aro

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.

Speed brakes was an example in the FAA AC. FAR 103 is limited to aircraft that cannot exceed 55 knots at full power in level flight. Automatic speed brakes was given as an example of an artificial way to meet that limitation. It's not something they are recommending - they are intentionally making it more difficult to meet the regulations artificially than simply by building a low power, high drag airframe. No, part 23 does not apply. From the AC: "The FARs regarding aircraft certification, pilot certification and aircraft registration are not applicable" It's worth reading the actual regulation - it's only 2 pages. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-103

The first part is just definitions. You need to read further to find when a technical standards committee would be required. E.g. an equivalent in Australian regulations, certain modifications to aircraft need to be certified by an engineer. That doesn't mean that Australian aircraft cannot operate if there are no engineers that can do that job - it just means you can't make the modifications. It's only a problem in the circumstances when they are actually required. And you only have to form an organization if it says an organization is required. If it says 3 qualified people, you just need the 3 qualified people.

You don't seem to have read the FAR 103 information. The FAA can inspect an ultralight to see whether it meets the standard It is the responsibility of the pilot or operator to provide evidence that it does The FAA even provide you with the information to provide satisfactory evidence: "The use of the graphs provided in Appendixes 1 and 2 will be acceptable for determination of the maximum level flight speed and power off stall speed if your ultralight has no special limitations to maximum speed or power and no special high lift devices" The Technical Standards Committee is only required if you have special limitations or high lift devices e.g. automatically deployed speed brakes to meet the requirements. I guess to stop people getting too clever with workarounds.

VH Experimental seems to manage. All those RVs etc. getting around with EXPERIMENTAL on the side are not flying under a SAO. CASA does not set airworthiness standards for experimental aircraft. SAAA don't sent airworthiness standards either. SAAA are not a SAO, and builders/owners are not required to be a member of SAAA. All liability is assumed by the builder and/or owner and/or pilot. I would expect that RAA operates in a similar way for their amateur built aircraft - it seems unwise if they assume any more liability then CASA does for VH. I doubt there have been any court case where CASA have been sued for failing to set rules for Experimental - I wouldn't expect any different for e.g. 95.10.

Screw that. If you want to move the discussion to another thread that's fine, but make it accessible.

I'm not allowed to post to tat thread for some reason

CAO 95.10 seems to still exist. What does FAR 103 provide that is not available under 95.10?

Very convenient, when you don't have an answer to a question that must have an answer if you are correct. I have been reading what other people have been saying, and I know who knows what they are talking about and who does not.

The C172 has a forward limit of 35 inches aft of datum at <1950lb varying to 41 inches aft at 2550lb, and an aft limit of 47.3 inches aft of datum. You can absolutely point to tangible locations between these limits. If you could measure from the datum, draw lines and balance it on your thumbs like a model aircraft between the lines you could say it is within the CG limits. There are 2 graphical representations of the CG limits. One is, as you say, the sum of the moments. This is a looks like a chart skewed sideways. The other is the actual CG. That is a much squarer chart, sometimes e.g. C172, PA28 with corners cut off. You get that by dividing the sum of the moments by the weight. It gives you a number that you can actually measure from the datum and point to on the aircraft.

djpacro has shown why I phrased it carefully. The C210 example is still CG, not landing weight (if it is weight, can you tell me the number?) The zero fuel weight in the Cherokee 6 is a different (more common) scenario.

Well there you go... 38 kg of fuel would take a while to burn off in a 152. Any examples that were designed that way, i.e. not via STC, Experimental etc?

You could hang a 1 tonne weight in the CG range and balance would be correct (although the permissible range often reduces with weight so there might not be a usable CG range...) But the zero datum point is just a point chosen as the point to do your measurements from. Usually, it is something easily measurable like the firewall etc. If you put it at the CG you have to work with positive and negative numbers. If you choose a point further forward, all your numbers are positive.