GFPT flight area restrictions.
I agree with Clare’s points.
There is a definition of the term “student pilot area limit“. Perhaps it might help interpret CAR 5.69(1)(b).
And if you want to know what a student pilot is allowed to do, it might be worth reading the CAR headed “What does a student pilot licence authorise a person to do?”
A student pilot is a student pilot, whether or not she’s passed a GFPT.
CAR 5.72 is dog’s breakfast, in the context of the other regs. 5.72(3) is a defence to a prosecution against the instructor, not an authority for student pilots that have passed the GFPT to fly with passengers inside the student pilot area limit. However, if 5.72(1) was intended to have the effect of prohibiting the authorisation of the carriage of passengers by student pilots in any circumstances, it would not be necessary to have regs like 5.74(2)(e).
There is a definition of the term “student pilot area limit“. Perhaps it might help interpret CAR 5.69(1)(b).
And if you want to know what a student pilot is allowed to do, it might be worth reading the CAR headed “What does a student pilot licence authorise a person to do?”
A student pilot is a student pilot, whether or not she’s passed a GFPT.
CAR 5.72 is dog’s breakfast, in the context of the other regs. 5.72(3) is a defence to a prosecution against the instructor, not an authority for student pilots that have passed the GFPT to fly with passengers inside the student pilot area limit. However, if 5.72(1) was intended to have the effect of prohibiting the authorisation of the carriage of passengers by student pilots in any circumstances, it would not be necessary to have regs like 5.74(2)(e).
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to throw another GFPT yes or no into the mix, my insurance company would not allow me to fly my own aircraft solo until I had passed the GFPT (admittedly it is a 'complex' aircraft)
It was rather pointless for me to have to do all my solo nav work in a different aircraft, as my reasoning to having the aircraft now was to get max value out of the training in the aircraft I'm going to fly.
Their reasoning was, and I sort of agree with them, is they then have a record that I have reached a competency standard that is documented.
My instructor did give me the option to do it or not. It's also been useful to be able to give some of the family a 'ride in the airplane'.
The only painfull thing is I need an 'endorsed pilot' to sign of the MR each day. I can text my CFI for permission for circuits etc while he's in the circuit with another SPL, but can't leave the ground till he's signed off the MR
It does look like the GFPT is going away. The new flight crew licencing re-instates the RPL as a recreational licence with much the same restrictions in area flying as a RA licence. I can't find a reference to a GFPT.
(PS it was explained to me that passing the GFPT just gave you passenger carrying privileges, if I wished to deviate from more than just the training area I would need authorization, with proper authority I could operate up to a max of 10 miles from the airfield before it was considered 'cross country', and would need a FP and charts etc. So if I wanted to take a little tour to the north, I'd need a briefing)
It was rather pointless for me to have to do all my solo nav work in a different aircraft, as my reasoning to having the aircraft now was to get max value out of the training in the aircraft I'm going to fly.
Their reasoning was, and I sort of agree with them, is they then have a record that I have reached a competency standard that is documented.
My instructor did give me the option to do it or not. It's also been useful to be able to give some of the family a 'ride in the airplane'.
The only painfull thing is I need an 'endorsed pilot' to sign of the MR each day. I can text my CFI for permission for circuits etc while he's in the circuit with another SPL, but can't leave the ground till he's signed off the MR
It does look like the GFPT is going away. The new flight crew licencing re-instates the RPL as a recreational licence with much the same restrictions in area flying as a RA licence. I can't find a reference to a GFPT.
(PS it was explained to me that passing the GFPT just gave you passenger carrying privileges, if I wished to deviate from more than just the training area I would need authorization, with proper authority I could operate up to a max of 10 miles from the airfield before it was considered 'cross country', and would need a FP and charts etc. So if I wanted to take a little tour to the north, I'd need a briefing)
Last edited by garrya100; 26th Apr 2013 at 06:07.
Jack Ranga, The answer is in the fourth post where I referred to CAR 5.69.
Here it is again.
5.69 Where may an instructor permit a student to fly as pilot in
command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly an
aircraft as pilot in command if the flight is not:
(a) in a traffic pattern; or
(b) if the student has flown 2 hours of flight time in a traffic pattern
as pilot in command of an aircraft of the category used for the
flight—within the student pilot area limit; or
(c) if the aircraft is being flown for the purposes of cross-country
training—along a route specified by the instructor.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Here it is again.
5.69 Where may an instructor permit a student to fly as pilot in
command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly an
aircraft as pilot in command if the flight is not:
(a) in a traffic pattern; or
(b) if the student has flown 2 hours of flight time in a traffic pattern
as pilot in command of an aircraft of the category used for the
flight—within the student pilot area limit; or
(c) if the aircraft is being flown for the purposes of cross-country
training—along a route specified by the instructor.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 26th Apr 2013 at 06:04.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought it was that you could fly 10nm from the airport that you passed your GFPT test and also in the allocated training area ( if the airport has one).
Garry
An insurance company can impose any conditions it likes on the cover it provides, and you can choose whether to fly your own aircraft in compliance with those conditions, and be covered, or not in compliance with those conditions (but still legally), and not be covered.
But that’s by the by. If by “complex aircraft” you mean that it has one or more special design features as defined in the CARs, I don’t see how an instructor could authorise you to fly it as PIC before you’d completed the GFPT anyway.
An insurance company can impose any conditions it likes on the cover it provides, and you can choose whether to fly your own aircraft in compliance with those conditions, and be covered, or not in compliance with those conditions (but still legally), and not be covered.
But that’s by the by. If by “complex aircraft” you mean that it has one or more special design features as defined in the CARs, I don’t see how an instructor could authorise you to fly it as PIC before you’d completed the GFPT anyway.
The GFPT allows longer time between check rides with an instructor. Ref CAR 5.70. That's pretty much it when it comes to the difference of a student pilot with or without one.
As for endorsements, it's all there in CAO 40.1.0
GFPT not required for an endorsement. A student coming up for test must be endorsed on the type of aircraft for the test. Quite a few people use CSU aircraft for basic training, for example, and go first solo in them CAR 5.68.
Ratings however are a different matter, a student pilot can do night circuits but that's all they can do where a rating is required. Otherwise you need a PPL to do a rating.
An insurance company may insist on a GFPT but that is a separate issue.
As for endorsements, it's all there in CAO 40.1.0
GFPT not required for an endorsement. A student coming up for test must be endorsed on the type of aircraft for the test. Quite a few people use CSU aircraft for basic training, for example, and go first solo in them CAR 5.68.
Ratings however are a different matter, a student pilot can do night circuits but that's all they can do where a rating is required. Otherwise you need a PPL to do a rating.
An insurance company may insist on a GFPT but that is a separate issue.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me see if I have this straight, according to the CARs...
The answer to the original question "where can you fly after passing the GFPT" is "where-ever the instructor permits you to fly".
CAR 5.69 refers to where the instructor may permit you to fly, but that is the instructors problem (and they have no obligation to give permission even if it is included in 5.69 etc.) Before/after GFPT doesn't seem to make a difference for where you can fly.
As for carrying passengers, 5.66 What does a student pilot licence authorise a person to do? doesn't seem to be specific, it appears to be allowed if the instructor gives permission, but:
5.72 (1) says the instructor must not permit a student to fly as PIC with a passenger.
5.72 (3) says it is a defence if the student has passed the GFPT.
I guess you need a lawyer to tell you whether a "defence to a prosecution" is the same as permission. I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a lawyer. The general custom seems to be to treat it as permission.
CASA's Flight Crew Licensing Procedures Manual refers to "privileges associated with passing the GFPT - that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72"
Again, I don't know whether legally a "defence to a prosecution" is the same as a privilege. Actually, the defence to prosecution seems to be granted to the instructor, I don't see where any privilege is granted to the student via CAR 5.72.
I have come to the conclusion that the CARs etc. are very confusing, and legal advice would be wise if using them to determine what is and is not allowed.
The reality is that pilots operate mostly on a chinese whispers system, where the supposed regulations are passed from instructor to student. The flock principle means that as long as you are doing the same as everybody else, you are probably safe. For the same reason it may be risky to do something different, even if the CARs seem to permit it.
The answer to the original question "where can you fly after passing the GFPT" is "where-ever the instructor permits you to fly".
CAR 5.69 refers to where the instructor may permit you to fly, but that is the instructors problem (and they have no obligation to give permission even if it is included in 5.69 etc.) Before/after GFPT doesn't seem to make a difference for where you can fly.
As for carrying passengers, 5.66 What does a student pilot licence authorise a person to do? doesn't seem to be specific, it appears to be allowed if the instructor gives permission, but:
5.72 (1) says the instructor must not permit a student to fly as PIC with a passenger.
5.72 (3) says it is a defence if the student has passed the GFPT.
I guess you need a lawyer to tell you whether a "defence to a prosecution" is the same as permission. I wouldn't have thought so, but I'm not a lawyer. The general custom seems to be to treat it as permission.
CASA's Flight Crew Licensing Procedures Manual refers to "privileges associated with passing the GFPT - that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72"
Again, I don't know whether legally a "defence to a prosecution" is the same as a privilege. Actually, the defence to prosecution seems to be granted to the instructor, I don't see where any privilege is granted to the student via CAR 5.72.
I have come to the conclusion that the CARs etc. are very confusing, and legal advice would be wise if using them to determine what is and is not allowed.
The reality is that pilots operate mostly on a chinese whispers system, where the supposed regulations are passed from instructor to student. The flock principle means that as long as you are doing the same as everybody else, you are probably safe. For the same reason it may be risky to do something different, even if the CARs seem to permit it.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cream puff
May I should have been a little more careful with words and used 'cover', but as I don't have a a spare $10m to self insure it ends up being the same thing.
There is no requirement to have a GFPT to operate an an aircraft with a design feature. You only have to have the endorsement signed off. I did the endorsements on the way to having the required hours to do the GFPT.
You can gain your SPL, and then go straight to a CPL and be endorsed on design features along the way without having to do a GFPT or PPL if you wish.
May I should have been a little more careful with words and used 'cover', but as I don't have a a spare $10m to self insure it ends up being the same thing.
There is no requirement to have a GFPT to operate an an aircraft with a design feature. You only have to have the endorsement signed off. I did the endorsements on the way to having the required hours to do the GFPT.
You can gain your SPL, and then go straight to a CPL and be endorsed on design features along the way without having to do a GFPT or PPL if you wish.
andrewr summed it up, especially the last paragraph .
I've been pointing out these anamolies to CASA for years and they've been shrugged off as "everybody does it so it's become a kind of common law interpretation"
But you can bet some of them would suddenly sit up and interpret it differently if they had it in for you and would take you to the cleaners for something.
I got pinged on 40.1.0 para 10.2 (where it says the instructor must make the entries in the student log book) in an audit...so I pointed out 10.3 and asked how that could be reconciled with the student-carrying-pax scenario? response...everybody does it. So I said well, most people happily let the studes fill in their own logbooks too so why am I getting an RCA for this???
.I've been pointing out these anamolies to CASA for years and they've been shrugged off as "everybody does it so it's become a kind of common law interpretation"
But you can bet some of them would suddenly sit up and interpret it differently if they had it in for you and would take you to the cleaners for something.
I got pinged on 40.1.0 para 10.2 (where it says the instructor must make the entries in the student log book) in an audit...so I pointed out 10.3 and asked how that could be reconciled with the student-carrying-pax scenario? response...everybody does it. So I said well, most people happily let the studes fill in their own logbooks too so why am I getting an RCA for this???
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To my knowledge you cannot go outside of the training area (like at moorabbin airport) with a GFPT. I too learned the ten miles from an aerodrome without a corresponding training area but I may be wrong if some of you are certain.
I thought it was ten miles if you were in the middle of nowhere, or in places like MB where ten miles to the north and northwest and you'd be in all sorts, and if there was no designated T/A, it would be only where you were approved by your instructor to fly.
You log the time as solo time
You are still a student pilot on a student license, the only thing that changes is the time in between a dual check, and the fact you can take a friend along for a fly for circuits or just locally.
Edit: Re Moorabbin training area, yes to come back in via GMH you leave the training area. You do also at Carrum, flying over the water. MB lets you off because it is the only way back into the zone. Otherwise you aren't allowed outside of the T/A.
You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and however many p.o.b. in your intial calls to ground and tower so they know you are a student (PPL don't need to announce solo or dual from memory)
Having a GFPT makes training for the PPL easier due to the extra hours between checks.
I thought it was ten miles if you were in the middle of nowhere, or in places like MB where ten miles to the north and northwest and you'd be in all sorts, and if there was no designated T/A, it would be only where you were approved by your instructor to fly.
You log the time as solo time
You are still a student pilot on a student license, the only thing that changes is the time in between a dual check, and the fact you can take a friend along for a fly for circuits or just locally.
Edit: Re Moorabbin training area, yes to come back in via GMH you leave the training area. You do also at Carrum, flying over the water. MB lets you off because it is the only way back into the zone. Otherwise you aren't allowed outside of the T/A.
You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and however many p.o.b. in your intial calls to ground and tower so they know you are a student (PPL don't need to announce solo or dual from memory)
Having a GFPT makes training for the PPL easier due to the extra hours between checks.
Last edited by kabukiman; 26th Apr 2013 at 11:48.
References!!!
AIP Gen 3.4
5.14.4
Taxi Procedure
Circumstances
Phraseologies
* Denotes pilot transmission
1. Taxi Procedures for departure at a controlled aerodrome
a.* [flight number][aircraft type][wake turbulence category if
“Super or Heavy”]
[POB(number)]
[DUAL (or SOLO)]
RECEIVED (ATIS identification)[SQUAWK(SSR code)]
[aircraft location]
[flight rules, if IFR]
[TO(aerodrome of destination)]
REQUEST TAXI
AIP Gen 3.4
5.14.4
Taxi Procedure
Circumstances
Phraseologies
* Denotes pilot transmission
1. Taxi Procedures for departure at a controlled aerodrome
a.* [flight number][aircraft type][wake turbulence category if
“Super or Heavy”]
[POB(number)]
[DUAL (or SOLO)]
RECEIVED (ATIS identification)[SQUAWK(SSR code)]
[aircraft location]
[flight rules, if IFR]
[TO(aerodrome of destination)]
REQUEST TAXI
Last edited by Clare Prop; 26th Apr 2013 at 13:07.
"Having a GFPT makes training for the PPL easier due to the extra hours between checks."
For the PPL you require minimum solo time of 5 hours general, 5 hours cross country.
Why drill extra holes in the sky in the training area at supervised solo or in some cases dual rate, when you can do the PPL and hire an aircraft without having to get and pay for an instructor permission (and find someone to do the daily inspection for you) every time?
For the PPL you require minimum solo time of 5 hours general, 5 hours cross country.
Why drill extra holes in the sky in the training area at supervised solo or in some cases dual rate, when you can do the PPL and hire an aircraft without having to get and pay for an instructor permission (and find someone to do the daily inspection for you) every time?
Last edited by Clare Prop; 26th Apr 2013 at 13:14.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's rather nice having your own aircraft so you can bore holes in the sky at a cheaper rate when you feel like it, even if you have to check with your CFI first
It's also good to be able to keep your skill level up at this time in my training
It's also good to be able to keep your skill level up at this time in my training
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrying passengers after GFPT
Another thought comes to mind about CAR 5.72 - what is the liability for the instructor if an accident occurred?
CAR 5.72 (1) says they must not permit a student to fly as PIC with a passenger.
What is the consequence of giving that permission if an accident occurs? 5.72 (3) gives a defence to a prosecution - but what about e.g. a civil case?
What is the insurance attitude to not operating in accordance to the CARs?
It would probably be argued that 5.72(3) means it IS in accordance with the CARs, but if you are operating in accordance to the CARs why do you need a defence to a prosecution? Operating in accordance to the CARs should be a defence in itself. And 5.72(3) doesn't appear to override 5.72(1), it just gives a defence if you ignore it.
Again I think a lawyer is needed to interpret the legal meanings of the sections and their relationships.
CAR 5.72 (1) says they must not permit a student to fly as PIC with a passenger.
What is the consequence of giving that permission if an accident occurs? 5.72 (3) gives a defence to a prosecution - but what about e.g. a civil case?
What is the insurance attitude to not operating in accordance to the CARs?
It would probably be argued that 5.72(3) means it IS in accordance with the CARs, but if you are operating in accordance to the CARs why do you need a defence to a prosecution? Operating in accordance to the CARs should be a defence in itself. And 5.72(3) doesn't appear to override 5.72(1), it just gives a defence if you ignore it.
Again I think a lawyer is needed to interpret the legal meanings of the sections and their relationships.
"Defence to prosecution"??? That means you WILL be prosecuted! Show your paperwork and authorization to carry a pax to the magistrate.
I take " defence to prosecution" not the same as reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse stops at the FOI...the other one is "tell it to the judge"
What a croco****e these lawyered rewrites spew out.
I take " defence to prosecution" not the same as reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuse stops at the FOI...the other one is "tell it to the judge"
What a croco****e these lawyered rewrites spew out.
Those VPG documents have got quite a few mistakes.
For example "Request Clearance" should say "Request Taxi" A few pilots at Jandakot were getting told off for saying "Request Clearance" by one of the more pedantic controllers. As he said, the VPGs do not override the AIP.
Just shows you can only trust the actual reference, not what your instructor says, not the BAK book, not even CASA people. "My instructor said" would not carry any weight in a court of law, ignorance is no defence and it's high time instructor courses covered legal responsibilities and liabilities.
And the point andrewr made about liability is the reason I don't let student pilots carry passengers. eg, I once had a naughty student who was authorised for an area solo to practice his steep turns. (No GFPT.) A couple of hours later as I was pacing worriedly and needing the aircraft for the next student he rang to say he had gone to meet some mates at an aerodrome in the training area for a barbecue and would be a bit late back and by the way he was giving one of his mates a lift back 'cos there was an instructor there who had organised it all and said it would be OK....
Needless to say I was happy to pass him on to another school.
Had something happened and he had pranged at the other aerodrome (where he had never been before, had no idea of non controlled aerodrome procedures etc) I could have been liable even though I hadn't authorised it. If he had brought back a passenger and pranged and left that passenger needing a lifetime of full time care, I could have been liable even though I hadn't authorised it.
The criminal code and strict liability is bad enough, there is no mention of what could happen in a civil case.
For example "Request Clearance" should say "Request Taxi" A few pilots at Jandakot were getting told off for saying "Request Clearance" by one of the more pedantic controllers. As he said, the VPGs do not override the AIP.
Just shows you can only trust the actual reference, not what your instructor says, not the BAK book, not even CASA people. "My instructor said" would not carry any weight in a court of law, ignorance is no defence and it's high time instructor courses covered legal responsibilities and liabilities.
And the point andrewr made about liability is the reason I don't let student pilots carry passengers. eg, I once had a naughty student who was authorised for an area solo to practice his steep turns. (No GFPT.) A couple of hours later as I was pacing worriedly and needing the aircraft for the next student he rang to say he had gone to meet some mates at an aerodrome in the training area for a barbecue and would be a bit late back and by the way he was giving one of his mates a lift back 'cos there was an instructor there who had organised it all and said it would be OK....
Needless to say I was happy to pass him on to another school. Had something happened and he had pranged at the other aerodrome (where he had never been before, had no idea of non controlled aerodrome procedures etc) I could have been liable even though I hadn't authorised it. If he had brought back a passenger and pranged and left that passenger needing a lifetime of full time care, I could have been liable even though I hadn't authorised it.
The criminal code and strict liability is bad enough, there is no mention of what could happen in a civil case.
Also, until quite recently the GFPT flight test form didn't conform with the competency standards in the Day VFR Syllabus.
This in itself could raise an interesting legal situation in the event of a claim against someone who was tested using the old form.
This in itself could raise an interesting legal situation in the event of a claim against someone who was tested using the old form.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 27th Apr 2013 at 12:59.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
MB lets you off ..
Who??
Quote:
You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and ...
Nope, that reqt changed a while ago.
MB lets you off ..
Who??
Quote:
You must also (at MB at least) announce you are 'solo' and ...
Nope, that reqt changed a while ago.
It did? I stand corrected, last I heard it was the case and I still hear people announcing dual and solo for training purposes