Proposed 1500kg RA AUS aircraft weight increase
I would agree with RooDog.
RPL seems similar in many ways to the old Restricted Licence (that was in place before the GFPT idea replaced it) and I think has a valid place.
NB You don't have to obtain an RPL on your way to a PPL, you can skip the RPL flight test and just keep training for the higher licence if you want to avoid paying for it.
I also would be surprised that a decent school who trained you to obtain an RPL would not allow you to hire one of their aircraft.
RPL seems similar in many ways to the old Restricted Licence (that was in place before the GFPT idea replaced it) and I think has a valid place.
NB You don't have to obtain an RPL on your way to a PPL, you can skip the RPL flight test and just keep training for the higher licence if you want to avoid paying for it.
I also would be surprised that a decent school who trained you to obtain an RPL would not allow you to hire one of their aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RooDog, @jonkster:
My comment regarding the RPL is assuming a beefed up RAAUS with MTOW <= 1500 kg. Your friends would be allowed to fly much the same aircraft at a cheaper rate, hence rendering the RPL less attractive than the RAAUS pilot certificate.
As for:
Spot on. Caveat: It is easy to be wise after the fact. Nobody at my school bothered to tell me this until after I took the RPL flight test.
Luckily, the flip side of that coin is that, an RPL makes changing schools relatively straightforward, and therefore give you at least that option instead of feeling stuck at an unsatisfactory one on the way to PPL/CPL.
By the time you obtained your RPL it might be too late for that anyway.
My comment regarding the RPL is assuming a beefed up RAAUS with MTOW <= 1500 kg. Your friends would be allowed to fly much the same aircraft at a cheaper rate, hence rendering the RPL less attractive than the RAAUS pilot certificate.
As for:
NB You don't have to obtain an RPL on your way to a PPL, you can skip the RPL flight test and just keep training for the higher licence if you want to avoid paying for it.
Luckily, the flip side of that coin is that, an RPL makes changing schools relatively straightforward, and therefore give you at least that option instead of feeling stuck at an unsatisfactory one on the way to PPL/CPL.
I also would be surprised that a decent school who trained you to obtain an RPL would not allow you to hire one of their aircraft.
I for one would be very interested in knowing just how many pilots who choose to fly VH- aircraft settle for just an RPL and not PPL/CPL. To me this 'license' is utter nonsense and has been introduced to squeeze the wallets of prospective pilots on their way to PPL/CPL. Nobody in the GA community seems to take it seriously anyway, least of whom flight schools themselves who teach at RPL level but won't let you hire their aircraft with that license alone. Now if RAAus is upgraded to 1500 kg, it'll just turn the RPL into a drunken farce.
I'd suggest: cut your losses, salvage whatever esteem is left by scrapping the RPL and at the same time increase the RAAus MTOW to give overweight recreational pilots a slim chance to fly with full tanks.
I'd suggest: cut your losses, salvage whatever esteem is left by scrapping the RPL and at the same time increase the RAAus MTOW to give overweight recreational pilots a slim chance to fly with full tanks.
Furthermore this licence is pretty well given to holders of RAA Aus qualifications who then only need a flight review to use it and fly VH registered aeroplanes. Smart flying schools will start to wake up to the fact that there is money to be earned simply by encouraging RAA Aus pilots to "have a go".
An added benefit of the licence to RAA Aus folk is if they get a CTA endorsement on it they can fly their "24" registered bugsmashers into CTA and some are getting it for this purpose alone.
I add to this as an edit, a RPL is all the vast majority of private pilots will ever need.
Last edited by Aussie Bob; 20th Jun 2018 at 07:28.
Aussie Bob,
Well said, but isn't it a testimony to the ratbag complexity of Australian "rooles" that we even need to have such explanations.
Again, it is a condemnation of the CASA bureaucracy that we are still waiting for a "CTA endorsement" for RAoz in CTL ----- but the really stupid thing about this is that something called "CTA" is such a "big deal".
Indeed, we have plethora of "endorsements" that most other places, are just part of normal flying training.
Flying in controlled airspace should just be part of day to day flying training ---- not something mysterious and remote to the degree that the RAOz "CTA Endorsement" has been "just around the corner" around 20 years --- 20 YEARS+.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I had the good fortune to start flying somewhere else, it was only when I returned to Australia, did I "realise" how difficult and complicated aviation actually was --- a revelation that had not dawned on the rest of the world ----- and all these years later ---- still hasn't.
Well said, but isn't it a testimony to the ratbag complexity of Australian "rooles" that we even need to have such explanations.
Again, it is a condemnation of the CASA bureaucracy that we are still waiting for a "CTA endorsement" for RAoz in CTL ----- but the really stupid thing about this is that something called "CTA" is such a "big deal".
Indeed, we have plethora of "endorsements" that most other places, are just part of normal flying training.
Flying in controlled airspace should just be part of day to day flying training ---- not something mysterious and remote to the degree that the RAOz "CTA Endorsement" has been "just around the corner" around 20 years --- 20 YEARS+.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I had the good fortune to start flying somewhere else, it was only when I returned to Australia, did I "realise" how difficult and complicated aviation actually was --- a revelation that had not dawned on the rest of the world ----- and all these years later ---- still hasn't.
Leaddie, I have come to the sad conclusion that rooles are what Australians love. Outside aviation, just look at what is required to commence building on your little block in the burbs. Aviation rules, as we know are totally "over the top" but at least the RPL is something that is relatively easy to obtain. The problem is that most flying schools haven't caught on. I say it again, the privileges of this licence is all that the vast majority of private pilots will ever need or use.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPC to RPL is a cheap conversion and offers the above benefit which, in real terms, has the biggest impact on PAX carrying ability. RAAus allows 1 pax max so to take a family or couple of friends requires the RPL as a minimum. If RAAus ups their pax limit in addition to MTOW then CASA will pretty much be completely eliminated from the recreational pilot category (with the exception of CTA).
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okihara, sadly you have no idea what you are talking about. The RPL is a valid Australian pilots licence that is easier to obtain than a PPL and, for a lot of pilots is all that is required. I teach RPL, issue RPL and hire aircraft to RPL holders. It is nothing like the old restricted pilots licence, you can get a navigation endorsement on it for a start and get a CTA endorsement on it if required. The navigation endorsement can be issued with nav's conducted solely OCTA and the standard does not have to be quite as high as a PPL. Suggest you catch up with the times :-) You can even fly a Cirrus on one and I know several holders that fly retractable high performance singles (up to 1500 kg and 4 seats).
Furthermore this licence is pretty well given to holders of RAA Aus qualifications who then only need a flight review to use it and fly VH registered aeroplanes. Smart flying schools will start to wake up to the fact that there is money to be earned simply by encouraging RAA Aus pilots to "have a go".
An added benefit of the licence to RAA Aus folk is if they get a CTA endorsement on it they can fly their "24" registered bugsmashers into CTA and some are getting it for this purpose alone.
I add to this as an edit, a RPL is all the vast majority of private pilots will ever need.
Furthermore this licence is pretty well given to holders of RAA Aus qualifications who then only need a flight review to use it and fly VH registered aeroplanes. Smart flying schools will start to wake up to the fact that there is money to be earned simply by encouraging RAA Aus pilots to "have a go".
An added benefit of the licence to RAA Aus folk is if they get a CTA endorsement on it they can fly their "24" registered bugsmashers into CTA and some are getting it for this purpose alone.
I add to this as an edit, a RPL is all the vast majority of private pilots will ever need.
I would also like to kindly remind you that the thread is about RAAUS being upgraded to 1500 kg. And my concern is about the relevance of the RPL if that upgrade were to happen. The only advantage of the RPL over such a RAAUS certificate would then be the passenger limit and controlled airspace/aerodrome. But isn't this too thin and is it seriouly worth having a separate licence for? Just sounds like confusing noise to me.
Okihara, sadly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Divide and rule. Confuse and control. Work by short term exemptions that must be renewed, altered (or not) every two years. This generates the maximum uncertainty and hence risk for would be participants in aviation. This is not the way to generate investment, jobs and growth.
What's worse, CASA can force RAA into inflicting all sorts of torture on its members on pain of losing its exemptions and authorisations....and the members don't have the fig leaf of protection provided by the AAT because RAA is a private body.
To put it another way, its potentially exchanging one dictator for a horde of little ones. C
What's worse, CASA can force RAA into inflicting all sorts of torture on its members on pain of losing its exemptions and authorisations....and the members don't have the fig leaf of protection provided by the AAT because RAA is a private body.
To put it another way, its potentially exchanging one dictator for a horde of little ones. C
Sunfish,
For Gaaawds sake, don't look at draft CASR Part 149, or compare it to the NZ equivalent, that has been on the books and proven for around 20 years or so.
Aussie Bob,
Could not agree more.
Over the years I have been involved in numerous "consultation" exercises where groups of pilots have been asked what they wanted from "regulation reform" .
Without exception, as a motherhood "aspiration" reform was a good thing, then without expectation, when we go down to specifics, there were always plenty of ideas for MORE regulation, not less, as every petty pilot hobbyhorse was seen as a reason for more, not less, regulation. Mostly, they "knew" that what worked elsewhere in the world would NOT work here.
And, believe me, some of these "demands" get right down into the weeds. Indeed, with a small group of limited experience instructors, if it was left to them, CASR Part 61 would have been half as big again ----- talk about psychological conditioning.
A couple of them even wanted separate "ratings" depending on which way the prop rotated --- ie: which boot was required on takeoff . That was not the only (to my mind at least, if not from theirs) ratbag suggestion.
When asked if they believed that separate endorsements should be required for a Holden if you were "trained" on a Ford, the whooshing sound was the thought going straight over their heads.
Tootle pip!!
For Gaaawds sake, don't look at draft CASR Part 149, or compare it to the NZ equivalent, that has been on the books and proven for around 20 years or so.
Aussie Bob,
Could not agree more.
Over the years I have been involved in numerous "consultation" exercises where groups of pilots have been asked what they wanted from "regulation reform" .
Without exception, as a motherhood "aspiration" reform was a good thing, then without expectation, when we go down to specifics, there were always plenty of ideas for MORE regulation, not less, as every petty pilot hobbyhorse was seen as a reason for more, not less, regulation. Mostly, they "knew" that what worked elsewhere in the world would NOT work here.
And, believe me, some of these "demands" get right down into the weeds. Indeed, with a small group of limited experience instructors, if it was left to them, CASR Part 61 would have been half as big again ----- talk about psychological conditioning.
A couple of them even wanted separate "ratings" depending on which way the prop rotated --- ie: which boot was required on takeoff . That was not the only (to my mind at least, if not from theirs) ratbag suggestion.
When asked if they believed that separate endorsements should be required for a Holden if you were "trained" on a Ford, the whooshing sound was the thought going straight over their heads.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Jun 2018 at 00:20. Reason: typo
Two parts of the proposed 1500 kg RAA legislation have not been announced, indeed there is a roaring silence:
1. Can I maintain it myself?
2. Can the engine run "on condition" (as is totally acceptable in the USA) when it is timex by hours? I know it can here but LAME's are reluctant to sign out on hour expired engines due to a fear of litigation. You may get a 100 hour extension if you know the LAME perhaps. I recently spotted a 172R for sale in the US Aviation Trader that had 4500 TT on the engine without a rebuild. No one rebuilds car engines simply based on the odometer. We are not talking charter here, just simple day VFR recreational flying.
If the answer to either of these questions is no, the new proposal is useless. Why would I pay yearly to have my aircraft registered with the RAA when with CASA registration is perpetual. Regarding the maintenance, if it has to go to the local LAME anyway, what would be the point? In any event I can't really see myself changing my maintenance policy drastically. I am more than happy with the local LAME.
Can anyone else come up with a good reason if the above is not allowed and frankly I don't see it happening.
1. Can I maintain it myself?
2. Can the engine run "on condition" (as is totally acceptable in the USA) when it is timex by hours? I know it can here but LAME's are reluctant to sign out on hour expired engines due to a fear of litigation. You may get a 100 hour extension if you know the LAME perhaps. I recently spotted a 172R for sale in the US Aviation Trader that had 4500 TT on the engine without a rebuild. No one rebuilds car engines simply based on the odometer. We are not talking charter here, just simple day VFR recreational flying.
If the answer to either of these questions is no, the new proposal is useless. Why would I pay yearly to have my aircraft registered with the RAA when with CASA registration is perpetual. Regarding the maintenance, if it has to go to the local LAME anyway, what would be the point? In any event I can't really see myself changing my maintenance policy drastically. I am more than happy with the local LAME.
Can anyone else come up with a good reason if the above is not allowed and frankly I don't see it happening.
Two parts of the proposed 1500 kg RAA legislation have not been announced, indeed there is a roaring silence:
1. Can I maintain it myself?
2. Can the engine run "on condition" (as is totally acceptable in the USA) when it is timex by hours? I know it can here but LAME's are reluctant to sign out on hour expired engines due to a fear of litigation. You may get a 100 hour extension if you know the LAME perhaps.
1. Can I maintain it myself?
2. Can the engine run "on condition" (as is totally acceptable in the USA) when it is timex by hours? I know it can here but LAME's are reluctant to sign out on hour expired engines due to a fear of litigation. You may get a 100 hour extension if you know the LAME perhaps.
An unholy trinity of CASA and "interested parties" are responsible for white-anting AD/ENG-4, and pushing manufacturer's RECOMMENDED TBO as a mandatory limit, and the financial costs are very considerable.
All too often here, "consultation" gives great weight to "experts" who stand to gain commercially/financially, and CASA can always say they are "tightening up safety", whatever that means.
Yet another example of the cost of not conducting proper benefit/cost analysis of any proposals.
Over many years, running a Chieftain's engines to the high 2000s/low 3000s was the norm, on commuter operations and similar, now unknown. This has pushed the hourly engine cost way up ----- all without any "safety" justification. Indeed, the TSIO-540s involved had an excellent record, because the maintainers and pilots of the day knew what they were doing. There was and is no statistical record to justify what CASA have done in recent years.
All private and aerial work operations should allow "engines on condition"and other piston engines should be on a "maintenance program" geared to the activity, and still based on engine condition, just a bit more prescriptive in continuous condition recording.
But, of course, CASA hates this idea, as there is a perceived liability for CASA, and it is perceived, not real.
The lack of any real piston engine expertise, these days, in CASA, just makes the situation even less "results" driven.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 23rd Jun 2018 at 03:56. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago when discussing TBOs with my LAME he simply stated "All engines from brand new are ' on condition' When I looked surprised he asked if I would continue to fly if my engine threw a cylinder off the block. Looking at things that way makes arbitrary TBO times seem silly providing regular inspections are carried out.
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else seen the news about the LSA weight limits being increased to 3600lbs?
(I can't post a link (because I am on probation!) but Google "LSA weight limit increase" and you'll see some results)
(I can't post a link (because I am on probation!) but Google "LSA weight limit increase" and you'll see some results)
I presume you are referring to a rather blue sky FAA proposal?
Look for AvWeb, it's on there.
Don't hold your breath.
Tootle pip!!
