Costs RA vs GA

[manna]

Do you pay someone to do your 100hrly? That was the only negative of teh EXP rego that I could see

No, I built the aircraft under the SAAA Builder assist program, and have completed the MCP course and therefore am able to do my own 100 hourly inspections.

Cheers

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Interesting. I once looked into rebuilding part of an aircraft (its wings in my case) to achieve that outcome but even that was considered iffy at the time so i did not proceed, but I would be surprised if a dissasembly would truly qualify under the rules, although if possible I'd be keen! May need to have a chat with an AP :-)

It would still be iffy.

There would be little gain in doing that (rebuild a specific part of the aircraft like the wings or some such small part of the aircraft. Under today’s rules, you can only work on the parts of the aircraft you built. So all you could work on were the wings -even if it were allowed.

 

But You would not fulfill the majority of the build requirement “ so called 51% rule” so would not be eligible anyway.

 

The builders that I am aware of did a complete strip back to kit basic components. They then photographed the kit in its basic apart form and then did the reconstruction as they would have for a new kit.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

After holding both the RA-Aus Pilot certificate and a PPL and having the aircraft in RA, ............................................................................ GA Experimental Registration have given me more feedoms and did open up airfields to which I had no access to in RA. ......................................................................................Just my 2 cents worth

As a convert from PPL to RA Cert, I have always flown under the impression that I could access any airfield/airspace that I wanted (subject to PPL being current).

Me thinks you have been watching Brave Heart FREEEEEEEEEDOM!

 

If you want to fly in excess of 140 knots, do erobatics, have two engines, carry more than one passenger - go to GA.

 

If you are happy to fly under 140 knots, not do aerobatics, are happy with one engine and passenger - RA may just be the most cost effective option.

 

In the end it is all down to your wants, which are just as valid as the next pilots.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

As a convert from PPL to RA Cert, I have always flown under the impression that I could access any airfield/airspace that I wanted (subject to PPL being current). Me thinks you have been watching Brave Heart FREEEEEEEEEDOM!If you want to fly in excess of 140 knots, do erobatics, have two engines, carry more than one passenger - go to GA.

 

If you are happy to fly under 140 knots, not do aerobatics, are happy with one engine and passenger - RA may just be the most cost effective option.

 

In the end it is all down to your wants, which are just as valid as the next pilots.

Yep Skippy you are correct. An RAAus aircraft can still access any CTA as long as the aircraft is radio and transponder equipped AND as long as the pilot is qualified to fly the aircraft (ie: has RAAus certificate ) AND qualified to enter CTA (ie ppl (or I guess certain applicable situations with an RPL ) or higher CPL etc with a current applicable medical)

 

 

[Markproa]

Yep Skippy you are correct. An RAAus aircraft can still access any CTA as long as the aircraft is radio and transponder equipped AND as long as the pilot is qualified to fly the aircraft (ie: has RAAus certificate ) AND qualified to enter CTA (ie ppl (or I guess certain applicable situations with an RPL ) or higher CPL etc with a current applicable medical)

What about "stay above 1000 feet over built-up areas and within gliding distance of non built up area". That could restrict a few CTAs.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

What about "stay above 1000 feet over built-up areas and within gliding distance of non built up area". That could restrict a few CTAs.

All aircraft have to stay above 1000 ft in that case (except while actually taking off and landing).As far as gliding distance stuff - I guess so, if that’s true of all RAAus aircraft. I don’t know the rules about that.

 

Does it apply to all?

 

Say you bought a factory built aircraft that could be registered in GA or RAAus. If it’s GA then the above gliding bit does not apply strictly. Does the rule then apply if same aircraft were converted to RAAus.

 

In GA experimental it varies from aircraft to aircraft. If you have a jabiru with particular versions of engine you have to be able to glide clear but if you have some other different engine version you can fly over built up areas without the requirement. But that’s a strict aircraft to aircraft variation not a broad brush rule.

 

What’s the story with RAAus aircraft?

 

 

[Markproa]

All aircraft have to stay above 1000 ft in that case (except while actually taking off and landing).As far as gliding distance stuff - I guess so, if that’s true of all RAAus aircraft. I don’t know the rules about that.Does it apply to all?

 

Say you bought a factory built aircraft that could be registered in GA or RAAus. If it’s GA then the above gliding bit does not apply strictly. Does the rule then apply if same aircraft were converted to RAAus.

 

In GA experimental it varies from aircraft to aircraft. If you have a jabiru with particular versions of engine you have to be able to glide clear but if you have some other different engine version you can fly over built up areas without the requirement. But that’s a strict aircraft to aircraft variation not a broad brush rule.

 

What’s the story with RAAus aircraft?

My understanding is that it is all RAA and any VH experimental with an uncertified engine.

[Jaba-who]

My understanding is that it is all RAA and any VH experimental with an uncertified engine.

For VH experimental - no, not strictly.

If your AP gives it as a direction in the c of a then it applies and could be given to any engine. You would have a good argument to object if it were done on an unmodified standard certified engine but on any other engine if thats what the AP says then that’s it.

 

Most APs would add it if you were flying say a converted auto engine or a modified certified engine (which strictly would be no longer certified once it was modified)

 

But there is not a blanket requirement in all aircraft of Experimental category without a certified engine.

 

There have been frequent comments and urban myth that once a certified engine is put in an experimental (even if completely unmodified) it automatically is de-certified. This has been refuted to me by both an AP and Rod Stiff from Jabiru so I assume it is just an urban legend.

 

 

[kasper]

Ok. Read your CAOs people

 

I’ll leave weightshift and 95.10 out of this summary and just do the 95.55 registered RAAus.

 

Planes under this CAO are grouped into three for the ‘closely settled area’ ops limits

 

1. 95.25. Not permitted. Only exception would be written application to casa for exemption.

 

2. Factory built under 101.55 + certified factory built former Vh reg + LSA can fly over BUT not below 1000’ AGL AND must be able to glide free

 

3. 101.28 homebuilt + eLSA + 95.55 experimental homebuilt can apply to CASA in writing to get permission to fly over closely settled areas

 

So basically anything that came out of a factory that does not have an ‘E’ reg or 25- reg can fly over but if it’s homebuilt you need written permission from CASA and you must still be able to glide free.

 

Engine certification is in CAO 95.55 not in relation to closely settled areas but in relation to access to class A, C and D airspace ... and there you need written permission from CASA as well.

 

 

[Yenn]

Concerning rebuilding a previously registered plane and becoming the person approved to do maintenance, I don't think you could become the builder and therefore all you are doing is repair work and illegally also.

 

If you buy a part built plane and complete it you have to persuade SAAA or RAAus approved people that you have done 51% of the build. Then you can do the maintenance courses required and be legal to maintain it.