Head in the clouds

Here's an ultralight that only a few of you might remember. Believe or not, and depending on the interpretation of the rules, it actually complied with the weight and wing-loading rules of the first ANO 95.10 i.e. was under 115kg empty weight and had a wing-loading of less than 4lb/sqft ... It was built and flown in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Looking at that tiny wing, how can that be? Anyone know the story(s) about the plane and who the builder was and what happened?

Someone once said something about people who "protesteth too much" ... It's one thing how we used to be able to fly without a pilot certificate but we ought to keep in mind that at the same time we weren't allowed above 500ft and neither could we cross roads. That kept us flying around low level in a farmers paddock and you couldn't go anywhere in a practical sense. Not only that, but we had to (or were supposed to) be only flying aircraft that had an empty weight of below 254lbs (115kg) with a max wing-loading of 4lbs/sqft (19kg/sqm). As anyone who was flying them back then would be well aware, it was quite possible to build aircraft that were compliant and some of us did, but the things were just 'paddock butterflies' and after the initial thrill of just getting airborne we quickly grew tired of that and wanted to be able to 'go somewhere'. Consequently, by 1980 there was hardly an Australian-built ultralight that actually complied with ANO 95.10, although we purportedly flew '95.10 ultralights'. For many years the DoA turned a blind eye but people like Veenstra and Betteridge and others were building faster and faster and more capable aircraft, and Winton and similar were building them heavier and heavier until something had to snap eventually. That time came when fatalities became more prevalent and featured a bit too often in the media - unlicenced people flying illegal aircraft and killing themselves - and there were plenty of even more illegal two seaters getting around also (Veenstra and I had both built two by then, several 'fat' ultralights from USA had been imported, I think Steve Cohen had a two seat Thrustery thing, and so on) so by 1983 it was clear that people wanted more than 95.10 offered and some form of formal training and pilot certification would be inevitable if folks wanted to carry passengers and mix it with GA in the airspace above 500ft. Incidentally, we initially got the up to 500ft rule because the original 95.10 was written based on the airspace permitted for use by model aircraft. And - it's not comparing apples with apples to say that in USA they can fly their Pt103s around without a licence or a medical ... well, yes they can, but their 103s have to comply with even more onerous design restrictions than our 95.10 (issue 1) planes had. Theirs have to have a minimum controllable speed of just 28mph/24kts and can't carry more than 5US gallons of fuel (about 16 litres) - try 'going somewhere in that' ... whereas our current 95.10 (was Issue 5, then Instrument 2011 and that's apparently now repealed - anyone point me at the current one ...?) allows us to build, fly and personally maintain virtually anything as long as it has one seat, MTOW less than 300kg and a wing-loading of maximum 30kg/sqm. Which is WAY heavier wing-loading than our original 19kg/sqm or the USA's Pt103 planes. And extra weight is allowed for float/seaplanes and for ballistic recovery systems. With a bit of ingenuity someone could relatively easily build a very practical personal twin-jet for very fast cross country use by giving it a swing-wing or other form of variable geometry, so, since it was we who didn't stick within the restrictions of 95.10, we can hardly blame CASA, RAAus or anyone else except ourselves, that what we now have is different from the USA's Pt103. From another point of view - I'm quite sure that if anyone wanted to fly an extremely low wing-loading aircraft around their own private paddock, below 500ft and without crossing a road, that they'd not run foul of any Regulator. I haven't heard of a regulator chasing people flying legally or illegally as long as they stay low over their private property - they don't have the time for that. Just as we only began to come under scrutiny in the early ultralight days once we started to regularly fly cross-country. Which brings me to another funny story from the early 1980s about a bunch of ultralighters leading the Regulator on a merry chase from airfield to airfield - but perhaps I should leave that one for another time. As for "Who is the current RA-Aus qualified multi electric or jet engine instructor???" - well I reckon it's pretty good that once we have a pilot certificate, we still have the freedom to jump into our personal twin jet with multi-electric-motors for vertical take-off and landing, and fly it without having to get a multi-engine endorsement nor a helicopter or hovercraft licence, so I'm happy with that ... (makes personal note for next build project )

We've had this discussion a few times before. You're only restricted to a single engine with one propellor if you're building in the 95.55 (two seat 600kg MTOW) category. Assuming it's a single seat aircraft you're talking about, and the OP is about a single seater, then there's nothing to stop you building a Multi-engine Electric aircraft under CAO 95.10 in Australia. Under 95.10 you can have as many engines/motors and/or props as you like. Note the "OR" props - there's nothing to say you have to have them, so you can build a multi-engined jet if you want. See CAO 95.10 below - > > > Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2011 1 Name of instrument This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2011. 2 Commencement This instrument commences on the day after it is registered. 3 New Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Civil Aviation Order 95.10 is repealed and a new Civil Aviation Order 95.10 is substituted as set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — low‑momentum ultralight aeroplanes 1 Application This Order applies to a low-momentum ultralight aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (a) the aeroplane is registered with the RAA or, if the aeroplane is a weight‑shift controlled aeroplane, with the HGFA; (b) the aeroplane is a single-place aeroplane that has a take-off weight of not more than: (i) if it is equipped to land on water — 335 kilograms; or (ii) if it is equipped with a recovery parachute system — 320 kilograms; or (iii) if it is equipped to land on water and has a parachute recovery system — not more than 355 kilograms; or (iv) in any other case — 300 kilograms; © if the aeroplane first became registered with the RAA or the HGFA on, or after, 1 March 1990: (i) the aeroplane was privately built; and (ii) the aeroplane has a wing loading not greater than 30 kilograms per square metre at maximum all-up weight; and (iii) if the aeroplane is owned by a person who is not the builder or 1 of the builders — a certificate is in force that has been issued by the RAA or the HGFA which certifies that the aeroplane meets the requirements set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be. 2 Definitions 2.1 In this Order: Act means the Civil Aviation Act 1988. aerial application operation has the same meaning as in regulation 137.010 of CASR 1998. approved kit means a kit for the assembly of an aeroplane, being a kit: (a) that was manufactured by the holder of a certificate of approval in relation to the manufacture of kits of that kind; or (b) that was manufactured in accordance with an approval given by CASA; or © if the kit was exported to Australia — in relation to which there has been issued, by the appropriate authority of the country from which the kit was exported, a certificate that is acceptable to CASA and that relates to the airworthiness of the aeroplane that can be assembled from the kit; or (d) in relation to which the RAA or the HGFA has issued a certificate stating that the kit meets the standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be. CAR 1988 means the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988. CASR 1998 means the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. closely-settled area, in relation to an aeroplane, means an area in which, because of: (a) man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles; and (b) the characteristics of the aeroplane; the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aircraft or damaging property in the area. ELT means emergency locator transmitter. flight radiotelephone operator licence means a flight radiotelephone operator licence granted under Part 5 of CAR 1988. HGFA means the Hang Gliding Federation of Australia Inc. HGFA Operations Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the HGFA and contains the procedures and instructions necessary to ensure the safe operation of aeroplanes registered with the HGFA, and also, in respect of those aeroplanes, contains: (a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and (b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes. immediate family, in relation to a person, means the person’s spouse, parents and children (if any). Order means Civil Aviation Order. person does not include a body corporate. pilot certificate means a pilot certificate issued by the RAA or the HGFA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be. public road means a street, road, lane, thoroughfare or place open to, or used by, the public for passage of vehicles. RAA means Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated. RAA Operations Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the RAA and contains the procedures and instructions necessary to ensure the safe operation of aeroplanes registered with the RAA. RAA Technical Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the RAA and contains: (a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and (b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes; in respect of aeroplanes registered with the RAA. recognised standard part means a part specified in the list of standard parts for aeroplanes to which this Order applies that is included in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual. suitable landing area means an area in which an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane. take-off weight, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, means the total weight of the aeroplane when it begins to taxi before taking off, including the weight of the pilot and of fuel, oil, recovery and personnel parachutes, flotation equipment, items of optional equipment, tools and baggage. 2.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3, for this Order an aeroplane is privately built only if: (a) the aeroplane was built by a person, or was jointly built by not more than 4 persons, with a view to the aeroplane being owned by the person, or by 1 or more of the persons, who built it; and (b) the person, or each of the persons, who built the aeroplane was, at the time of completion of the aeroplane, an eligible private builder; and © the aeroplane: (i) was designed by its builder, or by 1 or more of its builders; or (ii) was built in accordance with a set of drawings or a data package, or a set of drawings and a data package, approved, in writing, by the RAA or the HGFA; or (iii) was built from a kit approved by the RAA or the HGFA; and (d) except in a case to which sub-subparagraph © (iii) applies — the parts from which the aeroplane was built (other than any recognised standard parts) were made by, or at the direction of, the person, or 1 or more of the persons, who built the aeroplane. 2.3 CASA may determine, in writing, that an aeroplane to which this Order would not otherwise apply: (a) substantially complies with specifications set out in this Order; and (b) may safely be operated in accordance with its conditions. 2.4 The operator of an aeroplane, the subject of a determination under paragraph 2.3, may operate the aeroplane in accordance with this Order, subject to compliance with any additional condition that CASA mentions in that determination. 2.5 The RAA or the HGFA may exercise a power under this Order only in relation to an aeroplane that it is entitled to register, being, in the case of the HGFA, a weight‑shift controlled aeroplane only. 2.6 For this Order, a person is, at the time the building of an aeroplane is completed, an eligible private builder only if the person has not, within the preceding 12 months, whether alone or jointly with another person or other persons, completed building another low-momentum ultralight aeroplane that satisfies the requirements of subparagraph 1 ©. 3 Exemptions under regulation 308 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988: (a) Parts 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 5; (b) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment; © regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157; (d) paragraph 166A (2) (f) in respect of powered parachutes; (e) Division 4 of Part 13; (f) regulations 207, 208 and 230; (g) subregulation 242 (2); (h) regulations 252 and 258; (i) regulation 322. 4 Licence not required 4.1 For section 20AB of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aeroplane to which this Order applies without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsections 5 and 6. 4.2 In spite of paragraph 4.1, a person must hold a flight radiotelephone operator licence if he or she makes airborne radio transmissions on aeronautical HF frequencies. Note A licence is not required to make airborne radio transmissions that are not on aeronautical HF frequencies. 5 General conditions The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane, are subject to the following general conditions: (a) there must be clearly displayed in the aeroplane, in a position visible to the pilot when occupying the control seat, a sign stating that: (i) CASA does not guarantee the airworthiness of the aeroplane; and (ii) whichever body registered the aeroplane, being the RAA or HGFA, does not guarantee the airworthiness of the aeroplane; (iii) the pilot operates the aeroplane at the pilot’s own risk; (b) the aeroplane must not be used in aerial application operations; © the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than: (i) the personal carriage of the pilot; or (ii) the aerial inspection, conducted as a private operation, of stock, fencing or farm or pastoral equipment that is located on land owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or a member or members of the pilot’s immediate family; Note Conduct as a private operation means that no remuneration must be received by the pilot of the aircraft or the owner (subregulation 2 (7) of CAR 1988). (d) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person: (i) holds a valid pilot certificate; and (ii) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate; (e) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be; (f) the aeroplane must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be. 6 Flight conditions 6.1 Subject to paragraph 8.5, an aeroplane to which this Order applies may only be flown subject to the following conditions: (a) the aeroplane must not be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level unless 1 of the conditions set out in paragraph 7.1 is complied with; (b) subject to paragraph 6.3, the aeroplane must not be operated above a body of water at a horizontal distance from a suitable landing area of more than: (i) the distance that the aeroplane can glide in the case of engine failure; or (ii) if in accordance with paragraph 6.2 — 25 nautical miles; © the aeroplane must only be flown in: (i) Class G airspace; or (ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.; or (iii) in accordance with paragraph 6.4 — Class A, B, C or D airspace; Note Classes of airspace are defined in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement. (d) the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area designated as an area where the operation of low-momentum ultralight aeroplanes would constitute a hazard to other aircraft; (e) the aeroplane must only be flown in V.M.C.; (f) the aeroplane must only be flown during daylight hours; (g) the aeroplane must not be flown over any closely-settled area; (h) the aeroplane must not be flown in acrobatic flight; (i) if the aeroplane is fitted with radiotelephone equipment, the radiotelephone equipment must not be used by a person unless the person holds: (i) for all transmissions — a valid flight radiotelephone operator licence; or (ii) only for transmissions that use aeronautical VHF frequencies or are made in accordance with paragraph 4.2 — a valid certificate, issued by the RAA or the HGFA, in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be, relating to the operation of radiotelephone equipment. 6.2 Subject to paragraph 6.3, an aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown over a body of water up to a horizontal distance from a suitable landing area of not more than 25 nautical miles if: (a) the pilot is wearing a life jacket; and (b) the aeroplane is equipped with a serviceable radiocommunication system and: (i) an approved ELT, or approved portable ELT, within the meaning of regulation 252A of CAR 1988; or (ii) a personal locator beacon that has been approved by CASA for use in that aeroplane on such flights. 6.3 In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in paragraph 6.2, an aeroplane to which that limit would otherwise apply may be flown between Tasmania and mainland Australia, in either direction by a longer route, if taking advantage of safer weather conditions. 6.4 An aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown inside Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the aeroplane is approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in regard to flights over closely-settled areas; (b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of Civil Aviation Order 101.55 applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft to which this section applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight; © the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control; (d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a valid pilot licence (not being a student pilot licence): (i) issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988; and (ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace; (e) the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988; (f) if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace. Note Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with a permission issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988. 7 Provisions relating to flight height limitations 7.1 For subparagraph 6.1 ©, an aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown at less than 500 feet above ground level over land owned by a person (including the Crown) if: (a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or (b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or © the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or (d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying. 7.2 Except when taking off or landing, an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level must be at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from: (a) a public road; or (b) a person, other than a person associated with the operation of the aeroplane; or © a dwelling, except with the permission of the occupier. 7.3 When taking off or landing an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level the pilot must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a person or place referred to in subparagraph 7.2 (a), (b) or © that may be less than 100 metres but is: (a) enough to avoid endangering any person or causing damage to any property; and (b) as far as possible from such a person or place, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing. 7.4 An aeroplane to which this Order applies may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it in accordance with subparagraph 6.1 (i). 7.5 An aeroplane to which this Order applies may only be flown at a height of more than 10 000 feet above mean sea level in accordance with an approval given by CASA under paragraph 8.3. 8 Approval of flights not complying with flight conditions 8.1 A person who wants to fly an aeroplane to which this Order applies, otherwise than in accordance with the flight conditions set out in subsection 6, may apply to CASA for approval of the flight. 8.2 The application must: (a) be in writing; and (b) include details of the proposed flight; and © be made at least 28 days before the proposed flight. 8.3 CASA may, in writing, approve the application. 8.4 The approval: (a) must specify which of the flight conditions set out in subsection 6 do not apply to the use, by the applicant, of the aeroplane in the proposed flight; and (b) may specify conditions to be complied with in relation to the proposed flight. 8.5 If the proposed flight takes place in accordance with the approval (including any conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 8.4 (b)), the use by the applicant of the aeroplane in the flight is not subject to the flight conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 8.4 (a). Note Definitions of some expressions used in this Order can be found in regulation 2 of CAR 1988 (subregulation 5 (2) of CAR 1988 provides for this). Expressions defined in regulation 2 include (for example) acrobatic flight, agricultural operations and certificate of approval.

Some great nostalgia there Wayne. I remember that Mangalore almost like it was yesterday but hellsbells, it's 33 years ago! If I'm not mistaken your third picture shows Gordon Bedson in the Resurgam, that would have been his last Mangalore as he died in a test flight of the two seat version, the Magra, not long afterwards. For those who didn't know him, Gordon was a truly larger than life person, one of the real characters of our sport and many others. He designed cars and race-cars, flew Halifax bombers, was a noted restaurateur and so on. In some accounts truth and embellishment becomes difficult to separate but there's some quite fascinating and entertaining reading about him on the internet. He first drew up the Resurgam way back in the 1930s but designing cars and the Bristol Aircraft Company got in the way for decades and he eventually built it in the late 1970s ... The Eccentric British Genius 500 Race I'm fairly sure the 'glider' type of aeroplane with the pod mounted engine in the third last picture is Keith Jarvis's Joey. It wasn't built as a glider although Keith had a background in soaring. In fact it was just about the only homebuilt ultralight that actually complied with the ANO 95.10 of the time, most of them were overweight or didn't have sufficient wing area. There are a couple of other treasures in that photo too - in the background, to the right of the T tail of the glider, is Robbie Labahn's Ranger which he built in 1981 while working with Sander Veenstra. Robbie went on and built a number of excellent designs including the Arrow and the Hitchiker. Robbie was also tragically killed while test flying and complying with the ridiculous 'not above 500ft' rule of the time. Although I understand he had a parachute, when he encountered aileron flutter he was too low to be able to deploy it. And, to the left of that photo I think might be Werner Becker's twin (Solo) engined Jackaroo in which he became the first person to fly the Nullarbor in around 1979-80. I must have a dig around and see what early photos I still have, unfortunately most of mine perished in floods and cyclones, but I have a few, somewhere.

Hi Mike, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately the workshop is away from the house and also isn't sealed, the walls are just timber slats, so it's nice and breezy but impossible to heat or cool, just an awning out the front helps to increase the shade. It's not much of a problem though, I have fans in there and use them all the time except while welding - still air required while welding CRMO, of course. I'd not heard of Tef Gel, thanks for bringing it to my attention, it sounds like a great product. I've used plenty of corrosion inhibitors and lubricants for dissimilar metals, and particularly for things in a marine environment. I've generally found Duralac to be excellent for assembling dissimilar metals where they don't move i.e. fasteners of all kinds, and I use nickel anti-seize, white lithium grease or lanolin (or a combination of them) where parts move against each other, but this Tef Gel sounds like it does it all. I really like it not being toxic (and that it's an Australian product) because although Duralac does a fabulous job it's pretty harmful to the respiration system and the aquatic environment. I'll give Tef Gel a try and let you know what I think of it.

It's not how the aircraft behaves ... it's all about how the pilot behaves. V tails generally have equivalent yaw capability to 'conventional' tails.

Last weekend I'd hoped to finish the clevises that attach to the spar cleat on the wing, which I'd shown just started last post - but it wasn't to be. I've never been a fan of air-conditioning, I prefer open breeze-ways and fans when necessary but after four or five consecutive weeks of heat-wave I capitulated, so last weekend was spent installing air-con and a roof sprinkler system - the corrugated iron roof doesn't help when the sun's this persistent ... So at least last week was very pleasant in my home office too, I guess I could get used to air-con, just for the very hot times. Anyway back to what really matters - this weekend I did get the clevises finished, at least as far as I can go until I can remove the parallel vise from the mill and fit the rotary table to round off the ends of these, and several of the previous parts. Photos below show the parts and reaming the holes for the pins, they're the last of the fittings for the upper end of the struts, and now I'm back to CAD for modelling the lower end fittings. They're a lot simpler than the ones I've just finished so we should be getting back to some more visible progress soon. Another 13 hours in that, it probably should have taken less than that, but in this heat ... making a total of 1419 hours so far. Incidentally, the second anniversary of 'laying the keel' of DooMaw was last month. I hadn't expected the build to last more than two years but I've just been too busy with my 'real' work, to get enough time to work on the plane. Normally I have a couple of quiet months over the Christmas period but this year it was full on, I just managed four days off and then it was back to it again. So at this rate it might be another year before we're test flying. Never mind, making hay while the sun beats down relentlessly, so to speak.

I'd agree with your first para except there's another option - borrow. However your second para falls into that category where people start to offer various interpretations that generally muddy the water. The Regs are not open to interpretation, they are very specific and if someone isn't sure of their meaning they need to apply for a determination. It's clear what you're suggesting, that it might appear more 'commercial' if the flight only departs if there are pax to share the cost. But - there are no CARS or CASRs that I've ever seen which invite one to separate the classification of departures on such a basis. The only means of determining the status of the flight are those which exist at the time the flight is initiated, whenever that may be, and with whichever occupants there may be. As long as they're sharing costs according to the number of people aboard, it's a Private operation. Really folks, don't complicate it more than necessary - and don't subject yourself to imagined restrictions that aren't actually legislated.

Of the more than two hundred past and present roadable concepts I think David Mayman's latest offering probably offers the greatest likelihood of success in the longer term. Recently Volocopter has flown successfully but it's a large-ish lump of a thing compared with Jetpack Aviation's foldable JPA VTOL.

It's no good 'suggesting it', either it is or it isn't ... Below is CAR 206 in entirety - which bit are you suggesting an advert seeking people contravenes? If you mean the CAR 206 mention of fixed schedules, that's a defined term and includes 'from fixed terminals' - and 'Mondays and Fridays' doesn't meet that definition. > Division 1—General 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27(9)) (1) For the purposes of subsection 27(9) of the Act, the following commercial purposes are prescribed: (a) aerial work purposes, being purposes of the following kinds (except when carried out by means of a UAV): (i) aerial surveying; (ii) aerial spotting; (iii) agricultural operations; (iv) aerial photography; (v) advertising; (vi) flying training, other than conversion training or training carried out under an experimental certificate issued under regulation 21.195A of CASR or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317(1); (vii) ambulance functions; (viii) carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft (not being a carriage of goods in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals); (ix) any other purpose that is substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vii) (inclusive); (b) charter purposes, being purposes of the following kinds: (i) the carriage of passengers or cargo for hire or reward to or from any place, other than carriage in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals or carriage for an operation mentioned in subregulation 262AM(7) or under a permission to fly in force under subregulation 317(1); (ii) the carriage, in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals, of passengers or cargo or passengers and cargo in circumstances in which the accommodation in the aircraft is not available for use by persons generally; © the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals. (1A) However, the commercial purposes prescribed by subregulation (1) do not include: (a) carrying passengers for hire or reward in accordance with subregulation 262AM(7); or (b) carrying out an activity under paragraph 262AM(2)(g) or 262AP(2)(d). (2) In this regulation: aircraft endorsement has the same meaning as in regulation 5.01. conversion training means flying training for the purpose of qualifying for the issue of an aircraft endorsement.

No - you need to take it in context. To do that see the previous para, specifically 7 (d) (v) - (7) For the purposes of these regulations: (a) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (a) shall be taken to be employed in aerial work operations; (b) an aircraft that is flying or operating for a commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 (b) shall be taken to be employed in charter operations; © an aircraft that is flying or operating for the commercial purpose referred to in paragraph 206 © shall be taken to be employed in regular public transport operations; and (d) an aircraft that is flying or operating for the purpose of, or in the course of: (i) the personal transportation of the owner of the aircraft; (ii) aerial spotting where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the spotting is conducted; (iii) agricultural operations on land owned and occupied by the owner of the aircraft; (iv) aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted; (v) the carriage of persons or the carriage of goods without a charge for the carriage being made other than the carriage, for the purposes of trade, of goods being the property of the pilot, the owner or the hirer of the aircraft; (va) the carriage of persons in accordance with subregulation (7A); (vi) the carriage of goods otherwise than for the purposes of trade; (vii) conversion training for the purpose of endorsement of an additional type or category of aircraft in a pilot licence; or (viii) any other activity of a kind substantially similar to any of those specified in subparagraphs (i) to (vi) (inclusive); shall be taken to be employed in private operations.

You can't give public notice of the flight, but there's nothing to stop you placing an advertisement seeking people who might be interested in forming cost-sharing flights into and out of your destination. This is just the same as for ride-sharing in cars, you can't put up an advert saying "Car/ride share to Brisbane, departs BP service station 7am, $20/person". But you can say "Seeking people interested in forming a ride-share syndicate, Gold Coast to Brisbane & return daily, share costs". So, in your example, you can't say - "flight departing Canberra for Merimbula on Friday at 5pm, persons interested in cost-sharing contact xyz". Because that's advertising the flight. But you can say - "Seeking person(s) who might be interested in cost-sharing private flights to/from Merimbula on Mondays and Fridays". In the second example you're advertising for people, not for flights, and at the time of advertising for the people there's no particular flight scheduled, so it's not an advertisement for a flight, therefore doesn't contravene (a). Also - there's a difference between a public advertisement and a private advertisement, though the division is fine, so care needs to be taken. Technically an advertisement at your private clubhouse or private (i.e. not open) Facebook group, is not a public advertisement or announcement ...

Oops, not Canberra ... Some years ago I had a CASA determination done on private advertising for cost sharing pax. They said it was OK as long as you weren't offering scheduled departures. 'Scheduled departures' has an official definition. These days, with the advent of Uber, I'd guess that CASA would be fairly timid about any prosecution, it's pretty slippery ground until there's a clear breach to use for developing a precedent. Nonetheless, even inland my original comment stands for a Private commute of that distance, unless twin IFR it's unlikely to be sufficiently regular to attract any attention.

As soon as the amount the non-pilot/plane owner 'pax' get charged more than a provable fair percentage of the operating cost. That amount can include the cost of hangarage, insurance, fuel, maintenance, replacement etc, pro-rata during the period/days actually shared by those pax. In a practical sense, good luck trying to regularly commute in a VFR light aircraft, due to weather constraints, unless your main area of ops is well inland. Just noticed, Canberra, I guess you're intending IFR ...?

I'd say it was a stunt for the camera, he could have easily taken off from the bitumen area in front of the shops without going onto the road - or, with those big bush wheels, from the service road or the gravel either side of the road

Dick Smith Blasts CASA after it holds back on any commitment to internal review - CASA labelled as 'dysfunctional'. > From The Northern Miner Facebook Page - A FORMER Charters Towers business owner, pilot and Chamber of Commerce and Mines treasurer has been arrested in Mount Isa on 342 charges. The charges have arisen from Operation Oscar-Deomic and relate to the alleged tampering of aircraft by 31-year-old Josh Hoch. Police have preferred 342 charges against Hoch, including numerous counts of endangering the safety of a person in a vehicle with intent, dangerous operation of a vehicle, flying aircraft without a licence, fraud offences, and offences in relation to aircraft. The investigation also uncovered evidence relating to the alleged grievous bodily harm of aircraft engineer Denis Beahan at Charters Towers in July of 2014. As a result of this incident, Mr Beahan, aged in his 60s, sustained permanent and life-changing head injuries. Investigators are appealing to anyone who may have further information relating to this incident to come forward. > Those of you who've been around the ultralight scene a while will know of Denis Beahan, he owned quite an extensive network of aviation maintenance facilities (Denis Beahan Aviation Pty Ltd) and used to be the Central Queensland (Roma, Longreach, Mount Isa, Charters Towers) dealer for Drifter aircraft and provided very active support for people using them on the land. > From Air Centre Aviation News Digest - CHARTERS TOWERS AIRCRAFT ENGINEER DENIS BEAHAN ATTACKED IN HANGAR QLD Police are appealing for information after a 61-year-old male employee of a light aircraft maintenance business was struck on the back of the head during what appears to be an after-hours inspection of the premises on the night of July 3 2014 "Police would like to speak with anyone that may have seen any vehicles or people in the vicinity of Corinda Avenue, Charters Towers or the Charters Towers airport between 6pm to midnight on the 3rd July, 2014." > Reading between the lines, and pure speculation on my part, it might be that Mr Beahan was making an after hours check of the hangar in the hope of catching someone red-handed, tampering ... and perhaps he did.

Are you saying that we shouldn't discuss anything until it's been through the Courts and they've provided a verdict? That's a bit boring isn't it? Might as well just copy/paste the Court Report here and forget the forum altogether ... This doesn't look like your average one-off misdemeanour - after a very protracted investigation this fella's been charged with 342 alleged offences. That's one hell of a lot of smoke if there's no fire!

This is worth a read - Ben Sandilands from Plane Talking with a no-holds-barred editorial about CASA's position on it ...

Yes ... visions of Paul Moller and his infamous rort (my opinion) the Moller Skycar, it's been 'under development' for, what, 20 years on peoples' pre-payments with nothing ever having got off the ground, literally. Oh, except his website which keeps getting prettier, so more people pre-pay and so on ad infinitum nauseum. This one's brilliant, they've already made five sketches of their idea and only want $25,000 now (balance of $200,000 on delivery) and will be delivering on 10th March next year, awesome, where do I send the money? Makes you wonder how this kind of thing isn't illegal. Still, fools are easily parted from their money so I guess there's a strong incentive for the scammers to have a go.

Another weekend a bit like the preceding ones - machining, machining, with a lot of sweat to go with it, we're into the third consecutive heat-wave now. However - sheer bliss, I completed the trickiest pair of parts, the long clevises, without stuffing them up and having to start again. I'm a lot less concerned about messing the rest of them up because if I do, by comparison they're a minor task to repeat. So, as the pictures show, I completed all the milling processes then cut the two parts away from the central billet which I'd used to hold them in the vise. Then I created a setup to hold each of the parts in turn in the vise and drill centrally through the end web. I made up a long centre-drill by boring the end of a piece of ground stainless shafting in the lathe and silver-soldering a centre drill into it. I then used that extended drill through the hole in the end web to start the hole in the butt end of the part. By carefully scribing the position of the centre on the inside of the butt end, and finely adjusting the part in the vise, when the centre-drill met the scribed position I could be sure that the part was exactly vertical. Then I used a progression of long-series drill bits to increase the bottom hole up to 13/32" and the top hole to 12mm at which time I could tap a 12mm thread in the butt end and use a 200mm long cut-off 12mm bolt as a mandrel to mount the part in the lathe. Beforehand I had used a centre drill in the threaded end of the mandrel so that I could employ a live centre mounted in the tailstock to support the end of the workpiece, and then it was just a few minutes of machining to turn the butt end circular so that it matches the first pieces I made. After the turning was completed I no longer needed the webs on the end of the parts so I cut them off in the bandsaw. Those square-cut ends will be radiused later, when I have finished with the parallel vise on the mill and can remove it to mount the rotary table. Finally I drilled out the threads in all four parts with which I had used the threaded mandrels, to 1/2", ready for the sleeve which goes through them, and about which the wings rotate as they're folded. Moving onto the next parts, I didn't need the billet to be the full thickness and was able to make use of the newly refurbished upright bandsaw to cut away the excess as shown in the second last photo. It took just three minutes a side to cut that, whereas to create the setups and mill that amount of material away would have been more like an hour, so it's really nice to have the big saw working again. I got as far as milling a full depth slot each end before the sunset, these will be the clevises that attach directly to the cleats on the wing-spar. Another 17hrs in that lot, and I forgot to add to the total last post, so it's 26 more hours, making a total of 1406hrs to date. Many thanks for the kind words srPilot but it's nothing remarkable really. It just comes from having a tight budget and the scavenging resourcefulness that results from being born and bred in the bush where there's plenty of opportunity but often there's not a lot of equipment unless you make or fix it yourself. rgmwa and Oscar are so right, it's FLAMIN' LUXURY to have old broken tools to fix up and work with, you tell that to the kids of today ... Just in case you're not a Monty Python fan, this is what they're on about -

In the preceding posts I've read some excellent wisdom and descriptions of what is likely to have been the cause of this tragic, apparent stall/spin onto base/final. As I see it, most of the comments appear to be likely to be right, but they don't offer a 'how to avoid it happening to me' without considerable thought being needed in a split second, which most of us wouldn't be quick enough to calculate and then have time to react correctly. The 'formula' I use, and which I've described in greater detail on a previous thread, is 'avoid bottom rudder'... even if you're overshooting your centerline, for example. It saves having to think about what you're actually doing when the sight picture doesn't look quite right. Similarly when spinning, nowadays I don't waste time trying to work out which way I'm rotating. In an unexpected spin it could be very confusing and take too long to determine. So I just press the pedal in the direction that the earth appears to be going - sight picture thing again ... works for me anyway.

Still machining the same pair of parts. It gets more nerve-wracking towards the end of jobs like these because there's an ever-increasing investment in time spent on the job and it would be infuriating to have to go back and start again. It constantly brings to mind the words of my toolmaker 'extraordinaire' friend and mentor, the inimitable Barry Hughes, who, when he was working on something similar and was asked how it was going, would usually respond "it must be OK, I haven't stuffed it up yet". That investment in time and reluctance to have to do it again is also a good reminder of the flying creed which extols the virtue of maintaining concentration right to the end, or in other words, 'not going to sleep on the home stretch'. So my Australia Day was spent with another 9 hours on the milling machine making swarf. The pictures show - My regular companion, QA inspector and workshop foreman, he spends a lot of time standing on that stool on hot days because it gets him up into the breeze from the fan - and he can keep an eye on the work progress of course. The first side of one end with the caps tapered to reduce weight, the heavy web on the bottom is still there to stabilise it while the machining on the sides takes place. After all four sides have been tapered the workpiece has been turned over and the main webs machined off, the trench down the centre now goes right through. The same thing from a different angle. The first pieces that were made, the drilled pieces of 16mm plate, are inserted into the trench (which will be a clevis later, once the end webs have been removed), positioned with a spacer at the inboard end and then clamped, drilled and reamed for a series of 3/16" bolts.

A few months back, when I was going through the strut calculations, forumite Oscar mentioned to me that he knew of a pair of aly struts that might be available and might be a suitable size for DooMaw. I had a bit of difficulty getting information from the owner of them as he was very busy, and I gave up because I was quite set on having chromoly ones in any case. In November I was finalising the design of the strut ends and it became apparent that aly struts would suit better because aly struts end up with inserts bolted into the ends of them whereas chromoly struts have a cut-out with a welded perimeter which becomes a pair of vertical straps to attach to, at least those are the most 'conventional' methods, and which probably are the best strength-to-weight solutions. Since DooMaw's wing-folding mechanism at the strut ends requires something solid (as in a solid block), rather than a couple of plates to bolt to, then the aly struts started to look a lot more appealing than previously. Consequently I renewed my pursuit of them and following a few weeks of persistence I was very well rewarded when a brand new pair of extrusions arrived for the princely sum of just $350 including the freight. Thanks heaps for the tip-off Oscar, it saved me heaps in time, hassle and money compared to having to get them in from USA - and Trump's now withdrawn USA from the TPP so I guess he doesn't want any more of our money, does he? Then it was time to concentrate on machining the strut end parts because once I get them out of the way most of the rest of the build is fairly straightforward - there's still lots of it to do, but most of the complex work which takes up so much time with little to show for it, will be done. I modelled the parts in CAD first and produced the drawings, though I knew there would need to be a little refinement along the way as machining difficulties revealed themselves. To feel that I'd made a start I began with a couple of parts that will be bolted into the upper ends of the struts, and the machining just involved an accurate drilling setout. It's just made from some 16mm 5083 plate. Two are made at the same time in one piece and then sawed down the middle and milled square and to size - A simple job like that was one thing but it's been years since I did much complex machining requiring careful attention to machining order. In which case I thought it would be prudent to get my head back in shape with a fairly easy part next, and I'm glad I did because, although apparently simple enough, it still threw a few challenges at me. I should say 'pair of parts' because it's much quicker to make two at a time, one on each end of a piece mounted through the vise, than to do one and then another the same, because you can use the same setup for each machining process, just move the table back and forth between each end. One of the things that always tests me with these kinds of parts is how to get hold of them during the latter stages, to complete the final machining once I've cut off the main boss that clamped in the vise at first. Another thing with any clevis type of part is that you're effectively making a tuning fork so it want's to sing like Dame Nellie and so it is very prone to chatter and running out dimensionally. These parts do show more than a little evidence of that but I'm not concerned from a structural viewpoint because the parts are designed to withstand the dynamic loads of supporting the wings while trailering on rough roads, which are much higher than the flight loads would ever be, and they can't actually deform during trailering because the travel will be limited by fuselage/wing support cradles in the trailer. So the only matter to really take account of is the bearing surface areas of the swivel and hinge pins which I've made very substantial, and the holes are carefully reamed to exact size, rather than just drilled - the accurate fit of the hinge pin massively reduces the rate of wear in service. A few pics show the first effort, the ends haven't been radiused yet, I'll do that when I've finished all the linear machining and can remove the vise from the mill and mount a small rotary table - In the last picture you can see a tapped thread, I made that so that I could screw in a mandrel to mount the part in the lathe and machine the boss end circular instead of square, the thread will be drilled/reamed out in due course. Having broken the ice I was keen to get on with the most complex of the parts because once they're done it'll feel like more of a downhill run. These present quite a challenge because they're very long tuning forks with lots of machining along the length of the tangs, and also because later I have to mount the parts up in the lathe to machine them circular, similar to the last parts, but this time they're much longer and achieving concentricity is going to be much harder. I had worked out a method to stop the tangs harmonising though, and that would be by leaving a full web all down one side and also a web across the end. The end web would also help with the concentricity thing in the lathe because I could drill though it centrally to provide an end support for the mandrel, and additionally run a live centre in the boss end. The long web down the side would add a significant complication though, because I would have to mill a very deep trench from one side rather than half the depth from each side but that would just be a matter of taking my time and being careful. The end web posed a hazard, because the machining travel would have to be terminated accurately at both ends, rather than just one. It's so much easier if you only have to concentrate at one end and can relax as the cut runs out the other end - that's the beauty of CNC machines of course, taking the long periods of concentration out of it - because with manual machining, one stuff up late in the job can cost you days of doing it all over again from the beginning. The pictures below show where I've reached so far, the parts are still in the machine. I've cut the deep (35mm) trenches on both of them and turned the workpiece twice to cut the shallower trenches on the outsides of each of the tangs. Next I will do the setout for the drilling, then drill and ream for the bolts - at that stage I'll introduce the first pieces I made, between the tangs, and drill/ream through them at the same time. Then I'll turn it in the vise again and machine away the side webs and create the tapers down each side. After that it can come out of the vise to be cut apart for longitudinal drilling/tapping to fit the mandrel for the lathe. I haven't wanted to rush it and then need to do it again, so it's been slow and steady work, 43 hours in that so far, making a total of 1380hrs to date.

Hi Andrew, thanks for the comment. I'm embarrassed to say that I'd never heard of a VFD in this application. Mr Google has since told me a fair bit about them, and you're right, it would have been a good option. I'm probably still a fair bit ahead cost-wise though, the new motor only cost $80 and the cheapest VFD seems to be closer to $200. The bandsaw has a very wide range of speeds available, so there wouldn't have been any great benefit from that, but well worth knowing about for the future, thanks! Yes, I could have Marty, if I had a bench saw ... it was just that I've had the bandsaw for so long, and it's such a good thing that I was pleased to be forced into getting it operational again. You're quite right about the benefits of a bench saw though, I do have a compound mitre saw with a special carbide blade for cutting aly and it does a fantastic job. I also use an electric planer (hand-held type) with the blade set to take a cut of only about 0.2mm, to clean up the edges of the aly after cutting on the bandsaw. Word of warning if you try it though, never go near the ends, start and stop a good 50mm or so before the ends or the blade can/will bite the end viciously and can throw the planer back at you, as well as pretty much destroy the job. Hasn't happened to me cutting aly but I know someone to whom it has ...

Before you know it a couple of months has gone by ... a friend pointed out yesterday that he hadn't seen any updates in the DooMaw log for quite a while. I have been busy though and taking a few photos along the way. I've had a couple of bandsaws for decades, one is the small tilt-up-and-down table and drop-saw type that are plagued with band-shedding problems unless you re-engineer them every few years, so I got onto that and it should perform OK again for the next while. I also have a large upright bandsaw that's sheer magic for cutting larger stuff or ripping up sheet material. The problem I've had with it is that work has had me moving around fairly regularly and I've only been able to use it when I've had 3 phase power, which hasn't been all that often. I've been intending to convert it to single phase for ages, it's only 1hp, so not a big issue ... or so I thought. I bought a nice shiny new single phase Chinese motor for about the price of a round of drinks, and set to work to remove the old motor. It was deeply buried in the bowels of the machine of course, which is in a shipping container in the sun in the back yard and in the middle of a series of heat-waves. None of the bolts was either accessible nor had been undone since it was made in the 1950s, so I lost a few kilos in sweat but prevailed in the end. I was then able to refurbish the mounting plate and belt tensioning system, and did the same for the back-gear arrangement while I was about it. Naturally the two motors' shafts were different sizes so I had to machine the drive pulley and I had misgivings about that because unless you get the bore right to within a couple of tenths of a thou a single phase motor will rattle the pulley and mount apart in a few seconds with the accompanying noise of a machine gun. My lathe is very small and the four stage pulley quite large so it (I) was struggling and you guessed it, I went oversize by a couple of thou. Then I had to devise a tool to broach a new keyway, I haven't done a lot of broaching so I didn't have much success with the first two tools ... I rewired the machine while I was about it, and then came the time to test run it. Sure enough - machine gun - why, oh why do they make parallel shafts? Tapered shafts work so much better! I finally solved the problem by providing the pulley with seven grub screws to lock it up and control the harmonics, got some new blades made up, greased the bearings and adjusted the blade guides and it's like a new one. I forgot to mention that all of this was in preparation for cutting up the material I had ordered to make the wing spar caps. The cap material is 6061T6 aluminium and its raw form comes as a rectangular hollow section (RHS) but I want an angle section which will also be tapered toward the wingtips, so I need to cut the RHS lengthwise into four, to create the angle pieces. I could buy the angle from an aviation supplier at about $60/m and I'd need about 18m so it would cost a bit over $1000 and I'd still need the bandsaw to taper the ends. By doing it this way the piece of RHS cost $90 and I'll have about 1/3 of the 6.5m length left over ... I'd no sooner had that job under control than I finally came across a small milling machine which I have been seeking for several years since I got rid of the previous one which was too large to move around regularly, it weighed about 900kg. Actually this one is a mill-drill but the largest of those that I've come across, not the rather flimsy thing that they usually are. It weighs 350kg which is just about manageable to move if you separate the table, head and base. The reason for a milling machine at this stage is to make the rather complex bits at each end of the struts which allow the wings to fold virtually in an instant, and lay flat against the fuselage sides rather than just swinging back the way most of them do. I could have had the parts made by CNC machine for about $2500 but where's the fun and satisfaction in that? Except getting flying sooner of course. And this way I get an effectively 'free' milling machine out of it. The machine didn't have a stand so I built that first, and equipped the rear of the stand with wheels so that I could move the whole thing around the workshop if necessary by slipping in a couple of long steel handles, wheelbarrow fashion. In the event it worked but it is still heavy enough that the handles need to be 2m long to be able to lift the front legs off the ground. There was going to be quite a number of days ahead spent machining and it didn't have a powered table so the next thing was to build a system to motorise it. I had a couple of old Baldor units lying around, one was 19rpm and the other 500rpm i.e one was too slow and one too fast, even though they are both infinitely adjustable with their electronic speed controllers. In any case it would be beneficial to use a couple of pulleys in the drive system, providing a simple way to disconnect the drive system when it's not needed, by slipping the belt off. Finally I was ready to do some work on real aircraft bits ... none of the time spent doing the above strictly counts as DooMaw build time, so no hours added to the build log this post. A pic of the milling table drive unit -