kasper

An L2? What about an aeronautical design engineer?What has been going on here? Unsupervised, unqualified design, involving safety components, is contrary to most Australian industry practice today

Paddle pop sticks as building materials are allowed, shoving a monster fuel injected 2 stroke into a Jabiru kit is allowed, cutting a few feet out of (or adding a few extra feet into) a wing on an existing design is allowed.

Are all of these desirable, maybe not - probably not for the paddle pop sticks,

Are all of these 100% safe, probably not, but they are NOT aircraft that are required to meet design standards, they are experimental.

You fly at your own risk - if you do not like the risk do not fly the individual aircraft or these series of aircraft and go fly something from a factory that meets a design standard.

Stop trying to shoehorn experimental into factory requirements

A good friend of mine modified his Jodel in some very dramatic ways including a complete redesign of the wing and its reconstruction. This is not just amateur built from a kit or even plans, this is in the ordinary sense of the word, aeronautical engineering. In this case the engineering is being done by a very intelligent school teacher and a self-educated but not qualified "aeronautical engineer".How could it be to his (or his wife's) disadvantage to have an L2 have a look over his shoulder?

This logic of a little bit more oversight is always a bit better is in my opinion the well greased slope of getting rid of experimental - either we have experimental with freedom or we do not.

In my opinion this is effectively abandon experimental and moving back to 101.28 where you need to meed design standards (with engineering proof) or accept history of safe ops of overseas - end of OZ design freedom is really easy to achieve here ...

Kasper,RAA was plainly told that in CASA eyes we were NEVER allowed to modify 19 unless you were builder.

This was discovered as MARAP was being finalised and they were to be included.

 

They were prepared to rewrite 95.55 to clear this up. What else do you reckon they might tidy up in this process??

 

...

Well the Board and tech could just as easily act as the defender of the membership and point out that despite what CASA might have thought to have been the case we have in fact operated 19 reg aircraft for the past 17 years on the basis of 95.55 as it is actually written and could CASA please provide the safety statistics to show that 19 reg aircraft under initial builder are materially safer than 19 reg owned by second and subsequent owners to support ANY change to the actual 95.55 to make distinction between initial builder and subsequent owner on mod?

If CASA are wanting to do it anyway (and yes they can write whatever they like in draft CAOs) those CAOs need to be tabled in parliament and are subject to disallowance ... and if CASA want to do something that is not supported by robust statistics on safety grounds then RAA board could go to the politicians and get members to individually write to politicians etc. RAA is not JUST an administrator of CASA it is a POLITICAL organisation defending and supporting the RAA membership.

So there are HEAPS of things I rekon the board and executive could do that are not what appears to be happening ... CASA are not without control or oversight themselves, just because it is very difficult to move around CASA does not mean that there should not be very active consideration of doing just that when CASA as regulator appears to be doing things that are not supported by evidence and in particular where there is 17 years of history showing otherwise.

Cheers.

much clipped ...The Tech Manager does not act without the approval of the CEO and, on matters of policy, the Board. This is a significant change from the old days when the Tech Manager considered that he had a one-on-0ne relationship with CASA. If you have a problem with anything he does, give Darren the courtesy of a chance to make sure you have the full, correct facts and the reason for his decisions. Then, if you consider it necessary, progressively elevate your enquiry by talking to the CEO and then to Board Members if you don't like his answers. You could be doing us all a favour. These are just people with a job to do. Darren has impressive qualifications and experience and and I've found him easy to talk with and helpful.

You'll be surprised just how many Far103's have things like brakes etc. Radios, floats, skies, BRS, tundra kits, EFS cockpits. Actually don't see why you need all that crap anyways. My Lazair didn't need it. Hop on facebook and have a talk with the Dayton boys they will set you straight. There are a few kit 95:10 aircraft here. I'm sure the Australian Quicksilver agent will bolt up an MXL sport for ya if you can't work out how to turn a spanner. 103 is a more sensible empty weight limited. CGS Hawk was built for the more XL sized pilot. Ol Chuck would not have had a hope if he lived here and wanted to fly his hawk under 95:10.Best to toss that 95:10. The reason no one has put a new design under it lately is it is poorly thought out. And the system cost and paperwork is geared for more profit returns of the parrots.

No need to talk to people about 103 and what can be done under 103 ... I have flown a lazair around The Oaks and several other sub 115kg empty weight older 95.10 aircraft (don't forget that 95.10 WAS 115kg empty limited but was changed to MTOW and wing load limited to address safety issues and the 'creepping' empty weight issues).

There are no kits approved under 95.10 ...

I suspect the reason people don't bother with putting a design through is more to do with economics ... get a kit approved for 51% and 19 reg and you can charge $$$$ more than any 95.10 will cough up ... and a two seater is more highly desirable from a sales perspective ... and so many of the punters are drifting down from GA and require a 912 ... and hey presto the kits end up with 19 reg.

FAR 103 offers all of 95:10 plus more. Plans, kit or ready to fly. Not only just fixed wing like 95:10 but also lighter than air, rotary wing, PPG, PG, trike, rocket ship or martin back pack. as long as it's under the weight and speed limit it's on. No fees, no BS just go run a muck.

- access to flight radio and

- a regn number and

- more than 115kg empty weight ...

95.10 is MTOW limited and you can have brakes etc that many 'FAR103' aircraft cannot have ... and its sad to see people defend FAR103 while ignoring the VERY LARGE issue of overweight FAR103's ...

Yes you cannot buy an out of the factory ready to fly 95.10 - and that's not available ... under the CAO at all ... but if its under 70kg it can come out of a factory and fly away ... see 95.8

But it is possible under 95.10 to buy a kit 95.10 - BUT at the moment nobody has bothered with going down that route BUT a kit 95.10 is possible ...

I'd be happy with a one seat 103 ppc ,cheep and safe,no more rego yes please

This thread began if I recall correctly with Kasper saying, in essence, that the growth of what he calls GA Lite has somehow caused a detriment to the Ultralight movement.I would dispute that 100%.

 

People started flying ultralights for fun and because it was affordable by just about anyone. I will never have the courage if that is the right word to fly such aircraft. A lot of people died teaching themselves to fly in single seat R&T aircraft that they designed and built themselves many with little or no technical training.

 

There were extraordinary restrictions on that sort of flying. 300 ft, not over public roads, etc. Do you really think that being allowed to fly to 10,000 ft and have 600kg MTOW is somehow stopping you from flying ultralights around the back paddock? I just can't see it.

 

Yes, we now have to have radios at most airports. Yes, if you want to go above 5,000 ft you may be required to have a transponder, yes, if you make alterations to the flight controls you need to have a second inspection, and yes to a heap of other things that just might save your life or the life of somebody you fly over.

 

There are more aircraft closer to 600kg MTOW in RAAus than ultralights because that's what people can afford and want to fly. I'm keen to fly to Horn Island and I want to get there in my lifetime so 100 knots and 100 litres of fuel and being enclosed has quite some appeal. But I don't see how or why this is impinging on the rights of R&T flyers.

1. never said go back to pre-HORSCOTS 300ft not over public roads etc.

2. Never said plastic fantastics or upper end of RAA was not good

My issues are around two areas that appear to be happening:

1. removing the distinctions between experimental/homebuilt and factory built by moving the requirements up to the factory level

2. seeking greater and greater access to airspace and functionally removing the distinction between GA and RAA allowing politicians, media and CASA to reasonably seek to move the requirements up to GA parity

To be honest the raven weightshift in my profile pic had a panel that had 4 screens and not one steam driven gauge ... the contents of the dashboard cost over $15k but with twin coms and full mode S technically I had enough electronics to go into any airspace in the UK ... just a bit more sedately than the average 737.

I am not against the upper end of RAA - however I'm just dead against what appears to me to be a continual moving up to GA and being willing to give away current freedoms - and the first wedge is RAA tech putting back to CASA (for whatever reason) a proposal that all 19 reg experimental not owned by the original owner cannot be modded without tech oversight and signoff.

All 19 reg are experimental and I don't give a damn if many or even most of the people paying $100k+ for a second hand fast kit are already paying an L2 or a LAME to look after their 'affordable' GA-lite aircraft - its not factory, its not GA and if you drag the lot of 19- along with you you have removed a significant current freedom to make and do what we like with the experimental category we have.

People don't take much encouragement at all to revert to Tribal mentality - sporting teams being the best example.clipped

 

The skill of market research is to separate the real driving forces from what the market is saying.

... its my perception of the current RAA that the executive and tech are prepared to give up rights and freedoms ... or a the very least not defend them ... without consulting the membership in what appears to be a grab for more and more of the high end RAA and low end GA. Its the issue of transparency of intent and consultation that sits behind me being what some may class as a grumpy old git or a strident rag and tuber. I do not think I am actually either but I am adamant that where rights and freedoms are being given up/traded away/not defended I am going to be vocal ...

The biggest issue with kit builts is it has been stated a kit is unlikely to comply with the 51%/major portion rule and be unable to rego as a homebuilt. However there is no definition of what makes up 51% or major portion. When queried RAA has been unable to say what exactly would be considered 51% or above, and simply refers builders back to the rules, which only state 51%/major portion. No help at all. It is very hard to comply with the rules when there actually is no idea what the rule means.You can actually import a kit and build it, find you cant register as homebuilt but as it is not an approved design cannot register as a factory built. These are the guys that will be forced into flying as unregistered with no pilot certificate or just scrap their dream machine.

However, 95.32 is BETTER than 95.55 because it allows a FACTORY KIT to be assembled without the major portion rule PROVIDED the manufacturer has a certificate acceptable to CASA - three options depending on where the kit originated.

This is NOT available to 19 reg experimentals SO if there is a foreign weightshift or PPC with a manufacturer holding a certificate in relation to the factory built that CASA accepts YOU CAN ASSEMBLE YOUR OWN FACTORY BUILT ...

Not aware of RAA having to face this one yet and if they would put 32 or 18 reg on it ... as it would be under 1.1 not 1.4 I would argue that it is in fact 32 reg and fully available to be used for hire or reward ... possibly this is the way to open an Australian 'factory' or agency for foreign manufactured weightshift or PPC - no need to actually manufacture just work out and demo that the foreign manufacturer has the required certification and bingo - instant pop up australian 'factory' without needing to meet any of the manufacturing oversight and controls ...

Just looked at the section and it seems fairly logical . I would think putting this as a requirement of the seller would be appropriate . In any case I think the checks required under this section one would do even it the engine hours are known. Now I have another question , lets say the engine has a slight modification , the checks imply with in specifications of the manufacturer , but if there is a modification that produces more power but this modification is not offered by the manufacturer , will meeting the standard unmodified engine specs suffice?Thanks again

So seems everyone agrees no log books are an issue, but getting back to the question, What are the requirements re engine life , Must the engine life,Hrs, been know to register a 19 aircraft ? Does not knowing the exact hours limit the ability to insure the aircraft ? I understand the risk of engine life etc , and good checks can be done, I am also interested in what the requirements are for registration and insurance.Thanks in advance.

Transfer of registration form requires statement of total air frame hours and hours in last 12 months ... could be fun to state accurately though I have transferred registration of another series without logbooks based on 'unknown' and started from scratch in my ownership

Annual renewal requires you to state air frame hours total and 12 months to last December - first year may be a unknown + X answer

Factually you will have to assume that the engine is past TBO as you have no documentation to substantiate it - therefore Tech 4.2.5 comes in to allow operations past manufacturers TBO so you can do the test appropriate for your engine type and then you get a new 'TBO' period to run on condition.

On insurance

- the third part person and property attached to your RAA pilots certificate makes no issue with the aircraft engine so long as its 'airworthy' and if you have baselined the engine by use of Tech 4.2.5 you're OK.

- on separate hull insurance your broker/insurance company alone can answer this and as I have no recent experience in this country on this others will have to guide.

This accident investigation included pilot interview, manufacturer input, and an independent assessment of the engine. As with all accident investigations, a single root cause was compounded by a number of additional factors. The engine failure was caused by water contamination of the fuel system, compounded by an insufficient knowledge of the aircraft fuel system. Prior to flight significant water was detected in one tank by the PIC which may not have been completely eliminated from the other tank.The engine assessment revealed no mechanical issues with the engine.

I'll get my troll mask and wander off into the distance for the afternoon ...

Maybe the original started with a B ................ :wink:Don't tell scotty I gave you a hint.

much clipped ...Now try and picture the meeting at the DPP's office when CASA explains the facts of the matter to the DPP. The DPP asks to be reminded what the "offence" was. CASA quotes a heap of Regs at them. And the DPP then asks a few questions:

 

- Is there even the slightest doubt that the Pilot when flying with his PPL in a VH registered Tec Sierra was 100% competent? Answer: "no doubt at all of competency".

 

- Is there any significant technical difference between the aircraft when VH registered and when RAAus registered? Answer: "No, aircraft is unchanged in any way".

 

- the DPP then throws the CASA fellow out of his office (via the window on the 10th floor) and says "don't come back - ever".

 

clipped

As for the airframes being technically unchanged the CASA gal or guy will also if questioned say that the RAA aircraft was not maintained in accord with the required schedule or by the appropriately qualified personnel.

I know as a thought experiment you have constructed it to be as minimally different between the two aircraft to highlight the closeness at the edge.

How about this one:

I am an RAA pilot who has been a member for 15 years and flown the same 95.10 facet sapphire that I have registered and maintained over those 15 years. I go out and learn to fly a few hours in a citabria at Camden and get my PPL. I then decide 'to the hell of it' and decide not to renew my RAA membership or registration on the sapphire ... but I continue to maintain it exactly as I have for 15 year. CASA find me having a coffee at Mittagong after flying down from The Oaks ...

Logically from a safety situation the pilot is just as 'safe' now flying the sapphire as he was for the last 15 years but has no RAA certificate

Logically from a safety situation the sapphire airframe is maintained in exactly the same way and to the same standards as is allowed and required under RAA tech Manual

Is this any different? Is the lack of registration or the expiration of registration suddenly making a safety difference day-to-day? Just removing the same airframe from the equation where your thought experiment ran and plugging in a very different airframe should make no difference to the outcome if safety were the ONLY reason for regulation.

Its not - that is why SOME contraventions in many areas of law are 'intention' based and others are strict liability.

Otherwise EVERYTHING comes into challenge ... move to the road - safety is the reason for the speed limit ... its 2 in the afternoon and I am driving a car that is demonstrably designed to drive in excess of 150kph in safety and I am delighted to come over a rise while driving out of Shepparton heading out on the midland highway and see that there is about 25km of dead straight flat road with no vehicles either direction and I floor it ... a police office with radar happens to be sitting behind a milking shed just past the Tatura turn off as I tear past at 185kph ... perfectly safe, no risk to anyone ... should I be allowed to argue that there was not risk to others therefore the speed limit of 100kph should not apply to me?

One area I have not covered from the letter to the editor by Daffid Llewellyn are two legal issues he raises:

1. CAO is outside the powers of the CASA as it not directly on safety - ultra vires

2. Reading the CAO in light of either other parts of the Act/Regs/CAO and/or in light of the 'head of power' being safety

With arguments about 1 you practically are not likely to get a magistrate or county court judge to strike out part or all of a CAO let alone the parts of the Regs that such a flight would require to be ignored to make it legal eg display of registration markings at all is arguably not a safety requirement ... therefore all Regs on any aircraft displaying markings are equally invalid ... the concept of striking down all or part of a statutory instrument is one that generally ends up in supreme/federal/high court. Deep pockets needed on the part of the believing PPL flyer ...

On 2 the difficulty is that unless the words are of a special meaning (either within the CAO, applied from the Regs or applied from the Act under which the Reg and CAO are authorized) the courts are very loath to look at external materials or apply non-plain English interpretations to words that are clear. In this case a requirement to display VH-XXX registration to any aircraft flown by a PPL being a strict liability issue with penalty units assigned is really hard to get outside the plain English meaning of factually it was not displaying VH-XXX and you flew it = contravention proved and penalty fixed.

Much though I love playing thought games with legal interpretation in this case I am really not seeing as how the word games required in 2 are viable ... and arguments under 1 would be so expensive to mount and have such a massive impact on the entire aviation industry that I just cannot see CASA or the Govt allowing it to go through ... and if someone were to be starting out on legal arguements through courts on ultra vires arguments CASA and Govt will just move the goal posts and remove the basis of the ultra vires argument by changing the basis of establishment of CASA.

It doesn't affect me as I have both, but I can see no practical or common sense reason why a PPL who is an RAA member should not be able to fly an RAA aircraft without a pilot certificate. It will require some conversion training, as with any new aircraft, with the amount of training related to the aircraft type and the pilots previousexperience.

That is just a common sense view, which should be allowed by the regulations. If it isn't, seek a change to the regs. I happen to think it is allowed already. My interpretation would no no one any harm, and would remove the anomaly of pilots being able to fly one plane but not an identical one because of the numbers on the side. This is sillier than the state by state drivers licences we have to put up with.

However it's not actually got much to do with the ability of the PPL pilot (see my post above) its about the aircraft - GA aircraft have a WHOLE heap of documents, inspections and restrictions on who and what they maintained to and marked ... an RAA aircraft can never BE a GA aircraft and that's the actual core issue - to get the exemptions from all the bits for the RAA aircraft you have to hold the RAA pilots certificate - not hold the certificate and its not you as pilot that is the problem legally but the aircraft is not one that you can fly ... legally.

So that's basically it. There are a couple of bits of exemption that as a PPL apply to the pilot (low flying, night flying , use of lights, tailwheel endorsements etc) but fundamentally without the exemptions on the RAA aircraft that are only available to the RAA pilot Certificate holder the aircraft is from a GA perspective unairworthy, illegally marked and does not have the documentation to ever allow it to fly as a GA aircraft by a PPL holder.

OK, so CAO 95.55 specifically excludes weigh shift and PPC aircraft so can not be the reference for the discussion of these aircraft.95.32 is about these aircraft but does not mention build kits. So where is the information about home build kits for these aircraft written?

1.1 Factory built and factory kit

1.2 LSA

1.3 Experimental LSA

1.4 Homebuilt

In addition you can go 95.10 for single seater and then you can go multi engine or jet ;-)

Oh and the Tech Manual section the Tech Manager refers to in his Tech Talk only apply to 95.55 experimental not 95.32 or 95.10 experimentals so basically other than accepting as a fact people have been asking about homebuilt weightshift and PPC everything substantive relating to the regulation is in fact wrong ...

How about this as a hint ... what CAO is this from:

"1 Application

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

(a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and"

Now if you guess correctly re-read the Tech Talk and see if there is a problem ...

No. The problem is far far more basic than that ...

See attached - answers on a postcard

TechTalkApril2015.pdf

TechTalkApril2015.pdf

TechTalkApril2015.pdf

Slight query on term - unless this is a heavily modified F2A with an engine change the F2A has rotax 2 stroke with bing carbs - no carb butterfly to stick wide open but a carb slide to potentially stick ...

As I have said many times a lot of regulation is only a wish list..Have you ever tried to get regulations changed??

I have to ask you what have I not made clear ----- with only mate flying the tail dragger after he was apprehended CASA and RAAus were trying to work out what to charge him with, DPP advised them drop the charges or they will make fools of them selves.

 

I do acknowledge the fact I have not revealed the person name, aircraft make and location, how ever all the mechanics of the saga are revealed.

 

For revision read my first post in this thread and Dafydd's very good article in the RAAus magazine I think you will have your answers there. If not get on to the DPP.

 

Regards

 

KP.

Take a look at the items listed in my post that apply to a PPL flying a 95.10 ultralight because the exemptions do not apply to the flight - several of those are offenses of strict liability - no intent required (though as a PPL you damn well know you are not flying a VH reg aircraft when you take off in something with numbers down the side) so feel free.

If you or anyone is certain in your view that there is no breach of the law with a non-pilot certificate but PPL holder flying an RAA registered aircraft and that in fact any prior case you know of is not just the authorities choosing not to enforce through court then fill yer boots. Write a letter to CASA, get the media around to show the world the beauty of RAA aircraft available to PPL holders ... then we can see who is correct ;-)

What Geoff said along with Banks are a killer, corporate now and only see the numbers.Sounds like they over committed, falling behind and with low season coming, pulled the pin before it gets to "losing everything" status.

 

Strange they are reported not to have approached the Gov for help. Maybe they could name the planes "Andrew and Myuran" and get a rush of donations.

The protective wrapper of a corporation is only a protection when you play within the rules of the company...

KasperYou know what, your correct this is not the place to have this discussion.....and so I wont. My email address, as all the other 13 board members email address can be obtained on the usual early page in the magazine.

 

Andy