ave8rr

Guess it won't be long before ONLY the original builder of a 19 Reg aircraft will be able to do the maintenance on that aircraft. Once the aircraft is sold then maintenance will have to be done by a L2 / LAME. This is the case with SAAA. I build it then sell then the new owner must have the annual done by a LAME unless that new owner has built a "similar" aircraft. I would say that a lot of this is being forced on RAAus by CASA.

It would be nice if the aircraft empty weight, MTOW and Rego expiry date were quoted on the RAAus register. The figs should be accurate as they would be taken off the Registration data during the registration process. I know it would mean a couple of more entries for the person entering the data.

I have to agree with boingk. ALL RAAus aircraft should display the max payload available or display the aircraft empty weight and MTOW. The aircraft empty weight and MTOW should also be quoted for all aircraft being advertised on the "members Market". This would give prospective purchasers an idea of what they can carry. I have asked sellers in the past the aircraft empty weight and been given the manufacturers design empty weight what good is that in determining a payload?

If the Jab engine is bought and fitted to an aircraft a builder is building and registered "RAAus 19" then can they maintain that engine?? If Jab say NO then it wont be long before the owner of a Vans Experimental fitted with a Lycoming or Continental engine may find the same restriction will be placed on maintenance of these engines by the respective manufacturers.

Bushcat specs from NZ agent website: http://bushcataviation.com/BushCatSpecs.pdf

Why for example does a Taylorcraft BC-65 have a MTOW when a land plane of 1150Lbs but can go to 1228Lbs IF a seaplane? Does this mean that the aircraft was certified to the higher weight? There is no mention of reduced speeds / G loadings etc in the seaplane config. Looking at TCDS on the FAA web site for say a Cessna 180, an increased MTOW is also allowed when float equipped and is considerable (200Lbs or more)????

So WHY can't a prelim be sent to all RAAus members similar to the APF? Or at least to the owners of aircraft of same type.

RAAus Rules?

What ever powers the APF have I believe that the ASRA also have as they advise their members by email within a very short time of the initial findings of an accident or incident. Both these organisations are an RAAO. RAAus should do the same.

PM. I have also done this many times when using the thumb on right hand to scroll down the page on the Ipad. I often sense something changed and on checking the "list" note what I had accidentally done so quickly remove the offending like etc.. Just have to be more careful I guess when using the Ipad instead of the desk top to look at the posts.

If the accident was investigated by the ATSB then we would have a prelim report within 30 days. I understand there is a move afoot to have this happen.

NAIPS.

Does any Forum member have any information re the flying and construction qualities of the Australian built Skywise (Sadler) Vampire? They seemed to be powered by the Rotax447. Performance figs would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Mike

Hi Ian, if that is the aircraft from Vic (VH-MKV) then according to the owner he has withdrawn the aircraft from sale. I had a msg from him last week. Cheers Mike

Looking good Mark. Cu next weekend. Cheers

Wittman Tailwind.

If this RAAus Form http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Maintenance-Form.pdf is used in the aircraft it will serve as a record of all flights. The form can be signed on the first flight of the day by the PIC. This form is similar to the MR used in ALL VH Registered GA aircraft. The completed form/s are placed in the aircraft log book after each annual inspection / 100 hourly when a new MR is issued. Minor maintenance issues can be recorded here and also recorded when the rectification has been completed.

Any news on this project anyone? Cheers Mike

Sorry to hear this Ian. I would of thought that as you had a 12 month contract that they would of had to pay out the remainder of the term. Good luck with the shift back to MEL. cheers Mike

If factory built and certified, which is the case here then why can't this aircraft be used for training? Does this mean some 25 registered light wings out there that were built by someone from a factory kit are still Certified? This whole rego thing is so confusing. I can see why there has been so many issues with the Rego CASA Audit. Cheers

Sorry Sorry Ross, I was referring to the weights you posted that were from the manual you purchased from Howie as in your post 18 above. They say 600kg. I also know a number of currently 25 registered GA-912 that were kit built but have a 25 Rego. One is up your way 25-0439. Cheers Mike

I used CHfreight last year to get a firewall forward kit for my Rans S6ES. I paid Rans for the kit and CH did the rest to my door. It was air freight which was cheaper and of course quicker. I paid CH one payment and they paid all fees and GST etc. Cheers Mike

Ross, have these figs for GR/GA-912 been confirmed by Howie? Would a 25 reg aircraft have to be re registered 19 to be able to operate at the higher RAAus weight of 600kgs IF Howie has tested to this higher weight. Is it correct that 25 prefix was amateur built and 55 was factory built? Cheers Mike

Thanks Doug, Pls confirm the GA55 has a shorter wing than the GR series along with a single strut and only a 450Kg MTOW. I did not know that there were any GA55 with 912 engine?? This would mean a payload of around 150kg or less. Cheers