Yenn Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 winsor 68. Re your post 98, could you explain how the rules are not working? As far as I can see we have not had a spate of accidents caused by bad maintenance and harming newcomers to our sport and RAAus has grounded this aircraft. Why are the rules not workning. I know you said it was your opinion, but I for one would like to know your reasonong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I would like to read the log books on that aircraft, would make some interesting reading for sure. I am also wondering how many student pilots have flown that plane and abandoned their flight training over fears of their safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Every recreational aircraft is mandated to display a prominent warning about the lack of official oversight both in design and maintenance, and that people fly in these aircraft at their own risk. Aviation has been officially recognised in the law courts as a potentially dangerous activity. Just like...Umm, base jumping or snake handling. No person is innocently flown in such aircraft, they are all advised to make their own judgement. I think, regardless of the circumstance, for example flight training, that they still have to make their own judgement . Warnings are not placed in our aircraft as a simple sop to conventions. Some of the faux concern and hand wringing comments are out of order. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 there's risk (learning to fly) and there's perceived risk (learning to fly in a poorly maintained aircraft in a flying school that is operating outside the industry standards). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Easy to say ft. This matter is apparently in hand. If you wish to achieve a "NO POSSIBILITY " of pictures of a RAAUS plane looking like this throughout all of Australia, what would that do to our freedoms? I don't see anyone advocating flying in poorly maintained aircraft, here . By the way Has Sussan Ley approved you using an actual photo of her as your avatar? Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 There may be notices to the effect that our planes do not comply with certain regulations, but that is of very little use to someone taking a TIF or thinking about flying. Telling someone they are resposible for their own safety, when they don't have the training to assess thedangers is not much use. Training organisations have to be responsible for pupils safety. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 There may be notices to the effect that our planes do not comply with certain regulations, but that is of very little use to someone taking a TIF or thinking about flying.Telling someone they are resposible for their own safety, when they don't have the training to assess thedangers is not much use. Training organisations have to be responsible for pupils safety. Exactly! If it's used for hire and reward ie training. It comes out of a factory and has to meet a set of QA in manufacture and the design is tested and comes with pilots handling notes and a maintenance regime. If it's built at home from kit, plans, own thoughts it's fundamentally different AND the required notice in sight of both seats is pretty damn explicit. So why are RAAus tech hell bent on making these exactly the same as factory built? But on this thread the airframe is a factory built. It is required to be maintained to a specified standard and inspected independently at set intervals to retain its registration currency to them be registered and flown. On the basis of the photos alone and my L2 qual I would not expect to pass it on inspection. So in response to the initial question is this airworthy I'd start with probably not and I expect that there would likely be a longer list of issues after inspection than just the obvious from the photos. But as others have said - is it currently in use or is it a hangar queen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cameron Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It would seem to me from the foregoing posts that two people have joined the group recently for the express purpose of slandering a training school, I do hope you get what you deserve. If you had any integrity the first course of action would have been to discuss the serviceability of the aircraft with the owner. 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Allan Cameron Point 1 where is a flying school named Point 2 where or what posts in your opinion is the slander started Point 3 read the number one post and digest it Point 4 the main aim of the information in for mention posts is to inform persons that there is the likley hood that there are planes out there that are death traps Point 5 by the reading of your post you condone that type of aircraft in my opinion Neil 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 There's an old saying something along the lines of "put your money where your mouth is if you have something worthwhile to offer'. In other words, please be a more specific. Inuendo's don't normally achieve much, other than to stir a few people up. We all really appreciate something constructive to help us be safer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 If you want ALL the assurances and backup surveillance, your freedoms and costs change.. Nev It's not "we" who want it...it is the general public...the walk in customer... who expect it and in many respects require it. This whole Ra-Aus thing has gotten way beyond what it should have been as the AUF. Efforts should have been expended to fix GA rather than take over the AUF. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Any student pilot looking at that plane for the first time would go away thinking that RAA certification is no guarantee of the school adhering to any safety or performance standards at all. A student pilot could also assume that, to present an aircraft in such poor condition to the general public, the operator is confident that if you know the right people in the RAA you can get away with it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 It's not "we" who want it...it is the general public...the walk in customer... who expect it and in many respects require it. Our recreational flying pursuit was never designed to be some sort of industry. So no, I don't think that it is "the customer" or " the general public" who need to be considered here. We started this movement as a group of amateurs who wanted the freedom to fly our recreational aircraft away from populations and to be self regulating. There are a large number of us who have seen our sport hijacked by another group who want GA but don't want to fork out the dollars. They are highly risk averse and pretty cashed-up. The answer for them is to go back to Ga, listen to the controllers on the ground, be beholden to their LAME's and give CASA all the power to "protect" them. I don't want that and I am not alone. The AUF is where I came from and it may be time for GA to wander back to their "roots". 2 3 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 There are a few of us who fly both GA and RAAus. There is nothing wrong in wanting RAAus to cover better aicraft, faster leaner, more capable of quick monuuevering. Do you really think that RAAus should be stuck in the rag and tube age? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 IF RAAus stayed as original and stick to it's charter. "Simple and affordable aviation" and not try to be "the New GA" this "expectation" of protecting the public, would not be so prominent. When an organisation shifts it's centre of gravity to a new and complex and bigger horizon the old and Passe bit will get short shrift, because the "action" is with the newer exciting development. It happens this way in all fields of endeavour and structures. If RAAus becomes the NEW GA there will definitely be a need for a separate organisation to look after its interests, and will regard their show as being hijacked and stolen from them and burdened with extra regulation. Nothing surer. I doubt many of the current GA people will welcome it either . Being swallowed up by RAAus would not be on their wish list. Nev 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 There are a few of us who fly both GA and RAAus. There is nothing wrong in wanting RAAus to cover better aicraft, faster leaner, more capable of quick monuuevering. Do you really think that RAAus should be stuck in the rag and tube age? But what is the actual difeeential between what RAAus is heading towards and recreational GA? If there is no difference and that's where we are headed then it's "fair and readonable" for the regulator to equalise the playing field ... and casa have a VERY poor record of actually doing fact based regulation to equalise down. No difference = same rules 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Some people forget, or choose to forget, that increased regulation is being pushed by a couple in RA!!!!! Including a 12mothly medical from 75 - although was successfully challenged or at least deferred. We need to look inwardly as well as at CASA ! 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I know this is horrendous thread drift but has anyone considered turning to HGFA and opening discussions on expanding their operations from just weightshift into three axis? They already have all the structures (at least on paper) and that would make it an absolute alternate to RAAus. Best will in the world the new elaaa are not aiming to cover weightshift so are a full alternate to RAAus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Kasper I have been given the understanding that the RAA have taken over "powered hanglider's" from the HGFA, If said hanglider has wheels. could be wrong, but were would a HummelBird or the VH registered Sonex fit into the HGFA. spacesailor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Yenn If they could get their plane on an extended RAA register, I know of one owner with a DC3 aircraft, so the question is: Were will the extending the RAA register stop. RCAAA Recreational Civil Aviation Aircraft Australia For all Privet GA owner's or RCMAAA Recreational Civil & Military Aviation Aircraft Australia Just for the War-Bird enthusiast. OR just make it "Non-Commercial Aviation Australia" spacesailor ------------------------- NCAA sounds good! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 KasperI have been given the understanding that the RAA have taken over "powered hanglider's" from the HGFA, If said hanglider has wheels. could be wrong, but were would a HummelBird or the VH registered Sonex fit into the HGFA. spacesailor Nope. Both HGFA and RAAus have equal coverage of weightshift aircraft under 95.10 and 95.32. You as the owner choose your organisation and register with them and fly under their pilots certificates. What's missing from HGFA is the PPC and 3axis groups that RAAus has under the two mentioned CAOs and everything operating under 95.55 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Maybe E&LAAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 Maybe E&LAAA Nope. Asked and answered - not looking at weightshift or PPC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted February 4, 2017 Share Posted February 4, 2017 ... but were would a HummelBird or the VH registered Sonex fit into the HGFA.spacesailor It wouldn't....That is the whole point. 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