kasper

You can only hope it’s either a deliberate reverse run or just an illusion due to frame rate. surely they’d didn’t put the motor in backwards.... it’s a a long way to go to fix it

Nope. Nope. Nope. been there. Done that. Got a parliamentary report setting out clearly why it’s not good 1. Airframe empty weight limits as per 103 without mtow limits led to unsafe airframes. We moved from the USA limit to 300kg mtow to assess that. 2. no training was the single most prevalent risk to any pilot bar none. You need to be trained. You need a two seater to train. We got a two seater regime when the empty weight focus was removed from the single seaters. the reasons for training continue to exist. The reasons to focus on mtow and minimum speed as the defining characteristics of ultralights continue to exist. the real stress point as I see it - and have seen it over the past 30 years - ha been the initial jealousy of recreational GA of the freedoms the AUF that became worse after 1998 when AUF expanded into homebuilt 2 seaters with more capability my observation is that RAAus and CASA since 1998 have been progressively and incrementally removing the freedoms/differences of the CAO airframes and moving them up to align with GA rather than relaxing the restrictions on GA. and there is no safety case put forward with evidence just acceptance of it all.

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 looking at cao 95.55 and not 95.10.

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 reading 95.10 because there are further limits on flight even within those airspace bits ... not over built up areas without glide clear etc. it is in there but it’s not practicable to use it to do much with it.

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 changing the throttle handle to suit you. Nothing can be changed. 95.10 is really only useful to backyard tinkerers who want to build a one off.

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

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.

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. So Rosco, if you are a LAME call the tech manger to clarify as its not clear. And for anyone using a LAME/L2 to maintain their aircraft where that maintenance must be L2 I would also question the tech manager ... last thing I would want to find out the hard way is if I had an airframe online at a flight school under LAME maintenance that was not within the Tech Manual because that likely means my insurance for hull is invalid ...

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 on members and the constitution for a year or two as the focus for the past few has not been on it.

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 aircraft not within the CAO means legally it’s the same as the pilot operating a GA aircraft improperly or a glider improperly ... it’s not an RAAus once it’s outside the CAO. Yes silly. Yes dangerous. But NOT an RAAus pilot and aircraft involved so no legal authority

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 same position to manage me as I am when I am flying a GA aircraft on my CASA license. They have no legal authority. And that is the complete toothless nature of RAAus is actually admonishing or disciplining any member because they could just say none of your business.

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 Ops manual, RAAus processes and practices were legally problematic. My concerns are at their core quite technical legal issues that if put before a court could end up with very unexpected outcomes for CASA, RAAus and pilots. To lay out how to get to the risks I see that exist I need to step through basic structural legal control of aviation in OZ and then step backwards into the areas with risk. How does ultralight regulation work in law in Australia – the simplified version Firstly there has to be a law of the land – the government create a legal obligation on people with attached penalties for breach – in Australia that is the CAA Act and Regs. Enforcement of that sits with CASA and involves courts enforcing the penalties on breaches. So the first step is in law if you want to fly in an aircraft in the airspace over the legal geography of Australia you have to come within the law and operate within the law. For the most part that means CASA issued pilots license, CASA registered aircraft and CASA oversight of operations of both the airframe and the pilot as they operate in the airspace of Australia. Ultralights – or microlights as we all got legally renamed in the current CAOs – are none of these – no CASA license, no CASA registration, no CASA oversight. We get out of being a wanton criminal because there are exemptions to the Act and Regs provided for within the structure of the Act and are listed as Civil Aviation Orders – CAOs. Practically means if you stay within the limits of the exemption you are OK to fly and CASA cannot do or say a thing to you and you cannot end up in a court for breach of the CAA Act. The exemptions for the vast majority of ultralights are CAO95.10, CAO95.32 and CAO95.55. That is how Microlights fly without CASA being directly involved. How well do RAAus and RAAus pilots/aircraft fit within the CAOs when things go not as planned? Not well is my opinion for the following base issues: 1. The legal basis on which RAAus can impose an obligation on the airframes and pilots is limited to those necessary to administer the very limited grant of authority under the CAOs. You cannot in law create an obligation based on a legal requirement where that is not necessary for the administration of the underlying legal grant of power – if CAO does not grant power to RAAus then RAAus cannot impose it on members. 2. The whole CAO concept is flawed for self administered aviation – if you fail to comply with a CAO requirement it’s not RAAus who can impose limits its CASA … and it CASA on steroids – eg fall outside the 300kg MTOW limit in 95.10 and you are an unregistered aircraft with an unlicensed pilot subject to the full impact of CASA for any and all of that. It’s a very nasty structure and not well suited to self admin for minor breach. Eg a 95.10 aircraft registered with RAAus ceases to be subject to RAAus as soon as it is overweight – it can ONLY be registered for the purposes of RAAus control when its below MTOW under the CAO. Here in the extreme are some CORE problems with the CASA/CAO/RAAus in this area: 1. If you are in an aircraft within the CAO exemption for microlights you are required to operate in accord with the Ops manual and to maintain in accordance with the Tech manual (its set out in each of the CAOs) … but as soon as you operate the aircraft outside the Ops or Tech manual requirements your operation of the aircraft or the aircraft itself are no longer within the exemption of the CAO … and if you are outside the CAO exemption RAAus cannot control your operations … CASA have to. Practical Result - EVERY aspect of the RAAus Ops manual that deals with how you operate CANNOT legally be linked to ANYTHING to do with RAAus disciplining you as a pilot of the aircraft if you fail to comply with that requirement … that is LEGALLY for CASA to do as an unlicensed operator of an unregistered aircraft. 2. EVERY aspect of the RAAus Tech manual that deals with how you maintain and airframe registered with RAAus CANNOT legally be linked to ANYTHING to do with disciplining you as an aircraft operator once you fail to do a maintenance action within the Tech manual … that is for CASA to do as an unlicensed maintenance of an unregistered aircraft and NOT RAAus as you have fallen outside the CAO and outside RAAus control. 3. And for a three line fail it would be patently improper for RAAus to attempt to discipline a member for operating outside the Ops manual or Tech manual because of course the aircraft and operation of the airframe fall outside the RAAus powers as set out in those self-same CAOs once to fail to comply with the Ops or Tech manual. If anyone were to be disciplined under RAAus for failure to comply with Ops or Tech manuals then it would be open for them to challenge any action taken by RAAus as being outside power. And for the cherry on top it logically is NOT possible to being the RAAus into disrepute - the ultimate no-no under the RAAus documentation because your membership can be cancelled and any future membership denied - by operating an aircraft not within the control of the RAAus because in operating outside the CAO you are not operating an RAAus registered aircraft as an RAAus certificated pilot but are instead an unlicensed pilot in an unregistered aircraft subject to the might of CASA only. Not planning on flying an unregistered aircraft as an unlicensed pilot this week but I am drafting a nice long letter to RAAus to get direct responses to a few very problematic items for me ... particularly as I have a half built airframe here that was intended to be registered with RAAus as a 95.10 and flown on an RAAus pilots certificate that now appears to be outside RAAus ability to register and due to oversights in the new OPs manual would be unable to be certificated to fly even if I could register it as they have omitted the whole group C from the current Ops manual where as the last OPs Manual only failed to require medicals or flight reviews for group C pilots.

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. .

It’s a very attractive plane ... if you squint ... a lot. 😛

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.

there must have been smoke in the hangar ... the RFS plane was just having a look 😉

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.

Its not in the docs area - you have to go to the notice about part 149 where they have linked out to the new ops and tech manuals that become effective 1 April

well this Ops manual builds on the complete mess for Group C in the last. 1. last ops manual failed to require medical certificates or BFR to exercise the pilot certificate. 2. this manual fails to actually allow for the issue of Group C because its been overlooked altogether as a group So it appears that those who already hold them can continue to exercise their rights ... but nobody can get a new one added to their certificate so can't ever sell one to anyone or let anyone else fly them. Well done Jill - I TOLD you face to face in SA back when this crappy drafting of the last Ops manual was a pigs ear for Group C and I see that you have exceeded all possible failings on this group. Now for RAAus executive and board to úpsell this as a big improvement. Oh and the rewrite of 95.10 actually did more than change all ultralights to microlights ... it also removed two axis from 95.10 ... love to see what happens now to Group C who have two axis aircraft ... no longer under 95.10, not within the OPs manual ... so I suppose I ma back to 1975 pre-95.10 and just go fly and wait for the shit to hit the fan.

The new ops and tech manuals are out. and the political spin on what changes is just that spin nobody mentioned from raaus that a whole aircraft group is wiped out in the rewrite ... so I have two days left to enjoy one of my groups and a whole NEW arguement with raaus as to what the hell I am supposed to do with the aircraft that does not fall into the remaining groups ... which was the bloody reason we had the seperate category in the first place not looking forward to reading the actual changes in the tech manual because already I can see more crap for me on a couple of my airframes ona. Cursory 5 min skim.

Reasonably accurate to say the CAO has had minimal changes - put aside the issue SpaceSailor has about hummels not fitting into 95.10 - there was ALWAYS the 95.55 alternate introduced on the day 95.10 was closed off which would have allowed ANY Hummel to be AUF/RAAus registered. However in practice the changes to the effective use of 95.10 have been done outside the CAO - they are in the RAAus Tech manual and that area has changed dramatically for 95.10. Not going to list the changes because 95% of RAAus peopel have no interest in 95.10 and will just dismiss the changes as logical and aligning with expectations fo factory built arircraft or kits ... but the changes are real and impact on the very few who want to use 95.10. That said from an owner of three 95.10 airframes two of whcih are my own design and one of which took 2 years of arguing with RAAus to get registered because they didn't want it designed/built as I had designed/built it ...

Strangely the UK BFR for microlights on trikes requires demonstrated recovery from a climb power climbing turn stall ... and as they cannot spin but will spiral like you would not believe your responses HAVE to be instantaneous and you have to handle them correctly because you can overspeed the airframe to failure speeds very quickly ... nobody likes literally pulling the outer wings off a trike in flight BUT that is the real risk that we were all trained for and regularaly tested on handling. And people wonder why older UK pilots tend to migrate towards three axis and give up on weightshift 😉

The issue with the Bristell from what I have read in the docs put forward by the manufacturer (link in the first post in this thread) is actually clear in the letter from the Australian owner: "With 2 stages of flap still extended _______ then demonstrated the effect of commencing a slow pull back of the stick, which was released as the nose rose. The stick continued to move backward by itself until stall occurred, after which the nose dipped accompanied by slight right-hand wing drop, followed by a second rise of the nose. It was necessary to firmly ease the stick forward to unload from the stall to regain straight and level flight." For a plane that is certified I do not expect ANY of the flight envelope to include allowed loadings where the stick continuing to move backwards after the pull is released ... the fact that you had to firmly ease the stick forward to unstall adds to my eyebrow raised condition. Add to that that the reported behaviour in all stalls was a mild/moderate wing drop and I would have thought that the combination of these was not absolutely what you expect in a factory airframe. Now in saying the above I make no comment on compliance with the ASTM requirements - you can read the graphs yourself in other attachments linked to the submission to CASA to form your own opinion on just how close to unacceptable several of the variants are on the manufacturers own documentation - BUT if I were still an instructor AND I was faced with an aircraft that did not have stick forces positively returning to trimmed when stick is released I would personally be looking at a different airframe for ab initio training.

looks pretty clean for an airframe out of reg for 10 years 👍

you do not have to be great at stuff. Fred made beautiful wooden airframes - pieces of art. My airframes are at best adequate - they have held together and get me around ... but nothing I make is perfect just functional. And perfect is not actually critical - workmanlike is often good enough - I lost an exhaust stud on a pusher trike while flying over the Thames many years ago and it punched a hole straight through the prop blade and split that blade into three along its length ... I was just in cruise and I did not even notice the prop strike and there was no vibration ... I noticed the slight note change on the engine and when I landed about half an hour later it was all still working.