Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About kasper

  • Rank
    Well-known member
  • Birthday 15/04/1969


  • Aircraft
    Homebuilt weightshift
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think it’s fair to say that RAAus and tech are really focused on 95.55 airframes and ops of them. 95.10 is pretty inactive because nearly everything you can do in 10- can be done in 55 and get 19- reg. With easier requirements and access to greater mtow but if you want to build something single seat and odd you have 10- Eg twin engine - can only be 10- Want to have a jet then you have to be 10- not 19. Want to build a replica scale Wright flyer the. It’s for to be 10 as you can’t have 2 props in 19- baaically if you are looking at a kit or plans you should be lookin
  2. Not sure what that’s got to do with an aero lite kit coming into oz on RAAus 95.10. that part of 95.10 is the add on ... you still have to meet the definition of an airframe within scoop of 95.10 and you have to be a member of RAAus and hold a certificate from them. this extension is the double requirement to allow flight in some airspace that basic RAAus pilot and aircraft can fly in. If you hold ga licence in addition tot the RAAus certificate AND the airframe-engine meets additional requirements for certification then you can fly in those bits of airspace ... but keep
  3. Yes. But they were all built and registered before 95.10 was closed to commercial manufacturers...and they are grandfathered into 95.10 but can’t be added to by more. and quoting the approved kit part of 95.10 is pointless. NO kit has ever been approved nor any plans approved under 95.10 because you can do it all under 95.55 without having to get approved status. factually it’s near impossible to get approval and then if they did you lose all the rights to fiddle because you have to build it EXACTLY to the kit or plans - no change of engine. No alternate prop. No chang
  4. Sorry to be a spoil sport but there are NO approved kits under 95.10. You really cannot register a kit under 95.10. you MUST go through 95.55 and end up with 19- reg not 10- reg. AUF and RASus have improperly registered kit builds under 95.10 and you really do not ever want to be at risk of CASA on audit or even worse on a flight line inspection getting wind of improper registration
  5. Can't offer anything on the quality or trust on your interpretation ... its down to the tech manual being unclear in this area so pretty much we are left to ask RAAus tech what is the case.
  6. Not clear. Yes - the LAME gets a perpetual L2 approval ... that means that they do not face renewal of L2 through RAAus No or Maybe - Once the LAME approval expires/is cancelled then the L2 ceases so in effect its not perpetual (despite that being the wording in the Tech manual) No or Maybe - it USED to be that to use the L2 granted under the Tech manual on the basis of the LAME authority you still had to be and maintain membership of the RAAus ... membership was also the only way to have the LAME fall under the Tech Manager of RAAus ... that's now not clear at all.
  7. And I’ll play devils advocate and ask if anyone has sighted any member disciplinary policy and procedure as required in the constitution 17.2 ... no policy or procedure published means it’s going to be very difficult to impose anything under the constitution on members ... employees have a published disciplinary policy but not members .... equally the employees and volunteers have a procedure and policy for counting votes but the directors have failed to publish the election policy as required by the constitution I really do hope that the new CEO focuses o
  8. And that is exactly what I’m talking about in term of toothless and harsh at the same time. RAAus could not discipline as they had no authority and all they could do is report to CASA. not good self administration as the delegated authority can’t actually do anything to the person operating outside the cao. my only comment was that the pilot involved had his pilot certificate suspended. I think if the pilot wanted to push it and go to court RAAus may find that they have no legal basis for suspending the certificate ... a member of the association operating an a
  9. Emu, your analogy falls down instantly as it’s not a question of practical management but legal jurisdiction that applies. RAAus has no legal ability under the CAOs to have coverage of any pilot/airframe not within the CAOs themselves. the legal situation is that it’s only CASA with their very heavy powers that can legally take action once you are outside the CAOs - that is the real problem with the structure of self admin. the legal position is that if I go outside the CAO exemption by not following the ops or tech manual then RAAus is legally in the
  10. Given the changes in the Ops and Tech manuals that have just launched and some of the changes that have crept into the CAOs governing microlights (we are no longer ultralights) I am having a bad day and getting grumpier than usual. Apart for the core frustration of an Ops Manual and Tech Manual now being drafted on completely different formats and the 'fun' of CAO 95.10 changes removing group C and group D airframes from the CAOs I am now getting to the point of wanting to make a point. In another thread I was asked to elaborate on why I thought RAAus in the Tech and Op
  11. Can’t remember it’s name but I read about it years ago. It’s an American one off experimental built to be a flying caravan/home for a retired guy and his wife. But it was under powered when complete and he was losing interest in it. Was somewhere down south in the USA - can’t recall if it was Florida or Georgia. .
  12. It’s a very attractive plane ... if you squint ... a lot. 😛
  13. If that happened that would explain it. The sail is a structural element and if the trailing edge is torn there can be very nasty behaviour changes which at really low altitude I can see ending badly. I’ve not seen a helmet strike but a friend was lucky when a glove went through a 912 prop and was thrown straight up and punched a hole in front of the trailing edge inboard which in that case held till it was put back on the ground. sad to hear and thoughts to those who knew him.
  14. there must have been smoke in the hangar ... the RFS plane was just having a look 😉
  15. Combined controls. It’s where anything with non weight shift only or three axis lives. It covers two axis machines and combined weight shift and aerodynamic controls. Not many about but we are now apparently extinct.
  • Create New...