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.

CASA RPL recreational aircraft <1500kg so yes you can.

From memory there's a two seat limit. However it's probably best to check the actual rule book rather than asking a bunch of anonymous internet users before you go flying.

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.

Shux!


.....

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!!

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.

May as well go straight for PPL, no need to do an RPL on the way.

That is the way I am thinking. Do not think the Rec licence is any different costings wise with the required add ons.

Leadsled is right again. The RPL is a sick joke foisted on us by McCormick.

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.

So a Mercury Redstone vehicle is out of the question? Bummer!

Blue Bandit, your statement above leads me to believe that you may be confused between a Recreational Pilots Licence (CASA) and a Recreational Pilot Certificate (RAAus).

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.

What,flying schools padding out the training to extract more money? Surely not!

I call bull****, I doubt that it would have got past CASA. There are specific requirements regarding solo hours for PPL

Edit: He's gone solo in other craft though right?

Thank you stretch. That clarifies the situation for me. Good information.:ok:

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.

All the solo hours could have been done in RAAus aircraft if the pilot came from there.

Yes, correct. Instrument, Nav and solo time can be done under RA-Aus.

I know... Just ask me about my "friend."

I agree the nav and solo time would count, as long as the PPL training was non intergrated. However I am not sure there is no instrument training in the RA-Aus syllabus. I know that RAAus does not approve of people attempting to fly IF (training or otherwise) in an RA-Aus rego aircraft.

Same as people who have a PPL or CPL going and flying an RA-Aus rego aircraft without an RAAus Pilot Certificate.

Unless part 61 specifies that the instrument time must be completed in a GA registered aircraft, then yes, you can do the instrument time in RA-Aus. It's simulated anyway and not in cloud, so ok for RA-Aus, unless your school is one that goes under IFR for the practice 2 hours of instrument work.

In reality, there's no harm to be done by heading back from the training area in RA-Aus under the hood - it's good practice regardless of aircraft type and registration.

Of course, there is an assumption here that the aircraft if appropriately equipped, as many are these days.

Squawk, that is a big assumption. Just because the aircraft is fitted with a G500 doesn't mean it is TSO for instrument ops.

Seagull V, "The RPL is therefore a non ICAO licence, similar to the British National Pilots Licence and can only be used in Australia."

Well, that's an improvement on the CASA PPL (G) (glider) which you can get so you can fly gliders in countries that have actual licences (needed for contests and private operations in those countries).
The Australian CASA PPL (G) IS NOT VALID IN AUSTRALIA.
Interesting, as the overseas temporary licence is generally issued on the basis of your qualification to fly in Australia. I wonder if the FAA and EASA know? Insurance companies?
This is the result of CASA and GFA conspiring to keep flying gliders in Australia a GFA monopoly. Not that the GFA does a wonderful job of safety judging by the number of people killed and injured by their "qualified" instructors and their inadequate "training" system.
Someone said the other day that Australia has a 3rd world , banana republic, aviation regulatory system.
Yep.

Again... where does it say that you need a TSO'ed IFR capable/equipped/current aircraft to be able to conduct instrument conditions in CAVOK....? I don't believe it does. There's no need to over complicate things that really don't need to be.

You can do your instrument flying on a 7" dynon or steam gauge if you want to. In the end it's not going to matter what you did it in as it's all about competence and if you can prove to the senior instructor, CFI or ATO that you are willing and capable, you'll be ticked off with ease.

Speaking of RPC's and RPL's... this is in no way a criticism of the pilot or instructor here, however what is the purpose of this lesson at the 6 minute mark?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwBZvVpYwnI

Also, the "handing over, taking over" process, is that still the norm these days, or does the instructor over-ride the student? It's been so long since I was learning I don't know what the current trends are.

The whole instrument thing is interesting. If the holder of a RPC with a cross country endorsement applies to CASA for a RPL they will receive an RPL with a cross country endorsement and will have zero logged hours of IF (IF not being part of the RAA curriculum).

If on the other hand, the holder of a RPC without a cross country endorsement applies for a RPL and then wants a cross country endorsement on their new RPL they will have to do a minimum of 2 hours dual IF, one of which must be in an aeroplane. (Ref 61.500)

In answer to the OP's original post, it would appear to be more cost effective to first get an RPC with cross country endorsement, use it to get an RPL, then find someone to do a bit of conversion training with in say a C150, then pass a flight review. They may then however find themselves in a spot of bother, if the reviewing instructor elects to bring out "the hood" :-)

I cant see how that is possible 61.500 (5)(c)(ii) clearly states that for recognition of the cross country endorsement that the minimums are met. This is repeated on the application Form 61-9RTX is for Recreational Pilot Licence transition of Pilot Certificate.
61.500 Grant of endorsement in recognition of other qualifications
(5) An applicant for a recreational navigation endorsement is eligible to be granted the endorsement if:
(a) regulation 61.480 applies to the applicant; and
(b) the applicant holds a cross country navigation approval from the recreational aviation administration organisation; and
(c) the applicant has completed the following flight time that complies with subregulation 61.495(3):
(i) at least 5 hours of solo cross country flight time;
(ii) at least 2 hours of dual instrument time, 1 hour of which is conducted during dual instrument flight time.

If a RAAus pilot wants his nav endorsement to carry across to an RPL he or she has to have the minimum 5hrs of solo nav and the 2 hrs of IF (one of which can be done in a sim) We generally give them an hour in the sim and then an hour in a GA aircraft as part of their training towards the Flight Review they have to do to activate the RPL. Form 61-1RTX is used for the conversion and clearly says the 2 hrs IF is required.

Look, the above is fine. Sadly the fact is, most RPC holders I see who have gained their licences by filling out form 61-1RTX have zero instrument experience.

I guess they "justify" what they put on the form by counting ipad time :)

As an edit to the above, I haven't looked at 61-1RTX for almost two years and cannot remember there even being an IF section on it. I see it there now. Has it changed since September 2014? Today I asked a RAA convert what he put for the IF bit and got a blank stare. He stated it was not on the form.

The Instructor hardly had his hands off the controls during the entire flight. Perhaps that is why there was no hand over / take over.

Demonstrate – Direct – Monitor; is how an instructor with a CASA rating would conduct the flight lesson.

So much more fun and better value for money when you actually get to fly the aircraft yourself.

Go either RAA or PPL
 

Yep RPL is a joke
not really worth the paper its on
Go either RAA or PPL

Condog72 I totally disagree. The RPL is a licence that recognises that RAA pilots can in fact fly GA registered aircraft. An RAA pilot can apply for a RPL, do a bit of conversion training, pass a flight review then viola, they can instantly fly VH registered aircraft up to 182 size.

They can also get a radio endorsement and then, if they own or fly a factory built RAA machine, venture into controlled airspace (with appropriate CTA endorsement gained on the RPL).

So, while training for a RPL in a GA registered aircraft from the start is probably pointless (Just get a PPL with pretty much the same training), learning to fly in a RAA registered aircraft then converting this to a RPL is a very viable option for lots of pilots who simply want to fly something slightly bigger than a 600 kg bugsmasher. In my area applications by RAA pilots for a RPL is a very common happening. Most of them fly very well too.

Hi Bob Im RAA trained and can tell you after a fair bit of GA training with two schools, RAA is really on its game...these little light weights really teach fantastic motor kills and the training is every bit as good as most GA schools up to GFPT level...possibly better.

My bugsmasher leaves most GA for dead...costs more , goes faster and costs about 1/3rd of the cost to run...my only gripe is a complete lack of carrying capacity when fully fueled.

Love it and wouldn't swap to a GA for quids..

But back on topic...I went down the RPL path and quit to go PPL as the RPL is a joke, has all the hassles of PPL, most the costs and half the privileges...

.

Where can I get one of those 'Wings Leveller' from?


Could be handy on long flights! ;)

You teach the student to fly straight and level, usually on the second lesson; then you allow him or her to practice this skill over the remainder of their flight training. If you keep touching the controls how will they know if they are maintaining straight and level or you are. The same applies to the rest of the lesson.
If the student is not given the opportunity to learn surely they will take many more hours/dollars to achieve competency

No arguments here.

I would have taken a metal ruler with me on the next lesson, and 'Smacked' his knuckles with it if he touched the controls without 'taking control'.:rolleyes:

It happens for real Acro and it potentially quite common.

A low time pilot told me recently that he avoided flying with one of his instructors after about 3pm as he used to hit his hand when on the controls. Turns out said instructor was getting the shakes as it was approaching beer o'clock and his frustrations started to quickly show. Time to find another instructor perhaps :-(

Form 61-RTX has no requirement for any IF for an RPL conversion from RPC.. Nor does the RPL application form 61-1RA.

However 2 hours dual IF, 1 hour in flight are required for the cross country endorsement for an RPC holder to fly GA.

Under 141.305 a pilot training under Part 141 has to have 2 hours dual IF of which 1 hour in fight before they can go area solo. Even though this isn't included in the CASA sample RPL planning matrix which only has IF training after area solo and then only 1.4 hours total for the RPL.

So you can hold a Part 61 licence without training under or complying with part 141.

Yes you can. But you cannot use it until you get an AFR from a GA instructor with (hopefully) a knowledge of Part 141. For once it looks like CASA have put a modicum of trust in the industry.