rhysmcc

looks sweet

 

 

Personally I can think of nothing worse than moving in this way for Australian ultralights:Firstly the single aircraft endorsement is a very out dated concept from GA (even they don't do this any more)

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).

 

Why do people keep thinking they can get an RPL if they don't get a class2 medical. You WON'T, unless the present situation changes and I have no news of that happening. Nev

What is the point of an RPL medical then? I thought it was able to be provided by your GP and it says that basically you are fit to drive a motor vehicle, whereas a class 2 medical has to be issued by CASA via a DAME. Is this not the case?

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.

 

Fair comment. based on some of the flying I have witnessed there are plenty of pilots who could benefit from a bit more instruction, even a check ride would be better than nothing.

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.

 

IMHO I can't see what is wrong with having set endorsements (tail wheel, in flight adjustable prop, retractable undercarriage ect) and then leaving it up to the pilot to ensure they have sufficient mentoring in what they are/will be flying.I would have thought that if I am flying my hornet and I wanted to go for a fly in a lightwing even if in the same configuration that I would still want someone (I would think a current owner would be a good choice I think limiting this person to being a CFI is silly) to fly me around personally for at least three circuits just to make sure I could handle their (lightwings) awesomeness ()

 

It just seems to me that trying to mandate a pilot examiner for each individual aircraft change (j160 to a j170) is a bit over the top.

 

Rhysmcc has explained what seems to be a sensible system (which seems to be the correct interpretation of the ops manual) once you have the correct endorsement for each eligible feature you are then ok to change aircraft brand without seeing a CFI as long as the features (TW or NW ect) are the same. Obviously it would be prudent to do that with someone who was familiar with that particular plane

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.

 

 

I also agree with the assertions made in the Sportpilot article. I don't mind being a member of RA-Aus to fly an Ra-Aus registered aircraft but I don't think I need a Pilot certificate as well as my PPL or maybe an RPL if I can't get my next Class 2 medical. I do think that I should have a type rating for the RA-Aus aircraft that I fly though.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

1.425 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot licences—unregistered aircraft

The holder of a pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft only if the aircraft is registered.

registered means registered under Part 47.

 

47.015 Requirement for aircraft to be registered

(1) For paragraph 20AA(1)(b) of the Act, an aircraft is required to be registered unless it is one of the following:

 

(a) an aircraft that is not intended to be used as an aircraft;

 

(b) an aircraft that, under Subpart 200.B, is exempt from these Regulations;

 

© an unmanned free balloon;

 

(d) a permanently tethered balloon;

 

(e) a kite;

 

(f) a model aircraft;

 

(g) a parachute;

 

(h) a rocket;

 

(i) a UAV other than a large UAV;

 

(j) an aircraft that is registered under the law of a foreign country referred to in subregulation (2);

 

(k) an aircraft that satisfies all the following conditions:

 

(i) it has been manufactured in Australia for delivery outside Australia to a foreign operator;

 

(ii) it is registered under the law of a foreign country referred to in subregulation (2);

 

(iii) it displays nationality and registration marks in accordance with the law of that country;

 

(iv) it has no certificate of airworthiness issued, or rendered valid, under the law of that country;

 

(v) it is flown within Australia only for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 21.197(1)(b) or ©.

 

200.014 Certain ultralight aeroplanes

An aeroplane to which Civil Aviation Order 95.55, as in force from time to time, applies is exempt from CASR if the conditions in that Order are satisfied.

 

200.025 Flying unregistered aircraft

For paragraph 20AB(1)(a) of the Act, a person is taken to hold a civil aviation authorisation that is in force and authorises the person to perform a duty that is essential to the operation of an unregistered Australian aircraft during flight time if:

 

(a) the person holds a pilot certificate granted by a sport aviation body that administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

(b) the person operates the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body’s operations manual.

 

200.030 Flying unregistered aircraft—offence

 

A person commits an offence if:

 

(a) the person pilots an unregistered Australian aircraft; and

 

(b) a sport aviation body administers aviation activities in the aircraft; and

 

© the person does not:

 

(i) hold a pilot certificate granted by the sport aviation body; and

 

(ii) operate the aircraft in accordance with the sport aviation body’s operations manual.

 

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

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.

 

 

That would be interesting to see how the "not for hire or reward " fits into the scheme of things. I suppose it happens now with RAA.

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.

 

 

If the RPL replaced the RPC there would be an immediate dash by members out the the door of RAA as that would remove the major reason for joining RAA in the first place ie the need to remain a member of RAA to maintain eligibility for an RPC. Equivalence of an RPC to an RPL would also imply equivalence of an RPL/PPL to an RPC.

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

 

 

Doing away with licensing would be a big step. CASA instructor rating (CPL and class 1 medical) GA school. Apart from those RAA instructors who were prepared to upgrade, I would suspect there would be a limited number with experience on the Drifter/Thruster etc style of aircraft to instruct/BFR etc. 

 

Reduced costs - it may result in reduced costs for RAA but I suspect the opposite would occur for students/pilots

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).

 

I agree frank, if RAA stopped licensing it would be close to a disaster. Just for starters look at the difference in getting an RPL drivers licence medical compared to our medical declaration, we would lose a lot of passionate flyers straight up.I don't mind the idea of a merge with saaa IF we have our affairs in order, but losing or giving up the licensing privileges would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

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?

 

12 (i) The Board shall consist of financial Members representing each Region, in the numbers described

in Appendix B, or such other number as may be determined from time to time by the Board.

But there are other threats like CASA rationalising registration and licensing and rationalising RAA into an advocacy organisation to be eventually absorbed by AOPA.

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 believe there is a majority on the Board who are in favour of a 5 or 7 person Board. The CEO also favours a more practical sized Board and is keen to do some development on the subject.However, it is not first cab off the rank. First you have to decide on the form of incorporation - is ther something better than incorporated association? Then you need to chose a jurisdiction and Canberra is not favoured. Then you can decide the Board size and how it is elected.

 

Then you need to encode that in a plain English constitution and get it accepted by 75% of members who chose to vote.

 

I haven't seen much in the way of actual work being done on this but it could be happening for all I know.

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.

 

 

Ideologically, I would like to see RA-Aus housed outside Canberra and at an airport. It is important to be at an airport because everyday when the staff come to work they are immediately reminded why RA-Aus exists. That does not happen in an office in Fyshwick.It does not need to be at an airport so members can fly in. If everything is working well, we as members should never need to set foot in the place. It's a bit like a bank, any time I have to go to the bank in person something is not right with their system.

 

Access to the RAA HQ by RPT is really only an issue for Board Members and managerial staff. Hopefully we will get the number of Board Members down from an insane 13 to a practical 5 or 7 max. and even then, Board Members don't really need to go to HQ as they could hold their Board meetings in the Qantas Club at any of Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne.

 

However, at the moment it is very convenient for the HQ to be where it is. We have a very effective President in MIck Monck and an achiever CEO in Michael Linke. Both are Canberra residents. The endlessly experienced and well connected Michael Apps is just down the road at Cooma an hour's drive to Fyshwick. This is working well at the moment and we should not be looking to disturb that setup for the next 3 years or so. We also have a good and improving staff in Canberra and a move out of Canberra would force many of those to look for alternative employment.

 

The move out of Canberra should happen but not for a while yet. It would be smart to do it in concert with, say, SAAA and possibly other SASAOs. But RA-Aus is not ready for amalgamations and won't be until it has its own systems sorted.

 

This is a matter for a strategic plan. It should not be forgotten but there are a few much more pressing matters to get sorted before we worry too much about the long term base for RA-Aus.

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.

 

 

But is there a real or urgent need for the RAA base to move at all ?

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

 

 

I think that the only people who this effects and so should have a input is the staff. If they are happy to stay where they are, let them stay. If they vote and the majority want to move, then the board and management can come up with a couple of alternatives. Simple, thread done and dusted.

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.

 

 

Caboolture is fine if you live in the NE of Australia, but not so good for all the rest of us. A national body needs to be fairly accessible to the majority of its membership and some where in southern-central NSW is probably about the fairest you can get.I started the discussion by suggesting Griffith because it doesn't have any specific group expressing proprietary interests here. It has good weather, great facilities, RPT, schools, hospital, sports, no traffic jams and it's as near as I can judge equi-distant from the major concentrations of our membership as is reasonably practical.

 

Everyone wants somewhere near their own home field but the decision needs to be taken after due consideration of less parochial factors that might advance the business.

 

Kaz

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).

 

Tassie is still part of Australia isn't it? There's no rush to act on this and the planes we fly are only used when we are not in a hurry, so Highway and Airline access is important. We should share it with other similar bodies to reduce costs. Nev

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