The RPL becomes a reality.

[Frank Arouet]

I was very pleased recently to approve a major addition to the way we manage pilot medicals in Australia. After wide consultation and detailed analysis of the safety issues, CASA has put in place a new simplified and streamlined medical certificate system for pilots who operate aircraft for private purposes. It means pilots who qualify to use the new system can obtain their medical certificate from any general practitioner, instead of having to visit a designated aviation medical examiner and apply for a class 2 medical. For many pilots this will reduce the time and cost of obtaining a medical certificate. The new system is open to all CASA licensed pilots who operate aircraft in a private or recreational capacity, subject to a number of important safety restrictions.

The new medical standards for private and recreational operations are based on the Austroads Inc unconditional motor vehicle driving licence standard, with a range of aviation specific additional requirements. These additional medical requirements cover areas such as cancer, heart failure, head injuries, epilepsy and musculoskeletal disorders that can pose a safety risk in aviation. The new medical certificate restricts CASA licensed pilots to flying single piston engine aircraft weighing less than 1500 kg maximum take-off weight. Pilots must operate at less than 10,000 feet above sea level in visual metrological conditions, with only one informed and consenting passenger on board. If a control seat is occupied by an appropriately licensed pilot with a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate these restrictions do not apply. Pilots using the new medical will have access to controlled airspace.

Once a pilot successfully obtains a drivers licence (DL) medical certificate (aviation) from a general practitioner they must e-register it at CASA’s web site, agree to be bound by the conditions and limitations of the CASA instrument and receive an electronic acknowledgement from CASA. Pilots under 65 years must renew and re-register their certificate every two years, while those over 65 will need to do this every 12 months. There is no fee attached to the registration of the certificate. Pilots are required to carry the medical certificate and the CASA acknowledgement of registration when flying and produce them to CASA inspectors as if they were a class 2 medical certificate.

I hope many pilots find the new DL medical certificate (aviation) an easier way to obtain and maintain their medical clearance to fly. Having robust medical standards is a key element of aviation safety and this initiative ensures safety standards remain high while making the system simpler.

More information will be available on the CASA web site once this initiative goes through the necessary machinery-of-government processes.

In this month's newsletter you will see an item about a short survey of readers we are currently running to make sure this newsletter serves your needs in the best possible way. Please take a minute to click on the link and complete the survey as we do need your views to make improvements.

Go to the CASA Briefing reader's survey (mhtml:{B39EE9F3-2420-4EFA-9500-3C893C85FAB8}mid://00000029/!x-usc:http://casa.grapevine.com.au/lists/lt.php?id=f0UJDQMNCAUDHVFRBwRLBQA%3D).

Best regards

John F McCormick

[Tankengine]

Good!
The head injury part would have stopped Barry Hempel!:E

[VH-XXX]

Pilots using the new medical will have access to controlled airspace.


Well that's a plus too. There was talk of this not being the case at first.

[spinex]

That's pretty impressive in the context of CASA being a typical, conservative organ of government, even the FAA in the US are still in the "talking about" phase of this. Congrats to those involved in the initiative, both within CASA and in the SAAA etc. Pity about the one passenger restriction in a personal sense, I need 3 seats for another 6/7 years, but still a big step forward.:D

[baswell]

More information will be available on the CASA web site once this initiative goes through the necessary machinery-of-government processes.
Sooo.... how long? Weeks? Months? Years? Some Senator can throw up a stink about how dangerous this is and debate it forever?

[flywatcher]

The devil will be in the detail. Watching with great interest.

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, but in the moment of intense CASA bashing, (which I am guilty ), it is a positive move and should be applauded.

It is an Instrument, as opposed to a licence, so shouldn't take too long to promulgate.

they must e-register it at CASA’s web site, agree to be bound by the conditions and limitations of the CASA instrument and receive an electronic acknowledgement

[Jabawocky]

Indeed Frank. :ok:

I can assure you that all has been done by those who can....and the website is all but switched live, awaiting the return from parliament. It would not surprise me if it is later this week. But watch this space!

I think that it is probably time to publicly acknowledge the people in recent times who have actually taken this from a concept of the past and in the last year or so turned it into reality.

So credit should be paid to the head of CASA's GA Task Force Mr Peter John, who has tirelessly battled all the hundreds of roadblocks, researched and sought out the solutions to many complications that cropped up regularly.

Besides all his hard work and the various people associated with the project, the reason Peter was able to convince the Director to undertake the project was an enormous effort by the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, and support from AOPA who have actively promoted the SAAA campaign.

This is also a major step forward and a new approach to the AVMed folk so hopefully some of these things will have some serendipities elsewhere.

And as time goes by and data points known, the system will be refined and some relaxations of certain boundaries.

All round a good job, well done. :D:D:D

[Andy_RR]

I'd hesitate to applaud too loudly since it amounts to additional pages of regulations (simplification, in bureaucrat-speak), but the intent certainly needs applauding heartily.

Even better if the existing regulations and bureaucracy could be streamlined (productivity anyone...?) but I guess it's wishful thinking to imagine that government would shrink of its own accord.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Sooo.....How about this joint EAA/AOPA petition to the USA FAA re flying a recreational aircraft on your Drivers Licence Medical..??

EAA/AOPA Medical Petition Crucial to Future Flying | Left Seat (http://macsblog.com/2012/06/eaaaopa-medical-petition-crucial-to-future-flying/)

Cheers:ok:

[KRviator]

So that's the medical...where's the licence?

[Creampuff]

It’s an interesting but rather confusing concept.

The risk to a Jumbo full of pax sharing controlled airspace with an RPL holder is acceptable if there’s no or only one passenger in the aircraft being flown by the RPL holder, but not acceptable if there’s more than one passenger in the latter aircraft.

An ‘informed and consenting passenger’ is a complete fiction. That is unless the passenger has tertiary and post-graduate qualifications in disciplines like cardio-vascular problems, oto-rhino-laryngology, psychiatry, ophthalmology and all the other areas that would enable the passenger to make an ‘informed’ decision about the risks of being in the aircraft.

Can’t Australia just move the Class 2 standard to the RPL standard? Almost all accidents are demonstrably caused by factors other than the medical fitness of the PIC.

[gobbledock]

These additional medical requirements cover areas such as cancer, heart
failure, head injuries, epilepsy and musculoskeletal disorders that can pose a
safety risk in aviation. Someone should tell Herr Skull that 'anger and lack of it's management' also poses a significant risk to safety! Also, is 'nuptyism' and 'voodoo witchdoctory sorcery' and the malignant CASA disease of 'ponypoohitis' classed in this band ???

[kaz3g]

It would appear the licence is the PPL and it is the medical that is different.

If you have endorsements, such as Nav (if you are coming from the old restricted licence), CTA, TW, CS etc then these continue to have effect. The difference is in the medical and the pax condition.

Seems a very sensible approach to me and a very interesting shift in CASA's thinking to boot. Well done to SAAA and AOPA from a grateful member of both.

Kaz

[Jabawocky]

Griffo

The truth is FAA, EAA, AOPA(USA) are looking very closely at what has been achieved here. So much so I would be talking out of school if I said more, not that there is much more to say.

:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Your licence is perpetual.

This is an exemption (read instrument), and not a new licence, that only pertains to the medical.

An informed passenger is one aware that the pilot doesn't possess a Class 1 or 2 medical certificate, but is fit to fly as he is fit to drive. Doesn't mention aerobatics however.

Please everyone, take the model in good faith. Rumors of matters at Fort Fumble should be ignored for the sake of the common good.

[Jabawocky]

No aero unless with a safety pilot.

J:ok:

[CHAIRMAN]

What a fantastic move forward.
Congratulations to all those involved, I can only imagine the obstacles that had to be overcome:ok:

[superdimona]

It's a step in the right direction (and well overdue IMO), but as said previously it's effectively lowering the medical requirements for a PPL - it is not an RPL. I'd imagine this move mainly helps existing PPLs, particulary the more "experienced", but I can't see it reversing the backward slide of GA. If you're a new student the cost of the medical is the least of your concerns.

Gliders, Ultralights, Gyros, Hang-gliders etc are all recreational aircraft, each managed with their own redundant little kingdoms, joining expenses and inconsistant rules. If you want to fly Cessna 172s, motorgliders and Jabirus you're up for a PPL, RAA membership, GFA membership, and gliding club membership. It's possible to legally fly in CTA with the motorglider but not in the 172 (if you lack a GA CTA endorsement). If you don't have a PPL you can fly a Tecnam with numbers on the side but not letters, and vice-versa - even though it's the same aircraft.

To be honest I'm disappointed that this is the RPL CASA had in mind. I was (foolishly) hoping for something like a PPL-junior that had endorsements for ultralights, GA under 1500kg, hang-gliders etc, or at least something like the NPPL which is intended to be more affordable to obtain.

[Capn Bloggs]

The truth is FAA, EAA, AOPA(USA) are looking very closely at what has been achieved here. So much so I would be talking out of school if I said more, not that there is much more to say.
I assume Ledsled is currently having an apoplexy, realising that while Australia is doing something different to the rest of the world, it's better than the rest of the world! No DLMC(A) for you! :}

[Exaviator]

New Zealand has had the RPL for a few years now, also based on a passenger carrying drivers license medical. The upper weight limit is 2000 kilos, other conditions much the same.

However, it didn't take long before the NZ CAA started tinkering with the medical requirements and adding such requirements as cardiologist reports, stress echo's or ecg's, so that any one with any form of previous cardio problems is now being put through the same requirements as a Class 2 medical...

Only time will tell what happens in Oz... but at least it is a step in the right direction.

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,

You really are a dill, aren't you.

If you actually knew what I have actually advocated over the years, as opposed to what your tiny mind imagines, you would know that I have used the example if the AUF/RAOz medical standards, over how long now? 25 year or more, in discussions with AOPA USA in their eventually successful (with EAA) battle for the Sports Pilot License.

Indeed, if you had any in-depth knowledge of the US, you would know that FAA has, for years, promoted the National Divers Lic. Standard for their RPL, but it has been defeated by lobbying by the US equivalent of DAMEs, who don't want their cash flow diminished. Nothing to do with safety ---- Indeed, vast FAA studies have shown that the "standard" of aircrew medical held is entirely unrelated to the incidence of inflight incapacitation or death, neither of which is a significant cause of accidents.

Because the US RPL required a Class 3 medical,(FAA has 3 levels, but you knew that, didn't you) it has been a failure as a licence, if you can maintain the Class 3, you may as well have a PPL.

Likewise, I spent a lot of time and effort in assisting the promotion of portable ELT, as opposed to the FAA fixed ELT, based on the research done here, that show that fixed ELTs are a waste of money, with a better than 90% failure rate, in real world accidents. AOPA US haven't won that one, yet, but they will keep trying.

And it was a largely Australian initiative to change 408 standards, to make affordable portable 408s possible.

Likewise, the success of our Limited Cat. in Part 21, ( we have had it since 1998) as opposed to the FAA equivalent, is being looked at very carefully on the other side of the big pond. The FAA Limited Cat. is a dead end.

So, there are three examples of where I have promoted how Australia does it better, in the US.

You see, my dear chap, I can look at issues on their merits, particularly assessing the real risk, as opposed to "perceived risks" ( see the PCH report on matters airspace for your mates perception problems), something where you and your cohorts have consistently shown a complete inability.

If you look at where we are at with the RPL, it is almost identical to the RPL the PAP put on the table in 1996, it has taken all this time to break through the iron ring at CASA.

Peter John deserves all the praise he gets, but he shouldn't have had the battles he did. SAAA certainly didn't think up the RPL here.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Peter John deserves all the praise he gets, but he shouldn't have had the battles he did. SAAA certainly didn't think up the RPL here.


You are quite correct. Although, the concept being mature, it was going nowhere. Leadsled my dear chap, if it were not for PJ and his close work with SAAA it would still be nowhere. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you just had no idea what went on in this case.

I see him often, I will pass on your regards shall I?:ok:

PS: And if you think this is good, you should see his shopping list of other Really Good for GA projects. :D I am not at liberty to say more, but if any of you have any dealings with this guy, please take the time to thnk him for his tireless efforts many of which are unpaid 7 days a week and then some. If the rest of the crew at CASA had his work ethic, Kharon, Frankie Gobbledock etc would have very low post counts and nothing to complain about. ;)

[Creampuff]

... change 408 standards, to make affordable portable 408s possible... Leaddie of course means 406.

Is anyone able to explain to me the substantive difference in safety outcomes between an 'RPL' medical holder with 1 passenger compared with an 'RPL' medical holder with 2 passengers?

[Jabawocky]

Creamie

That was always a mystery to me as well.

The only thing I can see from the history was it was inline with the RAAus kind of limits.

It really should be any single, BE36 included, but I guess the MTOW line had to be drawn too.

I do believe PJ has plans for refinement so you never know what may happen down the road...or airway!

[Jack Ranga]

Bloggs,

You really are a dill, aren't you.


I don't think he is Leadsled, you however.....................??

While everybody else is being civil you can't help yourself can you?

You silly old goat..............

[VH-XXX]

So you only take out ONE "informed" passenger with you. Less legal concerns for CASA versus 6 or more uninformed passengers?... Not really. Doesn't really add up.

A line has to be drawn somewhere and the line that is drawn does not seem entirely logical. You would think that if the medical aspect was such a concern then Zero passengers would be the go.

[Capn Bloggs]

You really are a dill, aren't you.
Since you seem to be unsure, I can tell that I do like them, but I am not. :}