Problems

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

My 2 bobs worth :I agree that that would be better than AOPA,

 

But , saaa doesn't administer licenses or rego (I think ?)(any one know for sure?),it's back to casa handling that aspect .

 

We would only be moving our problems and giving it to them ,

 

I wouldn't imagine them to be that interested ,and I think their are some old grudges ,but it's better than it was .

 

I for one have been a member for 3 years

 

Chapter 25 , great bunch

 

Only my thoughts

 

If this goes the way it seems to be going we will all end up their any way one way or another

Look at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Browse/Results/ByTitle/LegislativeInstruments/Current/Ci/37/civil%20aviation%20order%2095/ - do you see any 95 series CAO that covers the SAAA activity? If there isn't one, that means the SAAA functions directly under the CASRs; their aircraft are built under CASR 21.190 or 21.191 (see CASA AC 21.4 & 21.11) and registered under CASR Part 47, and their C of A is issued under CASR 21.175 - 21.186.

 

You can find all these answers by going to www.casa.gov.au and looking up the advisory circulars, orders, or regulations. Take a deep breath and give it a try; it's not really all that difficult.

 

Anybody with a type-certificated aircraft or an LSA aircraft can do likewise; you do not need to be a member of anything to do so. Similarly if you are building an aircraft to be registered under RAAus -19 registration, you can also do so under CASR 21.191, but look at CASA AC 21.4 first - there are some prerequisites that you have to meet. The SAAA would be a big help if you are building one of these.

 

I would predict that SAAA will be of enormous help to the kit or amateur scratch builders, but does not really have anything to offer the owners of TC or LSA aircraft.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I was thinking of changing my name to Guy forks and succeeding Druidvale from Australia .after all ,all you need is a runway or two , hanger and plane , and a bit of sky to play in ! RIGHT!Although IDE Probly need a lawyer to do the paper work . Kas , are you interested ,

 

Cheers Mike [ATTACH=full]22631[/ATTACH]

Hey Mike, you got a new runway?

 

 

[AVOCET]

Hey Mike, you got a new runway?

1200 mt 05/23

 

 

[turboplanner]

Although it has its own issues ,what's wrong with RAA ending up back in the SAAA, that's where it started and although there are always problems in any organisation at least the SAAA seems to be able to read the regs and stick to them. As a lobby group they're doing well for the experimental flyers and really I reckon we have more in common with them than AOPA ,the only dramas would be getting over very old grudges, having to learn the regs ( and not break them) and hopefully an influx of pilots wouldn't destroy what seems to be a strong organisationCheers Matty

Cost.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

1200 mt 05/23

Ripper!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Cost.

Yes. As far as I can see, by far the simplest and lowest-cost option, for anybody who has a PPL or an RPL and either a TC or LSA aircraft, is to transfer to VH registration (see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/acrprocs/form029i.pdf ) and apply for a c of A under CASR 21.175 ~ 21.186, as appropriate to the details of your aircraft.

 

If you do not have either a PPL or an RPL, you will need to get one or the other before you do anything else, which will also provide you with an Aviation Reference Number (ARN) which you will need to transfer the registration of your aircraft.

 

You will presumably have to go to an approved aircraft maintenance shop to get your initial Maintenance Release. This will cost something, because your aircraft will have to be brought into compliance with requirements such as instrument calibrations, radio checks etc.

 

Once you have a maintenance release, you can go flying, under the normal regulations for VFR flight, and subject to whatever limitations arise from the equipment fit in your aircraft.

 

If you have an amateur-built or kit-built aircraft, you will need to make enquiries as to the procedures for it to be accepted under CASR 21.191; I can't advise there. zThis is something that needs to be explored by a suitable committee of aircraft owners, I would suggest - and I also suggest you do that ASAP.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dafydd, while that may be a possibility for some . It is miles away from what most of the RAAus ex AUF etc people here want. Surely we are NOT at that stage yet. A few years ago I thought we in australia were getting to a good position vis a vis the rest of the world. How quickly it can turn to $#it.!!!

 

Don't give up yet. You deserve a scene where minimum aircraft of simple design and low cost, carrying max of one ' aware " pax can operate without undue complexity of rules. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd, while that may be a possibility for some . It is miles away from what most of the RAAus ex AUF etc people here want. Surely we are NOT at that stage yet. A few years ago I thought we in australia were getting to a good position vis a vis the rest of the world. How quickly it can turn to $#it.!!!Don't give up yet. You deserve a scene where minimum aircraft of simple design and low cost, carrying max of one ' aware " pax can operate without undue complexity of rules. Nev

Two points: Firstly, do people not want it because of fear of the unknown? If so, I suggest that the option is not as bad as you may dread. It's a good time to learn the facts about this option.

 

Secondly, do not lose sight of the fact that CAO 95.55 is written explicitly for RAAus; if RAAus becomes insolvent, I think CASA will have no alternative but to cancel CAO 95.55, and if that happens you really will be at that stage overnight. No, you're not there yet; but I would not bet anything on it staying that way. I think it's the height of stupidity to float along assuming "she'll be right". Stupidity is punishable in nature by death, and that law hasn't been repealed as yet.

 

 

[facthunter]

Having put up with DCA D0T "yibbita yibbita, CASA (getting worse unless I'm wrong) since forever. I'm no sure it is worth it. I've got plenty of mates in the game in all areas and they are all "unimpressed". by what is going on generally. One needs some assurance that there is a workable tomorrow. It's NOT there. Nobody cares about anything below airlines and they are supposed to look after themselves Ha Ha.! Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Having put up with DCA D0T "yibbita yibbita, CASA (getting worse unless I'm wrong) since forever. I'm no sure it is worth it. I've got plenty of mates in the game in all areas and they are all "unimpressed". by what is going on generally. One needs some assurance that there is a workable tomorrow. It's NOT there. Nobody cares about anything below airlines and they are supposed to look after themselves Ha Ha.! Nev

No argument about CASA's performance. However Part 91 is still being argued about, and in the meantime, people like SAAA etc are still operating under CARs 1988. The exemptions in CAO 95.55 almost all refer to CARs 1988. I'd need to research it, but I think there would be no effective difference to actually flying a RecAv aeroplane under CAO 95.55 or directly under the CARs - the same airspace limitations and requirements apply. The difference is in the maintenance areas; firstly, the maintenance system would become Schedule 5 of the CARs (and a Log Book Statement to that effect would have to go into the log book). The CAO 95.55 exemptions to Parts 4 and 4A of the CARS would cease to apply, so the aircraft would require Certificates of Airworthiness (which fact will go a long way to stopping the importers from rorting the system) and Maintenance Releases; and at present the L2 system does not fit here - this would be the principal area in which negotiations would be needed with CASA. However if you wait until RAAus is on the point of collapse to start such negotiations, the answer may well be, stiff cheese.

 

There's no guarantee of a workable tomorrow for anybody; what opportunities you get will have to be of your own making. Waiting for somebody else to do it won't get you anywhere. It's your choice. I became so disgusted with RAAus that I let my membership lapse about 18 months ago. I'll be operating under CASR Part 191, via GFA, so "I'm all right, Jack". Sleepers, awake; at least check that the back door isn't locked.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Dafydd

 

I have RAAus pilot training and I own a J230. I'm a type 1 diabetic under very good sugar control. I cant do what you suggest. GA medicals wont let me fly my 19 registered J230 as VH.

 

For me to do as you suggest I want (not need) acceptance of prior learning...My J230 wont change if it has VH on the back so why do I have to sit for a PPL?personally I don't want CTA access, I would like hopefully more G class lanes of entry through CTA around some dangerous places in Au such as Coffs to the west.....

 

I need the medical to reflect that if I was Ok to fly before (>15 years of flying while Type 1 no issues) and nothings changed medically then its Ok to continue... Its why I desperately want RAAus to succeed!

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

I was an SAAA member for a while and they do a good job in their area but they don't do pilot training. They are basically GA LICENCE holders. I'm still a social member of chapter 20 (Kyneton VIC) which is very active and I welcome anyone in the area to come along. They will be very welcome. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

DafyddI have RAAus pilot training and I own a J230. I'm a type 1 diabetic under very good sugar control. I cant do what you suggest. GA medicals wont let me fly my 19 registered J230 as VH.

 

For me to do as you suggest I want (not need) acceptance of prior learning...My J230 wont change if it has VH on the back so why do I have to sit for a PPL?personally I don't want CTA access, I would like hopefully more G class lanes of entry through CTA around some dangerous places in Au such as Coffs to the west.....

 

I need the medical to reflect that if I was Ok to fly before (>15 years of flying while Type 1 no issues) and nothings changed medically then its Ok to continue... Its why I desperately want RAAus to succeed!

 

Andy

Andy, I can only sympathise; there will be people who cannot make this change. Have you researched the recreational pilot licence? I agree that the transfer from an RAA pilot certificate to an RPL should be automatic, no questions asked. I do not know whether this is as yet the case. I suspect that RAA's turning its back on this has done persons like yourself no service whatsoever. I'd like to know, too, because I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to qualify for a Class 2 medical certificate; it happens to us all eventually, and eventually is getting pretty close for me.

 

This is one of the aspects that the present danger of RAA collapsing, should spur negotiations with CASA - and I doubt that has to be done by RAA. It is questions like this that need answers right now; that's what I have been trying to get across in my contributions to this thread. I think this is an area where group of concerned pilot individuals could ask these questions just as effectively as any formal body.

 

What people need is a set of answers to these questions, so they will be forearmed with real knowledge, not propaganda.

 

Good luck,

 

Dafydd

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

DafyddI have RAAus pilot training and I own a J230. I'm a type 1 diabetic under very good sugar control. I cant do what you suggest. GA medicals wont let me fly my 19 registered J230 as VH.

 

For me to do as you suggest I want (not need) acceptance of prior learning...My J230 wont change if it has VH on the back so why do I have to sit for a PPL?personally I don't want CTA access, I would like hopefully more G class lanes of entry through CTA around some dangerous places in Au such as Coffs to the west.....

 

I need the medical to reflect that if I was Ok to fly before (>15 years of flying while Type 1 no issues) and nothings changed medically then its Ok to continue... Its why I desperately want RAAus to succeed!

 

Andy

Have you looked at http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/dame/diabetes_type1.pdf

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Call for kids to be banned from flying amateur-built planes3AWnews| 5 June, 2013 - 11:36 AM

A coroner has called for all children aged 16 and under to be banned from flying in amateur-built and experimental aircraft after a father and son were killed near Mildura.

 

Coroner Jane Hendtlass has recommended the Federal Government and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ban all passengers under the age of 17 from flying in amateur-built, experimental aircraft.

Please point out where the coroner said the above.

 

I looked at the 10 or so recomendations and its not there.

 

Maybe somewhere else?

 

 

[facthunter]

Dafydd the RPL is useless. I was involved with the push from mainly SAAA for this and it is impossible to get it unless you can just tick every item with no issues whatever. The CASA even say the only redress from a problem with the RPL is to go the class one/two road and deal with avmed. The RPL doesn't go near avmed it is either ticked fully or it doesn't happen/ if it is ticked it just gets filed hence the cost doesn't apply. It has NOTHING to do with the requirements of a car licence.

 

Having access to secondary airports was considered an essential part of it ( To service their aeroplanes),and they wanted no redress if something went wrong with introducing something new. So.... VERY disappointing!!! after so much hope. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Dafydd the RPL is useless. I was involved with the push from mainly SAAA for this and it is impossible to get it unless you can just tick every item with no issues whatever. The CASA even say the only redress from a problem with the RPL is to go the class one/two road and deal with avmed. The RPL doesn't go near avmed it is either ticked fully or it doesn't happen/ if it is ticked it just gets filed hence the cost doesn't apply. It has NOTHING to do with the requirements of a car licence.Having access to secondary airports was considered an essential part of it ( To service their aeroplanes),and they wanted no redress if something went wrong with introducing something new. So.... VERY disappointing!!! after so much hope. Nev

OK, so what we need is an equivalent to the US Sport Pilot Licence?

 

What you describe is entirely consistent with AVMED's approach to CASA's liability under S 8.2 of the Civil Aviation Act - a liability that the FAA does not have. A great deal of what CASA is doing these days is fairly obviously related to minimising their liability. This is the root cause of most of the malaise that affects our aviation industry. The RPL case needs to be documented and used as evidence that CASA is primarily interested in avoiding liability, and only secondarily interested in safety regulation - it uses the latter as an excuse for the former. This ain't going to improve whilst S 8.2 remains in the Act. If I were 20 years younger, I'd by looking at land prices in NZ.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Please point out where the coroner said the above.I looked at the 10 or so recomendations and its not there.

Maybe somewhere else?

I agree it's not in the Coroner's Report. Can somebody shed light on this, please - it's important to have our facts correct.

 

 

[djpacro]

I agree that the transfer from an RAA pilot certificate to an RPL should be automatic, no questions asked. I do not know whether this is as yet the case.

My understanding is that it was to be automatic but I haven't looked in that section of the new Part 61 rules yet to confirm. Sometimes the real answer is in the details, in this case the Manual of Standards - the draft has just been made available by CASA for public comment. I would expect it to have the detail of what a CASA delegate requires from a RAA certificate holder to "automatically" give an RPL.If you want to change what is in the draft MOS then you have until the end of July to make submission.

 

 

[TK58]

My reading of CASR 61 is that it explicitly says an RAAus pilot certificate and any endorsements (e.g. Cross country, tailwheel, etc.) are directly transferrable to RPL provided you have a certificate from a GP that says you met the fitness standard to drive a car and you don't have any reportable conditions. Same limitations as RAAus in terms of where and when you can fly, but more choices in terms of what you can fly. If you can get someone to rent you a 182 (or anything else up to 1,500 kg - early 206 anyone?), an RPL will let you take a group to wherever you might have taken your RAAus 2 seater.

 

This will appeal to some and could be viewed as a threat to RAAus.

 

 

[coljones]

To get an RPL, it will be on application and seems to be more or less automatic BUT you will need at least an RPL -MV medical AND you will need to do a flight review (not a flight test) but I am not sure in which plane. The tester will be a CASA reviewer.

 

If you have navs and radio you will get those endos as well but since RAA doesn't do Controlled airports or controlled airspace you will need to add those to the RPL using CASA exams and training.

 

At the moment RAA pilots can fly controlled space in properly equipped RAA planes if they have a PPL. I am not sure if the same exemption will be given to RAA pilots with RPLs with endos.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

My reading of CASR 61 is that it explicitly says an RAAus pilot certificate and any endorsements (e.g. Cross country, tailwheel, etc.) are directly transferrable to RPL provided you have a certificate from a GP that says you met the fitness standard to drive a car and you don't have any reportable conditions. Same limitations as RAAus in terms of where and when you can fly, but more choices in terms of what you can fly. If you can get someone to rent you a 182 (or anything else up to 1,500 kg - early 206 anyone?), an RPL will let you take a group to wherever you might have taken your RAAus 2 seater.This will appeal to some and could be viewed as a threat to RAAus.

And if you do have a reportable condition?

 

 

[kaz3g]

Please point out where the coroner said the above.I looked at the 10 or so recomendations and its not there.

Maybe somewhere else?

Hi Phil

 

That was a direct cut and paste from a print version of a radio station news report - Macquarie News 3 AW in Melbourne. I did it on the iPad and couldn't get the URL to copy at the time.

 

I read the report on the train to Melbourne yesterday and it seems they drew this from some obiter comments the Coroner made during the hearing. The actual recommendations are at the end of the report and are somewhat less draconian.

 

Blame the media or shoot the messenger <grin>?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Hi PhilThat was a direct cut and paste from a print version of a radio station news report - Macquarie News 3 AW in Melbourne. I did it on the iPad and couldn't get the URL to copy at the time.

 

I read the report on the train to Melbourne yesterday and it seems they drew this from some obiter comments the Coroner made during the hearing. The actual recommendations are at the end of the report and are somewhat less draconian.

 

Blame the media or shoot the messenger <grin>?

 

Kaz

Kaz,

 

Thanks for clearing that up

 

Phil

 

 

[ave8rr]

My reading of CASR 61 is that it explicitly says an RAAus pilot certificate and any endorsements (e.g. Cross country, tailwheel, etc.) are directly transferrable to RPL provided you have a certificate from a GP that says you met the fitness standard to drive a car and you don't have any reportable conditions. Same limitations as RAAus in terms of where and when you can fly, but more choices in terms of what you can fly. If you can get someone to rent you a 182 (or anything else up to 1,500 kg - early 206 anyone?), an RPL will let you take a group to wherever you might have taken your RAAus 2 seater.This will appeal to some and could be viewed as a threat to RAAus.

You can ONLY have ONE passenger with the RPL but that can be in any aircrat type up to the 1500kg MTOW.