aro

Who has had more crank problems? Rotax or Lycoming? Lycoming cranks are long and bendy, and bolting a propeller directly to the end was a terrible idea.

A few seconds is equal to a few hundred metres, because we are always moving. But it can be more. I have ADSB traffic from a Stratux plus the internet traffic on my ipad. Initially it tends to show both, until it figures out which internet traffic corresponds to ADSB traffic. There is frequently up to a mile difference in the displayed positions between traffic from the internet and the ADSB receiver (internet behind... usually). My understanding is ADSB frequencies are easily blocked by aircraft structure, so depending on antenna position if there's an aircraft below you (especially low wing) you might not receive it's ADSB. So when an aircraft turns base and descends, you might stop receiving its ADSB. In that case the ipad displays the last received position - for up to a minute I think. High end ADSB installations have an antenna on both top and bottom of the aircraft for this reason. ADSB as installed in GA aircraft is designed for air-ground not air-air.

Anywhere between a few seconds and about a minute, at which point traffic disappears. At 90 knots, 5 second latency is a position error of over 200m - for each aircraft. Traffic displays are always showing you the situation from a time in the past. In this collision, each aircraft would have seen the other aircraft as behind them on a traffic display - not a collision course. How far behind? That depends, it's impossible to know. The only time you can be sure is if you are passing behind displayed traffic. Even then it becomes difficult if the other aircraft e.g. turns. I use a traffic display, they're great, but the most important skill is knowing when you need to be looking out the window and managing separation visually. Anything closer than about 1 mile, you need to separate visually and should be worried if you can't see them.

Cirrus probably does have ADSB and traffic information.

If it's the same model propeller I wouldn't expect a form would be required. You're just replacing a worn out part, same deal as changing a tyre.

Most of it rubbish. For all you post on public liability you don't seem to understand it, or its relationship with legislation. Have you actually studied any legal subjects at Uni, or even high school level?

I'm not sure about the exact regulations, but my understanding is that the warbird joy flights are classed as adventure flights, and are basically commercial operations in aircraft that are not certified to civilian/commercial standards. Edit: https://www.casa.gov.au/operations-safety-and-travel/travel-and-passengers/adventure-flight-safety

That's not true - you still have the reasonable person test. If a reasonable person would expect a higher level of safety from commercial operations where you roll up and buy a ticket than from a private pilot with EXPERIMENTAL on the side of the aircraft, the standards are different. But public liability is common law, i.e. the law that exists when government hasn't legislated to cover it. Governments recognize that public liability is inefficient, and you can't just let people do what they want and sort it out by suing each other. Public liability doesn't help the 17 year old on the submarine, and can't meaningfully penalize Stockton Rush either. So governments pass legislation to try to prevent things from happening. Lo and behold, we DO have different standards in the legislation for experimental, commercial, adventure flights etc...

The submarine is an interesting example - freedom, sure, but should the freedom to build your own submarine extend to the freedom to charge passengers 250K and carry a 17 year old? I think commercial operations do need more regulation, less freedom because paying passengers do not generally have the knowledge they need for an informed decision. This is basically the equivalent of Experimental vs. commercial operations - with some interesting grey areas, e.g. where do adventure flights fit in the freedom vs regulation range?

I have in fact built and flown an aircraft and been a member of SAAA for 20 odd years. Builders will generally tell you their aircraft are built to higher standards than commercial aircraft - that may or may not be true. The regulations say that if you provide the required documentation, CASA or an AP must issue an experimental certificate. Documentation includes enough information to allow restrictions to be applied if required for safety of others, but not an assessment of acceptable standards by CASA or the AP. In reality it is very difficult to assess many of the critical parts of a build anyway. If e.g. SAAA had the power to assess a build and deny a certificate, someone they approved could come back after an accident and say that the SAAA are partly responsible because they should have performed a better assessment and denied the certificate. If the regulations say they must issue the certificate, they can't be blamed for following the regulation and issuing the certificate. All responsibility rests on the builder, as is intended.

CASA already has a class for aircraft of uncertain construction: Amateur Built Experimental. CASA do not set any airworthiness standards for amateur built experimental aircraft. It is 100% the responsibility of the builder. If these FAR 103 aircraft qualify as amateur built, they are eligible for VH registration. RAA amateur built is similar, although I think they have some extra inspections - probably because they don't have in house lawyers telling them to stay away and avoid potential responsibility. VH registration is hardly onerous, so the only things FAR 103 really offers are: - flying without a license - commercially built aircraft rather than amateur built Some form of licensing and training seem like a good idea to me. I still think you could get most of what you want through a tweak of RAA rules, e.g. 95.10 eligibility simply based on weight etc. rather than approval of specific aircraft. The ops manual already has provision for single seat BFR.

It's 24 knots max stall to 55 knots at full power straight and level. That's a reasonably wide range, equivalent to 44 knots stall and 100 knots max speed in percentage terms. If you want to go somewhere you are looking at the wrong category - FAR 103 is about getting in the air, and little else. 5 gallons maximum fuel and 55 knots at full power isn't really a travelling machine...

If you have all that it's not FAR 103 equivalent. FAR 103: - No license - No registration with any organization - No airworthiness standards That's the whole point. Personally, I think training and licensing are a good idea, but if you want to talk FAR 103 equivalents... Duplicating 95.10 under another organization would be a different approach, but I think it would be easier to get it going again under the RAA umbrella.

Oh FFS, The "Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) provides a way of exploring the Code of Federal Regulations as it exists today and at points in time back to January 2017." If you read further, they say it's not real-time, but "generally the eCFR is current within two business days" What do you want - something personally signed and dated by President Biden? Just because CASA re-write things every 3 years doesn't mean that is how it has to be done. Large parts of Australian aviation operate under instruments and exemptions, so I doubt there would be difficulty if CASA actually wanted to do it. They could take CAO 95.10 and delete the conditions that refer to RAA and you would be basically there. Or they could create a new CAO copied from CAO 95.10, change the weight etc. to reflect FAR 103 and delete the stuff about RAA. If we didn't have all these exemptions to regulations via the current instruments I would be doubtful. But this is how CASA operate all the time. It's how RAA exists. It would be nothing unusual.

Circling back to FAR 103, the AC 103-7 says basically the same thing: There are a number of elements contained in 103.1 which make up the definition of the "ultralight vehicle." If you fail to meet any one of the elements, you may not operate under part 103. Any operations without meeting all of the elements are subject to all aircraft certification, pilot certification, equipment requirements, and aircraft operating rules applicable to the particular operation. So basically there is no such thing as violating a single FAR 103 condition e.g. being overweight. If you violate a single condition, ALL the exemptions are void. I suspect, legally, the same applies to CAO 95.55.

Sort of... there is nowhere that specifies either/or CASA or RAA. The CASRs say that an aircraft must be registered, and a pilot must have a pilot license. CAO 95.55 gives an exemption from those regulations, among others, subject to a long list of conditions. Some of those conditions are: The pilot must be a member of RAA The pilot must have a RAA pilot certificate The aircraft must be registered with RAA This has some strange consequences. By my reading: There's no offence or penalty related to flying without a RAA license. If you fly a RAA aircraft without a RAA license, the offence is flying without a (CASA) license. Along with that you are also flying an unregistered aircraft, because you haven't met the exemption conditions in CAO 95.55. Plus all the other CASRs listed in CAO 95.55 that you might have violated. If you DO have a PPL but don't have a RAA certificate, you are not flying without a license. But you are now flying an unregistered aircraft because you haven't met the conditions in CAO 95.55. If you have a RAA certificate and are flying a RAA registered aircraft, you can technically still be charged with flying an unregistered aircraft and without a license if you don't meet other conditions in CAO 95.55. It seems unlikely that they would do that, but since there are no penalties specified related to the conditions in 95.55 (i.e. operating according to the RAA ops manual etc.) I think that is what they would have to fall back on, if they wanted to charge you with something. So technically, if you violate any rule in the RAA Ops manual, you might be flying an unregistered aircraft without a license (strict liability offences of course).

Current FAR part 103: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-103 Current AC103-7: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentid/22640

95.10 MTOW is 300kg. FAR 103 empty weight limit is 115kg. Add 14 kg for fuel (max 5 gallons) and the FAR 103 limits would allow a 170kg pilot before you hit the 95.10 MTOW - if you can meet the stall speed limit.

We are comparing to FAR 103 here, so 24 knots stall speed and 254 pound (115 kg) empty weight. The 95-10 wing loading limit might be generous in comparison.

Is it being a member of RAA that you are objecting to? If 95.10 under RAA was an option, what are the disadvantages compared to FAR 103? As far as I can see: 1) RAA would require pilot training 2) RAA have various other rules - BFRs etc. 3) 95.10 kits need to be approved in writing by RAA. Pilot training doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. The biggest obstacle might be #3, RAA might not be inclined to approve kits. But that sounds like a hangover from before the Experimental rules were introduced in Australia. It might be feasible to align 95.10 builder requirements with GA experimental and/or RAA experimental requirements.

I don't completely understand that sentence, but my point is that CASA can and do write exemptions to the regulations that could easily provide FAR 103 equivalent. In reality, CAO 95.10 and CAO 95.55 come pretty close - the main difference seems to be the requirement to be a member of RAA, and the rules they set in place. The best approach might be to lobby RAA for more focus on CAO 95.10.

There is already a raft of exemptions from CASR, one set is the whole basis for RAA possible and is an exemption from pilot licensing requirements and airworthiness standards.

Much the same as amateur built experimental works I would imagine. Have you noticed all the aircraft getting around with EXPERIMENTAL written on them? RV-6, 7, 9, 10, Jabiru etc.

I posted a link to the actual regulation, "up to date as of 6/08/2023" (US date). How new do you want? I suspect the AC hasn't changed since 1982 because the regulation hasn't significantly changed. Whose obligations? Even in Australia it's possible to be responsible for your own actions, not everything has to be administered by an organization.

I think you're missing the point of the US FAA part 103. Part 103 is for ultralights that are slow enough and light enough that they don't require an organization to administer. The pilot is 100% responsible for their own safety. Part 103 ultralights don't require airworthiness certification standards cannot have an airworthiness certificate pilots are not required to have any training ultralights are not required to be registered with any organization Eligibility requirements are: maximum empty weight 254 pounds 5 gallons maximum fuel capacity maximum 1 seat maximum speed 55 knots in level flight at full power maximum stall speed 24 knots The only thing to administer is eligibility, and the pilot is required to provide evidence to the FAA if required. The FAA are helpful enough to provide graphs etc. which they will accept as satisfactory evidence if the ultralight fits those parameters. The AC is an Advisory Circular, it is only advisory. Basically the section you are focusing on says we know people will try to bend the rules, and if you're going to bullshit us about the magical capabilities of your ultralight that doesn't fit the parameters we provided, you need to find 3 qualified people willing to sign their names to the bullshit. The FAA obviously hope that this is not required, but is realistic enough to document it. A technical committee doesn't need to do any complex evaluation, just answer the questions "Is the maximum speed at full power less than 55 knots?" and "Is the stall speed less than 24 knots?" You want to put balloon tyres on it? Put it on the scales, if it's less than 254 lb and the stall speed calculation works, go for your life. That's all there is to it.