RAA…..is it me?

[spacesailor]

The ' twins ' can land on " warehouses " like the one in Melbourne. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Not the fault of the Plane ,was it? Apart from the way it was flown those buildings should have never been allowed there.  Also innocent people died there. Nev

[F10]

7 hours ago, Flying_higher said:

 

I'm not suggesting this is the airlines Nev, but it's also not 1950. There still needs to be standards as there is no 'experimental' category for type accepted aircraft and therefore it much either conform with the type certificate or have some other mechanism to provide assurance, in this case its a MARAP. In the VH world this would be an STC or EO. Remember, a type certified aircraft can be used for flight training therefore is it fair that little johny's mum and dad take him to the airfield for flight training thinking that the aircraft meets a standard (no matter how 'loose') and it doesn't? This is why initial training isn't permitted in amateur built aircraft. 

This is hardly “bolting anything on”. This is a certified propeller and most would agree is better in many ways, then original wooden props. Yes, I could just go and bolt the old prop back on, but that to me is why I hate mindless bureaucratic process. Again, I don’t mind paying for a MARAP but I think I have a case, that it should have been done when the prop was first fitted, It was also missed in a further two condition reports. I also do think that’s still a lot of money for a certified proven propeller. Anyhow, we will see what they decide.

[RFguy]

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

Of Course not but students etc should be aware of the situation they are in.  Single engine Night VMC is also allowed but it's difficult to get pilots to check others out. CASA prefers PIFR. So do I.. I prefer more than one engine but people have to fly them well or THEY are deadly too. Nev

Deadly yes, potentially. Nev I guess you have looked up or are familiar with limitationns of a Duchess -  the single engine missed approach IA  minima on 35  for a hot day in Canberra ?

Edited June 29, 2023 by RFguy

[pmccarthy]

Every day there are dozens of single-engine flights over built up areas, water and forest where there is little or no option to glide clear. A mid-Bass Strait engine failure would almost certainly be fatal. Ditto flights over the eastern range to places like South Grafton. And all that traffic over cities where you would be looking for a golf course, perhaps a 50-50 chance. We trust our engines because they have been shown to be very reliable. When planes come down, it is more likely fuel mismanagement, stalling in a turn or VFR into IMC. If anyone is afraid of engine failure in a well-maintained aircraft then they should get their jollies with a home sim setup.

[jackc]

On 28/6/2023 at 8:39 PM, RFguy said:

I wonder what they actually DID for their $660

If they had to do engineering legwork, ask them to provide the work done. 

IE was this just a money grab, or was an engineering appraisal done (and provide the worked solution please to prove that someone just didnt say ' yeah its fine')

 

Given how poor RAAus persue Jabiru on many things, and how poorly , and incompetently they look into accident reasons,  they are , in my opinion an incompetent organisation of gravy trainers with varying   standards . 

The staff earn good money and I am yet to see evidence of high competency / high performance.

You pay the fee for the engineering?  And IF someone else needs the same…..they just resell their existing work on to the next Joe for the same money. Its called profiteering and people wonder WHY I want Part 103 USA?

Edited June 29, 2023 by jackc
Spelling

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

You pay the fee for the engineering?  And IF someone else needs the same…..they just resell their existing work on to the next Joe for the same money. Its called profiteering and people wonder WHY I want Part 103 USA?

An assessment is an assessment the assessor has to go through the whole process.

[Flying_higher]

14 hours ago, F10 said:

This is hardly “bolting anything on”. This is a certified propeller and most would agree is better in many ways, then original wooden props. Yes, I could just go and bolt the old prop back on, but that to me is why I hate mindless bureaucratic process. Again, I don’t mind paying for a MARAP but I think I have a case, that it should have been done when the prop was first fitted, It was also missed in a further two condition reports. I also do think that’s still a lot of money for a certified proven propeller. Anyhow, we will see what they decide.

Don't get me wrong, I get your frustration, however....

 

I bought a car once and the tinted windows were pretty dark but I assumed they were legal. Didn't think much of it until I had to get my next roadworthiness. Turns out the tint was illegal. Did I have a leg to stand on with the previous owner? No, but I was pretty peeved with them because it cost me $600 to get it legal again. I actually don't think it's any different to this case, and I don't actually think it's the RAA's fault.

 

[jackc]

RAA is a company, not a non profit and it has to make money, which is easy for a monopoly. They are worse than Banks of which you get choices.

[facthunter]

The question is are the RAAus making money out of it and is it really a safety issue since that is about the quality and reliability of the new prop that others are already using and rests mostly to the manufacturer.... Regarding SCARED of flying. ... You should plan for an engine failure prior to every take off and I merely asked what your plan would be in a single engined plane if you had a "failure" over the suburbs just to bring some of you back to  reality. Saying everybody does it doesn't make a lot of sense really.. Perhaps you'll just be a bit more careful which plane you fly and how good it's maintained and flown or perhaps you won't do it as often either..You make your own luck mostly.   Nev

[jackc]

30 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

An assessment is an assessment the assessor has to go through the whole process.

5 minutes for a rubber stamp job, next please for another MARAP the same as the previous one, KA-Ching……

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, jackc said:

5 minutes for a rubber stamp job, next please for another MARAP the same as the previous one, KA-Ching……

I thought with your truck experience you’d know what an assessment was.

known base product, known change item, but the assessment is different every time, picks up mistakes.

 

[jackc]

The MARAP is simply a document to read and allocate an invoice to.  In respect of the one in this post, its just an excuse to charge money for something not required.  Which in itself cannot really be substantiated.

Since I have beed involved in Aviation which is all of 5 minutes, I have seen gaping holes in some things, over regulation in other garnished with a whole heap of b/s. Don't ever mention Condition Reports to me either…..that will wind me right up 🙂 

[facthunter]

The "condition' report is best performed by someone very familiar with the type and not associated with the last owner or previous maintenance of that plane .How the books are written up is important and the W&B docs and when it was last weighed. There's a lot of things it does NOT address.  Nev

[Flying_higher]

5 hours ago, jackc said:

RAA is a company, not a non profit and it has to make money, which is easy for a monopoly. They are worse than Banks of which you get choices.

Ah, actually, RAA is a Not-For-Profit. I might point out also that they aren't a monopoly (for the most part) either. Trikes and powered parachutes are managed by SAFA as well, CASA have LSA and other RAA types on their register too. 

 

Sorry not sorry for raining on your parade....

[facthunter]

For a lot of people it's RAAus or nothing. You can't fly most ultralights on a" normal" licence of any category. You  have to get a RAAus CERTIFICATE and BE financial and meet the medical.  Nev

[Thruster88]

I am guessing there would be a significant number of RAAus aircraft that may need a MARAP or three to be compliant with RAAus regulations. Would such aircraft be disqualified from the "insurance" that is often touted as a member benefit when fees are raised? 

 

Has anyone ever received benefit from the "insurance" or know of anyone receiving benefit? 

[facthunter]

 At payout time is the true test of the Insurance.  . I have no knowledge of this aspect of the  scheme. Nev

[jackc]

Read the PDS referring to the insurance scheme and it will be like many, full of escape clauses and all but worthless 😞 

[jackc]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

The "condition' report is best performed by someone very familiar with the type and not associated with the last owner or previous maintenance of that plane .How the books are written up is important and the W&B docs and when it was last weighed. There's a lot of things it does NOT address.  Nev

This was the first of many disasters I found on my newly acquired aircraft, dontcha love the firewall penetration of the fuel line that was marked 7 years old and done as part of the 5 year rubber replacement requirements as detailed by Rotax. .  Which I immediately grounded……further inspection by me (totally unqualified) found more problems revealing a flying death trap:-(. RAA were not interested, said they could not care if my wings were held on with Blue Tak.  Whats a Condition Report worth? SFA. Care factor by RAA, ZERO. So now I do not fcuking care anymore, I do my own work now….have all the FAA Tech Books and study them carefully, like my whole life…..taught  MYSELF.  Illegal and I dont care, Illegal is a sick bird.  Now just waiting for some Aviation Gronk to send this info, to snitch on me to RAA…….

[RFguy]

Yes, RAAus tech compliance is BS.  But that's fine if you dont ever talk to them,--- as you get the opportunately, if you choose , to do whatever you like, as long as you do it sensibly, to some standard and consult your esteemed peers on their opinion. That is the GOOD thing about RAAus  aircraft.  The down side is that MFRs have the last word even if they are ++wrong. I beleive 24- (factory) aircraft should be within an AD regime , and 19- can pretty much stay like it is - that seems to work (per above - do it sensibly, do it to standard and consult your peers) . 

The Jabiru factory electrical wiring is a fire waiting to happen , and is sooo far from AC43.13 it's not funny. but, the MFR thinks it is fine ! 

[jackc]

Trust me, I consult with good people and I learn from others. Yes I break the law somewhere every week, but I compromise no one else in the process, nor myself.  But there are some LAMEs I would not let touch a $300 rusty Corolla, even if I wanted to drive to the next town.  I have learnt in this life I have to fix nearly everything I own, myself.  Just the other day bought a new 4t 4 post hoist and installed it, because for the last 55 years so, I have rolling around on the ground under cars, fixing them…..yeah I know, I am a slow learner. 

[facthunter]

Shall the blind lead the blind? At least in AUF  days the show was run by people who had skin in the game. Many of them were Instructors (Shock Horror) but who know more about what's going on than they do? Today we court Sponsors and they don't influence policy (Much) do they?  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

I am guessing there would be a significant number of RAAus aircraft that may need a MARAP or three to be compliant with RAAus regulations. Would such aircraft be disqualified from the "insurance" that is often touted as a member benefit when fees are raised? 

 

Has anyone ever received benefit from the "insurance" or know of anyone receiving benefit? 

You'll hear about that when someone causes a death or serious injury. It'll be a complaining thread too; not enough insurance to cover the legal bills and the claim awarded to the injured.

[jackc]

Turbs, dont sweat it…..its not your problem. You wont have to pay even 🙂