aro

Rotax do allow Lithium batteries and even sell them under the Rotax brand - so in theory it should be OK. But Rotax specify max 22 amps from the regulator, and the batteries list charging current as 5-15A recommended 60A max so I'm not sure how that works together. Is there something that reduces charging current to keep the maximum load under 22 amps?

If the failures are being discussed on the Rotax forum, that's probably where you will find opinions on the alternatives. If there are few people here who have failures, no-one is likely to be able to make a comparison. One thing I have heard is that high load isn't good for the Rotax regulators. One of the characteristics of the EarthX batteries is a high initial charging current, which seems like it might overload the regulator.

Couldn't you drop the 95.10 registration and register it under 95.55 e.g. change to 19-1103? What was the obstacle?

Join the SAAA and learn?

The standards you refer to don't exist for GA experimental. They are a figment of your imagination. A large part of the problem is that so many people make up rules that they think ought to exist, rather than refer to the actual rules. I'm not actually sure why this Hummelbird can't be registered under 95.55 instead of 95.10. Amateur built? Less than 600kg? Stall speed less than 45 knots? Why does it need to be 95.10?

Inspections are recommended and there is builder support to help it happen, but it's not required. The airworthiness is 100% the responsibility of the builder and later operator. If you wouldn't trust the builder to build an airworthy aircraft, don't fly in it. SAAA are not in the business of assessing airworthiness, otherwise they would get dragged into court to justify why they didn't reject particular aircraft.

The SAAA Authorised Person does the inspection. But they do not inspect for airworthiness, despite the certificate name. They will inspect for documentation, passenger warning, EXPERIMENTAL placard etc. The special certificate of airworthiness does not in fact certify that the aircraft is airworthy.

They are not supposed to assess airworthiness, so it's hard to see how they could reject it?

That's for ABAA aircraft, which is different to Experimental. I'd be surprised if anyone is going ABAA anymore. It's a lot more restrictive.

SAAA very explicitly DO NOT assess the airworthiness of the aircraft. Only the eligibility, paperwork etc. Airworthiness is up to CASA, and CASA do not set airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. Neither do SAAA. You're Mr Public Liability - if SAAA start assessing airworthiness and rejecting aircraft they deem as unsafe, someone is going come along after an accident and say they should have rejected the aircraft involved. Much safer to just handle the paperwork and let CASA determine the airworthiness standards or lack thereof.

The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia. SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA. So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.

That's an owning vs. renting comparison, not RAA vs GA. I fly GA because with a GA license, RAA just seemed to add a layer of bureaucracy on top of what CASA already provide.

Over what period? A quick search on the ATSB website showed 10 helicopter investigations at Moorabbin, so you have to be pretty selective on the timeframe to come up with only 1.

There was a ground crew, and they did indicate to the pilot that the airspace was clear behind them (the helicopters took off backwards then turned around, is my understanding). The report concludes that the second helicopter was too far away to be visible when they checked.

I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace. To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.