Jim McDowall

Most of the aircraft that would migrate to RAA under the 760kg weight limit if stall speed was not 45kt were designed to FAR 23 or CAR3 in which case the structures were designed to the higher stall speeds. Yes if you hit the ground you may be hurt, but if you have stalled the aircraft into the ground there is every likelihood that the impact speed will be higher than the stall speed. The wing loading of a Jabiru 160 is about 67kg/m2 which is higher than a Cherokee 140 and Cessna 172( 65kg/m2) and a Cessna 150 (50kg/m2) . Interestingly the recommended landing speeds are similar (63 - 65 kts). Surely this is a better determinant than stall speed. The numbers still used in training of these types bear testimony to their ruggedness and safety performance.

What MOS? does it exist? The Part 103 consultation document titled "Proposed new rules for sport and recreational aviation operations" includes the following passage: "To make it simpler for the sport and recreation community, CASA is considering the development of a plain English guide that consolidates the relevant provisions of Part 91, Part 103 and Part 103 MOS in one easy to read document" The High Court has repeatedly said that legislation should be clear and unambiguous. This statement is an admission that the legislative mess that is aviation law does not meet that standard.

See consultation for Part 103 thread in Governing Bodies

I just came across the consultation documents for long awaited Part 103. My quick reading of the docs suggests that those of us who have aircraft that have not been "certified" by RAAus (ie most homebuilts) will need an experimental certificate to continue flying them. I hope I'm wrong or the VH option keeps getting better. See at: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-1910os/ . Consultation closes 30 September.

The whole point of the home building experience is an educational one. This was the rationale for the movement in the US and I suspect most of the rest of the world. When I built my aircraft the hand skills I possessed were those I had accumulated building (and constantly rebuilding) balsa model aircraft or keeping equipment going on the farm. Hardly skills that prepared me for the aircraft build. Along the way I accumulated a lot of tools that made the job easier, several new (experienced builder) friends and a stack of new skills. Frankly, I find the presumption that those of us who are not (because we have chosen other career paths) possessed of trade qualifications are somehow inept with our hands to be the height of occupational snobbery that is unfortunately reflected in RAAus's L2 assessment.

Obviously other regulators, with a larger base of evidence, have made the determination that these changes are safe.

While we in OZ fiddle around, in March 2020 EASA's Part ML will come into force allowing owner/pilot maintenance upto 2760kg. In the UK NPPL holders (similar requirements to RPC/RPL) can fly up to 2000 kg on a medical declaration. Whilst touting compliance with ICAO requirements the CASA bureaucracy should remember that the rest of the world has moved on from trying to straightjacket the light end of GA and they are reading the same set of rules.

The other half objects to me taking my computer into the bog. What am I to do if nothing is printed anymore?

Proves my point that people got fixated on the weight increase without considering the downstream issues, which is typical of human behavior in other forums such as Parliament. Would love a dollar for every time a politician has excused poor legislation with the phrase "unintended consequence".

Is it just me but I think the election is not being conducted properly. We were asked to write our membership number on the back of the envelope that contained my vote. This means that whoever opened the envelope has the ability to know how I voted. (No accusation intended) Shouldn't there have been two envelopes: one to hold the vote with no identification inside of a second addressed to RAAus with my membership number on it. I believe that postal votes conducted by the various electoral offices are done this way.

Yes, Just did the survey. I am not sure what the point of the survey was unless it is to get rid of the printed magazine. The output from HQ is too reliant on people exploring the minute of the manuals. Clearer less wordy emails on the issues covered by the manuals reminding us of our obligations and alerting us to regulatory changes would be better. If distributors want to sell their next plastic fantastic let them pay the full cost of their advertising and don't make the membership subsidise their marketing costs. The printed magazine is a marketing item - send it to every doctors surgery and watch the participation rate grow. It would certainly be better that the 2013 English magazine that was on offer on my visit to the GP the other day! A longer print run makes the cost per issue drop. Maybe China printing and distribution is an option.

Agreed, for example, RV6 seem to have a bad track record on nose wheel failure. My point is that it is easy to get fixated on a particular target (in this case 760kg) without examining ALL of the ramifications of achieving that goal. In particular, because of the "silo" nature of aviation administration, an open minded, rational examination of the illogical outcomes. Take the case of GFA, their max weight is 850kg (without an engine) and their pilot training cannot be compared to RAAus for thoroughness. An RPC can be converted to an RPL with only a flight review that can be conducted in a VH reg Jabiru and the new RPL can then go an fly a heavy tinny. If was was running CASA (fat chance of that) I would introduce 1500kg max, optional owner maintenance as per Canadian system, declaration medicals but limit to pilot+one passenger, VH reg for all aircraft and pay RAAus to administer training open to all comers (ie no requirement for membership). Maintenance administration would remain with CASA as for existing VH regime.

And so does the structural compromises associated with lightweight design. Is there any evidence for reduced survivability in the 600-760kg class? How much does pilot skill affect engine out outcomes (eg does glider experience assist?)

But there is nothing to stop submissions proposing for example that type certificated aircraft upto 760kg have a maximum stall speed as permitted by the standard (eg CAR 3 or FAR23 = 61kts) under which the type certificate was issued. My guess is that everyone focused on the MTOW until some bright spark in CASA did a little analysis of the potential aircraft that could be moved from VH to RAAus if the current CAO 95.55 was the applicable yardstick and guess what, the numbers are so small that there would be no measurable safety risk (which seems to be CASA's only determinant). After all, RPC holders are only a flight review away from flying these types anyway so what is the point of limiting stall speeds?

Why? I am not a member. As Issac Asimov said: "Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in."

Does that apply to CASA too?

WTF do you really want to say?

Turbs, After hundreds of thousands dollars in court cases (all which we won), half a lifetime battling councils, getting the Act changed on more than one occasion, employees terminated, working within councils, making representations to all levels of government, in regular contact with local government Ministers (two of whom I count as friends) and a number of other things I am prevented by law to talk about, ANY impact I may have had has been temporary. The System merely shrugs and carries on as though nothing happened and victimizes me and mine at every turn. I appreciate that you have great faith in the system, but what others are saying here is borne out of a lived experience.

Which planet do you live on? Rarely do any consultation exercises ever result in changes that the ratepayers want. Agendas are always decided by the bureaucrats. Social engineering is at the core of local government activities.

Unfortunately too many Council CEO's see aerodromes as a budget black hole (even if they are not). It would seem that it is politically more palatable to spend millions on new boat ramps, football ovals etc etc than to maintain vital infrastructure that may have a use once in a while eg fires and floods or medivac. Because as a group we prefer to stay away from the public glare it is easy for a noisy group to seem bigger than they really are an thus attract support within Councils. In addition do not underestimate the "wokeness" of lower order council employees who have their agendas looking for support. Politics breeds strange bedfellows.

It appears that the paperwork has now caught up. The original regulation was repealed on 15 July by force of legislation. There was a complilation of the CASR on 14 July 2019 but it was not registered until 6 August which means that for 3 weeks there was technically no Part 149.

Maybe it has something to do with the SAAA refusing to become a Part149 ASAO. https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/sport-aircraft-association-out-of-part-149

The Federal Register of Legislation has no record of a replacement regulation since the date of repeal of previous legislation. Where did you read it?

It appears that CASR Part 149 was repealed on 15th July. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01030 . A check of the most recent compilation of CASR reveals that Part 149 is "reserved for future use". What is going on? Have resources been wasted on this farce?

Turbs, I think this should read "Farmers like everyone else SHOULD carry public liability insurance". Maybe the farmer to whom Bruce refers to, couldn't make the premium for whatever reason.