kasper

1 hour ago, KRviator said:

Two places does not limit it to two occupants. That must be clearly understood.

# of seats /= # of occupants. I suggest you re-read the relevant CAO's and tell us if they say "Single-Place" / "Two-Place" or "Two-Passenger". The devil is in the detail - and like an awful lot of people found to their detriment about my RAAus RV-9, what they think it says and what it actually says are not the same...

The C172 is a "4 Place" aircraft, per the Type Certificate, however, you can legally carry 5 people in it in accordance with CAO20.16.3 - which also allows you to carry 2 adults + an infant in an RAAus aircraft, if you can stay within the W&B limitations.

Well I can keep directing people back to it’s not allowed.

On this one I kick out because cao95.55 under which the p2008 can be registered with RAAus specifically removed reg 208 from the airframes.  And so anything under reg 208 can’t apply to cao95.55 aircraft.  
 

the whole of cao20.16.3 that allows exemptions from seating requirements is created under the power of reg 208 therefore is not applicable to anything registered under 95.55. 
 

So no.  You cannot have three people in an raaus registered aircraft relying on the certified aircraft exemptions for more people or kiddy extension belts.  Two seats.  Two occupants.  Each fired with three point seat belts.  And the p2008 airframe has to comply with both the LSA designed requirements and the certificate approved by casa.  
 

two seats and two occupants.  No wriggle.  

2 hours ago, KRviator said:

Nothing wrong with 3 people in an RAAus bird if one is an infant or two are kids under 77Kg total.

RAAus Ops manual says a passenger endorsement allows the carriage of "passengers" plural not "a passenger". CAO20.16.3 says it applies to "all Australian registered aircraft" and in turn, that a 2 seater can have 1 excess passenger.

 

So Mum, Dad + Infant in an RAAus aircraft? Rare, but legal. Good on 'im for knowing the rules and getting his rugrat airtime.

No.  Sorry. Completely wrong.  

The CAO under which the aeroplane limited it to two places.  Once you add a third you are outside the CAO and outside the raaus.  
 

in addition the aircraft is an SLA which has a certificate in place that specifies its a two place aircraft.  
 

no matter your twists and turns IF there was a child on board and the two parents then it had three people and was outside it’s LSA certificate and the the CAO under which that LSA certificate can be registered and operated in Australia. 

I do wonder that basic training on the regs for pilots ...

the requirements that the aircraft be a single to two place aircraft has nothing to do with the iOS manual or tech manual but is the core of the CAO beer which raaus get coverage.  
 

23 reg falls under 95.55 and all aircraft under this CAO may have only 1 or 2 seats.   No question of passengers it comes down to single or two seat.  If you put three people in it’s no longer a two seat aircraft.  Simples. 
 

now the fun begins.  Assuming there were three people in the aircraft it by definitions ceased being a two seat aircraft.  Ceased being eligible for 95.55.  Ceased being able to be registered by raaus.  Pilot ceased being an raaus pilot certificate holder operating an raaus aircraft.  Ceased being subject to raaus control or censure.  Ceased being under raaus discipline or anything.  

This means the ONLY censure and penalty is CASA if there was a third person in that aircraft.  
 

and it’s on the news so they are probably going to have to do something.  

Great outcome given the area and options.  
 

However, not going to be a great outcome for the pilot if there were three people in an raaus registered aircraft...

Lol. R912 thrusters where hens teeth to start with ... you do not even need a second hand if fingers to count them.

good luck

Just saw this thread ...

Skyfoxes are factory and would need MARAP to get through any increase ... and given the Skyfoxes have already had issue with the weld on the lower fuselage carry through on the lift strut failing in flight (fortunately the wing did not fold and a bent Skyfox made it to the ground) it would be a very brave Tech Manager who would consider an increase in Skyfox MTOW through MARAP...

Kitfoxes are build it yourself ... you can declare any MTOW you wish within the 600kg max allowed under 95.55 provided the claimed MTOW would still be a believable 45knt stall.  You claim the weight and you take the risk of the airframe failing - its EXPERIMENTAL for a reason.

If anyone cared to follow the link in my original post to the online current VTC the full flight path allowed, heights and even clarification that the old airstrip is no longer available to use. 

I'd have a time finding an old VTC for Ayres Rock back to 1994 when I started flying but I recall that back then low level circumnavigation of the rock and the Olgas at 500' was permitted ... it absolutely is not now - see the current VTC:

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/aipchart/vtc/AliceSprings_Uluru_VTC_17JUN2021.pdf

You are not flying 'around' Uluru or the Kata Tjuta at all - its a controlled flight past them on a set track and you are at 4-4,500' AMSL so at around 1,500' above the top of Uluru so near 2,500' above ground level.

6 hours ago, jackc said:

As RAA flying school hourly rates skyrocket, seen $320 per hour recently.......flying schools buying expensive aircraft to impress potential students. The principle of RAA is fast disappearing as a reasonable cost route into Aviation.

Bring on Foundation Aviation FAR Part 103 no rego, no licence, low cost fun flying 🙂.  In this case we have to copy the U.S. 

There is not an emoticon available for disagree with the post so I will just say I disagree with the post ... in part.

I agree that RAAus is not an ultralight organization nor is it supportive of ultralights.  It is recreational only with ever higher sights and if we squash the ultralights into oblivion that seems OK with them.  Nothing wrong with that in theory - its what many of the members want and many members coming out of GA or into the flying RAAus in the past 10 years that's all that has been put forward and its the new normal.

Where I have a problem is that CASA through the CAOs make RAAus the only organization to go to for ultralights ... and that does not sit well because if it 'aint nice and shiny fast and controlled in all aspects RAAus do not give a flying fig.  and they have not done for years.

If you want to challenge my belief here just consider single seat two axis aircraft and ops in RAAus.

1. the OPs manual FORGOT to include anything about the pilot groups back in 2015 and it continues to this day.

2. the new Tech manual FORGOT to include anything on this group at all

3. CASA in the reissue to the current 95.10 REMOVED all ability to register 2 axis aircraft at all

Where I disagree is that we NEED or even really want 103 type ultralights.

1. 19L of fuel is not very practical

2. max 48knts max power straight and level is not practical

3. factory built uncertified airframes under 103 regs will never be allowed by Govt. when all other factory built aircraft have to approved

4. no pilot training is a disaster

     - its what really came out from HOSCOTS way back in 1986

     - the pilot deaths noted in that report as a direct result of no training created the 95.10 and 95.25 aircraft and the original AUF

I would love to see an alternate organisation to RAAus with a focus on light touch minimal cost operations of airframes under the existing CAO definitions of what RAAus control.

ELAAA was a potential hope for this a couple of years ago but sadly it seems to have succumbed to the weight of paperwork CASA required of it to get into operations ... but to me it was looking at too big a bite in terms of coverage.

So whilst I absolutely want something to be done to allow light touch operations of ultralights and I do not see RAAus as the way forward with that I think that seeking 103 type operations in Australia is counter productive as it looks (and IMHO would be) dangerous and would never be accepted. 

12 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

I believe it was a T84A, short wing with no lower ribs. Bought it early in 85 had been with the dealer for some time, rotax 377.  

I’ll take your word for it - there were bugger all 84s built. 
 

I only knew of the t84 with the longer wing and the earlier riveted tail group - that one has the later bolted into threaded insert aluminium tail group and short wings but as you say clearly no under battons. 

11 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

I hear you Jack the good old days. Not a care in the world.

 

Beautiful little T85.  👍

It will all depend on where it falls apart.  Currently:

CAOs requires you to maintain in accordance with the RAAus Tech Manual to be an airframe within the RAAus control 

IF you do not maintain is accordance with the RAAus Tech Manual the structure of the drafting in the CAO takes you outside the RAAus airframes 

Once you are outside the RAAus airframes RAAus cannot discipline you - they only control airframes within the CAO ... and by not following RAAus tecj Manual you are immediately outside it ...

So the legal logic is that RAAus is legally completely toothless if you ignore the RAAus Tech Manual and the enforcement is HUGE BIG STICK from CASA for flying unlicensed in an unregistered aircraft if they find anything on a ramp check.

Badly drafted CAO + Badly structured RAAus Tech Manual = massive risk to RAAus members because its CASA enforcement only baby!

If it came out of a factory and has an 80hp 912 then it can only be replaced by an 80hp 912. 

If you are going to make changes to

• the ratio in the gearbox or
• the engine to 100hp or 
• the prop (type or even pitch on a variable pitch one)

You are required in Australia under RAAus reg to

1. have the clearance and documentation for the mod from the manufacturer or

2. have done ALL the engineering clearance yourself (including all flight tests etc) or

3. have followed the MARAP process through RAAus

If you have a homebuilt airframe with RAAus reg then you are under Tech Manual processes and you work out what you can/cannot do based on who built the airframe to start with and whether the mod is minor or major (under the Tech Manual) and you have to follow those.

I would guess that for homebuilt RAAus that changing from 80 to 100hp on the engine will end up classed as a major mod and even if you designed and built the airframe to start with you are grounded until cleared by RAAus tech.

I fear that there is a real risk with ALL the new RAAus Tech requires is that they are so poorly understood we are setting ourselves up for a whole new round of groundings on CASA audit if after a rash of CASA flight line inspections take note of airframes that are not as per the RAAus documentation ...  

1 hour ago, SSCBD said:

How stupid is RAA,  that a LAME cannot do work on a RAA aircraft.  Why would a LAME pay for a RAA membership to work on toy aircraft compared to the GA stuff - really.   

 

And there is a reason they have to be members of RAAus ... a legal reason ... it’s that RAAus is responsible under the CAO to set and manage repair/maintenance and without membership the tech office have NO ability to monitor or manage the LAME ... CASA can manage and control LAME ops on the non”toy” aircraft because they are not under the CAOs that the RAAus aircraft are.  
 

true it would be possible for CASA to rewrite the CAOs to allow them to manage and monitor LAMEs doing work on “toy” planes BUT it’s then taking onto CASAs risk the ops of the “toy” planes ... which they have never wanted to do so there is an active reason for CASA to say no way to change from RAAus oversight of the airframes and maintenance  

2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

kasper

Many, many thanks for your information & help.

BUT

The fact remains RAA, had not made any hint of helping me & other 95-10 builders, in any way !.

NOT ONE IOTA OF CORISPONDANCE FROM THEM.

You are the only person that has said to register as 95-19 !.

Why couldent those on the register be Transfered over ( to 95-19 ) Instead of Deleted.

Could be the extra revenue by deleting one, to go too the next ?.

Or the extra aircraft registered on two standards.

spacesailor

 

Sorry but this change was 23 years ago.

You basically have no real chance of getting RAAus now to give an allowance off reg fees now for charges by AUF 23 years ago. 
 

So the way forward is that any airframe that you can fit with 95.55 as a home built can be reg with RAAus as a 19- reg airframe - regardless of if it was started to be built 6mths ago or 30yrs ago. 
 

Where anyone is looking at this on a part built or unregistered airframe you really are best calling RAAus and talking to the tech team - they are generally very helpful and can offer options where strict process and docs do not exist. 
 

14 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

In all seriousness surely you guys aren't suggesting that you cant legally register a Quicksilver or aerolite kit in Australia?  I saw no 'for novelty purposes only, not too be used as intended' disclaimers on the Australian importers websites.

Not to worry - spacey has a BIT of a chip about being caught out with a rule change 23 years ago that only meant he needed to register change from 10- to 19- but he cannot let it go.

ANY and ALL single seat foreign kits that are within the 600kg MTOW and stall lower than 45knts are single single engine, single prop and require more than 50% assembly by you CAN be assembled and registered in OZ with RAAus  ....  but it will be a 19- homebuilt - you CANNOT bring in anything from a foreign factory  9kit or fully assembled) and registered it as a 10- reg single seater ... that was the change 23 years ago Spacey can't seem to let go of.

First audit office report:

A key shortcoming in Airservices’ procurement policies and procedures is that they do not give appropriate emphasis to the use of competitive processes. In addition, Airservices routinely failed to adhere to its policies and procedures in procuring services from ICCPM. As a result, Airservices’ procurement of services from ICCPM, on an exclusively sole-sourced basis, did not deliver value for money.

Airservices demonstrated a lack of organisational commitment to the effective implementation of probity principles in respect to the ICCPM arrangements. It was reasonably foreseeable that Airservices’ contracting of ICCPM to assist with the OneSKY Australia project would give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interest and, potentially, actual conflicts of interest. But the ICCPM engagements were not effectively managed so as to ensure the OneSKY tender process was free of any concerns over conflict of interest that could impact on public confidence in the outcome.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/procurement-iccpm-onesky-australia-program

Second audit office report:

The records of the evaluation process evidence that the successful tender was assessed to be better than the other remaining candidates from a technical and schedule risk perspective. It is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money. This is because adjustments made to tendered prices when evaluating tenders against the cost criterion were not conducted in a robust and transparent manner. Those adjustments meant that the tenderer that submitted the highest acquisition and support prices was assessed to offer the lowest cost solution. It is also not clearly evident that the successful tender is affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/conduct-onesky-tender

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I have always wondered what happens to GA pilots who fly into Aus in their own machines? Do they need to get an ASIC? If not, isn't that a bit of a loop-hole. I am sure there are N registered machines in Aus, and with my FAA PPL, flying an N reg and not resident in Aus, it would seem a little loophole - but it is likely the foreign pilot is going to be the one who is more likely to be a threat, surely? But even so, the 60 year old coming over to do some GA flying is not really going to be a threat, either.

 

I htink it is fair to say the UK (particularly London) is at far more risk of a terrorist attack than anywhere in Australia..  We have about 10 or so major training airfields in the counties surrounding London, each about 10 minutes to get to London... The thought of a security clearance for the pilots even made the CAA laugh...

 

 

Indeed.  When a volcano stopped play for big bus like planes we had great fun popping out from Stoke Kent to visit all sorts of places.  And truth be told we could see the millennium dome in our circuit at 600’agl and could potter up the Thames below any radar ... the new year when we flew into city airport and landed was fun and proved we were invisible ... had to turn on transponders for them to find us and they were looking for us from the QE2 bridge at Dartford and didn’t actually see us till we got to the dome and turned in to land.  ASIC is a joke.  The industry knows it and even Govt departments know it but can’t say.  And politicians can’t do anything after it’s been put in due to security.  I just avoid the offending airports or just demand an escort as it required to be provided.  

Post a photo of the bit your after - unclear if it’s the strut end up to the wing or the lower strut to plates

And be aware that the lower strut steel insert also tends to corrode so I’d be pulling that as well. 

anyway have fun. 

Sorry Octave.  We stopped being an incorporated association 5 years ago. Company limited by guarantee and a non-profit is what we are. 
 

directors are currently not remunerated but are directors of the company. 

You will find that in Spain and France many of the small fields will be Spanish/French only - airfield info will show it clearly - so you will need to be able to follow and do all comms in that language if you want to visit all/any airfields.  
 

Larger fields will be in English so you can avoid having to do it in local but you will be limited to more mainstream. 
 

I generally flew around the English language fields in Spain as my Spanish was not really up to it at the time but  my French was functional for circuit use so I could get around most of it. 

Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are all full English as is the Uk 🇬🇧 😛. 
 

can’t get into Switzerland with a ULM so can’t comment on them.  
 

Northern Italy was fine with English legally but I found many airfields just ignored that and it was Italian all over the airwaves and I just followed process and fitted in with patterns.

And for the next example of unacceptable editing in the official RAAus magazine ... pg 74 where the UFO is described as “RAAus certified”nope. Sorry. No way acceptable to say  any hone built RAAus aircraft is cerified by RAAus.  
 

I count it as very sloppy and not acceptable in the official journal of RAAus.

Shirt sperrin 

21 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

All vehicles pay for roads !?

WRONG!  Cyclist pay Nothing !.

And are exempt from the Normal laws, on ' seat belts ' carrying passengers in trailers, compulsory third party insurance and registration.

Why bring weight into the rules for EV vehicles paying milage tax ?.

Thats the trick that killed the Steam car !.

spacesailor

But if you are looking at charging for use based on the damage they do rot the roadway then gvm is important.  It already exists in practice as excise is more per km the larger the vehicle gvm as they have larger engines and more l/100km.  
 

once there is a fair basis of charge for use you then can overlay policy adjustment to address additional outcomes desired - increase the charge for ICE engines to cover their additional environmental ‘Costs’ to the country or alternate apply a discount to non-ICE engines to reflect a lower impact on the environment.

1 hour ago, jackc said:

https://www.ruppert-composite.ch/en/

But when a foot launch three axis hang glider has a AU$25,000 engine added and will cost in excess of $125k landed in Australia I think we are not talking about the real world of recreational flyers.