Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Recreation Pilot Licence with Navigation Endorsement

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Recreation Pilot Licence with Navigation Endorsement

Old 13th Aug 2014, 12:12
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 795
A student pilot, with or without GFPT, can continue training to PPL just as they can now.

If the student applies to have their GFPT changed to an RPL then they will have some hoops to jump through, more hoops if they want to lift the restrictions.

That's the way I understand it but am happy to stand corrected.

We won't be encouraging people to do the RPL, it's not a stepping stone (nor was the GFPT) and rather pointless IMO (as was the GFPT).

GFPT was a flight test, never a "licence" and not equivalent to the old RPPL or the new RPL.

Nor was it ever a prerequisite to doing the navigation training, it was always optional, and not mentioned on PPL test forms or in the ATOM. I actually can't remember when I last did one, would have been about six or seven years ago.

Many flying schools said it was compulsory a) because it was a great revenue raiser and b) because they could then send you on humungous solo cross countries more than three hours long.

Last edited by Clare Prop; 13th Aug 2014 at 12:25.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 13:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 327
Thanks Clare. I get what you're saying. But in a situation similar to that of the OP - say an RPL who WANTS a nav endorsement - where is the nav theory component?
tecman is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 13:30
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Outback
Posts: 26
Many flying schools said it was compulsory a) because it was a great revenue raiser and b) because they could then send you on humungous solo cross countries more than three hours long.
Are you sure many flying schools said that?
It makes it much harder to comply with this requirement with a 3 hour limit!

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the flight time must include 1 flight of at least 150 miles, that includes at least 1 full stop landing at, and at least 1 take‑off from, each of 2 or more aerodromes:
(a) that are not the aerodrome from which the flight commenced; and
(b) that are not within the student pilot area limit of the aerodrome from which the flight commenced.
Rod Con is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 14:52
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 795
That can easily be achieved in a PA28 in 2.5 hours. Most aircraft used for the PPL navs would be cruising at around 105-120 knots.

Only five hours solo cross country are required for the PPL.

Tecman I'll get back to you on that with the references, meanwhile...

From what I understand anyone now with GFPT can just continue with training for the PPL, no need to go to RPL in between, just continue from where you are.

If someone is starting after September and they want to do the navigation component then why would they do the RPL syllabus?
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 15:03
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 327
Clare, I was thinking of the situation where someone is content to live with the Rec PL limitations but prefers to train within the GA, rather than RAA, stream and obtain a CASA licence. I could imagine such a person being interested in a nav endorsement to the RPL.
tecman is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 15:15
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 795
If you go to the CASA page and search for Part 61 MOS information sheet it's all there, the theory and flying requirements. As I understand it you would just do the exams, do the flying training for the competences and then the PPL flight test.

I have only really focused on the PPL so there may well be others here who have looked in to that side of it more than me.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 15:33
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 327
Thanks...I agree that it all looks quite straightforward for the PPL, according to the MOS. What I'm having trouble with is the RPL: if you look at the MOS outline of the theory there doesn't seem to be a nav module in the exam (understandably, I guess). Reading on, there is a practical nav endorsement for the RPL, but again no mention of any nav theory. If that's actually the case, it looks a bit odd relative to, say, the RAA route to an RPL (and indeed an endorsed RAA pilot certificate) where applicants will, presumably, have been required to do a nav exam. But it's late, and maybe I'm missing something.
tecman is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2014, 16:15
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 795
I cant make sense of the RPL with navigation endorsement either, I can only refer you to this and to the MOS.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Getting your recreational pilot licence

Call CASA and ask them, I would be interested to hear what they say!
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2014, 11:34
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Recreation Pilot Licence with Navigation Endorsement

I was about to do the GFPT late August but due to the awful month on weather we've had in Sydney, didn't get it done.
I will now be doing the RPL flight test next week and am seriously reconsidering the need to progress to PPL anytime soon.
My aim is to fly for personal fun, take some friends for a scenic and the occasional family trip away somewhere. At most, a round-the-country adventure in future.
It seems with the RPL (all endorsements), I can take an Archer (or maybe even an Arrow or SR20(?) - not sure if I can add things like retract / CSU to an RPL) and do all I would ever have wanted to do with the PPL.
Obviously if I wanted to add a PIFR later, (I would like this for "just in case"), I'd need to move to PPL first as I had originally planed; but other than the obvious (non important to me) limits of 1500kg MTOW, 4 POB and no international recognition; am I missing any downsides to this approach?
LeanOfPeak is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 13:13
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 58
Posts: 375
Recreation Pilot Licence with Navigation Endorsement

Lean of peak, you've got it right. Also the PPL will require all airspace types to be trained and tested. Unlike the old days (pre 1/9/14) when you could obtain a PPL OCTA then add the others as / when wanted. The RPL provides that option. Exams will be at the discretion of the school, but will need to confirm the applicant has the required knowledge to exercise the privileges of the Navigation endorsement.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 15:01
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 327
Roundsounds, thanks for answering the question I asked earlier. Given that RAA and PPL pilots are expected to do some form of nav exam, it seems odd that the exam is effectively discretionary for a CASA RPL cross-country endorsement. I'm guessing from your own and other comments that most schools will, in fact, want candidates to do an exam. Guess you get to choose RAA, PPL or some other (?)
tecman is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 22:03
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,172
I will now be doing the RPL flight test next week and am seriously reconsidering the need to progress to PPL anytime soon.
My aim is to fly for personal fun, take some friends for a scenic and the occasional family trip away somewhere. At most, a round-the-country adventure in future.
Lean of peak, you have missed the RPL part that says only one passenger. Friends become friend and family becomes you and the missus.

If you want to carry friends or a family you need a PPL.

Last edited by Aussie Bob; 11th Sep 2014 at 22:04. Reason: Spelling
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 23:03
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YMMM
Posts: 59
Aussie Bob. You have misread 61.465, read it carefully, the one pax restriction only applies to the driver licence medical, not the RPL itself. If you hold a class 1 or 2 aviation medical you can fill the aircraft! (Though still limited to 1500kg which stops somewhere around a C182 or Cirrus sr20)
Nomde plume is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2014, 23:29
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the doghouse
Posts: 478
And you don't need the RPL to do the PPL, so if that's your aim, and you have the cash just work towards that and save yourself a flight test.

The more I look at it, the more it looks not a lot different at the student pilot level and it does open doors for purely recreational pilots who don't want all the trimmings which is surely a good thing?..
Homesick-Angel is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 01:01
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,479
OK...howabout a PPL holder sans class 2?

Or, student licence at GFPT standard...better to get RPL obviating the need to get signed off for private jollies around training area? Still aiming toward PPL but get privileges of the old restricted licence to build upon sounds a better proposition.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 01:11
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 67
Posts: 1,129
the recreational pilots licence is a reincarnation of the old restricted private pilots licence.

it is a simple historical fact that most students (back in the 70's) ran out of money mid way through their training. ...funny same as today.
the restricted pilots licence was issued after the basic aircraft handling had been mastered but before the cross country navigation training had been undertaken.

a Restricted Private Pilot licence + navigation training = the unrestricted private pilots licence.
the words unrestricted and restricted referred to the presence or absence of navigation skills.

....i know. the obvious is a lot harder these days.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2014, 01:33
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,172
Aussie Bob. You have misread 61.465, read it carefully, the one pax restriction only applies to the driver licence medical, not the RPL itself. If you hold a class 1 or 2 aviation medical you can fill the aircraft!
Whoops ... so much still to learn!
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 01:30
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: sUNBURY
Posts: 7
Gfpt

Hi All

I have my GFPT (did it 25 years ago) and straight after that did all navigation work and completed required hours for PPL but did not sit flight Test.

My question is according to CASA website GFPT holders restricted to 25nm. Now as stated I have done required navigation work. With part 61 can add navigation endorsement which contradicts the 25nm restriction. With navigation endorsement does anyone know how far you can fly? Can you fly anywhere in Australia?

Is it worthwhile completing my PPL as now I can get same privileges on GFPT? Would PPL license be more valuable, would it be more prestigious? What would you do?

Deanna41 is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 02:08
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 795
There is no such thing as a GFPT any more.Find a school that will help you change over to RPL or better still do recognition of prior learning and get you up to speed to go straight for the PPL. Your hours will count but you will still need to reach the required competencies.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 3rd May 2019, 02:13
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,371
Sounds like you actually just want to know the differences between a PPL and RPL.

1,500 kg limit
No Aeros
No NVFR

That is all I can think of right now.

Squawk7700 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.