Mriya

You need to consider the implications of installing non approved parts to a LSA. Unless Jabiru have endorsed an alternately sourced parts how do you know whether Jabiru carry out modifications or quality control processes to the parts they source officially? The fitment of non-approved parts in effect modifies the aircraft from what is described in the original type certificate, with follow-on implications on what the aircraft is allowed to be used for. Of course if Jabiru advise that a part can be sourced alternately (which can happen from time to time) then you know those parts are acceptable. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't just assume a part is identical when sourced commercially instead of via the aircraft manufacturer. You need evidence that the part is an acceptable substitute, meeting all standards required by the manufacturer. If you choose to 'tinker' and experiment with non-approved parts, the aircraft by default should be moved to the 'experimental' category with all restrictions that are attached now applying to your aircraft. In short, it is simpler and safer to buy original or approved substitute parts.

That engine wording is much better. As for the factory vs home-built question, the bottom line as I read it is unless you have a written approval from CASA or an authorised person (ie: RAAus Technical Manager), and you comply with all limitations in that approval your '19' or '28' registered homebuilt must stay out of controlled airspace. My observations are that this rule is often 'ignored' or misunderstood. I'm happy for someone to correct me if I am wrong here, however I haven't seen any other regs or guidance material that allows ops of RAAus homebuilts in controlled airspace without specific written approval.

That list sounds pretty close to the mark, maybe to eliminate any misinterpretation you should add - Current medical and CASA BFR + Current RAAus Pilot Certificate.

There's some typical CASA speak if ever I saw it. When you read it, it makes perfect sense, but I can't help but imagine the delight of the author of this extract when they finished describing a fairly simple concept in such a precise and verbose way.

I'd check these claims. The 912ULS is not a certified engine, but is still permitted in Controlled Airspace. However the factory built aircraft vs homebuilt '19' registered does raise some issues. The following link sets out some severe limitations on flight over built-up areas, which has implications for ops in controlled airspace. http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/regulations.html#built-up

The following link sets out a summary of what you are asking including references to various CAO's, CAR's and CASR's http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/regulations.html#cao

'qualified' is an interesting choice of words. In order to be qualified to fly an RAAus aircraft one must have a RAAus pilot certificate, so I'd have to disagree with your claim to be qualified. Having said that I am in no way suggesting that you don't have the 'skill and experience' that are prerequisites to becoming qualified. In my organisation we have a CASA approved FTC which among other aircraft operates a VH registered Flight Design MC aircraft. Our CFI has many thousands of hrs total flight experience and he flys our MC regularly, however he is not a member of RAAus and does not hold a RAAus Pilot Certificate. Therefore he is not qualified to fly a RAAus aircraft despite the fact that he is qualified to fly an identical VH registered aircraft. On the other hand, I am the only person in our organisation with a RAAus Pilot Certificate and so with my grand total of 80hrs logbook time, am qualified to fly an RAAus aircraft, however I am not allowed to fly our VH registered MC. This illustration shows that 'qualified' vs 'skilled & experienced' are not always one and the same thing.

This really sounds like it should be a new thread, however the simple fact is that RAAus needs to generate income from somewhere to support its administration functions. They have chosen an annual rego fee as a part of that structure. CASA have their own income structure including exam sitting fees for various pilot and maintainer licences (over the last 4.5 years I have done around 30 CASA LAME Basic exams at $100 per exam). So it is all 'swings & roundabouts' when it comes to debating how the money is collected. We would all love for it to be at nil cost to us, but reality says both RAAus and CASA need to set fees and charges in a fair and equitable way that distributes the cost of administration as fairly as possible across the membership. To that end an annual registration fee seems like a perfectly reasonable way to spread out these costs. Comparing individual fees between RAAus and CASA has little merit. A better indicator is the total cost of flying per hr for the owner. Once you factor in the need for paying a maintenance organisation to maintain your VH aircraft alone, you will be well in front with RAAus despite the annual rego fee. RAAus meets the needs of recreational aviators by making it cheaper to fly than would be the case if you follow a full VH/GA route. It should be understood that as costs are reduced, limitations will also be applied. As Metalman put it so well, if you wish to have the full privileges of a PPL, go out and get one.

Yes as a L2 you can do the maintenance once it is 19-xxxx however you will also find that extra restrictions now apply to the aircraft ops (ie: no night ops, no flight over 'built-up' or closely settled areas (see extract from RAAus website below) without written authorisation). As a LAME and L2/L4 I note various differences in what I am allowed to certify with either of these authorisations. Equally, the owner of the j200 you refer to needs to operate within the restrictions that are now placed on their aircraft due to 19-xxxx rego being applied. Flight over the built-up area of a city or town Note: while CAR 262AP uses the term 'built-up area of a city or town', the subordinate 95 series CAOs use the term 'closely-settled area' meaning an 'area in which, because of man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles, and 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'. •Flight over closely-settled areas is prohibited to all CAO 95.10 aircraft. •CAO 95.55 subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) and (h) aircraft [i.e. those with 28-nnnn and 19-nnnn registration] plus CAO 95.32 paragraph 1.3 and 1.4 aircraft [i.e. E-LSA and 51% owner-built powered parachutes and trikes] are — for the purpose of flight over closely-settled areas — all regarded as 'experimental' and may not operate over such areas, unless holding a written authorisation to do so. CAR 262AP deals with operating limitations for experimental aircraft; subregulations 4 and 5 state: (4) A person must not operate an experimental aircraft over the built-up area of a city or town unless authorised to do so under subregulation (5). (5) CASA or an authorised person may authorise a particular aircraft to be operated over the built-up area of a city or town subject to the conditions and limitations CASA or the authorised person considers necessary for the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water. The penalty for non-compliance is 50 penalty units [about $6000]. For RA-Aus registered aircraft the Technical Manager is the authorised person who may issue the written approval. The period of validity for an authorisation is variable, the approval will expire when or if cancelled by CASA or the authorised person. An aircraft must not be flown over a closely-settled area at a height from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area and the minimum height is 1 000 feet above ground level. 'Suitable landing area' means an area in which an aeroplane can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane.

Stevron, I'm not sure that you really appreciate what you are suggesting. By suggesting that RAAus & GA become one you are by default saying you wish for RAAus with its simpler operations, training and maintenance processes which are customised for recreational aviation to cease to exist. CASA has already set the bar at a particular height with regards to VH aircraft which need to be operated and maintained in accordance with particular standards. With CASA standards comes extra privileges and options (ie: controlled airspace, night, IFR, etc) however it also comes at extra cost (ie: pilot training, medical, LAME, etc). You really can't expect to mix and match the advantages of both systems, while ignoring the bits you don't like. VH & RAAus both have a purpose. At times there is overlap and some provisions are made to accomodate that (ie: RAAus who also holds a current PPL can enter controlled airspace if the aircraft meets CASA design and equipment standards). Without RAAus being allowed to self regulate recreational aviation with their own set of standards and procedures, we would all have to comply with the VH regs (ie: PPL training syllabus, LAME maintained aircraft (unless you built it). RAAus and its lesser demands fulfills the desire for people to engage in aviation with a minimum of fuss and expense. As I mentioned earlier parallel systems will always create 'quirks'. For example as a B1.1/B1.2 LAME I can't currently sign for any Radio system (VHF, intercom, transponder, etc) or structural composite repairs on VH aircraft, yet as a L2 I can do any of this work on an RAAus aircraft. Overlapping systems will always result in these 'quirks' and we need to accept them and work within their limitations. The only way to eliminate them is to eliminate RAAus and the result of that would be less affordable flying for a group of people who don't want all the 'bells and whistles' that are attached to a full PPL.

Interesting analogy... Someone with thousands of hrs RAAus flying who has never needed or wanted a PPL may not totally agree with the comparison, but in the very least, yes VH aircraft are not allowed to be piloted independantly by less than a PPL trained person, where as a lower training requirement exists for RAAus.

As per my previous post, the aircraft also needs to meet particular equipment and certification standards before being operated in controlled airspace. I do not deny that quirks will happen about who can fly what, but once you recognise that RAAus exists to allow a person to do some recreational flying without having to jump through all the CASA hoops, you will be thankful that the RAAus option exists if that is all you are after. If you want to fly beyond what RAAus allows a PPL is the only option, and then you can be thankful that for dual RAAus / PPL pilots the option does exist to use your RAAus aircraft (if it qualifies) in controlled airspace as well. I don't really see any problems with the system as it stands.

Although you do highlight 'quirks' that arise through the administration of different sectors of aviation by different authorities, the reality is that they are bound to happen when different authorities control overlapping activities. One thing that is important to realise though is that RAAus DO NOT issue a Pilot Licence, but rather a Pilot Certificate which then authorises you to operate a RAAus aircraft under their rules which are in turn approved by CASA. Also it is important to note that not all RAAus aircraft are not eligible to be flown in controlled airspace, with all of the following being considered before you venture beyond Class G airspace: Aircraft certification design standard; Engine design and manufacture standard; Radio communications equipment requirements; Transponder requirements; Pilot licence requirements; Pilot airspace qualification requirements; and Pilot currency requirements. You may therefore find your RAAus Jab is not allowed into controlled airspace for multiple reasons from the above list (ie. experimental vs factory built, VHF Comms functionality, AD/RAD/47 transponder check currency, plus CASA pilot licence requirements and currency). The bottom line is that RAAus rules allow a limited operation within the recreational realm of aviation for those who do not wish to jump through all the hoops that CASA demands. If however you wish to have the full privileges that a CASA Pilot Licence affords, then you have little option but to go out and get a CASA licence.

I have also discussed batteries/electrical systems with BFI and the advise that MM2 was given gels with my experience. A weak battery or poor positioning requiring a long cable run can result in lower voltage available for cranking the starter which results in weak engagement of the sprag clutch. This in turn causes the sprag clutch to sustain damage and eventually it fails in such a way that the clutch disengages as soon as a cylinder fires resulting in a kickback opposite to normal direction of rotation (ie. can't get engine to start). Once the sprag clutch shows signs of this type of distress, you can expect it to slowly get worse, with the engine becoming progressively harder to start, until you reach a point where it will no longer start at all. Moral of the story is replacing your battery and ensuring electrical wiring and connections are in good condition is cheap insurance against expensive engine repairs.

Just watched and immediately recognised it as The Oaks where I did my 1st solo too. Well done and what a great video to remember it with.

I'd also double check AC4 - ICAO list Light Wing as a Swiss Company so I don't think that code is correct. If you use the ICAO site you will find that Hughes Group have not even been allocated a manufacturer code and they have no aircraft listed with codes either. Here is a link that refers to the swiss AC4. Looks like a nice little aircraft, but definatly not a lightwing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Wing_AC4 and http://www.lightwing.ch/index.php?id=ac4

I have installed an A-200, A-210 & SL40 in different airframes over the last few years and have had no complaints with any of them. As another person mentioned the A-210 does have a ribbon connector to connect the removable front panel which you need to treat with care, however this radio install has been working without any issues since 2009. With any radio/intercom install don't skimp on wiring. Use shielded, aircraft approved wire where called to avoid interference. Take special note of correct grounding of the shields. Avoid 'spaghetti' wiring by planning the layout and taking care with wire lengths. Use good quality coax and fittings, taking note of the specs called for in the installation manual. Seek advice if you have not got radio experience (my tip as a long time mechanical LAME, who has ventured into radio work in the last few years). If it was not for some good advice from others during my 1st RAAus radio install (the A-210 in 2009) I'd have made a number of errors too. From the few radio/avionic jobs that I have been involved in I can't stress enough the need to thoroughly understand all aspects of the installation manual, use correct spec materials and do a neat job. Having also been involved in some troubleshooting of installs it quickly becomes a case of being easier to just rip out poor installs and start again than try to identify and fix all the errors. Hope these tips help.

Check the rigging / maintenance data in your aircraft service manual for the proper answer. Having said that, if you find the ball is always offset, it can help to rig the rudder a little offset to allow coordinated flight 'hands & feet off'.

This is an ICAO approved grouping according to the Ops Manual. In addition, of course the RAAus Ops manual has been approved by CASA, therefore it is a perfectly legitimate and approved option. However before people start adopting this standard, I'd warn you to read the limitations on how to deal with 'zeros' in the ICAO group form. This issue was also covered some time ago in Sport Pilot magazine, where all ther rules were spelt out.

Per RAAus Ops Manual Sect 4.02 either form is acceptable However note the pronunciataion should be SEVen TREE FIFE SEVen if you choose to prenounce the numbers individually.

I saw the figures you have listed and they support my proposition that the -400 (pax version with tail tank) and the -400F (dedicated freighter) all have the same fuel capacity. The -400ER which is listed with a higher fuel capacity has AUX tanks in the fwd cargo hold in addition to the tail tank, which it also has accounting for the higher capacity. To my knowledge Qantas was the only customer to purchase the -400ER. When I googled I did note some pprune references, however without firm evidence from an official source, I am yet to be convinced that any difference exists. You have got me curious though, and I will need to contact some of my previous QF colleagues to seek confirmation one way or another. As I said before, I have not done enough work on -400F aircraft to remember, but all the evidence that I see, including the links you have given me suggest to me that the -400F does have a tail tank. Having said all that, it is very possible that most/all freight operators opt to deactivate the system if it is an option, sacrificing range for payload, which probably makes sense for that type of operation. In fact I did find evidence that Boeing have made that decision for the 747-8F.

Can you point me to evidence that shows this? When I looked on the Boeing website the fuel capacity for the PAX and Freighter versions of the -400 were the same. I'm not claiming to know the answer, but the evidence I found from a quick search of the web last night does not agree with what you say. I am trying to stretch my memory back to some limited work on Atlas / Polar Air Cargo Freighter -400 work I did a while back, but I really can't remember any significant differences (apart from a big swing open nose, less seats, galleys & toilets). Could just as easily be a faulty memory on my part.

It's been a few years now since I last used my 747-400 maintenance licence, but here we go anyway... 747-400 (pax version in the very least) do not use fuel to trim in the way many Airbus aircraft do. In simple terms the fuelling manual calls for fuel in the tail only once other tanks are to be filled to capacity. Once in flight the engines draw fuel from the centre wing tank until a single point sensor (which sense when enough room exists in the CWT) triggers the transfer pumps which then pump all fuel from the tail to the CWT. The tail tank will then empty, fuel then keeps being drawn from the CWT till it is almost empty at which point the fuel starts being drawn from the wing tanks. A CWT scav pump then slowly pumps whatever remains in the CWT into #2main tank so it can be used also. I can't verify claims of others that freighter versions don't use tail tanks as I never played with fuel systems on freighter versions, however I note on the Boeing website that the fuel capacity specs are idential for PAX and freighter versions of the -400, so my gut feeling is that the tail tank does exist, but someone may be able to prove me wrong on this one . Hope this info is helpful...

CASA have finally issued what was really needed to solve the R44 fuel tank issue fully. CASA Airworthiness Directive AD/R44/23 was issued today, which closes the loophole where SB's are not necessarily mandatory. Without trying to be disrespectful to those who have died in R44 accidents in Oz, I guess we now know roughly what the death count needs to be before CASA acts. On the other hand, I am guessing that CASA was waiting to see whether the FAA would act, as the regulator in the country of origin. AD/R44/23 states that the relevent fuel tank mod SB must be complied with by 30th April 2013. I am guessing a few R44's will be grounded from tomorrow. I'd love to know what feedback and discussions occured between R44 owners and CASA over the last month since they issued the earlier Airworthiness Notice. In that one they asked owners to state what maintenance schedule they had in place and also stated that non-incorporation of the SB would be deemed inadequate, however without today's AD, owners could have argued with CASA regarding the need to apply the SB. I suspect some owners responded to CASA stating that their maintenance schedule met all legal requirements without the SB, which was correct without the legal backing of an AD. Anyway, at least now the public will be protected from operators who were choosing to save money by not incorporating this safety mod.

Thanks for that, I knew 614kg was not a figure that would apply to NEV's situation, but had not looked up the regs to find where the figure had come from. I did allude to the fact that waterborne aircraft have their own set of weight limits, but didn't want to go there as it would just complicate my attempt at describing the basics of MTOW.