Jump to content

Pilot Certificates (Sport Aviation Bodies) Direction


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Did you mean "It is my humble opinion at this time that the only SAO that will end up operating under P149 will be RAAus"?

 

One can see it that way if one can see the forest notwithstanding the trees.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Only if you are an instructor it would seem from the Raaus webpage

 

Yes. An RAAus instructor must hold a CASA Class 2 medical. That also satisfies the RAAus requirement for a Drs check after age 75 - not that there are too many instructors in that cohort.

 

happy days,

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This new instrument requires pilots who have had their licence cancelled, suspended or varied by CASA to notify any Sport Aviation Body (SAB) from which they hold (or intend to hold) a pilot certificate. The SAB is then obliged to suspend a pilot certificate unless CASA has provided written approval. The content of the instrument has been drafted to closely align with legislation that currently exists under Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 149.

 

Does this mean a pilot Certificate holder who also holds a Part 61 Licence could have his/her Pilot Certificate suspended if the Part 61 Licence medical was changed or declined in anyway?

 

Simply put yes!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean a pilot Certificate holder who also holds a Part 61 Licence could have his/her Pilot Certificate suspended if the Part 61 Licence medical was changed or declined in anyway?

 

Fortunately, no it does not. Search the thing for the word "medical" and you will see it is not there. This is about licences held and cancelled (by CASA), it has nothing to do with medical certificates being declined. Suggest a read of the explanatory statement F2019L01204ES that is with it (7 pages of legal mumbo jumbo). CASA Instruments are written to permit, or to prevent, something which is not covered in the normal regulations.

 

Background

CASA has become aware of situations in which, after CASA has cancelled under regulation 269 of CAR a flight crew licence held by a person, the person applies to a sport aviation body for the grant of a pilot certificate, which would enable the person to continue to fly the same aircraft the person was flying under the licence. If the person can continue to exercise flying privileges, albeit under the auspices of the sport aviation body, this would in effect circumvent the regulatory action taken by CASA against the person. The directions, issued under the instrument, address this anomaly and other analogous situations.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is about licences, and licences only Nev, exactly as per the Instrument. Don't read into it what is not there.

 

Afterthought: It actually is giving the sport aviation organisations the power to refuse entry to someone that they might not otherwise have had any capacity at all to refuse. Maybe refuse entry is the wrong term, maybe they could be a member, but not be issued a pilot certificate.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Being" not of good character"  is the only reason I've heard mentioned. Interesting isn't it?  I'm not reading things that aren't there. It specifically mentions Pilot CERTIFICATE.. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this mean a pilot Certificate holder who also holds a Part 61 Licence could have his/her Pilot Certificate suspended if the Part 61 Licence medical was changed or declined in anyway?

 

Fortunately, no it does not. Search the thing for the word "medical" and you will see it is not there. This is about licences held and cancelled (by CASA), it has nothing to do with medical certificates being declined. Suggest a read of the explanatory statement F2019L01204ES that is with it (7 pages of legal mumbo jumbo). CASA Instruments are written to permit, or to prevent, something which is not covered in the normal regulations.

 

Background

CASA has become aware of situations in which, after CASA has cancelled under regulation 269 of CAR a flight crew licence held by a person, the person applies to a sport aviation body for the grant of a pilot certificate, which would enable the person to continue to fly the same aircraft the person was flying under the licence. If the person can continue to exercise flying privileges, albeit under the auspices of the sport aviation body, this would in effect circumvent the regulatory action taken by CASA against the person. The directions, issued under the instrument, address this anomaly and other analogous situations.

 

Sorry but you are wrong if you don't satisfy the medical CASA can cancel your licence. See CAR 269 (b) in brief, if unable to satisfy a requirement then CASA can cancel licence.

 

Being unable to satisfy the medical because of a chronic condition which excludes one from exercising fly privledges in my view is sufficient ground for CASA to act and cancel their licence.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Part 5 (1) infers that this Direction only applies to those who have a pilot's licence issued by CASA and at the same time a certificate issued by RAAus. 

 

Obviously, CASA is going to inform a pilot that their licence is cancelled, suspended or varied, and from then on the pilot cannot fly a VH aircraft. However, CASA has now put the onus on the pilot who also holds a certificate, to inform RAAus. On receipt of that notification, RAAus must cancel, suspend or vary the certificate. 

 

If a pilot only holds a certificate issued by RAAus, then the Direction does not apply. Leaving misconduct in the operation of aircraft aside, I suggest that a pilot would only have to notify RAAus if the pilot's physical health would cause the cancellation or suspension of a driver's licence. 

 

No actually the onus is on RAA to know this because of its position of strict liability so RAA must set up a cross checking process with CASA to ensure no one escapes the net.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but you are wrong if you don't satisfy the medical CASA can cancel your licence. See CAR 269 (b) in brief, if unable to satisfy a requirement then CASA can cancel licence.

 

Being unable to satisfy the medical because of a chronic condition which excludes one from exercising fly privledges in my view is sufficient ground for CASA to act and cancel their licence.

 

OK I see your point.  This is starting to ring alarm bells for me. Do I (as the only heart transplant recipient in aus to hold a full ppl) continue to push for the ppl on an annual basis, risking a medical refusal and potential cancellation of licence, or do I simply not renew so I can be guaranteed to retain the certificate  (currently have both). I'm starting to lean towards the latter.....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has come up in the USA, But I'm not currently au fait with the latest there. Here I take the view you are better to not renew than wait till you fail it. It's arguable that you can "negotiate" on class one and two but costly in time and money and not very predictable. I believe the pass should be on what you currently present as. People can improve not just get progressively worse as is assumed often. I easily passed an eyesight test in 1992 without glasses, but couldn't remove the" must wear corrective glasses and carry a spare set when flying" imposed earlier.. HOW SILLY is THAT? Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any form of cancer and they kick you out.

 

That makes it hard for us fair-skinned fellas. I've got heaps of damage to the exposed parts of my body due to exposure to the sun, and the generic term for them is "sun cancers'.  It's a bit like stopping a 15-year-old from flight training because of acne and blackheads.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know lots. It's probably available freely enough or under FOI if not.  Any form of cancer and they kick you out. Nev

 

Umm while I know people who have lost their Class 2 medical, I also know people with cancer who only lost it for 12 months. And many forms of skin cancer are no issue at all. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can check it for yourselves. I've had a fight and won. They have a "policy" which is written in black and white and I referred it to the prostate council and they were astounded. A cancer "cure" is when you live for 5 years according to the Industry definitions.  Many Cancers come back . Sorry but that's a fact. I'm NOT agreeing with CASA,s  attitude. You should be analysed case by case but the easy thing for them is to go hard,. My Cancer was in 87 so I guess I'm more cured of that one than most were. Melanoma of the worst kind.  Some cancers are much more deadly than others.  some you WITH but not OF. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With my current cancer there is no talk of cancelling actual licence. In fact CASA are keeping in touch with progress so we can start the process of getting medical back. While the process sucks it certainly attainable.

 

there was an article not that long ago of a QANTAS flight that was crewed completely by people who have recovered from cancer.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, through serious cancer with surgery and chemo there was no threat to the licence. And CASA renewed the Class 2 after a year, with a specialist report. But they require annual medical.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...