RAA

[gtboss16]

Could someone please tell me the pros and cons about an RAA licence and if i was going to go further into a CPL is it worth it?

I have flown a C172 for like 12 hours, so i wouldnt mine trying various aircrafts...
plus its a cheaper way

any thoughts?

[Horatio Leafblower]

The following is based on what we charge and assuming minimum hours because that's the only way to compare apples with small apples.

Up to 40 RAAus hours may be counted towards the 40 hours required for a PPL.

From my calculations (see above), RAAus with XC and Radio saves you about $1200 over a PPL.

When you then jump into a GA aircraft and have to learn how to handle the bigger/heavier machine, how to use radio navaids, how to handle controlled airspace AND do all the exams (because RAAus exams aren't acceptable to CASA) you have burnt up all the money you "saved" and then some.

Then there is the issue with RAAus and Commercial Pilot Licence requirements - we discussed this in the last 2 weeks - RAAus time cannot be counted towards your CPL (CAR 115(4) refers).

[VH-XXX]

HLB, haven't we done this to death only to come back to the fact that you can do up to 100 hours in RA-Aus for obtaining a CPL ? (with the remainder being GA time) 100 RAA + 100 GA = 200.

[Homesick-Angel]

Ive flown a fair bit in both RA and GA..

I chose to do my training at a school that caters for both so that the transition would be easier, and it was as they already knew my flying ability, and i knew their instructors.It certainly saved me a fair bit of cash, but im never doing the sums on how much it cost me to fly.I did it once and came down with the sweats..

When I crossed over to larger heavier GA aircraft i found the actual flying easier overall compared to the lighter RA Planes and found the extra weight helpful particularly with landings..Yeah there was a bit of learning nav aids etc and a few other odds and ends but it wasnt too much of a stretch at PPL level..
I did find simming very helpful for nav aid practice and general instrument practice..(That and asking a thousand questions of anyone who would listen or not avoid me when i walked toward them pen and paper in hand..)

The last time I checked there were a certain number of hours that you could put towards your cpl or generally counted as GA hours but Horatio's post is news to me and i hope not correct!..You will however need a cetain amount of time in GA aircraft(again cant remember the exact hours or times and im far too lazy to go look today)**posted this only to spot the above post afterwards**

Overall Im glad that I have experience in both and would suggest it because i think there is a movement toward the Light sport/RA categories and it is well worth having some time in them especially if you plan to instruct down the track..My guess is that within 5-10 years most schools that want to be financially viable will be training in either LS categories or RAA..

Hope that helps some..

Good luck.

[Horatio Leafblower]

No XXX - I will find my post from last month and paste it here because I don't have time to spell it out again:

How much do you spend?

Thank you for the query - as CFI of both a CPL school and a RAAus school I was pretty confident of my ground. I have revisited the regs and I am still confident - although somewhat less so!


5.104 (1) (f) (ii): A CPL holder must have the experience described in 5.111 or (snip) 5.115

5.111 - a "150 hour" CPL must be flown in a registered aircraft (ie: VH-)

5.115 - must have 100 hours PIC, and 100 hours in a registered (VH-) or recognised (ie: military) aeroplane.

This is where the ambiguity comes in: subregulation 5.115 (4) stipulates that additional flight time to make up the total 200 hours must be flown in:
(a) a registered (VH-) aeroplane;
(b) a recognised (mil) aeroplane;
(c) a Helicopter;
(d) a gyroplane; or
(e) a glider (other than a hang glider).

Although Reg (2) stipulates what RAAus "recognised flight time" is, Reg 5.115 (4) does not list recognised RAAus flight time as an option.

Para (1) (b), (c) and (d) all make explicit reference to a recognised or registered aeroplane, while (1)(a) does not. 5.115(3) and (4) stipulate just about anything except an RAAus aircraft.

Having accrued the experience in (1)b/c/d you then need to make up the 200 hours in a VH aircraft. Are you suggesting that, having accrued 100 hours of RAAus experience before your CPL training you can avoid that requirement, but cannot accrue 100 hours of RAAus time to satisfy that after you satisfy 5.115(1)?

I am not saying you are wrong, nor that I am right -but I think my interpretation is more consistent than yours.

Cheers

..and then I said...

Further to my last:

This is extracted from the CASA Flight Crew Licencing Procedure Handbook:

Chapter 3.6 Aeroplane Pilot Licences
Page 3-31

:
• 150 hours total flown [all in aeroplanes (A)], to
an approved commercial syllabus including:
❍ 70 PIC
❍ 20 cross-country PIC
❍ 10 instrument flight
or
• 200 hours total, including:
❍ 100 PIC *
❍ 100 general (A)
❍ 20 cross-country PIC (A)
❍ 10 instrument flight (A).
* Can be in registered or recognised aeroplanes,
helicopters, gyroplane or gliders (other than hanggliders
or power-assisted sailplane).

I am much more sure of my ground now than I was then!

[VH-XXX]

❍ 100 general (A)

Isn't this 100 general part referring to 100 hours in GROUP A 3-Axis aircraft including ultralight?


It's all too hard. There are people out there with CPL's that should have them revoked if this is correct.

It would be great if you could call or email the regulator and ask but they won't put their butt on the line to give an answer these days. I'm still waiting to hear if you can legally learn to fly in an experimental aircraft including ab-initio EVEN THOUGH in the regs it clearly says that you can

[Horatio Leafblower]

XXX

CAR 5.84 (2), referring to the PPL, states:

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.

CAR 5.111 (2), referring to the 150 hour course ("Commercially trained persons"), states:

(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), the 150 hours must be flown in a registered aeroplane and must include:
(a) 70 hours flight time as Pilot in Command... (etc)

ie: VH registered only.

CAR 5.115(1) states:

For the purposes of subparagraph 5.104(1)(f)(ii), the aeronautical experience ... 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) (XC time); and
(d) (IF time)

If you comply with 5.115(1) in less than 200 hours, you must then make up the hours according to 5.115(3) and 5.115(4) in;

(a) a registered aeroplane;
(b) a recognised aeroplane;
(c) a helicopter;
(d) a gyroplane;
(e) a glider (other than a hang glider).

Firstly, note that where CAR 5.84 specifically includes "Group A Ultralights" as an option for the PPL, CAR 5.115 (for the CPL) does not.

Secondly, 5.115(3) tells us that if we start our training in VH- and satisfy the requirements of (1) in less than 200 hours TT, we must finish the 200 hours in VH- (or otherwise, as per (4), above).

Are you telling me that we can circumvent that by starting in RAAus, then finishing in VH?

Such a reading would be inconsistent to say the least and contrary to the basic principles of legislative interpretation.

[VH-XXX]

For the purposes of subparagraph 5.104(1)(f)(ii), the aeronautical experience ... 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) (XC time); and
(d) (IF time)

Ok, well how about this?

The paragraph above clearly says:

(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

Where does it say that 100 hours as PIC must be in a Registered aeroplane?

It doesn't.

This could mean:

100 hours PIC in a Group A Ultralight or Czech registered Crop-Duster
and
100 hours in a registered aeroplane.

Nowhere does it say:

100 hours as PIC in a registered aeroplane
and
100 hours in a registered aeroplane

and again...

This is where the ambiguity comes in: subregulation 5.115 (4) stipulates that additional flight time to make up the total 200 hours must be flown in:
(a) a registered (VH-) aeroplane;
(b) a recognised (mil) aeroplane;
(c) a Helicopter;
(d) a gyroplane; or
(e) a glider (other than a hang glider).

This paragraph talks about MAKING UP the remaining time in VH or recognised, it doesn't stipulate that the first 100 must be in such an aircraft.


Over to you......

[Horatio Leafblower]

As I said above

XXX - Exactly - making up the hours you must use GA aircraft, Helos, Gyros, Gliders. NOT RAAus.

As I said Above:

Are you telling me that we can circumvent that by starting in RAAus, then finishing in VH?

Such a reading would be inconsistent to say the least and contrary to the basic principles of legislative interpretation.

If it was the intention of the legislature that you could use Group A Ultralights to log time towards a CPL, they would have stated so - as they did for the PPL.

Back to you

[VH-XXX]

It would appear from your statement that you agree with me.

XXX - Exactly - making up the hours you must use GA aircraft, Helos, Gyros, Gliders. NOT RAAus.

So 100 hours in essentially "anything" as PIC and the remainder in a GA aircraft.

Pretty simple stuff when you look at it like that.

If it was the intention of the legislature that you could use Group A Ultralights to log time towards a CPL, they would have stated so - as they did for the PPL.

That is an assumption and you can't go making assumptions here when we are talking about financial implications for other members of PPRune.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Sorry XXX, read it again.

How could what you propose be logically consistent?

The CAR requires you to amass the requisite experience for a CPL(AEROPLANE), including 100 hours in a registered AEROPLANE or a recognised AEROPLANE.

ie: You cannot do 190 hours in a recognised HELICOPTER or a registered GLIDER, top it up with 10 hours in a C182 and get your CPL(A).

There must be at least 100 hours of experience in a powered, heavier-than-air, fixed-wing, REAL aeroplane. The rest can be any of the things listed in (4).

If it was the intention of the legislature that you could use Group A Ultralights to log time towards a CPL, they would have stated so - as they did for the PPL.

That is an assumption and you can't go making assumptions here when we are talking about financial implications for other members of PPRuNe.

Bugger me I had better ask for the money back on my Dip Law. It ain't an assumption and I invite you to refer to the Acts Interpretation Act (1901), or refer to any number of excellent basic law texts. In particular I recommend Cook et al, Laying Down the Law 5th Ed, Ch 9.

Get it?
Got it?
Good!

Now that I have that sorted, where's that bottle of Red?

[Ultralights]

[OZBUSDRIVER]

HTB...you say

(b) a recognised (mil) aeroplane;

Whilst the quote from XXX

For the purposes of subparagraph 5.104(1)(f)(ii), the aeronautical experience ... 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) (XC time); and
(d) (IF time)

Which is as I have found written here Flight Crew Licencing Procedures

HTB, you misconstrue "recognised military experience" (your inference to experience in (b)) to mean recognised (mil) aircraft which is not the case. A class A ultralight is a recognised aircraft. Methinks your interpretation will lead people astray. 100hrs recognised plus 100hrs VH is the go.

AND, the advice I give my son...get RAA up to area endorsment...do all the CASA BAK and PPL subjects, recognised by RAA...then convert to VH and use both licences as you see fit. VH for aerobat and airspace issues and RAA to keep flying if you are dumb enough not to renew your medical in time. He wants to go LAME so will be very handy for him to have a certificate in both camps. If he goes on to CPL(A) then the issue is 100hrs of the RAA will go toward half his experience minimum as compared to a sausage factory licence.(EDIT- I do not trust the product from these schools...I have YET to see a good grade3..to what I consider a good standard... come out of such a school)

Face value..you should save at least a third of your costs compared to 100%CASA licence training. You still have to watch your schools like a hawk to ensure you are not being dudded with extra hours of training, regardless of RAA or GA.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Ozbusdriver,

HTB, you misconstrue "recognised military experience" (your inference to experience in (b)) to mean recognised (mil) aircraft which is not the case. A class A ultralight is a recognised aircraft.

I beg to differ.

CAR 5.115 (dealing with the experience required for a CPL (Aeroplanes) does not mention "recognised military experience" - it refers to a registered aeroplane or a recognised aeroplane.

A registered aeroplane is simple enough.

CAR 2 defines a recognised aeroplane as:

"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.

How would an RAAus aircraft fit into that definition?

You will find the quote from XXX is in fact a quote from my earlier post (#7 of this thread)

Sorry old bean - you can't just cast an eye over it and give it whatever spin you like. Read it again, and read my posts again.

[VH-XXX]

Here you go:

http://www.icao.int/fsix/AuditReps/i...ia_1999_en.pdf

ICAO SUMMARY REPORT AUDIT OF THE CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY OF AUSTRALIA. (these guys sound credible enough for this discussion)

STATUS OF DIFFERENCES TO ICAO STANDARDS
(ANNEX 1 — PERSONNEL LICENSING)
Note: This list incorporates differences previously notified by Australia. (**) Indicates a difference which should be endorsed on the licence in application of Article 39 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.

2.3.1.3.2 (**) CAR5.84 There is no requirement that the flight experience for the PPL-A licence be
gained on an aeroplane.
2.4.1.3.1.1 (**)
CAR 5.115 The command time requirement for the CPL licence may be gained on an aircraft category other than aeroplane.

There you have it. Under ICAO it must be a registered / recognised aircraft and under CASA rules, it doesn't.


I rest my case your honour / worship / magesty, however I may wish to cross-examine if any further evidence is presented.

[VH-XXX]

PS OZBusDriver, what you are proposing for your son is a very sensible route, as in LAME's with RA-Aus and PPL are worth their weight in gold to a maintenance organisation and I think make much better mechanics than those without a licence. I get fed up of these guys that will fix aircraft but refuse to fly in them.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

HTB

(a) that is on the register of aircraft kept by a Contracting State

Even by inference, a register held by the RAA is a register held by the CASA.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

and by definition=

responsible organisation means:
(a) the responsible authority of a Contracting State; or
Federal Register of Legislative Instruments F2009C00991
Part 1 Preliminary
Regulation 2
36 Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
(b) the Defence Force of Australia, or of a Contracting State;
or
(c) a sport aviation body.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Gents,

"Inference" doesn't cut it.

ICAO SUMMARY REPORT AUDIT OF THE CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY OF AUSTRALIA.

- This isn't legislation, it's an Auditor's report. Get me a copy of ICAO FLS Annex 1 and we'll discuss ICAO requirements, but until you have that document you cannot credibly define any of the terminology used in that report.

BACK TO THE AUSTRALIAN LAW THEN!

"Aircraft" is defined at CAR 5.64 thus:

"aircraft" means a registered aircraft that is:
(a) an aeroplane; or
(b) a helicopter; or
(c) a gyroplane; or
(d) an airship.

Each of those headings (a) through (d) is an aircraft category. Hence, we have the categories of licence: CPL(A), CPL(H), CPL(G) and CPL (airship).

That Australia allows a CPL to be issued on the basis of flight time from another CATEGORY is clear, and is the source of your confusion. CAR 5.115(4) refers.

An "Ultralight aircraft" is not a different category of aircraft; it is an aeroplane the same as a Cessna C152, which is why you are explicity permitted to count ultralight time towards a PPL(A).

If CAR 5.86 specifically names Group A Ultralights as being acceptable for accruing flight time for a PPL(A), why does CAR 5.115(4) list everything except ultralights?

Over to you guys - I can talk Av Law all night

[Arnold E]

gtboss16 what you have here is some people that have a reason to tell you what they are telling you. They have a commercial interest in what they are saying. I would normally say, take care in what you take on board, but in this case I would say ignore all of what you see here