Nobody

International Airventure, Oshkosh in the USA ticket prices ($33 for a single day in USD so allow for conversion) EAA AirVenture Tickets | EAA AirVenture Oshkosh Sun'n'Fun Florida ($37 single day for an adult, again in USD) Admission Rates - AERO Friedrichshafen (18 Euro for a single day, ) AERO | Tickets online Australian Airshows Wings over Illawarra($35 for a day earlybird special) General Admission - Wings Over Illawarra 2017 Hunter Valley Airshow (link to a google archivearchive, $35 Adult for the day) Ticket selection for Hunter Valley Airshow 2017: Purchase Tickets Other "Comparable" Australian Enthusiast events Summernats, Canberra ($79 Adult for a Saturday pass) Summernats Henty Field Day ($22/day for Adults) Henty Machinery Field Days Hobart Wooden boat show( free, I think but significantly sponsored by Tourism Tasmania) Festival Program | Australian Wooden Boat Festival Events cost money to put on.... Most have to charge something to enable them to operate.... The Narromine prices don't seem out of line with comparable events.

The organisers really can't win can they? If they try to encourage people to attend then then people start complaining about them (not) wanting people to fly in. This sport need to realise that unless it is able to bring in new participants it is gone in about 10 years. The demographics are against it and a concerted effort is needed to present the sport to the general public at all events. Would you prefer they said?: "Come to Airventure, there will be more grumpy old pilots standing around moaning about CASA in one location than anywhere else in Australia. You can hear them reminisce about how everything was better in the AUF days. It will be hot dry and dusty and shade will be scarce. There will be plenty of space to park your aircraft in the semi deserted parking area..."

At the moment the AP is CASA and so benefits from that clause. When part 149 comes along there is a risk that the APs will be on their own and have to carry their own insurance.

The AP is acting as CASA's representative. The AP enjoys the same legal protection that an employee of CASA would have in doing their job. This means that if anyone starts suing them the the resources of CASA kick in and defend..... CASA tried to change this a year or so ago but backed down, they are concerned about CASA's liability. If the proposed part 149 goes through then SAAA may be given the right to issue CofA but that will mean that the APs non longer have the CASA protection.

When we visited SA we were surprised to find many boat ramps did charge a fee. Eg, District Council of Robe, South Australia : Boat Ramp Warnervale is over the top. If they don't become a bit more sensible then the planned upgrades will be doomed to failure.

Exactly!!! The push for the 1500kg limit is from the organisation itself and not the general membership in the main. It is to deal with the demographics resulting in reduced members and therefore less money. So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

The MTOW for the 152 is heavier than 750kg.

Pominaus, It's all about money and power. About 15 or 20 years ago RAAus became a credible alternative to the small end of GA. The weight limit was increased to 600kg from 544 and this allowed companies like Jabiru to sell quite good little aircraft that were reasonably good cross country machines to pilots who couldn't pass an aviation medical. The pilots only needed to say they thought they were healthy enough to fly. CASA were happy enough with this as the aircraft were kept away from where they could harm anyone else(CTA and built up areas), were limited to 1 passenger and stalled slow enough that the there wouldn't be too many fatalities. Effectively RAAus now has about 8,000 members, but during the same time period General Aviation lost about 8,000 pilots. While RAAus has attracted a few new people to aviation a significant portion of the membership are pilots who used to fly GA but can no longer because of the medical issues. These pilots are generally pretty old and within the next 5 or 10 years will probably hang up their headsets. This means that the push for greater MTOW and CTA comes from two directions. The pilots who used to fly GA are upset that they are now no longer able to fly IFR, at night, In controlled airspace, with more than 1 passenger or aircraft greater than 600kg. The other push comes from RAAus the organisation itself(as distinct from the membership). It needs to maintain (or grow) its membership to build the empire. The aging member population will mean that unless something is done, in 5 years there will be fewer members than there are today. By increasing the MTOW(to 1500kg) and CTA it can try to get the other 15,000 or so private pilots to be members and grow its empire further. This leads the perverse situation where RAAus, in their submission to CASA, argued that the RAMPS medial requirements should not be relaxed or amended. If pilots were able to fly without being screwed by Avmed they wouldn't need to be members of RAAus... https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raaus-submission-casa-medical-certification-standards-discussion-paper-march-2017.pdf

There are a few Amatuer Built Experimental helicopters that have been registered through the SAAA.

I suspect that the RAAus and its closed aircraft register contribute a little to the problem. Not being able to get aircraft details means that they cannot effectively charge landing fees. This leaves the airports 2 options. Charge GA only or charge noone. The first option means that some users are subsidising others which isnt that fair while the second option means that there is no income for the airport.... I know that many small airports are unhappy about this situation and I suspect some would be against a RAAus weight increase as they will lose revenue.

The financial resources available to the builder and their mindset also come into consideration. I know that during my build there were times I made a mistake and made a mistake eg drilled a hole in the wrong location. In many instances the part could have perhaps been used as it would be hidden in the long term but I have always just ordered another piece from Vans. It's always only a "few" dollars and a short wait but it all adds up. I know some others would have used the damaged parts as they encouraged me to do so. I consider the cost of the extra parts the cost of learning and am willing to spend it to get a good final product. Others just want to finish. Edit: The photo posted by fly_tornado above also shows what I am talking about at little. I have found that the better quality crimp tools produce a much more sound crimp than those shown. A builder who chooses to invest in the higher quality tool gets a better outcome.

John, are you the local dealer for the TL-Ultralight Stream?

BP claim that Opal fuel has a minimum octane rating (RON) of 91. It might be more but they don't guarantee it. Rotax document SI-912-016 R4 says that for the 80hp 912 the minimum RON is 90 and for the 100hp 912s the minimum RON is 95. On that basis you should not run the Opal fuel in the 100 HP engine but it would be ok in the 80hp engine. I know that people have used Opal in the 100 HP engine and not had issues but perhaps they were just lucky...

Join at 45 to the downwind if approaching from the south. If approaching from the north you have to overly the town at circuit height or fly well to the side of the town and join on an extended downwind.

To those saying it's fake have a read of the NTSB crash report: WPR16LA110

It seems that any reference to SAAA have been removed from the Airventure website. It seems that RAAus have completely taken over. This was the email from the SAAA that went around. 19 - 21 October 2017 Dear SAAA Member, First and foremost - SAAA is going to Narromine! Please join us to help make SAAA's involvement and the event a success for all. The event commences at midday Thursday the 19th of October and runs through until Saturday evening on the 21st of October 2017. Beyond the general aspects of the event, operated by the event organiser, AirVenture Australia Pty Ltd (AVA), SAAA will have: All SAAA Narromine facilities open and operating with: A members, friends and supporters meeting area - all aviator and industry supporters are also warmly welcome! Management team members and technical advisers will be available for informal discussions Hosting for one of the event seminar spaces A display of 5 or 6 completed aircraft representative of the range of types operated by SAAA - access panels removed, instrument panels and systems demonstrated A display of 3 or 4 part completed projects SAAA Booth in the Main Exhibitor's Tent SAAA Aircraft judging competition Grand Champion Experimental Best Experimental Aircraft Clive Canning Best Metal Aircraft Best Composite Aircraft John Liddell Best Hybrid or Rag and Tube Aircraft Concours d'Elegance SAAA members will be participating in the air display. Subsequent to many enquiries from our members, it is appropriate to provide some background to the event and SAAA participation. It will be evident to all by now that reference to SAAA has been removed from the AirVenture Australia website. This follows from SAAA requesting that any reference to SAAA as a member of the event organising team be removed. This request was made for a variety of reasons. However, in response, the event organiser has sadly seen fit to also largely remove reference to SAAA as a participant and contributor to the event. Along with RAAus and APF, SAAA is also a current participating beneficiary of the OzKosh Trust - a corporate entity of which AirVenture Australia Pty Ltd is the trustee and also operator of AirVenture 2017. However, SAAA has no ownership or legal control of either of the OzKosh Trust or AirVenture Australia Pty Ltd. SAAA is, as we all know, a largely volunteer supported organisation that operates a not-for-profit operation and, accordingly, we have no interest in deriving revenue other than that required to deliver value for money services to our members. We passionately believe in an Australian general aviation community where all aviators and industry supporters work together and can come together at events around our nation under one sky. We have no interest in politics or commercial influences that may have a contrary effect. As those of our members who attended the President - Members Discussion Forum on Saturday 2nd September will know, there was a comprehensive discussion around matters in relation to the AirVenture 2017 event. It is not productive to repeat that discussion here, however, feel free to contact our President, Tony White, directly if you would like a personal briefing. SAAA remains a founding beneficiary of the OzKosh Trust. We have, and continue to contribute funds and infrastructure to assist in supporting the AirVenture 2017 event and the Australian sport aviation community. We look forward to seeing as many of our members, friends and industry supporters at Narromine over the course of the event. Please help make SAAA's involvement and the event a success! Thank you Tony White President SAAA

This is email from the SAAA I received.

Do you mean the Mobil contamination that occurred in 1999 or have there been 2 issues? Avgas fuel contamination event 1999

Jetjr, You got me. The organisations lose money but provide employment to key people within the organisation...

Exactly!!! It seems strange but the interests of RAAus and the Interests of the Members of RAAus do not align. If what you proposed happened the pilots of australia would be much better off. If that happened though, RAAus would not be able to charge great money for their pieces of paper and so it is not in RAAus's interest for that to happen. Part 149 will not be good for anyone except CASA and the entrenched organisations that make money "administering" Aviation in australia.

Keith, there won't be a common standard world wide. Part 149 in New Zealand is different to part 149 in South Africa.(Scroll to page 1005) The only thing that is common is the name of the part. I was wrong in my earlier post there is a draft for the Australian Part 103: nprm0603os.pdf | Civil Aviation Safety Authority but the only thing it has in common with the FAA part 103 is the "103" in the name: 14 CFR Part 103 - ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES

I am not exactly sure what you mean Keith when you say that "Part 149 and part 103 are of an international Civil Aviation Organization Standard. These standards they are recognised worldwide" The numbers are really just like a "table of contents", but the words insite do change between each country. For instance part 61 is "Flight crew licensing" and part 23 is "Airworthiness standards for aeroplanes in the normal, utility, acrobatic or commuter category". Each country is free to vary the contents of the parts but is encouraged by ICAO to stick to the headings/topics. For instance the USA and Australia have very different requirements for what a private pilot licence allows you to do eg the USA allows a private pilot to fly at night. These requirements are spelt out in part 61 of each countries regulations. A country doesn't have to have all of the parts if it doesn't want to. In Australia Part 149 is going to be "Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisations" and will cover the requirements for bodies like RAAus to exist and be recognised. Part 149 is a little bit controversial. In my view it will be the cause of a lot of restrictions for recreational pilots. It is supported by RAAus and SAAA as it will legitimise their right to charge their members significant fees to issue permits, licences and exemptions. Part 149 doesn't exist in the USA. In the USA part 103 is "Ultralight Vehicles" and allows for instance flight without a licence if the aircraft is below a certain weight. Part 103 does not exist in Australia.

APF used to be listed as an organiser I think. I wonder if they have pulled out of being an organiser over this whole issue.

I wonder if a compromise is being worked on. All the facebook posts have been deleted....

Nev, are you talking about the Rotax 915 that is turbo from the factory or one of the various aftermarket turbo options for the 912?