Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
SSCBD

So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

Recommended Posts

(Also, the interrelationships between the CAR and CASR still confuses me.)

You ain't alone there brother!

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. You would think any regulation issued by the safety regulator would by definition be a safety regulation, so the two different types is rather unnecessary. Ultimately it all descends from the civil aviation act, which is basically what gives casa its authority, the regulations are basically how casa meets its responsibility laid out in the act, and things like AIP etc are the day to day how we do things etc

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as the corrosion doesn't affect the structure in RAA

Hello Turbo,

 

Are you saying the RAAus office attendees should go up for a SIDS as well.?

 

KP

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh good. It wasn't just my personal incompetence when I tried to parse such a lengthy document.

I don't understand fundamental differences between the USA approach and here. Are we somehow safer (the S in CASA) with such unparsable rules.

 

(Also, the interrelationships between the CAR and CASR still confuses me.)

I think the studies looking at safety have shown Australia is much less safe than the USA, (I forget the quoted amount but it is significant) and we have a much smaller fleet and greater open and unoccupied airspace.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmm this is the vexed question which we ask ourselves and don't dare ask CASA. the old rule of "its better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission" . The exact wording from CASA IA 15/16 ( the instrument that gives experimental builders the right to maintain their aircraft) says " fabricated and assembled". there has been much debate as to whether taking an engine out of a box and dropping into the frame and connecting up the control cables and sensor probes constitutes "fabricating and assembling". there are multiple other paragraphs that discuss levels of training and skills required and these may or may not be covered when building an aircraft. to be clear of the most restrictive rules you need to satisfy the Authorised Person that you built more than 50% and that construction of the engine is not part of the 100% otherwise none of us would reach 50%.

You may want to check , but I believe CASA may use the FAA guide I link below as their guide to the "51% Rule"

 

I don't know of any Australian version.

 

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/Am_Blt_Chklist_Job_Aid.pdf

 

Here are a couple relevant paragraph from the guide

 

FAA Order 8130.2 defines fabrication as: “To perform work on any material, part or component, such as layout, bending, countersinking, straightening, cutting, sewing, gluing/bonding, lay-up, forming, shaping, trimming, drilling, de-burring, machining, applying protective coatings, surface preparation and priming, riveting, welding or heat-treating, transforming the material, part or component toward or into its finished state. “

 

The FAA does not define “assembly.” However, such work that does not fall under the definition of fabrication is considered assembly. In work such as riveting, there can be some confusion concerning different components. The guidance this guide offers depends on the component, task at hand, and how it is being applied. When attaching a metal skin to a basic wing structure (i.e., the spar and ribs forming the basic wing structure) the riveting that fastens the skin to the ribs should be considered assembly work, not fabrication.

 

However.......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may want to check , but I believe CASA may use the FAA guide I link below as their guide to the "51% Rule"I don't know of any Australian version.

 

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/kits/media/Am_Blt_Chklist_Job_Aid.pdf

 

However.......

You may be right but I have not seen anywhere that CASA does. CASA also state figures ( at least not in CASA IA 15/16 - they refer to the majority of the construction. I'm not sure if it makes a difference. I bet a legal eagle could find some way they are not the same.

 

CASA makes a point of not using FAA stuff to maintain the impression that they make their own rules. However they do expect us to use some of the same stuff. Eg we are required to use techniques for maintenance as described in AC 43.13 which is the same document that the FAA refers to for US maintenance guidance, so it's not absolute that CASA disregard all FAA stuff.

 

 

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be right but I have not seen anywhere that CASA does. CASA also state figures ( at least not in CASA IA 15/16 - they refer to the majority of the construction. I'm not sure if it makes a difference. I bet a legal eagle could find some way they are not the same.

CASA makes a point of not using FAA stuff to maintain the impression that they make their own rules. However they do expect us to use some of the same stuff. Eg we are required to use techniques for maintenance as described in AC 43.13 which is the same document that the FAA refers to for US maintenance guidance, so it's not absolute that CASA disregard all FAA stuff.

Have a read of page 6 and 7 of this advisory . You have probably read it already . It gives a more detailed description of what is required to meet the majority portion rule.

 

It is from 2000 and I believe still current.

 

021c04.pdf | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

They do State that generally FAA approved kits are usually accepted, I suspect they leave it up to each approved certifier to have the final say on the Majority rule.

 

Off topic But I am curious as to the weight that you can carry on the rear seat of your Jab 430.

 

Did you build to put empty CG way forward to maximise rear seat capacity?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the CASA doc linked below. which I believe is still relevant

 

I knew I had read it somewhere!

 

Persons contemplating purchasing a kit are strongly advised to determine that the kit

 

has been assessed by the Authority, or another National Airworthiness Authority (NAA)

 

whose assessments are acceptable to CASA (such as the Federal Aviation Administration

 

(FAA) of the USA), as capable of meeting the major portion requirement. Failure to do this

 

could result in the completed aircraft not being eligible for amateur-built certification.

 

on another page:

 

The amateur builder is not expected to have fabricated every component that makes

 

up the completed aircraft. Non-checklist items include the fabrication of engines,

 

propellers, wheels and brake assemblies, and standard aircraft hardware. However, if the

 

installation of these items is checked in the AMATEUR column on the checklist, they must

 

be accomplished by the builder.

 

The checklist is at the bottom of the document. I believe if the builder can show with evidence that more than 50% was

 

done by the builder without commercial assistance then the checklist is not required.

 

Its all there . I might link these documents in the builds forum.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/151991/download?token=oStoRPdy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icarus

 

I just don,t understand this wording: "these items is checked in the AMATEUR column on the checklist, they must be accomplished by the builder."

 

We" don,t build the spinner, but do build, the propeller, we build the engine, but not the magneto, pistons, cam, & crank, we build wings out of purchased sheet alloy.

 

And certainly don't build aircraft transceivers, as we can't keep up with the changing specifications, ( Press to hold time limiter still current).

 

How many people could or would make or mix paint, or mould their own canopy.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IcarusI just don,t understand this wording: "these items is checked in the AMATEUR column on the checklist, they must be accomplished by the builder."

 

We" don,t build the spinner, but do build, the propeller, we build the engine, but not the magneto, pistons, cam, & crank, we build wings out of purchased sheet alloy.

 

And certainly don't build aircraft transceivers, as we can't keep up with the changing specifications, ( Press to hold time limiter still current).

 

How many people could or would make or mix paint, or mould their own canopy.

 

spacesailor

If you go to the very last couple of pages of the document linked above you will find the check list.

 

If you have more crosses in the "Amateur colum than the " manufacturer" colum then you have done more than 50% simples.

 

If the kit you are building is not on the approved list then you should use the checklist when assessing and building a kit.

 

At the very last page they advise to check the FAA approved kits list. Not sure where the CASA list is

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick check,

 

Lines 11/13 and 43, refer to "fabricating wire, and wing covering or skin, does it mean you make the cloth covering , make electrical wire, ( I have done this) or wire cable.

 

It took an awful hard job to heat the plastic canopy, to mould it to the right shape, next time would purchase in available,

 

Some things are beyond what would be expected for a plans built aircraft, without making all the parts you will put into it.

 

And then told you have to have a "certified" person with no experience of finished aircraft tell you what "they" would require, to make it airworthy.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quick check,Lines 11/13 and 43, refer to "fabricating wire, and wing covering or skin, does it mean you make the cloth covering , make electrical wire, ( I have done this) or wire cable.

 

It took an awful hard job to heat the plastic canopy, to mould it to the right shape, next time would purchase in available,

 

Some things are beyond what would be expected for a plans built aircraft, without making all the parts you will put into it.

 

And then told you have to have a "certified" person with no experience of finished aircraft tell you what "they" would require, to make it airworthy.

 

spacesailor

I Started a new thread in the "Aircraft Building and Design Discussion Forum as it really belongs there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, Please, someone bring us an alternative to RAA, back to what we started in in the first place. And name me one instance where bigger means better for members, or doesn,t any body remember when banks used to pay us for holding our money, its a load of shit and we need to start again at the start.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Off topic But I am curious as to the weight that you can carry on the rear seat of your Jab 430.

 

Did you build to put empty CG way forward to maximise rear seat capacity?

jabiru did a great job with the design. No particular consideration in the build needed to be made for the rear weight. Though total weight in the back depends on weight in front seats. basic rule of thumb is if what's in front is heavier then what's in back it will be within the envelope. obviously if you have people in the back you need to run the W & B chart. but only time I found an issue was with four full sized adults which I have rarely needed to carry.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Board communique 14/03/2017 " everyone acknowledges that we can always improve how we communicate with members and we will continue to explore ways in how best to do this" their are many views and opinions on the (members wishes) I reinterate that a members only independant mail out poll should be conducted by RAA specifically to address the weight increase issue in a clear yes or no answer format as this is the leading issue that all other attached issues depend on for their inception. I joined RAA soley because I did not want to join the GA beauracratic circus.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I joined RAA because I liked the look of the new modern late model aircraft lined up rather than the ancient bloody Cessnas parked next door. I didn't know there was GA and RAA I could just see that one school had shiny modern planes and the other had faded old dinosours. I got the same impression at 2 different airfields.

 

So be careful how you think because some of us did not join for rag and tube stick and rudder flying even though we have come to enjoy that part of it as well.

 

But if I was going to fly around Australia it would be in a modern plastic fantastic at 120 knots and CTA access and transit rights would make that journey safer. All that from a person who sees a Drifter in his not to distant future.

 

I think that the poll in this thread clearly shows that many RAA members cleary expect more than an hour a week in a drifter within 50 miles of home. And as I say nothing wrong with either and it is a modern world I see no reason why we can't do both.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rag and tube is not the issue per se but it is directly related to cost which is what made it possible for a lot of people to own their first aicraft instead of hiring one for their flying and the weight increase while not affecting anyone without the type, would potentially open up more regulations and costs in the authority,s flow on, one reg suits all ease of administration, that is so common in all company,s

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see something similar to FAA part 103. Aircraft under about 130kg no licence , no inspection , nothing.!!

 

Just go down to Bunnings , grab some sticks , glue and aluminium.a briggs and Stratton, and build yerself one of dem der flyin machines.080_plane.gif.36548049f8f1bc4c332462aa4f981ffb.gif

 

now that s cheap flying. Was that how it used to be? but you could not cross roads or fly above 500ft or so?

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see something similar to FAA part 103. Aircraft under about 130kg no licence , no inspection , nothing.!!Just go down to Bunnings , grab some sticks , glue and aluminium.a briggs and Stratton, and build yerself one of dem der flyin machines.080_plane.gif.36548049f8f1bc4c332462aa4f981ffb.gif

 

now that s cheap flying. Was that how it used to be? but you could not cross roads or fly above 500ft or so?

Icarus - But we did cross roads, we went around rural houses no over, landed on four wheel drive roads and or grass paddocks, however, we did not get above 300ft, ran out of oxygen back then. Best flying ever.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like it would have been awesome fun. But I missed the party. Now I will have to spend 8-10 grand to be licenced to do the same.

 

Maybe there could be something like a microlight certificate Say 130kg empty weight max . no pax. test to check you know about circuits and where controlled airspace is ,reading charts. 5000 feet max Maybe 10hours instruction in a drifter or similar. radio compulsory Spend about $2000 on the licence at $150-$200 per hour.

 

Log 50hours then you might be able to go for RPC. a couple more tests and maybe a min 5 hours instruction etc.

 

just dreamin out loud. would be a much cheaper start to flying for those with a mortgage , young family etc.

 

back to the roots as described abouve but with a little more "control" to keep CASA happy!

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt that the existing RAA medical is going to cut it for guys that want CTA access anyway, so I really don't think the RPL is that much more of an imposition

Ian I'm embarrassed to ask but what does RPL stand for?

 

Regards

 

Geoff

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ian I'm embarrassed to ask but what does RPL stand for?Regards

 

Geoff

Recreational Pilots Licence

 

See this PDF from CASA RPL

 

Don't confuse RPL with RPC [Recreational Pilots Certificate]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ian I'm embarrassed to ask but what does RPL stand for?Regards

 

Geoff

No need to be embarrassed, perfectly reasonable question. But yeah, Recreational pilots licence. Basically replaces what used to be called GFPT.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No need to be embarrassed, perfectly reasonable question. But yeah, Recreational pilots licence. Basically replaces what used to be called GFPT.

GFPT (general flying progress test) which was originally called a Restricted Private Pilots Licence ( which actually IMHO was the only name which gave anyone any idea of what it actually was. )

 

Now it's all so confusing and ambiguous that no one knows what is what.

 

Hey Geoff, are you flying out of Koah or are you residing there and flying out of Mareeba?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...