What do you predict will change in recreational flying in the next few years?

[kasper]

You body weight doesn't change and neither do the G forces, in fact the heavier plane will want to carry further, more kinetic energy, and not stop as quickly as the lighter one.I do agree that the stall speed should not change (from 45 knots). That makes for a competitive market, better planes will be more expensive but lighter and faster, and vice versa - take your choice.

Well the simple proposal I wrote up used two items pilots would know - KG for MTOW and velocity in Knts and I set an fictional unit measure being the square of the speed and all the mass - came up with teh same as working out the joules of kinetic energy but was not stated in joules.

joules calc of a kg in motion is 0.5 x mass in kg * velocity in m/s ^2

 

Stating the kinetic energy of the MTOW at stall would give this:

 

kg stall m/s joules stall Knts

 

300 32.73907 160777 64

 

450 26.73134 160777 52

 

600 23.15 160777 45

 

750 20.70601 160777 40

 

So even if you do the 'proper' calc in the correct energy units of joules you end up at the same point of sliding scale of stall speed to provide the exact same kinetic energy at the stall.

 

This use of non-known energy units does not invalidate the concept of equal kinetic energy but was a simple way of showing how it can be seen in two known values for pilots

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Well the simple proposal I wrote up

..proposes that heavier planes should get slower stall speeds against real world requirements, you are a Public Servant policy maker possibly?

 

300kg is allowed 64kts stall

 

450kg is allowed 52knts stall

 

600kg is allowed 45knts stall

 

750kg is allowed 40knts stall

 

Airbus: Stop at far end of runway and reverse it in thanks Captain.

 

 

[jetjr]

A key problem is the difficulty in practically assessing and verifying actual stall speed

 

Also who makes the declaration

 

Its well known that even different examples of the same aircraft have quite different results

 

 

[bexrbetter]

A key problem is the difficulty in practically assessing and verifying actual stall speedAlso who makes the declaration

Its well known that even different examples of the same aircraft have quite different results

While that's true, apparently many of the LSA have a similar wing area to meet the stall limit so maybe there's a basis to work with?

 

 

[kasper]

..proposes that heavier planes should get slower stall speeds against real world requirements, you are a Public Servant policy maker possibly?300kg is allowed 64kts stall

 

450kg is allowed 52knts stall

 

600kg is allowed 45knts stall

 

750kg is allowed 40knts stall

 

Airbus: Stop at far end of runway and reverse it in thanks Captain.

If you seriously think anything from messrs Airbus is or should be a RECREATIONAL aircraft then I am glad you are spending time in China

I am simply trying to offer a legitimate distinction between what is recreational aircraft not subject to full GA regulation

 

 

[kasper]

A key problem is the difficulty in practically assessing and verifying actual stall speedAlso who makes the declaration

Its well known that even different examples of the same aircraft have quite different results

Well currently if its from a factory its been tested to demonstrate compliance with a maximum stall speed for a class, if its 95.10 then the wing loading acts as a proxy for stall speed and if its homebuilt/kitbuilt 19 reg then its by declaration. If you are particularly worried about any new system that might have a variable stall speed that is self declared you logically should be equally concerned with the current self declared stall speed for 19 reg

 

 

[jetjr]

Some are concerned and yes no doubt some current claims are questionable, optimistic or honestly incorrect

 

If the system is to be adjusted it would be best to develop a system of verification that works repeatably too.

 

Only way new factory built is with LSA and being an international std might never be granted more MTOW, who knows?

 

A sad and poor outcome would be that only new designs and aircraft could access higher mtow.

 

An example of stall speed being an issue is again the larger Jabiru, just 5 Kts from 544 to 700 kg

 

Not sure you could determine much better than 3-4 kts accuracy with std instruments

 

 

[Ungrounded]

If you seriously think anything from messrs Airbus is or should be a RECREATIONAL aircraft then I am glad you are spending time in China

Geez, why not? I kind of like the look of where they are going with their E-Fan!

 

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I am simply trying to offer a legitimate distinction between what is recreational aircraft not subject to full GA regulation

It's not real world, your example goes against the nature of the beast, heavier planes need higher stall speeds or else to be compromised otherwise. Your formula proffering isn't in accordance with what are common everyday facts. This has become circular so this is my last reply to it.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Well currently if its from a factory its been tested to demonstrate compliance with a maximum stall speed for a class, if its 95.10 then the wing loading acts as a proxy for stall speed and if its homebuilt/kitbuilt 19 reg then its by declaration. If you are particularly worried about any new system that might have a variable stall speed that is self declared you logically should be equally concerned with the current self declared stall speed for 19 reg

Factory aircraft ... tested by whom? And demonstrated to whom?

 

Sure your comment about 95.10 is correct, and in fact the wing-loading requirement of 95.10 results in 95.10 being the only truly 'honest' class out there. It's a shame it's impossible to build a plane in 95.10 unless you design it yourself (given that RAAus haven't 'Approved' a single set of Plans or any kits in the last 25 years - or ever come to that).

 

It's pretty well universally assumed that just because an LSA is factory-built, it must actually comply with the LSA design requirements because it's assumed it's "been tested to demonstrate compliance with a maximum stall speed for a class". But there's the rub - does it actually comply? None of the new wave of 'slipperies' and 'plastics' has ever had to go through what our early Jabirus, Lightwings, Skyfox/Gazelles etc had to go through to get recognition as complying with the then 95.25. All the current LSAs that fit into the newer 95.55 category haven't actually been through any independent compliance testing at all, their manufacturers simply sign them off themselves, declaring that they comply under the ASTMs program.

 

Many of them were 'factory approved' when the weight limit was 544kg, then it went up to 600kg. Isn't it a bit odd that many/most of the aircraft that complied at 544kg didn't change at all outwardly but suddenly some were factory-approved at 600kg. What happened, some might ask, that one day they stalled at 44.5kts (according to their POH) at MTOW of 544kg, and the next they stall at 44.5kts at MTOW of 600kg (according to their revised POH)? Was everyone so busy arguing about whether the airframes were strong enough to carry the extra load, that no-one was concerned about the extra weight affecting the stall speed? Some of the more responsible manufacturers even found they had to add strength here and there to beef up the airframe to carry the extra weight. I guess that extra structure reduced the stall speed huh?

 

As has been pointed out in earlier posts, it's not easy to definitively determine the actual stalling speed of a flying aircraft. When Dafydd Llewellyn did it properly for the Jabiru testing, he installed a fully calibrated swivelling pitot with trailing cone static to ensure the airspeed readings were accurate at all deck angles and AoAs. Has anyone ever seen any evidence of LSA manufacturers doing that to 'prove' their aircraft under the self-assessed ASTMs code? I seriously doubt it, after all, there's no requirement to do it and where's the incentive to do so voluntarily?

 

I'm sure we're all aware that a pitot only provides reasonably accurate dynamic pressure information to the instrument when its axis is aligned quite closely with the airflow. By 7 degrees off-axis it's starting to become inaccurate and by the critical angle (or stall angle) the ASI is reading way below the real airspeed. This plays kindly into the hands of the manufacturer - how many times have you heard folk in the clubhouse telling how their Superscramblejet LSA cruises at 130kts and stalls at just 35kts!

 

Having flown in a good selection of them and with a healthy dose of ASI accuracy skepticism, I'd estimate that very few actually stall at less than 45kts when at max gross weight.

 

I don't have the reference at hand because it was a few years ago that I looked into it but no doubt could find it if anyone wants to take me to task about it ... and I'm also working from memory - but another point about the ASTMs factory self-approval process is that if, for any one of a number of reasons, the factory finds it 'inconvenient/difficult/impossible' to obtain sufficient data to satisfy themselves of compliance in whatever matter they're currently 'testing' then they can resort to satisfying themselves by calculation that it would comply if they could have been able to test it satisfactorily. I wonder how many of them, then, decide to accept their own 2D airfoil analysis to come up with a theoretical CL which just happens to work out well with their favoured wing area, rather than doing it the other way around. Should they choose to do that (which the ASTMS process completely allows) then they need pay no notice to the usual physics, whereby the real wing in 3D has considerably lower performance than the simple 2D airfoil polars might have you think it would. The graph takes no account of tip losses or lift reduction due to washout, for starters ...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A quite similar situation, HITC, to vehicle emissions. Most people accepted the "official" figures, but then one curious university team did their own testing.

 

VW, one of the world's largest car-builders, had been fudging their real figures by an enormous margin.

 

Is there a level playing field? We know Jabiru has spent a lot of money and passed the standards; what about the rest?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

A quite similar situation, HITC, to vehicle emissions. Most people accepted the "official" figures, but then one curious university team did their own testing.VW, one of the world's largest car-builders, had been fudging their real figures by an enormous margin.

Is there a level playing field? We know Jabiru has spent a lot of money and passed the standards; what about the rest?

A good analogy OK.

 

Level playing field ...? Well more like an open can of worms that's still standing upright ... for now ... really.

 

When Jabiru first did their testing they had a very lightweight KFM engine and I had the chance to fly that early prototype back in about 1977 or 78. It was a quick little thing even with that light engine and several of us who flew it reckoned that by comparison with what we had been flying up to then, owning a Jabiru would certainly warrant paying regular allegiance to the God-of-very-large-flat-empty-paddocks, just in case the donk didn't do it's regular thing on any particular day.

 

Then Jabiru built their own engine and I think the approval trials for 95.25 were conducted with that new engine - but that was the little 1600cc wasn't it? When they later built the 2200cc because the 1600cc wasn't putting out anything like the expected power, IIRC, they certainly had the bigger engine certificated but I don't recall anything being done about re-testing for stall-speed compliance. Maybe they built a bigger wing? Maybe they did the testing but I didn't hear anything about it, that's more than possible ... or maybe the 2200cc was the same weight as the 1600cc?

 

Wasn't the 95.25 approval based on a 450kg MTOW? I really don't know but certainly Drifters were, and Lightwings were, the Thruster was, not sure about the Skyfox, but I thought so. Certainly Howie beefed up the Lightwings before some of them were allowed to increase to 480kg, and the 544kg airframe was much stronger again, then some folk wanted to fly them at 600kg.

 

What about those who built their own Jabiru 160s from a kit? I personally know of at least one that started life with a 4cyl 1600cc and now has a 6cyl 3300. I suppose the stall speed remained the same? I've flown it a few times, it feels like it lands at least 50% faster than my 172 used to ...

 

Because of all the above and what I pointed out in my previous post I'm pretty confident that just about every factory LSA out there is already pushing the boundary as far as getting within the stalling speed at MTOW and in ISA conditions. It's easy to load a plane lightly and go flying on a cold day (as it mostly is cold in Europe where the majority of them are built), have the benefit of pitot error and then claim the stalling speed is whatever the ASI reads at that light weight and low ambient temperature. So just for a moment lets say that they some of them might be pushing the stall limitation just a little and perhaps they're actually a knot or two over ...

 

If that were the case then I'd say this whole discussion for a weight increase to 760kg (or whatever) is nothing but a pipe-dream. Unless the increased weight class was global, and also went with an increase in stall speed, all those European manufacturers aren't going to re-design their aircraft with larger wings and consequent support structure, or design wholly new aircraft, just to satisfy the tiny Australian market. That demand for more weight isn't being heard in Europe and USA because they don't try and use their recreational aircraft as non-stop transcontinental commuters as some here seem to want to do. To be fair, they don't need to think that way over there because there are unlimited places to plan fuel stops whereas in Australia it's a lot further between them once you leave the coastal fringe.

 

If there was a stall-speed increase to go with the weight increase then the same wings could be made to do the job with a little extra strength where required, but the extra weight at the same stall speed makes it virtually impossible with the same aircraft especially when the stall speeds at the present weight just might be already being squeezed a little ...

 

In fact, if there was a stall-speed increase to go with the extra weight then the manufacturers are already making those types of planes to suit the RPL class of 2PoB and MTOW 1500kg - the new bottom end of GA.

 

 

[kasper]

A good analogy OK.Level playing field ...? Well more like an open can of worms that's still standing upright ... for now ... really.

 

When Jabiru first did their testing they had a very lightweight KFM engine and I had the chance to fly that early prototype back in about 1977 or 78. It was a quick little thing even with that light engine and several of us who flew it reckoned that by comparison with what we had been flying up to then, owning a Jabiru would certainly warrant paying regular allegiance to the God-of-very-large-flat-empty-paddocks, just in case the donk didn't do it's regular thing on any particular day.

 

Then Jabiru built their own engine and I think the approval trials for 95.25 were conducted with that new engine - but that was the little 1600cc wasn't it? When they later built the 2200cc because the 1600cc wasn't putting out anything like the expected power, IIRC, they certainly had the bigger engine certificated but I don't recall anything being done about re-testing for stall-speed compliance. Maybe they built a bigger wing? Maybe they did the testing but I didn't hear anything about it, that's more than possible ... or maybe the 2200cc was the same weight as the 1600cc?

 

Wasn't the 95.25 approval based on a 450kg MTOW? I really don't know but certainly Drifters were, and Lightwings were, the Thruster was, not sure about the Skyfox, but I thought so. Certainly Howie beefed up the Lightwings before some of them were allowed to increase to 480kg, and the 544kg airframe was much stronger again, then some folk wanted to fly them at 600kg.

 

What about those who built their own Jabiru 160s from a kit? I personally know of at least one that started life with a 4cyl 1600cc and now has a 6cyl 3300. I suppose the stall speed remained the same? I've flown it a few times, it feels like it lands at least 50% faster than my 172 used to ...

 

Because of all the above and what I pointed out in my previous post I'm pretty confident that just about every factory LSA out there is already pushing the boundary as far as getting within the stalling speed at MTOW and in ISA conditions. It's easy to load a plane lightly and go flying on a cold day (as it mostly is cold in Europe where the majority of them are built), have the benefit of pitot error and then claim the stalling speed is whatever the ASI reads at that light weight and low ambient temperature. So just for a moment lets say that they some of them might be pushing the stall limitation just a little and perhaps they're actually a knot or two over ...

 

If that were the case then I'd say this whole discussion for a weight increase to 760kg (or whatever) is nothing but a pipe-dream. Unless the increased weight class was global, and also went with an increase in stall speed, all those European manufacturers aren't going to re-design their aircraft with larger wings and consequent support structure, or design wholly new aircraft, just to satisfy the tiny Australian market. That demand for more weight isn't being heard in Europe and USA because they don't try and use their recreational aircraft as non-stop transcontinental commuters as some here seem to want to do. To be fair, they don't need to think that way over there because there are unlimited places to plan fuel stops whereas in Australia it's a lot further between them once you leave the coastal fringe.

 

If there was a stall-speed increase to go with the weight increase then the same wings could be made to do the job with a little extra strength where required, but the extra weight at the same stall speed makes it virtually impossible with the same aircraft especially when the stall speeds at the present weight just might be already being squeezed a little ...

 

In fact, if there was a stall-speed increase to go with the extra weight then the manufacturers are already making those types of planes to suit the RPL class of 2PoB and MTOW 1500kg - the new bottom end of GA.

The KFM112 and J1600 engines weight the same installed ... and gave about the same performance - flat earth was always a valid consideration when training at MTOW on the KFM or J1600 ... and I learned on them at The Oaks - 1,000ft ASL, stinking hot summer and steeply rising ground on 3 sides of the circuit with tiger country and/or houses - never will I forget my initial licence issue check flight when I got a partial power fail on 36 just as I came over the road heading up into hills with trees all around - he said "what are you going to do" and before he finished saying that I was on short final for the paddock in front of me with the flap coming back on!

Stall speed for all Jabiru LSA55 is as tested at the certified MTOW - regardless of engine the stall is the same as the wing is the same ... when the J2200 went in place of the J1600 you not only lost usable weight for the increase in engine weight there was also added weight in the lower fin to keep CofG and no change in MTOW so no change in stall just lower load capacity and lots more power. The only really noticeable difference in stall behavior for LSA55s came from the installation of the stall strips on the leading edges - early KFM and 1600 LSA55s had no stall strips and they were a little 'confronting' at the stall (read that was dropping wings if not absolutely in balance)... and the retrofit was a kit sent to owners and I know of at least 1 where they were installed a bit off and made the stall quite different from what was expected when they were installed per the direction - I'm sure they were ground off and a new set installed but it was not a nice change when I flew it first time and stalled it.

 

As for certification it was not tested/certified to 95.25 it was tested and certified to 101.55 - hence the LSA55 designation - but they are nice little planes, and I know that they 'stall' within the certified testing limits BUT you do not approach at 1.3 listed stall because the tail volume is rather low and you will run out of elevator to round out if you do not get it 100% right if you are at low approach speeds.

 

 

[turboplanner]

How about RAA sets a workable standard then, such as the 2D airfoil method, which lowers cost for everybody, given that the 45 knots was just a chalk line on a board thought up by someone to more or less enclose an aircraft "Class",

 

If you have regulations, and you down't work to "provable" and "checkable" standards, then you leave yourself wide open.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...the LSA55... 'stall' within the certified testing limits BUT you do not approach at 1.3 listed stall because the tail volume is rather low and you will run out of elevator to round out if you do not get it 100% right if you are at low approach speeds.

I've always been intrigued by how little elevator movement there is on a Jab-a few degrees up and only a poofteenth down. I'd love to see a 170 developed as a STOL aircraft but the elevator would require major changes.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

How about RAA sets a workable standard then, such as the 2D airfoil method, which lowers cost for everybody, given that the 45 knots was just a chalk line on a board thought up by someone to more or less enclose an aircraft "Class",If you have regulations, and you down't work to "provable" and "checkable" standards, then you leave yourself wide open.

Yes, that's a very good, practical and workable concept but once again it's no good just RAAus adopting the method, it would need to be introduced into the ASTMs process as the required evidence of compliance because the Oz market is too small to make any non-Oz manufacturer introduce design changes to their standard models just for us.

 

To use the calculated CL from the 2D polars as the stall-speed calculation criteria there would also have to be corrections applied for the percentage of the wing that is flapped, the amount of washout and the construction method, since a fabric wing is not as 'true' as a composite wing and a metal one is somewhere in between. But on the whole the concept is a good one which would remove a lot of the onerousness of proof-of-compliance. They have something similar in USA for their Pt103 aircraft (similar to our original 95.10 aircraft) whereby they don't have to demonstrate minimum controllable speed/stall speed of below 24kts if they can meet the requirements of a formula which takes weight, wing area, number of surfaces and drag from wires and struts into account, works better than the 24kts limitation for some designs.

 

 

[kasper]

Yes, that's a very good, practical and workable concept but once again it's no good just RAAus adopting the method, it would need to be introduced into the ASTMs process as the required evidence of compliance because the Oz market is too small to make any non-Oz manufacturer introduce design changes to their standard models just for us.To use the calculated CL from the 2D polars as the stall-speed calculation criteria there would also have to be corrections applied for the percentage of the wing that is flapped, the amount of washout and the construction method, since a fabric wing is not as 'true' as a composite wing and a metal one is somewhere in between. But on the whole the concept is a good one which would remove a lot of the onerousness of proof-of-compliance. They have something similar in USA for their Pt103 aircraft (similar to our original 95.10 aircraft) whereby they don't have to demonstrate minimum controllable speed/stall speed of below 24kts if they can meet the requirements of a formula which takes weight, wing area, number of surfaces and drag from wires and struts into account, works better than the 24kts limitation for some designs.

Hmmmm not sure I agree on US FAR part 103 - there is no calculation requirements in the FAR just a stall requirement and an ability of the FAA Administrator to call on the operator of the aircraft claiming to fall under 103 to inspect to show and furnish satisfactory evidence. Yes there is an agreed process of measuring bits n pieces as you note that is accepted as satisfactory evidence of compliance BUT it is NOT a requirement to undertake that calculation or provide declaration of it prior to operation - FAR103 is a test and prove only if requested structure of regulation - Australian is test/declare/prove prior to operation - fundamentally different - see below

Federal Aircraft Regulations, Part 103:

 

PART 103--ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES

 

Subpart A--General

 

Sec.

 

103.1 Applicability.

 

103.3 Inspection requirements.

 

103.5 Waivers.

 

103.7 Certification and registration.

 

Subpart B--Operating Rules

 

103.9 Hazardous operations.

 

103.11 Daylight operations.

 

103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

 

103.15 Operations over congested areas.

 

103.17 Operations in certain airspace.

 

103.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas.

 

103.20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to airmen.

 

103.21 Visual reference with the surface.

 

103.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements.

 

Subpart A--General

 

Sec. 103.1 Applicability.

 

This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:

 

(a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant;

 

(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;

 

© Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and

 

(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or

 

(e) If powered:

 

(1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

 

(2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;

 

(3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and

 

(4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed.

 

Sec. 103.3 Inspection requirements.

 

(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part.

 

(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Hmmmm not sure I agree on US FAR part 103 - there is no calculation requirements in the FAR just a stall requirement and an ability of the FAA Administrator to call on the operator of the aircraft claiming to fall under 103 to inspect to show and furnish satisfactory evidence. Yes there is an agreed process of measuring bits n pieces as you note that is accepted as satisfactory evidence of compliance BUT it is NOT a requirement to undertake that calculation or provide declaration of it prior to operation - FAR103 is a test and prove only if requested structure of regulation - Australian is test/declare/prove prior to operation - fundamentally different ......

Did I say that Pt103 operators had to demonstrate something/anything prior to operation of the aircraft? What's your point exactly? Which part of what I said is wrong ...?

 

 

[kasper]

Did I say that Pt103 operators had to demonstrate something/anything prior to operation of the aircraft? What's your point exactly? Which part of what I said is wrong ...?

Well in the same breath as talking about origianl 95.10 where deonstration is REQUIRED before operation you say "they don't have to demonstrate minimum controllable speed/stall speed of below 24kts if they can meet the requirements of a formula" and that clearly implies that the forumla you are talking about is a requirement of FAR part103 - its not. Its not even within Part 103 - there is no formula or testing requirement or requirement to demonstrate compliance with a formula as you implied ... the formula that does exist is ONE form of acceptably providing to the Administrator if put to the test to prove compliance BUT equally you are at liberty to pull your gee wizz flyer to any agreed location and fly it in front of them in an agree manner to demonstrate it.

It just that there is a formula in 95.10 that must be complied with (30kg/m^2 at MTOW in current CAO) AND you are required by RAAus to 'demonstrate' compliance with that prior to registration. The stall issue (and even CAS determination) is not part of 95.10 because low wing load is used as a proxi for low/acceptable stall speed

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Has anyone come across a smiley/emoticon for 'shakes head in disbelief ' ...?

 

 

[kasper]

Has anyone come across a smiley/emoticon for 'shakes head in disbelief ' ...?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Well in the same breath as talking about origianl 95.10 where deonstration is REQUIRED before operation you say "they don't have to demonstrate minimum controllable speed/stall speed of below 24kts if they can meet the requirements of a formula" and that clearly implies that the forumla you are talking about is a requirement of FAR part103 - its not. Its not even within Part 103 - there is no formula or testing requirement or requirement to demonstrate compliance with a formula as you implied ... the formula that does exist is ONE form of acceptably providing to the Administrator if put to the test to prove compliance BUT equally you are at liberty to pull your gee wizz flyer to any agreed location and fly it in front of them in an agree manner to demonstrate it. It just that there is a formula in 95.10 that must be complied with (30kg/m^2 at MTOW in current CAO) AND you are required by RAAus to 'demonstrate' compliance with that prior to registration. The stall issue (and even CAS determination) is not part of 95.10 because low wing load is used as a proxi for low/acceptable stall speed

Your error is in not having taken note of my word Original, regardless of the fact that you re-quoted my having said it. In case you're not aware of it, we're now on Issue 5 of the CAO 95.10. When it was original it was ANO 95.10, that was before ANO 95.10 Issue 2, then Issue 3 etc ...

 

And back then there most certainly wasn't any demonstration of compliance REQUIRED before registration, most particularly because there was no registration, and no licencing, and no membership of AUF/RAAus because there was no AUF/RAAus, it was just like Pt103 in USA is now - as I said ...

 

Though what your point in contesting it is quite beyond me. If you doubt what I said I can tell you that in a decade in the late 1970s to mid 1980s I built more than a dozen 95.10 aircraft and sold many of them, only the last one was ever registered (once registration was available) and none were ever required to undergo any proof of compliance. During the same period there were also a multitude of other people building aircraft under 95.10 in Australia, the vast majority of the aircraft would never have been able to be shown to comply with the requirements, mainly due to being overweight and over the max wing-loading, and none were ever 'tested' for compliance regardless of their non-compliance being common knowledge and in many cases blatantly obvious.

 

Additionally there was a score or more of imported kits and fully assembled aircraft, their production mainly aimed at the USA Pt103 market but just as well suited to our early version of 95.10, before the various changes that came with each new Issue.

 

Some of the Aussie names that come to mind - SV Aircraft from Sander Veenstra, Robbie Labahn's Rangers and Hitchhikers, Wheeler Scouts, Cohen's Condor, Wakelin's Javelin, Kimberley's SkyRider, Betteridge's Hornet, Winton's Jackaroos, Grasshoppers, Sportmans, Bekker's Blue Max, the first Thrusters, and the list goes on. The imports included the Quicksilvers, Pteradactyls, Kasperwings, Mitchells, Weedhoppers, Rotecs, Falcons, and so on - and not one of them ever had to show any evidence of compliance to anyone - just like Pt103 funnily enough.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Going back to the original thread topic, what about safety?

 

The fatality rate for most of last year was one a month - most of us know two or three of those that died and that rate is well above other voluntary activities.

 

Better to be reduced based on our decisions rather than wait and have CASA make the decision.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Good point Turbs; sounds like club-based safety checks have been successful and should be promoted by RAA.

 

It would miss many who don't fly with clubs, but could help save a few lives .

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good point Turbs; sounds like club-based safety checks have been successful and should be promoted by RAA.It would miss many who don't fly with clubs, but could help save a few lives .

Sure, but there's then a chance of incremental leverage if the club rates go down. RAA's job is to administer all PCs and with a pattern of safe Club statistics they can focus on the solo artists using different strategies.