KRviator

OK where do we find jerry cans in the Technical Instructions?

You don't. From memory, the technical instructions detail what items are acceptable for carriage by air, in what quantities, if they're restricted to cargo aircraft only and how they must be packed.The actual packaging must meet IATA standards and this is identified by a UN marking similar to the one shown above. Basically, no UN marking, not fit to contain DG airborne. Some jerrycans are available UN certified, for example these ones on Ebay.

 

If you're carrying fuel in a steel jerrycan that doesn't have a UN marking, you might be able to show compliance with 92.175 B(1) in that the fuel is in a proper condition for carriage, but that's dependant on the interpretation of the FOI you encounter. And your insurer if you come to grief... Good luck.

 

 

It doesn't need to be CAsA approved, but rather meet the requirements of the IATA DG regulations. It's been a while since I did my DG packaging & acceptance course, but to be legal for carriage by air, there should be a "UN" symbol, with a string of letters & numbers similar to:

And you should be able to do that with RAAus rego and Pilot Cert, if thats what you have.

Good luck with that. Perhaps you may like to re-read the legislation that we fly under. You know, the part that says the aeroplane must not be flown in acrobatic flight...

 

Just throwing it out there, why not reduce the MTOW of aircraft registered with Raa Aus to 490kg, remove LSA and Float increases. Anything requiring these extras go to CASA. That way Controlled airspace, RPL, etc cease to become devisive and the organisation can return to being a RECREATIONAL flying organisation. If you want all the bells and whistles of GA without the cost, then tough luck. Horses for courses.

By your methodology, we should be allowed to do aerobatics in our aircraft. Recreational isn't just puttering around the countywide at 55kts. Recreational is having fun.

 

I have a 2 seater, solid as, 490kg MTOW. Long cross country miles and paddock landings. On your reasoning, we should all have 172's with 582 motors. Remember, these are Ultralights, not medium lights or heavy lights. My undercarriage is spring and shock absorber designed for rough landings. I can carry 2 x 90kg people including fuel. Next problem?

I wouldn't call a 4 hour endurance at 55 kts "long cross country miles". With a 4 hour endurance you've gone as far as I have in 80 minutes. Or I have gone as far in 4 hours as you have in a day and a halfs flying in the X-air. And I have had just as much fun as you have, at a lower operating cost and have given myself more time to have fun at my destination.Recreation isn't all about gross weight limits, or how far you can fly, nor how fast. And everyone's version will be different. Personally I don't see the RPL as divisive at all, and have never heard it called that either until you did. You seem to forget that CAsA is the reason so many people want to fly RAAus, myself included. However, RAAus has taken your mentality in my case and illegally refused to register my plane, so I don't have a choice BUT to go to CAsA. I'd rather have a case of gastro than deal with them, but that's another discussion...

 

 

You mean like in Panna?

 

 

 

So you sound quite upset about it?

Bloody oath I am. I have a written undertaking from the then-RAAus Technical Manager that on completion of the build, my RV-9A will be accepted for registration with RAAus. Having spent tens of thousands of dollars on the aircraft, much blood (yes, really!) sweat and tears have been expended. I have been on the threshold of AIDS a couple of times because of it, it is now ready to go and not only do RAAus have the hide to accept the provisional rego number application and take my money, after that, the current Tech Manager now refuses to accept an aircraft that legally complies with their own rules based on nothing more than an "I don't like it". Let's say you build a J230 and then RAAus refuse to register it -even though there are dozens already out there. Or perhaps you build a Europa XS. These aircraft can meet the requirements of CAO 95-55, there are already examples on the register, but according to RAAus (and your) logic, they cannot possibly be accepted on the register anymore as their listed gross weight is in excess of 600Kg.

 

As you have said it is a more useful option in VH anyway. Why specifically do you want it in RAA? What is the advantage?

Now the RPL is available, there is not much difference. I'll be the first to admit that. However, when I had "finished" (builders will know that feeling) the RPL was still a pipedream. "Oh it's coming, it's coming...." Just like our CTA endorsement! Why RAAus now RPL is available? So I don't have to deal with CASA. So I'm not thousands of dollars out of pocket changing placards, rego stickers and orginisations. Anyone priced a CoA pack from the SAAA lately? a smidgen under $500. Plus nearly $200 to signup. Plus $400 each time you have an AP callout to look at your plane, plus his reasonable costs, plus the TC's reasonable costs - and this is before you get it to the airport and assembled. And My RV is ready to go now. But because of this debacle, I am now months away from flying. I need to take annual leave (in a weeks block & worth nearly $1000/day) to enable me to be home when the SAAA AP can look at my plane, whereas with RAAus I could have done it on my RDO's and been flying today!. Is that enough or should I go on?

 

If RAA rego 2 people @ 80 kg will leave you 7 kg fuel about 10 lt enough to taxy on the apron!

I'm well aware of the potential limitations, thank you. Do you really think someone would embark on such an endeavour without considering those issues. As above, I'm not planning on taking the missus flying. Solo I have the legs to go from Newcastle to Brisbane and back - at 180mph. If I can lose 10Lbs myself I can fill the tanks and go to Adelaide in 4 hours with 90 mins reserve. Try that with your average Jab! And FYI, my eldest is 35Lbs, with his carseat weighs 50Lbs. That leaves 23 gallons of fuel, or 3 hours flight time with reserves. That's still Newcastle-Brisbane or Melbourne one way in time to see the family for lunch, refuel there and fly back in time for dinner at home. Perfectly acceptable for my circumstances. So far as I can see, having my -9A RAAus meets my requirements.

 

If you feel you have been badly treated then you always have the option of writing to the CEO ([email protected]) and asking him to review the decision. Michael Linke is a fair man from what I have seen and will definitely consider your position. In the event that you feel that even then you did not get treated fairly then you have the right to ask the RAAus board to consider your plight.I hope that you take the opportunity to follow that grievance path, its there to ensure natural justice occurs as the ACT incorporated associations act requires.

 

You can contact me as a board member in the event of the need for a last review, but not until you have exhausted the opportunity to discuss with the CEO, or the current stand in while Michaels overseas.

 

regards

 

Andy

With respect Andy, when my Experimental CoA comes through, I'll be washing my hands of RAAus. I'm done trying to tell your people their job and prove myself to people who themselves don't know the rules - and don't care about them in any event when shown. The RPL gives me the ability to fly into CTA and I can take the missus and Kid-2 flying in a 172 should I so choose. Having friends who were grounded for weeks, if not months due to RAAus's incompetence coupled with being led up the garden path leaves one with a very sour taste about future dealings.Until RAAus refused to register my -9, I was quite content to stay a member. Maybe even get my instructors ticket. The RPL is here now and I will be using it. But I shouldn't have to! I am being forced to, simply because one person in a position of authority doesn't like what I've done. And that is bollocks. As above, what if he decides there won't be anymore J200-series allowed?

 

Didn't they effectively stop two seaters being registered as single seaters a few years back? I suspect yours falls under that rule change.

And what rule change would that be?

 

You are wasting money with RAA registration and devaluing your investment for no discernible advantage......

I beg to differ. What other RAAus aircraft offer the performance of an RV - even single seat? The Lightning looks fast, but only cruises at 120Kts. A Long-Ez? 125Kts. Still 40kts slower than an RV with a much lower rate of climb. A single-seat KR-2 with a Rotax 914 would come closest I reckon, but there's not an awful lot out there right now that can compete with an RV, particularly a lightweight one with an O-340 on the nose!

 

FV You are quite right, it is none of my business why he wants to register it with RAA. I am just at a loss to understand why someone would go to a lot of expense and time to build a beautiful aircraft then limit it's usefulness. He can do what he likes I suppose, and he has shown it is allowed by the regs, so there does not appear a valid reason why he can't have it registered. Tom

 

The bit that makes me think RAA are doing the right thing to protect members is that an RV9 varies from around 750-790kg's (less with smaller engine) and it's being squashed into a 600kg max category). It's clearly not a 600kg aircraft.

Neither is a Jabiru 200 or 400 series, they're giving up 220Lbs of payload if you limit them to RAAus.

Darren has posted in this thread and suggested that you contact him. You can't get better service than that, although I suspect you already know why you can't register your aircraft and are venting about it here.You are basing your figures on the fact that your aircraft will be a single seater, however RAA has (or at least had) a documented formula for the BEW of a two seater.

 

You have said 43X BEW but a J230 is closer to 360.

I AM NOT BRUCE!The person the Tech Manager asked contact him is the OP. Soleair. Not me!

 

The BEW of any aeroplane is irrelevant. The J230 can have an empty weight of 200Kgs but shoehorn 500Kg of "stuff" into it and you can legally fly VH-. But you'll be 100Kg overweight for RAAus and that is exactly the same as the RV-9/7 series. And I would suggest the same for a lot of overseas designs as well. The

 

The "Documented formula" that you refer to is defined in CAO 95.55 but that refererence is not applicable to an amateur-built aircraft. Please actually read the rules before you actually use them in an argument. Here is CAO 95-55 with the relevant sections highlighted.

 

Now, I've documented to you all that an RV-9A can meet the legal requirements of RAAus registration. I challenge you so show me why it cannot. Not heresay. Not "you'll be better off VH-".

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011

1 Name of instrument

 

This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011.

 

2 Commencement

 

This instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

 

3 New Civil Aviation Order 95.55

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is repealed and a new Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is substituted as set out in Schedule 1.

 

Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.55

 

Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes

 

1 Application

 

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

 

(a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and Meets this part.

 

(b) has a single engine and a single propeller; and Meets this part too.

 

© has a Vso stall speed of not greater than 45 knots, as determined by design standards or certification requirements; and And this

 

(d) is registered with the RAA; andAnd this

 

(e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2.And this

 

1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following:

 

(a) an aeroplane to which Order 101.28 applies that complies with the design standards specified in that Order, with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: But not this one

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(b) an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.1 of Order 101.55; Or this one

 

© an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.2 of Order 101.55 that meets the design standards in that Order; Or this one

 

(d) an old section 95.25 aeroplane that has not been modified except with the approval of a person who is an authorised person for subregulation 35 (1) of CAR 1988; Or this one

 

(e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation, that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: BUT IT MEETS THIS ONE

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(f) an aeroplane:

 

(i) of a type for which a type certificate, a certificate of type approval or an equivalent document has been issued by CASA, another national airworthiness authority (NAA) or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(ii) that has been manufactured for sale by the holder of a certificate, or an equivalent document, permitting the manufacture of aeroplanes of that type and issued by CASA or another NAA or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(iii) that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

(A) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(B) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; and

 

(iv) that has a payload that is equal to, or exceeds, the minimum useful load for that aeroplane determined in accordance with paragraph 1.3;

 

(g) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) manufactured by a qualified manufacturer as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current special certificate of airworthiness;

 

(h) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) to which paragraph 21.191 (j) or (k) of CASR 1998 applies; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current experimental certificate of airworthiness.

 

1.3 For the purposes of sub-subparagraph 1.2 (f) (iv), the minimum useful load for an aeroplane is: And here's the formula - But look! It doesn't apply to paragraph 1.2 (E)!

 

(a) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in kilowatts — the amount in kilograms worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(80 x S) + 0.3P; or

 

(b) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in brake horse power — the amount in pounds worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(175 x S) + 0.5P

 

where:

 

S is the number of seats in the aeroplane; and

 

P is the aeroplane’s rated engine power.

 

2 Definitions

 

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.

 

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 aeroplane or damaging property in the area.

 

competent issuing authority means any authority or body in a Contracting State that:

 

(a) has been authorised by the NAA of that State to issue design approvals or manufacturing approvals, whichever is applicable, for the aeroplane; and

 

(b) CASA, if it was not the authorising NAA, has accepted in writing as competent to issue design approvals or manufacturing approvals for the aeroplane.

 

ELT means emergency locator transmitter.

 

flight instructor certificate means a flight instructor certificate issued by the RAA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual.

 

flight radiotelephone operator licence means a flight radiotelephone operator licence granted under Part 5 of CAR 1988.

 

old section 95.25 aeroplane means an aeroplane to which section 95.25 of the Orders, as in force immediately before 28 February 1990, applies.

 

Order means Civil Aviation Order.

 

pilot certificate means a pilot certificate issued by the RAA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual.

 

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.

 

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.

 

stall speed Vso is the stalling speed, or minimum steady flight speed, at which the aeroplane is controllable with:

 

(a) wing flaps in the landing position; and

 

(b) landing gear extended; and

 

© engine idling with the throttle closed; and

 

(d) centre of gravity in the most forward position; and

 

(e) maximum take-off weight.

 

3 Exemptions under regulation 308

 

3.1 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 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5;

 

(b) regulations 36A and 37;

 

© subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment;

 

(d) regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157;

 

(e) regulations 207 and 208;

 

(f) regulation 210 as far as advertising of flying training to qualify for a pilot standard specified in the RAA Operations Manual is concerned;

 

(g) regulation 230;

 

(h) subregulation 242 (2);

 

(i) regulation 252;

 

(j) regulation 258.

 

3.2 Except in the case of a flight that is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from its departure point, a 2-place aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown only if it carries:

 

(a) an approved ELT, or an approved portable ELT, as defined in regulation 252A of CAR 1988; or

 

(b) a personal locator beacon that has been approved by CASA for use with such an aeroplane.

 

Note Regulation 252A of CAR 1988 does not apply to single-seat aircraft (see subregulation 252A (7) of CAR 1988).

 

4 Conditions on special certificate of airworthiness or experimental certificate

 

The exemptions given by subsection 3, to an aeroplane to which subparagraph 1.2 (g) or (h) applies, are subject to the following conditions:

 

(a) the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, issued for the aeroplane stops having effect at the earliest of:

 

(i) the end of the validity period, if any, mentioned in the certificate; or

 

(ii) suspension of the certificate; or

 

(iii) cancellation of the certificate; or

 

(iv) a modification being made to the aeroplane that was not authorised by the manufacturer; or

 

(v) the aeroplane no longer complying with LSA standards as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998;

 

(b) the holder must, on request by CASA or an authorised person, make the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, available for inspection by CASA or the authorised person;

 

© the aeroplane must continue to be registered in Australia;

 

(d) CASA or an authorised person may suspend or cancel the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, if CASA or the authorised person considers it necessary to do so in the interest of aviation safety;

 

(e) if the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, stops having effect or is cancelled or suspended, the holder must, at the written request of CASA or an authorised person, surrender the certificate to CASA or the authorised person.

 

Note Regulation 262APA of CAR 1988 applies to special light sport aircraft. The conditions in this subsection form an additional operating limitation under subregulation 262APA (4) of CAR 1988.

 

5 Licence not required

 

5.1 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 6 and 7.

 

5.2 In spite of paragraph 5.1, 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.

 

6 General conditions

 

6.1 The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, are subject to the following general conditions:

 

(a) the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than:

 

(i) private operations including glider towing but not aerial application operations; or

 

(ii) if the aeroplane has been wholly built and assembled by a commercial manufacturer — flying training to enable a person to obtain a pilot certificate;

 

(b) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person holds a valid pilot certificate and, subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate;

 

© subject to paragraph 6.2, if the aeroplane is being used for flying training, the person conducting the training must hold a valid flight instructor certificate;

 

(d) 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;

 

(e) the aeroplane must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual;

 

(f) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f) — the aeroplane must not have been modified without the approval of CASA or of an authorised person for the purposes of regulation 35 of CAR 1988;

 

(g) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) — the aeroplane must:

 

(i) before its initial flight, have been inspected by a person authorised by CASA for that purpose; and

 

(ii) if any condition or limitation has been imposed under paragraph 6.3 — be operated subject to that condition or limitation.

 

6.2 In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training.

 

6.3 A person who inspects an aeroplane under subparagraph 6.1 (g) may impose any conditions or operational limitations in respect of the operation of the aeroplane that he or she considers necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water.

 

7 Flight conditions

 

7.1 Subject to paragraphs 7.2 and 9.5, the exemptions given by subsection 3 in relation to an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, are further subject to the following flight conditions:

 

(a) the aeroplane may be flown 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher only in accordance with paragraph 8.4;

 

(b) 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 8.1 is complied with;

 

© subject to paragraph 7.2, the aeroplane must not be flown over a body of water at a horizontal distance from a suitable landing area of more than:

 

(i) the distance (not greater than 25 nautical miles) that the aeroplane can glide in case of engine failure; or

 

(ii) 25 nautical miles — if each occupant is wearing a life jacket and the aircraft carries a serviceable radiocommunication system and the equipment referred to in subparagraph 3.2 (a) or (b);

 

(d) 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 7.3 — in Class A, B, C or D airspace;

 

Note Classes of airspace are defined in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.

 

(e) the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area designated as an area where the operation of an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, would constitute a hazard to other aircraft;

 

(f) the aeroplane must only be flown in V.M.C.;

 

(g) the aeroplane must only be flown during daylight hours;

 

(h) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), ©, (f) or (g) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely‑settled area at a height:

 

(i) from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area; and

 

(ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level;

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (h) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely‑settled area except as authorised under paragraph 7.5;

 

(j) the aeroplane must not be flown in acrobatic flight;

 

(k) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) and that is registered with the RAA after 1 October 1998 — the aeroplane must not be flown outside an area defined for the purposes of this subparagraph by CASA, or a person authorised by CASA for that purpose, or carry any person other than the pilot, unless CASA or the authorised person is satisfied that the aeroplane:

 

(i) is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the manoeuvres to be executed; and

 

(ii) has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features;

 

(l) the radiotelephone equipment (if any) fitted to an aeroplane must not be used by a person unless the person holds:

 

(i) for transmissions on VHF frequencies only — a valid certificate, issued by the RAA in accordance with the appropriate operations manual, relating to the operation of radiotelephone equipment; or

 

(ii) for all transmissions, but subject to paragraph 5.2 — a flight radiotelephone operator licence.

 

7.2 In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in subparagraph 7.1 ©, 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.

 

7.3 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown in Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with:

 

(a) the aeroplane is:

 

(i) certificated to the design standards specified in section 101.55; or

 

(ii) meets the criteria specified in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a) or regulation 21.186 of CASR 1998; or

 

(iii) approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in relation 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 Order 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.

 

7.4 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be used to tow another aircraft only if:

 

(a) the pilot in command is qualified to do so; and

 

(b) both aircraft are operated in accordance with limitations in their flight manuals, or equivalent instructions or directions, whether in the form of a placard or some other document; and

 

© the towing aeroplane is certified as suitable for that purpose and is mentioned in a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication for this Order.

 

7.5 CASA, or an authorised person for subregulation 262AP (5) of CAR 1988, may authorise an aeroplane referred to in subparagraph 7.1 (i) to be operated over a closely‑settled area subject to the conditions and limitations that CASA or the authorised person considers necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or of persons on the ground or water.

 

Note Operations in Class A airspace under the V.F.R. require permission from CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988.

 

8 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

 

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level 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.

 

8.2 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.

 

8.3 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 must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a place or person referred to in subparagraph 8.2 (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 place or person, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing.

 

8.4 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.

 

8.5 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 10 000 feet above mean sea level or higher in accordance with an approval issued under paragraph 9.3.

 

9 Approval of flights not complying with flight conditions

 

9.1 A person who wants to fly an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, otherwise than in accordance with the flight conditions set out in paragraph 7.1, may apply to CASA for approval of the flight.

 

9.2 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.

 

9.3 CASA may, in writing, approve the application.

 

9.4 The approval:

 

(a) must specify which of the flight conditions set out in paragraph 7.1 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.

 

9.5 If the proposed flight takes place in accordance with the approval (including any conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 9.4 (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 9.4 (a).

So KR have you taken up Darren's offer to talk to him directly? From my limited dealings with him he comes across as being very helpful and seeing as he posted the offer it might well be worth a phone call.

I'm not Bruce. He was talking to the OP, not me.EDIT: And as for being helpful, the comment from the Tech Manager to the L4 as I was standing beside him was "He can send the forms in, but it won't do any good".

 

Not exactly what I would call an overly helpful attitude.

 

 

I'm not surprised they said no and they should have never let the other one through.432 kgs? That's heavy and people were saying a C162 @ 400kg is too heavy.

Install thinner wingtips and there's even more weight lost. But even so, if I were to design my own single-seat carnard that weighed 432kg's that'd be acceptable? Either the aircraft meets the requirements of the legislation or it doesn't. My RV-9A DOES meet the legal requirements for RAAus registration, but they've selectively chosen to deny me the opportunity to fly it with them - and in the process cost me several thousand dollars because they wouldn't acknowledge the agreement we had in writing when I commenced the build process after notifying them I was building an RV-9. Furthermore, they accepted the provisional registration form that had all the details on it and issued me a rego number! And then they decide it isn't going to be registered with them? No matter how you look at it, that is not cool.

 

Does anyone remember the rv7? that was registered under RAA as a single seater but was then caught flying non-stop from Melbourne to Mildura with 2 POB?They are not looking for a repeat of this.

So, rather than take action against the peckerhead who flew overweight, they've arbitrarily decreed no more Brand X on their register. What is the difference between a J430 and a J230? OR more accurately, what is the difference between a J230 with numbers on the side and a J230 with VH? 700Kg MTOW VH, 600KG RAAus. You tell me what is stopping Captain Fourbars with his missus and 200Kg of "stuff" boring holes in the sky in a RAAus J230? I'll save you the trouble. NOTHING.

 

Why would you want to register it with RAAus? At that weight it is an expensive single seat, with less than 170kg for people and fuel! 100ltrs of fuel will give maybe 2.5 hrs with reserves for 72 kg, leaves you with single seat.

Work it backwards. 1320Lbs MTOW-950Lbs BEW leaves a payload of 370Lbs. Take my 170LBs and I have 200Lbs for fuel. That's 33.5 Gallons, or over 5 hours endurance at 170mph, based on CAFE flight test results. That's easily Newcastle-Brisbane return, thank you very much. Single seat? Not the end of the world for me, my missus isn't a huge fan of it. 2 seat? My missus won't fly in it, but with two young kids, that's still 2 hours of running around the countryside watching one of them have an absolute ball.

 

Sorry but RAAus is right to refuse registration for this. VH exp is a very valid alternative. Tom

IF it didn't meet the rules, yes, they are. But it does, and they're not. Who's to say they'll let anymore J230's on the register?

 

If somebody wants to register brand X aeroplane and is denied BUT there is already another brand X aeroplane already on the register. I cannot see how the person can be denied the right, as the precedent has already been set.But rules are rules and our tech manager is doing his job by the rules which is what is to be expected.

Our tech manager is placing arbitrary restrictions on what can and cannot be registered based on the fear that someone else is going to break the rules. Sorry, but I don't work like that. Why not impose a ban on 2 strokes, given they have more inherent failures than 4 stroke engines? Or ban Jabiru engines outright as they have more failures than Rotax?

 

Become a lawyer or redesign the aircraft. I thought they gave you a sensible answer, in the circumstances. Having it in writing is all you need. Nev

Having anything in writing from RAAus isn't worth the paper it is written on...

Have you done the W&B yet KR? rgmwa

Preliminary weight, not balance, was 935Lbs empty, without gear leg or wheel fairings, but complete in all other respects. I figure 950Lbs BEW will be the book figure.

 

That's interesting considering there is another RV9 on the RAA register.

Yep, and I'm talking with the owner about my predicament, but to be honest, if RAAus won't honour their agreement, then they can take a long walk of a short pier so far as I'm concerned. A poor attitude, admittedly, but not one of my doing.

There are NO requirements for stage inspections with SAAA. The TC and AP I've been in touch with have been more than helpful in this regard, considering my circumstances...Those being I'm in the process of migrating my 99.9%-complete RV-9 to the VH- system because RAAus is refusing to honour their agreement (that I have in writing mind you)to allow my plane onto the register.

 

The benefits to this are several in my case; I can use the full gross weight of the RV, I can fly at night*, or in IMC*, I can fly in CTA and I can fly above 10,000'. The only loser here is RAAus as I now have no use for them once my RPL arrives.

 

*with appropriate endorsements!

 

 

With rare exceptions, why would an RAAus pilot lodge a plan or lodge a SAR time?

I would hope all RAAus pilots would lodge a SARtime on across-country. And as for submitting a flight plan, I'd do it if I was looking for flight following. It's nice to have someone looking over you if you're out there alone, and you're already on area if something goes pear-shaped.

The exemption is renewed regularly. Latest expires in 2015 see http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00098

Ahh, there's that lightbulb moment:idea: Wish I'd known about that when I ordered my stickers for my RAAus rego a few months ago. Could've saved hundreds of dollars.

Then again, if I'm reading the CASR right, if you want 75mm letters on the sides instead of 300mm, you can have 75mm underwing letters and 75mm letters on the side as well...

 

 

Didn't that exemption expire a couple of years ago?

 

Duration

This instrument:

 

(a) commences on the day of registration; and

 

(b) stops having effect at the end of January 2012

As it is no longer a requirement to display under wing markings on aircraft below 5700kgs operating wholly with in Australia, why can't the RAAus Technical Manual be revised along the same lines.I assume this was a requirement so as to follow what was then a CASA regulation.

I looked at the legislation (CASR 43.035) not two days ago for my RV and it was still a requirement to display rego letters underwing.What's the new rule that says we don't have to?

 

 

If your aircraft is VH registered the owners (and the operator as this may be different) name and registered address is available on line to anyone. This should be the same for all Ra-Aus registered aircraft.

NO, it shouldnt and it should not be the case for VH- registered aircraft either. You would not stand for your car rego details being publicly available would you? Why then, is it different for aircraft?

 

Why do we have to be secretive about it?

Here's one reason. Some bloke at PPrune who feels it is acceptable to trawl the register to "get in touch" with commercial operators. If I was running a business the absolute last thing I would want is a Government department giving out my details so every Tom, Dick and Kiwi could ring up and pester me for a job. Contrary to popular belief, some people do not actually want the world to know they have a $100k+ RV-x in their hangar. Put two and two together and that equals "Joe Bloggs must have money" or "Joe Bloggs must have a high-end GPS I can pinch".

 

Having the register available to anyone including aerodrome operators will help keep our facilities maintained as pilots will know that if they do not pay they can be pursued for the fee.

It is the same for car parks too, but you don't see the vehicle rego database publicly available do you? What is so different?

I think there is also something going on about whether RA-Aus should assist airports levy landing fees on RA-Aus registered aircraft. A current register with names of registered owners could be interesting to airport operators.

I think that is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time.I have nothing at all against paying my landing fees where due, however fail to see why RAAus should hand our details over on a silver platter. You cannot just log on to the RTA and find out who drives car ABC-123, why is it considered acceptable for aircraft?

 

 

Shame I can't be there... There'd be words about selectively denying registrations to aircraft that meet the rules.

 

 

Birds have particularly small brains. Being able to fly protected them until birds of prey came along. A brain (when used) consumes a lot of energy, so most creatures have the smallest brains they an get away with. Nev

I know people like that....ISTR the USAF tested the formation flying thing with aircraft as large as C17's and found significant fuel savings as well.

 

 

So my 19-registered RV-9 can't fly through Class C, but change the rego and I can take it through Class C, D, E and A? And all I've done is change a sticker on the side...

 

Tell me this isn't an Australian thing?

 

 

Was talking to one of the office girls a couple of weeks ago about initial rego for my plane. Got the standard "5 weeks" forecast.

 

So 5 weeks insurance, 5 weeks that I can't have my plane at its' local airstrip, 5 weeks parking charges at the remote airfield. For what? Because RAAus can't get their house in order after how long?