old man emu

8 minutes ago, kasper said:

but it can go 19- any day of the week and the same pilots certificate will then let you fly it.

Oh No! Spacey's gunna get into the air!

Thanks for that. Looks like the DC-3 was absorbed into the Ansett Group in the late 1950s. Not a Butler Air Transport hack.

1 hour ago, jackc said:

IF a heap of these machines fell out of the sky,

Therein lies the rub! 

Let's say that 99.9% of operators of Part 103 compliant types do so with a high degree of safety. As soon as the aircraft operated by that 0.1% comes a gutza due to operating stupidly, the other 99.9% will be painted with the same brush,  and before the paint dries, there will be cries from the self-appointed media experts for strict controls to be placed on these "death traps". No amount of self-regulation, or regulation through an Association will stop the 0.1%-er entitled idiots bringing a whole activity into disrepute. 

It would cost me $410 ($435 with entry into controlled airspace approval) in total for my initial membership year with RAA.  Then a minimum of $325 annually to remain a member. I have a CASA licence that requires me to have  a Class 2 annual medical with a DAME since I can't get a Basic Class 2. That medical would cost between $250 and $300, but I could also probably get the doctor to complete my Heavy Vehicle Driver's medical, which I need annually, at the same time.

Given that the costs to hire aircraft registered under either system are the same, why would I want to restrict myself by adopting RAA limitations on operations?

Yeah. For me the interesting part is not the flying but the contemporary views of the aerodrome and buildings. What is there now is not as it was in the 50's. 

I found the Aerolight 103 specs which show a MTOW of 272 kg. That's 125 kg empty weight + full fuel. That would let a Fat Bastard of 147 kg get off the ground. Even a solid bloke of 120 kg could take off with a full tank and another 20 litres in a jerry can for four hours' endurance. allowing for a refuelling stop after 2 hours.

3 hours ago, FlyingVizsla said:

My C152's VH call sign used to be on a DC3 Airlines of NSW in the 1960's. 

What is your current C152's call sign. I'm wondering which DC-3 it came off.

Like the Income Tax laws, Customs Duties are a complex matter. While we here do our best to provide helpful responses, the quickest and most reliable place to go is to Customs themselves. I note that you have four years to lodge an application for refund, so you won't have to rush things.

Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

Geez, The wooden wing spars look a bit rough.

But seriously, contact Customs and ask them. The contents of the box might have been labelled incorrectly and so attracted import duty.

17 hours ago, 440032 said:

There are still plenty of alphas, I think the pool is increasing actually as aircraft de-register for various reasons.

It used to be that once issued, a call sign was never re-issued after the original aircraft was struck off and dismantled. It is sensible to re-issue from an administrative viewpoint, but makes historical research a pain.

11 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

A friend mentioned that RAAus / Sport Pilot adds cost $400- plus. 

I believe that the writing and publication of Sport Pilot is out-sourced to a publishing company on a commercial basis. Therefore, advertising space in the magazine is priced at standard commercial advertising rates. You can't blame people who wish to advertise products or services to seek the lowest rates wherever they can be found. That's one of the reasons that there are so many Buy, Swap & Sell pages on Facebook.

3 hours ago, aro said:

I don't completely understand that sentence

I was agreeing with you that 

4 hours ago, aro said:

There is already a raft of exemptions from CASR, one set is the whole basis for RAA possible

I forgot about gliders and some drones and balloons and gyrocopters. I was sticking to powered, heavier than air vehicles. But if you don't have a CASA plot's licence or an RAA pilot's certificate, it's illegal to pilot any aircraft. Further, if the aircraft is not registered with either CASA or RAA, it is illegal to fly it.

Just now, aro said:

There is already a raft of exemptions from CASR, one set is the whole basis for RAA possible and is an exemption from pilot licensing requirements and airworthiness standards.

Yes. There are exemptions from a pilot holding a CASA-issued licence, and an aircraft having a CASA-issued registration, BUT you can't pilot if you don't have either, not can you fly an aircraft (of the type we are discussing) without either.

Let's straighten some things out. 

Part 103 has been shown by several her to be current as of last Thursday, and not likely to have changed over the weekend.

The Advisory Circular was indeed produced in 1984. It is a completely different document from the published Part 103 document. The AC puts meat on the bones of the law. It does not have any legal status, but is an aid to understand the law.

Turbo.

The Regulation is current.

18 hours ago, turboplanner said:

So we would need to see

(a) If it still existed

(b) If so what CURRENT requirements there are.

Turbo,

I've done a search and I was current as of 8 June 2023. It would appear that there have not been any changes to that Advisory Circular.

I think this is where US Federal Regulation 103 would clash with CASR

§ 103.7 Certification and registration.

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

so let's see some detail.

Turbo,

Have a read of AC 103-7 using the link that JackC provided. I reckon you have the knowledge to understand it.

Jack,

Would you open this group up to all comers, please? OME

I don't know how I was able to post in it, then.

Members,

JackC has created a new thread to enable the discussion of the introduction of Part 103. Perhaps going there will allow the return of discussion here to the original point raised.

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Sorry for polluting the recent RAA thread with my diatribe!

That's OK. At least you have started a unique thread to allow the discussion to proceed. There's no need now to be a member of the Dia tribe. Simply present the arguments in favour of the introduction of Part 103-like conditions, and calmly respond to others' arguments. 

Remember to "play the ball, not the man" in order to keep the discussion to the expected high standard of this website. As for attitudes towards CASA and RAA, it would be best if they were not mentioned. Keep the discussion to "Part 103 - Yes or No?"

The first thing I would ask of you in relation to the debate is to present an outline of Part 103 and where Australian Regulations do not meet it.

6 hours ago, shafs64 said:

Good advice. a few years ago my wife picked up a book called the barefoot investor and we haven't looked back.

Not even to see if the librarian was still chasing you?

3 hours ago, shafs64 said:

the insurance rego maintenance and all the other costs that i don't know about.

That's where most young players fall into the trap. It's called "failure to research".

The first thing you should do is determine who is going to do the higher echelon maintenance. I would be seeking out someone who has a good reputation for doing the right thing. You want a bloke who'll tell you, "It's stuffed, mate. You need to replace it.", rather than the bloke who says, "You should be able to get away with it for a while yet."

Once you select your maintainer, have a good talk about the costs of his services. You want to know how much a straightforward service wound cost, and what problems the maintainer has experienced with your make and model of the plane you want to buy. I would also ask to see a representative set of logbooks of aircraft he ahs worked on. If the entries contain a lot of detail, then you can consider the maintainer to be thorough.

Once you know what your likely maintenance costs will be, you can shop around for insurance, which for the hull seems to be about 3 - 5 % of the sum insured. Then you add on your public liability to get your total insurance bill.

One essential thing to do, and which is frequently forgotten, is to invoice yourself for the flying you do, and make sure that you pay the invoice. If you do this, you will have the money socked away to immediately pay for routine maintenance; insurance; hangarage and a bit for those long-term jobs, like instrument calibrations and engine overhauls.

Recent circumstances have led me to re-evaluate my involvement with organizations of all types. That re-evaluation has resulted in my withdrawal from organizations of all types.