djpacro

That's what I would expect. However prior to the correction of crew moment arm the factory manual showed 2 people on board at 90 kg each being OK - without that forward ballast I would expect a quite different behaviour. To illustrate:

That too. Yes, but the wrong crew moment arm was in the manual so the pilots did not know their CG was further back.

You probably missed the saga prior to your 5 years with it? Much happened after that. I was following it all but I'm sure I don't know the whole story. Some years ago, one of my friends sought a dual flight in a Bristell at a flight school. He was told they didn’t do stalls in them! A year or so later a CASA examiner told me that pilots were presenting themselves for flight tests in Bristells and refusing to stall them for the test. Why was that? I spoke to some Bristell flight instructors. In 2020, CASA issued a safety notice for flight schools operating Bristells which “prohibited from conducting an intentional stall of the aircraft, or from performing any flight training activities that could reasonably lead to an unintended stall …” CASA then “sought confirmation from the manufacturer as to compliance with the ASTM LSA standards and, in particular, spin compliance flight testing. At the present time, CASA has not received sufficient assurance as to the extent of such testing, including testing covering each design variant.” It seemed to me that BRM had shown compliance with the spin requirements (I reviewed the reports) but CASA was stuck on the thought that it must not comply because of the spin accidents but unable to identify any specific issues with the test reports. Then we got some independent flight tests of an in-service aeroplane with questions as to the conformity of the particular aeroplane and conduct of the tests. All a little murky as to who authorised these tests. Certainly not CASA. I did a W&B calculation from the data in the manual. Two people at 90 kg each right on the aft limit. Then there was another airworthiness alert! The crew moment arm in the manual was incorrect. W&B section of the manual was rewritten to make comparisons difficult. The same two 90 kg people now put the CG way way behind the aft limit! Aeroplanes were reweighed and ballast added firewall forward to move the empty CG forward. Moving the CG forward has a beneficial effect on handling characteristics, especially stalling and spinning. All the issues seemed to disappear overnight. No more said that I am aware of. The whole saga certainly showed the incompetence of some at the factory, RAA and CASA. Some at the regulatory authority especially were out of their depth.

Australia's rules for LSA are unique to Australia. Europe is different. USA even more. https://www.australianflying.com.au/recreational/raaus-to-go-the-full-mosaic good to be optimistic but .....

Nice aeroplane. I met John Isaacs and saw the prototype when I was in the UK back then.

My friend, John Biggs, built his in the '70s. I visited the Taylor family in the UK back then.

Easily resolved, just ask CASA https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/contact-us

True, a pilot must be authorised by someone to be PIC. The thing about the definition of PIC is that it can onlty be a pilot in the aeroplane during that flight. So, for a solo student flight, it is obvious that the student is authorised to be the PIC, as there are no other options.

They weren't regarded as police matters, rather failures of the flight schools' systems. No instructor authorisation. An example of insurance excess considerations. I agree, a departure from the rest of our discussion. CASA's legal definition, per Part 61 (so not RAA) of a "pilot" means "a person authorised under this Part to manipulate the flight controls of an aircraft during flight." When solo, the student is the pilot, the only person, the only pilot in the aeroplane. So, yes, the pilot in command. In CASRs Part 61 and Parts 141/142 (which don't apply to RAA), an instructor has obligations in approving a solo flight by a student. Then off they go on their merry ways, nil obligation to supervise the flight. On completion of a flight the instructor would take an interest in what was undertaken for the training records of progress. Instructors do like to sit on the bench outside with a radio and observe a first solo (and listen to radio calls).

Yes. I know of several incidents where a student took an aeroplane without being authorised by an instructor. One resulted in a bad crash at Moorabbin. Another took my aeroplane from a flight school to fly without authority, fortunately, no accident - but if there was, only one party was involved throughout to write a name on the insurance claim. Both were pilot in command, obviously.

My observations from working as an instructor at several CASA approved flight schools and one combined CASA/RAA is: The instructor will never be responsible for the insurance excess, being the employee of the flight school. A pilot, even a student, signs whatever it is for the flight to be authorised so he/she can go off to fly an aeroplane as pilot in command. The fine print that is being signed for (whether it is a paper sign-out system or electronic) will refer to the flight school's T&Cs which few people bother to look at. It will include insurance information including responsibility for insurance excess which typically says that the hirer of the aeroplane (regardless of licence status) is responsible however there is generally a note stating that the flight school may waive the fee (which they normally do for an accident). When I went to do some flying in a Gazelle to gain my RAA certificate I leant that the aircraft was not insured, it just had the RAA third party cover. When a pilot signs that they have read the T&Cs before they go flying then they have confirmed that they have been told about the insurance excess. The excess for my airplane is $2500 - huge for some people but similar to hiring a car of very muich lower value.

Sorry, try the public page. Some recent activity there. Name of the President is mentioned. I know one of the people in a recent photo there. https://www.facebook.com/ColdstreamFlyersClub?

This still appears active online at Coldstream Flyers Aero Club Members | Facebook

Yes indeed. Biden's time was a debacle and we have been saved from a disastrous Harris. I lived in the USA for several years and wanted to stay longer - if I had been there as a younger man I probably would've stayed the rest of my life. The UK is off my list of countries to visit again, Australia has been heading down the same dangerous path. I'm off to enjoy my American airplanes, my American car and to visit Oshkosh this year. I'll leave you all to it.

CASA has this sensible new AC:

Land and Land Ownership | Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping "Apart from these and other similar statutory exceptions, the surface owner does own the airspace above their land in the sense that, subject to building regulations, they are fully entitled to extend their occupation of the air, for example, by building high-rise developments. However, judgements in recent cases are interpreted to mean that an owner's rights extend only as far as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land."

Hopefully some-one can help you with that. CASA flight school Operations Manuals generally have the specific base(s) identified, even those of us who have one of the new-fangled Become a single-person instructor flight training operation | Civil Aviation Safety Authority - however, I see provision for a temporary Flight training locations | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (educating myself here). Unfortunately, CASA's website does not help finding Part 141 flight schools. My suggestion: look more widely than this website. Perhaps approach some flight schools directly. It is going to need an experienced instructor with the appropriate authorisations to do it all.

Not going to get approved for a "FACTORY BUILT TYPE ACCEPTED 95.55", especially an LSA. You'd need to prove compliance with the ASTM specification.

and doing "it", the approval of a change, "right" for a "factory built type accepted" aircraft, especially an LSA is where all the work is

Perhaps there is a factory option and an associated flight manual supplement? I believe that you have a 24 series registration "FACTORY BUILT TYPE ACCEPTED 95.55" which obliges you to follow specific rules about any modifications to the aeroplane OR .... not.

Not necessarily. My POH for the Sportstar states "Minimum weight of crew ... 55 kg". It is not the only aeroplane where the loading system requires ballast with petite pilots. Yes, I think that you have it right too. But I'm a "has been", of course. Weight Control Authority for about 40 years.

I've been through that. I found an appropriate POH and Maintenance Manual - the latter has the moment arms same as you stated. Your spreadsheet seems fine to me. My wife and I total about 150 kg and she would want to take more luggage than the 15 kg max of the Sportstar. Lucky, we have a different type. Max baggage is 15 kg and max fuel is 65 litres regardless of balance.

Great stuff.

Which model of the Sportstar? The POH for the Sportstar Max that I grabbed from online is different. It has fuel arm of 26.75 in (679 mm) and baggage arm of 43.65 in (1083 mm) assuming my arithmetic is correct! Crew moment arm is also different from your spreadsheet - 545 vs 500 mm. Suggestion: to check your spreadsheet use the example given in the POH. And ignore those who say use different datums etc, just follow the POH and the TCDS.

browser tripled it