DonRamsay

Part 103, if it ever sees the light of day, removes exemptions and sets the rules for recreational aviation within the CAOs and CASRs. RAAus spends perhaps $1.5 million p.a. on doing work which would otherwise fall to CASA's expense. They compensate RAAus for this to the tune of around $110,000 p.a. If CASA had to do the work with their high cost structure it could cost them something approaching $10 million p.a. I think I can see why the accountants at CASA love RAAus. I don't accept that RAAus is the "most risky end of the scale". I could be wrong but I don't believe our safety record is worse than GA. By "you" I hope you mean RAAus Inc.

This philosophical understanding is relatively new to RAAus (and probably to CASA) but, in my understanding, it is 100% correct. Despite what some may think, the only reason for RAAus to exist is to allow its members to aviate, safely, with the lowest regulation and lowest cost feasible. Recall also that AUF/RAAus was started by a small band of amateur flyers. There were huge advances achieved by the early team taking us from a handful of people teaching themselves to fly single-seater aircraft with short life engines at up to 300 feet in back paddocks to 10,000 pilots and 3,500 aircraft having relatively reliable 4 stroke engines and 10,000 ft and all of Class G airspace to play with. The big push over the last 3 years has been to lift the capability of the management and the Board. There has been a lot achieved but there is still plenty of room for improvement. Our present CEO and Tech Manager are in my assessment the best we've ever had in those roles - if anyone can sort through your issues they can. All the improvement has come from active (i.e. not passive or even apathetic) ordinary members wanting RAAus to be better at the things for which it is responsible. Unfortunately, there are still some legacy issues hanging over from the "bad old days". It is awful that some members are still disadvantaged by mistakes in the past.

You'd have to ask CASA their view on that for an authoritative answer. I would expect that RAAus would tell you that CASA are not happy with any kind of error that they discover and will bring it to the attention of RAAus and require rectification.

Really, the first step is for CASA to put forward a sound and balanced safety case that justifies any restriction that they place on our flying freedoms. In allowing RAAus pilots exemptions from certain regulations, CASA is expressing its faith in the capability of RAAus to administer effectively. I doubt that they care too much whether it is done efficiently because they are not footing the bill for the administration. They supervise our rules as contained in the Ops & Tech manuals and audit our effectiveness and, where they perceive it necessary, require correction of any non-conformances. As we all know, RAAus went through a very dark patch a couple of years ago but is doing much better now. Not perfect but, in my view, sustainable and improving.

"Freedom" is the key word here, Nev. RAAus no longer sees flying as a privilege. We see it as our right in a free country. Obviously, we recognise that almost all rights in a free country may need to be constrained for the safety and benefit of all. But, for any constraint of a freedom there has to be a well argued safety case. The example often given theses days is shouting "BOMB" in a crowded theatre. Doing that would most likely see people killed in the stampede. So, RAAus does not seek more privileges but removal of unreasonable restrictions on our flying freedoms.

The 600kg for LSA is pretty well a worldwide standard (except for the UK?) - could be difficult getting CASA to move ahead of the world on that one. And as we are targeting equality with the RPL at 1,500 kg you can always go to a gas guzzling 2 seat C180 with a 100 hourly costing many thousands of dollars. Sweet.

Thanks John, clearly I was not aware that VLA required "type certification" by independent authority. EASA do suggest that VLA is intended to be an easier form of certification than full on GA and VLA limitations are very similar to LSA with the exception of the 750 kg MTOW instead of 600kg. Day VFR, 2 pax, 1 x piston engine, etc. Type Cert would also put limitations on who can maintain and that could get ugly. I was not aware VLA was available in Aus but then, until RPC can fly at >600kg, there was no interest for me. I've sent an enquiry to the factory to find out for certain. You really know how to ruin somebody's day John. But I know and accept that you were just being helpful and it is always better to know than be living under an albeit pleasant delusion - so thanks again. Don

John, have a look at the Airplane Factory website and you will see their claim that they have done the testing to satisfy the Euro VLA requirements (which include 45kts stall in the landing config). I know of at least one that is VH reg and has 700 kg to play with - but it was a kit build. If the VLA standard was allowed in Australia and available to RAAus pilots my Sling could be reclassified with the manufacturer's agreement to VLA and be flown by me legally at 700kg

When the Arion Lighting was being sold as experimental it had an MTOW of 650 kg. When they wanted to market a factory built LSA version they simply added wingtips with a more prominent upturned winglet. That got the stall within the 45kts Clean at 600kg MTOW that the USA LSA regs requires.

Doesn't pay to leave the keyboard for too long as the conversation rushes along . . . I appreciate the science from HITC as in the end only the science matters. As IAS is all we can know, knowing at what IAS your aircraft at MTOW stalls is pretty useful info. Variations to approach speed to account for less take-off weight, hotter day, wind gusts etc need to be made to be safe. The stall speeds for the Sling on the spec sheet are quoted as KCAS and, as they are for advertising purposes, I guess we should not expect too much science. However, the POH is a pretty serious document and if a manufacturer falsified that document they would be taking a risk of killing their customers. After all, almost the only person to read a POH is the owner/pilot. But, not being a person of faith, I was keen to take my aircraft out with the local CFI and discover the stall characteristics at MTOW on an average sort of day - in the real world not just on paper. It was a fascinating day and the IAS numbers were reasonable compared with the POH. More interesting was what happened early in a stall and what happens at the extreme. I would never have attempted this stuff solo but with a CFI who was a very experienced and cautious test pilot it was a lot of fun. In a two seat, side-by-side aircraft with Pilot, Pax and fuel sitting along the CofG and freight limited and close to CofG, balance is not really an issue. On a calculation of W&B, if I keep within the weight limit it can't go outside of balance specs either forward or aft.

What all of the above said plus . . . I like to have studied the airfield area on Google Earth before I leave home (for a runway I've never been to before) to pick up big landmarks like an adjacent horse racing track. Just helps getting your bearings once there and reduces any surprise elements. I often have difficulty, especially from 2,000 ft seeing the windsock even with my short sight compensating spectacles on that give me at least 20/20 vision so I like the idea of a precautionary low pass ("go-around") just to be certain.

The numbers surprised (and delighted) me. Too good to be true? They were a quote the factory POH for the Sling as a 600kg MTOW and as a 700kg MTOW. I'll definitely do a physical check one day when 700kg is allowed. The Spec sheet on the Sling website: Stall Speed - Full Flaps 600kg 39 KCAS 700kg 40 KCAS I rechecked my POH at 600kg and it says 40KCAS and I've checked that in flight at altitude and it is close enough. So, the Sling LSA registered as VLA with 700kg MTOW with same wings should still be under the 45 KCAS. Jab publish a stall of 45kts for the J430 in VH reg form for 700kg MTOW. A little extra weight might actually make it easier to land and stop it from floating as they are prone to do. The Sling and Tecnam Sierra are even more inclined to float if you don't manage speed well on final due to more ground effect with the low wing. For the sake of the argument, lets say it is 3.5 kts so at 600kg it stalls at 43 kts and at 700kg it stalls at 46.5 kts. Anyone here who can pick that difference without access to a super-accurate ASI? Would +3.5 kts really make it unsafe for your average RA Pilot? I agree that there is a difference in feel with a light versus heavy payload as we all discovered on our first solo. But, isn't the point of RA pilots flying aircraft with a slow stall speed that touching down at a slow speed is easier to control than at a much faster speed. A good landing happens at the stall speed and landing at 43 or 46 kts would be, to most part time pilots, indistinguishable. That's impressive! Is there a trade off against cruise speed with the "lift-enhancing" devices? I agree that high stall speeds are undesirable. But I feel 50 kts would be manageable as demonstrated on the odd occasion when I come in hot.

As do I and while I may not always be gracious about having my pet project questioned, I do find the challenging a really good test and it has proved fruitful. There are some experienced and clever people commenting on here . . . and one or two who just drive me nuts! My experience is that Memorandums and Articles are all set as wide as somebody can imagine so as not to limit the enterprise. I've not seen any that are tight and narrow focused but then most of my experience has been in commerce rather than not-for-profit. People who take an interest in what's in the set of rules that govern the Board's conduct between AGMs are often, how should I put it control freaks is a bit strong but certainly control minded - not comfortable with being a back seat passenger. But the reality is that in a corporation where we number one of 9,000+ we can't all get our hands on the control column. We elect a Board and the Board steer the ship. We don't like the Board, we haul them to a General Meeting like the one at Queanbeyan in 2013 and read the Board the Riot Act. A bit of a bother but effective. David, I'd rather not argue the merits of a draft about to be replaced but I can say I understand your reservations and will have them clearly in mind when I get to review the next draft. You may recall that the 25 amendments to the current Constitution that I proposed over the period 2012-14 were aimed at securing a tight, restrictive constitution. I didn't trust that Board to do what they should have been doing and not do things that they should not do. However, if we have a capable professionally minded Board that mentality is just not necessary. Such Directors understand the concepts of fiduciary duty, not acting Ultra Vires and generally acting responsibly. If any Board acted seriously contrary to the best interests of the members, there are remedies and they are not restricted to General Meetings to "show cause" but there is the heft of the Corporations Law that is severe not just on bad decisions but even things like decisions that oppress minority shareholders. We need to put the effort in up front and elect people who understand the role and responsibilities of being a Director instead of electing mates or people who like to wear epaulettes and crave the "Board Member" status but have no track record of working at Board level. I think we need to trust our elected officials to do the right thing and hold them to account if they don't. When the Board engages a CEO, they can't be second guessing his/her every action. The Board needs to set the Policy and Strategy and the CEO has to manage the execution and report progress to the Board. Similarly, if we elect a Board based on their qualifications, experience and their election statement, we need to let them get on with it and not second guess their every decision. We are getting a much better level of communication from the CEO and to a lesser extent from the Board than we were getting a couple of years ago. It could be said that wouldn't be hard because we were getting next to nothing but I believe it is improving and that trend will continue. A scheduled General Meeting, the Annual General Meeting and, if necessary, an Extraordinary General Meeting. Would require a Special Resolution and the support of 75% of those who vote. What if it were in the best interests for RAAus with its new, you beaut computer systems, to provide an admin facility to all the other RAAOs. This could lower the unit costs for RAAus and end up with cheaper membership costs. But the big thing is the things that we can't foresee now that would be good for RAAus to act on quickly not wait 6 months to go through a General Meeting. Many members will have differing ideas on the raison detre for their RAAus. There will always be some commonality but we need to be careful not to state that too thinly. Look at the extremely sudden rise of the drones/UAVs and the issues they are causing regulators. Consider pilotless, plug-in electric aircraft that are possible within 10 years but 10 years ago we would have thought them a total fantasy. What will aviation be like 10 years from now is mind boggling. Noted.

True, and you will recall that I agreed with you that the delay was unreasonable whoever was responsible. No offence meant Frank, it came to me after reading your comment: "I have no reservations with wearing my EXPIRED card as I have applied and been charged for the renewal - Not refused - If some enterprising individual wants to challenge me, bring it on." Your reasoning is faultless but sadly, the people who enforce these things, rarely seem to recognise a good argument.

Not sure I understand you here Jim. CAO's allow RAAus pilots to register aircraft and fly under certain exemptions from the rules that apply to GA. I see those rules as advantageous not disadvantageous. On the other hand there is no reason why all non-commercial aviation should not become "Recreational Aviation". Less regulation, less expense and simpler medicals and operating and maintenance environment. What's not to like? No way I want to go GA. I was charged by a LAME $320 to fix a flat tyre on an LSA aircraft that was parked 30 metres from his workshop. Why would I ever want to be obliged to use LAMEs? CASA does not feed RAAus with significant amounts of cash. They make an annual contribution of less than 3% of what it costs us to operate. And over the Jabiru issue you can still see the bite marks on CASA's hand. RAAus. At the moment we are well advanced in discussions with CASA to remove unreasonable restrictions imposed on RAAus pilots as to access to Controlled Airspace and aircraft up to 1,500 kg MTOW. All the advances that have taken us from flying over your own paddock in a single seater to being able to fly around Australia (including Tassie) have come from AUF/RAAus advocacy. RAAus pilots operate under the provisions of the Ops and Tech Manuals. RAAus has no real "police" powers other than to expel somebody from membership if they bring the organisation into disrepute - with due deference to natural justice. CASA has, as we all know very substantial "summary justice" style powers. Intervention by RAAus employees is intended to help members stay alive and not kill anyone else. Surely that is a good thing to do? Always worth considering alternatives but I haven't seen evidence of one here that would persuade me to give up our hard won recreational aviation model. I am told it is unique in the world but that doesn't make it right or wrong. If somebody wants to suggest an alternative model that the 9,000 + pilots and 3,500 aircraft owners would applaud I'd be happy to hear it. Call me unimaginative but I haven't thought of one. RAAus is winning the paper war! I see no likelihood of drowning anytime soon. We have spent a big chunk of money on our previously paper systems to get them into the virtual world and more will go that way soon. We are in the process of completely re-thinking our Ops and Tech manuals and the way they are presented. Our future is so bright we have to wear Raybans!

I agree. Just be aware of where the delay is and these days at least it is not with RAAus.

Isn't that tautology?

Isn't that what I wrote Jim? " . . . controlling all forms of aviation that are not for reward"? It may seem unlikely but I think CASA would actually like to see a body like RAAus take over the small, non-commercial aspect of aviation. CASA's predominant interest is in commercial aviation where there is a risk of large scale loss of life and or property. As I see it, the bigger the plane the more CASA is interested. GA and RA, especially the recreational (non-commercial) aspect, really is small beer to them and I would imagine just a burr under the saddle. RAAus is, as Nev says, both an advocate for recreational aviators and also a regulator of recreational aviation. I don't see that these are necessarily antithetical roles. At the macro level, RAAus can advocate for it membership by pressing CASA for the removal of unreasonable restrictions on their aviation activities - e.g. controlled airspace or low MTOWs. At the micro level RAAus can provide services to its individual members like providing advice regarding registering aircraft and obtaining pilot qualifications, a magazine and the members market. RAAus likes to think it is about safe but low regulation, and thereby affordable, aviation. When RAAus is successful in these aims members are enormously advantaged. I believe it is a very rare circumstance where a member is prosecuted by RAAus however, it has happened in the past and will in the future and will remain most likely a rare event. The ethos of RAAus, especially for simple mistakes and low level errors of judgement is more like coaching than prosecution. It has to be serious and knowingly repeated action that will attract serious corrective action by RAAus. A member prosecuted by the body that is meant to be its advocate might seem odd but it is to the benefit of the body of membership rather than to the obvious benefit of an individual. AS far as the individual is concerned it may be distasteful but it may also save their life and prevent them from inadvertently injuring/killing others and destroying property. We enjoy exemptions from the more onerous aspects of GA because of a risk analysis shows that our low regulation environment is not unsafe. If an individual member does enough dumb stuff that it can change the result of the general risk analysis the result is the removal of exemptions and the imposition of onerous regulation that is to the detriment of the entire membership body. Our membership includes serious, competent, risk-averse pilots who are happy to abide by regulations which have the force of law. And then there are the cowboys. RAAus has to look after both and make sure the cowboys do not cause harm to the rights of the vast majority who have true respect for the law of gravity and those three suggestions from Mr Newton.

Then we get back to the "There has to be a limit" argument. No doubt the 45 knots is an arbitrary number best described as "a slow stall speed". The aim of course is to keep the workload on the recreational, part-time, amateur pilot - low. They could just as easily have chosen 40 kts or 50 kts. I would defy anyone to pick the difference between 45 and 50 knots. But you can tell the difference between 40 and 50 knots, I think. Might be easier to modify the design of the wings/flaps to achieve 45 knots (new aircraft). Retro-fitting a redesigned wing and flaps might be a bit expensive for existing aircraft. And of course, stall speed is only one aspect there is, more importantly, the G force handling and Vne/flutter issues.

The RPL medical was a sad joke and has no relationship to the intent of a "Drivers Licence" medical. A Class II would be easier for most than the RPL medical. Point is though that if what you can do with an RPC is the same as currently allowed with an RPL why would you want an RPL if you already have an RPC?

David, You, as always make, a great deal of sense with your comments and suggestions. On here they are very interesting but don't necessarily get noticed by the people who are drafting the new constitution. Whereas if they are also addressed to the CEO they have a chance of being heeded and there being an actual outcome. Your good thoughts stand on their own merit and it would be a shame if they were not made available for consideration by the drafters. If you look at the equivalent documents for most large or small companies you will find them very broad and deliberately so. They are meant to enable rather than restrict the enterprise. The BHP Co Ltd started life as a partnership to mine a silver resource at, you guessed it, Broken Hill. When the silver ran out and WWI looked like cutting of steel supplies from Europe, they got into steelmaking. In the 1960s, a rare opportunity arose to get into the oil business. In the 1980s they got into the export coal business (mainly courtesy of Peabody's exit) and expanded their iron ore production into an export business. If BHP had had a restrictive constitution, they'd have had to wind up the Company when the silver ran out. RAAus is of course a very different organisation than a BHP. The one thing in common is that the new constitution is intended to be an enabling document - not restrictive like our current constitution. In the real world, RAAus is run by the Board between elections. We have predominantly apathetic members and so RAAus will be run by enthusiasts - those few that take the trouble to vote and the even fewer who are prepared to put their hand up to serve the members on the Board. It is impractical to think that the Board will be run by 9,000+ members. The SAAA's statement I find quite restrictive to what they do now. If we went back to the early days of the AUF and wrote a purpose that reflected tightly what was going on then . . . Could any of those few pioneers have imagined what the AUF could morph into? Can any of us imagine what RAAus might be into in 30 years from now? I know I can't. Who would have predicted say 5 years ago the advent of drones in plague proportions? What of the future? Jet packs? Computer controlled rotorcraft that you can fly from your back yard? I doubt I'll be around in 30 years and if I am I am even more certain I won't still be flying. But what is possible . . . is beyond my imagination. Could RAAus end up as the peak non-commercial aviation body with SAAA and RAAOs rolled in as chapters controlling all forms of aviation that are not for reward? I plan to cease commenting for a while until we get the next draft to review. And then it will be imperative to get our comments and suggestions to the people in this process who can make changes. And that happens via the CEO.

According to CASA, RPL = RPC. They are meant to be alternatives not a step up. RAAus is working with CASA to see that equivalence made a fact.

The point is that the limit is on the pilot not the aircraft. At the moment RAAus pilots (RPC) are limited to fly aircraft with a MTOW of 600kg or less. We also have a restriction of the MTOW of RAAus registered aircraft regardless of their CASA (or overseas equivalent) approved design MTOW. Well, there is a not unreasonable limit already established - for the RPL - and it is 1,500 kg but the limit for the RPC (said by CASA to be the equivalent of the RPL) is still only 600kg. Again this limit applies to the pilot not the aircraft. RAAus is working with CASA at the moment to have the limit for RPC lifted to equate with that for the RPL. That will solve a great number of issues especially for stronger aircraft like the Sling and J230 as long as the respective manufacturer is prepared to certify at the design weight and revise the POH. There is already a Euro standard that these two aircraft could slot into (CS-VLA Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft: A single engine with spark or compression ignition (i.e. no jets). One or two seats. Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of not more than 750 kg. Stall speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of no more than 83 km/h (45 knots). Flown of course under day VFR The difference in stall speeds for the Sling at 600kg (43kts) and 700 kgs (44kts). Hardly a safety issue. And what would that redesign entail? Reducing the strength of the aircraft - and how is that a good thing or an contribution to safer aircraft? For the 912iS that is correct with a reserve of another hour. I've flown my Sling at 118 kts TAS (5,300 rpm) at 7,500 ft burning 13.6 L/hr. That puts Cairns, Alice Springs and Ceduna in reach if you have a RPC co-pilot and sufficient urine receptacles or a tube that vents to the atmosphere . Australia is a big country and Africa (home base for Sling) is even bigger and further between reliable fuel supplies. It is great to be able to fly to most places and home again without having to worry about fuel or refuelling.

I should mention that my Sling is limited to the LSA 600kg but can be registered in Europe under the VLA standard at 700 kg. Its engineering design with a moderate stall speed is more than that again. This model has been flown from Joburg across the South Atlantic to America starting with a take off weight of 1,100 kg. The limit of 600 kg just means that I can't legally fill my tanks (150L total) and fly. I must sacrifice fuel reserves or duration. It also limits aircraft designers as to how much strength they can build into an LSA. The restriction based on MTOW makes no sense to me and never has. By all means limit the stall speed in the landing config, limit the POB to 2 I could even accept limiting engine HP but limiting weight just attacks strength and fuel capacity. In the end you are limited to the legal not engineering limit. RAAus is well advanced on an application to CASA to remove the illogical MTOW restrictions for RAAus pilots (not aircraft). You might remember that Lee Ungermann, while RAAus CEO put a case to CASA to lift RAAus pilots to 760 kg MTOW. If CASA were to knock back our application for higher MTOW for RAAus pilots I would then become interested in some kind of co-operative action to get that decision reviewed. But, I would never get involved unless all usual channels had been explored first. None of the above does anything for people whose aircraft MTOW has been unreasonably been fixed below its engineering capability especially if that higher limit is still below the RAAus pilot limit of 600 kg. That is a decision of CASA. Problem originated with CASA doing us a favour by not making Australian importers of aircraft from overseas go through the type certificate process in Australia if it had already been through that process and been passed in a country acceptable to Australia. If I understand it correctly, if the original importation of the Allegro had been done on the basis of an Australian Type Cert, the 520 kg would have been available from day 1 and never changed. The way it was introduced to Australia, 450 kg is the only answer possible. The MARAP process has been trialled at glacial speed through CASA and there have been just a small number put through and have been successful as has been reported by Tech Manager Darren. Once CASA get used to the process it should speed up considerably especially where a precedent approval exists.

Well, I am curious as to when you think you might be forced to go DR? For me it would take most of the US and Russian satellites to go defective at the same time. I've had iPads fail to display GPS and one turned off due to overheating but the backup has always been there. I have the G1000's little brother, G3X Touch (GPS 1) with backup battery good for hours; OzRunways running on iPad mini mounted on instrument panel, fully charged before takeoff and running on ship power; (GPS 2) Dual XGPS160 fully charged before flight and running on ship power as backup GPS signal source connects by Bluetooth to up to 5 iDevices seeing both Russian and USA Sats) iPhone running OzRunways (backup not primary) GPS 3 And if I were going bush, I'd take a second iPad running OzRunways. And of course I navigate by looking out the window and updating my paper flight plan. If you were to calculate the probability of all those systems going fut at the same time it would be an astronomical number. As a last resort there is my SPOT tracker and the EPIRB. Almost as a superstition I admit to carrying WACs but would not have a mechanical E6B in the cockpit. Do have electronic versions but do not expect ever to use while in the air. When the Super G Constellation was in service on the long haul overseas runs they used celestial navigation to find their way around. There is that cute plastic dome in the roof of the Connie for the navigator to take sightings with his sextant. I'm glad nobody is seriously suggesting anything like that. Why not? Not necessary with modern equipment. In my view, far better that pilots were well trained in all the vagaries of GPS than just DR.