Recreational Pilot Permit

[Panama Jack]

These things usually work based on reciprocity.

Having said that, I don't believe Transport Canada places much of an emphasis on recreational aviation and the FAA usually thinks of Contiguous 48 states, sometimes seemingly oblivious to that there is a world beyond its borders. The result, particularly when it comes to non-ICAO certificates and permits (ie. Sport Pilot, Ultralight Pilot, Recreational Pilot) is that the rails don't always align.

Now, if we are talking a phylosophical "should," then you have entered a topic which gets me wound up. There should be no border controls, we should have a Schengen Area/EU style arrangement which includes free movement of labour, etc. Driving from B.C. to Washington should be no different than driving from Washington to Oregon, or Germany to France. No two countries in the World have more in common. However, I have been dreaming of and advocating closer ties for decades- unfortunately, it goes at a snail's pace because neither Ottawa nor Washington are interested.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The biggest constraint with the RPL is renting planes after you have your license. Most places (and many partnerships) require a PPL as the minimum.

YMMV
LF

Yes this is very true
The Flying Schools will teach you the RPP program but not rent you an aircraft when completed
Not sure why as the RPP has been around long enough to provide proof that the RPP pilots and the RPP program are safe.
Many schools try to talk people out of the RPP saying its unsafe etc which is a huge load of B.S.
Plus they wont make as much money off the RPP student .
Pretty shitty attitude considering one of the purposes of the RPP was to make aviation more affordable to the public thus give the schools added business.
I know many RPP pilots and they are just as safe and as skilled as any other PPL pilot
With GPS etc , there really is no reason why the FAA and TC could not work out the border issue.

I think the lack of take up on the RPP is because by the time you get all the RPP requirements and are at flight test standards the remaining time and money required to just keep going to the PPL is not that great. Students that have enough money to get an RPP, probably have enough to get a PPL, and do so to get the greater privileges.

You can fly as an RPP with a Class 4 Medical

CAR 404.10

(4) A Category 1, 3 or 4 medical certificate is required for the following permits and licences:
(a) student pilot permit - aeroplane;
(b) pilot permit — recreational;
(c) student pilot permit or pilot permit — ultra-light aeroplane;
(d) student pilot permit — glider; and
(e) pilot licence — glider.

My bet is most new RPP's are being issued to older PPL's who are downgrading so they only have to have a Class 4 Medical

[fleet16b]

Big Pistons

Another good point/observation .
Al the more reason to allow RPP border crossing

[Big Pistons Forever]

Big Pistons

Another good point/observation .
Al the more reason to allow RPP border crossing

The Medical requirement is what is stopping cross board ops as the US does not recognize the Class 4 Medical. However there is Congressional action to remove the requirement for US PPL's to hold what is equivalent to a Canadian Class 3 Medical. When this happens I expect the cross border restrictions will go away.

[photofly]

Isn't the Class 3 medical standard for a PPL an ICAO requirement?

[fleet16b]

Big Pistons

Another good point/observation .
Al the more reason to allow RPP border crossing

The Medical requirement is what is stopping cross board ops as the US does not recognize the Class 4 Medical. However there is Congressional action to remove the requirement for US PPL's to hold what is equivalent to a Canadian Class 3 Medical. When this happens I expect the cross border restrictions will go away.

I googled it and yes they are going thru the process right now .
Seem that a valid US drivers license will be what validates the PPL in the US
Makes total sense if you ask me .
Agreed this would definitely pave the way for Canadian Rec Pilots to fly into the US.
I put the question to the FAA and will post their response when I receive it

[Shiny Side Up]

The biggest constraint with the RPL is renting planes after you have your license. Most places (and many partnerships) require a PPL as the minimum.

YMMV
LF

*Poke*

So why does your club discriminate against PP-R holders? The school here doesn't.

[Meatservo]

I wish they had established the standards for the Recreational pilot permit-helicopter. Transport Canada was concerned about the safety of a twenty-five-hour pilot flying a helicopter, and I would be too... but a modified permit applicable only to holders of a real aeroplane license (PPL or higher) would be swell for experienced aeroplane pilots interested in just trying it out, or maybe someone considering building a kit-built 'copter. If it was set up in this way, someone looking for a helicopter license wouldn't really be able to buck the system and get into a helicopter "the cheap way" because he/she would be required to get an aeroplane license first, before doing the rec. permit for heli, and they would not save money. So all the private helicopter pilots would have done the whole helicopter course, and the only rec. permits for helis would be held by people with significant prior flying experience. I imagine at this point, say I wanted to buy a Robinson R-22 (not like I would fit in one) and just bop around in it on nice days, I would have to go get a private helicopter license, and a great deal of that training would be redundant. If there was a rec permit available only to aeroplane pilots of a certain experience-level, there might be more professional aeroplane pilots who flew small helicopters for fun. Who has a private helicopter license now? Probably a few rich guys other than pilots who are working towards their commercial.

I have a slightly negative attitude towards the RPP-aeroplane holders who want to go on nice long cross-border flights however. I think if you can afford to go on "nice long flights" then you can afford to finish your training and get an actual license and be a pilot. The recreational permit was intended for those who want nothing more than to buzz around locally on nice days in a cub or a C120, not those who intend to actually use a plane for serious travelling.

[C-GKNT]

Meatservo,

Practically, I don't think it would make a difference. PPL(A) to PPL(H) minimum time is 30 hours.

I did my CPL(A) to CPL(H) 2 years ago and talking to the instructors at the time, it is my understanding that the number of pilots who accomplish their PPL(A) to PPL(H) in 30 hours is very small.

Glenn

[fleet16b]

I have a slightly negative attitude towards the RPP-aeroplane holders who want to go on nice long cross-border flights however. I think if you can afford to go on "nice long flights" then you can afford to finish your training and get an actual license and be a pilot. The recreational permit was intended for those who want nothing more than to buzz around locally on nice days in a cub or a C120, not those who intend to actually use a plane for serious travelling.

Meatservo
The RPP was intended to be available for people that wanted to enjoy flying recreationally
It is well known that the PP training have evolved into something that is not as affordable for many.
It was recognized that the PPL Training covered much more than was needed for people that wanted to just go flying and were not looking for a career in the aviation field. The PPL has become basically a prep course for the CPL
The RPP was a much needed option in Canadian aviation as was the Sport Pilot in the US .
All the concerns that it did not cover enough training and would be a danger have after 10+ yrs been unfounded .
Officially the RPP restrictions are one passenger , day VFR , flying in Canada only .
With the intro of the Sport Pilot License the US , there is an opportunity for the Rec Permit to evolve with it
I find most people that dislike the Rec Permit are mostly bitter that they paid much more to learn to fly as a PP
That's the hole point of the RPP , to make it affordable for more people

Permit , License , call it what you may but it is a legitimate License and they are legitimate pilots.
Many of the ones I know can fly circles around many PPL /CPL pilots
There is no reason the RPP Pilots should not have cross border access
TC has no problem with it , its an FAA issue due our medical class and that's about to change.
Instead of being bitter why not try to promote Canadian Aviation , be happy that someone is at least trying to open the doors for more people . Any method of doing that is a good thing

[AirFrame]

I wish they had established the standards for the Recreational pilot permit-helicopter. Transport Canada was concerned about the safety of a twenty-five-hour pilot flying a helicopter, and I would be too... but a modified permit applicable only to holders of a real aeroplane license (PPL or higher) would be swell for experienced aeroplane pilots interested in just trying it out, or maybe someone considering building a kit-built 'copter.

Except: Transport really doesn't want people building helicopters. The regs allow it, but they do discourage it.

[Meatservo]

For obvious reasons, I guess. I don't really want people building helicopters, either!

Fleet, I was not trying to insult you. I am not bitter at all, I got all my licenses before there was any such thing as a Recreational Permit. In general I disapprove of the current trend to reduce training requirements for pilots, including professional ones. In practice I have no problem with the recreational permit, because I see it as basically an ultralight license with slightly larger aircraft allowed.

In fact, I don't have a problem with the permit at all, especially if it allows more peole to enjoy recreational flight, which to me means bombing around between grass fields in uncontrolled airspace. What I have a *slight* problem with is people who could have afforded the more in depth training, chose not to in order to save effort, and now agitate to have the same privileges as people with a higher class of license.

There might be an equivalent level of safety, which is always the argument in these cases, but reducing training certainly isn't "SAFER" and if anyone with a recreational permit is a better and safer pilot than someone with a license, which I have no doubt is true in many cases, the do not owe the credit to the fact that they did less training. That's a red herring.

[fleet16b]

For obvious reasons, I guess. I don't really want people building helicopters, either!

Fleet, I was not trying to insult you. I am not bitter at all, I got all my licenses before there was any such thing as a Recreational Permit. In general I disapprove of the current trend to reduce training requirements for pilots, including professional ones. In practice I have no problem with the recreational permit, because I see it as basically an ultralight license with slightly larger aircraft allowed.

In fact, I don't have a problem with the permit at all, especially if it allows more peole to enjoy recreational flight, which to me means bombing around between grass fields in uncontrolled airspace. What I have a *slight* problem with is people who could have afforded the more in depth training, chose not to in order to save effort, and now agitate to have the same privileges as people with a higher class of license.

There might be an equivalent level of safety, which is always the argument in these cases, but reducing training certainly isn't "SAFER" and if anyone with a recreational permit is a better and safer pilot than someone with a license, which I have no doubt is true in many cases, the do not owe the credit to the fact that they did less training. That's a red herring.

Meat
No insult taken by me but some of my friends are Rec Pilots , so I am was defending them . Also I believe in the RPP Program in general . As for a slightly more advance ultra light license that could not be farther from the truth.
The RPP is more in depth than the PPL was 40 yrs ago and waaaay more in depth than the UPP
I get what you are saying but the changes that are coming to the Rec Permit are due to progression brought on by changing the rules in the Aviation Industry.
I too got my PPL long before the RPP came out but with a little forward thinking thru the years it was realized that a) the PPL was getting a bit too in depth b) people could not afford to get a PPL
The RPP is a good stepping stone for those that have limited money in the beginning but want to fly
Many go on later in life to complete the PPL when they are more financially able , hence the reason why the RPP hours can go towards a PPL. Same as many go from a PPL to a CPL
If you really compare the two Training programs , there is not a huge difference when it comes to the safety aspects
A little less navigation etc but in this day and age maps , protractors etc are antiques everything is electronic
Hell 10 yrs ago my wife would not even drive into Toronto and now because of GPS she goes shopping in Michigan ):
Same holds for many pilots that were once intimidated by going cross country.
The "less safety " argument can go in forever but the RPP and Sport Pilot License training has proved itself as safe as the PPL etc We are not seeing major increases in issues accidents violations etc with Rec Pilots

[Meatservo]

Well then, fleet,I defer to your more compelling argument. I can certainly dig the logic behind completing a license in stages. After a person has solo'ed, maybe not every flight needs to be a lesson. I'm skeptical whenever I hear about "less training" being a better idea than "more training", but I have been removed from "flying for fun" for so long, maybe I am forgetting what it was like.

I was actually considering getting my glider pilot's license in order to get back in touch with recreational aviation. You seem to have a great attitude towards the grassroots stuff. Maybe I am just a little too grumpy.

[AirFrame]

b) people could not afford to get a PPL
The RPP is a good stepping stone for those that have limited money in the beginning but want to fly
Many go on later in life to complete the PPL when they are more financially able

I still think this is a red herring in most, if not all, cases. Once you finish your RPP at 25 hours, you're going to keep flying for the next year anyway, and probably about 20-30 hours' worth at least. Since it's unlikely that most of those people would own their own airplane (they can't afford the PPL, right?) they are probably renting from the flying school or some other agency/club/person who rented them the plane they learned to fly in.

So if they love flying, it really doesn't matter whether they're up there with an instructor learning more, or up there solo practising, for the next year. When you compare just flying around for the heck of it for the next year to actually going and finishing a PPL, the incremental cost is just the instructor's time. Assuming all of that 20 hours is dual, at $50/hr, that's $1000, or about 10 hours of rental. So instead of flying for 30 hours taking 30 friends flying over the next year, fly 20 hours instead with the instructor you got to know well during your RPP time, and get your PPL.

Yes, i'm only talking about the minimum numbers to get licenses, but i'm really talking about considering the difference between what you would fly anyway over the next year, and what it would cost to make that year's flying do for you in terms of getting a real license.

In my observation, and I admit my experience is biased by being a member of two flying clubs full of geriatrics, the RPP is where people go when they think, or know, that they would be denied the medical necessary for a PPL.

[NunavutPA-12]

Since I was happy to fly day-VFR only, and knew I probably wouldn't need to carry more than one passenger anyway, I opted for the RPP and put the saved money toward my own airplane. Older pilots (like me) usually have no desire to pursue aviation as a career, otherwise we'd opt for the PPL rather than the "dead-end" RPP.

I'm still learning (of course) but I have 500 hours now and fly only in "the bush", floats and wheel-skis. I'm actually glad that I have a smaller airplane that is easier to handle and less likely to get stuck in the snow a hundred miles from nowhere (Nowhere is where I live!). Since getting my RPP in 2001 I've made two long cross countries; one from Quebec to Nunavut and the other from Ontario to Nunavut (I own two airplanes now). Primarily, I use my PA-12 to access a remote cabin in the middle of the barren lands over a hundred miles from home.

For the kind of flying I do, an RPP and a home-built airplane is the ticket.

I'd never claim to be a better pilot than the holder of a PPL. What I lack in knowledge and experience I make up for with an abundance of caution.

[LousyFisherman]

So why does your club discriminate against PP-R holders? The school here doesn't.

Well, it was set up that way before my time and I know that our insurance policy is written to require a PPL for all members.

I do not know how the insurance companies view an RPP holder but it may be another thing to consider.

As for you guys accepting RPPs as renters it is just another reason I recommend your school despite never having given you a penny

LF

[HiFlyChick]

I think that the biggest problem I have with the Rec licence is the total lack of instrument time. Of course the counter argument is that someone who has no instrument training will be much more cautious with regards to avoiding going into cloud than someone who has the required 5 hrs and is cocky. Not sure which is the bigger factor in terms of safety. I would've thought that the 5 hrs would be hands down the best idea, but I am recalling hearing a PPL make the statement that although he didn't have an instrument rating, he could shoot an approach if he had to (and this wasn't a guy that anything beyond the basic 5, or possibly 10 - can't recall if he had his night rating).

I just shudder when I hear stuff like that, because I remember being a newly rated IFR pilot and even then you need to be super cautious as to what you will accept for conditions - things can get really busy during an approach and it's easy to get behind the airplane, and once there, hard to get back ahead of the game. Going beyond the your own limits is a risky prospect indeed.

[fleet16b]

The lack of Instrument training is not really valid
Yes any training is better than none
However, it has been well proven that the average PP with only 5 hrs IFR training does not last over 2 mins when he gets into IFR conditions.
The majority of PP never really do any IFR flying once they get the PPL , so they little amount of IFR skill they achieved diminishes very quickly
This is one of the factors that were considered when developing the RPP.

[photofly]

just curious... when has it been well proven?