pylon500

Don't tell everyone lest the management realise the laundry is there as well and remove it! In all fairness though, I feel that most of the overall problem stems from a failed interaction between the 'Office' and aircraft owners/importers with regard to poor paperwork handling. I feel CASA should really have put in some junior 'checker' for 12 months after the first failure to be sure that ALL details were included in registration paperwork before accepting. This may have slowed down many rego's a week or so, but everything would then be 100% compliant, and we wouldn't have the $h!‡ fight that's going on now. EDIT-{Italics} I thought that bit of the sentence, but didn't type it (or check it)

Just answering off the cuff here, but when I designed and built my second ultralight about 18 years ago (AUF), the 'inspector' (who was actually a CASA mate!) watched me do the inspection, advising if he thought I missed something. The idea was that the inspection was overseen, but the final responsibility rest with me, the builder. The SAAA system had an out side inspector taking all the final responsibility for your work!? As for, When talking about 'amateur built' ultralights (19-xxxx), they are not certified, that's the whole point. If someone decides to improve (why would you make something worse?) a plan/kit/finished homebuilt, then it is the designer/manufacturer's prerogative to diss-own the final product. Part of the amateur concept is learning about the technology, design, hand skills and aerodynamics of aircraft, if you just follow someone else's plans/kit/build, then you miss a lot of learning and just end up with ownership of someone else's aeroplane with your paint job.

Unfortunately, this is the mindset driven by CASA. From my point of view, the L2 is signing off on a 'type specific', the type is Ultralight. If you try to make it any more complicated than that, your back to my earlier comment of pricing ourselves out of existence. Our whole being, as an association downwards, is to be affordable.

Does this mean that years of writing convoluted, legaleese rules that spend more time referring back to other rules has bit them on the @r5e? Plain english is so much better......

I know what you mean Steve. I used to visit many US Sites, and was a little concerned at the lack of English skills shown. Sometimes I see similar incoherence here, and realize it is driven by frustration, I agree. There are good and bad L2's, we just need to maintain a dialogue between all, not so much to name and shame, but to let them know that they should try harder, not cut corners, realize this is NOT a way to make a living (unless you are really good) and that we do it for the enjoyment of working on aircraft. I did many years in the RAAF, and then as many years working at Bankstown. If we allow the L2 position to become as complicated as LAME, we have priced ourselves out of existence, just like GA. If you are an L2, take someone under your wing and teach them (but make sure you know what your talking about first!).

There's merit in it, make the government look after our ability to fly simply and affordably. If they throw too much regulation at us, threaten them with ministers and the media. All the GA people pay once off payment licenses, don't have to belong to an organisation and have clear cut rules to follow. Do GA pilots need to submit a yearly flying report?

3500 aircraft, 5 working days a week (261 days, no holidays), an average of 13 expired rego's per day, but maybe more than 2 days to do ONE rego? Things not looking good..........

You should remember that when an L2 has to make an assessment on an older, or at least 'not perfect looking' plane, he is betting against his reputation and his worldly possessions that the aircraft can survive a ferry flight to a more in depth inspection. "She'll be right" inspections will eventually bite.

Had a look at the RAAus site about 20 minutes ago (around 11:00pm est), and found this; My underline. (was going to use italics until I realised that quotes are already in italics!)

Being a member of EAA, I regularly get news updates on what's happening in the US. I did not see a lot of mention of LSA problems over there before October 2011...... I think with the Yanks, it was a case of "That was spectacular, good thing we don't have that sort of problem over here,,,, or do we?"

And that's only the recent list of 'upper echelon' movements. Some of the movements from the 'workface' level are worthy of note as well.....

Can you find a link to the news item?

That's an interesting date, if it ties in with an event in October 2011, then that is actually fairly quick action by CASA. I think maybe the magazine glossed it over for you....? I'm sure there's some clues here...

I guess that should read, 'A pilot with too much money is soon flying a plane with a handle' !!

Something about 'A pilot and too much money is soon flying more plane than he can handle?'

Why does the thought "WE'RE SCREWED keep running through my mind? Aircraft tally; 1 x '24' (non LSA) aircraft still flying till April, 1 x '25' aircraft just expired (two weeks, no news), 1 x '25' aircraft under rebuild with lapsed rego (twelve months), but probably still wont be finished for another six months, 1 x '19' aircraft being re-engined so will need rego updated, 1 x imported '?' which may need some interesting paperwork (or become a lawn ornament!) and 1 x '28' restoration project that will be modified, hopefully before I die of old age. How many others out there are actually grounded/waiting for rego at the moment? More to the point, has ANYONE been re-registered in the last two weeks? I think the fuse may have been lit somewhere around October 20011.......... And the initials SB may have something to do with it?

I think I found my first issue of this back around 1999, and after reading 'Kitplanes' and similar US magazines most of the time, this magazine showed a whole new list of aircraft NOT being sold from the US ! The 1999 issue, Covers a wide range of flying machines, not just Ultralights...

There was the gynaecologist that built a CH-200, and registered it VH-POX

That tends to reflect my cynicism somewhat after reading a popular science fiction series.....

Going from a 1600 Jab to (I guess) an 80hp rotax must have felt awesome!! What was the feeling when you went back to the 2200?

While I was still building my 503, 'Little Racer' seen as my avatar, I was planning on calling my prototype "SCREAMAPILLAR" Simpsons watchers will get the drift.

Now, now, we don't do things like that.............

So much for having things up and running again Tuesday week ago? Now I have an aircraft that's expired, and contacting the office today (Wednesday), I'm told it may go back on the backlog list after Friday? I say let LSA, older GA pilots and CASA's RPL all go off under CASA, and we restart the AUF for 95:10 and 95:25! Thrusters, Lightwings and Drifters were only built to basic standards, but they got a lot of us to where we are today with very little problems, and acceptable cost.

Uhm?, the implication of my comment, is to say the above mentioned Brumby is the first production Ultralight, just not the first Ultralight overall, to be fitted with the -233.Sorry if I confused...

Not usually, and sometimes they get some little 'wakeup' calls in flight, ie EFTO's, LOTS of stall training , and the odd comment on how well they are starting to park their car