My Rant this week- So how's a brand new plane for 14 grand sound.

[SSCBD]

I also refer to the post

 

Reminiscing! Ultralight Photos And Stories From The Early Days.

 

So how do we feel about an aircraft that costs $14,000 US, but has some major advantages and cost savings.

 

My opinion and assumptions

 

Flying training for RAA members is going through the roof, to hire for myself an aircraft from a flying school is give or take around $180 an hour ish, don’t get picky.

 

As the Aussie dollar is going down I don’t see it going back up to the old par with America, bits again will get more expensive to import.

 

Most people who don’t own their own aircraft hire an RAA sport plane usually do so and fly for now hour and a half on average at a time. Correct?

 

As far as I can see flying training is never going to get cheaper and this is a major barrier for a lot of potential RAA students.

 

Looking at the posts and reminiscing ultralight photos and stories from the early days and all pictures our heritage, is disappearing in Australia faster than the way the government can think of a new tax to put on us.

 

So the point is, we are now a mini GA outcast, conflicting rules, a board that has commercial interests in the sport, more rules being introduced, more requirements to conform with to exercise our right to fly.

 

I’m not talking about people operating via primary or secondary airports which is becoming more common, I’m talking about a majority of people actually flying out of strips, clubs, ALA’s etc, and some lucky few that they have their own strip on their own property.

 

To be fair and with full disclosure, I have a GA license, I also was flying ultralights at the age of 20.

 

I have grown up in both worlds.

 

And here is an interesting fact over the weekend while talking to a few US mates of mine.

 

The got a beast over there now amongst others, that has a 27 foot Rag Wing, is single seat, and is powered by a 40 hp electric engine. It costs $14,000 usd I am told. But here is the interesting thing, and has an average battery endurance of about an hour and a half. However with the 27 foot wing which is huge from what we used to fly, it’s all is, or as they explained to me you climb up to 3 or 4000 feet can shut the engine down because it’s electric, and glide or catch or you can ride any thermal very well. It’s not like a high-performance glider, but you can pick up between 300 and thousand feet just was some weak thermals, in full glide mode with engine off it comes down at less than 200 feet a minute. To me that’s very impressive from flying the old rag Wings with some of the early ones you through a brick out just followed it down.

 

They said they can fly locally around on a good day and get to 2 ½ hours by just getting some thermals and then turning the power back on when low. Realistically if you not going from point A to point B this is an ideal machine for those who just want to fly locally or within 100K say.

 

The costs, thinking about it and believe me I have NOT read the Ops manual, but one has no fuel to put in the damn thing, there is zero engine maintenance I’m told because it’s electric motor, the batteries last 3000 recharges, and by the way the guys said they always have a spare battery pack and it takes them 10 minutes to change batteries and get airborne again. So you really have 3 hours min flying time.

 

Myself and a few of my friends when we were flying rag wings many years ago, used to go up to 5000 feet turn off the engine and glide back down it was fun.

 

This beast seems like its just a local fun flying machine like we had at the start or before the Thruster, Drifter times.

 

It’s a single seat so were not worried about anyone killing a pax.

 

However, he is my question. The way they fly them is to climb up and turn the engine off in America, yes I know it’s an electric motor so restart is not a problem, however does the Ops manual cover this in Australia. I don’t really care, but I’m sure someone will.

 

The next thing is, zero maintenance on the engine, can’t wait to see what someone in RAA comes up with on that. Its is basically as simple rag and tube frame like a single seat drifter so maintenance will be low to non-existent.

 

So I see this as an answer for people to fly very cheaply and have some fun.

 

No fuel costs, no real maintenance costs, cheap to buy new, engine wise I would assume more reliable than any two-stroke or four stroke and it is purely just a fun machine for local flying.

 

Yes you can stick it in the back of modified trailer, drive to where you want to go if you want to visit people and go flying there like we did in the old days. Drive out of the city, find a paddock or friendly farmer and go flying.

 

And yes by the way gets off on in a small paddock with those big wings in about 50 or 60 feet.

 

I know there’s a couple of two seat electric airplanes coming out now which be great for the training. This is where I think RAA one size fits all just does not work, and is a burden to those who do not want all the bells and whistles.

 

That my point is this aircraft is only for local flying outside of controlled airspace so would the students wanting to get into aviation be able to fly with simple modified theory and exams. AND do it cheaply?

 

This is almost bringing is back to the beginning of the old AUF training syllabus where you keep it simple stupid, teach everyone what is going to kill you and really enjoy flying.

 

Thank this’ll be an interesting concept coming up in the next 12 months, so which way to we go with it. More rules or not?

 

Did this with Dragon 13 speech to text so forgive typos.

 

 

[Marty_d]

What's the aircraft?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Not a 701, Marty

 

 

[Marty_d]

Not a 701, Marty

I realise that Pete... something with a built-in headwind ain't suited for electric...

 

 

[bexrbetter]

?????

 

Exclusive: We Fly An Electric Airplane

 

 

[Garfly]

In the spirit of back-to-basics cheap-flight innovations

 

The 2017 Belite Pipper (2 place - tail or nose dragger, 2 or 4-stroke) is also a contender.

 

Airframe kit currently selling for 9,000 USD.

 

 

Pipper - Belite Aircraft

 

Pipper

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The 2017 Belite Pipper

i think the intention of the thread was to note a 100% ready to go item for cheap (relative) money, there's a number of cheap kits around.

 

 

[kasper]

And other than the twin difficulties of doing it as 95.10 kit and insidious RAAus tech mania for GA everything. This would be a nice 95.10.

 

And if people would start considering 2 stroke engines again then a $15-$20k advanced kit for any single seat rag wing is viable ... but until or unless GA pi$$ off to their own play pen and leave what was ultralight alone this will not happen.

 

And personally I don't think GA is going away and I will be the one generation of pilots that started in 95.25 trainers and will see the end of ultralights as an industry.

 

 

[facthunter]

Electric has a future. just a matter of time. Wouldn't be a bad idea to write rules (minimum ones) NOW. Get the show on the road. Nev

 

 

[Garfly]

Belite launches electric SkyDock ultralight - FLYER

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

Belite launches electric SkyDock ultralight - FLYER

 

As lovely as that is, the "most technologically advanced" carbon fibre ultralight in the US probably won't retail for $14,000.

 

 

[kasper]

Electric has a future. just a matter of time. Wouldn't be a bad idea to write rules (minimum ones) NOW. Get the show on the road. Nev

But what needs to change from what we have at the moment?

In the 95.10 area the lack of a combustion engine is not an issue ... in the two seater area you need to possibly clarify that single engine includes an electric motor.

 

Address the no turning engine off in flight bit in the ops manual.

 

Address the inapplicability of the weight of fuel minimums in the tech manual

 

God forbid the current megalomaniac RAAus tech turn their minds to battery safety and fire risk.

 

What else is needed? There is no fundamental difference as the electric aircraft use a propeller and aerodynamically and control wise they are the same.

 

 

[SSCBD]

The top end today at 50k as an ultralight class and built - ElectraFlyer-ULS the 2hour full flight time but also glider - and its ultralight class, that we really don't have here any more in AUS, but in USA which means no license - no medical - no rego. Beat that.

 

Have a look at the ziglog 14K USD. again in USA no license - no medical - no rego -(what we have lost here in AUS.)

 

 

 

[farri]

A couple of weeks ago, I took a member of this forum, flying in my Drifter! He`d never flown in an Ultralight and wanted to find out if Ultralight flying was what he really wanted to do, well, the easiest way to put it is he was immediately hooked.

 

A couple of nights ago he phoned me and said he had done a fair bit of research and had decided he wanted to start flight training, own an aircraft and it had to be a tail dragger so he could fly it out of paddocks... He was told by one RA-Aus flying school that they hadn`t had a tail dragger for years as no one wanted to learn to fly in tail draggers,anymore.

 

The way I see it is this! The majority of RA-Aus pilots are around retirement age and over! For whatever reason, a great number of them have come from a GA background! They have enough disposable money to train in and fly modern LSA`s! A large number of them own their own LSA, so for those guys the cost of flying doesn`t really matter very much, but if the cost of training and owning an aircraft continues the way it`s currently going, it`s only a matter of time and it will certainly become a sport for a chosen few! That is not what many guys like SSCBD and myself intended, when we started flying Ultralights.

 

Electric aircraft may be the way of the future but for now, we are stuck in the present!

 

An alternative??? Airdrome Aeroplanes ~ Holden, MO

 

Frank.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Electric aircraft may be the way of the future but for now, we are stuck in the present!

Having a Tesla and am right now a part of setting up an electric car sales stealership (4 brands covering our County) that includes me driving an electric demo everyday current-ly, I will state that electric will not ever be a replacement for the petrol engine but is indeed a parallel alternate.

 

It will be interesting for me over the coming year to learn about the systems and see how they can be applied to light aircraft.

 

This is my 100 hp equivalent JAC brand Demo ..

 

 

 

 

[SSCBD]

MAKE AUSSIE SPORT FLYING GREAT AGAIN

 

 

[spacesailor]

BexBetter

 

Electric vehicles are good if you commute,

 

But if used as a touring car\SUV even the new vehicles are failing in their small (weight saving) fuel tank, A new industry making replacement fuel-tank's has arisen,

 

Over the years the range has been reduced in most vehicles.

 

Can I have a loan electric vehicle for my next "Fraser Island" trip. Promise I wont tow a Big caravan.

 

(If commuting use public transport)

 

spacesailor

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

But what needs to change from what we have at the moment?In the 95.10 area the lack of a combustion engine is not an issue ... in the two seater area you need to possibly clarify that single engine includes an electric motor.

Address the no turning engine off in flight bit in the ops manual.

 

Address the inapplicability of the weight of fuel minimums in the tech manual

 

God forbid the current megalomaniac RAAus tech turn their minds to battery safety and fire risk.

 

What else is needed? There is no fundamental difference as the electric aircraft use a propeller and aerodynamically and control wise they are the same.

And what about multi-engine? Electric reliability and light weight means that theoretically you could have dozens of the buggers on your leading edges without having to worry about asymmetric thrust. Like so many areas of life, the law falls well behind societal and technological changes.

 

 

[Fishla]

Always wondered why we couldn't have electric engines, with all their advantages, with a generator powering it along with say 30 minutes of battery power (reserves).

 

Would be great in a car too with stop\start running off battery and highway the gen kicks in.

 

 

[farri]

And what about multi-engine? Electric reliability .

Under the present system, imagine all the legal issues required to get a multi electric engine aircraft, registered with RA-Aus and flying!

 

Yes! it is still just an AC but it`s multi engine, electric! It took years to get the AUF/RA-Aus Ops manual 1 approved ( I was there ) not to mention the Tech manual and the legal situation has only become more complex, so, I wouldn`t expect to see one in the air, legally, in Australia, anytime soon, however, the sooner steps are taken in that direction, the sooner we might see one flying.

 

Franco.

 

 

[WayneL]

My read on the low number of basic ultralights flying in Australia now compared to 30 odd years ago is that the change in the 95:10 rules/exemptions caused a split in pilots decisions about flying. Most would have decided to go to high performance types because they could! Training was now available and you could now fly out of the paddock and go places so faster types were to become more popular while manufacturers/importers started dropping the cheaper and basic types due to less sales. Those that got into the early ultralights did so because it was cheap and they were able to do their own thing. I am sure many of these people gave up when the rules (& costs) increased. I think early ultralight pilots were inspired by the likes of Bill Moyes & Bill Bennett flying their kites and early hang glider designs. People dreamed of flying and they could see ways to get airborne at low cost through hang gliding. Then those pilots wanted more, so they added small motors to their designs, some wanted 3 axis so came up with lightweight designs that again ended up with small motors added. Designs got heavier, faster and mostly safer over time but also more expensive which has left a lot of potential pilots grounded because the cost is out of reach. Like a lot of things, there is the chance of things going full circle if enough people want it. Only problem is, the rules will never go full circle (i.e. none or very few restrictions) and the price of available basic ultralights is too high, engine prices in particular are a major chunk of the price. Look how many basic ultralight types are popular in the USA! I think a FAA Part 103 style of category would help here in Australia to generate more interest in the cheaper basic paddock type again. I am all for electric powered basic ultralights, I think the motor/battery costs will eventually be much cheaper than IC motors.

 

Wayne.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

We've had this discussion a few times before.

 

You're only restricted to a single engine with one propellor if you're building in the 95.55 (two seat 600kg MTOW) category.

 

Assuming it's a single seat aircraft you're talking about, and the OP is about a single seater, then there's nothing to stop you building a Multi-engine Electric aircraft under CAO 95.10 in Australia. Under 95.10 you can have as many engines/motors and/or props as you like. Note the "OR" props - there's nothing to say you have to have them, so you can build a multi-engined jet if you want. See CAO 95.10 below -

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2011

 

1 Name of instrument

 

This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2011.

 

2 Commencement

 

This instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

 

3 New Civil Aviation Order 95.10

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.10 is repealed and a new Civil Aviation Order 95.10 is substituted as set out in Schedule 1.

 

Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.10

 

Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — low‑momentum ultralight aeroplanes

 

1 Application

 

This Order applies to a low-momentum ultralight aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied:

 

(a) the aeroplane is registered with the RAA or, if the aeroplane is a weight‑shift controlled aeroplane, with the HGFA;

 

(b) the aeroplane is a single-place aeroplane that has a take-off weight of not more than:

 

(i) if it is equipped to land on water — 335 kilograms; or

 

(ii) if it is equipped with a recovery parachute system — 320 kilograms; or

 

(iii) if it is equipped to land on water and has a parachute recovery system — not more than 355 kilograms; or

 

(iv) in any other case — 300 kilograms;

 

© if the aeroplane first became registered with the RAA or the HGFA on, or after, 1 March 1990:

 

(i) the aeroplane was privately built; and

 

(ii) the aeroplane has a wing loading not greater than 30 kilograms per square metre at maximum all-up weight; and

 

(iii) if the aeroplane is owned by a person who is not the builder or 1 of the builders — a certificate is in force that has been issued by the RAA or the HGFA which certifies that the aeroplane meets the requirements set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be.

 

2 Definitions

 

2.1 In this Order:

 

Act means the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

 

aerial application operation has the same meaning as in regulation 137.010 of CASR 1998.

 

approved kit means a kit for the assembly of an aeroplane, being a kit:

 

(a) that was manufactured by the holder of a certificate of approval in relation to the manufacture of kits of that kind; or

 

(b) that was manufactured in accordance with an approval given by CASA; or

 

© if the kit was exported to Australia — in relation to which there has been issued, by the appropriate authority of the country from which the kit was exported, a certificate that is acceptable to CASA and that relates to the airworthiness of the aeroplane that can be assembled from the kit; or

 

(d) in relation to which the RAA or the HGFA has issued a certificate stating that the kit meets the standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be.

 

CAR 1988 means the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

 

CASR 1998 means the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

 

closely-settled area, in relation to an aeroplane, means an area in which, because of:

 

(a) man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles; and

 

(b) the characteristics of the aeroplane;

 

the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aircraft or damaging property in the area.

 

ELT means emergency locator transmitter.

 

flight radiotelephone operator licence means a flight radiotelephone operator licence granted under Part 5 of CAR 1988.

 

HGFA means the Hang Gliding Federation of Australia Inc.

 

HGFA Operations Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the HGFA and contains the procedures and instructions necessary to ensure the safe operation of aeroplanes registered with the HGFA, and also, in respect of those aeroplanes, contains:

 

(a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and

 

(b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes.

 

immediate family, in relation to a person, means the person’s spouse, parents and children (if any).

 

Order means Civil Aviation Order.

 

person does not include a body corporate.

 

pilot certificate means a pilot certificate issued by the RAA or the HGFA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be.

 

public road means a street, road, lane, thoroughfare or place open to, or used by, the public for passage of vehicles.

 

RAA means Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated.

 

RAA Operations Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the RAA and contains the procedures and instructions necessary to ensure the safe operation of aeroplanes registered with the RAA.

 

RAA Technical Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the RAA and contains:

 

(a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and

 

(b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes;

 

in respect of aeroplanes registered with the RAA.

 

recognised standard part means a part specified in the list of standard parts for aeroplanes to which this Order applies that is included in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual.

 

suitable landing area means an area in which an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane.

 

take-off weight, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, means the total weight of the aeroplane when it begins to taxi before taking off, including the weight of the pilot and of fuel, oil, recovery and personnel parachutes, flotation equipment, items of optional equipment, tools and baggage.

 

2.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3, for this Order an aeroplane is privately built only if:

 

(a) the aeroplane was built by a person, or was jointly built by not more than 4 persons, with a view to the aeroplane being owned by the person, or by 1 or more of the persons, who built it; and

 

(b) the person, or each of the persons, who built the aeroplane was, at the time of completion of the aeroplane, an eligible private builder; and

 

© the aeroplane:

 

(i) was designed by its builder, or by 1 or more of its builders; or

 

(ii) was built in accordance with a set of drawings or a data package, or a set of drawings and a data package, approved, in writing, by the RAA or the HGFA; or

 

(iii) was built from a kit approved by the RAA or the HGFA; and

 

(d) except in a case to which sub-subparagraph © (iii) applies — the parts from which the aeroplane was built (other than any recognised standard parts) were made by, or at the direction of, the person, or 1 or more of the persons, who built the aeroplane.

 

2.3 CASA may determine, in writing, that an aeroplane to which this Order would not otherwise apply:

 

(a) substantially complies with specifications set out in this Order; and

 

(b) may safely be operated in accordance with its conditions.

 

2.4 The operator of an aeroplane, the subject of a determination under paragraph 2.3, may operate the aeroplane in accordance with this Order, subject to compliance with any additional condition that CASA mentions in that determination.

 

2.5 The RAA or the HGFA may exercise a power under this Order only in relation to an aeroplane that it is entitled to register, being, in the case of the HGFA, a weight‑shift controlled aeroplane only.

 

2.6 For this Order, a person is, at the time the building of an aeroplane is completed, an eligible private builder only if the person has not, within the preceding 12 months, whether alone or jointly with another person or other persons, completed building another low-momentum ultralight aeroplane that satisfies the requirements of subparagraph 1 ©.

 

3 Exemptions under regulation 308

 

If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988:

 

(a) Parts 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 5;

 

(b) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment;

 

© regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157;

 

(d) paragraph 166A (2) (f) in respect of powered parachutes;

 

(e) Division 4 of Part 13;

 

(f) regulations 207, 208 and 230;

 

(g) subregulation 242 (2);

 

(h) regulations 252 and 258;

 

(i) regulation 322.

 

4 Licence not required

 

4.1 For section 20AB of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aeroplane to which this Order applies without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsections 5 and 6.

 

4.2 In spite of paragraph 4.1, a person must hold a flight radiotelephone operator licence if he or she makes airborne radio transmissions on aeronautical HF frequencies.

 

Note A licence is not required to make airborne radio transmissions that are not on aeronautical HF frequencies.

 

5 General conditions

 

The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane, are subject to the following general conditions:

 

(a) there must be clearly displayed in the aeroplane, in a position visible to the pilot when occupying the control seat, a sign stating that:

 

(i) CASA does not guarantee the airworthiness of the aeroplane; and

 

(ii) whichever body registered the aeroplane, being the RAA or HGFA, does not guarantee the airworthiness of the aeroplane;

 

(iii) the pilot operates the aeroplane at the pilot’s own risk;

 

(b) the aeroplane must not be used in aerial application operations;

 

© the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than:

 

(i) the personal carriage of the pilot; or

 

(ii) the aerial inspection, conducted as a private operation, of stock, fencing or farm or pastoral equipment that is located on land owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or a member or members of the pilot’s immediate family;

 

Note Conduct as a private operation means that no remuneration must be received by the pilot of the aircraft or the owner (subregulation 2 (7) of CAR 1988).

 

(d) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person:

 

(i) holds a valid pilot certificate; and

 

(ii) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate;

 

(e) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be;

 

(f) the aeroplane must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be.

 

6 Flight conditions

 

6.1 Subject to paragraph 8.5, an aeroplane to which this Order applies may only be flown subject to the following conditions:

 

(a) the aeroplane must not be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level unless 1 of the conditions set out in paragraph 7.1 is complied with;

 

(b) subject to paragraph 6.3, the aeroplane must not be operated above a body of water at a horizontal distance from a suitable landing area of more than:

 

(i) the distance that the aeroplane can glide in the case of engine failure; or

 

(ii) if in accordance with paragraph 6.2 — 25 nautical miles;

 

© the aeroplane must only be flown in:

 

(i) Class G airspace; or

 

(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.; or

 

(iii) in accordance with paragraph 6.4 — Class A, B, C or D airspace;

 

Note Classes of airspace are defined in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.

 

(d) the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area designated as an area where the operation of low-momentum ultralight aeroplanes would constitute a hazard to other aircraft;

 

(e) the aeroplane must only be flown in V.M.C.;

 

(f) the aeroplane must only be flown during daylight hours;

 

(g) the aeroplane must not be flown over any closely-settled area;

 

(h) the aeroplane must not be flown in acrobatic flight;

 

(i) if the aeroplane is fitted with radiotelephone equipment, the radiotelephone equipment must not be used by a person unless the person holds:

 

(i) for all transmissions — a valid flight radiotelephone operator licence; or

 

(ii) only for transmissions that use aeronautical VHF frequencies or are made in accordance with paragraph 4.2 — a valid certificate, issued by the RAA or the HGFA, in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be, relating to the operation of radiotelephone equipment.

 

6.2 Subject to paragraph 6.3, an aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown over a body of water up to a horizontal distance from a suitable landing area of not more than 25 nautical miles if:

 

(a) the pilot is wearing a life jacket; and

 

(b) the aeroplane is equipped with a serviceable radiocommunication system and:

 

(i) an approved ELT, or approved portable ELT, within the meaning of regulation 252A of CAR 1988; or

 

(ii) a personal locator beacon that has been approved by CASA for use in that aeroplane on such flights.

 

6.3 In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in paragraph 6.2, an aeroplane to which that limit would otherwise apply may be flown between Tasmania and mainland Australia, in either direction by a longer route, if taking advantage of safer weather conditions.

 

6.4 An aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown inside Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with:

 

(a) the aeroplane is approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in regard to flights over closely-settled areas;

 

(b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of Civil Aviation Order 101.55 applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft to which this section applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

 

© the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

 

(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a valid pilot licence (not being a student pilot licence):

 

(i) issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988; and

 

(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

 

(e) the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988;

 

(f) if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

 

Note Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with a permission issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988.

 

7 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

 

7.1 For subparagraph 6.1 ©, an aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown at less than 500 feet above ground level over land owned by a person (including the Crown) if:

 

(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or

 

(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or

 

© the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or

 

(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.

 

7.2 Except when taking off or landing, an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level must be at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from:

 

(a) a public road; or

 

(b) a person, other than a person associated with the operation of the aeroplane; or

 

© a dwelling, except with the permission of the occupier.

 

7.3 When taking off or landing an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level the pilot must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a person or place referred to in subparagraph 7.2 (a), (b) or © that may be less than 100 metres but is:

 

(a) enough to avoid endangering any person or causing damage to any property; and

 

(b) as far as possible from such a person or place, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing.

 

7.4 An aeroplane to which this Order applies may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it in accordance with subparagraph 6.1 (i).

 

7.5 An aeroplane to which this Order applies may only be flown at a height of more than 10 000 feet above mean sea level in accordance with an approval given by CASA under paragraph 8.3.

 

8 Approval of flights not complying with flight conditions

 

8.1 A person who wants to fly an aeroplane to which this Order applies, otherwise than in accordance with the flight conditions set out in subsection 6, may apply to CASA for approval of the flight.

 

8.2 The application must:

 

(a) be in writing; and

 

(b) include details of the proposed flight; and

 

© be made at least 28 days before the proposed flight.

 

8.3 CASA may, in writing, approve the application.

 

8.4 The approval:

 

(a) must specify which of the flight conditions set out in subsection 6 do not apply to the use, by the applicant, of the aeroplane in the proposed flight; and

 

(b) may specify conditions to be complied with in relation to the proposed flight.

 

8.5 If the proposed flight takes place in accordance with the approval (including any conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 8.4 (b)), the use by the applicant of the aeroplane in the flight is not subject to the flight conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 8.4 (a).

 

Note Definitions of some expressions used in this Order can be found in regulation 2 of CAR 1988 (subregulation 5 (2) of CAR 1988 provides for this). Expressions defined in regulation 2 include (for example) acrobatic flight, agricultural operations and certificate of approval.

 

 

[kasper]

Well if you want a generator with minimal battery plus multiple engines and props you CAN do that now as a single seater under 300kg in the 95.10 category .... it's the ONLY RAAus group of registrations that allows multi engine. Multi prop or even jets. Go and build it. Or go find yourself an old single seater in that cat and re-engine it.

 

I'd track down an older 95.10 thick fabric wing sapphire and make up 4 nacelles for pusher electric engines and fit your gen and batteries in the fuse behind the seat and remove the engine. Off to the races

 

 

[Methusala]

This was taken some years ago at Narromine A 4 engined Lazair (sounded good too!)

[Methusala]

This photo was taken some years ago at Narromine...a 4 engined Lazair (sounded good too!)