Mike Borgelt

Do you have a link to that Coroner's report, kasper?

Yenn, you need to distinguish between the monkeys and the organ grinders. The monkeys (CASA) will do whatever the organ grinders want, to keep the bananas coming. Their masters the politicians (the organ grinders) call the tune.

Canada has had owner maintenance of simple light aircraft and gliders for about 15 years. The United States FAA did an audit on this in 2013 and concluded there was no bad effect on the accident rate and that the aircraft were in as good or better condition on average than those maintained under the old methods. This should be enough of an experiment whose results are known to institute this here. I believe Canada is also moving to the US model of pilot medical fitness (one initial DAME exam and subsequent 2 yearly on line quiz on aeromedical factors). Australia is seriously out of line with comparable anglosphere countries. Other countries, successful in aviation also don't divide and conquer by handing State powers to private organisations. Technically this is in line with the definition of Fascism. By now it should be clear that the purpose of all this regulation has nothing to do with public safety. It is just a tool of government oppression designed to discourage the unfortunate subjects (not citizens) from carrying out these activities by making then onerous, expensive and difficult. Anyone with a firearms licence will understand. As ever the private organisations in charge of aviation activities are as much a problem as CASA.

More regulatory complexity. Pity there was no medical reform as the Brits did it. Then, without owner maintenance, you wouldn't need to join RAAus, just continue on your RPL and no need for the division of RAAus maintenance into under 600 Kg and up to 760 Kg. CASA really are a bunch of piously sanctimonious fools. A Cessna 150, technology wise, makes an FJ Holden look like a veritable riot of modern technology. You can maintain the latter yourself and put many more people at risk than you would in a Cessna 150.

It isn't just if you are accused of doing something wrong and even if you are, let them charge and convict you in court. That is the proper procedure in Australia, instead of little kangaroo courts. I'm referring to the rules promulgated by these organisations which are in many cases more restrictive than CASA rules. Look at RAAus homebuilding vs CASA Part 21. Look at GFA ANNUAL checks rather than bi-annual and they insist on full spins (crazy amount of risk exposure for no gain - nobody has demonstrated that this prevents any accidents), just to name 2. You may also like to think of the implications of a GFA president who after 2 years in the job resigns to immediately accept a job on the CASA Board.

Yeah, I know a guy who could lose his Class 2 and if he does he'll buy an LSA for commuting to his farm instead of the GA aircraft he has. I many cases the choice will be between a GA aircraft like Cirrus SR22 ($ one million or so), Diamondstar DA40 (a little less) and a Blackshape doesn't look bad compared to those if your mission requirement is only 2 people max. Surely, people, there is room for all tastes and flying machines in the broad church of aviation. Price a modern competition sailplane. One without an engine will set you back a fair bit more than $200,000. Add a get you home engine and you can add another $40k. And that is for just a toy. You can buy a used glass glider say 3 to 4 decades old for $10,000 or so and if you want to compete there is a class for you all the way up to World Champion level. Might cost $20,000 or so by the time you re-equip with modern instruments. Not so much money nowadays.

I'm not talking about CASA, I'm talking about what should be member organisations (RAAus, GFA etc) doing CASA's dirty work for it and in many cases going beyond what CASA requires of private pilots. These organisations should be a shield against CASA but sell out the interests of their members for a tummy rub.

The second greatest threat to Australian aviators is people who excuse the useless, toadying organisations.

AFAIK the RAMPC is based on the Heavy vehicle standard, not the private vehicle standard.

shafs, if you can pass the Ausroads heavy vehicle standard and answer the CASA questions you can get a Basic med. However if you can do that you could get a Class 2. If for any reason you have been denied a Class 2 in the past you'll need to see a DAME and as the medical standard has not changed you won't get Basic Med or Class 2. Basic med is similar to old RPL medical but with the slight relaxation of number of people in the aircraft. Not really a concern for most people.

djpacro, the one I helped with had paperwork which clearly stated it had 726 kg gross. It was a 6 (tailwheel) not a 6A(nosewheel - nose gear assembly is 11Kg) which has a slightly higher gross. It had a nice but not too fancy paint job, not a whole lot of instrumentation, metal prop with CSU and an O-360. Docs said it weighed 505kg empty. It was one of the last built under 101.28

Shafs, have a careful look at the changes. There has been no meaningful reform but some re-arrangement of the deck chairs.

Shafs, if you believe CASA and AOPA, medical reform already happened. It has been announced and both seem quite proud. Unfortunately there has been NO effective reform at all of the Class 2. Juts a couple of small administrative changes on CASA's part which have no real effect on Class 2 medical applicants. This medical non reform now puts Australia extremely far out of line with the UK and USA in this regard. I suggest you give up on waiting and reconcile yourself to flying RAAus as AOPA's acceptance of the medical non reform means there will be no change for the next 20 years at least, if then. The biggest threats to the freedom to aviate in Australia come from kow towing toadies like AOPA, GFA, RAAus etc.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that all this regulation is for two main aims: 1. Prevent aircraft from falling out of the sky onto the head/homes/workplaces of people who have nothing to do with aviation. This is fair enough as some of them probably think flying was an invention of the devil. 2. Protect the interests of other legitimate airspace users (pretty much anyone who aviates for whatever reason or would like to). #1 is done by having a reasonable set of design aims for strength and handling qualities. "Certification" does not mean much as everyone will consult FAR 23 CS 22 etc for the type of flying machine. Nobody reasonable person is silly enough to ignore the lessons written in blood. Also required is some reasonable inspection/maintenance regime and a method for training competent, responsible pilots. #2 requires a simple set of operational rules for behaviour when taking off and landing and en route procedures. I cannot see that dividing private aviation into "private" and "recreational" serves any purpose. It is all private aviation for whatever reason we fly and we all fly in the same airspace and need to share it with commercial and military aviation. I also cannot see how having "ultralight" aircraft as "not Australian aircraft" serves any purpose along with useless, counterproductive arbitrary weight limits 450Kg, 544 kg, 600Kg yada, yada, yada and different pilot training and qualifications depending on aircraft weight. Also linking aircraft weight limit to the particular pilot quals when a Jab can be VH or RAAus and somehow you need to do 5 hours in a RAAus one and join RAAus to legally fly it. Simply ridiculous! In both cases the maintenance regime is acceptable to CASA but one is more onerous than the other even if both aircraft have the same gross weight. I guess if CASA didn't have double standards they would have none at all. These weight limits result in either fairly fragile aircraft which will have short fatigue and useful lives due to lack of robustness caused by extreme weight saving measures or the widespread "overloading" of ultralight aircraft. 600Kg doesn't let you build a robust aircraft which can carry two normal people, a couple of bags and useful fuel. Even some VH Experimental homebuilts have problems. About 18 years ago I helped an RV6 builder with his test flight program and when I looked at the weights they were 505Kg empty and 726kg gross giving 221 Kg useful load. Fuel was 140 litres so take 101 Kg off and you have a nice single seat aircraft plus baggage and 3.75 hours fuel. If you ever see two large people get out of an RV6 chances are they took off overweight unless it has an O-320 and a wooden fixed pitch prop.

I meant where to actually get the questions.

How do non members find the survey?

FAA policy is that aircraft certified at higher than 600kg gross cannot be LSA at 600 kg. Which leads to things like certain model Ercoupes being able to go to LSA and the same ones that were later allowed to go to higher weights and have the paper work to allow it cannot. Particularly unfortunate in the case of the Bolkow 208C which has a gross of 601 kg. Nice little aircraft and somebody needs to make it as a kit or provide plans as a homebuilt. Besides it can bare its fangs as a Biafran Baby (look it up). Note those rockets come in laser guided versions now. Paint it up as a low cost warbird.

Can we conclude that this mass of minute changes/categories/maintenance requirements is a horse's rear end? CASA is charged with regulating civil aviation in Australia. They should get on with it and not create numerous private fiefdoms which act as sub-contractors and policemen instead of the members' organisations they used to be. There is no reason to act as policemen. If CASA is clueless about the rules required for gliders and ultralights, gyros etc they need to consult people familiar with operating them or simply adopt FAA operational rules (including independent instructors and LAMEs). FAA in 2013 took a look at Canada's owner maintenance regime and concluded the aircraft were in at least as good condition as those maintained under the traditional system and sometimes better.

I know of a gliding club that did a survey of members who didn't renew. The results got buried by the committee as the comments were very uncomplimentary.

Pity about the lights going out, though. Unless we get sensible and replace with nukes.

It is not directly about the Reef, it is that the airport is for the Adani coal mine which the green swampies are trying to stop because burning coal causes release of CO2 into the atmosphere which cause "global warming" or "climate change" (whichever term you prefer or is convenient for your argument at the time). "Warming" will cause the coral to die, allegedly, even though there is a considerable water temperature gradient from south to north over the extent of the Reef. The current reef has only been there for 20,000 years max since the end of the last ice age, as where the reef is now was about 300 to 400 feet above sea level then when the water was locked in thick sheets of ice, mainly in the northern hemisphere. A friend of mine flew the amphib Beavers out of Airlie Beach for years, taking tourists out to go snorkelling (10,000 water landings in the aircraft). He was also Captain of a 200 person tourist boat after that, for several more years. He's seen plenty of the Reef and reckons parts bleach every year and every year it recovers. As for David Attenborough, I think he looked at what happened to David Bellamy, the other TV naturalist. When Bellamy spoke out that he thought the CO2 caused warming was a load of cobblers the BBC canned his programs. BTW, stopping or restricting the human caused CO2 emissions is exactly equivalent to stopping or restricting the human use of fire. Good luck!

Anyone who doesn't think this topic is relevant to Australian aviation is naive. Do you think private recreational aviation will be ALLOWED if the Greens get their way? That's if these lunatics haven't increased the cost of living so you cannot afford to fly. So the CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm (although I've seen good evidence that it was higher than that - more like 330 to 340 ppm and had some private corresponence with the late Ernst Beck) to 400ppm since the beginning of the industrial era, so what? The only good evidence I've seen after following the "climate change" topic for nearly 30 years (call it residual professional interest - I spent 7 years in the meteorology/ atmospheric science/environmental science field) is that the planet has become greener because of the fertilisation effect of slightly higher CO2 levels. That's it. There is no evidence anything untoward or unusual is happening that has not happened before in this interglacial and even the saner alarmists keep revising down their CO2 induced temperature estimates. It is about 1 to 1.2 degrees C BTW for a doubling of CO2 in the absence of feedback effects. The warmists thnk the feedbacks are positive but there is no evidence for that. The mid troposphere tropical hotspot doesn't exist. If you don't know what I mean by that you haven't done enough research to have an opinion. What do you think would happen to the jobs at NASA, NOAA, CSIRO etc if the "scientists" in those sheltered workshops admitted that there was no climate change problem? After spending a few years with these people IMO they could mostly make good livings as used car salesmen.

Electric powered aircraft are going to be sooooo great. There needs to be some new safer battery tech before I'd fly in one.

I know the Hobby King Vampire R/C electric ducted fan flies very nicely. Watched Nigel Arnott flying his once. Yes, the cost of oil is the reason you would want a real re-circulating oil system for a powered aircraft. For a self launching or retrieving glider the fuel cost is a minor consideration as 5 to 6 litres gets a 2000 foot launch. An aerotow costs about $50 nowadays and burns more fuel. I agree the Vampire looks nice and seems to have no handling vices. All this silly 95.10, 95.55 Experimental amateur built etc blah blah blah is just nonsense. Replace the RPL medical with the current RAAus one, allow owner maintenance on aircraft under 600Kg and the RAAus can go back to being an advocacy organisation run by and for its members, instead of a sheltered workshop for would be aviation bureaucrats who arean't smart enough to get even cushier jobs with CASA.

AMT jets www.amtjets.com have some larger engines. 80Kg thrust Nike and 160 Kg Lynx engines. Two Nike's were being used by David Mayman on his JB-10 jet pack. The latest JB-11 jet pack uses six AMT Titan's of 40Kg thrust each for engine out redundancy. Interview: David Mayman debuts the faster, safer, six-engine JB11 jetpack