Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 That is the whole point... This is not GA. It was set up with the intentions of allowing cheaper flying to a lower (self) certified standard. It seems to me that the current problems come from some smart mugs (not intending this at anyone here) realizing that there was a serious quid to be made in this game and altering things to suit... I am not saying this flying shouldn't happen or that the individuals are at fault... but finally can anyone acknowledge that the desire for more complex aircraft has had an impact on all this. I am saying it was not managed very well and IMO we have been very poorly served by our administrators.Ra-Aus (which was the AUF) is not set up to administer GA light... Win, whether plastic fantastic, or tube and rag if it comes from overseas as a complete aircraft then the registration process and associated documentation requirements as I understand it is exactly the same so in this specific case the claim that RAA arent up to the task becuase of complexity of aircraft to me is wrong. Self certified as I understand it required you to be the builder. If you hop in an aircraft that someone else built I dont believe you can self certify (I think??) I keep hearing that RAA shouldnt deal with "light GA" yet can you tell me what process or procedure it is that "light GA" imposses that is different to other types of aircraft? I cant think of what they might be, and even if I could why is it that RAA would be incapable of managing it today? Please dont use the current set of circumstances as an example, these as I understand it were because someone was making decisions they were not authorised to make, and neither was CASA authorised to make....so not just a bit over the line but well and truely beyond the line. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Win, whether plastic fantastic, or tube and rag if it comes from overseas as a complete aircraft then the registration process and associated documentation requirements as I understand it is exactly the same so in this specific case the claim that RAA arent up to the task becuase of complexity of aircraft to me is wrong. Self certified as I understand it required you to be the builder. If you hop in an aircraft that someone else built I dont believe you can self certify (I think??Andy I think you miss the point... IMO Ra-Aus is not set up to handle the large amount of commercial flight operations that have sprung up using these light GA aircraft... it is not the private operations or the aircraft within the Ra-Aus banner that is the problem... But I think Ra-Aus may soon outstay their welcome with CASA in their attempt to steer the organization into what surely we must acknowledge is a light GA style of flying... As we are seeing it has caused a big potential problem.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 You just have to look at the MASSIVE expansion over the last 10 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentreau Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I understand the wish of some to get back to the grass roots upon which the RAAus was founded, but there are others of us who still want affordable flying but are not comfortable with the level of risk that bare bones grass roots flying seems to involve. Then don't expect your flying to be any cheaper than GA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 That may be true Win, but I really don't care if it is a plastic fantastic, or made of balsa wood and tissue paper, if it is sold to me as complete aircraft by a manufacturer I expect it to have been built to a certain standard by qualified personnel...the same as any car or truck or tractor I might buy. If you build it yourself, or buy from a home builder then the onus is on you to make sure it is built to a standard you are comfortable with.I understand the wish of some to get back to the grass roots upon which the RAAus was founded, but there are others of us who still want affordable flying but are not comfortable with the level of risk that bare bones grass roots flying seems to involve. As soon as you want to pay someone else to minimise your risk, it won't be cheap. The definition of "affordable", seems be very broad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Steve was a really nice bloke, but left his position at RAAus in a hurry. The Ibis could have been his problem as could other aircraft on the register whhich don't look right. I am thinking of an RV4 and a Cessna 150. Could the problem have been caused by a slight bending of the rules to keep people happy? That is a question, not a statement, but maybe somebody here knows the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I have spoken to an aircraft owner of an IBIS today about RAAus gounding the Ibis & RAAus obviously know that their actions have placed them in the shit & they are trying every which way to get out of the hole they have dug for themself. At least RAAus have now seen the error of their ways & are talking to the appropriate personnel whereby they have apparently offered an olive branch by saying that they will temporarily reregister these aircraft in the 19 category until such time as the paper trail bullshit is sorted out once & for all. However as these aircraft have been factory built & not 51% by the owners it maybe that RAAus are digging themself into a deeper hole. If RAAus can find a way around this temporary 19 rego business then at least this will allow the private owners to fly these safe aircraft again & the Commercial Operators & Flying Schools will have to wait for RAAus to rectify the paper trail bullshit after which it appears that again the aircraft registrations will be reinstated to the 24 category. The Commercial Operators & Flying Schools should then be entitled to receive compensation from RAAus for the financial loss they have each sustained as a direct result of this beauracratic nightmare , which should never have occurred. I am sure that my 3 year old grandson could have attended to this issue in a much better way than how it has unfolded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I ask ..... Who does the final responsibility for this within Ra-Aus fall upon? We know that the Ibis is not the only aircraft with issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Te captain of this ship is the elected President & Board of Directors .It is not only a position of prestige , it is also one of responsibilty & accountability. Ths hastily actions of RAAAus with respect to this matter are going to have serious ramifications for this organistation from hereon & in the future. The issue of Ians membership to rejoin RAAus is Kindergarten stuff compared to the negligence & incompetence by RAAus for hastly grounding of the Ibis aircraft because of paper shuffling bullshit only, & not for SAFETY REASONS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 IT IS NOT JUST THE IBIS Had to shout that in case anyone doesn't get that this issue has been on the agenda for a few years now(that is right I said years... it was seen coming). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Then don't expect your flying to be any cheaper than GA. Fair point. But, with respect, that's a bit like saying that unless you can afford a Mercedes Benz OR you are willing to take the extra risk riding a motorcycle then you shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads. Is the joy of flying only reserved for the rich or the intrepid (or more importantly their families) that are happy to take on the risk of grass roots flying? Apologies for the thread drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I reckon until and unless you hold a Motorbike license you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car on the road... Off topic but seriously... would do a lot IMO to help innocent people avoid being killed by idiots. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentreau Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 ... that's a bit like saying that unless you can afford a Mercedes Benz OR you are willing to take the extra risk riding a motorcycle then you shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads....... Actually that's an excellent analogy. It's also exactly what people do, and all the levels in between. Those who choose to ride motorcycles do so knowing the additional risk involved. They accept that risk in return for the extra freedom and the ability to cut through traffic. Do you hear anyone complaining that motorbikes should be as safe as a Mercedes model P (Panza) ? I thought it was only in Britain that society was getting so risk averse that nobody is allowed to do anything fun anymore. I do sincerely hope Australia isn't becoming the same. Life is for living and every individual should asses the level of risk they are prepared to accept. If they only want to drive a Mercedes/fly GA then they should accept the additional cost and restrictions. Those who want to ride a bike/fly microlights should be allowed to make an informed choice and that choice should be respected. Sure sometimes people get hurt or killed (that can happen in Mercedes/GA too) but that's life. Personally I'd rather go out in a ball of flame that rust to death. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Fair point. But, with respect, that's a bit like saying that unless you can afford a Mercedes Benz OR you are willing to take the extra risk riding a motorcycle then you shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads. Is the joy of flying only reserved for the rich or the intrepid (or more importantly their families) that are happy to take on the risk of grass roots flying?Apologies for the thread drift. What makes you think grass roots flying is any more risky than any other type of flying? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I thought it was only in Britain that society was getting so risk averse that nobody is allowed to do anything fun anymore. I do sincerely hope Australia isn't becoming the same. Life is for living and every individual should asses the level of risk they are prepared to accept. . I dare say that Australia has overtaken Britain in the game of risk aversion. I don't think that it will get better anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Actually that's an excellent analogy. It's also exactly what people do, and all the levels in between.Those who choose to ride motorcycles do so knowing the additional risk involved. They accept that risk in return for the extra freedom and the ability to cut through traffic. Do you hear anyone complaining that motorbikes should be as safe as a Mercedes model P (Panza) ? I thought it was only in Britain that society was getting so risk averse that nobody is allowed to do anything fun anymore. I do sincerely hope Australia isn't becoming the same. Life is for living and every individual should asses the level of risk they are prepared to accept. If they only want to drive a Mercedes/fly GA then they should accept the additional cost and restrictions. Those who want to ride a bike/fly microlights should be allowed to make an informed choice and that choice should be respected. Sure sometimes people get hurt or killed (that can happen in Mercedes/GA too) but that's life. Personally I'd rather go out in a ball of flame that rust to death. You need to see the perspective in how Governments have reacted. It's not about you; it's about the innocent victims and their families, and making sure someone supports them. That's what the big payout judgements are for; that's why the Public Liability premiums get to high, and that's why Governments and businesses walk away from the risky activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentreau Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Trouble is "innocent victim" is a very flexible and much abused term ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 If they only want to drive a Mercedes/fly GA then they should accept the additional cost and restrictions. Those who want to ride a bike/fly microlights should be allowed to make an informed choice and that choice should be respected. Sure sometimes people get hurt or killed (that can happen in Mercedes/GA too) but that's life. Good points again....but that's not what I was saying. I have nothing against microlights, I've enjoyed it when I've ridden in one. I admire the ultralight pioneers and what they have done for aviation. It just seemed to me that you were saying that if people don't want to fly microlights then they should pay through the nose and fly GA. What I'm saying is surely there is room for affordable light sport flying as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerin Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 What makes you think grass roots flying is any more risky than any other type of flying? Depends on your definition of grass roots. Today's rag and tubes seem to be a world apart from the original rudimentary frame with a plastic stackable chair for a seat. Maybe it isn't as risky any more. A Drifter probably has a better stress rating than most LSAs. But the perception is still there and the perceptions of non-flying loved ones are often a big factor in what a person flies. Again, I have nothing but admiration for grass roots pilots. But it seems some grass roots people have a big chip on their shoulder towards the higher end of ultralight aviation. Apologies again for the thread drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I remember taking relo's up in the trike and the first time I banked 45 they just about sh#t it's because there isn't anything around you and the open feeling gets that pucker valve moving. In their minds the trike is dodgy whereas the J230 is a safer option. In reality they are just different. But their perception is their reality and when I'm flying the trike I'm being a bit rebellious where as the jaba is more sensible..... It's a conversation I couldn't be bothered having with them....... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Has everyone got me on ignore?I gave the reason for the Ibis grounding straight from the horse's mouth (CASA at least) and you're all still speculating about manufacturer approvals. Columbia is not an ICAO signatory. I'm just going to slink away again. Officially the reason for the grounding - from RAA # Firstly the aircraft manufacturer does not hold a production certificate to produce a Type Certified Aircraft in accordance with our regulation CAO 95.55. #Secondly the aircraft itself does not have or hold a Type Certificate issued by any country that is recognised by CASA., EASA or any other ICAO aviation approved countries. as far as we can find . # The aircraft has no Compliance Statement signed and approved from the manufacturer stating that the aircraft conforms to any LSA ASTM standards. It still begs the question as to how it got approved in the first place and not a witch hunt against Tech Managers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The Ibis is operating in NZ on their Microlight (non LSA) regs as far as I know. I wonder how the NZCAA are looking at this IF at all? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 RA-Aus has grounded all Pacific Ibis aircraft from 1138 today.Tough luck for those of us using them for training as it is a paperwork issue from several years back and nothing to do with the integrity of the aircraft Hi Bilby, Are you interested in selling the Ibis as is, & if so at what price ? Regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I may be wrong but..... Just imagine casa wants an audit. Ok we will go through the thousands of files and check Hang on, that will take forever unless we train staff to comply with the order, let's get started with what we have for the time! Blow me down, there's a few Jabs that don't comply. Ground them! Hey Morgan don't seem to be in order. Ground them! Hey Ibis looks dodgy. Ground them! If I ran my business !!!! No reflection on the courteous office staff,it has to be deeper in the building and inherited by the current board 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilby54 Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Hi Bilby,Are you interested in selling the Ibis as is, & if so at what price ? Regards John Hi John, I am only (was) the operator of this aircraft for my flying school and now trying to get my old Gazelle back in the air which incidentally, was grounded due to a non standard propellor - Sweetapple versus Allsize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now