Oh that's a good one!
Are you telling me that because RAAus is a "Responsible organisation", the aeroplanes it administers are registered to a "Contracting State"?
To pinch your quote:
CAR 2 defines "responsible organisation" as
responsible organisation means:
(a) the responsible authority of a Contracting State; or
(b) the Defence Force of Australia, or of a Contracting State;
or
(c) a sport aviation body.
Yes RAAus is a "responsible organisation", but that phrase is not used at all in Part 5 of the CARs, which deals with personnel licencing. The fact that an aircraft is registered with the RAAus in fact removes it from the argument.
How so?
The purpose of the Ultralight movement, and its very legal existence, come from the
EXEMPTIONS it operates under. These exemptions are grounded in CAO 95.55.
Para 3 of 95.55 specifically lists those provisions of the CARs from which Ultralights are exempted:
3 Exemption under regulation 308
3.1 If the conditions set out in this section are complied with in relation to an
aeroplane to which this section applies, the aeroplane is exempt from
compliance with the following provisions of the Regulations:
(a) Parts 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 5;
(b) regulations 36A and 37;
(c) subregulations 83 (1) (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment;
(d) regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157;
(e) regulations 207 and 208;
(f) regulation 210 insofar as advertising of flying training to qualify for a
pilot standard specified in the RAA Operations Manual is concerned;
(g) regulation 230;
(h) subregulation 242 (2);
(i) regulations 252 and 252A.
The exemption against Part 3 is the exemption against registration with CASA. If it is exempted against registration with CASA, how can it be
on the CASA register as you assert at your post #17?
Sorry OZBUS it just doesn't wash. An RAAus aircraft, be it 10- or 32- or 25- or 55- registered, is not on the CASA register and therefore is not on the register held by the
Responsible Authority of a contracting state (not to be confused with an Australian
responsible organisation such as RAAus), and is therefore not a registered aircraft.
An RAAus aircraft is not registered to the ADF or to the defence forces of an ICAO-contracting state, therefore it cannot be a
recognised aeroplane.
VH-XXX in your post #15 you assert:
There you have it. Under ICAO it must be a registered / recognised aircraft and under CASA rules, it doesn't.
This is incorrect. CAR 5.111 (150 Hour CPLs) specifically states that it
MUST be a "
registered or recognised AEROPLANE";
and CAR 5.115 paras (1)-(4) permits that it may be a recognised or registered
AEROPLANE, or a
GLIDER, or a
HELICOPTER, or a
GYROCOPTER.
...but not an Ultralight, or a Group A Ultralight, because while the other classes (Glider, helo, gyro, recognised/registered aeroplane) are specifically allowed, Ultralights are
NOT.
The legal principle is
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning that the explicit inclusion of one thing means the implicit exclusion of those things not listed.
The PPL provisions at 5.84 specifically and deliberately list "Group A Ultralights". The CPL provisions at 5.115(4) specifically and deliberately do not.
VH-XXX and OZBUSDRIVER I have previously laboured under the same misapprehension as you good sirs; my study and preparation for testing officer approval has changed my opinion on this matter. Please re-read what I have offered and if you doubt it please call me or call CASA.
Cheers!
