Jump to content

jackc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,288

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by jackc

  1. jackc
    Next target is, clearance to land for An FAR Part 103 aircraft flown by an unlicensed pilot, Just like they do at Oshkosh Air Venture šŸ¤©šŸ¤©
  2. jackc
    We can have all the regulations in the World, At the end of the day it comes back to Aviators themselves regardless of regulations etc. Itā€™s called personal responsibility and applies to everything you do in life. No amount of regulations will make a perfect World. I will say lots of non complying aircraft are back in the sky, but not registered with RAA. They are like a car, you donā€™t need a licence or registration to drive, just donā€™t get caught. NOT having a licence or registration does not affect your ability to operate. I have dealt with RAA and deficiencies in their rules, and they did not seem to care. So now my attitude is to apply MY responsibility, by doing things the way I need to do them. We are now overloaded with many rules which serve no real purpose, not to mention they are overly complex. Just look at the rules we now have compared to the old Ultralight days? Just look at FAAā€™s rules for Part 103, itā€™s an A4 page only. I have a DAME I personally knowā€¦ā€¦.just listening to him is very enlighteningā€¦ā€¦.. Australia has a mad fixation with regulations, but canā€™t enforce many of them because the staff or the regulators donā€™t know many of them, themselves. Know of breaches by RAA themselves? I doā€¦ā€¦..
  3. jackc
    I believe there is a court action involved, something to do with grounding of aircraft from what I was told. šŸ¤¢
  4. jackc
    On principle, I would have stood my ground because RAA requirements were complied with on the day. So they changed their mind? I think RAA gets a thrill out of making things hard? Or has the Bristell fiasco spooked them? Not sure that is done and dusted either, from what I hear. šŸ¤¢
  5. jackc
    That, looks like a drum full of RAA Brown snakes šŸ¤© I have to ask, is RAAus on a witch hunt, looking to ground aircraft? Give members a hard time? Being a member of a company is a problem? No wonder I believe we need FAR Part 103. šŸ¤©
  6. jackc
    The quality of that report equals the same as a Billycart losing a back wheel šŸ¤© Need to do better than thatā€¦.
  7. jackc
    So, the kit maker must have sanctioned the 544 rating at some time? They would have been aware of what was going on in Australia ? Could an engineer certify the 544 MTOW? Now have there been any structural problems with this model of aircraft? And crashes with an adverse investigation outcome, due to airframe failure?
  8. jackc
    Yes, but itā€™s notā€¦ā€¦you should have heard the attitude I got over it, there was no reason to say what they saidā€¦ā€¦.I was talking to an aviator friend about it tonight, he said a few choice words an added, just de register it tell RAA to go jump, and fly the thing. Shades of FAR Part 103 šŸ¤©šŸ¤©only I think the Thruster may be too heavy šŸ¤¢ I guess I could go VH and tell RAA to go jump? Now there is a thought šŸ¤©
  9. jackc
    WHY did RAA drop your MTOW back to 490?
  10. jackc
    So you begrudge anyone suggesting something in Aviation that we could benefit from? I might add that we once had? Just because we donā€™t have the unlicenced category, you donā€™t want it? Well thatā€™s OK, but donā€™t down others who would want FAR Part 103, I have private conversations and phone calls with people, who think it would be great. I have to ask Turbs, do you want to actively discourage an adoption of FAR Part 103 in Australia?
  11. jackc
    So what you saying is, an unlicenced FAR Part 103 aviation sector is not respectable? Maybe I should pass your comment to EAA U.S. as a I am a member there, they can comment on the standing of Part 103 operations in the U.S.? But really, Australia has no idea on many things, just look around at the way we run many things here. In your opinion on many things, itsYOUR wayā€¦ā€¦.or the highway? Not very progressive, is it šŸ¤¢
  12. jackc
    Looks like there could be some room for FAA FAR Part 103 šŸ¤© SAFA?
  13. jackc
    RAAus grounded it from training šŸ¤¢ Some b/s they are trying to pull on me, that I need to sort out. And IF the crunch comes to the crunchā€¦ā€¦I have way to fix that too. šŸ‘
  14. jackc
    Well we accept International Drivers Licences here šŸ¤© Maybe My training certificate will cover me for Part 103 here, too.šŸ¤© Look Turbo, I am hearing you but we should have back what we once had BEFORE RAAus. And I am pushing that era as a low budget, no b/s method of Aviation that RAAus donā€™t want, because of loss of income to them. Well, itā€™s not their choice, the buck stops with CASA and we need pressure put on themā€¦ā€¦.
  15. jackc
    The moment you fly an unregistered aircraft, you come under the long tentacles of CASA as RAAus are not part of enforcing that. Mind you, CASA will be very pissed about it, but they have done nothing to already police many unregistered aircraft and their similarly unlicenced pilots. Queensland is a big state šŸ¤© Training is done in 2 seat aircraft signed off for the purpose. You simply get a training certificate, which you donā€™t even legally need in the U.S.
  16. jackc
    Our freedom to fly unlicenced disappeared with RAAus šŸ¤¢ How ever Aviation has forged ahead under RAAus to a point where cost will stifle it, in the long run. I spoke with the owner of the WEB site and our discussion went down a mineshaft, I followed up with an email to further explain, it was ignored. One of his suppliers offered to sell me a Part 103 Aircraft direct. Having said this, I am considering flying to the U.S. and doing training for Part 103 Aircraft and looking at what is available. I have had some offers for training. IF I buy an aircraft, you donā€™t need to guess what I will do with it. I have a friend who imports aircraft who said to let him know with a possibility of including my kit, with his container of aircraft, at his convenience. Before everyone gets all bitter and twisted, being illegal etc. Remember, illegal isā€¦.a sick bird šŸ¤© As an aside I will have a Part 103 training certificateā€¦.. People would ask WHY? I say, because I CAN šŸ¤©šŸ¤©
  17. jackc
    Skippy, yeah itā€™s my useless opinionā€¦ā€¦people can make their own minds up šŸ‘
  18. jackc
    They are out thereā€¦ā€¦in the U.S.A
  19. jackc
    Skippy, did you take your meds today šŸ¤© itā€™s just an opinionā€¦..I am not forecasting the end of Aviation šŸ¤©
  20. jackc
    Just drive slow in an old Landcruiser with a bull bar, they avoid me like the plague šŸ¤©
  21. jackc
    Still got it, just installed Avmap and Becker second COM radio along with Skyecho.
  22. jackc
    The training use will be limited, number of circuits before recharge needed? Probably no cross country endorsements? Aircraft limited range will mean no real hire out possibilities. This will mean far higher hourly training cost. Not to mention train in electric than add extra hours for training on piston type, to get signed off for RPC..
  23. jackc
    But I wonder IF CASA is able to look at this new technology, in a timely and knowledgeable way. Regulatory work from them is usually a hurry up ANDā€¦ā€¦wait regime. šŸ¤¢
  24. jackc
    ā€˜How any flying school makes money is beyond me but if we don't support local then we will all end up the poorer.ā€™ Some flying schools, spec up their training aircraft with top shelf options, which makes their ROI expensive. A school I want to transfer to, after Covid had upspec Foxbats, full glass cockpits etc etc. The hourly cost was $100 per hour more the I was paying, that flying school is no longer in business šŸ¤¢
  25. jackc
    They should do ONE aircraft, and then fly the wings off it, testing extensively before finally committing.
Ɨ
Ɨ
  • Create New...