kasper

Yep it was Marks drifter. Loved training in it ... but at max weight and a thirsty 503 cross country to anywhere for the student was an exercise in fuel management ;-)

Hi kasper, would that be Mark Georges 503 Drifter your are talking about? I learnt Drifter flying in that one in 1998/99 and was responsible for my Drifter addictionThe middle patch you are talking about is a tribute to the triple bouncer landings of most students over the years and so far grass has never been able to catch up with student pilot hammering

btw guys it was a nice clear day with 5k+ vis and below 3000ft clear of clouds with some gentle turns

 

happy flying for all 2015

This sounds remarkable Gary. I can't imagine how you could get it so inexpensive - or so quick to build!... much clipped

 

In the end I found it was lighter, very much quicker and also cheaper (if kit construction time was taken into consideration) to just build it out of welded chromoly.

 

A couple of CAD images here to show what I mean about the access for the riveter -

 

[ATTACH]33439[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]33440[/ATTACH]

One way of cutting both the weight and the brackets on a truss frame in rivited ali was/is done on the texas parasol - free downloadable plans and construction manual here:

http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/[email protected]/

I do not like their wing structures but the fuse frame is light and easy to build from scratch and bloody rigid once put together. I added different bungee undercarraige to my fuselage for the pou I built using this type of fuselage and its still flying.

Brought a tear to my eye ... driftering at The Oaks ... used to teach there on the drifter in the late 90's ... nice to see that the bare patch in the middle of the runway has not changed much ... must be like the thin hair on the head ... once gone never returning ;-)

Great fun

Are you looking at cost of kit being $7-9k

A. all in with engine/prop/wiring loom/instruments etc ie everything other than regn?

B. for a kit of materials to construct or kit of parts for assembly?

C. high drag/low performance (rag/tube) or low drag/high performance (covered frame enclosed)

The answers to these might make it easier to answer if there is actually interest.

much snipped ...

I don't quite understand what your trying to say here. This is exactly how GA works, you get a single engine endorsement (now called class rating) which lets you fly single engine aircraft (with some exclusions). All that is required is that the pilot is competent in operating the aircraft, there is no test nor training requirements (the onus is on the pilot to get the training they require). There are also Design Feature endorsements which may be required depending on the aircraft (61.755 lists what these are, IE retractable, tailwheel etc).

Thats what Ops 7 has and I like that. I wish it was much clearer in the manual and reasons for deleting HP, LP and NW were explained clearly ... particularly as I can see them as more value worthy than the retaining of ATA ..

Personally I think that all aircraft should be issued a Type certificate and that you should be rated to fly that type. This is carried out by a flight instructor who then certifies your logbook that you now have a type rating for the particular aircraft. This is what I grew up with & is still current in NZ.Learning to fly a Skyfox Gazelle & then jumping into a Sting doesn't mean you can fly the Sting just because it is tricycle undercarriage fits into the RA-Aus definitions of MAUW 600Kgs, Stall 45 kts or less etc. The performance envelopes and flying characteristics are totally different.

 

Have a look at the Type Certificate for a Bantam and also the CAA Type rating Demonstration of Competency guidelines NZ instructors must comply with before signing off a Type rating. They define what types you are legally able to fly and that you have demonstrated competency in that type. There is no guesswork. It works. Ra-Aus could just copy it.

Firstly the single aircraft endorsement is a very out dated concept from GA (even they don't do this any more)

Secondly it is completely at odds with the core of experimental/home built and minimal interferance that is the core of ultralights

Thirdly it is impossible to apply effectively to single experimental reg aircraft as from a practical perspective every aircraft will be different - even if it started out as a kit.

Back in the good old days of GA, you 'self-endorsed' by reading the AFM/POH, then with a few words of wisdom from your CP/CFI or SP - you fired it up and 'felt' your way into the air. Every ag aircraft presented a new challenge, but I can't remember anyone losing sleep over it. I'll be surprised if there are not many forms of 'self-endorsement' used within RAAus from hereon in. Any experienced instructor should be capable of doing it, and safely too. Any experienced instructor should be able to formulate a training plan for any new 'type' soon after they fly it themselves. Have faith. We mustn't become overly prescriptive just because of a fear of litigation. happy days,

[quote="\Tecnam then Jabiru - so long as both have same features (fixed undercarriage, tri gear and fixed prop then you are fine as they are within your endorsements and are of the the same group A\.

Agreed - the the point is that this thread was all about legality of flight not advisability stemming from an article in the mag (still not got the mag so still waiting to see what it says)

The Aeroplane Type issue raised in the thread is being repeatedly misdirected back towards the very old GA individual model type endorsement and linking that to the Ops Manual 7 - that has no relationship to the Ops Manul 7 which is not about individual aircraft models but endorsement for 6 listed 'features' that you must have training for and endorsement for before flight as pilot in command of an RAA registered ultralight.

Apart from this legal issue there is the fact that no flying school is going to hire to an unknown pilot one of their aircraft even if they have the correct groups and endorsements unless they do a check flight - a local process that may be driven by many factors but is clearly logical.

Cheers

What is required when you hire an aircraft may be different to what is allowed if e.g. you own an aircraft.If you learn in a Tecnam and buy a Jabiru, are you allowed to jump in and fly away?

 

If you learn in a Jabiru and buy a (single seat) Rans S14?

 

In GA, if you learn in a C172 and buy a C152?

 

If you learn in a C172 and buy a PA28?

 

In all these cases some training would be a very good idea, but at some point you have to stop trying to write rules for everything that would be a good idea, and trust people to evaluate the situation for themselves.

Tecnam then Jabiru - so long as both have same features (fixed undercarriage, tri gear and fixed prop then you are fine as they are within your endorsements and are of the the same group A

Only need for training remains on features from the 6 listed in the ops manual.

First a little rant about the poor drafting and structure of the OPs Manual 7 as it applies to this area:

From definitions:

Aeroplane Type - Aeroplane undercarriage configuration, design features, flight envelope (e.g. high drag/low drag and considerations of inertia), stall speeds and normal/emergency handling characteristics as designated by the manufacturer.

Strange that for a term that DRIVES members legality of flight we have said that it’s the manufacturer not the RAA that determines what Type it is ... but IF it’s in the Ops manual with Initial Capital Aeroplane Type then they are looking not at specific manufacturers aircraft but at generic features and attributes ... as designated by the manufacturer ... so for out of production aircraft it begs a question who sets the Type??. really these are design features not types but that is just down to poor draftng and planning.

But at least we add in a second definition:

Similar Type Aeroplanes - of similar undercarriage configuration, (Aeroplane) design features, flight envelope (e.g. high drag/ low drag with consideration of inertia), stall speeds and normal/emergency handling characteristics as designated by the manufacturer or RA-Aus.

So at least the RAA can say aircraft x is a Similar Type so there we have a roundabout way of the RAA determining Aeroplane Type for out of production or ones where the manufacturer has failed to state the Aeroplane Type.

But it does not end there of course ... the definition of Aeroplane Type is specifically inclusive of flight envelope (whatever that really means) and provides examples that align closely with the now removed endorsements of High Performance and Low Performance.

But all of this is actually complete garbage because how the term Aeroplane Type is used in a practical sence within the Ops manul has nothing to do with what someone designates as the reality is it is all about what is actually on the aircraft in front of you. All of this angst comes from bloody appalling drafting and structure in the Ops Manual ... anyone know who want to own up this within RAA??? Ops Manager maybe???

end of rant

Now the useful application bit - when we get down to the endorsements training section in teh Ops Manual that relate to Type and aeroplane characteristics (ops 2.01 (13) and following) we have just 6 Aeroplane Type characteristics to worry about.

And here is how you work Aeroplane Type in a real life practical way:

Q. Do I need Aeroplane Type training before flight?

A. look at your pilot certificate and check your endorsements. So long as you cannot find on the aircraft in front of you something not listed on the certificate you CAN fly without training:

The Ops Manual 7 has 6 aeroplane characteristic endorsements:

TW tail wheel

2S two stroke engine

AP inflight adjustable prop

RU retracting undercarriage

WF aeroplane on floats

WH aeroplane with floating hull

Example - For me I hold 3 aeroplane endorsements on my certificate that no longer exist (HP, LP and NW) and 2 that do still exist (TW and 2S)

So for me I need to see on the aircraft some wheels (all options allowed) and engine (type not important) and NOT see adjusting prop or retracts – other than that I am free to fly without training.

Mini rant to end ... do not look at Ops 2.04 and the summary table there because they FORGOT to remove the NW endorsement even though it no longer exists in the actual Ops Manual ...

The Ops manual has a hideously large number of issues due to lack of drafting rigour and/or control. Search this forum for the thread RA Ops Manual and read through a few of my posts there - and I have officially given up trying to complete the review of it as my opinion is that it is so badly written and so full of contradictions and uncertainty that it would be better to start from scratch and write it properly.

Rights and wrongs aside the two arguements from a drafting point as I see them are:

For PPL permission

- I have a licence under the Act/Reg

- my licence entitles me to fly aeroplanes under weight X

- an ultralight is an aircraft under weight X

- I can fly it with my licence as the CAOs on the aircraft can't limit my licence under the Act/Reg

Against PPL permission

- You have a licence BUT operation of the aircraft are subject to limitations:

- the aircraft allow for flight without licence if you hold certificate

BUT

operation as pilot in command requires holding certificate and complying with the ops manual (HGFA or RAA as appropriate)

SO

You may see the Ultralight as an Aircraft BUT these particular aircraft have additional requirements on ANY person acting as pilot in command of

- you hold a Licence OR a Certificate; (basic) AND

- you hold a Certificate (Ha Ha, this overrides your Licence)

- you operate in compliance with Ops Manual (Ha Ha, you have to hold appropriate aircraft Groups and Endorsements on your Certificate and be a financial member of the RAA)

So basically the Against PPL arguement accepts that a licence may trump a certificate as a base to build from under the act (this is due to the certificate being in the CAOs as an exemption to holding the Licence) BUT they have effectively limited the operations of the aircraft (not the pilot) to those with Certificates who are and remain financial members of the appropriate body and comply with the ops manual.

Personally I would not like to be a PPL holder trying to operate without the additional RAA Certificate as in addition to the risk of CASA tapping your shoulder to have a chat before the magistrate you clearly will not have any 3rd party insurance on your operations and any hull insurance will almost certainly be void due to policy terms and conditions.

And FYI my interpretation is that the CAOs are not in conflict with the Act and Regs (if they were they would fail) as they do not abrogate the Licence but create additional conditions on the aircraft operations that require the RAA/HGFA certificates and compliance with ops manauals.

They say a weeks a long time in politics ...

1. the decision from RAA by phone is that the trike is the airframe that holds the regn

2. the fact that a a 95.10 requires regn display on parts of the airframe that don't exist is still to be confirmed by RAA in writing ... and they have warned me I will not be happy

3. the 'fact' that this 95.10 has previously been registered in the UK (I designed and built it there 4 years ago) NOW becomes a big hicough in getting it registered here 95.10 ... even though I told them this more than 8 weeks ago AND provided them the UK CAA letter of cancellation of registration at that time

The good thing is that they have decided not to charge the full first regn fee and will allow the regn number reservation fee offset even though it will clearly now take more than 3 months to get an aircraft registered ... becasue until I get an answer to 2. I can;t even think about getting a L2 to witness the weighing.

Gee, if I knew it would be THIS difficult to register the self designed and built single seater aircraft from UK to OZ I would have disassembled it and engraved a new data plate to create SN 0002

And i know that RAA tech read this forum - If you start requiring me to provide the 'manufacturers' anything relating to manuals, parts lists, certificates etc or maintenance releases etc the sound of a small nuclear explosion from the vicinity of Glenn Innes will be heard.

I never said anything about the CAR or CAO on requiring a LL endorement - I said the OPs Manual requires it.

If you follow through 95.10 for example you can see the exemtion to CAR157 penalty (3©) and you can see the permissions to operate 500ft for take-off and landing as specific exemptions (6.1(a) and 7.1) BUT the elephant in the room is actually up in CAO 95.10 5(d) and 5(e) where you have to operate in compliance with your certificate from RAA and in compliance with the operations manual as a general requirement.

Its this that makes the ops manual - which HAS NOT incorporated the exemtion from LL endorement for take off and landing - an issue. At best we are operating in breach of the requirements of the Ops Manual when acting as pilot in command below 500ft when taking off or landing. I never said it was not an ass of a conrstruction but the CAR on penalty and CAO 95.10 are not the problem, its our very own OPs Manual.

And Yes, its a long standing problem with the manual, it was there when I left OZ 12 years ago (and the ops manager had had it pointed out to him way back in 1995 by me) but to see it still there is just sad.

Or the Ops manager can explain how the permission granted under the CAOs to fly under 500ft (take off landing etc) requires that you ALSO comply with teh Ops manual ... and the OPs manual (written by the OPs Manager one presumes) requires ALL pilots operating as pilot in comand to have a LL endorsmement for ops below 500ft .... and that DOES include take off and landing on the written words of the Ops manual ... we can wait for 6mths until the next revision of the OPs manual corrects that one. ;-)

I am yet to get the mag but from whats been quoted I am probably going to be in the camp of instructors/former instructors shaking their head.

And I have had a personal issue with the level of the articles by said professor for as long as they have existed

The basic issue I don't get with the column is what are we attempting to do through the column and who is the audience?

If the audience is instructors and the intention to bring about a more unified method of instruction I am appalled at the basic level of assumed knowledge the authour has of instructors - we KNOW that stalls are an aerodynamic effect resulting from flow seperation and loss of lift - its an angle of attack issue. We KNOW that they are neither speed specific or attitude of aircraft with reference to the world dependant. So talking to us in the manner described above (I'll hold final contempt until I see the mag) is not going to engage us positively to listen to anything you want to then say about methods of instruction (theoretic or practical).

If its audience is intended to be Jack or Jill weekend RAA pilot then refence to recovery or management of stall that is factually wrong (based on above report - I'll hold condemnation until I read it) is even worse because its given a cloak of authority being 1. in the official RAA mag, and 2. being presented as what the instructors need to know.

I am truely and honestly trying NOT to be a grumpy old man and mutter something about missing Middos ops manager columns, truely I am but the level of the past articles and the reported level within this one is making it hard, really hard not to.

Nope. I may buy a copy of the mag, plus the next issue with your letter in it, as it seems like an interesting read.

Even more interesting to practise.After flying my Q2 for 150 hrs, then getting into a RivalS, the method I was taught to use when managing turbulence (stir the porridge he said) i.e keep applying big corrections until you are straight and level again, just doesn't work on the more sensitive wing and rapidly becomes PIO. Waiting the four seconds before doing anything, often you find no input required and often just squeezing the bar as described in the vid is enough to get you back on track. I asked Larry how well his methods work on the heavier wings, and he says very well. I'd love to have a go again one day, but unfortunately I have sold my Pegasus.

Maybe it is the UK weighshift syllabus and training, we don't learn to stir the porridge.

Become a lawyer or redesign the aircraft. I thought they gave you a sensible answer, in the circumstances. Having it in writing is all you need. Nev

2. there is no point redesigning an aircraft to include structures that are to not required

3. as I can;t comply I have requested a written clearance from tech as to what they will accept in this case

The core issue is that the RAA rules are badly written without consideration of the application and not able to be applied as written.

If they want me to take the piss I will wait until after 10 Jan to register the aircraft - because there are no reg display requirements after the 60 day sunset opseration of the old ops manual 4.09 - and the new tech reqs are not in place - present it unmarked and its up to them to prove by reference to their written rules on the day why it fails to comply and should not be registered in an unmarked form.

And the new tech will not help as without any markings it will still comply with the letter of their writen requirements.

But the Tech dept are NOT clear or consistent even on rules they wrote themselves try the 'new' and 'old' regn display reqs:

Phone the technical office:

Old rules:

500mm under wing - no leading '10-' Good - can comply, have the numbers here to stick on wing

150mm or as large as possible on tail or fuselage behind wing - no leading '10-' - can't comply, no fuselage and largest space on trike would only allow 50mm numbers

Me - Hi, I can put numbers under the wing but the requirement for fuselage can't work because there is no fuselage between wing and tail - there is no tail and there is no fuselage behind the wing and I only have 25cm of fuel tank side.

Tech - don't worry, new rules will fix it, check next week.

Phone the technical office:

New rules:

No under wing

Fixed 150mm on fuselage behind wing with the added '10-' to display

Me - Ummm your new rules are even worse because wing marking is gone but the fuselage behind wing marking is still there - which I couldn't meet before - but is even worse because the size requirements for numbers have 1. been fixed at an absolute 150mm and 2. have added for 95.10 an extra 3 characters to display ...

Tech - well just put the 150mm numbers under the wing

Me - but there is no requirement to put them under the wing and how is under wing meeting the fuselage requirements - the under wing is not the fuselage?

Tech - there is no requirement to put under wing but there is nothing to stop you putting them there ...

At this point I lost the will to live. They promised to put in writing a clarification that I can use old 4 numbers at 500mm under wing and not on trike under old rules so I await what arrives.

And to be clear - the problem of trikes not having fueslages behind the wing to display regn numbers under the new rules has been addressed for 95.32 trikes but not 95.10 trikes so thanks tech office.

But simply the display regn markings rules were written by the Tech office and even they can't give a straight answer as to what they mean when there is no physical part of the aircraft that matches the requirements.

Handling rough air and not chasing the bar - standard

Not locking your elbows - standard

Relaxing your shoulders and resting hands - standard

Flying the path of the trike not the wing - standard

Doing high alpha and crow hops with one wheel up turning - Hmmmm I'll pass, its far too easy to get a gust or get the weight holdoff wrong and see the onground wheel catch and lay the trike on its side - seen that multiple times and seen the trike in the factory for rebuild.

Sorting out pitch before worrying about roll - Hmmmm - if you fly the trike not the wing this only really occurs in extreme unusual attitude events - so I'll pass and continue with 'std' unusual attitude recovery of dealing with roll wings level then deal with pitch - last thing I want to do is try pitching when the trike is already rolling strongly.

Interesting to watch though

What about Ayres Rock that will be equidistant for everyone. That move will be considering the Perth members.Plenty of flat area minimal air traffic..

KP..

Oh all right then - Glen Innes - even with the new flying school in progress its wide open spaces and lots of space.

And its nearly as far away from everybody so as to be just as remote as Canberra ;-)

The way I read it, the training manual was using an example extract from a random manufacturer's maintenance schedule. The manufacturer uses the term "Heart Bolt" to describe what is generically know as a Hang Bolt. The learning from the example was more about where to find information, not about aircraft types or manufacturers?

In Italian production, it is also called a heartbolt.... It is also called that in the UK and Germany. Though hang bolt is probably a better name - the rest of the world also uses heartbolt.Cheers,

 

Paul

I can't speak for Germany or Italy but your statement on the UK is 100% false - there were three main manufactuers from the 1980's to today in the UK and ALL of their handbooks, parts manuals and storemen refer to the bolt in question as the hang bolt - take a look at the P&M Aviation website for the download of partliests dated right back to 1985 if you like. As for universal even in Australia the French weightshift manuals and partlists refer to it in the english langage manuals as the hang bolt.

Everyone accepts that Airborne call it the heart bolt but in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE trike world that is not the normal/standard/accepted name. Yes the majority of trikes in OZ are from them BUT the association really should not be single manufacturer specific IMHO.