At 08:03 01-07-02 +1000, Derek Ruddock wrote: >Mike, >Just out of interest, why was the old 'Restricted PPL' abolished? > >If all this brouhaha is to overcome the limitations of the restricted PPl, >why not just re-introduce it? Derek and others
The pressure 11 years ago was to make the PPL fit in with the ICAO requirement that a PPL with a required minimum 40 hours training allow a pilot to fly in any airspace (with the then-existing option of a particular endorsement to fly [Class C] controlled airspace) and so the Australian PPL was changed to fit the international standard. People now want a licence that allows them to fly some airspace without instructor supervision and so the proposal for a non-ICAO licence that replaces the old RPPL and is limited as to aircraft class and area of operations has arisen. At the same time the proposed licence is considered by its proponents to be more flexible by allowing for a wider range of aircraft category and class endorsements and easier translation between aircraft categories, and to also resolve certain issues that have been raised by the ACCC in relation to some sport aviation pilot certificates. However it took considerable persuasion to arrive at the point where such a licence is now proposed as an option to the existing certificates rather than a replacement for them. However, what is required to be fair to all is that the standards which have been developed for the (currently only, sole) qualifications available be recognised as Australian standards by having them incorporated into a Manual of Standards (in the currently in-vogue format of competency-based ones spelled out so that the test officer only has to decide if a competency has been adequately demonstrated) so that the CASA licences and sport aviation certificates are issued to a standard format which would ensure a level playing-field (in ACCC terminology). Don't blame the regulator of aviation safety for this, as certain other regulators also have some part to play - but also be aware that the current standards have all been developed on behalf of, and partially paid for by, the aviation regulator using taxpayers' money. There is also the argument that the standards for the current CASA licences have been developed totally at CASA (Government) expense whilst the users of the sport aviation qualifications have been required to pay around 2/3 the cost of developing their standards, in addition to their contributions as taxpayers. Hence it could be said that the Government have been getting these services on the cheap for many years and sport aviators have been paying twice for the privilege of the level of self-administration they have achieved - but still that is why Australia leads the world in the area of setting safety standards for sport and recreational aviation , and is finding that many overseas countries want to copy our style of devolving administration of sport aviation to the responsible people and organisation who have agreed to take on the role of administering it in the national interest as well as in the interest of participants. And that's more answer than you bargained for! Wombat (personal views from my personal computer) > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29/06/02 13:50:51 >>> > >The recreational licence was developed to overcome the limitations of the >student pilot licence. Currently, a pilot has to complete navigation >training to be issued with a private pilot licence, so the old >area-restricted PPL no longer exists and pilots who have passed the General >Flying Progress Test remain as students and under instructor supervision - >similar to the B gliding certificate, but they must have a check-flight >every 3 hours of flying. > >Wombat >(private views from my private computer) -- * You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list. * To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * with "unsubscribe aus-soaring" in the body of the message * or with "help" in the body of the message for more information.
