Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Bad form Dazza and I reckon you're treading on very thin ice when, by name, you cast unverified aspersions on the Tech Mgr in a public forum. Were I in his shoes I'd be calling for more than an apology.

Err apologise for what ? For him doing his job ?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm not surprised they said no and they should have never let the other one through.432 kgs? That's heavy and people were saying a C162 @ 400kg is too heavy.

 

Does anyone remember the rv7? that was registered under RAA as a single seater but was then caught flying non-stop from Melbourne to Mildura with 2 POB?

 

They are not looking for a repeat of this.

 

Better off in GA, as RAA registration is no place for an RV9.

Plus the mark26 Spitfires that were removed from the RAA Register.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to register it with RAAus? At that weight it is an expensive single seat, with less than 170kg for people and fuel! 100ltrs of fuel will give maybe 2.5 hrs with reserves for 72 kg, leaves you with single seat. Sorry but RAAus is right to refuse registration for this. VH exp is a very valid alternative. Tom

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody wants to register brand X aeroplane and is denied BUT there is already another brand X aeroplane already on the register. I cannot see how the person can be denied the right, as the precedent has already been set.

 

But rules are rules and our tech manager is doing his job by the rules which is what is to be expected.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Helpful???

 

If you make enough noise about an aircraft that "slipped through" for whatever reason it will most likely only result in it being deregistered, not helping another with a registration issue.

 

I wonder with some people, actively trying to hinder rather then be helpful or shut up. Time to think about whether you come to this site to be helpful/informative or just to create as much trouble as you can?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Tech dept are NOT clear or consistent even on rules they wrote themselves try the 'new' and 'old' regn display reqs:

 

Phone the technical office:

 

Old rules:

 

500mm under wing - no leading '10-' Good - can comply, have the numbers here to stick on wing

 

150mm or as large as possible on tail or fuselage behind wing - no leading '10-' - can't comply, no fuselage and largest space on trike would only allow 50mm numbers

 

Me - Hi, I can put numbers under the wing but the requirement for fuselage can't work because there is no fuselage between wing and tail - there is no tail and there is no fuselage behind the wing and I only have 25cm of fuel tank side.

 

Tech - don't worry, new rules will fix it, check next week.

 

Phone the technical office:

 

New rules:

 

No under wing

 

Fixed 150mm on fuselage behind wing with the added '10-' to display

 

Me - Ummm your new rules are even worse because wing marking is gone but the fuselage behind wing marking is still there - which I couldn't meet before - but is even worse because the size requirements for numbers have 1. been fixed at an absolute 150mm and 2. have added for 95.10 an extra 3 characters to display ...

 

Tech - well just put the 150mm numbers under the wing

 

Me - but there is no requirement to put them under the wing and how is under wing meeting the fuselage requirements - the under wing is not the fuselage?

 

Tech - there is no requirement to put under wing but there is nothing to stop you putting them there ...

 

At this point I lost the will to live. They promised to put in writing a clarification that I can use old 4 numbers at 500mm under wing and not on trike under old rules so I await what arrives.

 

And to be clear - the problem of trikes not having fueslages behind the wing to display regn numbers under the new rules has been addressed for 95.32 trikes but not 95.10 trikes so thanks tech office.

 

But simply the display regn markings rules were written by the Tech office and even they can't give a straight answer as to what they mean when there is no physical part of the aircraft that matches the requirements.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Become a lawyer or redesign the aircraft. I thought they gave you a sensible answer, in the circumstances. Having it in writing is all you need. Nev

1. I am a lawyer and

2. there is no point redesigning an aircraft to include structures that are to not required

 

3. as I can;t comply I have requested a written clearance from tech as to what they will accept in this case

 

The core issue is that the RAA rules are badly written without consideration of the application and not able to be applied as written.

 

If they want me to take the piss I will wait until after 10 Jan to register the aircraft - because there are no reg display requirements after the 60 day sunset opseration of the old ops manual 4.09 - and the new tech reqs are not in place - present it unmarked and its up to them to prove by reference to their written rules on the day why it fails to comply and should not be registered in an unmarked form.

 

And the new tech will not help as without any markings it will still comply with the letter of their writen requirements.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not surprised they said no and they should have never let the other one through.432 kgs? That's heavy and people were saying a C162 @ 400kg is too heavy.

Install thinner wingtips and there's even more weight lost. But even so, if I were to design my own single-seat carnard that weighed 432kg's that'd be acceptable? Either the aircraft meets the requirements of the legislation or it doesn't. My RV-9A DOES meet the legal requirements for RAAus registration, but they've selectively chosen to deny me the opportunity to fly it with them - and in the process cost me several thousand dollars because they wouldn't acknowledge the agreement we had in writing when I commenced the build process after notifying them I was building an RV-9. Furthermore, they accepted the provisional registration form that had all the details on it and issued me a rego number! And then they decide it isn't going to be registered with them? No matter how you look at it, that is not cool.

 

Does anyone remember the rv7? that was registered under RAA as a single seater but was then caught flying non-stop from Melbourne to Mildura with 2 POB?They are not looking for a repeat of this.

So, rather than take action against the peckerhead who flew overweight, they've arbitrarily decreed no more Brand X on their register. What is the difference between a J430 and a J230? OR more accurately, what is the difference between a J230 with numbers on the side and a J230 with VH? 700Kg MTOW VH, 600KG RAAus. You tell me what is stopping Captain Fourbars with his missus and 200Kg of "stuff" boring holes in the sky in a RAAus J230? I'll save you the trouble. NOTHING.

 

Why would you want to register it with RAAus? At that weight it is an expensive single seat, with less than 170kg for people and fuel! 100ltrs of fuel will give maybe 2.5 hrs with reserves for 72 kg, leaves you with single seat.

Work it backwards. 1320Lbs MTOW-950Lbs BEW leaves a payload of 370Lbs. Take my 170LBs and I have 200Lbs for fuel. That's 33.5 Gallons, or over 5 hours endurance at 170mph, based on CAFE flight test results. That's easily Newcastle-Brisbane return, thank you very much. Single seat? Not the end of the world for me, my missus isn't a huge fan of it. 2 seat? My missus won't fly in it, but with two young kids, that's still 2 hours of running around the countryside watching one of them have an absolute ball.

 

Sorry but RAAus is right to refuse registration for this. VH exp is a very valid alternative. Tom

IF it didn't meet the rules, yes, they are. But it does, and they're not. Who's to say they'll let anymore J230's on the register?

 

If somebody wants to register brand X aeroplane and is denied BUT there is already another brand X aeroplane already on the register. I cannot see how the person can be denied the right, as the precedent has already been set.But rules are rules and our tech manager is doing his job by the rules which is what is to be expected.

Our tech manager is placing arbitrary restrictions on what can and cannot be registered based on the fear that someone else is going to break the rules. Sorry, but I don't work like that. Why not impose a ban on 2 strokes, given they have more inherent failures than 4 stroke engines? Or ban Jabiru engines outright as they have more failures than Rotax?

 

Become a lawyer or redesign the aircraft. I thought they gave you a sensible answer, in the circumstances. Having it in writing is all you need. Nev

Having anything in writing from RAAus isn't worth the paper it is written on...
Link to post
Share on other sites

So KR have you taken up Darren's offer to talk to him directly? From my limited dealings with him he comes across as being very helpful and seeing as he posted the offer it might well be worth a phone call.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
So KR have you taken up Darren's offer to talk to him directly? From my limited dealings with him he comes across as being very helpful and seeing as he posted the offer it might well be worth a phone call.

I'm not Bruce. He was talking to the OP, not me.EDIT: And as for being helpful, the comment from the Tech Manager to the L4 as I was standing beside him was "He can send the forms in, but it won't do any good".

 

Not exactly what I would call an overly helpful attitude.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Darren has posted in this thread and suggested that you contact him. You can't get better service than that, although I suspect you already know why you can't register your aircraft and are venting about it here.You are basing your figures on the fact that your aircraft will be a single seater, however RAA has (or at least had) a documented formula for the BEW of a two seater.

 

You have said 43X BEW but a J230 is closer to 360.

I AM NOT BRUCE!The person the Tech Manager asked contact him is the OP. Soleair. Not me!

 

The BEW of any aeroplane is irrelevant. The J230 can have an empty weight of 200Kgs but shoehorn 500Kg of "stuff" into it and you can legally fly VH-. But you'll be 100Kg overweight for RAAus and that is exactly the same as the RV-9/7 series. And I would suggest the same for a lot of overseas designs as well. The

 

The "Documented formula" that you refer to is defined in CAO 95.55 but that refererence is not applicable to an amateur-built aircraft. Please actually read the rules before you actually use them in an argument. Here is CAO 95-55 with the relevant sections highlighted.

 

Now, I've documented to you all that an RV-9A can meet the legal requirements of RAAus registration. I challenge you so show me why it cannot. Not heresay. Not "you'll be better off VH-".

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011

1 Name of instrument

 

This instrument is the Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011.

 

2 Commencement

 

This instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

 

3 New Civil Aviation Order 95.55

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is repealed and a new Civil Aviation Order 95.55 is substituted as set out in Schedule 1.

 

Schedule 1 Civil Aviation Order 95.55

 

Exemption from provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes

 

1 Application

 

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

 

(a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and Meets this part.

 

(b) has a single engine and a single propeller; and Meets this part too.

 

© has a Vso stall speed of not greater than 45 knots, as determined by design standards or certification requirements; and And this

 

(d) is registered with the RAA; andAnd this

 

(e) is mentioned in paragraph 1.2.And this

 

1.2 For subparagraph 1.1 (e), an aeroplane must be 1 of the following:

 

(a) an aeroplane to which Order 101.28 applies that complies with the design standards specified in that Order, with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: But not this one

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(b) an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.1 of Order 101.55; Or this one

 

© an aeroplane described in paragraph 1.2 of Order 101.55 that meets the design standards in that Order; Or this one

 

(d) an old section 95.25 aeroplane that has not been modified except with the approval of a person who is an authorised person for subregulation 35 (1) of CAR 1988; Or this one

 

(e) an aeroplane, the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for the person’s own education or recreation, that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding: BUT IT MEETS THIS ONE

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(ii) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg;

 

(f) an aeroplane:

 

(i) of a type for which a type certificate, a certificate of type approval or an equivalent document has been issued by CASA, another national airworthiness authority (NAA) or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(ii) that has been manufactured for sale by the holder of a certificate, or an equivalent document, permitting the manufacture of aeroplanes of that type and issued by CASA or another NAA or a competent issuing authority; and

 

(iii) that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

 

(A) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water — 600 kg; or

 

(B) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water — 650 kg; and

 

(iv) that has a payload that is equal to, or exceeds, the minimum useful load for that aeroplane determined in accordance with paragraph 1.3;

 

(g) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) manufactured by a qualified manufacturer as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current special certificate of airworthiness;

 

(h) a light sport aircraft:

 

(i) to which paragraph 21.191 (j) or (k) of CASR 1998 applies; and

 

(ii) for which there is a current experimental certificate of airworthiness.

 

1.3 For the purposes of sub-subparagraph 1.2 (f) (iv), the minimum useful load for an aeroplane is: And here's the formula - But look! It doesn't apply to paragraph 1.2 (E)!

 

(a) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in kilowatts — the amount in kilograms worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(80 x S) + 0.3P; or

 

(b) if the aeroplane’s engine power is rated in brake horse power — the amount in pounds worked out in accordance with the formula:

 

(175 x S) + 0.5P

 

where:

 

S is the number of seats in the aeroplane; and

 

P is the aeroplane’s rated engine power.

 

2 Definitions

 

In this Order:

 

Act means the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

 

aerial application operation has the same meaning as in regulation 137.010 of CASR 1998.

 

CAR 1988 means the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.

 

CASR 1998 means the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

 

closely-settled area, in relation to an aeroplane, means an area in which, because of:

 

(a) man-made obstructions such as buildings and vehicles; and

 

(b) the characteristics of the aeroplane;

 

the aeroplane could not be landed without endangering the safety of persons unconnected with the aeroplane or damaging property in the area.

 

competent issuing authority means any authority or body in a Contracting State that:

 

(a) has been authorised by the NAA of that State to issue design approvals or manufacturing approvals, whichever is applicable, for the aeroplane; and

 

(b) CASA, if it was not the authorising NAA, has accepted in writing as competent to issue design approvals or manufacturing approvals for the aeroplane.

 

ELT means emergency locator transmitter.

 

flight instructor certificate means a flight instructor certificate issued by the RAA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual.

 

flight radiotelephone operator licence means a flight radiotelephone operator licence granted under Part 5 of CAR 1988.

 

old section 95.25 aeroplane means an aeroplane to which section 95.25 of the Orders, as in force immediately before 28 February 1990, applies.

 

Order means Civil Aviation Order.

 

pilot certificate means a pilot certificate issued by the RAA in accordance with the RAA Operations Manual.

 

public road means a street, road, lane, thoroughfare or place open to, or used by, the public for passage of vehicles.

 

RAA means Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated.

 

RAA Operations Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the RAA and contains the procedures and instructions necessary to ensure the safe operation of aeroplanes registered with the RAA.

 

RAA Technical Manual means a manual acceptable to CASA that is issued by the RAA and contains:

 

(a) airworthiness, design and maintenance standards; and

 

(b) aeronautical practices, test procedures and processes;

 

in respect of aeroplanes registered with the RAA.

 

suitable landing area means an area in which an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, can be landed without endangering the safety, or damaging the property, of persons unconnected with the aeroplane.

 

stall speed Vso is the stalling speed, or minimum steady flight speed, at which the aeroplane is controllable with:

 

(a) wing flaps in the landing position; and

 

(b) landing gear extended; and

 

© engine idling with the throttle closed; and

 

(d) centre of gravity in the most forward position; and

 

(e) maximum take-off weight.

 

3 Exemptions under regulation 308

 

3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988:

 

(a) Parts 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5;

 

(b) regulations 36A and 37;

 

© subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment;

 

(d) regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157;

 

(e) regulations 207 and 208;

 

(f) regulation 210 as far as advertising of flying training to qualify for a pilot standard specified in the RAA Operations Manual is concerned;

 

(g) regulation 230;

 

(h) subregulation 242 (2);

 

(i) regulation 252;

 

(j) regulation 258.

 

3.2 Except in the case of a flight that is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from its departure point, a 2-place aeroplane to which this Order applies may be flown only if it carries:

 

(a) an approved ELT, or an approved portable ELT, as defined in regulation 252A of CAR 1988; or

 

(b) a personal locator beacon that has been approved by CASA for use with such an aeroplane.

 

Note Regulation 252A of CAR 1988 does not apply to single-seat aircraft (see subregulation 252A (7) of CAR 1988).

 

4 Conditions on special certificate of airworthiness or experimental certificate

 

The exemptions given by subsection 3, to an aeroplane to which subparagraph 1.2 (g) or (h) applies, are subject to the following conditions:

 

(a) the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, issued for the aeroplane stops having effect at the earliest of:

 

(i) the end of the validity period, if any, mentioned in the certificate; or

 

(ii) suspension of the certificate; or

 

(iii) cancellation of the certificate; or

 

(iv) a modification being made to the aeroplane that was not authorised by the manufacturer; or

 

(v) the aeroplane no longer complying with LSA standards as defined by regulation 21.172 of CASR 1998;

 

(b) the holder must, on request by CASA or an authorised person, make the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, available for inspection by CASA or the authorised person;

 

© the aeroplane must continue to be registered in Australia;

 

(d) CASA or an authorised person may suspend or cancel the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, if CASA or the authorised person considers it necessary to do so in the interest of aviation safety;

 

(e) if the special certificate of airworthiness, or experimental certificate, stops having effect or is cancelled or suspended, the holder must, at the written request of CASA or an authorised person, surrender the certificate to CASA or the authorised person.

 

Note Regulation 262APA of CAR 1988 applies to special light sport aircraft. The conditions in this subsection form an additional operating limitation under subregulation 262APA (4) of CAR 1988.

 

5 Licence not required

 

5.1 For section 20AB of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aeroplane to which this Order applies, without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsections 6 and 7.

 

5.2 In spite of paragraph 5.1, a person must hold a flight radiotelephone operator licence if he or she makes airborne radio transmissions on aeronautical HF frequencies.

 

Note A licence is not required to make airborne radio transmissions that are not on aeronautical HF frequencies.

 

6 General conditions

 

6.1 The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, are subject to the following general conditions:

 

(a) the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than:

 

(i) private operations including glider towing but not aerial application operations; or

 

(ii) if the aeroplane has been wholly built and assembled by a commercial manufacturer — flying training to enable a person to obtain a pilot certificate;

 

(b) the aeroplane must not be operated by a person as pilot in command unless the person holds a valid pilot certificate and, subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, operates the aeroplane in accordance with the privileges and limitations of that certificate;

 

© subject to paragraph 6.2, if the aeroplane is being used for flying training, the person conducting the training must hold a valid flight instructor certificate;

 

(d) subject to the other conditions set out in this Order, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual;

 

(e) the aeroplane must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual;

 

(f) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), © or (f) — the aeroplane must not have been modified without the approval of CASA or of an authorised person for the purposes of regulation 35 of CAR 1988;

 

(g) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) — the aeroplane must:

 

(i) before its initial flight, have been inspected by a person authorised by CASA for that purpose; and

 

(ii) if any condition or limitation has been imposed under paragraph 6.3 — be operated subject to that condition or limitation.

 

6.2 In spite of sub-subparagraph 6.1 (a) (ii), if a person has wholly built or assembled an aeroplane to which this Order applies, or a group of persons has wholly built or assembled such an aeroplane, then that person, or each of those persons, may use the aeroplane for their personal flying training.

 

6.3 A person who inspects an aeroplane under subparagraph 6.1 (g) may impose any conditions or operational limitations in respect of the operation of the aeroplane that he or she considers necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users and persons on the ground or water.

 

7 Flight conditions

 

7.1 Subject to paragraphs 7.2 and 9.5, the exemptions given by subsection 3 in relation to an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, are further subject to the following flight conditions:

 

(a) the aeroplane may be flown 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher only in accordance with paragraph 8.4;

 

(b) the aeroplane must not be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level unless 1 of the conditions set out in paragraph 8.1 is complied with;

 

© subject to paragraph 7.2, the aeroplane must not be flown over a body of water at a horizontal distance from a suitable landing area of more than:

 

(i) the distance (not greater than 25 nautical miles) that the aeroplane can glide in case of engine failure; or

 

(ii) 25 nautical miles — if each occupant is wearing a life jacket and the aircraft carries a serviceable radiocommunication system and the equipment referred to in subparagraph 3.2 (a) or (b);

 

(d) the aeroplane must only be flown in:

 

(i) Class G airspace; or

 

(ii) Class E airspace in V.M.C.; or

 

(iii) in accordance with paragraph 7.3 — in Class A, B, C or D airspace;

 

Note Classes of airspace are defined in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement.

 

(e) the aeroplane must not be flown inside an area designated as an area where the operation of an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, would constitute a hazard to other aircraft;

 

(f) the aeroplane must only be flown in V.M.C.;

 

(g) the aeroplane must only be flown during daylight hours;

 

(h) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (b), ©, (f) or (g) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely‑settled area at a height:

 

(i) from which it cannot glide clear of the closely-settled area to a suitable landing area; and

 

(ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level;

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (h) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a closely‑settled area except as authorised under paragraph 7.5;

 

(j) the aeroplane must not be flown in acrobatic flight;

 

(k) in the case of an aeroplane to which this Order applies by virtue of subparagraph 1.2 (a), (e) or (g) and that is registered with the RAA after 1 October 1998 — the aeroplane must not be flown outside an area defined for the purposes of this subparagraph by CASA, or a person authorised by CASA for that purpose, or carry any person other than the pilot, unless CASA or the authorised person is satisfied that the aeroplane:

 

(i) is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all the manoeuvres to be executed; and

 

(ii) has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features;

 

(l) the radiotelephone equipment (if any) fitted to an aeroplane must not be used by a person unless the person holds:

 

(i) for transmissions on VHF frequencies only — a valid certificate, issued by the RAA in accordance with the appropriate operations manual, relating to the operation of radiotelephone equipment; or

 

(ii) for all transmissions, but subject to paragraph 5.2 — a flight radiotelephone operator licence.

 

7.2 In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in subparagraph 7.1 ©, an aeroplane to which that limit would otherwise apply may be flown between Tasmania and mainland Australia, in either direction, by a longer route if taking advantage of safer weather conditions.

 

7.3 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown in Class A, B, C or D airspace only if all of the following conditions are complied with:

 

(a) the aeroplane is:

 

(i) certificated to the design standards specified in section 101.55; or

 

(ii) meets the criteria specified in paragraph 21.024 (1) (a) or 21.026 (1) (a) or regulation 21.186 of CASR 1998; or

 

(iii) approved under regulation 262AP of CAR 1988 in relation to flights over closely-settled areas;

 

(b) the aeroplane is fitted with an engine of a kind to which paragraph 6.1 of Civil Aviation Order 101.55 applies, or that CASA has approved as being suitable for use in an aircraft, to which this Order applies, and is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

 

© the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

 

(d) the aeroplane is flown by the holder of a valid pilot licence (not being a student pilot licence):

 

(i) issued under Part 5 of CAR 1988; and

 

(ii) that allows the holder to fly inside the controlled airspace;

 

(e) the pilot has satisfactorily completed an aeroplane flight review in accordance with regulation 5.81, 5.108 or 5.169 of CAR 1988;

 

(f) if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

 

Note Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with a permission issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988.

 

7.4 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be used to tow another aircraft only if:

 

(a) the pilot in command is qualified to do so; and

 

(b) both aircraft are operated in accordance with limitations in their flight manuals, or equivalent instructions or directions, whether in the form of a placard or some other document; and

 

© the towing aeroplane is certified as suitable for that purpose and is mentioned in a Civil Aviation Advisory Publication for this Order.

 

7.5 CASA, or an authorised person for subregulation 262AP (5) of CAR 1988, may authorise an aeroplane referred to in subparagraph 7.1 (i) to be operated over a closely‑settled area subject to the conditions and limitations that CASA or the authorised person considers necessary in the interests of the safety of other airspace users or of persons on the ground or water.

 

Note Operations in Class A airspace under the V.F.R. require permission from CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR 1988.

 

8 Provisions relating to flight height limitations

 

8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level if:

 

(a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or

 

(b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or

 

© the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or

 

(d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying.

 

8.2 Except when taking off or landing, an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, that is flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level must be at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from:

 

(a) a public road; or

 

(b) a person, other than a person associated with the operation of the aeroplane; or

 

© a dwelling, except with the permission of the occupier.

 

8.3 When taking off, or landing, an aeroplane to which this Order applies that is flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a place or person referred to in subparagraph 8.2 (a), (b) or © that may be less than 100 metres but is:

 

(a) enough to avoid endangering any person or causing damage to any property; and

 

(b) as far as possible from such a place or person, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing.

 

8.4 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 5 000 feet above mean sea level or higher if it is equipped with serviceable radiotelephone equipment and the pilot is qualified to use it.

 

8.5 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may only be flown at a height of 10 000 feet above mean sea level or higher in accordance with an approval issued under paragraph 9.3.

 

9 Approval of flights not complying with flight conditions

 

9.1 A person who wants to fly an aeroplane, to which this Order applies, otherwise than in accordance with the flight conditions set out in paragraph 7.1, may apply to CASA for approval of the flight.

 

9.2 The application must:

 

(a) be in writing; and

 

(b) include details of the proposed flight; and

 

© be made at least 28 days before the proposed flight.

 

9.3 CASA may, in writing, approve the application.

 

9.4 The approval:

 

(a) must specify which of the flight conditions set out in paragraph 7.1 do not apply to the use, by the applicant, of the aeroplane in the proposed flight; and

 

(b) may specify conditions to be complied with in relation to the proposed flight.

 

9.5 If the proposed flight takes place in accordance with the approval (including any conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 9.4 (b)), the use by the applicant of the aeroplane in the flight is not subject to the flight conditions specified in the approval in accordance with subparagraph 9.4 (a).

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you sound quite upset about it? As you have said it is a more useful option in VH anyway. Why specifically do you want it in RAA? What is the advantage?

 

If RAA rego 2 people @ 80 kg will leave you 7 kg fuel about 10 lt enough to taxy on the apron! Let's say one of your kids is 40kg( if not yet, they soon will be at least this) 120kg leaves 47kg for fuel or 67lts or 2 hrs incl reserves. A fairly limited aircraft you would have to agree. I don't understand why you would want to limit your aircraft like this. Tom

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not Bruce. He was talking to the OP, not me.EDIT: And as for being helpful, the comment from the Tech Manager to the L4 as I was standing beside him was "He can send the forms in, but it won't do any good".

 

Not exactly what I would call an overly helpful attitude.

If you feel you have been badly treated then you always have the option of writing to the CEO ([email protected]) and asking him to review the decision. Michael Linke is a fair man from what I have seen and will definitely consider your position. In the event that you feel that even then you did not get treated fairly then you have the right to ask the RAAus board to consider your plight.

 

I hope that you take the opportunity to follow that grievance path, its there to ensure natural justice occurs as the ACT incorporated associations act requires.

 

You can contact me as a board member in the event of the need for a last review, but not until you have exhausted the opportunity to discuss with the CEO, or the current stand in while Michaels overseas.

 

regards

 

Andy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your RV9 comes in at the same weight as the other one on the register ( give or take a kilo) I cannot see how your aircraft can be disallowed and the other one is registered as a two seater.

 

The Cubcrafters carbon cub has a empty weight of approx 423 kg and it is on the register.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an aircraft meets the applicability and eligibility criteria for registration and operation in a specific category, then the Authority, in this case RAAus, has no grounds to reject an application for either registration or a CofA/Permit to Fly or whatever certificate is applicable to that class of aircraft.

 

KR has addressed the requirements to demonstrate the applicability requirements of CAO95.55 to his aircraft, therefore he is entitled to register and operate his aircraft in accordance with those requirements. If RAAus find a legitimate and verifiable breach of any of the applicability requirements, then they may refuse to allow that aircraft to operate under the provisions of CAO95.55. However, if RAAus cannot provide such evidence, then they cannot refuse to allow such an operation.

 

It doesn't matter that anyone thinks that it is not right, or he should go GA. Why KR wants to operate under the provisions of CAO95.55 are irrelevant (and frankly no one else's business). What people think about operating an RVx under CAO95.55 is irrelevant. What KR is entitled to is relevant.

 

The onus is on the operator to comply with the limitations imposed by that category of aircraft. KRs aircraft could retain two seats, and he could utilise both seats, as long as he complies with all operational limitations, whether they be weight limitations, fuel reserve limitations etc..

 

Should KR choose to not comply with those regulatory limitations, then like any pilot who breaks the rules, if caught, he is at the mercy of the Authority. However, if he complies with the regulations/limitations then he has the right to operate his aircraft in accordance with the relevant regulations.

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
A few years back we bought a 2 seat factory built 2 seater aircraft from Europe and the CSU prop had to be removed because the BEW was too high for a 2 seater. Seems it was certainly applied to us hence my real world experience with the formula.

Deb,

 

Subpara 1.2 (f) applies to factory built aircraft so the formula applies (actually the formula only applies to subpara 1.2 (f) (iv)). As KR has pointed out already, his aircraft comes under subpara 1.2 (e) amateur built and as such, the formula does not apply to his aircraft.

 

Application of the relevant regulations is important and it can be an arduous process ensuring that all relevant regs are considered. KR appears to me to have correctly interpreted and addressed the relevant regs.

 

Cheers

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't they effectively stop two seaters being registered as single seaters a few years back? I suspect yours falls under that rule change. Ps when I quoted the "formula" I did put a caveat in brackets.

Sorry Deb, I misconstrued your second paragraph to mean that you thought the formula applied. My mistake.

 

WRT your first paragraph, under the amateur built provisions (subpara 1.2 (e)), each aircraft is essentially considered to be a one-off and each aircraft is considered on its individual merits, not on the merits of the kit or kit manufacturer on which the aircraft is based. Technically, KRs aircraft is a KR RV9, not a Vans RV9. He can put either one or two seats in it regardless of how many seats Vans designed the RV9 for. This is the beauty of the amateur built class, you can do what you want with the aircraft, as long as it meets the applicability requirements of the CAO95.55.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember the two Cessna 150's that were "rebuilt" as lighter aircraft and called something else? They were uncovered during the CASA audit and the owners referred to the Federal Police. I guarantee they are operating under guidelines to protect themselves from a repeat of the last audit.If it looks like an RV9, sounds like an RV9, it is an RV9, even with a few mods here and there. The system is there to protect the RAA and the members of. Not saying I necessarily agree with it... It's just the way it is.

Clearly, the two "rebuilt" Cessnas did not comply with the regulatory requirements. Rebuilding a previously certificated aircraft does not comply with the amateur built provisions, as elaborated on in relevant explanatory documents.

 

I'm not sure what your point is in your second paragraph. Regardless of the name or heritage of an aircraft, if it meets the eligibility and applicability requirements of the regs, then it is eligible to operate in accordance with those regs. Just because someone feels like an RVx should not be under the RAAus auspices, it doesn't mean that another RAAus member, whose RV type aircraft meets the appropriate criteria should be deprived of his right to operate his aircraft in accordance with the regs.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
If an aircraft meets the applicability and eligibility criteria for registration and operation in a specific category, then the Authority, in this case RAAus, has no grounds to reject an application for either registration or a CofA/Permit to Fly or whatever certificate is applicable to that class of aircraft.KR has addressed the requirements to demonstrate the applicability requirements of CAO95.55 to his aircraft, therefore he is entitled to register and operate his aircraft in accordance with those requirements. If RAAus find a legitimate and verifiable breach of any of the applicability requirements, then they may refuse to allow that aircraft to operate under the provisions of CAO95.55. However, if RAAus cannot provide such evidence, then they cannot refuse to allow such an operation.

 

It doesn't matter that anyone thinks that it is not right, or he should go GA. Why KR wants to operate under the provisions of CAO95.55 are irrelevant (and frankly no one else's business). What people think about operating an RVx under CAO95.55 is irrelevant. What KR is entitled to is relevant.

 

The onus is on the operator to comply with the limitations imposed by that category of aircraft. KRs aircraft could retain two seats, and he could utilise both seats, as long as he complies with all operational limitations, whether they be weight limitations, fuel reserve limitations etc..

 

Should KR choose to not comply with those regulatory limitations, then like any pilot who breaks the rules, if caught, he is at the mercy of the Authority. However, if he complies with the regulations/limitations then he has the right to operate his aircraft in accordance with the relevant regulations.

FV You are quite right, it is none of my business why he wants to register it with RAA. I am just at a loss to understand why someone would go to a lot of expense and time to build a beautiful aircraft then limit it's usefulness. He can do what he likes I suppose, and he has shown it is allowed by the regs, so there does not appear a valid reason why he can't have it registered. Tom

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Key here is to find out what the RV9 that is on the RAA register weighs. I know that that aircraft is registered as a two seater and the RAA went through the weight and balance with a fine tooth comb and the aircraft is legal . There is no denying the fact that it is kosher.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vans spec sheet from their website lists the BOW for the RV9 as being in the 1015-1057lbs range (460-480kgs) so KRs measured weight of 950lbs (430kgs) is realistic with careful monitoring of weight during the build.

 

Even if KRs RV9 came in at the bottom end of the Vans range (460kgs), that still leaves 140kgs for pilots/fuel/payload. So he has a high speed medium range single seater, or a very short range two seater for lightweight pilots, so be it. That's KRs choice. If it's legal, let's not support any action that deprives him of that choice and let's not give him any grief over his choice.

 

image.jpg.418635189707b892eb1fee8b5dc4c831.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Key here is to find out what the RV9 that is on the RAA register weighs. I know that that aircraft is registered as a two seater and the RAA went through the weight and balance with a fine tooth comb and the aircraft is legal . There is no denying the fact that it is kosher.

406 kg. Read all here:http://recreationalflying.com/threads/rv9a-registered-raa.26984/#post-158774

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
406 kg. Read all here:http://recreationalflying.com/threads/rv9a-registered-raa.26984/#post-158774

There is certainly no problem with that aircraft, it is lighter than a lot of other registered homebuilt and factory built aircraft on the RAA register.

 

 

Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...