Garfly

Don't worry about our Major, he's flexible. He'll give anything a go, once. ;-)

 

 

 

Hey Frank,

 

I've been enjoying the Drifter pics and stories.

 

Here are some more of you, your flying-machine and home-strip, taken this time last year.

 

gary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The End ... unless:

 

 

Apart from how spookily relevant this film remains, what's fascinating is the extent to which the resources of Hollywood (imaginative and otherwise) were thrown into the war effort - even training films.

 

I've heard that film industry workers were 'protected' from the draft. I can see why that might have been so.

 

 

 

Hey Doug, you'll be pleased to know that real-men can also fly Skyrangers ;-)

 

 

 

 

Yes, I've heard that it happened on late downwind for Runway 17 at Cessnock. The pilot was a member of the Hunter Recreational Flying Club based at YCNK.

 

 

Here's the poster:

 

 

 

Yeah, with two up, you have to fit all the luggage (15Kg max.) into a bag that hangs behind seats, above the fuel tank.

 

Here is a mini SKRA convention at YPEF (Penfield, near Melbourne) a couple of years ago.

 

They've definitely got prettier with successive models. That's the Nynja in front flanked by two Swifts. (Short wing variants of the original design.)

 

 

(Sorry to hijack your thread, Shafs. Somehow we've arrived long ago and far away from the Thread title. ;-)

 

But, a great segue back to the Watts Bridge area is to mention the great series of videos that Scott, and his wife Chris, have made 'Flying Around' in their Nynja:

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCscotthendry

 

But anyway, you've put the idea into my head about trying to get up there myself for that event.

 

 

Actually, Tex, luggagibility was one of the strong suites for me with the type.

 

Typically an empty weight of 270 and a MTOW of 540.

 

Comes down to a friend, maybe four hours endurance and still room for camping gear and a toothbrush.

 

 

It's worse in a car ... you just step on it and off you go! ;-)

 

 

That's not over-engineeed.

 

THIS is over-engineered:

 

 

 

Let's just say a senior primate with a flying frame, AKA: Skyranger.

 

... which is basically an aerial walking frame built for two.

 

(And thus the soundtrack of this video:

 

)Then again Scott - a more recent pic below - may turn up in his fancy new Czech job, AKA: Aeropilot Legend.

 

 

 

The NASA test flight videos are really informative. They are made for and by the technical teams for their own purposes. There's real time commentary from the test pilot and complete, continuos imagery from purpose built ground based cameras.

 

 

 

Don't be fooled by the picture Shafs. It was taken years ago; in his prime.

 

Keep an eye out for an old silver back.

 

 

A hiccup along the way. Test pilot/designer saved by BRS.

 

 

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Aeromobil-Flying-Car-Crashed-Pilot-OK-224052-1.html

 

 

Yes, and I suggested to the Flylight video person that an extended documentary on how a typical certification test program works in the UK - if they could manage it - would interest many of us. As to the control positions - at least in the Eurofox clip - you can almost see (and hear) all that's going on. In these cosy wee cockpits the knees must needs betray what the feet are up to. ;-)

 

 

In the UK some of our types get spun during the certification process.

 

(Though obviously not normally approved for it.)

 

Here is a video of a recent flight test of an updated version of the Skyranger Swift:

 

 

 

Meanwhile ... this was Picture of the Week on AvWeb this week:

 

http://www.avweb.com/gallery/Picture-of-the-Week-223802-1.html

 

 

 

Yeah, thanks for the info Jabiruken. But you mentioned earlier that you believed - or it was found that - the aircraft itself was actually 'innocent' in this case. So it might, then, be seen as a 'bum-rap' for the whole 19 reg. concept.

 

 

That's interesting. But I wonder if the coroner knew, or would've found relevant, the distinction between a 19 aircraft owned by its assembler or by someone subsequent. The point being that in the former case MARAP will remain no instrument at all.

 

There's the rub.

 

 

I'd have thought that the simpler 'legal way forward' for 19-xxxx (also the most logical, consistent and no less safe way) is to just clarify the notion that builder rights, vis-a-vis mods, flow on to subsequent owners.

 

(Confident that outright dodgy-practice is sufficiently constrained by existing instruments.)

 

Which, according to many here who've taken the trouble to go searching, seems, indeed, to be the implication of the laws as they stand. At least no one has yet pointed to the exact clause which contradicts that.

 

I hope CASA come to see it that way.

 

How could it be regarded as making consistent (safety) sense, otherwise?

 

It's really part of the whole homebuilt recreational flying idea to be able, with minimum fuss (whilst living with certain restrictions) to make - or have competently made - improvements to one's (#19) aircraft; for better safety and better enjoyment.

 

Of course, many of the things one wants to do would hardly effect the integrity of the original design. It can, indeed, be stuff like swapping out electronics, even a new thermos clamp or map pocket.

 

But one fears, if one goes asking for it, a TSO-like regime being imposed, like in GA. One fears that the whole activity will lose much of its point, and for no substantive reason. Okay, as Jetjr has suggested above, maybe a 'minor mod' exemption will be built into the new system. That'd probably work, if the legal drafters can be persuaded to make those complicated distinctions; to take the trouble. If I was a regulator, though, I might be tempted to take the easier and most ass-covering option.

 

In any case, what about the huge load of paperwork and engineering processing that will descend on the staff at head office; all the anger and frustration that'll come with. It won't be easy. I do feel for our administrators existing between that rock and that hard place.

 

 

But Andy has already told us (post #28) that the board was not involved in this decision. So I don't think it's fair to have a crack at our hardworking and conscientious reps. [but on face value it does appear to be a major blow to the whole idea of second-hand homebuilt aircraft ownership. No more mods to 19 cat. aircraft without MARAP approval - unless you happened to have put the kit together yourself.

 

Andy said:

 

"BTW the board were aware of the marap process only slightly before you guys in that its an operational issue between the CEO and the Tech team, there is no question of strategy or governance and as such we leave it to those that are charged with the responsibility to deliver....."

 

But to me there is so much unnecessary mystery surrounding this whole thing.

 

Why was this major new restriction to the way maybe 50% (a guess) of members are allowed to operate their aircraft just tacked on as a kind of afterthought to a minor regulatory fix (albeit an important and welcome one to those affected).

 

Suddenly it seems that 19 category homebuilts will be treated like certified aircraft as far as modifications are concerned. This is huge.

 

Some, reportedly, say 'well, it's just a regularisation of what was always actually the legal case'. Others here deny that. But who, here - or at RAAus for that matter - ever knew about that? And/or acted as if it actually was the case?

 

What really is the legal situation?

 

Is this an idea hatched in our head office (maybe for very good reasons, but we need to know what they are) or is it something that has been absolutely imposed by CASA?

 

We need to know the genesis of this new ruling - or new understanding or whatever it is.

 

Any defence of these new (?) rules on safety grounds simply breaks down when it's seen to apply only to the non-builder-owners and their 19 cat. craft - though the perceived perils can scarcely be seen as different. In fact, the new ruling itself is a safety threat because it means that owners will be constrained in or discouraged from making - or ordering - needed safety improvements to the aircraft they buy, or worse, have already bought with an eye to fixing them. (Believing that to be legal.)

 

And how are those pro aero-engineers, referred to in the MARAP FAQ, supposed to gain intimate knowledge of all the myriad homebuilt types out there so that they can properly make their (expensive) determinations ... as to, say, whether a new cup holder* or compass or ballistic parachute or fuel tank or engine change-out, whatever, is to be deemed permissible?

 

Maybe these fears are misplaced. (I keep saying that I must have it wrong ;-) Maybe it'll actually be an easy and quick process in most cases and maybe this new regularisation (if such it be) will indeed open up ways for us all to get additional privileges from CASA. Maybe it does herald a bright new future with a friendlier regulator. But that's not necessarily the impression one is getting.

 

Anyway we just need to know ... and soon. People could be spending time and money right now on what are (all of a sudden) illegal improvements to their bought 19 cat. aircraft.

 

So if Andy and Ross and co. could assist by sussing out some of this stuff with head office and letting us know here it'd really help a lot.

 

(* By the way, that's not to suggest that a poorly installed cup-holder could not bring an aircraft (or car) to grief. It could. But there are already legal instruments - and common sense principles - in place to minimise that risk. The new arrangements do little to eliminate it.)

 

 

Andy@Coffs wrote that:

 

".... BTW the issues this process deals with are discussed in this thread http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/the-effect-of-the-audit-dang.54171/

 

It's interesting, though, that throughout that thread the general presumption seems to be that dropping back to 19 rego would be a way of getting around the (second-hand) factory built, prop-certification problem.

 

In fact that's the understanding underpinning much of what I've seen discussed here over recent years around regulatory issues.

 

So there's heaps of "incompetence" to go around (see Jetjr's post #43 above). It's a wonder that the competent ones didn't pipe up more often to set us to rights.

 

 

One reading of the third par of Darren's letter:

 

"All items that have been previously incorporated on amateur builds will remain valid and we already have a few processes underway to help members with major concerns. This will be a step forward for most of the membership who in the past have not had clear direction and have down various mods under a shadow of doubt."

 

... suggests that modifications completed by March 20th 2015 will remain 'valid' for non-builder owners of 19-xxxx aircraft. Okay, so actions that were valid last Thursday are now, presto, invalid. So that implies an overnight change of law, right?

 

So why were people not given due warning so that they could, say, have a parachute fitted - or even a windscreen replaced - before administrators and aeronautical engineers became involved and tripled (?) the cost? And/or grounded the aircraft for a year while a far-away boffin researches the myriad design features of the ... let's see, of the ... Acme SuperFlyer MkIIIA, 1965 model - and finally consults his insurance broker on the likely premium-hit for signing off on that particular (heretofore perfectly allowable and unremarkable) modification.

 

Darren reassuringly refers to having "a few processes under way to help members with major concerns".

 

Well, here's a few more Q's I'd add to those 'Frequently Asked' ones:

 

What are those processes?

 

And where is the list of foreseen circumstances and possible exceptions they address?

 

And ... if a member happens to be planning to finish off some (once legal, now illegal) mods to his or her aircraft this very weekend, should he or she down tools immediately, ground the aircraft, and start form-filling?

 

And how, by the way, is the safety and integrity of the fleet now 'compliant' and properly under-control when it's only the second-hand 19 rego'd aircraft that are covered by this new (and oh, so vital) ruling? How is this protecting anyone in any meaningful way?

 

Also this sentence also has me wondering:

 

"This in time will show that we are compliant and will aid the management team when we approach CASA to increase the members privileges."

 

If the management team is facing problems with the regulator and is trying to find ways to solve them, even exploring ways to get us extra privileges (Class-C transit ? ;-) why wouldn't they explain that to us; involve the membership in the problem and in the process? In the likely costs and benefits? We're adults, we can handle a little detail. (Hell, we've even passed the Human Factors exam!) Maybe then, as a group, we'd come over a bit appreciative of management efforts. As, no doubt, we should, really.

 

But why this top-down approach? Springing nasty surprises on us, so that we're just left wondering why.

 

There is now even a regular email newsletter. How about less coverage of staff members' hobbies and favourite colours etc. and a bit more meat. What are the problems, really? What is CASA demanding of us and why? What more might they offer us and what not? And for what quid pro quo?

 

It seems that government by captain's-call is catching in Canberra.

 

But hey, Prince Phillip can keep his new lifetime Pilot Certificate just as long as I can have my windscreen competently replaced without the whole world needing to get involved. Why else are we in RAAus?

 

And frankly, the whole world has better things to do.

 

 

Yeah, and whereas I'm very happy to see owner-builder mates benefitting from that exemption, it makes hardly any sense from a safety perspective.

 

A builder - with a bad attitude - is as capable of making dodgy mods as is a downstream buyer of similar disposition. What's the point? What's going on?

 

 

Herewith, the correspondence I've just had with Darren on the issue:

 

Dear RAAus,

 

Surely I’ve got this wrong! Right?

 

I’ve read the FAQ.

 

Are you really saying that as of RIGHT NOW (without so much as any discussion or warning)

 

I am suddenly unable to make any alterations to my bought - not built - 19 aircraft without going through

 

an expensive and time wasting process?

 

(Presumably, even clearly safety enhancing alterations like, maybe a parachute or better fuel tank or whatever.)

 

I must have it wrong. Nothing so drastic could come out of nowhere in a democracy.

 

And it’s being touted as a WIN? I’m missing something.

 

I must have it wrong. But if I haven’t got it wrong. Well may you say ‘STAY CALM’.

 

It’d back to GA then. Or LSA experimental. Or something.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

G’day Gary,

 

In regards to 19 Amateur builds, MARAP is only applicable to those who have purchased the aircraft from either the original or second plus owners. As the current rule states, A person or group of persons must fabricate or manufacture the major portion (51%) for education and recreation that then allows them to gain the ability to modify and maintain the aircraft. If the original owner did the mods on behalf of subsequent owners this is totally legal.

 

MARAP was intentionally designed for the type certified legacy or heritage aircraft that over time have been modified. The problem was back in the day they wasn’t any ability in legislation that allowed it unless it held an Australian type certificate.

 

All items that have been previously incorporated on amateur builds will remain valid and we already have a few processes underway to help members with major concerns. This will be a step forward for most of the membership who in the past have not had clear direction and have down various mods under a shadow of doubt.

 

This is a new process that is designed to aid the membership with a path to compliance that RA-Aus or the old AUF never had. This in time will show that we are compliant and will aid the management team when we approach CASA to increase the members privileges

 

Happy to assist further or discuss next week. Thanks for taking the time to ask these questions and please feed this back to the membership or get them to shoot me an email.

 

Regards,

 

Darren Barnfield

 

National Technical Manager

 

CASA Authorised Person 1-13BVSM issue 01

 

Part 66 License 434006

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Darren,

 

thanks a lot for taking the time to get back to me.

 

I’m still a bit vague. It seems to me to be very widely (mis)understood within the rec aviation community

 

that even second-hand 19 aircraft can be modified (of course, only by approved qualified people).

 

And that this new MARAP regime will seem to represent a major change to that arrangement.

 

Seemingly out of the blue.

 

I am relatively new to the RAAus scene, but from all the listening and reading and socialising

 

I’ve done over the past couple of years it seems everyone I come across has the above understanding.

 

Apparently all wrongly.

 

So I imagine that this will really be throwing a cat among the pigeons.

 

No doubt it will all become clear when the smoke clears but my current take on the issue

 

is that the intended (good) consequences of this change will be quite overshadowed by

 

the (bad) unintended (?) consequences. Another regulatory/engineering morass.

 

But, again, I’m sure I’m not yet really getting it.

 

But let’s just take the examples I mentioned. Would I need to go MARAP to get an airframe parachute

 

installed on my second-hand Skyranger? Or, if I was to think about installing the new Aussie designed

 

wing tanks (an improvement developed with the cooperation of the original French designer) ?

 

If so, I probably wouldn’t bother with either. For no good reasons. None at all.

 

Quite the opposite.

 

And to what regulatory end?

 

all the best,

 

Gary.