ave8rr

Many thanks Bill. This is what I have been trying to find out. I had asked the importer for this info but was never supplied the answer. Purchasers of the early Savs now know what to look for. Does any one know if RAAus are given documentary evidence of the upgrade kit having been installed when re registering the Sav to the higher 560Kg MTOW? Cheers

WHY did the Chief Pilot of the company allow one of his pilots (Company Owner) to do the flight when clearly he (Barry) was not licenced to do so?

I thought the Baramba flying club were still at Wondai. http://www.barambahaeroclub.com.au/ It is the Burnettflyers that have set up at Murgon (Anglefield) http://burnettflyers.org/ Cheers

ave8rr said: ↑ To all you Savannah owners. I am trying to find the certified MTOW of Australian built Savannahs. The early slat models seem to be certified to 454Kg as per BMAA requirements. I have seen the paperwork for one of these and it says MTOW 454kg but also states that it can go to 560kg if amateur built????? This does not seem right to me. When / what mods were required to bring that weight up to 560kgs? What does one need to look for if looking at earlier slat model aircraft that may or may not have had the slats removed and VG's fitted. Still waiting for Savannah owner/s of the original models to answer my original question re weights??? Cheers

Any further news on the fatal ultralight accident in WA yesterday? News advises that RAA and Police are investigating.

There is already a thread running on this subject. "Stolen plane in WA" Cheers

Done.

I renewed my membership last Dec which was due date but they did not send a new certificate as they had no record of a current BFR. I have not needed it (certificate) as flying CASA Experimental on a CPL. Just need to send in copy of log book to show BFR and new Cert will be sent!

Sue... I am running a mine site aerodrome (FIFO). I agree 100% in all you say above. Can't come to site untill ALL boxes are ticked then audited (Internal / External) for EVERYTHING continuously.

I think CASA wrote draft SMS's for a number of areas back in 2010. I look after a "Certified" aerodrome and we had a "Draft" SMS to start from here. From this draft we developed our own SMS which is now used. I was not aware RAAus had not done their SMS. No wonder CASA have been Auditing the operation with a fine tooth comb and picking up EVERYTHING. No wonder we are finding ourselves in trouble in ALL areas.

Sue, the flyin is held on second Sat of every month so no nead to wait until NEXT year. http://burnettflyers.org/ Cheers

You can ONLY have ONE passenger with the RPL but that can be in any aircrat type up to the 1500kg MTOW.

Turb's, why would this be a problem? No reason why a small rag and tube single seater cant be registered VH. These aircraft are flying in both USA and NZ under the Rules. Australia has moved over to the "Rules" system for most parts of aviation now so to continue with ANO's with ref to Rec aviation should cancelled. I agree with Dafydd in all he has raised. This is one way forward and NO duplication of rules and regs.

Agree Dafydd. We would then get away from all the varous categories of registration. The system in USA and NZ works and works well. I am surprised CASA havn't been looking at going down this path for a while. Maybe they ARE awaiting an approach with a proposal?

Dafydd, well put. I was going to write along these lines myself but you have done that. The NZ system works well. Register everything VH and just have two classes, single and two seat. All ultralights in NZ have an annual inspection done by an Authorised person like a L2 etc. there is usually no cost for this. Insurance is covered by the owners. Two seat ultralights can be used for training if they are powered by a certified engine so even club built Rans S6S etc are used by clubs. As the ultralights are ZK registered pilots with any licence can fly after the normal conversion and not just holders of a micro light cert. there is now as I understand it NO requirement to belong to a club / association. MTOW's are as per factory built/LSA or designer for kit/plans built up to the NZ max of 600Kg. There is a annual "airways" activity of of $100.00 for all NZ registered aircraft.

I wonder (for example) if the Foxbat weight increase ref their web site http://www.foxbat.com.au/public/editor_images/2011%20November%20Final%20b_3.pdf for the model 22L is in fact legal. It states that the certificate only needs to be placed in the flight manual. The factory have approved the increased weight but with conditions such as reduced "G" loadings etc.

Have a look at the Verhees Delta. Plans available. Apparently there is a two seater in the construction phase. http://www.verheesengineering.com/gb/delta.html Cheers

I have often wondered why some of the European aircraft have been flying here at greater weights than the same aircraft which seems to be limited to the 470ishKG weights in the UK. I thought that that was a UK category weight limit. Maybe not.

More details including price appreciated.

Any more re ultralight accident at Waga today?

And if the C140 was to go onto the RAAus register then it would be 24-XXXX as it is factory built and would have to still have all the maintenance work the maintenance manual calls for done. This includes the SIDS programme. I note there are a lot of C172's on the market at the moment as the SIDS compliance date is fast approaching.

Well said Jaba. As the manager of a Certified Aerodrome, I know the costs involved with maintaining Certification. What is recieved in landing fees runs well short of that required to maintain the aerodrome. It always amazes me when the topic of landing fees comes up that some of those who fly recreational aircraft still think they should be exempt from landing fees. WHY?

as it is factory built it would be 24-xxxx registered then it could not be modified (weight reducing) to be able to carry more payload up to the 600kg MTOW. What we need is the UK LAA system for some of these older aircraft.

Love the new layouts Ian... The new server speed is great also. Keep up the good work.

Would certainly be nice to know but guess like ALL other investigations involving RAAus registered aircraft where ATSB are NOT involved, then we will probably NEVER know.