djpacro Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 BUT if they want to fly an RAAus aircraft, it is entirely appropriate they have to become an RAAus member and pay the membership fees which gives them the insurance they would not otherwise have. My understanding is that the insurance is for the aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I haven't seen too many snobs in RAAus. . I don't really wish to dwell on it but if people look down on anyone it would generally be on the RAAus by most others.. Most here are well aware of the advantages we have and wish to keep. A certificate does the job and doesn't have to comply with ICAO which is a big help in reducing restrictive rules. The aircraft which can be registered VH haven't been a particular godsend to the RAAus. LSA is a dog's breakfast. that a few fell for to get a weight increase. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 My understanding is that the insurance is for the aircraft? David, the latest insurance provides limited liability protection to the pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 So without me bothering to look up the current rules, what is the current minimum hours for a GA pilot to do when transferring to RAA before they are deemed competent for a certificate? As I have said I haven't looked up these rules but I would have thought for a reasonably experienced GA pilot that a flight review similar to a BFR would have been sufficient? Unless there has been a change in the new Ops Manual then to get a pilot certificate a GA licence holder is required to do 5 hours in an ultralight made up of some dual and solo flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I believe in NZ GA pilots can fly ultralights as long as they take some dual and are issued a rating (endorsement) on type. No issue with registration as ALL aircraft in NZ are registered ZK-xxx and are either a class 1, (single seat) 2 (two seat) or LSA. Those aircraft will have a MTOW of 600Kgs or less. There is NO requirement to belong to a microlight organisation of which there are two in NZ to my knowledge. One other thing is that you must have a type rating endorsed by a CFI in your log book before you can legally fly any aircraft type with a passenger in NZ. This is not a bad thing just a bit more expensive than just having an upper limit weight rating. This would sort out cowboys who think they can fly anything but then realise they aren't really too good at flying a very light twitchy plastic fantastic after the docile C172 or PA28. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 David, the latest insurance provides limited liability protection to the pilot. yes, but is it the cover to the pilot of the aircraft which is covered by the insurance or is it cover of the pilot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 GAFA. There is nothing stopping Tecnams etc. being registered GA. There are already Jabirus' GA registered so it is up to thee owner. Probably the owner thinks it is more cost effective to have RAAus rego and have to pay rego and membership each year, rather than a one off payment. The other factor is maintenance of GA aircraft has to be by a LAME or otherwise authorised person, more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 It's NOT just cost Yenn. People want to be involved with their planes running. Some don't but many do. We have a choice and wish to keep it that way. If someone says you ONLY have a certificate why would I care if it gives me things I regard as of primary importance. That cannot make me a snob by the way. That's actually one of the funniest things I've heard about RAAus pilots. We have a say in how our affairs are run. With CASA you do what they say. You don't get to vote for reps. You pretty much put up with what is dished out to you. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 The insurance isn't for hull or pilot, it's for damage done to others and their property. No one is suggesting changes to medical requirements, so no one is missing out. It would be interesting to see how much money RAA actually spend to provide a pilot certificate to members, when CASA could provide licensing for a one off cost of $50. We should lobby for changes to the CAO to be for exemption to the requirement of the medical, rather then for the license. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Sam, a very interesting question. Under the last Ops Manual I have had substantial arguments on this issue as I can prove there was NO actual hour requirements for a High Performance RAAus conversion, but there was a minimum number of hours for Low Performance. I haven't read the new Ops Manual but the conversion should be simply based on compentency, hours are irrelevant. David, my reading of the new ops manual section 2.13 now states that all converting GA applicants MUST do 5 hours training (including at least 1 hour solo) before being recommended for a flight test. As there is no longer a high or low performance category so that means all applicants. I agree with you that the conversion should be competency based. Some could easily achieve this in one or two hours but have to pay for the extra four or five hours to meet the minimum. That could be over $1000 extra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That's right and some of us bitch at the way GA charges us to convert and look what we do. What has 5 hrs got to do with anything? You could do it all in a Jab or other LSA and miss out on any conversion to low performance high drag machines and just jump in a Drifter under our dumb new scheme and be legal. I rest my case. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I believe there have been a few GA pilots jump into Jab LSA55 aircraft and found themselves in trouble. There's a huge difference from a docile Cessna 172 type to a high performance "ultralight'. Flight training on type would have to be a necessity to avoid an increased accident rate. Perhaps, this needs to be written into the RAA cert' rules. Desk pilot....already has been...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 That's right and some of us bitch at the way GA charges us to convert and look what we do. What has 5 hrs got to do with anything? You could do it all in a Jab or other LSA and miss out on any conversion to low performance high drag machines and just jump in a Drifter under our dumb new scheme and be legal.I rest my case. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the new Ops Manual is if you have not flown that aircraft "type" before you need to be signed off by an instructor in your logbook. IE if you fly a Jabiru and then want to take a drifter for a spin, you actually need an instructor to put a entry in your logbook that you have the skills/ability to fly a Drifter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Perhaps it's time to find out just what does apply. Has the LP and HP gone? We didn't have a need to have individual type endorsements Nor does GA. That was done away with many years ago. There if you are under 5700 Kgs it 's things like floats, CS prop ,Retract gear, multi engine tailwheel, nosewheel. If we have something similar people will still want proof you can fly things like a thruster or such, but we don't have individual type endorsements. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Yes HP and LP have gone to be replaced by a loosely worded type endorsement. You must be endorsed on type by an instructor who is endorsed on type. In my opinion you better make sure the type is very close to what you fly or the insurance company will have a get out clause. Appears to be a very clumsy attempt to get away from HP and LP. In this instance CASA have done it much better in the new Part 61, ie it's up to the pilot to ensure he or she is competent to operate the aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Yes HP and LP have gone to be replaced by a loosely worded type endorsement. You must be endorsed on type by an instructor who is endorsed on type. In my opinion you better make sure the type is very close to what you fly or the insurance company will have a get out clause. Appears to be a very clumsy attempt to get away from HP and LP. In this instance CASA have done it much better in the new Part 61, ie it's up to the pilot to ensure he or she is competent to operate the aircraft. Hell........hang on, there not letting us exercise good judgement finally are they.......??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Yes HP and LP have gone to be replaced by a loosely worded type endorsement. You must be endorsed on type by an instructor who is endorsed on type. In my opinion you better make sure the type is very close to what you fly or the insurance company will have a get out clause. Appears to be a very clumsy attempt to get away from HP and LP. In this instance CASA have done it much better in the new Part 61, ie it's up to the pilot to ensure he or she is competent to operate the aircraft. So then what does 'Type' mean if it doesn't have a definition what is it. Is the type Low performance? We don't have a low performance Type in GA and there are plenty of low performance GA aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Definition from the ops manual. Aeroplane Type: Aeroplane undercarriage configuration, design features, flight envelope (e.g. high drag/low drag and considerations of inertia), stall speeds and normal/emergency handling characteristics as designated by the manufacturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 So then what does 'Type' mean if it doesn't have a definition what is it. Deleted as HappyFlyer beat me to it ;-) Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Definition from the ops manual.Aeroplane Type: Aeroplane undercarriage configuration, design features, flight envelope (e.g. high drag/low drag and considerations of inertia), stall speeds and normal/emergency handling characteristics as designated by the manufacturer. Is that a list of types or a list of features? Can't make sense of that. Why can't we do the same as Part 61 in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 From the ops manual. TYPE TRAINING 13. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as pilot in command without having demonstrated competency on Type. Aeroplane Type Training must be undertaken with an RA-Aus Examiner who holds the respective aeroplane group and type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Well based on those very loose definitions of type we will all need to be endorsed for every brand of RAAus aircraft we fly won't we. How ridiculous is it to have such a loose definition on types. Do they have a more specific definition of what the 'different' types are? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Well based on those very loose definitions of type we will all need to be endorsed for every brand of RAAus aircraft we fly won't we. How ridiculous is it to have such a loose definition on types. Do they have a more specific definition of what the 'different' types are? Not that I've found. Yes, ridiculous. If I were an insurance company looking to get out of paying I would look very carefully at the type training of an accident pilot. Most current pilots will be okay for a while because you are taken to have been type trained if you have flown the type for more than two hours in the past. As new types and new pilots come in however that may change. It will be interesting to see who will train who when a new type is imported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 The Ops manual has a hideously large number of issues due to lack of drafting rigour and/or control. Search this forum for the thread RA Ops Manual and read through a few of my posts there - and I have officially given up trying to complete the review of it as my opinion is that it is so badly written and so full of contradictions and uncertainty that it would be better to start from scratch and write it properly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Well based on those very loose definitions of type we will all need to be endorsed for every brand of RAAus aircraft we fly won't we. How ridiculous is it to have such a loose definition on types. Do they have a more specific definition of what the 'different' types are? I would read it as for example : group A - Three axis control Type - Tricycle undercarriage. There is no LP/HP seperation now. I don't know what is intended but that would be my take in the absence of anything specific, and would be in line with a GA licence I.e. Any SE <5700kg MTOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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