RAA
Arnold - as a CASA school AND a RAAus school I have a commercial interest - but which way? 
Ozbusdriver
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
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:
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:
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!
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 12th Mar 2010 at 11:56.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gtboss:
Unfortunately it is up to each of us to read the regs. Some have different interpretations than others. Call CASA if you are still doubtful after HLs excellent references and explanations. It might well save you a heartache later.
The only way you could get your CPL hours by flying an ultralight is by doing it in another country that does not have the exemptions, such as Czech Republic where a SportStar is on the civil register as they do not have a RAA type organisation and it is a Contracting State. Or maybe South Africa, etc etc.
Arnold E:
To advise someone to ignore the law, especially when their future may well depend on it, is very irresponsible. There is definitely some crap on PPRUNE but there is also gold.
Judge for yourself.
Unfortunately it is up to each of us to read the regs. Some have different interpretations than others. Call CASA if you are still doubtful after HLs excellent references and explanations. It might well save you a heartache later.
The only way you could get your CPL hours by flying an ultralight is by doing it in another country that does not have the exemptions, such as Czech Republic where a SportStar is on the civil register as they do not have a RAA type organisation and it is a Contracting State. Or maybe South Africa, etc etc.
Arnold E:
To advise someone to ignore the law, especially when their future may well depend on it, is very irresponsible. There is definitely some crap on PPRUNE but there is also gold.
Judge for yourself.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I formally declare that I have no (zero) commercial interests in aviation unlike other parties in this discussion and contrary to what Mr Arnold may think.
I am all for reducing the cost of aviation in Australia as long as it is safe and falls within the legalities of the governing bodies.
If anything a precedent has been set with RA-Aus hours having been counted towards and accepted for the issue by CASA of a CPL to the extent of flying schools offering flight time in both aircraft towards obtaining a CPL.
It would be be beneficial to everyone if one of us were to contact the relative authorities to attempt to gain a satisfactory and legal understanding of this. Perhaps if I am "biased" then I should not be the one to do this.
Any volunteers?
I am all for reducing the cost of aviation in Australia as long as it is safe and falls within the legalities of the governing bodies.
If anything a precedent has been set with RA-Aus hours having been counted towards and accepted for the issue by CASA of a CPL to the extent of flying schools offering flight time in both aircraft towards obtaining a CPL.
It would be be beneficial to everyone if one of us were to contact the relative authorities to attempt to gain a satisfactory and legal understanding of this. Perhaps if I am "biased" then I should not be the one to do this.
Any volunteers?
It would be be beneficial to everyone if one of us were to contact the relative authorities
. I have Emailed an officer from the CASA Flight Testing and Training Office - the relevant authority - and will post the reply if and when received.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE] but in this case I would say ignore all of what you see here/QUOTE]
sorry Arnold, it seemed to me this very general comment did exactly that seeing as regulations were quoted directly. I apologise if I misread.
sorry Arnold, it seemed to me this very general comment did exactly that seeing as regulations were quoted directly. I apologise if I misread.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprised there are differing interpretations because I bet when the founders of RAA got together with CASA to reduce the regs and introduce a RECREATIONAL flying category they never imagined that a few years later a bunch of people would try to remove the RECREATION component and set up commercial operations under a RECREATIONAL tag
Never been able to understand the little bits like: Do the GA CASA tests while you get your RECREATION licence. For example when you do your RECREATION licence theory tests shouldn't your answer to Pilot Maintenance refers to the RAA regs and not CASA. So how is that catered for by doing the GA exams.
As for the RA debates about whether or not they should carry radios and other technology, well its about time the term RECREATION was reintroduced. Its about flying from non towered on radio airfields, below 5000ft and staying outside Class A, B, C, D, E airspace. Having fun in cheaper, lighter sportier aircraft without the rules.
RECREATION flying schools should teach pilots how to be part of the RECREATION flying environment
The real problem is that a lot of GA schools will fold because they cant compete with the RECREATIONAL low start up costs - so what happens when all these RAA students go to continue on to CPLs and further when there are not the schools to teach it. The Industry should put some investment back in to the GA schools and help them financially to keep the breeding ground going, and RECREATION should get back to its roots
Off my soapbox now
Yes I do hold GA and RAA tickets, but I am so over the dumb path RECREATION is dragging itself down
Never been able to understand the little bits like: Do the GA CASA tests while you get your RECREATION licence. For example when you do your RECREATION licence theory tests shouldn't your answer to Pilot Maintenance refers to the RAA regs and not CASA. So how is that catered for by doing the GA exams.
As for the RA debates about whether or not they should carry radios and other technology, well its about time the term RECREATION was reintroduced. Its about flying from non towered on radio airfields, below 5000ft and staying outside Class A, B, C, D, E airspace. Having fun in cheaper, lighter sportier aircraft without the rules.
RECREATION flying schools should teach pilots how to be part of the RECREATION flying environment
The real problem is that a lot of GA schools will fold because they cant compete with the RECREATIONAL low start up costs - so what happens when all these RAA students go to continue on to CPLs and further when there are not the schools to teach it. The Industry should put some investment back in to the GA schools and help them financially to keep the breeding ground going, and RECREATION should get back to its roots
Off my soapbox now
Yes I do hold GA and RAA tickets, but I am so over the dumb path RECREATION is dragging itself down
Last edited by onemore; 14th Mar 2010 at 01:19.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that CASA never introduced the proposed "Recreational Licence" that we all spoke of a few years ago. We are referring to an organisation that is responsible for administering Ultralights that just happened to change their name to "Recreational Aviation Australia" to release from the stigma associated with "ultralights" and their perceived safety or lack thereof.
Nothing has changed in terms of the rules and regs regarding ultralights of late, buy we are seeing many individuals attempting to grey the lines between the two disciplines for their own benefits that are not interested in persuing the GA avenue. It will be interesting to see what RAA does next to respond he the cries of the members that want more for less. I sit in both camps but clearly know the boundaries of each (subject to the outcome of this thread).
Nothing has changed in terms of the rules and regs regarding ultralights of late, buy we are seeing many individuals attempting to grey the lines between the two disciplines for their own benefits that are not interested in persuing the GA avenue. It will be interesting to see what RAA does next to respond he the cries of the members that want more for less. I sit in both camps but clearly know the boundaries of each (subject to the outcome of this thread).
Ouch..this is heading for a Kick RAA thread.
I cannot find the words in text. RAA ADMINISTERS recreational aviation for the CASA. RAA do not make the rules nor police them..The rules are all set by the CASA. The contracting state is Australia, the instrument of that contracting state is the REGS, CARS and CASRs The CASA enforces the instrument. RAA administers a part of avaition environment as does the GFA and the Warbirds and the like for the CASA. The rules by which RAA GFA and Warbirds all fly by are set by the CASA not each individual administration.
It all seems to be based upon "Informed Consent"
As for the hours issue in the CARs..I would suggest that AUF/RAA is a child too new to be fully written in to the CARS hence the exemption in CAO95.
As hours are recognised for flying gyrocopters and gliders..why not RAA aircraft. Reality is that a group A ultralight is every bit an aeroplane to fly as a Cessna..even harder to fly because of its design..inertia being the biggest catch out....The experience of flying a C152 or a Jab230 is still no comaprison to what is required to manage the systems of more complex aircraft other than you pull on the stick you go up, pull further and you will eventually go down again.
If there is an ambiguity in the Regs then the Regs need looking at...and that is the CASAs job...it just may take another hundred years before they get off their collective buns and actually do something about the regulation re-write.
I cannot find the words in text. RAA ADMINISTERS recreational aviation for the CASA. RAA do not make the rules nor police them..The rules are all set by the CASA. The contracting state is Australia, the instrument of that contracting state is the REGS, CARS and CASRs The CASA enforces the instrument. RAA administers a part of avaition environment as does the GFA and the Warbirds and the like for the CASA. The rules by which RAA GFA and Warbirds all fly by are set by the CASA not each individual administration.
It all seems to be based upon "Informed Consent"
As for the hours issue in the CARs..I would suggest that AUF/RAA is a child too new to be fully written in to the CARS hence the exemption in CAO95.
As hours are recognised for flying gyrocopters and gliders..why not RAA aircraft. Reality is that a group A ultralight is every bit an aeroplane to fly as a Cessna..even harder to fly because of its design..inertia being the biggest catch out....The experience of flying a C152 or a Jab230 is still no comaprison to what is required to manage the systems of more complex aircraft other than you pull on the stick you go up, pull further and you will eventually go down again.
If there is an ambiguity in the Regs then the Regs need looking at...and that is the CASAs job...it just may take another hundred years before they get off their collective buns and actually do something about the regulation re-write.
As for the hours issue in the CARs..I would suggest that AUF/RAA is a child too new to be fully written in to the CARS hence the exemption in CAO95.
CAR 5.86 specifically nominates Group A Ultralights.
CAR 5.115(4) specifically does not.
CAR 2 defines a Group A Ultralight:
"group A ultralight" means an aircraft that is classified by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. as a group A ultralight.
As hours are recognised for flying gyrocopters and gliders..why not RAA aircraft.
However, if you will permit:
1/. Gliders ARE registered aircraft on the VH- register
2/. Gyroplanes are also able to be VH-registered and you are able to hold a CPL(Gyroplane).
As onemore said,
RECREATION flying schools should teach pilots how to be part of the RECREATION flying environment
If you read CAO 95.55 it allows Ultralight aircraft to opt out of nearly half the CARs: Part 3 (Registration, now in the CASRs), Part 4 (Maintenance) and Part 5 (Licencing).
Those controls and regulations are there to ensure a minimum standard and are policed by CASA. CASA inspectors conduct ramp checks, do flight tests, audit operators, approve syllabi, inspect aircraft, the list goes on.
Many RAAus schools operate to GA standards and procedures and I am certain that there are many RAAus schools which maintain a higher standard than some GA GA schools.
But the point is, the GA schools are overseen and controlled by CASA and so CASA can vouch that the school meets the minimum applicable standard for an ICAO-compliant flying school.
RAAUs schools are not directly overseen by CASA. CASA does not approve the school's syllabus or student administration systems, they do not set the examinations or administer the examination system. Yes, RAAus inspectors do all those things for RAAus schools ... but that's the point, they aren't CASA inspectors and they don't hold CASA delegations. They aren't CASA.
Reality is that a group A ultralight is every bit an aeroplane to fly as a Cessna.
Ouch..this is heading for a Kick RAA thread.
I cannot find the words in text.
I did an Aviation degree in the early 1990s and got a Distinction in Aviation Law (the only one in my undergraduate career. Ienjoyed it and was good at it). 5 years later as a Chief Pilot I found that I was regularly disagreeing with the local CASA guys over interpretation of the CAOs and Regs. They were all good pilots and experienced pilots but not lawyers and sometimes laboured under misapprehensions or perpetuated myths. Occasionally I suspect they made it up on the spot based on what seemed reasonable
I started studying law so that I could win those arguments. These days if I disagree with the local blokes (very rare) I explain my interpretation clearly and CC it to CASA legal dept. I dunno if they ever get it or read it but I usually win the argument!
Last edited by Horatio Leafblower; 14th Mar 2010 at 03:01.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch..this is heading for a Kick RAA thread.
Call me old fashioned but I love the RA-Aus mission statement and I just want it to remain
To foster, encourage and develop safe Recreational Aviation in Australia with minimum bureaucracy and minimum cost.
Last edited by onemore; 14th Mar 2010 at 01:30.
Wow, this old chestnut again.
I was formerly of the belief that the RAAus hours could be counted towards the CPL, as this was my interpretation of the regs and I worked for a school which was of the same opinion. However, you raise some very valid points Mr Leafblower.
I look forward to reading your response from CASA on the issue
I was formerly of the belief that the RAAus hours could be counted towards the CPL, as this was my interpretation of the regs and I worked for a school which was of the same opinion. However, you raise some very valid points Mr Leafblower.
I look forward to reading your response from CASA on the issue
HL, I would demur to your opinion.
Would be interesting to see what the CASA has to say to clarify this situation. In fact, it may well direct my son's efforts toward the more expensive GA route.
Would be interesting to see what the CASA has to say to clarify this situation. In fact, it may well direct my son's efforts toward the more expensive GA route.
Just to add...my opinion of the CAO95 exemption was to allow the legitimacy of ultralight aviation. The CASA led the world on this regard. There is a lot more history to how this came about. "Opting Out" would be reserved for those of VH registered machines reverting to RAA reg.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HMS Nabsford
Age: 51
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HLB may not like it but there are schools all over oz training to CPL with a big chunk of the time on RAA. 5 minutes on the web will confirm this... then I suggest a couple of phone calls tomorrow to the schools.