BFR required and using Rec Regoed aircraft

[IanR]

I saw it the other day - looks nice - is it RA or VH ?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Its VH like the 230.. im twisting the owners arm to get it swapped.. just sitting there doing nothing, is sad... id put 10 hours a week on it if it were RAA.

 

 

[Flyer]

Maybe I should just wait until I head up to Sydney and do my BFR at your joint Motza.....

 

 

[motzartmerv]

You'd always be welcome flyer... Got heaps of acft to choose from..Take your Pick:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Given the differences between what people have said here (and what I have previously been told too) I thought I'd write to CASA to clear this up. The reply in short was that yes, you can do a PPL AFR in an RAA registered aircraft. This is the actual response I received from Mike Juelg, Flying Operations Inspector, CASA:

 

An instructor that satisfies the requirements of ' an authorised flight instructor' as defined in Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 2 can conduct an aeroplane flight review. That requires the instructor to either hold an Air Operators Certificate (AOC) that authorises flying training or is employed to instruct by, or under an arrangement with a person who is the holder of an AOC that authorises flying training.

 

 

 

The flight review may be conducted in a RA Aus registered aircraft provided the instructor and pilot also hold the appropriate RA Aus pilot certificates and medical in accordance with the RA Aus Operations manual.

 

So, if the testing guy holds an instructor rating issued by CASA, is working under an appropriate AOC and has the necessary RAA qualifications it appears you can indeed do the AFR in the RAA plane.

 

The italics above are taken straight from the email I received from CASA. I have not edited or changed the response in any way. If you want Mike's contact details PM me and I will pass them on.

 

 

 

[poteroo]

That's how I interpret things too.

 

If you hold only a RAA PC, then you can only do a BFR in an RAA registered aircraft, with an RAA qualified instructor - doesn't matter if they are GA qualified.

 

If you happen to hold both a PPL and an RAA PC, then you can do a single BFR:

 

1. If your instructor is only GA rated, then your GA BFR can only be in a GA aircraft, but does cover your RAA PC, (HP), renewal as well.

 

OR,

 

2. If your instructor is dual rated,and meets the CASA requirements for BFR's, as well as the RAA's requirements for BFR's - then the instructor can do the BFR in either category of aircraft, and sign you off for both PPL and PC.

 

All of the above assumes HP cat of RAA aircraft.

 

Caution: individual CASA FOI's may provide quite differing interpretations. It's a bit of grey airspace!

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest brentc]

An interesting post indeed! thumb_down

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

RAA, VH, GA, We have been here before, I was going to get my PPL so that I can fly into GAAPS airfields and into controlled air-space.

You can fly into GAAP on an RAA ticket! In fact, I train at Parafield for my PC. Just familiarise yourself with the procedures and you are good to go. (try the excellent Visual Pilot Guides - strangely, none for YPPF, but as GAAPs go, YPPF is an easy one and ERSA explains it pretty good)

This was actually a question in the quiz in this month's Flight Safety magazine. :)

 

Cheers,

 

Bas.

 

 

[Matt]

Actually you can't fly into a GAAP on an RAA ticket. Your school at Parafield has a special dispensation specific to that school and the aircraft operated by it - it only allows that school and those aircraft at that airfield. This dispensation does not apply to you the pilot i.e. you cannot fly any RAA registered aircraft into any other GAAP, to achieve this you would need to meet the standards for operating an ultralight in controlled airspace i.e. minimum PPL, certified engine etc etc.

 

The only other school I'm aware of with (current) dispensation is at Cambridge (Hobart although I know of schools at Moorabbin, Camden etc. that have requested similar.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Thanks for clearing that up. In future I shall interpret the term "anyone" in FSA magazine as "anyone with a PPL or above". I wonder how that works if I want to hire and fly after I finish training.

 

But... Looking at the ops manual about the CTA endorsement, there is a limitation:

 

"An RA-Aus Controlled Airspace endorsement permits the holder to operate inside controlled airspace under the following conditions; [...] d. the aircraft is not limited by its operating limitations (eg overflight of built up areas)".

 

To me that sounds like most GAAP entry lanes will still be out of bounds as they are too low to glide away from built up areas.

 

So even with that endorsement in place, it looks like you'd still need a PPL and VH plane to operate at a GAAP.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Your school at Parafield has a special dispensation specific to that school and the aircraft operated by it - it only allows that school and those aircraft at that airfield. The only other school I'm aware of with (current) dispensation is at Cambridge (Hobart although I know of schools at Moorabbin, Camden etc. that have requested similar.

There are four exemptions current at the moment - Parafield, Cambridge, Launceston and West Sale. See here for details - http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/miscinst/index.htm

 

The interesting thing is that there are schools at Archerfield that are doing training in RAA aircraft. I won't name them at risk of starting problems but I can't see any exemptions granted for these schools. :ah_oh:

 

 

[Guest brentc]

West Sale is an interesting one because it's Military airspace, rather than GAAP and it caused a huge fight a while back - am hoping that it's been fully sorted out by now.

 

As Karen says, Oasis is at Moorabbin these days after being supposedly kicked out of Point Cook (dealing with the Defence Department ) and I believe that they are waiting for approval to send RA-Aus solo in GAAP.

 

GAAP privelages don't necessarily go with your licence. So if you're at GFPT level at one field and are flying solo in the training area, you can't just go to another GAAP until you do your checkride etc.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Thanks for clearing that up. In future I shall interpret the term "anyone" in FSA magazine as "anyone with a PPL or above". I wonder how that works if I want to hire and fly after I finish training.But... Looking at the ops manual about the CTA endorsement, there is a limitation:

 

"An RA-Aus Controlled Airspace endorsement permits the holder to operate inside controlled airspace under the following conditions; [...] d. the aircraft is not limited by its operating limitations (eg overflight of built up areas)".

 

To me that sounds like most GAAP entry lanes will still be out of bounds as they are too low to glide away from built up areas.

 

So even with that endorsement in place, it looks like you'd still need a PPL and VH plane to operate at a GAAP.

Flight over built up areas is interesting. On one of my first navex flights we did the bankstown lane of entry. I asked my instructor "arn't we heading over a 'built up area'? He said "can you see somewhere to conduct a force landing?" There were a few playing fields and golf coarses. He said "so we're within gliding distance of a safe landing area then"

 

To tell you the truth, I thought it might have been a solution like that. Otherwise all RAAus aircraft would have to go all the way around the west of the richmond military area to get up the coast.

 

I suspect the same will apply to GAAP entry lanes.

 

Also, a side point is that currently if the pilot holds a PPL, an RAAus plane may be flown into CTA if equiped with a mode C TX and radio. (I'm pretty sure) So it's only the RAAus pilot certificate that won't let us into CTA at present.

 

My point being unless one wants to do commercial flying, NVFR, IFR,or carry more than one passenger what is the point in spending the money to have a GA license.

Add to that aerobatics. :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

The wording is: "glide clear of all dwellings, buildings and persons within the built-up area", so technically a road in the built up area should be OK so long as you do not hit any cars, I guess! Very open to interpretation.

 

Heading east out of YPPF, there aren't that many places you could go from 1000 ft. but technically it should be possible. West (to training area) is no problem at all.

 

Interestingly, the rule seems to apply to the A/C registration, not the pilot. So a PPL can fly an RAA A/C into CTA, but must still follow the built-up area rule. If the same A/C is VH registered, its OK. Bit strange, but I guess it is due to LAME or DIY maintenance. Maybe the rule could be changed that a licensed A/C that is always level 2 maintained would be OK too?

 

 

[antzx6r]

Oh, I vaguely remember something about certified engine as well. So a jab or rotax is ok apparently but a single cylinder lawn mower engine on a scout is definately not. Perhaps someone more knowledgable can expand.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There's a good thread elsewhere on this if someone wants to search for it :thumb_up:

 

Needs to be an *approved* engine, rather than certified, so your 912 or Jab etc, dual ignition. There are currently no conditions imposed on the aircraft and it's operation in CTA depending on who maintains it.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Going back to the Flight Safety Australia magazine quiz, the question is:

 

2. An appropriately certified and equipped aircraft registered '24-xxxx' under the Recreational Aviation Association of Australia, Inc. may operate from a GAAP aerodrome:(a) under no circumstances.

 

(b) only under a CASA legal instrument specific to the pilot and aircraft.

 

© only if of a type that has been certified to FAR 23.

 

(d) provided the pilot is appropriately qualified, and a serviceable radio is carried

Correct answer:

 

(d) RA-Aus ops manual section 2.01; CAO 95.55.

Section 2.01 does deal with the CTA endorsement or PPL required for controlled airspace, but does not mention the glide clear of dwellings, etc. rule.

 

As a solo-ing RA-Aus student probably isn't "appropriately qualified" I can imagine that being an issue. But reading this, it seems that anyone with a PPL or CTA endorsement is welcome at GAAP in any factory built three-axis ultralight according to CASA.

 

 

[Matt]

Your last sentence is pretty much bang on. And the fluff about flying over built up areas, be within gliding distance of a suitable landing area etc. is a historic thing that needs to be reviewed in my opinion. You'll be hard pressed to get to any controlled airfield without flying at 1000' AGL over built up areas...in fact there are some non-controlled airfields in the same situation...but then again the regulation does also mention "unless in the act of taking off or landing" ...or something along those lines.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

As a solo-ing RA-Aus student probably isn't "appropriately qualified" I can imagine that being an issue. But reading this, it seems that anyone with a PPL or CTA endorsement is welcome at GAAP in any factory built three-axis ultralight according to CASA.

If you read through the exemptions it clearly states that the student must hold a student pilot licence. This gets them over the 'appropriately qualified' hurdle.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

If you read through the exemptions it clearly states that the student must hold a student pilot licence. This gets them over the 'appropriately qualified' hurdle.

The Parafield exemption says: "[PIC needs] at least a student pilot certificate" - so no CASA SPL required.

An SPL would work for those GAAPs without exemption, but it would require an ARN, medical and CASA fees - something most people try to avoid by flying RAA! But I do agree, it would be a small price to pay if, like me, you have a place like Parafield 15 minutes away but Murray Bridge and Aldinga over an hour and a half. YPPF has the exemption, but if it didn't getting an SPL would be a good solution.

 

(I have since found out people are also training in Jabs at Gawler, but I do like the Sportstar - Jabs are a little squeezy for me!)

 

 

[Guest airsick]

The Parafield exemption says: "[PIC needs] at least a student pilot certificate"

So it does. I misread it. Keeping my mouth shut now... :confused:

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

It does bring up a good point, though. YPPF has the exemption that says I can fly there under the control of Forsyth Aviation. But, without that exemption and studying on an SPL until you get an RAA PC means that you could not then hire and fly at the same airfield unless you pretend you are doing more solo under instruction!

 

The exemption only applies to Forsyth, so without PPL or CTA endorsement, I could not park my own RAA A/C at YPPF and fly it after training.

 

And when the CTA endorsement comes in and you could fly into GAAP, that still doesn't mean that without an SPL an RA-Aus student could solo at an airfield without exemption.

 

Oh well, it is a can of worms. Lets hope that when the CTA endorsement goes active, there will be an official statement on this from CASA and RA-Aus.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

You've answered the question yourself - you are in a CTAF so that is the frequency you would use, given that you are operating from a private strip.

 

In the situation where there are two licenced (or unlicenced and in ERSA), they would normally be on the same frequency. Lilydale and Colstream are a good example of this; plus Geelong (Grovedale), Barwon Hears and Torquay are all combined.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

I fired off an email to Mick Poole at RA-Aus just to let him know people seem to be confused about the whole CTA thing and approaches to GAAP aerodromes in regards to the overflight of built-up areas and that it might be an idea to clarify this to members.

 

He responded that he is working on sorting out a lot of these things with CASA and writing an article on it for the next edition of the magazine and make sure it is clear before any endorsements are handed out.

 

The short of it is that he too thinks an open field in an otherwise built up area will suffice and so we should be welcome in places requiring such an approach. But that needs to be clarified with CASA, obviously and that is for 24 registered aircraft; there are further limits on 19's.