jackc

We just give it another designation, CASA adopt the FAA rules and do like the FAA does and away it goes. The FAA leave it up to organisations like the EAA to support the sector and by being a member of that type of organisation you get support and you participate. FAA and EAA dont even have crash statistics data, because I asked for it, being an EAA member and doing research etc. IF a heap of these machines fell out of the sky, no doubt FAA would come down like a ton of bricks. I know people hate the concept, thats fine as they dont need to participate, just leave the people alone who want to give it a go.

That is easy, just cut and paste all the FAA stuff and go for it 🙂.

Its a company raising its prices how they want. I will bet some CFI’s will call it a day. Flying School rates will rise to cover it and in these times of an economic squeeze they may well decide its not viable to continue.

The way thingsare going Part 103 will be all you can afford……

Hummelbird Ultracruiser is Part 103 compliant. https://www.hummelaircraft.com/ultracruiser

Nothing ventured, nothing gained…..

Maybe we need to join forces 🙂

Turbs, sorry to say there is ONE answer. Just adopt FAA rules holis bolus, dont change anything. WHY complicate the concept? Next job? Plan landing right to Avalon Air Show 🙂 🙂

Air Venture 2023, how good is this 🙂 Applies to FAR Part 103 Aviators.

RAAus wont touch FAA FAR Part 103 with a 40 ft barge pole, UNLESS its its run their way. In which case the concept will fail on account of too many rules. Best thing RAAus can do is ignore it, it does not exist…… But as people move on from Part 103, RAAus will pick up on those Aviators wanting to move up, but RAAus cant see the woods, for the trees. They would want it their way, or its the highway. Besides RAAus is not structured to work with a Part 103 regime, as its a company. OK chuck bricks at me…….

But RAAus will not allow NO Rego, NO Licence and you would need membership, the very stuff, the low budget Aviator wants to avoid……

RAAus are a company that you must be a member and answer to, for all aspects of owning and operating your aircraft. Pay the appropriate fees including registration of your aircraft and membership. Yes you do get insurance being in RAAus. GA Aviators answer to CASA and don't pay membership or registration for their privileges? FAR Part 103 does not have any fees for licence or registration and I would ask for the same situation in Australia. We do not need an organisation set up to administer Part 103, that would add a layer of cost and added regulations we do not require.

Any links relevant to our desired Aviation regime? General laws maybe so, but Federal can override many of those too?

Why do we need to consider the states, its a Federal issue? The U.S. does not have differing rules for 48 states? I might add under certain circumstances Part 103 aircraft can be permitted to enter/pass through controlled airspace too

If Part 103 works for portly Americans? It can work here……

Sorry, I think that RAAus would do nothing, except sink the concept to the bottom of the Mariana Trench 😞 RAAus is a company that makes money, a perceived threat to the income would be unacceptable………

Maybe I need to plan a trip to the U.S. and see some people in the relevant organisations and some of the aircraft vendors. Been a few years since I have been to the U.S. when I did business there.

Turbs, so why change something the FAA has seen fit not to change? The fact that the FAA rules have not changed over time is testament to the fact they must be happy how its working. IF we take FAA regulations and do what Australia historically does, make ego driven b/s changes and just fcuks up the principles of FAA FAR Part 103. The whole principle would be destroyed in what we seek. But at times I think some people in Aviation would like it to fail, too many Curmudgeons in this country 😞

Take what aro has said and transfer it holus bolus to Australia, CASA takes it on board exactly as U.S. FAA does. Leave RAAus out of it, they started with it and have run their race with what they have done and to this day have grown the sector to become more regulated over time and closer towards GA with more expensive aircraft etc. We only need to answer to CASA at the same levels as U.S. Part 103 answers to FAA.

Another John Moody YouTube video…. https://youtu.be/jvav17CxISY

Turbs if you want to get creative, there are ways of getting around law suits costing you everything you have. If that kind of stuff bothered me I would have departed this Earth long ago realising life was so dull and not worth living. Why begrudge people in our case with Aviation, the chance or will to make changes that may benefit some who want to participate in Part 103 be free of too many regulated constraints, and have fun? May as well croak in your rocking chair watching Netflix 😞. Think of Bon Jovi’s song ‘Its My Life’. I live by it 🙂

FAA Advisory Circular 103-7 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22640

The Corporation has struck 😞

Problem I have is……precious little knowledge of Aviation or its history. Aviation Regulations are a minefield to study, in fact I have never seen such an abortion of legislation/regulation in my life. Hence I have a large handicap in being able to present a case. All I know is the U.S. has a KISS principle in setting up and administering its FAA FAR Part 103 regime, its covered in a few pages of requirements to comply. About FAA Part 103 for Ultralights | EAA WWW.EAA.ORG Adopted and effective in 1982, Part 103 formally established what truly is recreational flight. Its easy for our regulators to copy this and I accept there must me some kind of framework around this for admin of training and safety, but retain the U.S. FAA requirements/specification as defined by them. Would not be hard to alter the regime a little for our use here, but the plan must be closely aligned with FAA. NO actual licence, NO rego……. We are talking low budget Aviation here, a starting point. It may sow the seeds for RAA and GA Aviation, too. RAAus is a company, they wont make money, so they will never support it. So we start a ‘new AUF’ as another entity? Its a lower rung on the ladder below RAAus, all ladders have steps 🙂

Figured out how to do it……DONE Sorry about my FUBAR 🙂