kasper

Curtis Wright at9 Jeep 

Don’t have to agree or disagree with you Jim.  The privacy act may apply under CASA or it might not.  The $3m turnover in the previous financial year us a simple unarguable tick of being under the act.  
 

when in doubt I tend to wait and go for the simplest way ... esp. as RAAus have all our funds behind them to legally defend and/or challenge an individual member ... I have my flying kitty of cash to work with and I’m using that on petrol and parts

Well that’s horrific and sobering. And demonstrated perfectly that there are hills inside clouds. 

Don’t disagree Jim but as the contract is not directly for the provision of service and is through a semi autonomous body it was always arguable.
 

$3m turnover is absolutely clear and unarguable so that was my reason ... and to wait for that and aligning with a scheduled review of an already questionable policy made it a no brainer.  
 

plus I had lunch at my desk and had time after reading a few threads here so dash of an email. 

Just to keep this item alive and note a change in application of law to the RAAus that aligns with an RAAus Director set date for review of the policy I sent the email below to them today. 

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

ALL very different. Indeed.. I decided, say 15 or more years ago to not fly weightshift for that  reason. The flying flea was designed to be unstallable and unspinnable which it probably is but it's got unusual behaviour with a crosswind  is somewhat inefficient aerodynamically and NEVER go FAST in it or the nose may keep dropping. Nev

Need a seperate thread to discuss in detail why your comment on never going fast is 100% false for any pou du ciel layout airframe with pushrod front wing control - basically the issue was slot effect between the wings when there was pull only cable front wing pivot control - these issues were cleared up more than 80 years ago so I reply here only in brief to stop the perpetuation of a mythic danger that does not exist.

21 hours ago, facthunter said:

A spiral is usually a turn gone wrong. Often in Cloud or at night without an Horizon. The wing is already down (banked) but the nose drops and the  airspeed and "G" load rise.. RAAus doesn't allow spirals to be taught as you can quickly expose airframes to destructive loads. .  I've been known to demonstrate them and only leave the plane in it for a few seconds and quickly recover.. ( as you must). . Fine if you have height and a stronger plane.  In the early days probably more planes pranged this way than  by spinning. It was known as the" Graveyard SPIRAL".  The risk hasn't gone either.  Nev

As a general rule i'd agree a spiral dive comes off a turn gone wrong if its a 3axis aircraft.  However, if it's a weightshift - where any wing drop from a stall in a turn cannot result in incipient spin entry - a stall out of a turn will immediately result in spiral dive entry.  Its one of the very specifically different flight behaviours between the two control systems and if you fly both it's as important to learn and become instinctinve on as reversal of foot pedals is on the ground.  You only really need it in an emergency and the responses are not the same and have to be right for the control system involved.

And from the fun of my flight testing and experience to the half dozen pilots who fly two axis pou du ciel type aircraft if you act the fool and mismanage a ridiculously aggressive minimum airspeed rapid turn where you are trying to do a wingover you can stall both the front and rear wings on one side.  It will just roll you over and reverse your direction of travel as it starts to aerodynamically sort itself out.  If you release the back pressure and centralise side stick it will immediately enter a parachutal decent in the opposite diretion generally 100ft lower than your entry height ...  Hold all the controls input and it will roll out of the stalled front/rear wing on one side into a fully stalled front wing turning parachutal decent with higher sink rate.   As noted by others the control responses and recovery is different by aircraft but on pou du ciel from playing in test the HM14, 290, 293 and 1000 of various combinations of wings all respond in the same way to the double stall wingover turn and its just the angles and pictures out the front that change.

1 hour ago, Downunder said:

It's not meant for members.

It's a management box ticking exercise to achieve KPI's or whatever metric they're chasing. 

So MM can go to one of the 20 organisations he's a part of and say "Sh!t yeah bro, we got the best reporting system eva...".

Except of course it’s available to members only through the member portal so it should at least have some distinct and clear benefit to us.  If it’s just a CASA requirement and empire proof then just do the govt reporting and talk yourself up.  

if it truely is supposed to be an element of a safety improvement program then I give it a huge fail grade as it’s not well structured does not provide emu level of consistent analysis and Is not referenced in detail or in terms of strong support for change.   
 

for example I the 12 months to today what would people think was the reports in total - jabiru engine vs rotax engine - phase of flight - type of issue - etc. 

nothing there at all.  If you trawl through and work out your own categories you can get a little picture of what and where things happened.  But bugger all on why they happened and what’s needed to reduce the risk. 
 

Worse than pointless - it’s costing funds from members for no explicit benefit. 

And for those with wobbly wings (weightshift) ... and particularly those who fly both ... don't forget that unusual attitudes and upset recovery is NOT the same between 3axis and wobbly wings ... as a rule wobbly can't spin but good grief they can spiral dive and exceed VNE in a thrice ...

Like the advice on go to a GA and do a session - go out with your flexwing instructor and do a session of unusual attitudes and upset recovery in a flexwing ... its actually far too easy to lose a wing in a flexwing if you do not do things properly. 

And I think aloud ... What is the point of RAAus accident and incident reporting?

The Sav wind event is written up as:

STATUS: Closed EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: A strong wind event moved the aircraft that had been tied down.

What is an RAAus pilot or aircraft owner to get from that?  it does not even say that there was damage to the airframe or if the tiedowns gave way or just it got thumped where it stood.

If there are any board members on here can they offer any useful reason for having reporting of accidents and incidents as we currently have it other than "CASA made us do it".

It seems Armidale Is having a few bad weeks.  I don’t think this mornings is due to tie down failure though ...

Afraid the editor/publisher died.  The magazine continued for I seem to recall 2 years after his death and then ceased.  Was a nice magazine, wish I had not lisplaced by collection in the moves over hte years - I had the full set

My view is that recreational aviation is going along pretty well ... but it has shifted from where it was 30 years ago and is more aligned to where GA was 25 years ago - not just commercial GA but the whole of what was commercial GA + GA clubs + SAAA homebuild - with the add on of low mass high performance airframes that were not available 25 years ago.

What has changed is operations becoming centralised (bigger clubs/schools but fewer and much further between) and ultralights are effectively dead in terms of new airframes being replaced with much higher performance and much higher cost aircraft.

I am personally saddened to see this as I preferred the SAAA/AUF scene as it was 25+ years ago when I started but I am only 1 person and so long as I can continue to tinker in my shed with my homebuilts without crushing costs and oversight I am just likely to continue on my path of becoming a middle aged fart seen by many as mr ultralight bar humbug.

Last light was 7.35 and Carcoar is only 30nm from orange.  If they were planning on overnight in orange then there is adequate time to get back there and on the ground before last light plus.  
 

if they were aiming for Bankstown then it would have become night vfr before they got back but it may have been planned at that - it’s GA not RAAus so that is possible depending on permissions. 

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

If RAA was an Incorporated Association, your could have these discussions, write to the Committee of Management and suggest them, and get a decision back, possibly in favour of the proposals.

 

However, if everyone recalls, the majority of members didn't want to get involved in managing their own affairs, in fact got on these forums and trew spanners in the works for just about every discussion; even complained about the discussions themselves.

 

Then after a constant barrage of posts from about half a dozen people, using the false analagy that RAA had "outgrown the cricket club type organisation" a Limited Company was set up, whereupon the half dozen or so departed this site never to be heard from again.

 

The members got what the majority said they wanted, which was just to fly; pay a fee each year and fly.

 

Now we have the situation where the Limited Company, without any reference to its shareholders, which is quite normal in the big corporate world RAA mixes with today has decided not to issue labels.

 

They can do it.

 

What is the point of discussing registration numbers, incorporation into CASA whether CASA wants that or not, when the Directors of a Limited Company have been able to keep it profitable, thanks to your money, and are able to set their own destiny without being bothered by you.

 

There's nothing to stop anyone talking about improvements but the organisation structure stops at the front door of the company.

 

To be able to have meaningful disussions you have to take back the company and reform the organisation.

 

Personally, if I owned a Drifter or Thruster or other low performance aircraft I would be getting alarmed at some of the more recent discussions which seem to be aimed at supporting heavier, faster aircraft or somehow movingg into CASA.

 

 

 

 

 

Yep,

As one of the people who saw the company structure change as poor and the documents to create it even poorer and who owns 4 self designed and built airframes I am spitting chips over the changes within RAAus and in particular the changes in the recent 95.10 changes ... look out all you 95.55 experimental home built  ... when CASA get to redrafting that one it will be impacting a whole lot more people than just us old farts still tinkering and building within 95.10 limits.

48 minutes ago, Yenn said:

If all aircraft were looked after by CASA, there would be no need for anyone to belong to RAAus, because the requirement to have a certificate to fly the plane would be gone. We could all fly with no rego fees and no annual membership fee. But and it is a big but, we would all have to hold a CASA issued licence. Is that not the reason recreational flying started. To get away from the red tape of licences and the medical requirements.

We sound like those overseas immigrants that came here because Australia was better than where we came from. Then we want to change it so that it is like home.

If you don't like RAAus, go fly GA, there is nothing stopping you, except maybe that it will cost too much to meet the standards required.

Not quite no need for the RAAus it just would require a change to the structure of the operations:

1. register airframe with CASA once in lifetime and get issued VH- registration to display.

2. operate and maintain airframe under RAAus techmanual and opsmanual with:

  a. annual certificate of validity on airframe registration

  b. annual certificate of  validity on pilot certificate

3. 2a. and 2b. only available as services to members of the raaus (because you can only fall under disaplinary processes as a member otherwise its just on/off pull the certificates)

Simple structure and easily achieved if there was a political will to do it within CASA.

Not gonna happen though as there are only 17,576 aircraft reg combos available at any time in VH-XXX series and I doubt CASA want to move the VH-XXXX to allow up to 450,000 

SplitS - "official story is not quite right" ... I nearly coughed a mouthfull of coffee all over the PC with that one

... that 'official story' issue is nearly always the case as the 'real story' gets fixed before anyone official gets informed in SO many cases.

9 hours ago, ClintonB said:

Is that at Armidale airport?

would the storms have done that last week, we copped A beating in Moonbi from it, big hail too.

Yep Armidale airport. Happened not on the Thursday storms -it was on its legs when I left at 6 but kneeling down next morning around 9 when I went past. Nothing here in Kentucky to speed of ... or my sheds are stronger than I thought. 

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

  "Not under 95.10.  It needs 1m^2 per 30kg it mtow.  "

About time for a weight increase !.

Just like the big boys want.

So we don't go VH experimental. 

spacesailor

 

But we already have that available in 95.55 ... it’s just the single engine prop requirements there that are the issue. 
 

hyt given the redraft if 95.10 and the insertion of design requirements as a possibility in the raaus tech manual now I think everyone in raaus with any aircraft not rolled out of a factory should be seriously questioning the direction of travel for microlights ... ultralights are no more and raaus becoming GA lite is more than just scare mongering

I’ve seen a few of these over the years fold the nose leg but this is the first time I’ve seen one fold up whilst tied down at the airfield. 
 

I feel for the owner.

25 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

From what I have seen the drive motors are just DC motors in most CS units

If you are wanting proper positioning control you need a closed loop stepper or a proper servo with built in encoder. For a IFA a linear actuator would be fine through the gearbox in reality thats just a DC motor driving a threaded rod or some Verier cable adjuster...KISS is what I like

 

Exactly.  And if the deforming blade variable pitch blades system in IVOProp were effective then it would be a relatively simple mod to remove the spinning motor, remove the electric slip rings and the rod mounted brushes and insulator plates and use a push/pull rod through the gearbox with a suitable turned collar on a sealed ball bearing ... or just buy a non-inflight and modify to make it in flight adjust - same blades and cheaper as youre not throwing away bits.

By doing this you would remove rotational mass on your prop shaft, remove most of the failure points on the electrics (all the rotating sliding bits) - win win really.  see pic below for the IFV setup to see which bits you would remove and the single gold slip collar that would need to be manufactured for the dn of the through box pushrod.

18 minutes ago, RFguy said:

yes, I know about stepper motors.....

 

what holding torque is required for the pitch control ?

If you're worried about standing load on the remote motor just do what we did with electric movable hang points for flexwings - use a linear actuator.  They are generally rated at 1500N force, have ranged of linear motion from around 50mm to 200mm and weigh next to nothing.

The eletric in flight hang point adjuster I had on the Raven cost under 50 pounds UK in parts (including the two machined mounts and all switiching and hang position display in the dash) and installed added under 2kg to the airframe.  Gave infinite position change between the two stops (not stepped) and that set up moved 55kg of wing mass whilst in flight lifting 450kg of aircraft all on the standard nylon frame collar.  A quick ebay search throws up 12v linear actuators for under $15 so some of the componetry is inexpensive for manual adjust - its the electronics and sensors to link manifold pressure to the actuator to make it CS thats tricky.

If you had a variable prop hub with a slip ring on the blades in the hub remote back to a linear actuator mounted to the engine gearbox you have removed much of the mass on prop hub issue and have removed roational electric components and this would be relatively easy to do as a manual adjust in flight.

Just a thought. 

Oh there is another problem with this from a usable system - how to have seperate variabble control of the spin of the drums and the propulsive engine - you cannot have a fixed link between the drum rate and the forward prop because it will then become a single speed/altitude aircraft.

Why?  The lift is proportional to forward speed at a set drum rotation speed ... increase forward speed and lift increases so unless you can slow the drum rotation speed as you add forward speed it will not increase airspeed just go up and down at a set airspeed speed.

Ideal would be to have the drums rotate on electric motors as they are very controllable and have the forward speed on a seperate engine/motor prop.

Then you can have the fun of the mixing control for the 4 drums on 4 motors to give you pitch control (different drum rates fore/aft) roll (differential drum rates for left/right) and automatic alt hold to allow for different airspeeds (variable drum rates all around) ... mix it all with a good RC onboard autopilot and you can fly if by joystick control fly-by-wire.  Even more fun would be to add two forward thrust electric engine outboard at the front/rear and get yaw control by differential thrust.

You'd have to do this in RAAus becuase the CASA guy/gal faced with this nightmare will run screaming in the distance when you try to explain its a 6 motor fly-by-wire autostabilised magnus effect lifting device with no wing area and no stall speed cobbled together in my garage and managed with $300 of electronics from Hobby King I programmed up on this laptop 😁

Have always loved this concept but for human fun I would want a full airframe recovery parachute because if/when the engine stops no spin = no lift = no glide.

But I think it would be right up there with the UFO flying disc if someone could have a go at getting one flying and registered in the RAAus system.

2 hours ago, Jase T said:

Big breath in here folks.  Just think for a moment.. Is BRP selling enough Rotax engines to keep themselves afloat right now? Without military sales to back them up would they pull the pin in Rotax?

Drone sales are not going to keep them afloat - there are fewer than 150 Turkish drones this thread is about.  There are very few USA drones that used them - they got retired and replaced with heavy fuel engines as per us requirements for all engines. 
 

the number of sport aircraft built even now will be many times the number the drones ever used.