Jump to content
cscotthendry

HGFA or RAA for trikes?

Recommended Posts

Madmik

Has anybody asked or seen the MOU? Done a reconciliation between them to ensure factual rather than misinformation (fake news)? CScottHendry started this thread eight years ago. I made considerable enquiry three years ago and it didn't exist. So depending on who one speaks with depends if it exists and what exists within - if there turns out a signed document. The devil's in the detail as always.

 

The circumstances that WM trikes faces around RAAO's is likely to continue as WM represents such a small component of their respective membership bases and an even small cohort of WM only pilots. Trike pilots organisational alignment is most often reflective of the 'other' aircraft they fly rather than trikes. Based on direct feedback at the past few Airshows from hundreds of WM pilots and prospective new pilots following their dreams, this is a little sad and does restrict future membership when the respective organisations need to be actively promoting safe, alternative recreational flying to create awareness beyond the local GA flying school - particularly to the under 30's. Best wishes :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madmik
I also gave you the example of the GA pilot who wants to fly RA - both aircraft are three axis, single engine, e.g. A Sportstar registered VH vs a Sportstar registered RA.

You just have to make your choice and do your training.

 

Turboplanner. Thanks for illustrating that this can be achieved with the Sportstar example. A multi-tiered approach could work - including enabling avionics fitted trikes into regional C class aerodromes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn Wilson
Has anybody asked or seen the MOU? Done a reconciliation between them to ensure factual rather than misinformation (fake news)? CScottHendry started this thread eight years ago. I made considerable enquiry three years ago and it didn't exist. So depending on who one speaks with depends if it exists and what exists within - if there turns out a signed document. The devil's in the detail as always.

 

The circumstances that WM trikes faces around RAAO's is likely to continue as WM represents such a small component of their respective membership bases and an even small cohort of WM only pilots. Trike pilots organisational alignment is most often reflective of the 'other' aircraft they fly rather than trikes. Based on direct feedback at the past few Airshows from hundreds of WM pilots and prospective new pilots following their dreams, this is a little sad and does restrict future membership when the respective organisations need to be actively promoting safe, alternative recreational flying to create awareness beyond the local GA flying school - particularly to the under 30's. Best wishes :-)

 

MoU :)

RAA MoU ver 10 rev Aug 2015.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madmik
MoU :)

Yeah. Thanks Glenn.

Due for renewal & opportunity to partition for an insert and change this. Was thinking something along the lines of:

"Each organisation recognises the respective organisation's WM qualifications, and as such, a WM endorsed pilot may fly a WM aircraft registered with the respective organisation with full privileges".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kasper
Yeah. Thanks Glenn.

Due for renewal & opportunity to partition for an insert and change this. Was thinking something along the lines of:

"Each organisation recognises the respective organisation's WM qualifications, and as such, a WM endorsed pilot may fly a WM aircraft registered with the respective organisation with full privileges".

Nope. The MOU aligns training and maintenance and facilitates movement of pilots and aircraft between the orgs but does nothing for recognition of registration/pilot certificates by the other organisation to allow flight in other associations aircraft by pilots.

 

And of course it's 21/8/17 today so the 2015 MOU expired yesterday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madmik
Nope. The MOU aligns training and maintenance and facilitates movement of pilots and aircraft between the orgs but does nothing for recognition of registration/pilot certificates by the other organisation to allow flight in other associations aircraft by pilots.

 

And of course it's 21/8/17 today so the 2015 MOU expired yesterday

 

Kasper - you are correct. This is the critical part that is missing. To legally fly an aircraft registered with the other's organisation. It should be Element 1 with the remaining Elements in support of the primary activity.

 

Renewal of such documents should involve a round of member consultations. We can only hope :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kasper
Kasper - you are correct. This is the critical part that is missing. To legally fly an aircraft registered with the other's organisation. It should be Element 1 with the remaining Elements in support of the primary activity.

 

Renewal of such documents should involve a round of member consultations. We can only hope :-)

Good luck with that thought. I'm not holding my breath but instead just getting on with my planes and by own design wings.

 

Looking forward to finishing a new wing and seeing if it behaves as I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slb

We have seen some progress between the two Organisations. For a while now you can have your Bienniel Fight Review with either, regardless of who you are a registered with. This was always a definite no before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pgpete

Hi All, an interesting thread.

 

As someone who is involved in to the day to day operations of the HGFA I’d like to offer my opinions – I don’t speak for the HGFA - I’m just offering my opinions.

 

This thread started back in 2009 (8 years ago!) - and yes in 2009 the HGFA was going through an upheaval. Since that time we’ve had 4 new boards and 3 new operations managers. The HGFA now has stable management, a rock-solid web-based membership system, a new operations manual and much better governance systems in place.

 

It was interesting that after the HGFA had a lot of this in place we then observed the RAAoz organization go through a similar upheaval.

 

Recently it was time to review and update the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was originally instigated by CASA. The MOU was put in place to ensure consistency of management of this aircraft category between the two organizations.

 

There was a meeting held between the RAA and HGFA on the 1st of June 2017 to reach agreement regarding the update of the MoU.

 

Since that time we have been working with Jill Bailey in refining the improvements made.

 

The MoU defines the training syllabus and standards, maintenance standards, and ensures communication of pilot qualifications and aircraft registrations between the two organizations.

 

Sounds simple doesn’t it? - in practice it’s not so easy. Some of the things we’ve been working on:-

 

  • You have probably already seen the new HGFA/RAAoz biennial flight review form - we collaborated on this and created a form and process acceptable to both organisations.

 

  • The HGFA had a single course for Rotax/Microlight maintenance, but will now recognise and adopt the RAAoz level1 and Level 2 maintenance ratings – so there is consistency between the two organizations.

 

  • The HGFA is updating its registration data package requirements to be the same as the RAAoz requirements, so there is consistency between the organizations. This will make transferring registration from one organization from one to the other quicker and easier.

 

We are also looking at other ways to make the transfer of aircraft from one organisation to another easier.

 

As both the RAA and HGFA are using the same insurer - we have looked at the possibility to allow RAA WM pilots to fly HGFA registered aircraft and vice versa. Last I heard the main problem was the RAAoz ops manual requirement – that RAAoz pilots must fly RAAoz registered aircraft. Changing this affects other parts of RAA operations. Work is continuing.

 

This thread also asked why there are two organizations looking after this category. Historically - the ultralight category was created when someone bolted an engine to a hang glider, the AUF / RAA has its origins from HGFA aircraft (the Skycraft Scout was originally a Hang glider called Tweetie).

 

RAAoz has made the offer to take over Microlight administration and in turn asked the HGFA to manage Aerochutes. - we looked at this but decided that the interests of our HGFA members were best served by having a range of aircraft categories and speeds that could be flown under the HGFA umbrella.

 

In the HGFA, the aircraft we fly range from unpowered paragliders and hang gliders to the latest weight shift Microlights. We think this range is appropriate and good for our members.

 

It’s also worth noting that the HGFA and the RAAoz organisations do have a different focus - the majority of members in the HGFA are paraglider pilots - which means HGFA activities usually doesn’t involve airports, our aircraft are usually influenced by European standards and activities. RAAoz aircraft and activities (like GA ) are mostly influenced by USA standards and activities.

 

The HGFA will always have a focus on weight-shift and minimum aircraft - we are seeing growth in Powered paragliding - both foot-launched and wheel-based, as well as a renewed growth in light single-seat powered hang gliders eg Airborne T-lite

 

HGFA is not seeking an increase in the max weight of CAO 95.32, is not seeking access to controlled airspace/GAAP airports, instead it seems our members are looking for fun flying at minimal costs, usually from dirt strip (no fee, no AVID, no ASIC) airports.

 

For people trying to decide which organization suits you better - if you want to fly microlights, 3 axis aircraft, fly high end recreational aircraft and may aspire to work your way up the GA pilot ladder - then the RAAoz is for you.

 

If you just want to fly, have fun, enter competitions or go for FAI records, fly paragliders, hang gliders, Powered paragliders and Microlights all under the same licence then the HGFA is for you.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slb
Nope. The MOU aligns training and maintenance and facilitates movement of pilots and aircraft between the orgs but does nothing for recognition of registration/pilot certificates by the other organisation to allow flight in other associations aircraft by pilots

 

The MOU is just for Flight Training to be aligned between the two Organisations. No word on whether they have had a meeting since 2015, or whether there is an up to date MOU. RAAus no longer list it on their website.

 

No reason not to keep the two Organisations for weightshift aircraft. Some models are now as expensive as 3 axis aircraft and there will always be Hang gliding and WM owners who want to belong to the same Organisation for both disciplines.

 

The HGFA wins out on costs at the moment, much cheaper than RAAus, for now at least (although their costs went up recently, they just didn't tell anyone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Downunder
The HGFA will always have a focus on weight-shift and minimum aircraft - we are seeing growth in Powered paragliding - both foot-launched and wheel-based, as well as a renewed growth in light single-seat powered hang gliders eg Airborne T-lite

HGFA is not seeking an increase in the max weight of CAO 95.32, is not seeking access to controlled airspace/GAAP airports, instead it seems our members are looking for fun flying at minimal costs, usually from dirt strip (no fee, no AVID, no ASIC) airports.

 

I like all that and I'm keen on Powered paragliding but as an RAA member and 3 axis owner, I can't bring myself to join another organization and and go through the full training syllabus.....

Is there really that much difference between aerochute/powered parachute and a powered paraglider?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slb
I like all that and I'm keen on Powered paragliding but as an RAA member and 3 axis owner, I can't bring myself to join another organization

 

I agree, as it depends on what else you fly as to the advantages of each Organisation. If you fly weightshift and also fly Hang-gliders then the HGFA is for you, if your other aircraft/passion is 3 axis then it would be RAAus.

 

Powered paraglider vs powered parachute? I have no idea what the differences are, but surely by now you should also have the choice between the two, if not I guess they will have to specify the reasons why you can't fly with one. Aren't they under the same CAO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pgpete
Powered paraglider vs powered parachute? I have no idea what the differences are, but surely by now you should also have the choice between the two, if not I guess they will have to specify the reasons why you can't fly with one. Aren't they under the same CAO?

 

Hi SLB , Downunder and any others interested in PPG/ PPC.

 

Here's a quick rundown on PPG and PPC and the similarities and differences between the two.

 

PPG [Powered ParaGliding] - originally started as an auxillary power unit for a paraglider - although is now treated by the HGFA as a separate category. PPG is flown under CAO 95.8 and can be foot launched or wheel-based - the weight limit is 70KG empty weight to be in the CAO 95.8 category.

 

PPC [ Powered ParaChutes ] have a different history - and are flown under CAO 95.32. They are usually quite a bit heavier than a PPG - the most common example in Australia is the Aerochute.

 

The Aerochute is typically Rotax 582 powered has two seats side by side, and uses a fairly low-tech square ram chute. The chute is designed to stay open in all but the roughest air and is fairly safe, but very inefficient. As I understand it the pilot cant reach the lines from the pilot seat and fix wing malfunctions.

 

Until recently there havent been any Aerochutes registered in the HGFA - one of the reasons was the C of A documentation only mentioned RAAoz - last year this was amended by CASA and Aerochutes can now be registered in the HGFA. We have approx 5 Aerochutes on our register.

 

--

 

Powered Para Gliders have developed to the point where large elliptical wings are available up to ~ 400 Kg AUW and wheelbases suitable for these wings are available using a range of engines including the Rotax 582.

 

The fundamental difference is that a PPG elliptical wing is not as " bullet proof" as the Aerochute wing, and may require input from the pilot to correct asymmetric or symmetric deflations. (among other things.) but according to CASA its still just a form of weightshift aircraft and is flown under CAO 95.32.

 

A top of the range PPG that is flown under 95.32 would be the Fresh Breeze Excitor [ Fresh Breeze // XCitor ]

 

----

its worth noting on the Aerochute site it says: -

 

" The Aerochute Dual is a two seater powered parachute designed specifically with safety and ease of operation in mind. It is designed to be virtually stall or spin resistant and in the case of an engine failure it simply lands safely as a parachute would."

 

Whereas the Fresh Breeze Excitor uses an elliptical wing - which is not stall or spin resistant - but a whole lot more efficient.

----

Right now in Australia, the expertise to fly an elliptical wing is in the HGFA, but suprisingly the only Fresh Breeze Excitor in Australia is RAA registered. ( I guess the owner got training in Germany )

 

Here's an example of some of the things you might have to deal with flying an elliptical wing. : - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqxJdWXneSM

 

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slb

So, just to recap:

 

PPG are flown under CAO 95.8 which would be HGFA only (as long as they remain under 70kg)

 

PPG (over 70kg) are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA.

 

PPCs are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA and would be classed the same as Trikes (weightshift microlights)

 

So, are they also covered under the MOU between the HGFA and RAA, for training and maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pgpete

 

So, are they also covered under the MOU between the HGFA and RAA, for training and maintenance?

 

Hi SLB,

 

The short answer is NO.

 

Why? - When the MOU was formulated in 2011 its focus was on Microlights only

 

CAO 95.32 states: -

 

This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied:

 

(a) the aeroplane is a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute;

 

the MOU (2017 version) states : -

 

Purpose

In accordance with the CASA directive issued 22 July 2011, both parties are to provide assurance to

CASA that the oversight of
Weightshift Microlights
administered by the HGFA & RAAus under

CAO95.32 are standardised. This standardisation is to be across those elements of flight training and

training aircraft maintenance as specified during the meeting attended by all parties 13 July 2011.

 

So I think there is a specific stated difference between a weightshift microlight and a powered parachute.

Share this post


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

×