Restrictions on PPLs

[Trine]

To continue from D&G AWPA thread.......

CFI,

Nothing in what you've said refutes the fact that Grade 2 instructors can approve the holder of a PPL to fly in controlled airspace. I can't understand the confusion, the CAO deals with it directly at 40.1.7 para 9.2,

A Grade Two flight instructor may:
a)...
d)approve the holder of a private pilot licence to fly an aircraft in controlled airspace.

If this doesn't mean what I say it does then what is it talking about?

The restriction of not flying in controlled airspace is imposed by CAO 40.0 3.2 for PPLs. This same paragraph also mandates a logbook entry to allow PPLs into controlled airspace, it does not give a choice.

...unless:
e)...
g)the instructor, or CASA, has made an entry to that effect in the holder's logbook.


A new licence will not be issued, nor is a flight test with an ATO required. In fact, it is not a requirement that CASA even be notified of the approval.

CFI said,
I have checked this reference 40.0 para 3.2 (g)with CASA in the past and been advised that what we are discussing actually constitutes the removal of an area restriction on the licence, which requires reissue of the licence, which can only be done by CASA following a flight test by an ATO. As I understand it you can't have a restricted licence overridden by a stamp in a logbook.

There is no justification for any of this in the regs. The key point is that it is not a "restricted licence" but a Private Pilot Licence as defined by the regs.

I'm pretty sure the situation has changed markedly since you checked it with CASA. However, I would rather trust documents I can take to court (actual legislation and regulations!!!) than the word of some CASA flunky.

If you have any references that carry legal weight instead of handbooks and hearsay, I'd be interested to see them. Its pretty convenient to shout "but CASA told me....."

What does everyone else think?

[Foyl]

It's my understanding that Acts and Regulations always take precedence over any other material derived from this source. If there was any difference between the Act and Regulations and a document issued by a regulatory body, I'd request confirmation of the interpretation - in writing from the body responsible for administering the Act and it's Regulations. Just to be on the safe side!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Foyl, which is exactly what I have done.

Trine I agree that your reference contradicts the interpretation that I have been given. However, for as long as the local CASA people allow me to hold an AOC I have to accept their interpretation. Whether there is a formal flight test or not, these people still need to do the training and a "check ride" through the airspace. So whatever the interpretation, the same flying has to be done. And no, this would not cost any different whichever way the flight was conducted.

I am still waiting to hear what qualifications and delegations you hold.

BTW I'm not going to sink to your level and sling cheap insults! Though we've had a good laugh at your posts at work today. :D

[Foyl]

Sorry CFI, didn't want to imply that you hadn't. Just caution on my part. I've had more than one experience (fortunately as a bystander, and non aviation related) of "interpretations" being touted as "the fact" only to find that the interpretation differed markedly from what the actual Act or Regulation said! :cool:

[Blue Hauler]

Trine and CFI

I seem to read some confusion into the above posts over the terms ‘restrictions’ and ‘conditions’.

Prior to the 1 December 1992 there was in place a Restricted Private Pilot Licence (RPPL). The holder was restricted to local flights much the same as imposed on a SPL/GFPT. Removal of the restrictions involved navigation training and a flight test. Upon successful completion the remarks section of the candidates PPL was endorsed ‘RESTRICTIONS LIFTED’. To this day there are some pilots who hold a RPPL.

Removal of the area restriction still requires a flight test by CASA or an ATO. Upon successful completion the log book is not endorsed but a new PPL is issued by a CASA officer. (Refer Flight Crew Licensing Industry Delegates Handbook 5.1)

The situation regarding a PPL issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988 appears to be different. Firstly CASA have the power to conduct PPL tests by virtue of CAR 5.41. CASA may delegate those powers to a person by virtue of CAR 7. In conducting a PPL test that person so delegated (ATO) is required to assess the applicants skill and knowledge in accordance with 12.2 of the PPL syllabus which relates to airspace. By virtue of CAR 5.11 the delegate may then recommend that certain conditions (denial of controlled airspace privileges for eg.) be imposed upon the applicant. CASA does this by virtue of CAR 303 and notifying such conditions in CAO 40.0.3.

The removal of such conditions is not so clear. CAR 6 permits CASA in writing to appoint a person to be an authorised person; or appoint persons included in a class of person to be authorised persons. It is my interpretation that CAO 40.1.7 Section 9 confers, in writing, certain authority to a class of persons namely flight instructors. In particular paragraph 9.2 (d) and 9.3 authorise a class of persons to approve the holder of a private pilot licence to fly an aeroplane in controlled airspace.

This is reinforced by CAO 40.0.3 where the holder has
 received training in the aeronautical knowledge needed to safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned; and
 an authorised flight instructor, or CASA, is satisfied that the holder can safely fly an aircraft in the kind of airspace concerned;
 the instructor, or CASA, has made an entry to that effect in the holder’s personal log book.

I therefore see no reason why a G2 or G1 FI does not have the relevant authority. I am open to reasoned argument to the contrary.

CFI why not take the debate back to your FOI and ask for clarification or redirection in the light of 'fresh evidence'? These people are quite helpful and well aware of the difficulties interpreting the Act/Regs/Orders. I would be interested in the result.

(Edited to correct UBB code).

[ 12 December 2001: Message edited by: Blue Hauler ]