GFPT flight area restrictions.
 

Hi. Im studying for my Australian PPL and was wondering what the flight area restrictions are once you have passed your GFPT.

I thought it was that you could fly 10nm from the airprot that you passed your GFPT test and also in the allocated training area ( if the airport has one).

I have been told also that you can only fly in the training area.


Any thoughts/suggestions would be great.

I would imagine that with an ICAO licence you can fly anywhere in the world.

Once you pass your GFPT, you may carry passengers within the training area. Before the GFPT we had a "restricted PPL".

With a GFPT you may do solo cross-country exercises as set by your instructor, but you are still flying on a STUDENT pilot licence.

Once you pass your PPL flight test you can fill your boots.

Cheerio....

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.

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).

CAO 40.1.0

Logging of flight time:

10.3 The holder of a student pilot licence may log as time in command only that time during which he or she is the sole occupant of an aeroplane in flight.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, The GFPT is not a licence or equivalent to the Restricted PPL, it is an optional test that a student pilot can do which confers privileges of how many hours/months you can go between dual checks.
It is not required for a student to have passed the GFPT to do a solo cross country unless that cross country will be more than three hours long.
You can only go where the instructor authorises you to go and the instructor is the one who can be prosecuted if they authorise a flight when you carry passengers.
If the student pilot carries passengers they cannot log the time as pilot in command.
It doesnt give exemptions from being tested in all items in the syllabus for the PPL. The GFPT isn't even mentioned on the PPL test form.

What Horatio said. They like to keep GFPT pilots relatively close and under control 'cos it cuts down body and airframe recovery time in the event..... :E

So if you are the sole pilot with a GFPT and take someone for a burn in the training area, what does it get logged as?

It's not dual or co-pilot or heaven forbid ICUS as the other occupant isn't a pilot but you have to log something as far as I'm aware.

mcgrath,

it would get logged as PIC time.

Refer to CAR5 as to the delineation between a 'student pilot license holder' and 'student pilot license holder who obtains a GFPT'.

specifically see CAR 5.72- re a GFPT holder carrying pax WITHIN the Training Area.

A student pilot is a student pilot with or without a GFPT.

Car 5.72 refers to the authorizing instructor not the student pilot.

A GFPT is a defence to a prosecution (and we are talking about strict liability here) of the INSTRUCTOR if they have given permission for the student to carry passengers. I don't interpret that as a "passenger carrying privilege" but I know a lot of people do, and it's their liability so good luck to them.

I have brought the issue of CAO 40.1.0 up with CASA a few times and never got a satisfactory answer about the logging of flight time issue as applicable to a student pilot carrying passengers.

Much easier and much better value for the student to bypass the GFPT (all elements of which have to be tested again at PPL anyway)and these legal grey areas, save a couple of thousand bucks and proceed directly to the PPL.

Clare Prop,

problem with going to the PPL and not doing the GFPT is the 3 hours consecutive solo max limit until a dual check. With a GFPT it becomes 15 hours..

What if my student is on a 2-2.5 hour solo nav and gets diverted due weather/atc etc and has to go over the 3 hours? Or even if they want to do a 2.5 hour nav + some airwork to practice for the PPL test they cant..

There are issues to both sides of the argument if you ask me...

Yes as I said that is one application of the GFPT. however, as the requirement is 5 hours solo cross country this can be achieved in 2 flights of around 2.5 - 2.8 hours each. If any flight is longer than three hours the student is having to do much more than the 5 hours required. 2.5 is plenty on a hot bumpy day.

In my estimation the GFPT, just the test itself can add close to $1000 to the cost of getting the PPL. Then add things like having to get the 2 hours IF done prior to GFPT rather than doing some of it during navigation learning how to navigate out of a poor visibility situation etc..it can cost more. Better to make sure they don't get sent on a nav where they would do a diversion that would make it longer rather than shorter??

Each to their own but there are a lot of misunderstandings surrounding it. No doubt it is a nice little earner for the flying schools. Instead of a GFPT we use that time to revise all exercises in the aircraft they will use for navs...unlike some who invent "5 hour C172 endorsements" prior to starting navs AS WELL AS the GFPT!! :uhoh:

Circa 1996 I was told via FF that the RPL, (restricted private pilot licence), would be replaced with a RPL, (recreational pilot licence), with restrictions and everything as was currently in use including add on's.

Now please anybody tell me how such a simple re-wording of the existing could cause such angst.

I know persons who gained a RPL then progressed via their own freshly purchased Baron to the UPPL. Most still fly with a add on instrument rating to this day.

So simple, but like the PIFR someone buggers it all up simply because they can.

That is correct, but flying schools would rather you stick to the training area. With ymmb, when coming in from the training area via GMH you do actually leave the training area. But you wouldn't want to be dicking around 10nm to the north..

10nm?

Reference please!

Hope we're not getting confused with RAAus' 25km radius ...

The reference is CAR 5.69 whether you have done a GFPT or not.

If the training area doesn't go to the edge of the aerodrome, eg at Jandakot where it ends at Boatyard/Forrestdale Lake, you must track inbound via the approved entry track.

Obviously, they should have been told if they haven't done a forced landing and aren't on the ground when the three hour timer goes off they're going to be sucked into an alternate dimension. :rolleyes:

From the GFPT restrictions section out of the BAK theory book from ATC. Also word of mouth from the instructor

Word of mouth from the instructor doesn't supersede the CARs. :ugh:

This sums up why the industry is so full of myths, legends and old wives tales...always ask the instructor for references, they are readily available. AFAIK the ATC books usually give references.

So don't listen to anything my instructor says? Was also a question on the BAK test that I sat

If your instructor can provide a reference that negates the Civil Aviation Regulations then please ask him to put it up here.

It is not unheard of for instructors and text books to be wrong or misguided which is why the correct references are necessary.

The GFPT seems to have as many myths surrounding it as the perennial "over square" engine argument and the one that says it's OK to sign part 3 of maintenance release when you haven't even looked at the aeroplane. "My instructor told me...." is not a defence for not knowing the information if the :mad: hits the fan.

The references are readily available and a thorough instructor would always show you where they are rather than saying "This is how it is because that's what MY instructor told ME so don't ever question it".

Simple question, 18 posts in reply & still no clear answer :cool:

That's what happens when you let ******** lawyers control legislation :ok: