shafs64 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Do now!!! Verry fortunate to survive. Frank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 An impressive witness. That's the sort of reporting we should always have. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shafs64 Posted May 28, 2017 Author Share Posted May 28, 2017 yes he must been a pilot or flying nerd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 looks to be a Rans S-17 Stinger ... there was once one provisionally registered 10-7944 in 2011... and the crashed aircraft reg seems to have the same 4 last digits. One HOPES RAAus in their registration clean up they picked up that a Rans airframe was never entitled to 95.10 registration otherwise the police/coroners investigation might have some more questions for RAAus. Glad he got out safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Gagarin Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 looks to be a Rans S-17 Stinger ... there was once one provisionally registered 10-7944 in 2011... and the crashed aircraft reg seems to have the same 4 last digits.One HOPES RAAus in their registration clean up they picked up that a Rans airframe was never entitled to 95.10 registration otherwise the police/coroners investigation might have some more questions for RAAus. Glad he got out safe Hi Kasper, Why can't the Rans S17 be registered under 95-10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Hi Kasper,Why can't the Rans S17 be registered under 95-10? No airframe coming out of a factory as an airframe or a kit after 1990 can be registered unless it is an approved kit ... and there are NO approved kits Similarly - but much more slippery - no airframe built from plans can be registered under 95.10 unless there is an approved drawings and data package ... and there are NONE RAAus have a very poor history in this century of actually understanding the requirements of 95.10 ... eg Airborne factory aircraft beeng 95.10 registered and if you google the RAAus register the last available online has MANY questionable 95.10 registrations. Some got moved to 19- which is legit IF it could meet the homebuilt requirements or to 32- if its weightshift and they could meet those requirements for factory or kit (much boarder than 19- reg under 95.55) Cheers 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Kasper that aircraft ( 10-7944)was wrtten off 31 Mar 2012.Crashed shortly after take off Rebuilt? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuri Gagarin Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 No airframe coming out of a factory as an airframe or a kit after 1990 can be registered unless it is an approved kit ... and there are NO approved kitsSimilarly - but much more slippery - no airframe built from plans can be registered under 95.10 unless there is an approved drawings and data package ... and there are NONE RAAus have a very poor history in this century of actually understanding the requirements of 95.10 ... eg Airborne factory aircraft beeng 95.10 registered and if you google the RAAus register the last available online has MANY questionable 95.10 registrations. Some got moved to 19- which is legit IF it could meet the homebuilt requirements or to 32- if its weightshift and they could meet those requirements for factory or kit (much boarder than 19- reg under 95.55) Cheers Thanks Kasper, so what can be registered under 95-10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Thanks Kasper, so what can be registered under 95-10? new builds limited to self design and build 300kg MTOW single seater with minimum wing area limited to 30kg/m^2 at MTOW There are a few squirrely little loopholes like annual serial group builders (think old time Tyro) but you have a completely free hand within that single seat envelope eg multi engine, jet, turboprop etc not all practical due to the MTOW and the limits of fuel BUT if you wanted to build a twin jet Horten IX with two large model engine jets you are completely free to do it within 95.10 ... and for reference the correct scale factor for the HO IX is 44.5% or a span of 24'6" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Kasper that aircraft ( 10-7944)was wrtten off 31 Mar 2012.Crashed shortly after take offRebuilt? Can't say. You cannot see the prefix on the crash video only the 4 reg numbers ... now back in 2011 you did not need to display the 10- if it was 95.10 reg so IF there are no leading 19- not visible then it appears to be still reg 95.10 ... hence by raised hand for RAAus on historically incorrectly registered airframes ... they say they cleaned everything up so hopefully there is a 19- not visible that shows this airframe was correctly registered in 2012 when it crashed Because you have to remember this video is from 2012 not 2017 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 2012? Well that makes more sense. Here I am thinking it just happened. From ASN site:- This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information. Date: 31-MAR-2012 Time: 09:10 LT Type: Rans S-17 Stinger Owner/operator: Private Registration: 10-7944 C/n / msn: Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 1 Other fatalities: 0 Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Starke Field - YSKF, Woodstock, about 35km south of Townsville, QLD - Australia Phase: Initial climb Nature: Private Departure airport: YSKF Destination airport: YSKF Narrative: A Rans S-17 Stinger ultralight crashed shortly after take off from Starke Field - YSKF, Woodstock, about 35km south of Townsville, QLD, into a tree due to an engine failure. Sources: No Cookies | The Courier Mail No Cookies | Townsville Bulletin http://m.news.com.au/QLD/fi993863.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 Can't say. You cannot see the prefix on the crash video only the 4 reg numbers ... now back in 2011 you did not need to display the 10- if it was 95.10 reg so IF there are no leading 19- not visible then it appears to be still reg 95.10 ... hence by raised hand for RAAus on historically incorrectly registered airframes ... they say they cleaned everything up so hopefully there is a 19- not visible that shows this airframe was correctly registered in 2012 when it crashedBecause you have to remember this video is from 2012 not 2017 I had to give you a funny because you mentioned Ra-Aus having cleaned everything up... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I had to give you a funny because you mentioned Ra-Aus having cleaned everything up... I've had a sherbet or two today (rainy day in the house) so I am being generous ... Plus RAAus have their fingers and tendrils deeper into CASA ... just take a look at the current 2017 version of 95.10 where versions of Ops and Tech manuals have crept into the CAO ... I'm sure that they cleaned up everything left in the last 12mths ... last irregular 95.10 I KNOW registered incorrectly was still registered last year with 95.10 ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 I've had a sherbet or two today (rainy day in the house) so I am being generous ...Plus RAAus have their fingers and tendrils deeper into CASA ... just take a look at the current 2017 version of 95.10 where versions of Ops and Tech manuals have crept into the CAO ... I'm sure that they cleaned up everything left in the last 12mths ... last irregular 95.10 I KNOW registered incorrectly was still registered last year with 95.10 ... So there are no longer any C150 Aerobats on the register? Are you sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted May 28, 2017 Share Posted May 28, 2017 So there are no longer any C150 Aerobats on the register? Are you sure? I only take interest in the 95.10 as I've two of those and I've had arguments with Raa tech on both of them over the past 10+ years. Indeed you might find another big argument with them coming on one of mine as I did not build it ... their drafting of the tech manual to make mods subject to them on 95.10 will likely end with me continuing to mod mine as I like and wait for them to realise their words are not applicable to 95.10 on a legal construction. Their loss not consulting - they lost the previous three times on mine so let's see if they want to continue the loosing streak. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flindersflyer Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 This guy should be an aviation reporter. No sensationalism here, just facts. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostraiarq Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 a legal construction. ทางเข้า จีคลับ 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