on the side. The school has two instructors. Instructor A is not an RAAus member so can only fly in command and instruct on the VH aircraft under his PPL (License) and CASA instructor rating. Instructor B does not have a PPL but is an RAAus pilot certificate holder and has an RAAus instructor certificate. He still cannot fly in command of the VH aircraft nor instruct in it. Now let us make the Jabs two identical taildraggers. The school has an ex graduate who hires from time to time. This guy has both a PPL and RAAus certificate. The certificate has had the nosewheel restriction lifted so he can legally fly the RAAus aircraft. However his PPL does not have a taildragger endorsement therefore he cannot fly in command of the VH registered aircraft! As a case in point - I had a run in with a highly experienced GA instructor a few years ago. This guy was flying and instructing in an AUF Lightwing. He was doing so on the assumption that his GA credentials allowed him to operate any fixed wing tri axis below 5000kg MTOW and so had no AUF membership nor certificates. If there had been a bingle there would have been no insurance, the instructor would have been criminally liable for prosecution for flying 'unlicensed' (no certificates) and non of the work done with students would be counted towards those students gaining their own certificates! Along with freedom comes responsibility. The prime responsibility is that you understand how the system works and comply with it. Tony But wouldnt one have an A/H and different instruments to comply with the GA regulations? And need a PPL person to fly it into CTA? If so, then while they may superficially seem "identical" they are in fact not. And require different levels of training and skill. Graham
Vorticity Posted May 10, 2008 Posted May 10, 2008 Good to hear the second aircraft will be RAAus registered. Simple managment for simple aircraft
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now