Recreational Pilots Licence Australia
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth WA
Age: 57
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recreational Pilots Licence Australia
Hello.
Can anyone provide me some assistance and advise if you are able to fly a C172 or Piper Warrior with the appropriate medical rating on a recreational pilots licence?
Thanks in advance.
Can anyone provide me some assistance and advise if you are able to fly a C172 or Piper Warrior with the appropriate medical rating on a recreational pilots licence?
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are copied and pasted below. No two seat limit, however if you do not hold a class 1 or 2 medical you are restricted to only one passenger.
61.460 Privileges of recreational pilot licences
Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulations 61.465 and 61.470, the holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot a single‑engine aircraft as pilot in command or co‑pilot if:
(a) the aircraft is certificated for single‑pilot operation; and
(b) the aircraft has a maximum certificated take‑off weight of not more than 1 500 kg; and
(c) the aircraft is not rocket‑powered or turbine‑powered; and
(d) the flight is conducted by day under the VFR; and
(e) either:
(i) the aircraft is engaged in a private operation; or
(ii) the holder is receiving flight training.
61.465 Limitations on exercise of privileges of recreational pilot licences—general
(1) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft in a Contracting State’s airspace only if the holder has the permission (however described) of the Contracting State to do so.
(2) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft carrying more than one passenger only if the holder:
(a) also holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; or
(b) is accompanied by another pilot who:
(i) holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; and
(ii) occupies a flight control seat in the aircraft; and
(iii) is authorised to pilot the aircraft.
(3) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft above 10 000 ft above mean sea level only if the holder:
(a) also holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; or
(b) is accompanied by another pilot who:
(i) holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; and
(ii) occupies a flight control seat in the aircraft; and
(iii) is authorised to pilot the aircraft.
61.470 Limitations on exercise of privileges of recreational pilot licences—endorsements
(1) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft outside the following areas only if the holder also holds a recreational navigation endorsement:
(a) the area within 25 nautical miles of the departure aerodrome;
(b) a flight training area;
(c) the area that is a direct route between the departure aerodrome and a flight training area.
(2) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft in controlled airspace only if the holder also holds a controlled airspace endorsement.
(3) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft at a controlled aerodrome only if the holder also holds a controlled aerodrome endorsement.
61.460 Privileges of recreational pilot licences
Subject to Subpart 61.E and regulations 61.465 and 61.470, the holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot a single‑engine aircraft as pilot in command or co‑pilot if:
(a) the aircraft is certificated for single‑pilot operation; and
(b) the aircraft has a maximum certificated take‑off weight of not more than 1 500 kg; and
(c) the aircraft is not rocket‑powered or turbine‑powered; and
(d) the flight is conducted by day under the VFR; and
(e) either:
(i) the aircraft is engaged in a private operation; or
(ii) the holder is receiving flight training.
61.465 Limitations on exercise of privileges of recreational pilot licences—general
(1) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft in a Contracting State’s airspace only if the holder has the permission (however described) of the Contracting State to do so.
(2) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft carrying more than one passenger only if the holder:
(a) also holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; or
(b) is accompanied by another pilot who:
(i) holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; and
(ii) occupies a flight control seat in the aircraft; and
(iii) is authorised to pilot the aircraft.
(3) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft above 10 000 ft above mean sea level only if the holder:
(a) also holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; or
(b) is accompanied by another pilot who:
(i) holds a current class 1 or 2 medical certificate; and
(ii) occupies a flight control seat in the aircraft; and
(iii) is authorised to pilot the aircraft.
61.470 Limitations on exercise of privileges of recreational pilot licences—endorsements
(1) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft outside the following areas only if the holder also holds a recreational navigation endorsement:
(a) the area within 25 nautical miles of the departure aerodrome;
(b) a flight training area;
(c) the area that is a direct route between the departure aerodrome and a flight training area.
(2) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft in controlled airspace only if the holder also holds a controlled airspace endorsement.
(3) The holder of a recreational pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft at a controlled aerodrome only if the holder also holds a controlled aerodrome endorsement.
the aircraft is not rocket‑powered
.....
Blue Bandit,
The medical requirements, stupidly, are such that, if you qualify, you will also qualify for a Class 2 medical, making sod all difference between a RPL and a PPL.
There has never been a proper risk management case to justify the RPL limitation, just pluck something out of a hat. As I recall, the NZ gross weight restriction is 2000kg --- and as unjustified as our 1500.
At long last, the US legislation is just about to hit the streets ---- it eliminates the Class 3 (same as our Class 2) for the National Drivers License Standard ( same as RAOz here) and the only limitation will be max. 6000lb and 6 seats and 250 kts.
In other words, this FAA PPL/DL Medical will cover over 90% of all PPL operations.
The yanks were very slow off the mark on this one, (and it is an "industry" initiative) but they are doing a proper job of it, and it is national legislation, not an FAA rule making, so industry/FAA troglodytes will not be able to administratively neuter it, it is part of the second edition of the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" legislation.
Quite a contrast to our "Bill of Wrongs" approach to aviation administration.
Tootle pip!!
The medical requirements, stupidly, are such that, if you qualify, you will also qualify for a Class 2 medical, making sod all difference between a RPL and a PPL.
There has never been a proper risk management case to justify the RPL limitation, just pluck something out of a hat. As I recall, the NZ gross weight restriction is 2000kg --- and as unjustified as our 1500.
At long last, the US legislation is just about to hit the streets ---- it eliminates the Class 3 (same as our Class 2) for the National Drivers License Standard ( same as RAOz here) and the only limitation will be max. 6000lb and 6 seats and 250 kts.
In other words, this FAA PPL/DL Medical will cover over 90% of all PPL operations.
The yanks were very slow off the mark on this one, (and it is an "industry" initiative) but they are doing a proper job of it, and it is national legislation, not an FAA rule making, so industry/FAA troglodytes will not be able to administratively neuter it, it is part of the second edition of the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" legislation.
Quite a contrast to our "Bill of Wrongs" approach to aviation administration.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth WA
Age: 57
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recreational V PPL
Thank you all for the information.
As I understand it, if I were to obtain a Recreational Pilots Licence and wanted to add the navigation and passenger carrying endorsements, the time and money investment is then similar to the standard PPL?
If that is the case, I may as well go down the PPL route.
Once again thank you all for the replies.
As I understand it, if I were to obtain a Recreational Pilots Licence and wanted to add the navigation and passenger carrying endorsements, the time and money investment is then similar to the standard PPL?
If that is the case, I may as well go down the PPL route.
Once again thank you all for the replies.
Last edited by Blue Bandit; 13th Sep 2016 at 06:39.
May as well go straight for PPL, no need to do an RPL on the way.
It was so that people with GFPTs could carry on flying without doing navs and a way for people with RA Aus pilot certificates to switch to GA and fly bigger aircraft.
Also so that people who didn't want to fly in CTA could still be able to go further than 25nm as CTA is required for the PPL.
There is a lot of misinformation flying around although the rules as posted by Stretch06 are easy enough to find.
Also so that people who didn't want to fly in CTA could still be able to go further than 25nm as CTA is required for the PPL.
There is a lot of misinformation flying around although the rules as posted by Stretch06 are easy enough to find.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, if I were to obtain a Recreational Pilots Licence and wanted to add the navigation and passenger carrying endorsements, the time and money investment is then similar to the standard PPL?
If you gain a RPL(CASA) then there is no requirement for extra training and a passenger carrying endorsement does not exist. It is part of the Licence.
If you gain a RPC(RAAus) then you do require extra training prior to being granted a passenger carrying endorsement.
If we return to your original question regarding flying a C172 or Warrior, you can fly those with a RPL(CASA) but you will not be able to fly them with a RPC(RAAus).
I hope that clarifies the situation. I apologise if I have misinterpreted your original intent of the question. However after working with both regulations and training in both CASA and RAAus environments, I know since Part 61 and the change from GFPT to RPL(CASA) alot of people simple confuse the Licence with the Certificate and visa versa.
Stretch
Most of this mis-information comes from flying schools that are out to make an extra buck. There is nothing to stop you from going straight from RA-Aus RPC to PPL in very limited hours, like <5. Pilots have been doing this for years. I know a pilot that got his full PPL with CTA without having ever gone solo in a GA aircraft. It's all about the school and how much they wish to bleed you of your hard earned. (Unless you are a slow leaner of course)
I recently became aware of a high profile dual RA-Aus / GA school that is deliberately going out of their way to NOT inform RPC holders about the RA-Aus nav endorsement. They are telling students that the next step is to get an RPL and as a result selling them additional training for that license and subsequent navs to follow, at the higher GA hire rate.
Said company amongst others are also heavily into well-worded packages on their websites that make it sound like you get the works, but not telling you how much extra to make it a value meal with fries and coke and toy.
I recently became aware of a high profile dual RA-Aus / GA school that is deliberately going out of their way to NOT inform RPC holders about the RA-Aus nav endorsement. They are telling students that the next step is to get an RPL and as a result selling them additional training for that license and subsequent navs to follow, at the higher GA hire rate.
Said company amongst others are also heavily into well-worded packages on their websites that make it sound like you get the works, but not telling you how much extra to make it a value meal with fries and coke and toy.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a pilot that got his full PPL with CTA without having ever gone solo in a GA aircraft.
Edit: He's gone solo in other craft though right?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Recreational Pilots Licence (RPL) was originally intended to do away with the litigiously dodgy Post GFPT passenger carrying privileges on the Student Pilot Licence (SPL). The RPL was intended to be a building block approach to training for the PPL, in a similar fashion to the old Restricted PPL (RPPL).
The RPPL had served Australians very well in days of yore, but unfortunately quite a few Aussie scallywags used their RPPL to gain full licences in foreign countries, which caused CAA, as it was then, some acute embarrassment. So the CAA brought in the SPL Post GFPT pax carrying provisions of the now defunct CAR 5. The RPL is therefore a non ICAO licence, similar to the British National Pilots Licence and can only be used in Australia.
The Nav privileges were added to the RPL for the benefit of those remotely based pilots who might never get near controlled airspace, but needed a bit of freedom, without the cost of flying long distances to visit controlled airspace and aerodromes that they would never likely visit again.
Originally the only weight limitation was 5700kg. The 1500kg limit was, I understand, lobbied for by the SAAA in an attempt to fast track the RPL and to enable the No Medical option. Since 1500kg covers all but one four seat aeroplane type, it was generally accepted by industry.
The transition from Recreational Pilot Certificate (RPC) to RPL was not even on the agenda when the RPL was first under consideration, however as the very same aircraft type can now be registered VH or RAAus this became inevitable and now a RPC holder could very well transition to a PPL without having flown solo in a VH aeroplane.
There is certainly no impediment to training straight through to PPL, but if you need a time out to consolidate your flying, pass the CASA PPL Exam and rebuild your bank balance then the RPL is available.
The RPPL had served Australians very well in days of yore, but unfortunately quite a few Aussie scallywags used their RPPL to gain full licences in foreign countries, which caused CAA, as it was then, some acute embarrassment. So the CAA brought in the SPL Post GFPT pax carrying provisions of the now defunct CAR 5. The RPL is therefore a non ICAO licence, similar to the British National Pilots Licence and can only be used in Australia.
The Nav privileges were added to the RPL for the benefit of those remotely based pilots who might never get near controlled airspace, but needed a bit of freedom, without the cost of flying long distances to visit controlled airspace and aerodromes that they would never likely visit again.
Originally the only weight limitation was 5700kg. The 1500kg limit was, I understand, lobbied for by the SAAA in an attempt to fast track the RPL and to enable the No Medical option. Since 1500kg covers all but one four seat aeroplane type, it was generally accepted by industry.
The transition from Recreational Pilot Certificate (RPC) to RPL was not even on the agenda when the RPL was first under consideration, however as the very same aircraft type can now be registered VH or RAAus this became inevitable and now a RPC holder could very well transition to a PPL without having flown solo in a VH aeroplane.
There is certainly no impediment to training straight through to PPL, but if you need a time out to consolidate your flying, pass the CASA PPL Exam and rebuild your bank balance then the RPL is available.
Last edited by Seagull V; 14th Sep 2016 at 10:36. Reason: Correcting formatting errors