RAA
What I think is right/wrong is niether here nor there. I have argued it as I read it, but no doubt CASA has their own view on the matter and that is the one that counts.
It would possibly bring students if I could do their first 100 hours (or credit them) in an Ultralight, but I cannot do it in good conscience.
If those other schools can get away with it, there must be a CASA delegate willing to bet his house on it.
...I just promise you it just won't be me!
On the other hand, I have had RAAus students convert to GA and go to Bankstown to hire an aircraft. Even if they have a PPL (from an afilliated school no less
) they were told "oh well that'll be at least a 5-hour check flight process, 'cos you're ultralight trained"
THAT is prejudice
It would possibly bring students if I could do their first 100 hours (or credit them) in an Ultralight, but I cannot do it in good conscience.
If those other schools can get away with it, there must be a CASA delegate willing to bet his house on it.
...I just promise you it just won't be me!
On the other hand, I have had RAAus students convert to GA and go to Bankstown to hire an aircraft. Even if they have a PPL (from an afilliated school no less
) they were told "oh well that'll be at least a 5-hour check flight process, 'cos you're ultralight trained"THAT is prejudice
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 15th Mar 2010 at 01:49.
Got a phone call...
..from a District Flight Operations Manager (DFOM) and one of his helpers at about 1630 today.
His office had taken a couple of days to read and digest my email and consider a response.
Their response is that my interpretation (as outlined at length though this thread) is correct, and they then went into some detail as to why they believed that to be the case.
The CASA position is that RAAus hours CANNOT be counted towards a CPL, be it a "150 hour" CPL or a "200 hour" CPL. You must gain all of the required 200 hours on the classes of aircraft described at CAR 5.115(4) For example, if a person gained their PPL entirely on the basis of 40 hours RAAus time, then they will need to have minimum 240 hours of logged experience come time for their CPL flight test.
In my Email I also asked if CASA had some other guidance or policy document that clarified the situation. The response I received was that CASA had produced the CARs, and if a lowly dunderhead such as Horatio Leafblower could interpret it correctly then no further clarification would be needed.
We then had a longish philosophical discussion and it was made clear to me that the following should be disseminated to industry:
1/. There is currently a CPL holder and an ATO under investigation because a CPL was issued on the basis of 200 hours flight time, including (n) RAAus hours.
2/. Flight schools, ATOs and flying instructors MUST read and understand the requirements of CAR 5.115
3/. Be aware that CPLs issued on a 200 hour total which includes RAAus time may be cancelled, varied or have other limitations, requirements or restrictions placed upon them.
I post this in good faith as an honest representation of the conversation I had this afternoon with a CASA inspector of some 15 years experience.
I understand this is bad tidings for some, and for that I am sorry.
Avast, and belay there!
Horatio
His office had taken a couple of days to read and digest my email and consider a response.
Their response is that my interpretation (as outlined at length though this thread) is correct, and they then went into some detail as to why they believed that to be the case.
The CASA position is that RAAus hours CANNOT be counted towards a CPL, be it a "150 hour" CPL or a "200 hour" CPL. You must gain all of the required 200 hours on the classes of aircraft described at CAR 5.115(4) For example, if a person gained their PPL entirely on the basis of 40 hours RAAus time, then they will need to have minimum 240 hours of logged experience come time for their CPL flight test.
In my Email I also asked if CASA had some other guidance or policy document that clarified the situation. The response I received was that CASA had produced the CARs, and if a lowly dunderhead such as Horatio Leafblower could interpret it correctly then no further clarification would be needed.
We then had a longish philosophical discussion and it was made clear to me that the following should be disseminated to industry:
1/. There is currently a CPL holder and an ATO under investigation because a CPL was issued on the basis of 200 hours flight time, including (n) RAAus hours.
2/. Flight schools, ATOs and flying instructors MUST read and understand the requirements of CAR 5.115
3/. Be aware that CPLs issued on a 200 hour total which includes RAAus time may be cancelled, varied or have other limitations, requirements or restrictions placed upon them.
I post this in good faith as an honest representation of the conversation I had this afternoon with a CASA inspector of some 15 years experience.
I understand this is bad tidings for some, and for that I am sorry.
Avast, and belay there!
Horatio
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 16th Mar 2010 at 12:03.
Well kids I guess that clears that one up then! I must say I have found the CASA flight crew licensing department to be quite good as of late as I have had several queries of my own regarding the regs and they have been quite prompt in ringing me back and also putting it in writing as well. Times must be changing.
With regard to the original post, from my own experience instructing both RAAus and GA, as much as I like to wave the RAAus flag I would say that if you are going down the commercial/airline path then you are wasting your time with RAAus flying. Not only has Horatio outlined this with regard to the aeronautical experience requirements for the CPL, but also at the end of the day GA time is always looks better than ultralight time in your logbook through the eyes of an airline. Sure, you can count up to 750 hrs of group A ultralight time towards your ATPL, but that's still no good to you if the airline you will potentially work for does not recognise that ultralight time to meet their own requirements.
Get your RAAus licence down the track so you can have some fun on the weekends, but otherwise stick to GA. Take it from someone who has been there and done that
With regard to the original post, from my own experience instructing both RAAus and GA, as much as I like to wave the RAAus flag I would say that if you are going down the commercial/airline path then you are wasting your time with RAAus flying. Not only has Horatio outlined this with regard to the aeronautical experience requirements for the CPL, but also at the end of the day GA time is always looks better than ultralight time in your logbook through the eyes of an airline. Sure, you can count up to 750 hrs of group A ultralight time towards your ATPL, but that's still no good to you if the airline you will potentially work for does not recognise that ultralight time to meet their own requirements.
Get your RAAus licence down the track so you can have some fun on the weekends, but otherwise stick to GA. Take it from someone who has been there and done that
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAREFUL PLEASE, my Kawasaki jet-ski engine is far more reliable than a Jabiru engine! At-least with the jet-ski you have to dunk it in salt water before it needs a rebuild rather than simply just using it.
Hold your horses
I have just had a call from RAAus and been provided with a letter from the CASA head of personnel licencing, Dick Reynoldson.
That letter states that RAAus command time may be used to satisfy the 100 hours command time requirement of CAR 5.115 (1).
While I know I am correct,
it pains me to say it appears CASA have a different interpretation of the law 
I have had a couple of mates who are working lawyers (one barrister one a solicitor) examine the relevant parts and they seem to agree with me. 
Further opinions expected in due course.
That letter states that RAAus command time may be used to satisfy the 100 hours command time requirement of CAR 5.115 (1).
While I know I am correct,
it pains me to say it appears CASA have a different interpretation of the law I have had a couple of mates who are working lawyers (one barrister one a solicitor) examine the relevant parts and they seem to agree with me. Further opinions expected in due course.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that letter a recent one as I have seen something similar before which is why I was so adament from the start, however without knowing where it was or where it came from I wasn't able to provide a reference?
Those kind of letters pop up quite often in CASA. For example, one that I can think of was a one-off letter from the head of CASA saying "for night registered experimental VH registered aircraft based solely in Australia, a red all-round beacon is not required for NVFR operations provided that strobe light(s) are fitted."
Perhaps the CASA officer that claims that a CPL holder is under investigation need to be told about this letter... sooner rather than later
Those kind of letters pop up quite often in CASA. For example, one that I can think of was a one-off letter from the head of CASA saying "for night registered experimental VH registered aircraft based solely in Australia, a red all-round beacon is not required for NVFR operations provided that strobe light(s) are fitted."
Perhaps the CASA officer that claims that a CPL holder is under investigation need to be told about this letter... sooner rather than later
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have a feeling Horatio is on the right track, but here again its ask three people at CASA, get three answers and pick the one you like best.
They even refer to it as shopping around your question........
If you have to employ a lawyer to decode this stuff.....its WRONG to begin with, and it should be fixed!!! Because even then you can get two lawyers who see it from two different angles.....and if it went to court.....toss a coin!
I am sure Leafie would like to say its not really that way......but I am confident he knows it is!
A re-write of the rule book is in order, apparently that was started 20 years ago
Jaba is going to
it for a bit now before I get carted off to the dock!
They even refer to it as shopping around your question........
If you have to employ a lawyer to decode this stuff.....its WRONG to begin with, and it should be fixed!!! Because even then you can get two lawyers who see it from two different angles.....and if it went to court.....toss a coin!
I am sure Leafie would like to say its not really that way......but I am confident he knows it is!
A re-write of the rule book is in order, apparently that was started 20 years ago
Jaba is going to
it for a bit now before I get carted off to the dock!
XXX
The CASA dude actually changed his position on reading the letter, which was addressed to Paul Middleton and dated 2002.
Jaba
If there is more than one interpretation of something as basic as the quantity and type of hours acceptable as experience for a CPL, then yes the Regs are not clear.
From what I have seen of the CASRs, 'clarity' does not seem to be a key design objective
The CASA dude actually changed his position on reading the letter, which was addressed to Paul Middleton and dated 2002.
Jaba
If there is more than one interpretation of something as basic as the quantity and type of hours acceptable as experience for a CPL, then yes the Regs are not clear.
From what I have seen of the CASRs, 'clarity' does not seem to be a key design objective
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the Recognised aeroplane requirements seem open to debate, I think the definition from the CARs Part 1 2: Interpretation is fairly clear that RAA hours on group A ultralight should be acceptable
recognised flight time means flight time that is:
(e) in the case of flight time in a group A ultralight:
(i) flown by the holder of a pilot certificate, either before or after the certificate was issued to the holder, being a pilot certificate, other than a student certificate, issued by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.; and
(ii) recorded in the holder’s logbook and certified by a member of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. who is authorised by that body to certify flight time.
(e) in the case of flight time in a group A ultralight:
(i) flown by the holder of a pilot certificate, either before or after the certificate was issued to the holder, being a pilot certificate, other than a student certificate, issued by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.; and
(ii) recorded in the holder’s logbook and certified by a member of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. who is authorised by that body to certify flight time.
No, recognised flight time and recognised aeroplane are 2 seperate things.
Recognised flight time is as you state.
Recognised aeroplane is an aeroplane of the Australian Defence Force or an aeroplane registered in a foreign (ICAO-)contracting state
Recognised flight time is as you state.
Recognised aeroplane is an aeroplane of the Australian Defence Force or an aeroplane registered in a foreign (ICAO-)contracting state
From what I have seen of the CASRs, 'clarity' does not seem to be a key design objective
A direct quote from a well known former Head of Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, and I can swear a Stat. Dec. as to the statement
Aviation regulations are for lawyers and judges, for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers.
So there you have it, the reason for the Act, Regulations and Orders, nothing about clarity, or, for that matter, air safety ---- In my opinion an attitude still alive and well in CASA.
In the "you ain't seen nuttin' yet" stakes, the new Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules is a doozy, combined with the signaled cancellation of the VFG (again, this organisation never learns) it will be hell for student pilots --- not to mention their instructors etc.
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
Have a look in the Act at the definition of an aircraft:
Australian aircraft means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered
aircraft and state aircraft.
(b) is significant in this debate, an RAA aircraft is an Australian aircraft.
Once again, the rules are contradictory, with "consequential amendments" that have never been made. All part of the regulatory mess.
Tootle pip!!
Have a look in the Act at the definition of an aircraft:
Australian aircraft means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered
aircraft and state aircraft.
(b) is significant in this debate, an RAA aircraft is an Australian aircraft.
Once again, the rules are contradictory, with "consequential amendments" that have never been made. All part of the regulatory mess.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules contradictory;
A nice bottle of red would have us at each others throats over that statement Clinton. If you don't remember the Alamo, you will certainly recall the Maule.
No actually.
Refresher.
I think it is appropriate, at this point, to repeat the clauses which are subject to debate.
Hours required for a 200-hour CPL:
CAR 5.84 Private pilot (aeroplane) licence: aeronautical experience required
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.77 (1) (f), a person's aeronautical experience must consist of at least 40 hours of flight time as a pilot, being flight time that includes:
(a) at least 5 hours of general flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 5 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command; and
(c) at least 2 hours of instrument flight time.
(2) The 40 hours must be recognised flight time that was flown in a registered aeroplane, recognised aeroplane, helicopter, gyroplane, glider, power‑assisted sailplane or group A ultralight.
Compare para (2) of the PPL experience required to para (4) of the CPL flight time required.
Note also the requirements for "flight time as pilot in command", for both PPL and CPL, is totally general in nature.
The natural reading of 5.84 would tell you that you can fly your solo time in any of the aircraft categories listed in (2).
A natural reading then of 5.115 would be the same; command time required would be in any of the aircraft categories listed in (4).
------------------------------------------------
Relevant definitions from CAR 2:
...and from CAR 5.64:
The RAAus have made much of the fact that Group A ultralights are mentioned as "recognised flight time" in CAR 2 definition. The fact remains that:
(1) the phrase "recognised flight time" is not used in either CAR 5.84 (PPLs) or CAR 5.115 (200-hour CPLs); and
(2) Reg 5.64 (above) specifically states that an aircraft for the purposes of ALL of Division 5 is a REGISTERED AIRCRAFT; and
(3) Group A Ultralights are specifically allowed under CAR 5.84, but are not mentioned as allowable in in any way under CAR 5.115
What we are all REALLY wondering about is:
how do CASA define a registered aircraft?
While discussing this with the RAAus Ops Manager this morning, the only matter we agreed upon was that this definition (once included in CAR 2) may be the crux of the argument.
WHY was it omitted?
(in the 1993 edition of the regs, available on the A-G's website, registered was defined as "registered in accordance with these regulations". With the move of CAR Div3 to CASR 47, this def was no longer relevant to the CARs and omitted).
THIS THEN IS MY CONTENTION:
The intention in drafting CAR 5.115 (1) was to allow Helicopter pilots, Gyroplane pilots, Glider pilots, military pilots and foreign pilots to credit their command hours to the command requirements of 5.115(1)(a).
Sub-paras (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) then specify that certain experience must be in an aeroplane, as defined in 5.64 specifically as a registered/recognised aeroplane, as opposed to a registered/recognised Glider, registered/recognised Helo, or registered/recognised gyroplane.
ie: ya gotta fly a plank, and a registered or recognised powered plank at that, to get a CPL(A). Once you have the requisite experience you can make it up as per 5.115(4).... but NOT in an Ultralight.
Tonight I received a PM from a learned person not entirely removed from this question, and he (privately) backed my reading. Thank you
Hours required for a 200-hour CPL:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 5.115
Aeronautical experience for subparagraph 5.104 (1) (f) (ii): persons other than helicopter pilots
(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 5.104 (1) (f) (ii), the aeronautical experience of a person who is not covered by regulation 5.113 or 5.114 must consist of:
(a) at least 100 hours as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 100 hours of flight time in a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane; and
(c) at least 20 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane; and
(d) at least 10 hours of instrument flight time in a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), the same flight time may be counted towards as many of paragraphs (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) as describe the flight time.
(3) If a person complies with subregulation (1) by flying a total flight time of less than 200 hours, the person's aeronautical experience for the purposes of subparagraph 5.104 (1) (f) (ii) must include a period of additional flight time equal to the difference between 200 hours and that total flight time.
(4) In this regulation:
"additional flight time" means recognised flight time as a pilot of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) a registered aeroplane;
(b) a recognised aeroplane;
(c) a helicopter;
(d) a gyroplane;
(e) a glider (other than a hang glider).
Aeronautical experience for subparagraph 5.104 (1) (f) (ii): persons other than helicopter pilots
(1) For the purposes of subparagraph 5.104 (1) (f) (ii), the aeronautical experience of a person who is not covered by regulation 5.113 or 5.114 must consist of:
(a) at least 100 hours as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 100 hours of flight time in a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane; and
(c) at least 20 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command of a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane; and
(d) at least 10 hours of instrument flight time in a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane.
(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), the same flight time may be counted towards as many of paragraphs (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) as describe the flight time.
(3) If a person complies with subregulation (1) by flying a total flight time of less than 200 hours, the person's aeronautical experience for the purposes of subparagraph 5.104 (1) (f) (ii) must include a period of additional flight time equal to the difference between 200 hours and that total flight time.
(4) In this regulation:
"additional flight time" means recognised flight time as a pilot of any 1 or more of the following:
(a) a registered aeroplane;
(b) a recognised aeroplane;
(c) a helicopter;
(d) a gyroplane;
(e) a glider (other than a hang glider).
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5.77 (1) (f), a person's aeronautical experience must consist of at least 40 hours of flight time as a pilot, being flight time that includes:
(a) at least 5 hours of general flight time as pilot in command; and
(b) at least 5 hours of cross‑country flight time as pilot in command; and
(c) at least 2 hours of instrument flight time.
(2) The 40 hours must be recognised flight time that was flown in a registered aeroplane, recognised aeroplane, helicopter, gyroplane, glider, power‑assisted sailplane or group A ultralight.
Compare para (2) of the PPL experience required to para (4) of the CPL flight time required.
Note also the requirements for "flight time as pilot in command", for both PPL and CPL, is totally general in nature.
The natural reading of 5.84 would tell you that you can fly your solo time in any of the aircraft categories listed in (2).
A natural reading then of 5.115 would be the same; command time required would be in any of the aircraft categories listed in (4).
------------------------------------------------
Relevant definitions from CAR 2:
"aeroplane" means a power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft deriving its lift in flight chiefly from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces remaining fixed under given conditions of flight, but does not include a power-assisted sailplane.
"recognised aeroplane" means an aeroplane:
(a) that is on the register of aircraft kept by a Contracting State; or
(b) that is operated by the Defence Force of Australia or of a Contracting State.
"recognised flight time" means flight time that is:
(a) in the case of flight time in a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane -- flown by the holder of:
(i) an aeroplane pilot licence; or
(ii) a student pilot licence; or
(iii) an overseas pilot licence that authorises the holder to fly aeroplanes; or
(iv) a pilot qualification issued by the Defence Force of Australia, or of a Contracting State, that authorises the holder to fly aeroplanes as pilot in command or in dual flying; or
(b) in the case of flight time in a helicopter -(snip); or
(c) in the case of flight time in a gyroplane -(snip); or
(d) in the case of flight time in a glider, or power‑assisted sailplane - (snip)
(e) in the case of flight time in a group A ultralight;
(i) flown by the holder of a pilot certificate, either before or after the certificate was issued to the holder, being a pilot certificate, other than a student certificate, issued by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.; and
(ii) recorded in the holder's logbook and certified by a member of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. who is authorised by that body to certify flight time.
"recognised aeroplane" means an aeroplane:
(a) that is on the register of aircraft kept by a Contracting State; or
(b) that is operated by the Defence Force of Australia or of a Contracting State.
"recognised flight time" means flight time that is:
(a) in the case of flight time in a registered aeroplane, or a recognised aeroplane -- flown by the holder of:
(i) an aeroplane pilot licence; or
(ii) a student pilot licence; or
(iii) an overseas pilot licence that authorises the holder to fly aeroplanes; or
(iv) a pilot qualification issued by the Defence Force of Australia, or of a Contracting State, that authorises the holder to fly aeroplanes as pilot in command or in dual flying; or
(b) in the case of flight time in a helicopter -(snip); or
(c) in the case of flight time in a gyroplane -(snip); or
(d) in the case of flight time in a glider, or power‑assisted sailplane - (snip)
(e) in the case of flight time in a group A ultralight;
(i) flown by the holder of a pilot certificate, either before or after the certificate was issued to the holder, being a pilot certificate, other than a student certificate, issued by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc.; and
(ii) recorded in the holder's logbook and certified by a member of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. who is authorised by that body to certify flight time.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 5.64
Interpretation
In this Division:
"aircraft" means a registered aircraft that is:
(a) an aeroplane; or
(b) a helicopter; or
(c) a gyroplane; or
(d) an airship.
Interpretation
In this Division:
"aircraft" means a registered aircraft that is:
(a) an aeroplane; or
(b) a helicopter; or
(c) a gyroplane; or
(d) an airship.
(1) the phrase "recognised flight time" is not used in either CAR 5.84 (PPLs) or CAR 5.115 (200-hour CPLs); and
(2) Reg 5.64 (above) specifically states that an aircraft for the purposes of ALL of Division 5 is a REGISTERED AIRCRAFT; and
(3) Group A Ultralights are specifically allowed under CAR 5.84, but are not mentioned as allowable in in any way under CAR 5.115
What we are all REALLY wondering about is:
how do CASA define a registered aircraft?
While discussing this with the RAAus Ops Manager this morning, the only matter we agreed upon was that this definition (once included in CAR 2) may be the crux of the argument.
WHY was it omitted?
(in the 1993 edition of the regs, available on the A-G's website, registered was defined as "registered in accordance with these regulations". With the move of CAR Div3 to CASR 47, this def was no longer relevant to the CARs and omitted).
THIS THEN IS MY CONTENTION:
The intention in drafting CAR 5.115 (1) was to allow Helicopter pilots, Gyroplane pilots, Glider pilots, military pilots and foreign pilots to credit their command hours to the command requirements of 5.115(1)(a).
Sub-paras (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(d) then specify that certain experience must be in an aeroplane, as defined in 5.64 specifically as a registered/recognised aeroplane, as opposed to a registered/recognised Glider, registered/recognised Helo, or registered/recognised gyroplane.
ie: ya gotta fly a plank, and a registered or recognised powered plank at that, to get a CPL(A). Once you have the requisite experience you can make it up as per 5.115(4).... but NOT in an Ultralight.
Tonight I received a PM from a learned person not entirely removed from this question, and he (privately) backed my reading. Thank you
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 17th Mar 2010 at 11:23.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the reality is that you are right, as the rules stand, it doesn't count.
Probably some years ago people started complaining about the hours not counting so CASA boss wrote a directive to allow it which was far easier than making a change to the regs. There are many examples out there of these "one off" exemptions.
Probably some years ago people started complaining about the hours not counting so CASA boss wrote a directive to allow it which was far easier than making a change to the regs. There are many examples out there of these "one off" exemptions.