FlyingVizsla

I'm not picking on CASA, but history tells us that they have moved away from administering individual aircraft in favour of administering an organisation that administers the lower levels of aviation - Models, ultralights, hang gliders etc. They are moving away from Exemptions. That's why I doubt that a category of aircraft will be established which requires no registration, licence etc. in Australia.

You're confusing the RAAus team with the Publishers and Editors of the Sport Pilot magazine. The RAAus team contribute regular articles with their names on. The rest of the content is provided by the Editors. They have Travel magazines in their stable, so I suspect some articles are re-purposed with a little "aviation" tweaking. They do some easy to assemble articles like Aviation Pioneers, Media releases, aircraft manufacturer's blurb. They take whatever articles people send them. I guess a photogenic young girl & her instructor are glossy magazine fodder, but to give her her due, she is studying aviation at school through a Qantas sponsored program, and has been in several States to get to this point. Nice to have the money to do that ....

Things are changing rapidly. Just have a look at YouTube for guys transporting themselves on multiple rotors, hover bikes etc. Where do they fit in the CASA universe? Our legislation is a long way behind technology. How do you register a modular rotor contraption that has removable, configurable, engines, with number of seats fitted "as needed"? Or autonomous aircraft, or flying cars?

Spacey - Jackc is talking about Australia's version of FAA's Part 103 (no rego, no licence etc) CASA is Australia's regulatory body, so Part 103 (like in the USA), won't come here unless they create it. They are "consulting" with industry about what should be in the Manual.

OK - I looked it up on the CASA website. There is a Working Group:- A Manual of Standards (MOS) supports Part 103 and contains requirements of greater technical detail. The Part 103 MOS is not yet in effect. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-work/aviation-safety-advisory-panel/technical-working-groups/sport-aviation-part-103-manual-standards-technical-working-group#Latestupdates You can see their updates there also - last one was 2021. Don't hold your breath ....

Spacey - you have to scroll a long way down to Section 103. This is part of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (not FAR 103 - that's the USA) I agree, that this is hard to understand. Section titled Part 103 refers to a number of things, but the "Part 103" aircraft are subject to the Part 103 Manual of Standards (someone will need to find this ...) A Part 103 "aircraft" is: a sailplane, hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider, powered paraglider or registered touring motor glider empty weight under 70 kg listed with a Part 103 ASAO - that's an Approved Self - administering Aviation Organisation - like RAAus, GFA etc CASA doesn't want these micro flying things, so they insist that an ASAO take on the responsibility. Any group that takes on something like this will have COSTS that have to be passed on to "members". Then they will have to shoulder some of the responsibility - more costs, more oversight. Getting much like RAAus? Just my 2 bob's worth - it needs someone with more knowledge to untangle what that bit of Legislation means in reality.

Shouldn't have difficulty returning a 19 to the Register. Even if the engine is out of hours / years, it can go "on condition". The Condition Report also includes observing it flying. If it isn't at a flying stage, talk to RAA. There is a form you use to transfer an unregistered aircraft from the owner to yourself, so RAAus know who owns it. You can then take your time re-building or re-engining and get a Condition Report and re-register as a 19- Might be worth talking to RAAus if you know the previous rego.

The Recommendations: - CASA amend its Flight Operations Manual to clarify the aeronautical experience that constituted "recognised flight time" according to each type of aircraft, and to clarify the experience required for licence endorsements. - CASA amend its manual to redefine what it considered an aeroplane. - The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) should investigate all fatal accidents with RAAus-registered aircraft, rather than RAAus. - RAAus develop standardised training records for flight instructors that allowed for detailed auditing of training in a form approved by CASA that must be used by flight instructors in all instances.

ABC report on Coroner's Inquest https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-14/coronial-inquest-mathew-farrell-pilot-death-mount-beauty/104931548

Australian Women Pilots' Association has a range of scholarships & awards, most closing 31st Jan 2024. Use the link below for a tool to find the most suitable for you. So far, few applicants. Apply for as many as you like, but you only get one per year, some go unawarded. Round up the women in your life - up to $10,000 on offer in two categories, you don't have to be a member for some, and in previous years some were open to males (have not looked this year). Fixed wing, rotary, gliding, balloon, training, CPL, APTL, navigation, aerobatic etc.... Read the info for eligibility. https://awpa.org.au/scholarships-awards/

It fits the 95-10 category for MTOW, but fails the wing loading. CAO 95-10 Section 5.1 (b) has a wing loading not exceeding 30 kilograms per square metre at its take‑off weight. The Columbian Cri-Cri specs say Wing loading 55kg. However, there was some discussion about extending and widening the wing to reduce the wing loading. Someone was trying that, I have not heard how he went.

The CAO 95-10 Exemption (2024) does not specify engines, only MTOW and wing loading. This is reflected in the RAAus Technical Manual 4.3, December 2024, RAAus sets no design criteria. Builders are free to design as they wish and build using any materials they wish, but they add the words "low momentum". Multi engine, even jet engines can be 95-10, and they have been registered as such with RAAus. The challenge is keeping the weight below 300kg. There are now allowances for parachutes (20kg) and floats (55kg), taking the max for a water landing craft to 355kg. All other categories registrable under RAAus are single engine only. CASA have inserted "Note A microlight aeroplane is not a Part 103 aircraft." in CAO 95-10 Section 5.1 definitions.

It would be up to the Minister and CASA to approve a 103 equivalent for Australia as it will need legislation. Such a tiny segment of the industry and population with very little economic benefit; I don't see it getting any priority. Apart from that, the media will whip up a frenzy about untrained amateurs in flimsy home built contraptions plummeting on the good citizens of the 'bergs. RAAus won't miss them as the 95-10 segment are the lowest revenue, but more complex because they are all different. The number of 95-10 on their register is low. The Annual Report doesn't say how many of the 3,500 planes are in each category. The 95-10 owners I know (us included) are not about to ditch the RAAus membership as we have other aircraft. There are 10,000+ RAAus members, not sure how many are Non-Flying. Best to hammer the Federal Minister with the 103 concept if you want any result.

AOPA Australia - checked the website (logged in) and most things stopped in 2020. One update 2021. Last digital magazine Feb 2020, AGM notice 2019, Calender of Events 2020, out of date articles. They used to be good. Now wondering if $560 ea was worth it.

AOPA - We have been members for years. Currently have a 5 year membership, but have not heard anything from them in YEARS. Have not seen a magazine for many years, the digital one dwindled to a series of small articles. Since then about 2 emails saying nothing much. Might be time to look at the website for any sign of life.

Yet the ABC article says In a statement the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said they were aware of the incident involving "an aircraft on the recreational register". Maybe the Daily Mail was using "file footage"?

SOLD and gone to its new owner in November. Don't know how to remove it, can't find any option. It would mean removing all the comments from others too.

The magazine started with the AUF as a way to communicate with members, particularly as their elected area representatives were not doing the job. It was run by volunteers. Eventually, with the standard & content declining, they threw it to various entities to produce and it became an added cost to members. Way back then, there were complaints - eg featuring the Hummel bird on the front cover when it was not an aircraft that could be registered with the AUF. The magazine continued through RAA. The best was when it was produced by an enthusiastic flyer who knew his subject and spent a lot of his time and money pursuing interesting stories. Then he was killed in a car crash. The search for the next editorial company turned up the present people. From my notes, they were experienced in travel and tourism location publications. The father had held a PPL in his younger days. The son would take up ultralight flying when they got the contract (it all being tax deducible). That's why some articles seem to be tourism, with a little Hey! there's an airport! RAAus went to a subscription, but few took it up, per magazine it became a loss again. It was realised that they still needed to communicate the Board election statements, voting forms & envelopes and the results / AGM. They chose 3 editions to cover that. Postage and Printing have risen substantially, so it is one of the major costs to members. Voting is now on-line with a link to statements on the RAAus site. Regular emails update Tech, Ops, Board & events. The role of the magazine is diminishing to something you flip through and leave at the dentist.

There's another one on his wall, but I can't find that picture. I think taken a while ago when resolution wasn't all that great.

I'll look in, and update as the day gets closer. They are probably going to need volunteers.

Old Station Fly-in 23-25 May 2025 - including Tractor Pull, Bikes, trucks, historic & classic, woodchop, live entertainment - fly or drive. Between Rockhampton and Gladstone Qld. Who's going? https://oldstationflyin.com/

The article would have to come from the Tech Manager as the Editor isn't sufficiently knowledgeable or qualified to do it. The Rules exist, but people are always trying to find a way around them. In some cases, the Rules developed in a haphazard way, leaving a great gaping hole, where the plane no longer fits in any category.

I have suggested to RAAus that they could do an article for RAAPS, or the Knowledge Base (which I can't find now...?) The RAAPS are useful - eg what to expect with a BFR, Test flying your aircraft. I guess, between being busy and having to update something like that with Tech Manual changes, Service Bulletins, Manufacturer's etc, it has become all too hard and it is easier to handle it one case at a time.