rhysmcc

looks sweet

I don't quite understand what your trying to say here. This is exactly how GA works, you get a single engine endorsement (now called class rating) which lets you fly single engine aircraft (with some exclusions). All that is required is that the pilot is competent in operating the aircraft, there is no test nor training requirements (the onus is on the pilot to get the training they require). There are also Design Feature endorsements which may be required depending on the aircraft (61.755 lists what these are, IE retractable, tailwheel etc). I think there is some confusion to what facthunter meant to say. People who can't pass a class 2 medical will not be able to pass the Driver's Aviation Medical (Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate). If you meet the requirements for the RAMPC then Yes you can get a Recreational Pilots License and fly with 2 pax under 10,000 feet, and won't need the Class 2 Medical. The catch being the RAMPC is not just fit to drive a motor vehicle, there are a lot more requirements in place. I think one of the issues RA-AUS is trying to overcome are the pilots who have learnt to fly in a particular aircraft and then gone out and bought something different, have got no instruction and have been caught out on their way home with the new aircraft. The onus should be on the pilot to get the training their require for a new aircraft, rather then a blanket rule. However history has shown pilots have not always shown the best judgement with more then a couple "incidents" on trips home after a new purchase.

The issue I have with the article is that it's not what the author thinks should be the case, but he is saying under the current regulations that you don't need a Pilot Certificate, which is just wrong and may lead someone into following his "version" of the rules and end up either with a massive fine and/or no insurance payout should it be required. It's one thing to share your opinion on what changes we should be looking towards, it's another to get the regs wrong and try and convince others to break the law.

lets actually get the story first, followed by the facts and then we can do the addressing.

You've presented nothing. If you have information then for sure go ahead and share it. All you have given us is that you have heard something happened (without telling us what) and gone on a rant (about what I'm not sure).

Come out with the facts or at least your opinion of them, this inuendo is nonsense. Tell us the details or save it for your next "gathering"

a change to part 61 would remove most of what the ops manual has become.

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.

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.

But what does RA-AUS gain by doing that? Loss of income and membership? Why a PPL and not RPL? I'm all for removing the pilot certificate but there needs to be some protection for RA-AUS, ie pilots still require membership to operate RAA aircraft and follow the Ops Manual. This would be a requirement for the operation of said aircraft which are not registrated (as per CASR) Edit: And of course the exemption for requiring any additional medical

So to connect the dots. A PPL (pilot license) only allows someone to pilot an aircraft that is registered. Registered is defined as meeting the requirements of Part 47. An aircraft is not required to be registered if it's exempt under Part 200B, which RA-AUS are (200.014). 200C then further states under what conditions are required to be met in flying an unregistered aircraft, holding a pilot certificate and operating in accordance with the operation manual are both clearly stated.

I haven't read it either for the reason above, but you can't fly a RAA aircraft with just a CASA license... The CAO has all the requirements listed clearly.

I believe you need to be a member to build the aircraft (with the assistance of the SAAA). The aircraft that are currently registered under RAA would still be so, therefore you will still need to be a member to operate them.

frank I may have gotten it wrong, further into the doc it does list requirements for different instructional endorsements, the only one not needing a CPL is design endorsements. So the CAO would need to include an exemption maybe.

However in order to operate an aircraft registered under the CAO's you'd still need to be a member and operate under the Ops and Tech Manuals (as per the CAO's). You may lose some members who are happy to fly the old cessnas, however you may also gain some builders interested in "our" way over the VH experimental. Consider the CAO's becoming more about aircraft building/operating and less about piloting (covered by Part 61). Anyhow, this has gotten way of topic from the original thread about relocating the HQ

I could be wrong but 61.1185 suggests a PPL is all that's required for an instructors rating, and don't RA-AUS instructors already need a medical? If that's not the case it could form part of our CAO (to operate/train in RAA aircraft). It would be cheaper in that the cost of administrating pilot certificates would be passed on to members in reduced memberships, how much we won't know until the CEO releases his activity costings report. Cost per hour in flight training may go up, however I don't see why since it's the same aircraft costs and if RAA provides the Part 141 framework for FTFs there shouldn't be change to how they operate (in terms of costings). As per my comment, work would need to be done to bring the Medical process in line with what we have now, the idea being you'd simply replace the RPC with a RPL and not notice any change in how you operate.

Actually it doesn't appear a change of the constitution is required. I can't find any reference to the number of board members other then 7 are required for a quorum. Is a resolution required to amend Appendix B? Also 12(i) seems to suggest the board can decide it's own size?

Personally I see RA-AUS doing away with licensing all together as a good thing, reduced costs and allows the association to focus on registration, aircraft making and maintenance (overseeing). As well as providing more in the way of advocacy. However we do need to sort the mess known as RPL and Recreational Medical prior to any movement on that front. I would have thought a change of the constitution in terms of the number of board members would be the first step, then everything else will be easier to address. Downing sizing the board shouldn't be attached to moving from Canberra or legal frame work of the association.

Holding Natfly at the HQ would make sense. Maybe having a more "fly-in" style event moving around the country as part of our AGM, leaving the Natfly style "air-show" a locked in fixture. Don what progress if any has been made in regards to the board size (that you're aware of)? I was disappointed to not see any mention at the last AGM or Board meeting.

Maybe the logical first step would be to find a suitable home for hosting an annual member get to gather and fly-in to create public interest in our association, with the long term aim to relocate the HQ when the time is right.

No, unless it's an opportunity to save money (which it isn't)

Wish my employer gave me a say in where I work! Lets get real here, the staff work for the association, the association works for the members. As with every other employer in Australia, if you want the job you'll move to where we want you. Sorry if that sounds harsh, I'm sure our current staff do a fantasic job, however I don't see why we'd be asking them if it's okay by them if we move our operations.

In my opinion if you talk about RPT access it needs to be Brisbane or Sydney. To get to Griffith I would need to first fly to Sydney/Brisbane/Melbourne then a connecting flight to Griffith. That's no different then where HQ currently is in Canberra. If we were to move it really needs to be within the Brisbane or Sydney basin, most likely Brisbane as it has easier access to a majority of members (SEQ and Northern NSW is a couple hours drive or a short flight away). If we are also talking about staging our "fly event", you really want maximum exposure to the general public as well, so it needs to be close to a major population, or the very least a short cheap RPT flight (i.e. from Sydney to Brisbane). Totally agree, Caboolture does seem to fit what most of us are describing.

I wonder if maybe this is aimed at boosting the number of movements recorded at the aerodrome to then qualify for a control tower

maybe they do want to mix light cessna's with 747s lol