GFPT flight area restrictions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Kabukiman, re-read the above posts. It IS required for VFR training flights at controlled aerodromes to state dual or solo when requesting clearance. It is outlined in the AIP.
All this thread discussion just highlights what a complete dog's breakfast the regs currently are. Diverse interpretations are made as necessary to suit operations and prosecutions... Regulatory reform anyone...?!
All this thread discussion just highlights what a complete dog's breakfast the regs currently are. Diverse interpretations are made as necessary to suit operations and prosecutions... Regulatory reform anyone...?!
And yet, when Class D was introduced at Moorabbin there were many meetings between Airservices and CASA with flying schools to develop training material for the new procedures - outcome as I recall was consistent with the Visual Pilot Guide.
ENR 1.1
Para 4.3.3 Pilots of civil VFR training flights should advise DUAL or SOLO, as appropriate, when requesting clearance.
Para 4.3.3 Pilots of civil VFR training flights should advise DUAL or SOLO, as appropriate, when requesting clearance.
When the VPGs were first invented (over 10 years ago?)there were many meetings. CFIs were asked to proof read it. When we reported all the mistakes we'd found we were told it was too late, it had already gone to press. 
The VPG is not a legal reference and is not a controlled document.
Yep the regs are a dogs breakfast, the GFPT is a dogs breakfast that was desigend to satisfy those who thought the sky would fall down without an RPPL and then couldn't tell the difference, it was another case of Australia having to be completely different to the poms and the yanks with their NFT and GFT.
The main thing I see from this thread is that people are just believing whatever they hear instead of actually knowing where to find the correct answers. And that is a reflection on the instructor training....I'll save that subject for another day.
Not so much diverse interpretations but hearsay. EG if you ask most people at a school that says GFPTs are mandatory where to find the "passenger carrying privilege" reference they wouldn't be able to...mainly because it doesn't actually exist but because a lot of people wouldn't know where to look up anything about the student licence, so they would resort to the "my instructor told me" hearsay reference.
The VPG is not a legal reference and is not a controlled document.
Yep the regs are a dogs breakfast, the GFPT is a dogs breakfast that was desigend to satisfy those who thought the sky would fall down without an RPPL and then couldn't tell the difference, it was another case of Australia having to be completely different to the poms and the yanks with their NFT and GFT.
The main thing I see from this thread is that people are just believing whatever they hear instead of actually knowing where to find the correct answers. And that is a reflection on the instructor training....I'll save that subject for another day.
Not so much diverse interpretations but hearsay. EG if you ask most people at a school that says GFPTs are mandatory where to find the "passenger carrying privilege" reference they wouldn't be able to...mainly because it doesn't actually exist but because a lot of people wouldn't know where to look up anything about the student licence, so they would resort to the "my instructor told me" hearsay reference.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 28th Apr 2013 at 09:17.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm confused! Is that last statement about the 'passenger carrying privilege' not existing a typo, or is the SPLPAX rating that CASA issued me after a successful GFPT not legal?
I'm not familiar with a SPLPAX rating? Could you attach a copy of it or tell us the exact wording or reference?
Normally you would be issued with a "Sticky Label" by the ATO that says GFPT(A)/(H). I think, but could be wrong here, that CASA would only issue a reprint of the student licence with GFPT in it if you requested it, normally it would be in the front of your logbook.
A rating can only be attached to a PPL or higher licence (eg night rating, instrument rating) The only activity that an SPL holder can do that requires a rating is night circuits.
There is no regulation in the CARs that calls it a "passenger carrying privilege" only that the instructor who allows you to carry pax in contravention of CAR 5.72 and could then be prosecuted for doing so may use a GFPT as a defence to that prosecution.
Normally you would be issued with a "Sticky Label" by the ATO that says GFPT(A)/(H). I think, but could be wrong here, that CASA would only issue a reprint of the student licence with GFPT in it if you requested it, normally it would be in the front of your logbook.
A rating can only be attached to a PPL or higher licence (eg night rating, instrument rating) The only activity that an SPL holder can do that requires a rating is night circuits.
There is no regulation in the CARs that calls it a "passenger carrying privilege" only that the instructor who allows you to carry pax in contravention of CAR 5.72 and could then be prosecuted for doing so may use a GFPT as a defence to that prosecution.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 28th Apr 2013 at 12:29.
I have been watching this discussion with some gentle amusement. I am not sure if CP is a lawyer. For what it is worth, 5.72 is entirely clear; an instructor may authorise a student with a GFPT to carry passengers. There is no 'may' in the 'defence' in 5.72 and the heading "May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers..." is answered by the text of the regulation in the affirmative, so long as the student is within the student pilot limit and has passed the GFPT. For the avoidance of doubt, the heading forms part of the regulation and is to be read as part of the text.
There is nothing grey about this one, and there is although there are many ludicrous ambiguities in the regulation of aviation in this country, this is not one of them.
An instructor is completely in the clear so long as he or she does not "permit" a student to carry passengers without those two conditions. If the student disobeyed that expressed condition, the instructor has not "permitted" anything and is still not exposed to any liability, civil or criminal.
There is nothing grey about this one, and there is although there are many ludicrous ambiguities in the regulation of aviation in this country, this is not one of them.
An instructor is completely in the clear so long as he or she does not "permit" a student to carry passengers without those two conditions. If the student disobeyed that expressed condition, the instructor has not "permitted" anything and is still not exposed to any liability, civil or criminal.
From the Delegate's handbook:
CAR 5.72 goes like this:
Like Bluesky, I don't see where the grey area is here
The applicant may exercise the privileges associated with passing the GFPT immediately following the test — that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72.
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 5.72
May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while flying as pilot in command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
Penalty: 50 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 .
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if:
(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit; and
(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test, and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of the category used for the flight.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).
May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while flying as pilot in command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
Penalty: 50 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 .
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if:
(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit; and
(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test, and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of the category used for the flight.
Note A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters mentioned in subregulation (3) (see subsection 13.3 (3) of the Criminal Code ).
What the delegates handbook is saying is basically that there is no need to wait for anything to come from CASA, ie it is not a different licence, you can load up your mum straight after the test (with the instructor's approval of course) and away you go.
Which is why I am confused about the post saying CASA issue a SPLPAX rating when a GFPT is issued by an ATO as a CASA delegate, but not CASA. ATOs don't issue licences but are part of the process.
No I'm not a lawyer but am an uncurable pedant! And yeah it is untidy, it would be better if there was just a regulation that said something like "Can an instructor authorise a student who has passed GFPT to carry passengers?" "Yes." But that would be too easy...and still doesn't address 40.1.0 para 10.3...
Which is why I am confused about the post saying CASA issue a SPLPAX rating when a GFPT is issued by an ATO as a CASA delegate, but not CASA. ATOs don't issue licences but are part of the process.
No I'm not a lawyer but am an uncurable pedant! And yeah it is untidy, it would be better if there was just a regulation that said something like "Can an instructor authorise a student who has passed GFPT to carry passengers?" "Yes." But that would be too easy...and still doesn't address 40.1.0 para 10.3...
Last edited by Clare Prop; 28th Apr 2013 at 16:07.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A rating can only be attached to a PPL or higher licence (eg night rating, instrument rating) The only activity that an SPL holder can do that requires a rating is night circuits.
...aerobatics is an endorsement rather than a rating...like formation, banner towing, stuff like that.
Ratings are things like:
Instrument
Night
Instructor
Agricultural
CAO 40
[Pedant\]
Ratings are things like:
Instrument
Night
Instructor
Agricultural
CAO 40
[Pedant\]
Last edited by Clare Prop; 28th Apr 2013 at 15:10.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been watching this discussion with some gentle amusement. I am not sure if CP is a lawyer. For what it is worth, 5.72 is entirely clear; an instructor may authorise a student with a GFPT to carry passengers. There is no 'may' in the 'defence' in 5.72 and the heading "May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers..." is answered by the text of the regulation in the affirmative, so long as the student is within the student pilot limit and has passed the GFPT. For the avoidance of doubt, the heading forms part of the regulation and is to be read as part of the text.
To a lawyer, a prohibition + defence to prosecution might be a common pattern and clearly indicate permission. To a lay person, it is not clear. This is the essential point I think - asking pilots to read and interpret the CARs, and find references themselves to answer "Can I do..." type questions is unrealistic. If a regulation can be ambiguous to the lay person, or they might even come up with the exact opposite answer, it is asking for trouble.
The result end result is the system we have in practice, where rules are passed on as folklore from instructor to student (e.g. 10NM from the airfield). There needs to be clear rules written for the lay person indicating what you can and cannot do.
For what it's worth despite bluesky & Horatio's assurance, I still read this regulation as:
May an instructor permit a student to carry passengers while flying as pilot in command?
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
BUT
you will not be prosecuted if the student has a GFPT.
There is nothing that I read that actually deletes (1). But this is as read by a lay person, not a lawyer. I understand that legal conventions mean that laws can have different meanings to what a simple reading might indicate.
Sorry Clare Prop, forgot I was getting a reference for you; according to CAR 4.64 to 5.76 the student pilot area limit is defined as:
- flight within the traffic pattern or
- flight in an area within 10nm of the aerodrome from which the flight commenced or
- flight within the flying training area associated with the aerodrome of take-off or
- the direct route between the aerodrome of take-off and the training area.
- flight within the traffic pattern or
- flight in an area within 10nm of the aerodrome from which the flight commenced or
- flight within the flying training area associated with the aerodrome of take-off or
- the direct route between the aerodrome of take-off and the training area.
(1) An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
Penalty: 50 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 .
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if someone held a gun to the head of the instructor and forced her to permit the student to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
Penalty: 50 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 .
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if someone held a gun to the head of the instructor and forced her to permit the student to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried.
But I'm merely a wheelchair-bound geek from Hicksville USA.
Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Apr 2013 at 11:42.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bathurst NSW AUS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CASA Flight Crew Licencing Glossary of Terms,
"SPLPAX
Student Pilot Licence holder with passenger carrying privileges; ie. has passed general flying progress flight test (GFPT)"
My correction though, according to the CASA info it's not a rating, it's actually a licence. My interpretation is then that an SPL cannot carry passengers, but a SPLPAX can.
Flame suit on!!
"SPLPAX
Student Pilot Licence holder with passenger carrying privileges; ie. has passed general flying progress flight test (GFPT)"
My correction though, according to the CASA info it's not a rating, it's actually a licence. My interpretation is then that an SPL cannot carry passengers, but a SPLPAX can.
Flame suit on!!
The SPL is the license.
Student Pilot LICENSE.
The GFPT is a test that grants additional priviledges to that license.
General Flight Progress TEST.
From the Flight Crew Licensing Manual;
Unless anyone can demonstrate even one case where CASA has even considered launching an action against a student pilot for carrying passengers once they have passed their GFPT (unless they were outside the 90 day rule or had contravened some other regulation), then I'm sure we can put all this prosecution bullsiht to rest. 
Student Pilot LICENSE.
The GFPT is a test that grants additional priviledges to that license.
General Flight Progress TEST.
From the Flight Crew Licensing Manual;
The applicant may exercise the privileges associated with passing the GFPT immediately
following the test — that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72.
following the test — that is, may carry passengers in accordance with CAR 5.72.
I will try to make my point a different way.
Let us assume a law says:
The intent of the law is the X never happen. X is prohibited.
However, in circumstances of Y, a person will be excused from criminal liability for doing something that is prohibited. But X is still prohibited.
CASA launching a prosecution isn’t the risk. The risk is an action in negligence, taken by passengers killed or injured in accident in which the student pilot was PIC, against the instructor who did X. A defence to criminal liability is not a defence to claims of negligence.
Why oh why couldn’t the rule just say:
Let us assume a law says:
A person must not do X.
Penalty: $$
It is a defence to a prosecution of a person for doing X, if Y.
Penalty: $$
It is a defence to a prosecution of a person for doing X, if Y.
However, in circumstances of Y, a person will be excused from criminal liability for doing something that is prohibited. But X is still prohibited.
CASA launching a prosecution isn’t the risk. The risk is an action in negligence, taken by passengers killed or injured in accident in which the student pilot was PIC, against the instructor who did X. A defence to criminal liability is not a defence to claims of negligence.
Why oh why couldn’t the rule just say:
(1)An authorised flight instructor must not permit a student pilot to fly as pilot in command of an aircraft in which a passenger is carried, unless:
(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit; and
(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test, and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of the category used for the flight.
(a) the flight takes place solely within the student pilot area limit; and
(b) the student pilot has passed a general flying progress flight test, and a basic aeronautical knowledge examination, for aircraft of the category used for the flight.
Yes that was well put. Having said that if you have a GFPT you can carry passengers, even though the regs have been written poorly.
But isn't that consistent with many things in the Regs?
But isn't that consistent with many things in the Regs?