kasper

where is that pi$$ing myself laughing icon when I need it?

Pretty sure your wrong: 1. RAAus accounts for the years covering the period since the sling/sting accident do not disclose costs of legal actions paid so the only way anyone got money out of RAAus was through our insurer - and IF there was payment to anyone for what was done by RAAus through the insurer that is what insurance is for. 2. RAAus does NOT take any design authority or responsibility for ANY 95.10 or 95.55 experimental/kit/self design. RAAus liability in relation to these airframes does not extend to even maintenance UNLESS RAAus have chosen to extend their overview to cover details - from a legal perspective its a very careful balance here - self regulation is a balance between providing sufficient guidance/requirement that leaves the requirement and responsibility with the owner/builder and too much guidance/requirement where courts start to say RAAus have taken on responsibility ... I'm actually worried that RAAus are going to too far on the experimental airframes - but its up to them to take advice ... and from experience that advice will never be shared with the members. 3. RAAus on factory built are slightly different from experimental (in my view) as the RAAus needs to direct/require owners to maintain them in line with their design authority ie the factory - and that's where RAAus need to be clear on requiring owners comply with the certificated requirements. And as far as complexity goes the CAOs exempting RAAus aircraft are fairly simple in their language where ONLY the CAO applies ... its when you have to jump back into the Act and CARs that it gets really messy - and I agree that the drafting there is far from friendly and understandable ... but really we need to start again on the whole CARs and act ... but they have been doing that for decades and really you need subject matter experts IN CASA who OWN the content and intent to work with 1 set of drafters to get a consistent and coherant set of laws ...and that is not happening so we will continue to have rules and regs that are written over decades by different people without reference to interactions across the entirety of the rules.

Oh and anyone looking for a KFM107 er or ermaxi send me a message. I’ve got three of them I’m not going to use.

Hard to tell but it probably has a rudder on the rear of the fuselage below the v tail. Wing tips are obvious change as the tip wheels are no there. And from the angle you can’t tell if it’s had an engine change from the original.

Keeping them off the street? Sorry but unless you’d like to pay for many more prisons at a cost in excess of $100k per prisoner per year it’s NOT the courts ... talk to your politians if you don’t like the sentencing options within court systems and be prepared for massive increases in cost on prisons ... and before you try the idea that prison will rehab and prevent future activity google recivatism rates for your state or territory. lock them up does not work. Alternates are not perfect but they do can work in some cases. But back to regulation of ultralights and rec aircraft ... who do you suggest need locking up or are being not locked up because of lawyers and the courts? and if it’s the civil side where are the actual cases of loss against RAAus aircraft owners?

And if you can find any large number of cases within the last 10 years where an RAAus registered aircraft owner has been pursued in courts I’ll give some thought to your comments. Untul then it it sounds like base prejudice against lawyers and courts.

Sorry. Edit out the error Nope. It’s a Moni changed from single wheel glider undercart to Std legs.

So how about the Morane-Saulnier MS.760?

Looks like a Cessna t37 ... but I might just be a bit of a reporter and everything looks like a Cessna.

I’m really looking forward to the first time this happens to me in my non-radio ultralight ... do you think enough people will hear me if I yell mayday really loud or should I turn off the engine to make certain?

Might be a red WACO F series. It’s hard to pin them all down because some have fabric on the main leg/drag link triangle and others don’t and some have lumpy cowls others smooth - or no cowls just to really piss off spotters. but the most popular and my guess is a WACO UPF7

A WACO red plane even

A red plane

And what is your real name so we can spot it on the RAAus election papers when they are sent out?

Looks like an mcr01 banbi to me

Volpar Beech 18turbo conversion or a Beech c54 conversion. Either way it’s a Volpar conversion.

But my inner cynicism says this - and it’s based on what we were told by RAAus at the PDP day 1. Weight increase to 760 prob linked to part 149 2. This will be a new grouping of aircraft not an extension to existing 3. Weight increase past 760 later subject to proven history of safe ops and maint on 760 4. Lame maintained on factory built is the only way towards CTA so my take is that this very much that this very limited group of people will impact every RAAus member and aircraft as we will all be dragged closer and closer to GA maintenance and build requirements to provide the necessary evidence. I kniw im a broken record but what earthly good does 4 inspections on a self designed and built 95.10 have when NOBODY is entitled to or able to make design calls onnit and there is no test flying or restrictions on it ... Alignment upwards and upwards is happening and it’s removing the actual reason for the existence of the two ULTRALIGHT CAO’s my expectation is that if/when part 149 comes along ultralights as a seperate beast from GA non-commercial will be gone.

All the same aircraft ... just three bits to allow you to identify the exact model

Ok. Fair call. The yellow Single seater is an oldfield baby lakes. The original is still a Pitts s2 though.

OK lets mix it up - bits of planes. All very easily identifiable but very hard to google

Oh and the pic was of a a Pitts S2 ... sneeky putting a pic of the S2 with the front passengers seat covered and a singe bubble canopy on the rear pilots seat The plane in the pics above with the cute (at best) guy is a Pitts S1

Well he is cute but I think beauty is a bit of a stretch - but to each their own

Armidale has just spent $10,000,000 on an airport upgrade to add: - doubled the size of the terminal - never more than 2 RPT aircraft on the ground at any time and never a space problem - baggage screening - not required by law on the current size of aircraft ... not likely to see larger aircraft either - new cafe - old one seemed ok - undercover secure paid parking ... but still has enough open car parking that is currently still free (!!!!) nothing changed airside and I am sure Rex, QantasLink and FlyCorporate are not asking for this.

That’s the G3 Prefer the looks of this one

Nah. The tops been squished. Maybe it was doing a jump and landed on top then decided to drag the remnants home as a prize ?