Jump to content

Is a Jabiru J-160C an 'ultralight'?


2tonne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Probably a stupid question, but is a J-160 C an 'ultralight'?

 

Reason for asking is that I am completing an application for Death/TPD insurance (at my wife's request...) and there are some questions in relation to aviation. One of which asks if I have or will be flying an ultralight. I am not sure what the official definition of an ultralight is, or whether the J-160 fits it. Or is it an LSA? (or something else?).

 

Thanks, Tony

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jetjr, I thought that might be the case. I am seeking the insurance through my super fund because the premiums charged by super funds are typically lower compared to other insurers. I have also looked at insurance offered by one of the big banks. In that case, the premiums were hefty, but as long as you disclosed that you were engaged in private aviation when making the application, it made no difference to the premium.

 

Looks like I might cop a high premium either way!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, mine are Ok so long as hours are kept down, they can either charge you nothing extra or hit you with some kind of "dangerous pastime surcharge" which can be like 100% on the policy price.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably a stupid question, but is a J-160 C an 'ultralight'?Reason for asking is that I am completing an application for Death/TPD insurance (at my wife's request...) and there are some questions in relation to aviation. One of which asks if I have or will be flying an ultralight. I am not sure what the official definition of an ultralight is, or whether the J-160 fits it. Or is it an LSA? (or something else?).

 

Thanks, Tony

Any aircraft operating under the exemptions from the CAR 1988 provided by CAO 95.55 is operating an 'ultralight aeroplane'. See http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/regulations/9555.pdf.

 

CAO 95.10 exempts 'low momentum UL aeroplanes'.

 

John Brandon

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks John. From this it seems pretty clear that regardless of whether the aircraft has a type certificate, is LSA or whatever, if it fits the 95.55 definition (ie not weight shift or powered parachute, has a single engine, single propeller, MTOW not exceeding 600 kg etc) and is registered RAA then it fits the official CASA definition of an ultralight.

 

Tony

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder how the wingsuit guys go with life insurance.... each flight only lasts a couple of minutes so by that logic no big deal right?

Then my insurance for that would be very cheap indeed, because I can guarantee I wouldn't do that more than once!!

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confirms how out of date and out of step with the rest of the world the RAAus/CASA is.

I don't see how you can infer that RA-Aus is responsible for the wording of a Civil Aviation Order.

 

CAO 95.55 was first published in 1990 and only a year or so after CASA came into being in 1995, the AUF first started pushing for replacement of CAO 95.55 (and the other exemption orders under which we operate) with the proposed CASR parts 103 and 149.

 

In 1998 the AUF's persistence resulted in CASA expanding 95.55 to include an 'Amateur-built (Experimental)' category and also getting the increase to 544 kg MTOW for two-seat aircraft; thereby taking advantage of the availability of more reliable, four-stroke engines; more robust airframe design; less demanding nosewheel rather than tailwheel configurations and increased fuel capacities. It was the AUF's actions that re-invigorated Australian recreational aviation (and incidently demonstrated to the United States how recreational aviation could be handled) but now, 17 or 18 years after the initial discussions with CASA (and quite a few target date revisions) CASR parts 103 and 149 have still not been implemented by CASA.

 

Until that happens I guess RA-Aus members are stuck with the terms appearing in the exemption orders, so don't blame your organisation or suggest we are out of step with the rest of the world. I believe we are still out in front.

 

John Brandon

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lot of point in taking a swipe like that Ozzie since the same thing applies all the way up the tree in GA to six seaters.

 

It's not a negative, it gives us an option of running distances well beyond our normal bladder range by reducing the number of passengers, usually by one, or carrying a full complement over shorter distances where usually at least one wants to get down for a toilet break or food withing two hours.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...