turboplanner Posted August 13, 2021 Share Posted August 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, pmccarthy said: As a young pilot I couldn't afford to hire a Cherokee by myself. I had to find two or three friends to contribute to the cost, so I had to find a reason for the flight. Seeing the floods. Going to the lakes for a picnic. Etcetera. Ultralights, or more generally AUF then RAA planes, made flying affordable. I think FB has tongue in cheek. Or he's trying to tell us that we were given exemptions from those high costs under certain conditions, and we don't need to be mucking up if we want to keep our exemptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4wire Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 It seems that Part 103 will be delayed due to lack of progress on the MOS. Some instrument is to be issued to extend the validity of CAO 95 series.......perhaps with the new weight. Anybody heard how this is going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roundsounds Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 5 minutes ago, 4wire said: It seems that Part 103 will be delayed due to lack of progress on the MOS. Some instrument is to be issued to extend the validity of CAO 95 series.......perhaps with the new weight. Anybody heard how this is going? There’s no way the weight increase will happen in any practical way. It’ll soon be easier to go experimental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 Webcast from RAAus 1900 eastern time Thursday 11th, should know more details then Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfly Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/part-103-mos-twg-first-report.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 Looks like 760 but no increase in stall speed at this stage….if so I can live with that. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 2 hours ago, Garfly said: https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/part-103-mos-twg-first-report.pdf Well, not much of it means anything to me…..except there are some unhappy people? Maybe they should hold their TWG meetings at a weekend piss up, and it will get sorted 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 KenSLA where did you read that? I have no drama with the specs either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 Garfly’s doc, Page 4, second and third dot point. That’s how it reads to me. So the increased stall to be discussed 6/12 months hence Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 Thanks for that KenSLA...I didnt see it as I did a quick scan because it was typical govt jargon ... • The making of a legislative instrument that reflects current requirements contained in the current 95 series CAOs to ensure operators can continue to operate from the 2 December 2021, with the addition of the increase in MTOW that was previously consulted. • Further consultation to occur on proposed changes to the stall speed limitation for light aeroplanes, and access to controlled airspace. It is intended that these consultations commence as soon as practicable and be conducted separately to any work on the MOS. This seems to say to me that the 760kg is going to be as at 2nd Dec 2021 but limited to the 45kt stall speed 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 I told that previous chairman/mouthpiece of the RAA (cant remember his name) on one of the FB lives that they need to go for the 760 first instead of as well as CTA...its better to get one thing then work on getting the others one at a time..thats how these numpty govt depts work...too many empire builders. He basically fobbed me off with the question...I think he is gone now anyway with the latest elections..or maybe I am wrong 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 With my Colt I just have to STC some VGs, $1k from Micro, to easily get under 45kts. This will also save me $18k for Oratex, light weight alternator, starter, battery etc with associated STC paperwork that I would have had to do if I went the LSA route. looks like I will be a happy camper. Ken 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodgerc Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 Perhaps this explains why there’s no panic that CASA have only 147 VH- registration marks remaining available. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 There was mention that existing VH reg a/c will/can carry over rego (I still hope so) with any going to the LSA list would have to have numbers allocated Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 3 hours ago, Kenlsa said: With my Colt I just have to STC some VGs, $1k from Micro, to easily get under 45kts. This will also save me $18k for Oratex, light weight alternator, starter, battery etc with associated STC paperwork that I would have had to do if I went the LSA route. looks like I will be a happy camper. Ken I don't know the answer; however best to check with RAA tech as yours may still need to meet all requirements that exist today with GA etc for factory built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 I cannot believe it takes CASA so long to make a simple decision. RAA have provided them with all the information and they sit on their hands doing nothing under the pretext that they are consulting with everyone. So there is a weight increase after all this time but they haven't even started on access to CTA or stall speed when the requests have been there for ages. I got access to CTA (with prior permission) in NZ for hang gliders in 1978 when we developed our first Ops manual. NZ RA has had access to CTA since inception & all RA aircraft are on the same ZK register. They are probably banking on most of us older recreational pilots falling off the perch before they are forced to make a decision. There are many in this category who are ex GA pilots anyway & although I would probably still pass a class 2 medical I can't see the point of going through this expensive and time consuming process when all I do is call ATC & request transit. Technically not legal but I have not been refused so far. And then there is the stupid process of Class D changing to Class G at 5pm regardless of the incoming RPTs. At Coffs radio comms works better after ATC hours than when ATC call the shots. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 It was the CASA the first proposed a slightly above C-152 weight. That's a while ago now. CTA access is a matter of compliance with ACAO rules and I see that as a lot harder to do beyond access lanes etc.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 ICAO is a wish list. There is no need to comply only to notify ICAO of any differences. For example the Australian RPL is non ICAO and still allows access to CTA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 I suggest you are oversimplifying it but we are all entitled to our opinion. IF it was easy it would have happened by now.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Reminding me once again why I left here months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 Que? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 Some people simply cannot tolerate an expressed opinion that disagrees with what they believe is the case. There can only be opinion when it comes to interpreting highly convoluted regulations, and billions of dollars have been expended in the courts of the land trying to define the meaning of a word in legislation, within its context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 All LawyerSpeak, Lots of words, but no sence !. spacesailor 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 I think it's more to do with Controlled airspace only having controlled planes meeting the usual ACCEPTED standards. Entire AIRLINES have been banned from European Airspace for inadequate standards. When there's a significant Incident the Lawyers emerge with BIG DOLLAR settlements sought. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted November 11, 2021 Share Posted November 11, 2021 (edited) Email from CASA 11-11-21 New sport and recreational aviation rules deferred We have decided to defer making of the Part 103 and Part 105 Manuals of Standards (MOSs) following industry feedback. This includes the Part 103 and Part 105 technical working groups. Sport and recreational aircraft Part 103 of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) and its associated MOS applies to the operation of certain sport and recreational aircraft administered by Sport Aviation Bodies and commences 2 December. While the Part 103 MOS is being finalised, these operations will be subject to amended Civil Aviation Orders (CAOs). The aim is to achieve the same outcome as current requirements. The amended CAOs will include exemption from Part 103 and relevant provisions in Part 91. CAOs applicable to the operation of sport and recreational aircraft from 2 December 2021 are: CAO 95.4 CAO 95.4.1 CAO 95.8 CAO 95.10 CAO 95.12 CAO 95.12.1 CAO 95.32 CAO 95.55 CAO 95.55 will also contain a higher 760 kg maximum take-off weight (MTOW) for aeroplanes. This change reflects previously supported consultation. We look forward to continuing to work with the Part 103 technical working group on the matters raised during our collaboration on the MOS development. Edited November 11, 2021 by Thruster88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now