GFPT flight area restrictions.

[Hypox]

Hi. Im studying for my Australian PPL and was wondering what the flight area restrictions are once you have passed your GFPT.

I thought it was that you could fly 10nm from the airprot that you passed your GFPT test and also in the allocated training area ( if the airport has one).

I have been told also that you can only fly in the training area.


Any thoughts/suggestions would be great.

[flybymike]

I would imagine that with an ICAO licence you can fly anywhere in the world.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Once you pass your GFPT, you may carry passengers within the training area. Before the GFPT we had a "restricted PPL".

With a GFPT you may do solo cross-country exercises as set by your instructor, but you are still flying on a STUDENT pilot licence.

Once you pass your PPL flight test you can fill your boots.

Cheerio....

[Clare Prop]

5.69 Where may an instructor permit a student to fly as pilot in
command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly an
aircraft as pilot in command if the flight is not:
(a) in a traffic pattern; or
(b) if the student has flown 2 hours of flight time in a traffic pattern
as pilot in command of an aircraft of the category used for the
flight—within the student pilot area limit; or
(c) if the aircraft is being flown for the purposes of cross-country
training—along a route specified by the instructor.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

5.72 May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while
flying as pilot in command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as
pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if:
(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit;
and
(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test,
and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of
the category used for the flight.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in
subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code).

CAO 40.1.0

Logging of flight time:

10.3 The holder of a student pilot licence may log as time in command only that time during which he or she is the sole occupant of an aeroplane in flight.

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

So, The GFPT is not a licence or equivalent to the Restricted PPL, it is an optional test that a student pilot can do which confers privileges of how many hours/months you can go between dual checks.
It is not required for a student to have passed the GFPT to do a solo cross country unless that cross country will be more than three hours long.
You can only go where the instructor authorises you to go and the instructor is the one who can be prosecuted if they authorise a flight when you carry passengers.
If the student pilot carries passengers they cannot log the time as pilot in command.
It doesnt give exemptions from being tested in all items in the syllabus for the PPL. The GFPT isn't even mentioned on the PPL test form.

[sisemen]

What Horatio said. They like to keep GFPT pilots relatively close and under control 'cos it cuts down body and airframe recovery time in the event..... :E

[mcgrath50]

CAO 40.1.0

Logging of flight time:

10.3 The holder of a student pilot licence may log as time in command only that time during which he or she is the sole occupant of an aeroplane in flight.

So if you are the sole pilot with a GFPT and take someone for a burn in the training area, what does it get logged as?

It's not dual or co-pilot or heaven forbid ICUS as the other occupant isn't a pilot but you have to log something as far as I'm aware.

[PPRuNeUser0163]

mcgrath,

it would get logged as PIC time.

Refer to CAR5 as to the delineation between a 'student pilot license holder' and 'student pilot license holder who obtains a GFPT'.

specifically see CAR 5.72- re a GFPT holder carrying pax WITHIN the Training Area.

[Clare Prop]

A student pilot is a student pilot with or without a GFPT.

Car 5.72 refers to the authorizing instructor not the student pilot.

A GFPT is a defence to a prosecution (and we are talking about strict liability here) of the INSTRUCTOR if they have given permission for the student to carry passengers. I don't interpret that as a "passenger carrying privilege" but I know a lot of people do, and it's their liability so good luck to them.

I have brought the issue of CAO 40.1.0 up with CASA a few times and never got a satisfactory answer about the logging of flight time issue as applicable to a student pilot carrying passengers.

Much easier and much better value for the student to bypass the GFPT (all elements of which have to be tested again at PPL anyway)and these legal grey areas, save a couple of thousand bucks and proceed directly to the PPL.

[PPRuNeUser0163]

Clare Prop,

problem with going to the PPL and not doing the GFPT is the 3 hours consecutive solo max limit until a dual check. With a GFPT it becomes 15 hours..

What if my student is on a 2-2.5 hour solo nav and gets diverted due weather/atc etc and has to go over the 3 hours? Or even if they want to do a 2.5 hour nav + some airwork to practice for the PPL test they cant..

There are issues to both sides of the argument if you ask me...

[Clare Prop]

Yes as I said that is one application of the GFPT. however, as the requirement is 5 hours solo cross country this can be achieved in 2 flights of around 2.5 - 2.8 hours each. If any flight is longer than three hours the student is having to do much more than the 5 hours required. 2.5 is plenty on a hot bumpy day.

In my estimation the GFPT, just the test itself can add close to $1000 to the cost of getting the PPL. Then add things like having to get the 2 hours IF done prior to GFPT rather than doing some of it during navigation learning how to navigate out of a poor visibility situation etc..it can cost more. Better to make sure they don't get sent on a nav where they would do a diversion that would make it longer rather than shorter??

Each to their own but there are a lot of misunderstandings surrounding it. No doubt it is a nice little earner for the flying schools. Instead of a GFPT we use that time to revise all exercises in the aircraft they will use for navs...unlike some who invent "5 hour C172 endorsements" prior to starting navs AS WELL AS the GFPT!! :uhoh:

[Frank Arouet]

Circa 1996 I was told via FF that the RPL, (restricted private pilot licence), would be replaced with a RPL, (recreational pilot licence), with restrictions and everything as was currently in use including add on's.

Now please anybody tell me how such a simple re-wording of the existing could cause such angst.

I know persons who gained a RPL then progressed via their own freshly purchased Baron to the UPPL. Most still fly with a add on instrument rating to this day.

So simple, but like the PIFR someone buggers it all up simply because they can.

[the_rookie]

I thought that you could fly 10nm from the airport you passed your GFPT at
That is correct, but flying schools would rather you stick to the training area. With ymmb, when coming in from the training area via GMH you do actually leave the training area. But you wouldn't want to be dicking around 10nm to the north..

[Horatio Leafblower]

10nm?

Reference please!

Hope we're not getting confused with RAAus' 25km radius ...

[Clare Prop]

The reference is CAR 5.69 whether you have done a GFPT or not.

If the training area doesn't go to the edge of the aerodrome, eg at Jandakot where it ends at Boatyard/Forrestdale Lake, you must track inbound via the approved entry track.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

What if my student is on a 2-2.5 hour solo nav and gets diverted due weather/atc etc and has to go over the 3 hours?

Obviously, they should have been told if they haven't done a forced landing and aren't on the ground when the three hour timer goes off they're going to be sucked into an alternate dimension. :rolleyes:

[the_rookie]

From the GFPT restrictions section out of the BAK theory book from ATC. Also word of mouth from the instructor

[Clare Prop]

Word of mouth from the instructor doesn't supersede the CARs. :ugh:

This sums up why the industry is so full of myths, legends and old wives tales...always ask the instructor for references, they are readily available. AFAIK the ATC books usually give references.

[the_rookie]

So don't listen to anything my instructor says? Was also a question on the BAK test that I sat

[Clare Prop]

If your instructor can provide a reference that negates the Civil Aviation Regulations then please ask him to put it up here.

It is not unheard of for instructors and text books to be wrong or misguided which is why the correct references are necessary.

The GFPT seems to have as many myths surrounding it as the perennial "over square" engine argument and the one that says it's OK to sign part 3 of maintenance release when you haven't even looked at the aeroplane. "My instructor told me...." is not a defence for not knowing the information if the :mad: hits the fan.

The references are readily available and a thorough instructor would always show you where they are rather than saying "This is how it is because that's what MY instructor told ME so don't ever question it".

[Jack Ranga]

Simple question, 18 posts in reply & still no clear answer :cool:

That's what happens when you let ******** lawyers control legislation :ok:

[Creampuff]

I agree with Clare’s points.

There is a definition of the term “student pilot area limit“. Perhaps it might help interpret CAR 5.69(1)(b).

And if you want to know what a student pilot is allowed to do, it might be worth reading the CAR headed “What does a student pilot licence authorise a person to do?”

A student pilot is a student pilot, whether or not she’s passed a GFPT.

CAR 5.72 is dog’s breakfast, in the context of the other regs. 5.72(3) is a defence to a prosecution against the instructor, not an authority for student pilots that have passed the GFPT to fly with passengers inside the student pilot area limit. However, if 5.72(1) was intended to have the effect of prohibiting the authorisation of the carriage of passengers by student pilots in any circumstances, it would not be necessary to have regs like 5.74(2)(e). :confused:

[garrya100]

Just to throw another GFPT yes or no into the mix, my insurance company would not allow me to fly my own aircraft solo until I had passed the GFPT (admittedly it is a 'complex' aircraft)

It was rather pointless for me to have to do all my solo nav work in a different aircraft, as my reasoning to having the aircraft now was to get max value out of the training in the aircraft I'm going to fly.

Their reasoning was, and I sort of agree with them, is they then have a record that I have reached a competency standard that is documented.

My instructor did give me the option to do it or not. It's also been useful to be able to give some of the family a 'ride in the airplane'.

The only painfull thing is I need an 'endorsed pilot' to sign of the MR each day. I can text my CFI for permission for circuits etc while he's in the circuit with another SPL, but can't leave the ground till he's signed off the MR :ugh:

It does look like the GFPT is going away. The new flight crew licencing re-instates the RPL as a recreational licence with much the same restrictions in area flying as a RA licence. I can't find a reference to a GFPT.

(PS it was explained to me that passing the GFPT just gave you passenger carrying privileges, if I wished to deviate from more than just the training area I would need authorization, with proper authority I could operate up to a max of 10 miles from the airfield before it was considered 'cross country', and would need a FP and charts etc. So if I wanted to take a little tour to the north, I'd need a briefing)

[Clare Prop]

Jack Ranga, The answer is in the fourth post where I referred to CAR 5.69.

Here it is again.

5.69 Where may an instructor permit a student to fly as pilot in
command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly an
aircraft as pilot in command if the flight is not:
(a) in a traffic pattern; or
(b) if the student has flown 2 hours of flight time in a traffic pattern
as pilot in command of an aircraft of the category used for the
flight—within the student pilot area limit; or
(c) if the aircraft is being flown for the purposes of cross-country
training—along a route specified by the instructor.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

[Clearedtoreenter]

I thought it was that you could fly 10nm from the airport that you passed your GFPT test and also in the allocated training area ( if the airport has one).

I wouldn't think you'd be over popular if you went 10nm east of BK, so I'd delete the first part of the sentence. :)

[Creampuff]

Garry

An insurance company can impose any conditions it likes on the cover it provides, and you can choose whether to fly your own aircraft in compliance with those conditions, and be covered, or not in compliance with those conditions (but still legally), and not be covered.

But that’s by the by. If by “complex aircraft” you mean that it has one or more special design features as defined in the CARs, I don’t see how an instructor could authorise you to fly it as PIC before you’d completed the GFPT anyway. :confused:

[Clare Prop]

The GFPT allows longer time between check rides with an instructor. Ref CAR 5.70. That's pretty much it when it comes to the difference of a student pilot with or without one.


As for endorsements, it's all there in CAO 40.1.0
GFPT not required for an endorsement. A student coming up for test must be endorsed on the type of aircraft for the test. Quite a few people use CSU aircraft for basic training, for example, and go first solo in them CAR 5.68.

Ratings however are a different matter, a student pilot can do night circuits but that's all they can do where a rating is required. Otherwise you need a PPL to do a rating.

An insurance company may insist on a GFPT but that is a separate issue. :ok:

[andrewr]

Let me see if I have this straight, according to the CARs...

The answer to the original question "where can you fly after passing the GFPT" is "where-ever the instructor permits you to fly".
CAR 5.69 refers to where the instructor may permit you to fly, but that is the instructors problem (and they have no obligation to give permission even if it is included in 5.69 etc.) Before/after GFPT doesn't seem to make a difference for where you can fly.

As for carrying passengers, 5.66 What does a student pilot licence authorise a person to do? doesn't seem to be specific, it appears to be allowed if the instructor gives permission, but:

5.72 (1) says the instructor must not permit a student to fly as PIC with a passenger.
5.72 (3) says it is a defence if the student has passed the GFPT.
I guess you need a lawyer to tell you whether a "defence to a prosecution" is the same as permission. I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a lawyer. The general custom seems to be to treat it as permission.

CASA's Flight Crew Licensing Procedures Manual refers to "privileges associated with passing the GFPT - that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72"

Again, I don't know whether legally a "defence to a prosecution" is the same as a privilege. Actually, the defence to prosecution seems to be granted to the instructor, I don't see where any privilege is granted to the student via CAR 5.72.

I have come to the conclusion that the CARs etc. are very confusing, and legal advice would be wise if using them to determine what is and is not allowed.

The reality is that pilots operate mostly on a chinese whispers system, where the supposed regulations are passed from instructor to student. The flock principle means that as long as you are doing the same as everybody else, you are probably safe. For the same reason it may be risky to do something different, even if the CARs seem to permit it.

[garrya100]

Cream puff

May I should have been a little more careful with words and used 'cover', but as I don't have a a spare $10m to self insure it ends up being the same thing.

There is no requirement to have a GFPT to operate an an aircraft with a design feature. You only have to have the endorsement signed off. I did the endorsements on the way to having the required hours to do the GFPT.

You can gain your SPL, and then go straight to a CPL and be endorsed on design features along the way without having to do a GFPT or PPL if you wish.

[Clare Prop]

andrewr summed it up, especially the last paragraph :ok:.

I've been pointing out these anamolies to CASA for years and they've been shrugged off as "everybody does it so it's become a kind of common law interpretation" :uhoh:

But you can bet some of them would suddenly sit up and interpret it differently if they had it in for you and would take you to the cleaners for something.

I got pinged on 40.1.0 para 10.2 (where it says the instructor must make the entries in the student log book) in an audit...so I pointed out 10.3 and asked how that could be reconciled with the student-carrying-pax scenario? response...everybody does it. So I said well, most people happily let the studes fill in their own logbooks too so why am I getting an RCA for this??? :confused::confused::confused:

[kabukiman]

To my knowledge you cannot go outside of the training area (like at moorabbin airport) with a GFPT. I too learned the ten miles from an aerodrome without a corresponding training area but I may be wrong if some of you are certain.

I thought it was ten miles if you were in the middle of nowhere, or in places like MB where ten miles to the north and northwest and you'd be in all sorts, and if there was no designated T/A, it would be only where you were approved by your instructor to fly.

You log the time as solo time

You are still a student pilot on a student license, the only thing that changes is the time in between a dual check, and the fact you can take a friend along for a fly for circuits or just locally.


Edit: Re Moorabbin training area, yes to come back in via GMH you leave the training area. You do also at Carrum, flying over the water. MB lets you off because it is the only way back into the zone. Otherwise you aren't allowed outside of the T/A.

You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and however many p.o.b. in your intial calls to ground and tower so they know you are a student (PPL don't need to announce solo or dual from memory)

Having a GFPT makes training for the PPL easier due to the extra hours between checks.

[djpil]

MB lets you off ..Who??

You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and ...Nope, that reqt changed a while ago.

[Clare Prop]

References!!!

AIP Gen 3.4

5.14.4
Taxi Procedure
Circumstances
Phraseologies
* Denotes pilot transmission
1. Taxi Procedures for departure at a controlled aerodrome
a.* [flight number][aircraft type][wake turbulence category if
“Super or Heavy”]
[POB(number)]
[DUAL (or SOLO)]
RECEIVED (ATIS identification)[SQUAWK(SSR code)]
[aircraft location]
[flight rules, if IFR]
[TO(aerodrome of destination)]
REQUEST TAXI

[Clare Prop]

"Having a GFPT makes training for the PPL easier due to the extra hours between checks."

For the PPL you require minimum solo time of 5 hours general, 5 hours cross country.
Why drill extra holes in the sky in the training area at supervised solo or in some cases dual rate, when you can do the PPL and hire an aircraft without having to get and pay for an instructor permission (and find someone to do the daily inspection for you) every time?

[garrya100]

It's rather nice having your own aircraft so you can bore holes in the sky at a cheaper rate when you feel like it, even if you have to check with your CFI first :ok:

It's also good to be able to keep your skill level up at this time in my training :D

[andrewr]

Another thought comes to mind about CAR 5.72 - what is the liability for the instructor if an accident occurred?

CAR 5.72 (1) says they must not permit a student to fly as PIC with a passenger.
What is the consequence of giving that permission if an accident occurs? 5.72 (3) gives a defence to a prosecution - but what about e.g. a civil case?

What is the insurance attitude to not operating in accordance to the CARs?
It would probably be argued that 5.72(3) means it IS in accordance with the CARs, but if you are operating in accordance to the CARs why do you need a defence to a prosecution? Operating in accordance to the CARs should be a defence in itself. And 5.72(3) doesn't appear to override 5.72(1), it just gives a defence if you ignore it.

Again I think a lawyer is needed to interpret the legal meanings of the sections and their relationships.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

"Defence to prosecution"??? That means you WILL be prosecuted! Show your paperwork and authorization to carry a pax to the magistrate.

I take " defence to prosecution" not the same as reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse stops at the FOI...the other one is "tell it to the judge"
What a croco****e these lawyered rewrites spew out.

[djpil]

Your reference is better than mine, Clare Prop. I used page 22 of http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/melbourne.pdf

[Clare Prop]

Those VPG documents have got quite a few mistakes.

For example "Request Clearance" should say "Request Taxi" A few pilots at Jandakot were getting told off for saying "Request Clearance" by one of the more pedantic controllers. As he said, the VPGs do not override the AIP.

Just shows you can only trust the actual reference, not what your instructor says, not the BAK book, not even CASA people. "My instructor said" would not carry any weight in a court of law, ignorance is no defence and it's high time instructor courses covered legal responsibilities and liabilities.

And the point andrewr made about liability is the reason I don't let student pilots carry passengers. eg, I once had a naughty student who was authorised for an area solo to practice his steep turns. (No GFPT.) A couple of hours later as I was pacing worriedly and needing the aircraft for the next student he rang to say he had gone to meet some mates at an aerodrome in the training area for a barbecue and would be a bit late back and by the way he was giving one of his mates a lift back 'cos there was an instructor there who had organised it all and said it would be OK....:eek::eek::eek: Needless to say I was happy to pass him on to another school.

Had something happened and he had pranged at the other aerodrome (where he had never been before, had no idea of non controlled aerodrome procedures etc) I could have been liable even though I hadn't authorised it. If he had brought back a passenger and pranged and left that passenger needing a lifetime of full time care, I could have been liable even though I hadn't authorised it.

The criminal code and strict liability is bad enough, there is no mention of what could happen in a civil case.

[Clare Prop]

Also, until quite recently the GFPT flight test form didn't conform with the competency standards in the Day VFR Syllabus.

This in itself could raise an interesting legal situation in the event of a claim against someone who was tested using the old form.

[kabukiman]

Quote:
MB lets you off ..
Who??

Quote:
You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and ...
Nope, that reqt changed a while ago.

I was trying to say although you are limited to the training area you are allowed to leave it when you are coming back into the AD.

It did? I stand corrected, last I heard it was the case and I still hear people announcing dual and solo for training purposes

[Captain Nomad]

Kabukiman, re-read the above posts. It IS required for VFR training flights at controlled aerodromes to state dual or solo when requesting clearance. It is outlined in the AIP.

All this thread discussion just highlights what a complete dog's breakfast the regs currently are. Diverse interpretations are made as necessary to suit operations and prosecutions... Regulatory reform anyone...?! :E

[djpil]

And yet, when Class D was introduced at Moorabbin there were many meetings between Airservices and CASA with flying schools to develop training material for the new procedures - outcome as I recall was consistent with the Visual Pilot Guide.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

ENR 1.1
Para 4.3.3 Pilots of civil VFR training flights should advise DUAL or SOLO, as appropriate, when requesting clearance.

[Clare Prop]

When the VPGs were first invented (over 10 years ago?)there were many meetings. CFIs were asked to proof read it. When we reported all the mistakes we'd found we were told it was too late, it had already gone to press. :ugh::ugh:

The VPG is not a legal reference and is not a controlled document.

Yep the regs are a dogs breakfast, the GFPT is a dogs breakfast that was desigend to satisfy those who thought the sky would fall down without an RPPL and then couldn't tell the difference, it was another case of Australia having to be completely different to the poms and the yanks with their NFT and GFT.

The main thing I see from this thread is that people are just believing whatever they hear instead of actually knowing where to find the correct answers. And that is a reflection on the instructor training....I'll save that subject for another day. :mad::ugh:

Not so much diverse interpretations but hearsay. EG if you ask most people at a school that says GFPTs are mandatory where to find the "passenger carrying privilege" reference they wouldn't be able to...mainly because it doesn't actually exist but because a lot of people wouldn't know where to look up anything about the student licence, so they would resort to the "my instructor told me" hearsay reference.

[garrya100]

Now I'm confused! Is that last statement about the 'passenger carrying privilege' not existing a typo, or is the SPLPAX rating that CASA issued me after a successful GFPT not legal?:confused:

[Clare Prop]

I'm not familiar with a SPLPAX rating? Could you attach a copy of it or tell us the exact wording or reference?

Normally you would be issued with a "Sticky Label" by the ATO that says GFPT(A)/(H). I think, but could be wrong here, that CASA would only issue a reprint of the student licence with GFPT in it if you requested it, normally it would be in the front of your logbook.

A rating can only be attached to a PPL or higher licence (eg night rating, instrument rating) The only activity that an SPL holder can do that requires a rating is night circuits.

There is no regulation in the CARs that calls it a "passenger carrying privilege" only that the instructor who allows you to carry pax in contravention of CAR 5.72 and could then be prosecuted for doing so may use a GFPT as a defence to that prosecution.

[bluesky300]

I have been watching this discussion with some gentle amusement. I am not sure if CP is a lawyer. For what it is worth, 5.72 is entirely clear; an instructor may authorise a student with a GFPT to carry passengers. There is no 'may' in the 'defence' in 5.72 and the heading "May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers..." is answered by the text of the regulation in the affirmative, so long as the student is within the student pilot limit and has passed the GFPT. For the avoidance of doubt, the heading forms part of the regulation and is to be read as part of the text.

There is nothing grey about this one, and there is although there are many ludicrous ambiguities in the regulation of aviation in this country, this is not one of them.

An instructor is completely in the clear so long as he or she does not "permit" a student to carry passengers without those two conditions. If the student disobeyed that expressed condition, the instructor has not "permitted" anything and is still not exposed to any liability, civil or criminal.

[Horatio Leafblower]

From the Delegate's handbook:

The applicant may exercise the privileges associated with passing the GFPT immediately following the test — that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72.

CAR 5.72 goes like this:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 5.72
May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while flying as pilot in command?

(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if:

(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit; and

(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test, and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of the category used for the flight.

Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).

Like Bluesky, I don't see where the grey area is here :confused:

[Clare Prop]

What the delegates handbook is saying is basically that there is no need to wait for anything to come from CASA, ie it is not a different licence, you can load up your mum straight after the test (with the instructor's approval of course) and away you go.

Which is why I am confused about the post saying CASA issue a SPLPAX rating when a GFPT is issued by an ATO as a CASA delegate, but not CASA. ATOs don't issue licences but are part of the process.

No I'm not a lawyer but am an uncurable pedant! And yeah it is untidy, it would be better if there was just a regulation that said something like "Can an instructor authorise a student who has passed GFPT to carry passengers?" "Yes." But that would be too easy...and still doesn't address 40.1.0 para 10.3...:E

[forever flying]

A rating can only be attached to a PPL or higher licence (eg night rating, instrument rating) The only activity that an SPL holder can do that requires a rating is night circuits.

I think you will find an Aerobatics Rating can be attached to a SPL (GFPT) licence, don't have the reference with me however.

[Clare Prop]

...aerobatics is an endorsement rather than a rating...like formation, banner towing, stuff like that.

Ratings are things like:
Instrument
Night
Instructor
Agricultural

CAO 40

[Pedant\]

[andrewr]

I have been watching this discussion with some gentle amusement. I am not sure if CP is a lawyer. For what it is worth, 5.72 is entirely clear; an instructor may authorise a student with a GFPT to carry passengers. There is no 'may' in the 'defence' in 5.72 and the heading "May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers..." is answered by the text of the regulation in the affirmative, so long as the student is within the student pilot limit and has passed the GFPT. For the avoidance of doubt, the heading forms part of the regulation and is to be read as part of the text.

From your tone, I am assuming you are a lawyer?

To a lawyer, a prohibition + defence to prosecution might be a common pattern and clearly indicate permission. To a lay person, it is not clear. This is the essential point I think - asking pilots to read and interpret the CARs, and find references themselves to answer "Can I do..." type questions is unrealistic. If a regulation can be ambiguous to the lay person, or they might even come up with the exact opposite answer, it is asking for trouble.

The result end result is the system we have in practice, where rules are passed on as folklore from instructor to student (e.g. 10NM from the airfield). There needs to be clear rules written for the lay person indicating what you can and cannot do.

For what it's worth despite bluesky & Horatio's assurance, I still read this regulation as:

May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while flying as pilot in command?

(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.

BUT

you will not be prosecuted if the student has a GFPT.

There is nothing that I read that actually deletes (1). But this is as read by a lay person, not a lawyer. I understand that legal conventions mean that laws can have different meanings to what a simple reading might indicate.

[the_rookie]

Sorry Clare Prop, forgot I was getting a reference for you; according to CAR 4.64 to 5.76 the student pilot area limit is defined as:
- flight within the traffic pattern or
- flight in an area within 10nm of the aerodrome from which the flight commenced or
- flight within the flying training area associated with the aerodrome of take-off or
- the direct route between the aerodrome of take-off and the training area.

[Creampuff]

(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if someone held a gun to the head of the instructor and forced her to permit the student to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.The existence of a defence to a prosecution does not constitute authorisation of the circumstances in which the defence is available.

But I'm merely a wheelchair-bound geek from Hicksville USA.

[garrya100]

From the CASA Flight Crew Licencing Glossary of Terms,

"SPLPAX

Student Pilot Licence holder with passenger carrying privileges; ie. has passed general flying progress flight test (GFPT)"

My correction though, according to the CASA info it's not a rating, it's actually a licence. My interpretation is then that an SPL cannot carry passengers, but a SPLPAX can.

Flame suit on!!:E

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The SPL is the license.
Student Pilot LICENSE.

The GFPT is a test that grants additional priviledges to that license.
General Flight Progress TEST.

From the Flight Crew Licensing Manual;
The applicant may exercise the privileges associated with passing the GFPT immediately
following the test — that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72.

Unless anyone can demonstrate even one case where CASA has even considered launching an action against a student pilot for carrying passengers once they have passed their GFPT (unless they were outside the 90 day rule or had contravened some other regulation), then I'm sure we can put all this prosecution bullsiht to rest. :cool:

[garrya100]

Hear hear:D

[Creampuff]

I will try to make my point a different way.

Let us assume a law says:A person must not do X.

Penalty: $$

It is a defence to a prosecution of a person for doing X, if Y.The intent of the law is the X never happen. X is prohibited.

However, in circumstances of Y, a person will be excused from criminal liability for doing something that is prohibited. But X is still prohibited.

CASA launching a prosecution isn’t the risk. The risk is an action in negligence, taken by passengers killed or injured in accident in which the student pilot was PIC, against the instructor who did X. A defence to criminal liability is not a defence to claims of negligence.

Why oh why couldn’t the rule just say:(1)An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried, unless:

(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit; and

(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test, and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of the category used for the flight.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thank-you Creampuff! Simply put!:ok:

[triathlon]

Yes that was well put. Having said that if you have a GFPT you can carry passengers, even though the regs have been written poorly.
But isn't that consistent with many things in the Regs?

[YPJT]

Yes poorly written which begs the question, which way will the regulator go should they decide to remove any ambiguity?

[triathlon]

I say they will make it CLEAR that passengers may be carried:ok:

[Arm out the window]

A little more on the "it is a defence against prosecution" bit:

Have been reading up the CARs, CASRs (as you do when you need assistance to get to sleep), and the above crops up pretty regularly, as we all know.

Aerobatics, for instance, or acrobatic flight as they like to call it - the CAR reads you must do it above 3000' AGL or be prosecuted. It then goes on to say it's a defence against prosecution if you have written permission from CASA to do lower aeros.

I think it's pretty clear, then, how these clauses are meant to be interpreted - there's no way they're going to issue written permission for you to do low level aeros, wait for you to do them IAW that permission, and then take you to court over it only to find you have a great defence as per CAR88. (or would they? Stranger things have happened I guess...)

Anyhow, I read it as 'go ahead and authorise post GFPT students to carry pax IAW the restrictions and conditions in these orders'.

[Avgas172]

And for those that are to lazy to google it (like me usually) ... :E

6.1 Strict liability

(1) If a law that creates an offence provides that the offence is an offence of strict liability:
(a) there are no fault elements for any of the physical elements of the offence; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available.
(2) If a law that creates an offence provides that strict liability applies to a particular physical element of the offence:
(a) there are no fault elements for that physical element; and
(b) the defence of mistake of fact under section 9.2 is available in relation to that physical element.
(3) The existence of strict liability does not make any other defence unavailable.

[Arm out the window]

Thanks for putting up that definition, Avgas. I still couldn't work out what it meant though! After a bit of googling I found a good article which cleared things up a fair bit.

As far as I can work out, the 'physical element' bit means, did the person do the thing they're accused of, eg low fly when they shouldn't have? That's a yes/no thing which needs to be proven.

The 'fault element' is, did they intend to, or recklessly or negligently do it? In an offence of strict liability, it doesn't really matter what their state of mind was, they did it, and that's enough to find them guilty.

However, if they were:

(a) forced to do it by something beyond their control, or

(b) they did everything a reasonable person would do under the circumstances but the holes in the swiss cheese lined up and the infringement happened anyway (eg faulty altimeter, featureless terrain which didn't give them a clue they were low flying at the time), that might get them off.

So - strict liability, doesn't matter if you meant to do it or not, you did it so you're in trouble. However, if it really wasn't your fault you might be OK.