R.A.A. Pilot certificate is it correct?

[rick-p]

One or both could be fibbing?? Just consider that..Look what 440032 came up with he had one story regarding the regulation now with thorough reading look what has been revealed.

Regards

 

KP.

Did you say that 440032 is a Board Member?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

As I have said many times a lot of regulation is only a wish list..Have you ever tried to get regulations changed??

I have to ask you what have I not made clear ----- with only mate flying the tail dragger after he was apprehended CASA and RAAus were trying to work out what to charge him with, DPP advised them drop the charges or they will make fools of them selves.

 

I do acknowledge the fact I have not revealed the person name, aircraft make and location, how ever all the mechanics of the saga are revealed.

 

For revision read my first post in this thread and Dafydd's very good article in the RAAus magazine I think you will have your answers there. If not get on to the DPP.

 

Regards

 

KP.

Hi Keith, just because charges were not laid does not mean what he did was legal, there are many reasons why the matter was not taken on by the DPP, lack of evidence could be one.

 

Regulation isn't a wish list, it's law set by the govt (under the Act) and overseen by parliament.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

This could all be settled easily by those who 'know' that they can fly RAAus aircrft purely on a PPL or higher. Advise CASA and RAAus when and where you are going to to it and then do it!

 

 

[facthunter]

THAT should make it easier for others. Surely the intention is clear if the wording isn't. RAAus operates on exemptions. or concessions to an act. in certain areas This relates to RAAus. and where applicable , other administering bodies performing similar functions that "control" ops with non VH registered flying machines. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Just for absolute clarity, RAAus is an incorporated association. Of it self it has no link, and no right to link with the DPP any more than you or I, as individuals, have that right.

 

Any suggestion that RAAus and CASA and the DPP were "trying to work out what to charge him with" is just so much BS.....CASA and the DPP may well have had such a discussion but I can assure RAAus wasn't involved in that discussion as an equal partner.....if we were even present at all...... If RAAus was somehow peripherally involved it would be because the deed of arrangement obligated us to provide assistance when directed, had we not done so, then like all individuals we could have been compelled through Subpoena.....

 

Just more of the same from the same and I'll save them the trouble of the next round of BS apparently the current board and staff beat their wives, are paedeophiles and collectively deflower at least one or more Virgin of both sexes before every board meeting at which a standard agenda is how to screw over the members in new and innovative ways.....that should pretty well cover it Keith?

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

You forgot about the goat

 

 

[coljones]

snip ... snip ... snipJust more of the same from the same and I'll save them the trouble of the next round of BS apparently the current board and staff beat their wives, are paedeophiles and collectively deflower at least one or more Virgin of both sexes before every board meeting at which a standard agenda is how to screw over the members in new and innovative ways

 

snip ... snip ... snip

???? I keep getting told that the new board is cleaning up its act. This is terrible news!!

 

 

[facthunter]

Wasn't like that the meeting I went to. I would have kept going if I had known this in advance. Who said flying was Passe.? . Not enough information going to members ! This must be remedied at once. Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

Did you say that 440032 is a Board Member?

Do not know if 440032 is a board member.

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[rick-p]

Do not know if 440032 is a board member.Regards

KP

I don't know but somewhere in the forum someone said that a mate at the local had advised him of something about an RAA member being bored so I just assumed that anonymity breeds suspicion and came up with 1 and 1 to make eleven and there you have it.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It doesn't affect me as I have both, but I can see no practical or common sense reason why a PPL who is an RAA member should not be able to fly an RAA aircraft without a pilot certificate. It will require some conversion training, as with any new aircraft, with the amount of training related to the aircraft type and the pilots previous

 

experience.

 

That is just a common sense view, which should be allowed by the regulations. If it isn't, seek a change to the regs. I happen to think it is allowed already. My interpretation would no no one any harm, and would remove the anomaly of pilots being able to fly one plane but not an identical one because of the numbers on the side. This is sillier than the state by state drivers licences we have to put up with.

 

 

[kasper]

It doesn't affect me as I have both, but I can see no practical or common sense reason why a PPL who is an RAA member should not be able to fly an RAA aircraft without a pilot certificate. It will require some conversion training, as with any new aircraft, with the amount of training related to the aircraft type and the pilots previousexperience.

That is just a common sense view, which should be allowed by the regulations. If it isn't, seek a change to the regs. I happen to think it is allowed already. My interpretation would no no one any harm, and would remove the anomaly of pilots being able to fly one plane but not an identical one because of the numbers on the side. This is sillier than the state by state drivers licences we have to put up with.

Well I equally cannot see a reason why practically or in common sense I on my RAA should not be able and allowed to fly any GA aircraft ... its the same air and control inputs required to physically manipulate the aircraft ...

However it's not actually got much to do with the ability of the PPL pilot (see my post above) its about the aircraft - GA aircraft have a WHOLE heap of documents, inspections and restrictions on who and what they maintained to and marked ... an RAA aircraft can never BE a GA aircraft and that's the actual core issue - to get the exemptions from all the bits for the RAA aircraft you have to hold the RAA pilots certificate - not hold the certificate and its not you as pilot that is the problem legally but the aircraft is not one that you can fly ... legally.

 

So that's basically it. There are a couple of bits of exemption that as a PPL apply to the pilot (low flying, night flying , use of lights, tailwheel endorsements etc) but fundamentally without the exemptions on the RAA aircraft that are only available to the RAA pilot Certificate holder the aircraft is from a GA perspective unairworthy, illegally marked and does not have the documentation to ever allow it to fly as a GA aircraft by a PPL holder.

 

 

[facthunter]

The aircraft flying characteristics are only a part of it. The RAAus has concessions (less requirements),trade off for reduced privileges.

 

You fly a plane under the umbrella of the RAAus which administers the lot and has the responsibility of writing the rules. (subject to CASA's approval). Where this saves CASA we are supposed to be provided with compensation. ( I doubt this is adequate , and our fees would be less if more was forthcoming.).

 

The members of the "SHOW" fund the shortfall.

 

Why should someone who is not contributing, benefit from the availability of aircraft which would not be flying IF the RAAus didn't exist.?

 

The so called "anomoly" of identical planes being under both is not exactly correct. The one accepted for VH has a few more hoops to jump through, in manufacture specs and servicing. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

The so called "anomoly" of identical planes being under both is not exactly correct. The one accepted for VH has a few more hoops to jump through, in manufacture specs and servicing. Nev

The Pilot flying that lesser amount of hoops aircraft (RAAus Registered) as you say has more training to do than the Pilot Certificate holder. I am not saying PPL should be able to fly the RAAus aircraft although in saying that, in NZ, a PPL or higher licence holder can fly a class 1/2 microlight once he/she has done the conversion. There is no requirement to be a member of one of the two associations that train and issue Pilot Certificates to fly those same aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm specifically ignoring the flying skill aspect although I believe there are RAAus accepted aircraft that have a much more demanding flying skill level than just about any approved GA aircraft, because mainly GA planes are made more user friendly and fly better. or they wouldn't get certified.

 

Raaus planes are smaller and lighter generally also requiring quicker responses in rough air.

 

My point is essentially, membership of RAAus is not that cheap, so why should any one who hasn't been part of making them available just come along and use one for free. It's a question of what's a fair thing? Also the system within the RAAus makes operational information available to members through channels they are responsible for. By what process would any GA Licence holder receive this essential operational information? Nev

 

 

[kasper]

One area I have not covered from the letter to the editor by Daffid Llewellyn are two legal issues he raises:

 

1. CAO is outside the powers of the CASA as it not directly on safety - ultra vires

 

2. Reading the CAO in light of either other parts of the Act/Regs/CAO and/or in light of the 'head of power' being safety

 

With arguments about 1 you practically are not likely to get a magistrate or county court judge to strike out part or all of a CAO let alone the parts of the Regs that such a flight would require to be ignored to make it legal eg display of registration markings at all is arguably not a safety requirement ... therefore all Regs on any aircraft displaying markings are equally invalid ... the concept of striking down all or part of a statutory instrument is one that generally ends up in supreme/federal/high court. Deep pockets needed on the part of the believing PPL flyer ...

 

On 2 the difficulty is that unless the words are of a special meaning (either within the CAO, applied from the Regs or applied from the Act under which the Reg and CAO are authorized) the courts are very loath to look at external materials or apply non-plain English interpretations to words that are clear. In this case a requirement to display VH-XXX registration to any aircraft flown by a PPL being a strict liability issue with penalty units assigned is really hard to get outside the plain English meaning of factually it was not displaying VH-XXX and you flew it = contravention proved and penalty fixed.

 

Much though I love playing thought games with legal interpretation in this case I am really not seeing as how the word games required in 2 are viable ... and arguments under 1 would be so expensive to mount and have such a massive impact on the entire aviation industry that I just cannot see CASA or the Govt allowing it to go through ... and if someone were to be starting out on legal arguements through courts on ultra vires arguments CASA and Govt will just move the goal posts and remove the basis of the ultra vires argument by changing the basis of establishment of CASA.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

So how do you get around the fact as a PPL you are flying an unregistered aircraft?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

or simplified to the point of understanding by all....you'll need more $ than would be prudent to throw at the problem...and even if you do win, and for those with fixed reserves to call on that, as a starting point is a problem, the best you can hope for is that the legislative instruments are changed so that what they thought early was made not possible is now made abundantly not possible....

 

Perhaps the dictionary definition for pyric should be changed to "Litigating against CASA and winning, albeit temporarily"

 

 

[rick-p]

"Ultra vires" is that like Swine Flu or Bird Flu because it sounds quite serious?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Has about the same effect as swine flu - you won't be feeling well for a while, you'll be surrounded by men in gowns, and then you'll be stuffed.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I am missing something. We are not arguing about RAA membership, I agree that it is necessary. It is the Pilot Certificate that is not.. All the points made above about exemptions etc are covered by being an RAA member. The pilot qualification is about a level of training. Then the conversion to type is about a specific application of skill. Why is there such a strong feeling opposing the GA licence holder? Is it financial interest by instructors who want the five hours of training? I don't believe so, the potential to hire aircraft to a wider group of pilots must be more compelling, and they still need conversion training. If GA pilots can fly RA planes surely it makes the sport stronger?

 

 

[frank marriott]

"Is it financial interest by instructors who want the five hours of training?"

 

---------------

 

I don't read the requirement for 5 hours training so long as you have a RPL (or higher Lic) and the required flight time in aircraft that fits the definitions of "group" and "type" which are fairly general(other then the high drag or what used to be LP), then it is only a test/check with an RAA CFI. Similar to the last manual only more words (I suspect to bring it in line with the part 61 wording)

 

So if you are up to speed a check with a CFI is not that onerous and then you have a certificate and then there is no question about legality.

 

If one insists on five hours just ignor them and go to another school.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

"Is it financial interest by instructors who want the five hours of training?"---------------

I don't read the requirement for 5 hours training so long as you have a RPL (or higher Lic) and the required flight time in aircraft that fits the definitions of "group" and "type" which are fairly general, then it is only a test/check with an RAA CFI. Similar to the last manual only more words (I suspect to bring it in line with the part 61 wording)

 

So if you are up to speed a check with a CFI is not that onerous and then you have a certificate and then there is no question about legality.

 

If one insists on five hours just ignor them and go to another school.

RAAus Ops Manual Section 2.13-2

 

5. A person seeking a Pilot Certificate with recognised flight time must:

 

 

 

(2) meeting the experience requirements of Section 2.07 Subparagraph 2.a. in an aeroplane other than a recreational aeroplane and undertake a minimum of 5 hours flying training, including a minimum of 1 hour pilot in command, in accordance with competency requirements of the relevant Unit of the RA-Aus Syllabus of Flight Training, prior to being recommended for a flight test; or

 

 

 

(3) producing verified logbook entries for flight time in recreational aeroplane(s) of the same group and type (not registered with RA-Aus), that flying may be counted toward meeting the experience requirements of Subparagraph 5.c.(1) or (2) of this Section, prior to being recommended for a flight test;

 

 

 

 

So I read that as unless you can show that you flew a recreational type aircraft (say a VH registered Skyfox or Gazelle) then you are required by the RAAus ops manual to fly for at least 5 hours in a RAAus aircraft, including at least one hour solo before doing a flight test. Ridiculous I know, but I have had this argument HQ, that is the new ops manual!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

My personal view.... RAAus training is competency based, with a catchall minimum hours........It is rare indeed that competency is likely to be judged as evident before or on the minimum hour mark.

 

A number of instructors I know who I have faith in suggested that the minimum hours are in reality not really needed in our manuals because if something is competency based then it matters not one jot whether you have achieved it in 5 mins or 55hours....when your judged as having it then requirements are met.....

 

I always find it interesting that we all try our hardest to get the instructor out of the aircraft as quickly as possible, because we all know the measure of manliness and the judged length of your........., is a direct function of how long it took you to.........and then we spend the next hours from time to time wishing he was back in!

 

Andy

 

 

[frank marriott]

Happyflyer

 

The answer is in (3) and the definitions of "group" & "type". There will be people who might want to argue, I will not, but read the definitions and decide for yourself. I gained my certificate under the old manual so it doesn't involve me to any great extent.