RAA Increased Height, Weight and Water
...get rid of all these redundant groups that just foster the "us and them" mentality...
History seems to show one of the problems.
We probably wouldn't have todays ultralights if there were no ultralight focused management crew (todays RAA) pushing fer a better deal for 'ultralights'.
Interestingly, a couple of years ago i heard of suggestions of forming a breakaway 95-10 group as there were a belief that the current RAA management had lost sight of cheap basic flying.. and so it goes.....
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Why not just introduce a recreational license, limit it to a few pax and say 2000kg for liability reasons, provide endorsements for LSA/microlights/gliders/CTA etc and get rid of all these redundant groups that just foster the "us and them" mentality.
I think this is what you are reffering to. If you really think its worth it write to Mr McCormick and ask him to get the RPL back on the table. Its a worthy cause indeed. Of course T28D would say I am being self serving or something, but I reckon he and many others will need this at least 20 years before I do
.As for the us and them, well if an RPL could also cover RAA/Gliders and unmedicalled GA, well that would chop a big whole in the income stream of a certain group of "rent seekers" that some folk seem to be defending quite a lot around here. Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is.
Jake.f
If you are 17......that would explain the level of understanding of the complex nature of all this aviation stuff. And yes it all should be simpler. But if you listen to Frank, you comments can only be seen as anecdotal, where as his comments are his valued observations from 50 years in the game. So just be careful what you agree with.......
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
There seems to be a lot of people with the 100 hour VFR/ 1000 hour IFR hour "expert" syndrome. Reckon raising the bar to their level should be made mandatory.
Reminds me of a well told story of a Blackbird pilot requesting FL 600 and the ATCO snidely asking how he thought he was going to climb to that altitude.
Answer came back, "requesting descent buddy".
You'll all come down one day, depends on what you learn while you're up there that determines the landing.
Good luck listening to young experts. I'm still alive, had an equal number of take offs and landings, so I must be doing something right.
EDIT for Jake;
The Recreational Pilot Licence was a great idea but like a lot of things it got corrupted on the way. There was a Restricted PPL once, bastardised into a GFPT that needed an instructor to sign you out on the day. This should and could have formed the basis of a sensible licence. CASA unfortunately couldn't get their ducks in a row and we now fly recreational aircraft on "instruments" or "exemptions" to existing rules. God only knows why there is a weight factor.
Reminds me of a well told story of a Blackbird pilot requesting FL 600 and the ATCO snidely asking how he thought he was going to climb to that altitude.
Answer came back, "requesting descent buddy".
You'll all come down one day, depends on what you learn while you're up there that determines the landing.
Good luck listening to young experts. I'm still alive, had an equal number of take offs and landings, so I must be doing something right.
EDIT for Jake;
The Recreational Pilot Licence was a great idea but like a lot of things it got corrupted on the way. There was a Restricted PPL once, bastardised into a GFPT that needed an instructor to sign you out on the day. This should and could have formed the basis of a sensible licence. CASA unfortunately couldn't get their ducks in a row and we now fly recreational aircraft on "instruments" or "exemptions" to existing rules. God only knows why there is a weight factor.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank
I have not seen one post suggesting anything like that in this entire thread. Of course I am one of many wanting the bar raised in a few areas, for the good of all, mostly those needing it of course. Do not confuse the two.
Yep, thats you and we are listening to you Frank. And as a result mine all tally up the same too. And the last couple were pearlers in the dark and strong X-winds, so my good luck must be about to run out 
Onto more serious stuff....
Frank as you have a great depth of history for a young fella , I would be keen to hear what it is you know of this RPL concept that has been buried for so long. Like I said, its not something I need at this point in time but I know some of you more "experienced" folk have some reasons for wanting one sooner rather than later.
I think its a great concept indeed. I do not think it should be run by a third party group like the RAA or anyone else. It needs to be a CASA run licence just like PPL/CPL etc.
frank with all your years of wisdom you have not figured that out.....coz give an inch and they will take a nautical mile
J
There seems to be a lot of people with the 100 hour VFR/ 1000 hour IFR hour "expert" syndrome. Reckon raising the bar to their level should be made mandatory.
Good luck listening to young experts. I'm still alive, had an equal number of take offs and landings, so I must be doing something right.
Onto more serious stuff....
The Recreational Pilot Licence was a great idea but like a lot of things it got corrupted on the way.
, I would be keen to hear what it is you know of this RPL concept that has been buried for so long. Like I said, its not something I need at this point in time but I know some of you more "experienced" folk have some reasons for wanting one sooner rather than later.I think its a great concept indeed. I do not think it should be run by a third party group like the RAA or anyone else. It needs to be a CASA run licence just like PPL/CPL etc.
God only knows why there is a weight factor.
J
...if an RPL could also cover RAA/Gliders and unmedicalled GA, well that would chop a big whole in the income stream of a certain group of "rent seekers" that some folk seem to be defending quite a lot around here. Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is...
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 19th May 2011 at 09:22.
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
A bloke I saw did a restricted pilot licence on his own Citation. Likewise a bloke with a Mooney and others who owned Austers and cessnas.
The only difference between that and an unrestricted PPL was an area endorsement cancellation. There was no need for an instructor to sign you out as long as you didn't fly out of the immediate training area. There was no weight restriction except to the limit of a CPL/ ATPL licence.
The original recreational concept was covered by the restricted licence, sans medical with upgrades. It would have allowed glider tug pilots, for instance, to tow gliders without having to do the NAVEX and MET part of the licence which they didn't need.
Who is the "they". Sounds a bit elitist to me. What would it matter to you if "they" flew a B52 within the confines of the "training area". Why can't a GFA pilot fly a Hamilcar glider. Why can a GFA pilot fly a 1000 KG motorglider with a Rotax to FL350 and an RAA aircraft certificate holder can't.
From memory one Bill McGonagle, CAA. (spelling), could put you right on the original concept details.
The only difference between that and an unrestricted PPL was an area endorsement cancellation. There was no need for an instructor to sign you out as long as you didn't fly out of the immediate training area. There was no weight restriction except to the limit of a CPL/ ATPL licence.
The original recreational concept was covered by the restricted licence, sans medical with upgrades. It would have allowed glider tug pilots, for instance, to tow gliders without having to do the NAVEX and MET part of the licence which they didn't need.
give an inch and they will take
From memory one Bill McGonagle, CAA. (spelling), could put you right on the original concept details.
The 'restricted' PPL lost favour with CASA/CAA/DCA because pilots were turning up the opposite side of Oz with just an RPPL. The thinking was that the GFPT process kept the pilot a 'student' - and that would keep them home. It seems to have worked. It's just made more unpaid work for instructors.
The RPL has nothing to do with the old RPPL. The proposed RPL is sans medical, night,IFR,CTA - the old RPPL required the full Cl2 med.
The RPL is alive & well via SAAA, who are still pushing for it.
As proposed by others - if CASA are going to make an industry decision, it should make any 'recreational' flying come under a single ticket...perhaps with weight and a few other limits.
happy days,
The RPL has nothing to do with the old RPPL. The proposed RPL is sans medical, night,IFR,CTA - the old RPPL required the full Cl2 med.
The RPL is alive & well via SAAA, who are still pushing for it.
As proposed by others - if CASA are going to make an industry decision, it should make any 'recreational' flying come under a single ticket...perhaps with weight and a few other limits.
happy days,
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't understand the opposition to a CTA endorsement. Many other countries (with much busier airspace) let sub-ICAO pilots fly in CTA, what's so special about Australia?
If people are worried about rogue operators granting it willy-nilly, then require a CASA or GA instructor checkride or something.
My guess is it's mainly an ego-thing - "I had to pay $300/hr for a PPL, so should you".
If people are worried about rogue operators granting it willy-nilly, then require a CASA or GA instructor checkride or something.
My guess is it's mainly an ego-thing - "I had to pay $300/hr for a PPL, so should you".
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
it should make any 'recreational' flying come under a single ticket.
lost favour with CASA/CAA/DCA because pilots were turning up the opposite side of Oz with just an RPPL
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jabawocky, i thought yer flew a VH rego'd aircraft ? Whats the $170 for ?
You are truly a thick moron, if you had paid attention for the last sevral years, including recent posts, I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
Just shows me how much you know..........FARKALL. Now why is it when you research all the AGW stuff, you actually read and use your brain.....or is that all just a big fluke?
Now stick to the meat and potato's of the thread would ya!
Frank
Who is the "they". Sounds a bit elitist to me. What would it matter to you if "they" flew a B52 within the confines of the "training area". Why can't a GFA pilot fly a Hamilcar glider. Why can a GFA pilot fly a 1000 KG motorglider with a Rotax to FL350 and an RAA aircraft certificate holder can't.
"they" means anyone in GA mostly, but for that matter it boils down to the bulk of society. Stop reading with a guilty concience, because your responses seem to be that way.
Superdimona
My guess is it's mainly an ego-thing - "I had to pay $300/hr for a PPL, so should you".
As a thought in the USA there is no NVFR as we know it. So if you want to fly at night VFR in the USA what do you need to do? Do you think that is wise? I like many of the FAA rulings etc, but that one I do not. I think it's the cause of many deaths.
So Frank.......I asked you a serious well meaning question about something you gave the impression to know plenty about, yet so far only poteroo has commented on, let alone answered.
So what can you educate me with mate. This is a serious genuine question. Not a petty point scoring battle.
J
here we go again.........yet again... hang on where is Binghi's favourite smiley face..
You are truly a thick moron, if you had paid attention for the last sevral years, including recent posts, I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
Just shows me how much you know..........FARKALL. Now why is it when you research all the AGW stuff, you actually read and use your brain.....or is that all just a big fluke?
Now stick to the meat and potato's of the thread would ya!
You are truly a thick moron, if you had paid attention for the last sevral years, including recent posts, I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
Just shows me how much you know..........FARKALL. Now why is it when you research all the AGW stuff, you actually read and use your brain.....or is that all just a big fluke?
Now stick to the meat and potato's of the thread would ya!
.
Poteroo:
Without wishing to start another fight, there is a difference between cruising around your "patch" in good weather, far from controlled airspace, and actually touring with something like a rough schedule, to places reasonably far away that you may not necessarily be all that familiar with, where you have to take the weather as it comes and make that decision about staying or going multiple times.
By the way, does NAIPS accept plans from RAA registered aircraft?
The 'restricted' PPL lost favour with CASA/CAA/DCA because pilots were turning up the opposite side of Oz with just an RPPL. The thinking was that the GFPT process kept the pilot a 'student' - and that would keep them home. It seems to have worked. It's just made more unpaid work for instructors.
By the way, does NAIPS accept plans from RAA registered aircraft?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT
And yes I know I should stop feeding the troll, but for the readers out there check this out.........
Jaba says
And Jaba also says......
And Binghi Buzz Bomber says
So viewers.......tell me if I am completely nuts, apart from biting at the trolls taunts, and feeding him more, did I not say why I keep the RAA ticket even if I do not NEED it, heck I don't NEED a CIR either, but its damned useful I must say. And when did I complain about $170. At least the $170 from RAA gets me some value unlike the CASA fees and worse still the ASIC
So Buzz Off Mrs/Mr Buzz Bomber, go back to trolling and annoying the greenie and whatever other forums you frequent, or have you now been banned from all of them?
........
Or are you trying to distract Frank from replying to my question? Where have we all seen this tactic before? I wonder
And yes I know I should stop feeding the troll, but for the readers out there check this out.........
Jaba says
Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is. 
I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
Sooo, Jabawocky, to get to 'the meat and potatoes' yer complaining about paying for something that you dont really need..
So Buzz Off Mrs/Mr Buzz Bomber, go back to trolling and annoying the greenie and whatever other forums you frequent, or have you now been banned from all of them?
........
Or are you trying to distract Frank from replying to my question? Where have we all seen this tactic before? I wonder
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
Jabawocky;
Stop being a big girls blouse.
You asked:
I answered that Bill McGonagle ex CAA could better advise you. I understand he comes from up your way. I last had correspondence from him regarding another (PIFR) matter about 1993.
My understanding of it was to basically re-name the RPPL and as the endorsements were achieved it gradually evolved into a fully fledged UPPL. Unfortunately someone decided a GFPT was a good idea.
I believe I also mentioned I can't recall how any weight considerations came into being except perhaps to bring RA-Aus/ AUF into the fold with the ability to fly sans medical.
It may also have had something with the regulator divesting itself of the administrative burden and eventually saw RA-Aus as the only credible organisation able to carry out that function.
Such I would suggest that is something CASA got right.
LeadSled may have some information. Perhaps Dick Smith recalls the concept?
In conclusion, we must make the best of what we have now. This now approximates a standard set in the US which appears to be well received by them and aircraft manufacturers world wide appear to embrace building aircraft to meet with that demand.
My one wish is for the RA-Aus certificate to become a licence. This won't happpen until CASA write the "exemptions" into law and complete the Regulatory Review process.
Stop being a big girls blouse.
You asked:
Frank as you have a great depth of history for a young fella 
, I would be keen to hear what it is you know of this RPL concept that has been buried for so long. Like I said, its not something I need at this point in time but I know some of you more "experienced" folk have some reasons for wanting one sooner rather than later.
, I would be keen to hear what it is you know of this RPL concept that has been buried for so long. Like I said, its not something I need at this point in time but I know some of you more "experienced" folk have some reasons for wanting one sooner rather than later.
My understanding of it was to basically re-name the RPPL and as the endorsements were achieved it gradually evolved into a fully fledged UPPL. Unfortunately someone decided a GFPT was a good idea.
I believe I also mentioned I can't recall how any weight considerations came into being except perhaps to bring RA-Aus/ AUF into the fold with the ability to fly sans medical.
It may also have had something with the regulator divesting itself of the administrative burden and eventually saw RA-Aus as the only credible organisation able to carry out that function.
Such I would suggest that is something CASA got right.
LeadSled may have some information. Perhaps Dick Smith recalls the concept?
In conclusion, we must make the best of what we have now. This now approximates a standard set in the US which appears to be well received by them and aircraft manufacturers world wide appear to embrace building aircraft to meet with that demand.
My one wish is for the RA-Aus certificate to become a licence. This won't happpen until CASA write the "exemptions" into law and complete the Regulatory Review process.
.
.............
Jabawocky, it is interesting to note your complaints about paying $170 fer something yer dont really need. How do you think ultralight aircraft owners would feel about paying thousands of dollars for them ADS-B thingy's that they dont need ?.........
..........
.
.............
TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT
And yes I know I should stop feeding the troll, but for the readers out there check this out.........
Jaba says Quote:
Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is.
And Jaba also says...... Quote:
I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
And Binghi Buzz Bomber says Quote:
Sooo, Jabawocky, to get to 'the meat and potatoes' yer complaining about paying for something that you dont really need..
So viewers.......tell me if I am completely nuts, apart from biting at the trolls taunts, and feeding him more, did I not say why I keep the RAA ticket even if I do not NEED it, heck I don't NEED a CIR either, but its damned useful I must say. And when did I complain about $170. At least the $170 from RAA gets me some value unlike the CASA fees and worse still the ASIC
So Buzz Off Mrs/Mr Buzz Bomber, go back to trolling and annoying the greenie and whatever other forums you frequent, or have you now been banned from all of them?
........
Or are you trying to distract Frank from replying to my question? Where have we all seen this tactic before? I wonder
And yes I know I should stop feeding the troll, but for the readers out there check this out.........
Jaba says Quote:
Would save me $170 a year or whatever the fee is.
And Jaba also says...... Quote:
I do actually maintain a RAA licence as well, why? Well just so happens on the odd occassion I have friends, well people I know who want me to fly for whatever reason their MM-NNNN registered aircraft. So I keep it current, I get a magazine which sometimes has good articles in it (more than crash comic does) and overall......I just do.
And Binghi Buzz Bomber says Quote:
Sooo, Jabawocky, to get to 'the meat and potatoes' yer complaining about paying for something that you dont really need..
So viewers.......tell me if I am completely nuts, apart from biting at the trolls taunts, and feeding him more, did I not say why I keep the RAA ticket even if I do not NEED it, heck I don't NEED a CIR either, but its damned useful I must say. And when did I complain about $170. At least the $170 from RAA gets me some value unlike the CASA fees and worse still the ASIC
So Buzz Off Mrs/Mr Buzz Bomber, go back to trolling and annoying the greenie and whatever other forums you frequent, or have you now been banned from all of them?
........
Or are you trying to distract Frank from replying to my question? Where have we all seen this tactic before? I wonder
Jabawocky, it is interesting to note your complaints about paying $170 fer something yer dont really need. How do you think ultralight aircraft owners would feel about paying thousands of dollars for them ADS-B thingy's that they dont need ?.........
..........
.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: au
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like something like: this. I think the UK has it right. With the training, their NPPL grants all the privs that a recreational flyer realistically wants.
We have a 2 main paths for powered recreational flying: RAA and PPLs. The problem is the RAA was supposed to be about ultralights, but has been flooded with people trying to escape from the expense of GA flying. They now outnumber true 'ultralight' pilots, and are pushing RAA into 'GA lite'.
This isn't a great system for anyone. The 'GA-lite' folk are annoyed by what they see as unnecessary restrictions (no CTA endo, weight limits etc). The ultralight pilots are worried that by pushung for less restrictions, CASA will look harder at the RAA and make their life a misery. The PPLs are (perhaps rightly) concerned that the more 'carefree' RAA pilots shouldn't be anywhere near CTA.
We should ask ourself "What privileges do most recreational pilots (eg anyone that flys for pleasure, not the artificial 'recreational' definition we have at the moment) actually need?" And once we work out the answer, figure out what they need to know to do so safely.
Most recreational flyers will never use the full freedoms (IFR rating, 5700kg, multiple engine rating) that can come with a PPL. My guess is most PPLs will never fly anything more then a SE 4-seater, and will not often undertake navs that cost a weeks wages. Why not make a license suitable for them, then leave the RAA to worry about ultralights. Or better yet allow ultralight, glider etc ratings to be added to it (oops, this might bankrupt the GFA/RAA - we can't have that).
We have a 2 main paths for powered recreational flying: RAA and PPLs. The problem is the RAA was supposed to be about ultralights, but has been flooded with people trying to escape from the expense of GA flying. They now outnumber true 'ultralight' pilots, and are pushing RAA into 'GA lite'.
This isn't a great system for anyone. The 'GA-lite' folk are annoyed by what they see as unnecessary restrictions (no CTA endo, weight limits etc). The ultralight pilots are worried that by pushung for less restrictions, CASA will look harder at the RAA and make their life a misery. The PPLs are (perhaps rightly) concerned that the more 'carefree' RAA pilots shouldn't be anywhere near CTA.
We should ask ourself "What privileges do most recreational pilots (eg anyone that flys for pleasure, not the artificial 'recreational' definition we have at the moment) actually need?" And once we work out the answer, figure out what they need to know to do so safely.
Most recreational flyers will never use the full freedoms (IFR rating, 5700kg, multiple engine rating) that can come with a PPL. My guess is most PPLs will never fly anything more then a SE 4-seater, and will not often undertake navs that cost a weeks wages. Why not make a license suitable for them, then leave the RAA to worry about ultralights. Or better yet allow ultralight, glider etc ratings to be added to it (oops, this might bankrupt the GFA/RAA - we can't have that).
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
XXX;
The current RA-Aus certificate is an "exemption" from the regulations. It's not a licence. Actually RA-Aus is an "exemption" in itself.
If these "exemptions" were written into the regulations there would be no uncertainty regarding CASA having a "hissyfit" and withdrawing that "exemption". There is a regulatory review process going now for some 22 years from memory. Isn't it about time someone called a halt to this ongoing and expanding waste of taxpayers money?
The US recreational licence is a good model and covers all the concerns. As superdimona notes, even the Poms have a licence. The NPPL is very much like the way the initial Recreational licence was explained to me.
RA-Aus has proved it has the means of administering these concepts. CASA simply have to write a law to enable it. Probably less effort than writing the endless "exemptions".
The recent announcements regarding over water flights, weight increase to 600KG and increased altitude are sensible, probably mirror overseas templates but are in themselves "exemptions" from "exemptions".
The current RA-Aus certificate is an "exemption" from the regulations. It's not a licence. Actually RA-Aus is an "exemption" in itself.
If these "exemptions" were written into the regulations there would be no uncertainty regarding CASA having a "hissyfit" and withdrawing that "exemption". There is a regulatory review process going now for some 22 years from memory. Isn't it about time someone called a halt to this ongoing and expanding waste of taxpayers money?
The US recreational licence is a good model and covers all the concerns. As superdimona notes, even the Poms have a licence. The NPPL is very much like the way the initial Recreational licence was explained to me.
RA-Aus has proved it has the means of administering these concepts. CASA simply have to write a law to enable it. Probably less effort than writing the endless "exemptions".
The recent announcements regarding over water flights, weight increase to 600KG and increased altitude are sensible, probably mirror overseas templates but are in themselves "exemptions" from "exemptions".