Will CASA's recently released consultation paper for CAR Part 61 - licensing prove to be a good or bad thing for General Aviation pilots in Australia?
In the movie The Court Jester, star (and real-life pilot) Danny Kaye has to remember, “the pellet with the poison is in the vessel with the pestle and the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true”. Mix them up and he’s a dead man, basically.
We, the General Aviation pilots of Australia, are in a similar bind when it comes to CASA’s Part 61 consultation paper: is this the vessel or the chalice they have handed us?
Part 61 proposes, among other things, that ratings and endorsements will be on the licence (at the moment they are on the log book), and the introduction of a Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL). RPL has been simmering in the background for a while and Part 61 brings it to the boil. In sum, an RPL means:
• Private flights only;
• Max take-off weight below 1500kg;
• VFR by day;
• Single-pilot certified aeroplane;
• Flight below 10,000 feet; and
• No medicals.
In the briefing document, the restrictions are followed by the statement “...may be extended with additional training for navigation, use of an aircraft radio and flight in controlled airspace.” By the inclusion of this sentence we can presume that standard RPL training contains none of this. Those of us old enough to remember will start to smell the old Restricted Private Pilots Licence about now.
According to CASA, the reasoning behind the RPL is to “...basically align with the privileges of a recreational aviation certificate...”. This is the level playing field GA touts have been howling about for several years. However, an RA-Aus certificate means only two passengers and a restriction to 600kg, so they are not exactly the same.
I am not here to tell you this is a bad thing. What it will do is offer pilots no longer able to maintain the medical standard a chance to keep flying, perhaps. There are still some things to be hammered out, such as will a DAME medical be needed for the controlled airspace training? Suspect yes.
Theoretically, if you can find a twin with a max take-off below 1500kg, there is nothing in the RPL to say you can’t fly it. Gates such as these will be shut for sure. However it’s framed, the RPL stands to offer cheaper flying with less pesky regulation.
But now I will let my suspicious mind out to play. If the two are closely aligned, does it not make sense that one day the two will become one? You see, the other thing the RPL will do is smooth the transition if CASA one day decides to abdicate private GA administration to RA-Aus.
This is not to say that CASA has that in mind, but they have declared their interest in focusing on commercial ops, and self-administration for GA is not a new concept. RA-Aus is the best positioned to pick up the ball.
If the RPL is not the beginning of a move to self-administration, I have no hesitation in saying it is a good thing for private GA, perhaps even a great thing. But if it’s the harbinger of a move to RA-Aus administration, I am not so enthusiastic. Technically we get our administration from CASA free (except for fees), but under RA-Aus, RPL pilots would probably have to pay membership as well as the fees. Further burden for very little gain. Smells like a poison pellet, doesn’t it?
Danny Kaye’s character survives his dilemma in The Court Jester, gets the girl and becomes the hero of a nation. In reality, Kaye went on to have a stellar flying career. Let’s hope Part 61 and the RPL let private GA do the same.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
Australia's private GA pilots look set to gain their “level playing field” with the introduction of the RPL.
