slb

Casa wanted annual inspections on all aircraft and modifications to all go through std engineering process.

Doing nothing or continuing L1 without training wasnt ever going to cut it unless an L2 inspected the aircraft annually

The fact is that if it is my backside in the aircraft, I would prefer to have maintained it myself than trust someone else to do it (providing I felt competent enough).

We used to do that with parachutes. Would you rather jump with a chute you had packed yourself (under direct supervision) or one that had been packed by a stranger?

The UK system works very well with no oversight of maintenance. Since they de-regulated their single seat aircraft, the onus is all on the pilot to look after his/her own safety. So far it has worked very well, also for the USA .

Unfortunately for us, it seems that Australia is heading in the opposite direction.

So, just to recap:

PPG are flown under CAO 95.8 which would be HGFA only (as long as they remain under 70kg)

PPG (over 70kg) are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA.

PPCs are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA and would be classed the same as Trikes (weightshift microlights)

So, are they also covered under the MOU between the HGFA and RAA, for training and maintenance?

So, just to recap:

PPG are flown under CAO 95.8 which would be HGFA only (as long as they remain under 70kg)

PPG (over 70kg) are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA.

PPCs are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA and would be classed the same as Trikes (weightshift microlights)

So, are they also covered under the MOU between the HGFA and RAA, for training and maintenance?

Surely some of the L1 incidents could/should have been picked up on a pre-flight.

Therefore, inadequate pre-flight = pilot responsible.

But who is at fault here - the pilot, the Instructor who taught him to do a preflight, or the CFI who did his last BFR?

and does this come under Operations, or Maintenance?

I agree on education, but for RAA to do it as they have done is difficult because of the geographic spread of the aircraft. Perhaps designing a training package for local TAFES may be an alternative.

Lets hope that once everyone has completed it ..... there will be no L1 shortcomings at all!

Then it will be on to the L2s and then the L4s but they will have to continue through to LAMEs who are not familiar with our aircraft and engines. The sky's the limit, so to speak.

Also we have the SIL from Tecnam making replacement a recommendation

But if there isn't planes falling out of the sky because of dodgy L1 maintenance why put everyone through a costly course?

The Organisations should be promoting EDUCATION but allow those owners to choose their own levels as required.

I agree with you Frank, but I was referring to the reference below

When the AGM was held in Bundy the subject of the practical aspect of the L1 was raised and we were told it will be out just around the corner- must be along corner

I like all that and I'm keen on Powered paragliding but as an RAA member and 3 axis owner, I can't bring myself to join another organization

Powered paraglider vs powered parachute? I have no idea what the differences are, but surely by now you should also have the choice between the two, if not I guess they will have to specify the reasons why you can't fly with one. Aren't they under the same CAO?

Nope. The MOU aligns training and maintenance and facilitates movement of pilots and aircraft between the orgs but does nothing for recognition of registration/pilot certificates by the other organisation to allow flight in other associations aircraft by pilots

No reason not to keep the two Organisations for weightshift aircraft. Some models are now as expensive as 3 axis aircraft and there will always be Hang gliding and WM owners who want to belong to the same Organisation for both disciplines.

The HGFA wins out on costs at the moment, much cheaper than RAAus, for now at least (although their costs went up recently, they just didn't tell anyone).

According to the RAA rules, if the aircraft is not used for training, and the manufacturer does not specifically exclude "on condition" operation, then you may operate your engine "on condition", providing you monitor it regularly for further deterioration.

On-condition” is not available for LSA unless the manufacturer states otherwise.

Now it seems it has 1500 BUT a calendar TBO of 12 years. We thought when we bought it that it had 2000hrs and would see us out. Now it seems it has 1500 BUT a calendar TBO of 12 years. Currently that gives us another 18 months but we never knew about this

They could be having a bit of razzle dazzle regarding the practical side of things, we will see.When the AGM was held in Bundy the subject of the practical aspect of the L1 was raised and we were told it will be out just around the corner- must be along corner.

The big problem is finding people to deliver it.

 

KP

I have completed the SAAA MPC/ HGFA Engine and Airframe course, do I need to complete the L1 exam?

No, but you will need to provide RAAus with evidence before this can be recognised. If you have completed the SAAA MPC/ HGFA Engine and Airframe course and would like to apply for recognition of prior learning, please email [email protected] with a copy of your course certificate so that we can update your member record.

Try this for size, not sure of pricing Aeros - Trikes & Wings for trike.Believe the first one has arrived in Oz.

My aircraft is fitted with a European composite two blade, ground adjustable propeller.

Yes, very glad to hear both Instructor and student received minor injuries only.

We have seen some progress between the two Organisations. For a while now you can have your Bienniel Fight Review with either, regardless of who you are a registered with. This was always a definite no before.

i have recently acquired an XT912 airborne trike , it was built in 2005 with a rotax 912 UL ser#4407101 installed. It has only accumulated 226hrs TTSN, it was last run some time in 2011, so it has been sitting idle for a while at a place well inland (like 2-3hrs drive north west of Melbourne where it is reasonably dry. however according to rotax it should have an overhaul, is there any alternative. Calendar time of 15 years runs out in 2019,

and that is providing the preservation directives have been followed.

Rotax agents Bert Floods will also post to anywhere in Australia.

Bert Flood Imports Home | Australian Aircraft Engine Distributer, Rotax Engines

I think everyone on this site would wish him well and hope that he will feel fit enough to fly again in the future.

Something that would normally be covered in training, so makes you wonder why he was caught up in it. Trying to outrun it maybe? Hope the pilot was ok?

I did the RAA survey. Unfortunately it wouldn't allow Mr FV to do his on our laptop, because it will only allow one response.

To begin survey click here

Strange that you don't have to be a member, or even an ex-member to be able to complete the survey. I wonder how many responses they are expecting to receive?

Log in to RAA website, documents and forms, and download PDFPretty simple.

I would still prefer to read a hard copy but I am not keen to pay extra for it.

I have just replaced the MT410G with the KTI SA2G. The KTI is smaller, cheaper and has a longer battery life of 10 years vs 7 years. Also came with a mirror and whistle. Bought mine on-line.

Registered my new one with AMSA and marked the old one has having been 'disposed' of. The battery was 7 years old, so out of life. You can get them replaced by GME but they only give a 1 year warranty, so it was cheaper in the long run to buy a new one.

It was easy to remove the battery pack from the MT410G and deactivate it, all ready for recycling. Batteries can be handed in to Battery World for disposal (or you can hand the whole item to them for disposal, for a small charge).