flyerme Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 :crying:As my lightwing -LW 1 rego was due I sent out the relevant signed paperwork and after last years hoop jumping expected no hassles. Re-cap last year required photos and a new CERTIFIED prop fitted( being a carer/ pensioner I had to borrow from my dad to buy it and still paying it off mind you) before being allowed rego. This year they require a hyphen in the tail numbers(doable) and an engineering order for the 582 ? (Not doable)Enoughs enough!!!! I'm NOT paying for your mistakes anymore!!! Management made a mistake back in 2003 then every year continued this mistake, then along came me in2012 and buys my dream plane that is legally registed and had it transferred with inspection and 582 and brolga prop CLEARLY noted and was transferred no issues, (this assured me I Had bought and was flying a legal airworthy plane)then when rego is due I find I need to replace the good prop with a $1400 piece of crap prop "a certified prop". Was not happy but jumped anyway. But now you want me to pay a crap load of $$$ for a piece of paper to be faxed out to you for an engine that's practiclly the same as the original only better mid range and more reliable??? Or re- fit 532...WTF.......Na ah . I don't think so. You pay for your own mistakes.Im joining the band wagon on this one. Why are we baring the cost of poor managment? Way to suck the fun out of ULTRALIGHTING...can't help but think with all the pilots exiting and planes not being renewed how the finances will be effected? Truth is I'm left no option but to let her sit idle as I have no chance of paying out extra money for a piece of paper( keep in mind it's only a piece of signed paper no inspection just pay money and paper faxed to RAA)it's a joke and a blatant attempt to extort money. Some whome have available finances might argue just pay and be done but hey guess what? I got into ultralighing LP aircraft because it ONce was affordable for the average shmoe . I can't keep forking out thousands of $$$ every year rego is due?last year cost me $1470 (prop) $130(reg) that's $1600 for rego for that year! rant over. no flyerme:crying:Shattered dreams 1 4 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Real shame it has come to this for you. Those responsible in the RAAus really need to be taken to court and given a good rattle. The whole ultra lighting game was created for people like yourself that have the desire but due to life events don't have a pocketful of money to play with the big boys. It worked once and really well with the original ANO 95:10 but then along came the AUF. It has been one slow downhill slide for affordable aviation ever since. Those that you say 'just pay the money' are probably those GA blow ins that have been sitting on the fence and have never voted or tried to find a solution to these problems the RAAus is going through today. The RAAus created this problem so maybe they really should dig into that pot of funds and pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 What gets me is why isn't it a simple solution of transferring the aircraft to an experimental category. The way things are going I can defiantly see the demise of RAAus. Bring back the AUF I say!!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Problem with bringing back the AUF is it is part of the RAAus and would be run by the same people and same rules. Needs a full breakaway with fresh faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscotthendry Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Real shame it has come to this for you. Those responsible in the RAAus really need to be taken to court and given a good rattle. The whole ultra lighting game was created for people like yourself that have the desire but due to life events don't have a pocketful of money to play with the big boys. It worked once and really well with the original ANO 95:10 but then along came the AUF. It has been one slow downhill slide for affordable aviation ever since.Those that you say 'just pay the money' are probably those GA blow ins that have been sitting on the fence and have never voted or tried to find a solution to these problems the RAAus is going through today. The RAAus created this problem so maybe they really should dig into that pot of funds and pay for it. Ozzie: I agree that management of RA-Aus is partly responsible for the situation arising and should be also partly responsible to assist in its rectification. I disagree however, that the problem was created by RA-Aus and I also disagree with the idea of taking RA-Aus to court. All that does is enrich lawyers and ends up bumping our membership and rego fees. Ditto, the RA-Aus "dig into that pot of funds and pay for it". Those funds are yours and mine (if you're a member) so guess again who pays for that. I think the solution is for the organisation to provide access to whatever technical skills and advice exists in the organisation (and they do exist) is needed to resolve this particular situation. I think flyerme has a case if he bought this aicraft pre-modified, yet seemingly approved by the regulator, that he has been wronged. It's not as though RA-Aus changed the regulations, but it failed to apply them. Unfortuantely it seems flyerme is partly responsible for not doing complete due diligence in discovering the modifications to the aircraft and questioning the seller as to their legality. Similarly, the modifier of the aircraft is partly responsible for the problem, if s/he didn't notify RA-Aus of the modifications. If that is the case, the seller should also contribute some assistance to the rectification. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 When I found the plane I rang RAA first to ensure it was currently registed (LEGAL)and was told yes it's currently registed (LEGAL)but requires an inspection from a lvl 2 for transfer.Inspection was done and RAA transferred reg to me NO MENTION of any mods. I have recently found out fromRAA that 3 owners ago in 2003 it was fully rebuilt and clearly stated on RAA paper work that it had a 582 fitted 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Then it goes right back to the RAAus. They should pay. Members money maybe but then a lesson for the members for not dealing with poor performers earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 Guessing its a case of pass the buck? I really feel down and forced into a corner for something little Johnny did 11 years ago. I m still paying for the prop mistake made 11 year ago that had nothing to do with me (was not even a member)but cost me $1470. To make the plane "certified"and to renew the reg. so Why wasn't everything sorted last year?i don't get it. .? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I too wonder why it wasn't sorted at last years grounding for mine. Opening the renewal and finding demands for more plus associated costs was enough. Is this part of the safe skies policy? Board members, how many aircraft still affected by the audit and how many going thru round two this year? How many have thrown in the towel and given up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If you keep blaming this or that group, because you feel it in your water (or something), you will just fragment. I see CASA all over it. I pointed it out at the time that we were in for a bad time from the new CEO and was pretty well told I was not justified in my fears. The assurances you were given were I believe in good faith at the time by the Techmen of the period. They tend to be made the "fall guys" in all this when stricter standards are applied retrospectively, and without any real regard for what it does to individuals and organisations, in the guise of removing exemptions or whatever other process you want to call upon the situation to explain it. Nev 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVID SEE Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I can't keep forking out thousands of $$$ every year rego is due?last year cost me $1470 (prop) $130(reg) that's $1600 for rego for that year! rant over. no flyerme:crying:Shattered dreams I'm in a similar boat. My LW 1 was flown for 18 years by the previous owner with a grey head 582. after a engine failure it was fitted with a blue head 582 and I've flown it for more than 3yrs. now they send me a letter to say they wave me 12mths. rego. on condition that I supply a engineers report on the upgrade from the original 503. it had a 532 for many years prior to the 582. RAAus can't manage to keep any info. (photos of rego etc.) for 12mths. so if we obtain a engineers report, will we have to get one every year? because they will have lost by following year you can nearly bet on that. Go onto the RAA site and check out the amount of De-registerd aircraft Cheers Davo:angry: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Will RAAus let you change rego to 19- without the engineers report? That may be an option for some? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 no they won't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Problem with bringing back the AUF is it is part of the RAAus and would be run by the same people and same rules. Needs a full breakaway with fresh faces. I suppose what I meant to say was bring back to AUF like it used to be even if it meant loosing a few of the current privileges. I don't think we ever wanted to be equivalent to GA with all their privileges. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 no they won't Why not !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Normoyle Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Tim, sorry to hear about your woes, not good, I hope you get it sorted. Chin up mate, you'll be back chasing birds on final real soon. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Will RAAus let you change rego to 19- without the engineers report? That may be an option for some?Andy Asked that same question recently myself as it looked like a good option , even for my Lightwing. The answer is the 19 catogory is basically for 51% amateur built aircraft. Would have to Tear down my aircraft and rebuild it again to qualify in this category.....Now looking at one of the E categories = experimental. Will keep you informed...............Maj...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Asked that same question recently myself as it looked like a good option , even for my Lightwing. The answer is the 19 catogory is basically for 51% amateur built aircraft. Would have to Tear down my aircraft and rebuild it again to qualify in this category.....Now looking at one of the E categories = experimental. Will keep you informed...............Maj...... Ross, I thought that to be "experimental" then the 51% rule applied? I am still wondering how some 24 registered aircraft are being registered E24 due some mods like VP props etc. Can you please explain. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Hope ya end up with a good result ,, have ya spoken to your local rep and ask for there help give them a chance to go through steps also write a letter to the tech manager and express your problem I think there will be a few of us with the same problem and feel the same as u most would have all jump through the steps thinking that they are doing the right thing when they bought there aircraft realigning on the structure of the RAA to guilde us on the correct and legal system So I feel if there has been a loop hole that the RAA should step up and support the members and help with correcting the problem caused bye past Weather it is a waver or financial support . Good luck Tim keep ya head up mate thing will work out ok just bye your time ! Doug Evans 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ross, I thought that to be "experimental" then the 51% rule applied? I am still wondering how some 24 registered aircraft are being registered E24 due some mods like VP props etc. Can you please explain.Cheers The E24 category is a new LSA category I believe.....(ELSA).............Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Ross, I thought that to be "experimental" then the 51% rule applied? I am still wondering how some 24 registered aircraft are being registered E24 due some mods like VP props etc. Can you please explain.Cheers Even if u rebuild from a compete tare down u can't I looked into this myself cause I was going to fit a vicking engine but was told can't do it . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Why not !!!!!!! Fairly sure 19-0000 is for over 50% home built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 It has been known for years you can't legally modify a certified aircraft without an engineering order but people did it anyway because they thought the could get away with it and for some reason RAAus turned a blind eye to it, the real culprits are the people who did the mods and the RAA. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 It has been known for years you can't legally modify a certified aircraft without an engineering order but people did it anyway because they thought the could get away with it and for some reason RAAus turned a blind eye to it, the real culprits are the people who did the mods and the RAA. Dead right. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. See http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c10.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 But with the lightwing the mod are not really a mod eg : rotax 532 s are to my know age no longer made so people replaced with 582 which is the same as a 532 same hp same weight same mounts apart from the numbers to my understanding ! 4 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