kasper

lol no need to beg. In the UK it was well known I loved the Raven wing and was making a mini-raven for OZ - I call it the Currawong - the Australian Raven.

 

So there are several raven wings here with me and the cut down Currawong, just the final weight and photos to be sent off to RAA and I should be up and away with a single seater ... with a wing designed for 450kg. Then I can finish the new two seater trike and then do an experimental 95.32 two seater with that wing. Just need to buy more dacron and get the sewing machine out again.

 

 

Are you going to build your own wing?

Already done.

In the UK I worked with a UK manufacturer - I have built a wing that is a modified version of theirs.

 

 

Answer from RA-Aus Tech - it's the Trike that is the aircraft that holds the registration.

 

So for 95.10 I can freely put any wing I build on the top provided it operates under the wing loading requirements and just note the change in the logbook.

 

 

snipped ... as there is none on a Trike Wing. Numbers appear on the back of the fuel tank (Aerochute). If you note 2.01-2 in the new ops manual -...

Suggest you email Neil Schaefer Assist Ops Manager (and Trike Pilot among many others) for clarification.

Not sure your post helps - it's airframe defintion I'm interested in not the pilot certificate reqs. This is actually seperate from the requirements to display regn markings but the fundamental question of what is the aircraft.

And on markings you are incorrect - the old Ops manual 4.09 (the only requirement operating today to require display) did require underwing markings on the trike wing its only the proposed new Tech manual that removes underwing ... and that is not operational until the tech manual is approved.

 

As the airframes I am playing with are all 95.10 there is no manufacturer limits on which wing I can fly on which trike ... my question is one of what is the registration status of the combinations - a technical airframe question not a operational question.

 

eg

 

I have two trikes and two wings

 

If I register Trike A and Wing 1 combination as 10-4868 (photos, weight certificate and registration document)

 

is it STILL 10-4868 if I put Wing 2 on Trike A?

 

Is it STILL 10-4968 if I put Wing 1 on Trike B?

 

Clearly there is an airframe part that IS the aircraft that holds the regn number 10-4868, I just need to know is it the wing or the trike. Other countries have made it clear (eg UK - aircraft = wing) I just asked here as I can't find a clear statement of it on the RA-Aus website or through the tech manual.

 

 

I could be very wrong here but I think with RAA it is the trike (base) and with HGFA it is the wings.Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.....

Hmmm this is what I had heard ... but know of one flying school using a single trike with two wings - one HGFA and the other RA-Aus - so was just wondering if there was definative before I add to my list of questions with the Tech department.

 

 

Airborne were around a long time before any of the other trike manufacturers existed so I reckon they have the IP on the name. Anyway call it what you like so long as you don't confuse it with any other part.

Really? a long time before ANY other trike manufacturer? OK. If you see the world that way I'll bow to your knowledge ... shall we start a petition to get EVERY other country in the world to recognize this absolute truth and update all their training materials and handbooks ... or are we happy to just pull up the drawbridge on Planet OZ?

 

 

The term "Heart Bolt" came from the Hang Glider world which is what trikes were developed from and Airborne was one of the original Hang Glider manufacturers. If it fails your heart stops not very long afterwards. It is the original and correct name.

Original and correct .... if you are using an Airbourne trike ... try the French (tanarg), USA (evolution Revo), or UK (P&M, Medway) or other countries and it will not be the original or correct name ... even here in OZ all handbooks and partlists for trikes made in the rest of the world will call them hang bolts.

But, hey, got to love the Australian centric world view

 

 

Sounds a silly thing but is it the wing or the trike that is the registered aircraft under the RA-Aus?

 

Asking as I have three trikes and five wings to mix n match with and I need to know if I have to register 3 aircraft or 5 to allow any/all mix n match.

 

Note they are all single seat home built so 95.10 without any manufacturer limits here.

 

 

Question 3: Who is responsible for specifying the maintenance requirements for aircraft registered by R-Aus?Answer: RA-Aus

this was a bit of a concern ... doesn't the Aircraft Manufacturer have a say at all?

Yes and no. If the manufacturer does specify then the tech manual says you should follow them - if it does not specify them then the tech manual has generic that should be followed.

The reason the RA-Aus specifies them in this way is that its a membership thing - members are required to follow association rules/directives so its the RA-Aus directive to follow that has authority as the CASA is not requiring by law.

 

My beef is that the tech office and officers have a history of trying to apply directives to the owners of 95.10 aircraft - and as we all are the designers we can damn well do as we please in reality - its actually so very free under 95.10 that it would be difficult for the Tech Manager to order a change or service requirement as I can just turn around to any 'request' and say thanks but what I am doing is the designers intent and I chose not to take your advice on this one.

 

 

Yeah, got to love the GA spark plug extracts - just what every rotax and jabiru doesn't have, and the heart bolt is a fun one - yes its an example of reading a manufacturers schedule ... but could we have chosen a term for a critical bolt in a trike that was not manufacturer specific? Only airbourne call them heart bolts - the rest of the trike world know then officially as hang bolts - unofficial names abound ;-)

 

 

Had some more sleepless time to kill.

 

Simple and general thing - Abreviations and Definitions

 

As a rule anything that is in the abreviations section should be used in the document and similarly definitions should be used in the document - we have many abreviations (eg - ASRA, OCTA, SAAA, SASAO, UTC ETC) AND defintions (eg - Similar Type (Aeroplane)) that are up front defined and then not used in the Ops manual at all.

 

As a rule anything that is used in the document with a possibility of being misintrpreted on basic english defintion (called a term of art) should be defined - we have fairly important terms of art in the Ops manual that are undefined.

 

Eg when you can have your certificate suspended the process used should be very clear as its a fundamental removal of priviledges ... pray tell where the term "RA-Aus Just Culture principles" can be found ... because under 2.14(3) they are central to the requirements of an investigation ahead of removal ... not in the Ops Manual and not on the RAA website if you search ...

 

As a rule when drafting a defined term you consistently identify that it is a term of art and a defined term and not plain english ... usually its by Initial Capitalisation or by italisisiation and even sometimes bold or even underlined but it really should be clear and consistent so you know if you need to apply a definition or if you just apply the english language as you like ... Ops Manual has three different uses - plain text, Inital Cap and Italics ... and even uses DIFFERENT methods on teh one term eg recognised flight time is both italic and plain text in the Ops Manual. Not good and not easy to keep track of.

 

As a rule if you are operating as a subordinate document to another where the definition is owned/controlled by that master document you would refer in a definition/abreviation section to the master document - Ops Manual doesn't do this - and is at risk of becoming out of alignment with any change in the master docs.

 

So that put me to sleep once. I'll keep reading but to be truthfull the Ops Manual 7 is so oddly written and inconsistent throughout that its hard to work through without just saying it would be far easier to start again with a clearer and more consistent framework and build it again.

 

 

much snippingA highly possible outcome is that CASA could demand all training aircraft are LAME maintained. At least some solid records could be accumulated on all types.

Begs two questions:

 

On what basis do you make a statement that it's 'highly possible' that CASA would remove L2s from training aircraft?

 

On what basis is the LAME suddently expected to have a better sucess rate at keeping a Jab engine going than an L2?

 

Q2 is only there to avoid the other implication in the L2 vs LAME that I have disregarded - that a LAME is inherantly better as a person that the L2 ... why else would us L2s not be reporting what we see when you expect LAMES to report it?

 

Focus on the issue - its the engine not the L2's that is at issue here.

 

 

OK First the arse covering - This is NOT an RAA bashing for bashings sake

 

However, the tech manual update proposed by RAA and apparently cleared by CASA is complete sh*t operationally and it is impacting me big time now.

 

My situation - I have a 95.10 weightshift that is awaiting final regn but is in limbo because:

 

1. I have paid my regn reservation fee to get allocated numbers (paid before the ops manual update)

 

2. that fee has a 90 day life to go against my first regn fee before I have to pay full fee again (90 days is up before Christmas)

 

3. LAST things to do are regn numbers, photo and weighing

 

Now the problem:

 

The aircraft has not got a fuselage as such and has no tail - its a flying wing with a trike underneath.

 

Old requirements Ops Man 4.09 required BOTH under wing and fuselage

 

Problem 1 - basic compliance with requirements:

 

- under wing 50cm height 4 numbers - no leading 10- required - I could comply

 

- on fuselage BETWEEN wing and tail - NOT POSSIBLE on weightshift to comply

 

Problem 2 - size of numbers and placement:

 

- on fuselage height 15cm ... with spaces and required edge margin 15cm numbers requires minimum 47.5cm

 

- as large as practical if not fitting - I have 25cm of fuel tank to put numbers on at best ... numbers can only be around 8cm high ... basically I could get the electrical tape out and put numbers on IF the fuel tank was between the wing and the tail.

 

Then the Ops Manual changes and the requirements disappeared - both problems raised with Tech office and was told don't worry, new tech manual addressing this imminent ... I was even told about the removal of the underwing but raised with Darren the fuselage location issue for non-fuselaged aircraft ... response - don't worry.

 

Well here comes the new Tech manual on aircraft markings and its got even more problems that the ops manual it replaces:

 

1. ops manual 6 discretionary operation per the FAQs is 60 days from 11 November ... so the new ops manual ONLY applies from 10 Jan 15 ... so no option for using old 4.09 after then but

 

2. new tech manual 9.1 ONLY becomes opertational on issue of new tech manual - per the announcement that will be the middle of 2015

 

so for 5+ months no requirements for marking aircraft at all

 

3. new tech 9.1 expicitly only allows for weightshift markings on the trike frame (not between wing/tail) if its 95.32 regn - 95.10 trike have NO underwing marks and CANNOT comply with fuselage so ABSOLUTELY NO MARKING POSSIBLE UNDER THE NEW TECH MANUAL.

 

So here I am, MUST mark, photo, weigh and lodge regn before Christmas or lose the value of the regn number reservation fee but the best I can do is underwing and if I put it photos for regn without the 'fuselage' numbers what happens?

 

Then if I give up the reservation fee and wait till after 10 Jan I should be able to reg without ANY marks ...

 

This is a MESS.

 

Now its time to chat to Darren B again

 

Oh and the new requiremetns under the tech 9.1 for 95.10 with a tail group require the leading 10- to appear for the first time and this makes the vertical length minimum increase to 74.5cm at 15cm AND they removed the 'as large as practical' option for thin fusealge so they have to be 15cm high, no questions no alternates.

 

 

yup, but Alf beat you to it!

Yeah - thats what I get for opening a page and making coffee before replying - only been past it once and that was in the mid 90's

 

 

OK try this one?[ATTACH]33014[/ATTACH]

Moruya

 

 

Yep - BUT for an actual weightshift student its best to not complicate control training by trying to get that across particularly as its not really common on most weighshift wings and not needed to initiate a turn. The one in my profile is an execption as its pretty nuetral on stability and the way to throw the wing around IS to counter steer ... but for the most part and for most wings we don't teach that and the first time a student sees it is when we demo unusual attitudes and use a counter turn to get it ALL mixed up in a big way very fast.

 

The reason I said i didn't get is exactly that - a student learning weightshift control should not be focussing on counter steer as the actual bar movements they need to learn are nearly all single movement in one direction and really amount to just pressure changes in steady flight.

 

 

But then of course on a motorcycle that is exactly how you turn left. Push the left bar away from you and lean left and around you go.Cheers Geoff13

Hmmm not getting this one - if I want to turn LEFT on a bike (motor or otherwise) I tend to push my right hand forward and let my left had come back and lean left into the turn.

I was about 6 the last time I tried turning left by pushing the left hand forward on the handlebar and I seem to recall it ended in my meeting gravel at speed.

 

 

Oh and ultraight simulation training from the land of it rains all the time and when not has 500ft clouds everywhere (UK):

 

3axis - full training simulator - Thruster - no motion bumps etc but its really alighted to actual flight responses in all phases of flight

 

http://www.bumble-bee.demon.co.uk/SaxonMicro_sim.htm

 

Weightshift - joint effort from UK manufacture and the BMAA - and its really a good simulation, great fun to fly

 

http://www.clearprop.co.uk/bmaa-flying-show-2013/

 

second photo on the page as you scroll down

 

Joan built the first one and Terry and co built the second one - none of these spent a fortune for the gear they ended up with

 

 

Yep, Flexi students use the good old mark 1 broom/mop handle to practice at home. Just a light hearted post to say don't think of the pushbike handles as the control bar or else

 

 

You think weight shift is a bit counter-intuitive? Nev

Nope. Just different and IF you push the handlebars of the bike right as you lean left you are going to meet the pavement.

I fly weightshift, 3 axis, 2 axis and have been known to step out of perfectly servicable aircraft with a parachute and jump of hills with a hanglider - if is flies I will probably get into it - UNLESS its a helicopter - those things are just plain nasty ;-)

 

BUT there is a general line of thought with anacdotal support that when you fly multiple systems the differences issues come up at the worst time - in an emergency - where for whatever reason you can revert to your primary learning. eg need to flare in a 3 axis is pull back, need to flear in weightshift its push out, need to turn left on ground - three axis is push left foot, on weight shift its push right foot. And with flying its more likely than not to come up because for 'safety' we learn patterns and practice procedures, not that this is wrong or bad just a cfact to be taken into account.

 

And after all it only appears counter intuative IF you started training on the other side ... hang glider and weightshift pilots who started out on these control systems think 3 axis is counter intuative.

 

 

Just limit your training on bike circuits to 3-axis pilot training ... us weight shift chaps and chapesses would not appreciate the result of mimicing the turn left on the bike = push bar right and lean left ... bandaids and benadine anyone ;-)

 

 

Apparently not...Interesting to hear all this talk of Zero fatals in jabs. Do we mean Zero fatals attributed to engine failure? Thats also an interesting assumption when some of these are not explained in detail (the usual non investigated means)

There has indeed been fatals in jabs, all over the world. NO aeroplane is bullet proof.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/mildura-fatal-accident.21802/

 

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Jabiru UL, G-VILA 09-13.pdf

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/single-engine-plane-crash-at-cherokee.html

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200104707.aspx

Yes people have died in Jabirus but as you note was it the engine is the key question as that is the suject area of the CASA proposed restrictions - I think you would have been better to stop there and leave the question stand as its hard to see how three of the four accident reports you provided are reasonably attributable to the engine - the first in your list has not engough detail but:

- the AAIB report - read it and take a look at the GPS tracks and comments - looks terribly like flight in very low viz and loss of control

 

- The US accident - two flat landings on a solo student, bounce, nose up power up, further power up further nose up then what sounds like a stall/incipient spin ... power all the way by the report, loss of control under power not really sounding like engine issue

 

- The ATSB report - specifically atates the evidence supports significant power delivered at the time of impact - again not engine as the first area to jump to mind.

 

On this thread there are LOTs of emotions and lots of thoughts but while I agree people have died in jabs it works against your pointing this out when what you link to is not reasonably pointing to the engine as the issue.

 

 

Well Don the RAA declined to interview me for the exec position when it was created so I'm not likely to want to volunteer to do a major piece of work for them when we have in place reasonably well paid personnel who have this as their actual job ;-)

 

But yes, I had a few more hours of boredom to kill so I looked into the grab bag of certificate endoresements etc as it was likely to throw up areas I should then read in detail ... and the number of really basic and obvious head scratchers would lead the cynic in me to question the compentcy of the person who wrote the ops manual in terms of understanding the structure of the CAOs and the interaction of them with the OPs manual ... but I'm not going to be a cynic this morning.

 

Section 2.04-2 table inconsistencies

 

PAX not available for combined controls ... pray tell how the two seater HM1000 already registered can operate with the second seat? - its 2-axis thereore flown under RA-Aus as combined control as only option available - same as me on the HM290 since mid 1990's

 

X not available for powered parachute - why?

 

Formation not available for other than weight shift and 3-axis - why?

 

GT not available for other than 3 axis ... even though there are weight shifts notified under

 

CAAP as allowable airframes for towing

 

HGT not currently approved for other than 3axis and weightshift but it COULD exist for combined control as the HM1000 was cleared for it in France ...

 

NW not for weightshift or powered parachute ... please point out ANY of these aircraft with a tailwheel - they ALL have nose wheel or quadricycle and thats for a really good reason as all of us who fly them know

 

AP not for weightshift ... so they are saying that if I build a home built weighshift I cannot put a vari prop on it? Get real guys an girls, home built experimental is the main reason we have all these endorsements and to attempt to limit them by pilot when the airframe is not is not realistic

 

RU not for combined - yep, there are none out there today but same comment as AP, its possible on the airframe so why limit it on pilot certificate?

 

WF not for combined - sorry but the HM1000 is approved for floats

 

FH not for combined - same as RU, not yet but you shouldn't limit operations on certificate that are permitted on the airframe

 

APA only for 3axis - really? are you saying that because I am combined control and weightshift I can't be considered advanced? Just because I can't perform elements of the requirements for the endorsement (slipping and uncoordinated flight etc) does not mean I should logically be excluded - like the training syllabus do a Group B specific one if the endorsement is actually at all useful - can't for the life of me see what its for other than bragging rights. Or we could look outside in the bigger world scene and discover that for advanced microlight/ultralight pilots there is this big organisation called the FAI that we are not a member of that already has multi staged advanced awards called the Colibri awards.

 

 

Starting at the top and going to bed before Pilots Certificates I came up with the following issues with the current Ops Manual issue 7

 

1.01 overall structure of the section - it is one section covering as I read it at least 4 separate areas and there’s is not a paragraph number in sight ... even though there are 3 sets of sub-paragraph lettering. Very difficult to reference into this area as its drafting is very poor.

 

1.01 "The Operations Manager will in turn approve the following qualifications"

 

Poor drafting - the listed areas below are not qualifications but a collection of variously named parts of the RAA structure being certificates and approvals and are not otherwise referred to as qualifications.

 

This should be tightened up in terms of language for precision.

 

1.01 Required to possess recommended documents

 

It is not good drafting structure to require anyone to possess recommended documents particularly as they are recommendations from various personnel without any form of documentation as to what has been recommended and when. The structure should be such that what is REQUIRED is very clear and specified and if there is uncertainly and flexibility then they should be recommendations.

 

In addition what IF you fail to possess these what is the issue? What is the sanction?

 

1.02

 

General - this is not a pure statement of duties and responsibilities as it contains the core of several actual powers eg right to suspend or cancel pilots certificate without investigation. It would be better structurally to separate explicit powers and make them nice and clear and put duties and responsibilities in a clear separate section that references the powers that the ops manager has duties and responsibilities in relation to.

 

Para 6 drafting is inconsistent - ROC is defined in the top and even in the preceding paragraph referred to by the defined abbreviation of ROC yet in this paragraph is spelt out in full.

 

Para 8 drafting is in error - clearly the words 'the issue' are missing from the start of the sentence as it currently is not an English sentence.

 

Para 15 as the power to immediately suspend or cancel a pilot certificate is an ultimate removal of permission held by a member the fact that it is held by the Ops Manager would ordinarily be very clearly set out ... current language of 'likely to reoffend' is quite imprecise and does not provide a lot of clarity/certainty to anyone as to when the power can be legitimately exercised and when it cannot. I would suggest that this area needs to be considered and the power more explicitly clarified this very expansive power.

 

Para 16 language structure does not follow other areas and allow delegation of accident, incidents when requested by various listed personnel - where is the power to delegate to regional personnel or anyone for that matter?

 

1.03

 

General - same comment in relation to separating powers that need to be explicit from duties and responsibilities that are part of the duty of the role holder.

 

General - unless there are parts of the Ops Manager role that cannot be delegated (like accident/incident investigation - yet it APPEARS to be delegated here ???) it is a simpler form of drafting to state that the Assistant Ops Manager can exercise any or all powers of the Ops Manager and undertake the duties as specified by the delegation provided. This preferred structure is actually used in the next section 1.04 to reference the Pilot examiner into the ROC.

 

1.04

 

General - Same comment on separating powers as 1.02 and 1.03

 

General - what is the specific purpose of requiring some delegations or requests to be in writing and others not within the statement of duties and responsibilities? If it is not for a specific reason then I would suggest that the drafting be made consistent throughout all sections.

 

Para 8 - clearly envisages Ops Manager delegating investigations yet the ops manager duties and responsibilities does not allow this delegation explicitly yet is explicit on others - legal construct rules would lead to the conclusion that it can’t be delegated yet is - very poor and inconsistent structure thought the entire section

 

1.05

 

General - general as per 1.02-1.04

 

Para 7 - structure - it’s a very strong power and its very imprecise

 

- Ops manager receives a complaint - how and from whom?

 

- mixed language - Shall undertake a report = must, but in the same Para a required action to write a report is 'will' report and required elements in the report are set as 'will' and then are set out not as a list of aspects/requirements that must be considered but very general but comprehensive.

 

Structurally it would be far clearer to have a separate section setting out what an investigation is and must cover/report (the power section) and reference into roles and duties of the appropriate personnel the ability/duty to undertake or exercise the power.

 

1.06

 

General - as per proceeding

 

Para 2 - a real minefield as the language requires that aircraft hire must be to 'RA-Aus pilot Certificate holders of the Flight Training Facility"

 

- Pilot Certificate is a defined term and I can only assume that the lack of capital P on pilot is a simple error

 

- the concept of an RAA-Aus Pilot Certificate holder being 'of' an FTF is entirely new ... what make me a Pilot Certificate holder of the FTF and what particular requirements/obligations exist both ways between the FTC and the Pilot Certificate holder? This area really needs exploring and explaining.

 

Para 6 - is this a general power to recommend about any/all Pilot Certificate holders as to suspension/cancellation or just the Pilot Certificate holders of that FTF - whatever that means. And why if they are to be eyes and ears of the Ops Manager in this respect what not extend it to Approvals as well as Certificates, Endorsements and Ratings?

 

Para 8 - dogs breakfast of structure - How can a CFI appoint a Senior Instructor in the first sentence when the power is restricted to the Ops Manager in the second sentence of the same Para! And of course it requires an SI to be appointed - what about single CFI flight schools - are they no illegal or forbidden???

 

Para 11 - when does the requirement of the CFI to report exist separate to the Pilot in command or does this mean dual reporting requirements and what if the CFI does not report?

 

1.07

 

General - same as proceeding

 

Para 7 - OK I can get the requirement to notify CFI of unserviceable or aircraft unsuitable for training in the FTC but Hmmmm How do I 'ensure' that the fault/defect is repaired ... I am not the L2 or LAME so is it a documentary thing and what must I see to prove I have ensured it is done ... answers on a postcard for the litigation from family of injured when something goes wrong.

 

Para 8 - nice to see recency requirements in Senior Instructors ... but as it is not in the CFI I assume that they are not required to remain recent? No? well maybe there could be a bit more consistency.

 

Para 9 - same comment as per CFI on this area

 

1.08

 

General - same as preceding

 

rest as per 1.07

 

Note - going to bed at this point because sarcasm is creeping in.

 

 

I knew there were some egos around, but putting a Royal Crown on your message?

Not really an ego - just a play on the un-used WWII British sign for "Keep Calm and Carry On" that was to be used if and when the Germans arrived in the UK ... turns out they didn't arrive so it was never used ... but it forms the basis of heaps of derivative slogans and all come with teh UK crown as it was an intrinsic part of the original ;-)