Jaba-who

I attended a presentation a few weeks ago and asked that exact question to the president. His answer confirmed owner maintenance for the over 600kg class in amateur built. I can't recall if that included non hire/reward factory built or not. 

 

My previous impression was all aircraft over 600kg would be lame maintained. 

 

What does this mean “Amateur build”? 

Do you mean “Experimental Amateur Build” ( AKA GA (VH amateur build) because that’s what exists now. 

Or

Do you mean RAAus “Amateur”  Build - Is this  an actual official term. I’m not sure that it is ( although I am happy to be proved wrong on this)   

If my recollection of official terms is correct I am not sure that he has given any new information but maybe used weasel words in the hope no one notices he is referring to something else to save face. 

But regardless,  until he can show actual written information from CASA it’s still just one blokes opinion. We know those are a dime a dozen and CASA edicts are only solid when they are written into law. 

I don’t know who’s who in the hierarchy and who you are referring to but if it’s one of the two Bozos who presented themselves so ineptly at the senate enquire I wouldn’t put much weight on the reply you mentioned.  My opinion was that were out of their league and hoped no one would notice. 

"for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue.The RAA committee thinks that too ! .spacesailor"

 

So the way to get the Old AUF back WILL be for ALL the Rag, Tube, Scratch built, & none complying with,  RAA, THE NEW Cheap GA aviation !.

 

WILL be to register ALL, on the GA experimental register.

 

CASA WILL NOT LIKE THAT IDEA.

 

I will check out, or have someone  workout how to put the outcast's into VHE rego !, & have Hummels flying again.

 

spacesailor

 

I reckon the “old AUF” is gone, deaf and buried and that’s what CASA wants. 

Realistically we already know that recreational aviation is the province of old codgers who “remember the days when ....”

SAAA  have  tried to get young people involved and to fill the gaps of the depleting numbers etc.  with basically no success. I’ve been personally involved with this and we have seen no real influx. 

Australian kids ( sure there’s a very few exceptions but not enough to make a difference) don’t want to spend years building when they have endless other instantaneous entertainment. 

They don’t want rag and tube when they know that technology is way way way more advanced than that. 

And everyone is now so risk averse they won’t get into something that might actually hurt them. 

I think ink those who want the old rag and tube days have to just make the most of their own time to fly and give up pining for a return of the good ol’ days. 

 There was  plenty of discussion about reversing the move if people subsequently wanted to and there were considered to be some difficulties so obviously owner maintenance was on the cards. If there was NO change no problem exists and there would be no issues going back to VH if required. I had all the paperwork done for my VH Citabria and when McCormack came in it all got shelved, so I have reason to recollect it clearly.. With the "NEW GA" thing who knows what deals are being done?  Nev

 

Sorry Nev but I think you are talking about  ancient history and is now probably irrelevant. 

The unintended consequence and one of the few GA factors that CASA has taken any notice of has been the revelation of severe future LAME shortage. 

This was  driven by the airline industry maintenance side, not RAAus, who will be very adversely affected by future lack of LAMEs. Basically LAMEs  get their apprenticeships through the GA LAME system). 

So when this was pointed out by those groups involved CASA has backed down. 

As for reversal back to VH - I’d stick my neck out and say “ not a hope!  “

It’s already a case that VH registered ex-certified experimentals are stuck as experimental and can’t go back. In the old days you could, and there were a number of  certifieds that were converted to experimental ( Cessnas with diesel engines, some rebuilds, even some warbirds before the limited category came out) and they were prohibited from going back to certified category. It’s basically  also a world wide phenomenon (in places that have similar experimental type systems. )

Given its over-conservative attitude on everything I’d suggest it’s unlikely CASA will stick its neck out on returning to potential paying passenger use something that has been maintained by a home handyman. 

Clear statement of intent.  I didn’t know RAA had any function in ensuring work for LAMEs.  Questionable priorities!

 

My understanding is that this was nothing to do with RAAus but a demand from the other aviation stakeholders. 

The history of this is that "originally" CASA proposed an increase to 762 Kgs which by a strange co-incidence happened to include the C-152 and Piper Tomahawk weights. No mention then off it coming with LAME maint .as a part of the package . 

 

I’ve seen a CASA release which as much as it was just waffle about likely principles involved said exactly that - that certified aircraft would still require LAME  maintenance. 

This was not any sort of of official edict ( as we know and the article is saying this has not been released and is now not actually on the agenda to be even discussed.)

Any  mention of “deals “ is obviously premature. It actually seems to me that releases by RAAus governance about the “progress” being made are probably optimistic overtures to placate the masses. 

" for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue."

 

The RAA committee thinks that too !.

 

spacesailor

 

The demeanour of the article seems to imply that CASA are not likely to, and never have said they would, allow CTA ENTRY without increased medical to a Class 2 or variant.

And CASA have stated that increased MTOW will most likely include maintenance by LAME, only at least for certain classes of those up-weighted  aircraft. (E.g.  certified a/c that fit the weights). 

Makes one wonder that, if they do make these  new rules - is CASA going to apply those restrictions to all in RAAus or have yet another divided hierarchy within the group ( to further divide and conquer?  perhaps) on top of the already divided levels between RAAus and GA recreational flying. 

Given that either one will be destructive on the broad group it could go either way and have the ( likely?) desired effect. 

I read the article, BUT I'M SKEPTICAL of any help to the old 95-10 rag&tube people. many will put flying aside &  take to simpler less expensive pursuits.

 

I know of a dozen that gave away building their dream, when CASA imposed the "wing load" rule.

 

So why should the imposition of a Full & Expensive medical, be any different, to CASA's "wing-load rule".

 

spacesailor

 

I honestly think the days of considering RAAus being rag and tube  are gone. RAAus is now the home of plastic fantastics and relative high techs with just a small niche area for the rag and tube.  As each year passes the number of rag and tubes will further decrease. 

But regardless of how many there are, for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue. 

https://aopa.com.au/increased-mtow-and-access-to-cta-for-raaus-when/?fbclid=IwAR1NbEXRRn9yozdSpa7CFb55l8bm_qgnLB9PSsx1DGULHQ1YhEpL3_jSQQA

Well worth a read!

AOPA magazine article that suggests the optimistic outlook that RAAus weight increases and CTA access are not far off,  in actual fact, continues to probably be just wishful thinking. 

Essentially,  direct  approaches to CASA by AOPA appear to have resulted in only denials that the subject is close and that discussions are not even on any agendas for the rest of this year. 

The article requests CASA to be more upfront and truthfully divulge where the issue is at. 

But I wouldn’t hold my breath!  

The sentiment that Robbos are overly risky is just the helicopter version of the knockers who say Jabiru’s are risky. 

The actual fact is that given the numbers in service and the hours flown they are actually pretty safe. This is especially the case given so many of those hours are generated in the highly risky mustering environment. 

Yep, they are not as safe as some fixed wings or driving a car, but the overall stats aren’t as bad as some people make out. I have just under a 1000 hours in command in R22 and R44 and never had a major problem. 

I used to fly out of Cairns YBCS but as Garfly says I ( and most of the many private pilots and a number of small commercial operators ) have moved out of Cairns and now fly out of the several surrounding area airports.

WRT the flight charges.

1. They apply to all aircraft that are “not commercial”. I spoke to the admin of the airport when they brought these rules in and was advised that any aircraft registered to an individual not a company will be considered as not commercial and sent a bill. It will be up to the owner to negotiate with them if the owner considers it a commercial aircraft.

2. The expensive slots for times of landing also applies to times of departure. It will be applied to actual time of landing ( or departure) not planned time. Delays in landing due to ATC, traffic etc which delay a landing into the high cost time slot will still be charged at the higher rate. If you want to dispute it you have to take it up with the administration afterwards. Good luck with that.

3. The fee as written is apparently excluding GST which makes it $385 not $350. ( I’ve not ever got one so can’t say they do but that’s they told me. )

4. The airport apparently has the right to impound any aircraft for unpaid fees ( a specific rule given to them by the Qld Labor Anna Bligh government when they were sold the airport) and there is at least one aircraft currently impounded there now ( a Shorts Belfast). They stated they will impound private aircraft if you don’t pay the fees and you fly away but then return or if you land at another airport they own. ( I think they own Mackay as well)

5. I don’t know how they would approach billing a RAAus aircraft. They will want to bill you. That’s a certainty. They will no doubt only be hindered by getting your details. Since it’s a security controlled airport with multiple security cars cruising around all the time and a federal police presence 24/7 they might meet an RAAus aircraft at the parking area and get details from you on the spot.

Also the fees for just parking there are exorbitant as well.

All in all it’s not worth going there any more.

OME, keep this old saying in mind:

 

"A boat is a hole in the water into which you're continuously throwing money"

 

Been there, done that

 

[ATTACH type="full" alt="Last sail 7 [800x600].jpg"]43822[/ATTACH]

A boat is a hole in the water you throw money into.

A plane is a hole in the air you throw money into.

A helicopter is a hole in the air that doesn’t wait for you to throw- it actively sucks the money out of your pocket.

As a rule, the airworthiness standards do not apply to EAB aircraft. No-one is going to certify your EAB aircraft is airworthy or meets any airworthiness standard. That is 100% up to the builder. You can build what you like, and power it with whatever you like. Then it is between you and your AP what restrictions need to be applied in the interests of public safety.

 

For the original question, you definitely need to talk to the SAAA. They have people who are on top of all the details.

As an SAAA technical counsellor I’d suggest it prudent to go a bit further from just talk to SAAA to actually say “ talk to the actual AP that you want to get to do your final certification. “

Even with different people in SAAA you may get answers of varying degrees of usefulness none of which carry any weight until you get to the AP. And then what that AP says goes.

Be aware that the capacity to sign off for flight over built up areas is an option that not all APs have chosen to have. Personally I would advise not to go with an AP who doesn’t have that capacity because it is one of your final requirements. Start off with the guy who will do everything to the end.

If you are going to build it and do it with guidance etc from SAAA ( with the many benefits that offers) then there is an expectation you will find an AP before you start. He/She will set up a file on your build, give the advice you are after regarding the engine choices and issues and give you guidance about it right up to giving special airworthiness certification.

A few of my digital subscriptions send email reminders with a link. Works for me, because I keep up with those publications. Others, such as RAA's mag, I haven't remembered to look up for yonks.

Might work if I had time and if I got just one or two emails a day.

I average nearly 50 and sometimes over a hundred emails a day. Even with multiple filters working to thin out what I actually look at I’d still have 30 or so that I have to deal with.

Reminder emails to read an attached journal just go into the bin.

Seems to be the pattern. A few journals and mags I’ve seen go digital and then people stop reading them and they close down.

I’ve stopped reading a number of flying and professional journals because they are just too inconvenient as digital formats.

Saddest indictment - I’ve even stopped reading the one I am a manuscript reviewer for!

If they are a paper version I see them in my briefcase or sitting on my desk or wherever and when I’ve got a spare minute or two I pick them up and read them.

If they are on my iPad I have to consciously think of looking for them because they are now competing with what ever it was I actually opening up the iPad to do.

In others we trust and put our life on the line for, but in the end we are all human and trusting, and hoping that these others lookout for your best interests.

 

I feel for this pilot as he went above and beyond what was required for the flight, only to be let down by someone else not doing properly what he was paid to do.

 

How many out there would have questioned the maintence done?

 

I probably wouldn’t have.

A salutary reminder of the potential lack of quality of maintenance.

And in a way the only way around it is to go into a branch of aviation where you can do your own maintenance and then at least you know it’s been done.

My experience has been that maintenance organisations and individuals do not take kindly to the type of questioning the video suggests pilots should ask after maintenance. If you ask “has everything been done by the book?” - No maintenance professional is going to say “ No”.

so it’s a pointless question. If you get specific about things they’ll get irritated and say it’s been done, even if it hasn’t.

In a lot of our local places I think if you question them to any detail they’ll give all your books and tell you to go away and don’t come back.

My experience was that when I owned an R22 for 6 years. I had failures of something after every 100 hourly, related directly to shoddy work by the only maintainer I had in my area. But my guy wasn’t the only poor operator. In our local area we’ve had multiple examples of accidents and incidents caused by maintenance errors ( multiple different LAME maintainers)

Since I now do my own on my own Jabiru I’ve had none. Nothing like having your own butt in the seat to make you do good maintenance.

I guess what I'm still trying to understand is whether the restriction for "no flight over built-up areas" apply to non-factory built RAA aircraft only? i.e. does this apply to 19-xxxx aircraft but not 24-xxxx aircraft. Well specifically if I wanted to purchase a 2nd hand RAA aircraft, but wanted to be able to fly into Class-D airspace/aerodrome without problems can I basically do that with a 24-xxxx registed, but not a 19-xxxx registered? (still haven't been specifically able to see this distinction in the regs...)

Currently and for about 10 years my mate flies his 19-xxxx jabiru 230 ( built by a home builder) into and out of cairns international airport (class C ) CTR.

He has an RAAus licence and a PPL.

The aircraft is radio and transponder equipped and has a Jabiru engine.

He has no restrictions on flying over built up areas and there is a CASA office here at the airport and he has never been pulled up for doing it.

can only say - I rest my case.

Hey you blokes, I know that we are all good aviators but... Is it possible to use real place names rather than 4letter identifiers. Not everyone has an encyclopedic memory and googling doesn't always work?

Yeah. Sorry about that.

YMEK Is Meekatharra.

If you’ve got Oz Runways you can look it up. I usually have to look up places that are outside my normal haunts.

Read on another thread that an RAAus aircraft had a fuel exhaustion and forced landing off- field near YMEK yesterday.

Two occupants, both Ok.

Mayday called and relayed by RFDS.

Pilot confirmed fuel as cause on radio.

Don’t know any more about it. Anyone hear any more?

Just another reminder about importance of fuel management.

After finally installing the new position for the air intake and changing the NACA scoop to a perpendicular circular inlet - and more importantly FINALLY getting a day without rain - I managed to do some flying today for first time in months - (sorry to all you guys down south in drought but I think we have had about 25 days without rain this year and I'm thoroughly over it)

Back to story.

My range of temps which was from 110 ( CHT. 6) to 165 (CHT 3) with CHTS 3 & 5 climbing to 175-ish on first climb out.

Has now changed to 125-ish to 140-ish across the lot. With none going over 160 in climb out.

This is the best I think I've ever had them so finally I'm happy.

When you plan your flight the crosswind component of your plane must be taken into account and if above your plane's limit you must carry an alternate. So you should have a pretty good idea of what the wind will be when you arrive long before you arrive.. However it's still just a forecast but should be pretty accurate as it's based on a lot of data. .... snip.

I’d have to caution on the likelihood of forecast accuracy for runway/circuit activity.

Personally I’d say it’s almost never what’s forecast.

Usually the winds forecast are area winds at higher altitudes. At ground level they often bear no resemblance to the wind forecast nor to the winds even a couple of hundred feet up.

Oops!

Not only that Nev, but everywhere I fly, the runway number is written in big enough numerals beside the piano keys for even me with my 72yr old eyes, to read as I turn final!

I have done lake eyre sightseeing on three occasions but all were in the 20 to 8 years ago period. Did them all on safaris “while we were passing”. Even landed on the edge in an R44 on one trip. ( wouldn’t land on the lake bed though! Thin crust of salt/sand with a black sludge underneath. But I frequently see items on various Facebook pages and on the news and it seems it probably has gotten busier.

What I can tell you though is that there is a lot of traffic over the lake when there’s water in it.

Also there can be lots of birds - Pelicans are pretty big and could make a hell of a mess if you had one end up in the cockpit with you!

Birds often congregate in particular areas but move around so having conversations with the pilots of the tour operators is useful to keep aware of where they might be.

There’s a local CTAF frequency and its worth talking to the pilots while you are in the area. Also worthwhile making a few phone calls to the local operators to find out where they are operating and what times. They often just do fairly fixed times and routes so you will then know where to avoid etc.

I’d agree entirely that building makes you know the aircraft way better and helps in later troubleshooting etc.

Equally I enjoyed the build although I found it very frustrating because the early Jabiru manuals were very difficult to follow for a neophyte builder. However their manuals now are light years better ( I like to think it was some of my considered and constructive criticisms that I sent them that changed it. Maybe not but I like to think it.)

But everything is a trade off.

No help if it takes you so long you never end up flying it.

Something that I have seen in my area - and I’m speaking from perspective of an active builder in the Sport Aircraft Association ( the GA home build Arena) is that in the current age demographic that mostly makes up recreational aviation you really have to consider never finishing a build as a very real possibility.

You say you’re not that young any more ( but didnt say exactly how old) but statistically more of our members aircraft projects don’t get completed than do.

The other statistic is that ( published about 5 or so years ago) the average time for a completion of a home build was 7 years)

The reasons for failure to complete are mostly health and age related but also economic ( and as age increased economics of health problems increased)

Generally people start to build and then have a health crisis and never quite get back to it. I personally have known several who ended up capable of flying ( with a safety pilot ) but their health changes made them decide continuing the building was no longer a viable option.

Nowadays my advice to older new pilots with a bent on building is not to. Just buy something now and go flying.