Should 95-0001 come back? Your Views?

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Very sane and balanced words Don – my thanks!

 

We indeed should not put ‘history’ on a pedestal! We should instead deal with history in a logical and productive manner. That does not mean saving everything (as some try to do) but use our foundations for our own betterment as well as the education and enlightenment of generations yet to come.

 

I will expand upon your words a little! To me the present if formed by the past and so dictates the future. It gives a trajectory of intent into the future – where we are going, what we are pointing towards. History is effectively the butt end of a long barreled rifle – the longer the barrel then the greater the precision. If we have no history then we have little aim and impact!

 

What so many people are clearly not realizing is that aviation in Australia has been going through a form of maturing and evolution, that will allow the average guy or girl in the street to fly without the chains and encumbrances of nearly a hundred years of this ‘strange’ pursuit that the public must be protected from – and therefore has virtually been excluded from!

 

What is happening will later be seen as a form of revolution that changed Australian (and World) aviation, but only will be clearly seen in hindsight after many more years to come. The process has always been inevitable, it was only the time it happened that was swinging in the breeze! But history in fact is being currently made!

 

The difficulty of living in the present is that we are dictated by our current needs and ambitions. We may not see at all the significance that history has been made and is currently dismissed as ‘that redundant aircraft’ of only a few years ago! Little, if any, value and no significance! So Spitfires and Mosquitoes etc were sold 50 years ago to scrappers for a few bucks and are now worth a million each! People go to extraordinary expense to re-gather a heritage nearly gone – not for the dollars but for the ‘quality’ that the heritage now gives!

 

In the case of 25-0001 we have a golden opportunity – if we have the insight to see history emerging from the present day! This is no ‘imported design’ it is purely Australian and helped lead to well over a 1000 aircraft in well over 50 models and types! And it was our first regulated aircraft that still exists in very good shape! We can bring her back at the stroke of an administration pen and a data base entry – that is all!

 

Australia was world beating in ultralight movement development! But Australia is also world famous in letting her achievements slip through the drain and be taken by others – at the hands of indifferent politicians who see only the value of ‘today’ – leaving usually a dedicated few to either fight for them – or give up and go off-shore for more easy scenarios.

 

That is actually unfair because Australia has done much in heritage preservation – but it always seems to late and ultimately too costly.

 

25-0001 however is not just the aircraft and it’s present minor value as an aircraft today in terms of it’s airframe – it represents a principle that was bought into being by hard slogging effort to get our freedoms! Those freedoms others now enjoy and flock to. I was not one of those originals but I so sincerely respect what they did, why they did it and totally support that effort as much as I am able!

 

As I am waxing somewhat philosophical I will go a few steps further!

 

Many readers know that I am outspoken. I am not retreating from that and will shortly have some more quite serious ‘think pieces’ for you all to mull over!

 

My dismay over 25-0001 is not simply that re-instating it is so easy and cheap – but why the reluctance on the part of our controllers to do so via their silence? What are they exactly about – and why?

 

The clear progress over recent years is to push this movement into the bottom end of GA. Even the word ‘ultralight’ has been stated as a stigma that drags us down and diminishes us! Yet this is (or was) an ‘ultralight’ movement and was steadily getting it’s own credence and stature.

 

Cut off that and we are once again just ‘new boys on the block’ with all the lack of credence and suspicion that brings with it. So many wasted hard years!

 

The return of 25-0001 is the key to many things. It will be a statement on the part of our controllers that they mean what they say about ‘we support grass roots ultralighting’. It will be a comfort to the ‘traditionalists’ that their original movement does still survive and as is being nurtured.

 

For the new intake 25-0001 is the butt of an increasingly long historical barrel pointing into the future. One that will demonstrate that we are not just survivors but that what we have produced can and does endure when CASA and indeed our own movement did not think they would – so did not even retain basic certification design records!

 

Bring her back – it costs virtually nothing! The main cost will be the owner putting the numbers back on her. But what price the impact if she stood and flew at NatFly as a statement?

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Admin]

Hi All

 

I have been informed that the question of whether this aircraft should have the numbers of 25-0001 or not looks like being brought up at the Board Meeting next week.

 

I urge all of you to contact your local State Rep and let them know how you feel about this matter as it is your State Reps that will vote on it so the more they know how you feel, and the background of it, the more likely the result will be what you want. The State Reps can only represent you if they know how you feel about anything to do with the RA-Aus.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Thank you Ian.

 

We are all told to contact our Board reps if we want something done so I urge everyone to do so - their contact details are in the Magazine!

 

Let's see what they are actually about - or whether the system allows them to so be!

 

Tony

 

 

[TechMan]

Tony,

 

I have nothing against re-allocating the 25-0001 number to 086-128 personally, though it will be a board decision to do so. For reasons that I do not know, as it was before my time, the board had voted not to reallocate the number at a prior meeting.

 

I can only suggest that people do indeed contact their board members and get them to ask the question again.

 

I can only prepare documentation in advance to cover any questions that they may have, which I will do.

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Thank you Chris,

 

It is interesting that the Board did actually vote on the issue. I knew nothing about that and can assure all that nobody contacted me - I have never been officially contacted or acknowledged on the subject of 25-0001

 

I am preparing a submission (that is essentially a briefing paper) that I will email to ALL Board members today. I will lodge a copy of it here as well for general information.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Below is a direct transcript of what I have sent to every Board member on the subject of 25-0001.

 

 

I request that you do not just leave it with this but take a few moments to email your own Reps or the President with your approval or disapproval. That is what we are invited to do but so seldom do. All of their email addresses are in the RAAus magazine.

 

 

T.

 

 

 

 

BRING BACK 25-0001.

 

 

13TH February 2007.

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the RAAus Board,

 

 

I am addressing this to all of you as I believe you should all have fore-knowledge of the subject prior to the Board Meeting next week.

 

 

OVERVIEW.

 

 

25-0001 is the single most important ultralight to have ever been built and flown, for many reasons. This aircraft is a Thruster Gemini B and was the Thruster factory central prototype that would take Australia into ANO 95.25 and thus be the legal start of what our movement has become.

 

 

It is however a ‘double prototype’ and started life as the first pre-certification Gemini X (not much more than a Thruster 84 TPT ‘Glasshouse’) that was steadily refined into ANO 95.25 compliance as a Gemini A, and then later up-graded into a Gemini B.

 

 

It’s original serial number was 8501 and this was changed into the new ANO 95.25 serial number range as 085-010 (prefixing and suffixing the pre certification with a zero). 85 means that the aircraft was built in 1985. 01 means it was the first Thruster built in that year (the point when the Geminis superseded the 1984 Glasshouse).

 

 

The ANO 95.25 serial number range was evidently introduced to allow the factory to recall pre-certification aircraft and upgrade them to the new Order. The actual CAO 95.25 serial number range commenced at 086-101 – leaving 99 blank numbers for upgrades.

 

 

Then the aircraft totally vanished! I found it and since 1999 have been attempting to have the aircraft returned to it’s original markings. All my attempts to open discussion via successive Presidents and the (now) RAAus office have been met with silence. I have not even received formal notification of receipt of communication!

 

 

I am now trying again and requesting that we do get back 25-0001.

 

 

There is ample member support, details and comment on the Recreational Aviation Forums web site if you care to view that.

 

 

WHY DID 25-0001 VANISH?

 

 

The aircraft spent all of it’s factory life as a working, developmental Prototype. Hearsay has it that the machine was damaged in trials for Ballistic Recovery Systems. The factory repaired it and evidently decided to sell it as a new aircraft. The serial number was changed to 086-128 and application made to AUF for a registration number. This was granted and 25-0041 was allocated. The aircraft was then sold to a property at Corowa in September 1986.

 

 

However somebody had some suspicions about the original identity and AUF made a phone call to the Thruster factory that produced a written reply, signed by the Managing Director, Mr David Belton, and dated 18th November 1987.

 

 

This letter conclusively proves that 085-010/25-0001 and 086-128/25-0041 are one and the same aircraft! The present owner of the aircraft states that the traces of the original 25-0001 registration is still visible on the aircraft’s wing.

 

 

This letter is in 25-0001’s master RAAus file along with compliance approvals etc.

 

 

SERIAL NUMBER ‘TYPO’.

 

 

In the factory letter referred to above, David Belton made a typing transcription error and described 25-0001’s serial number as 085-110. That this is a simple ‘typo’ is apparent if you understand Thruster serial number codings, but also from actual AUF records. There are a number of possible scenarios:

 

 

• The original allocation of 25-0001 was made by a certificate of ANO 95.25 Compliance of the factory serial number 085-010. The original is in 95-0001’s master file and the allocated registration number is penned in at the bottom as was then current AUF practice.
   
   
  
• 085-110 does not show as any Thruster registered by the AUF yet it should point straight to 25-0001 if David Belton’s number was correct.
   
   
  
• The core 8511 serial number, that this alleged 95.25 series number is, was also never registered. It could have been another Gemini X but just as equally it could have been any one of three different models of Thruster single seaters also being built at the time – who knows, but any of the latter would have been in 95.10. But that number never went through AUF! The Thruster factory serial number sequencing over 1983, 1984 & 1985 were sequential records of the aircraft actually built – not what model they were!
   
   
  
• If the typo actually meant 086-110 then this aircraft certainly does exist! It is another Gemini A and was allocated the registration number 25-0020 and belongs to another TOSG member!
   
  

 

 

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

 

 

This aircraft has massive importance to Australian Aviation itself! In years to come what has been done will be seen in a broader context. The emergent ultralight movement supplied aviation to the public in simple, affordable, safe and fun forms. 25-0001 was the first aircraft to bridge the gap between ‘back-yard hope’ and certified responsibility. It is quite simply a key point in Australian aviation history!

 

 

Long term preservation of the aircraft itself is not what I am requesting here – that will be taken care of in due course – but getting her back in original markings is essential to demonstrate that it was the first.

 

 

It is a mark of our movement’s longevity as that aircraft is itself now 22 years old! Getting on for a quarter of a century! Not bad for a small movement to demonstrate some kosher history upon!

 

 

IMPORTANCE TO OUR MOVEMENT.

 

 

This should be obvious! Whether we are ‘traditionalists’ grimly clinging to the freedoms we won and the simple aircraft we wish (or can only afford) to fly – or we are ‘new wave’ using those established freedoms for an even greater freedom – 95-0001 is proof of our endurance and movement.

 

 

The machine is a promotional banner that we may easily wave to state we are still here and are staying here!

 

 

AUF POLICY.

 

 

The Policy of the former AUF and present RAAus appears inflexible – but in fact it is (or was) far from that! The basic mechanics of the policy is to allocate a Registration Number to an aircraft Serial Number. A master file is opened for each new entry and endures. They are then wedded together (even if the aircraft has a period of de-registration) and the registration number will NEVER be allocated to a different aircraft. The original remains in the filing cabinet and in the data base!

 

 

Let us dispense with a distraction first!

 

 

There was a grave breaking of policy over 25-0001! Initially AUF were totally innocent! They were given a new sequence serial number to allocate a registration number to and did so. When, a year later, there was need to enquire and the factory responded in writing and uncovered what they had done, that left AUF between a rock and a hard place!

 

 

It would appear that a very simple course of action was taken. Although 25-0001’s master file was retained and the factory letter was deposited in it, representing a tie between 085-010 and 086-128 – 25-0001’s data base entry was totally excised – and that was a bit naughty! It was an admission on the part of AUF that what had existed as 25-0001 was now something else and AUF was well aware of this! And yet there are dozens of aircraft showing on the register that no longer exist – they went to the dump years ago!

 

 

In terms of an ‘inflexible’ Policy I will supply you with two examples, one of which is common knowledge and the other is a fact that you can prove for yourselves by just looking at the Master Files!

 

 

• A 95.10 owner who was a proflic designer, had a twin engined very much 95.10 aircraft that he apparently got bored with. This aircraft was converted into a semi scale replica Messerschmitt Bf 109 look-alike. This was allegedly done by dint of a ‘rebuild’ that the new aircraft was built up from based on the original tailwheel! This aircraft got extensive coverage in the magazines and nothing was done about what had been ‘avoided’ – just a re-registration of an existing number?
   
  

 

 

• An AUF President (at exactly the same time as I was fighting for the return of 95-0001) smashed right through Policy and insisted he be re-allocated 10-0001. I need mention no names again here – just look in 10-0001’s files. It will be interesting to see if there were two of them (there cannot be on the data base). But yet an approx. 1999 Lea Kestrel could have hardly had the registration number of the original aircraft built before 1986 – could it? I do not know what the original was – probably a Scout I suppose?
   
  

 

 

So Policy is not so absolute is it?

 

 

ACTION INVITED.

 

 

Firstly, I am not advocating, nor inviting, that ‘two wrongs make a right’ and 25-0001 should come back on that basis because it is ‘expedient’ or an ‘attractive proposition’!

 

 

What I am saying is that you have clear proof of the identity of 25-0001 in RAAus files that are quite clear.

 

 

You are not ‘breaking Policy’ you are simply correcting an administrative situation that was not the cause of AUF but which AUF became embroiled with!

 

 

Please fix that and give our movement (and Australian aviation history) something very important.

 

 

Doing it requires the expense of only your decision to do so, followed by a simple transcription note in both master files and a correction to the data base. That is all!

 

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony Hayes,

 

Co-Ordinator – TOSG

 

Sometime AUF/RAAus CFI & Pilot Examiner.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Re above - on the bulk mail out to the Board that I just attempted the following rejected the email address. That is nearly half of the RAAus Board and two thirds of the Executive. So much for ‘contact your reps!’

 

 

A great deal of care has to be taken with email addresses – and we used a magnifying glass on the magazine and double checked! Brilliant stuff!

 

 

I am forwarding the list of the names and the letter for the office to then forward.

 

 

Carol Richards, Steve Allen, David Caban, Lynn Jarvis, Nicholas Sigley, & John Gardon all came back as rejects.

 

 

Tony

 

 

[TechMan]

Tony,

 

I have forwarded your email to the board members email addresses as they appear in the latest RA-Aus magazine.

 

Seem to have worked for me with no bounce backs...

 

(only 2 board members use an internal RA-Aus email address - Lynn Jarvis and Dave Caban)

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

UNRESERVED APOLOGY.

 

I have been in contact with Chris, and Board Members have also responded,

 

It would appear that the problem encountered with the bulk email send-out was entirely at my end.

 

I do sincerely regret any offense that I may have given that RAAus, or the magazine, have been lax over any contact issue via published addresses.

 

Tony Hayes

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I was busy searching for something else and came across this thread. Could somebody please let me know what the outcome was? Did the Thruster get it's original registration back?

 

Cheers, HH.:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

No - to my knowledge it was not!

 

I received no official response over my request.

 

Initially I was emailed by a couple of supportive Board members and a few guys from this forum PM'd me with quite keen support. But at the end of the day there was a deathly hush after the Board Meeting the matter was discussed at.

 

I personally feel that the concept of having a humble Thruster as a sort of AUF/RAAus 'flagship' was unpalatable and totally contra to the image of 'Recreational Flying' that was being so strongly pushed.

 

Having said that I have had (and continue to get) valued assistance from RAAus sources (unofficially) primarily because the people involved know the information will not be misused and confidentiality is always maintained.

 

This has been of inestimatable value to TOSG and as a direct result there are Glasshouse and Gemini X owners now flying legally whereas they would otherwise be firmly grounded!

 

What was 25-0001 is alive and well and flying at its home in Nyngan. It is just such a pity she cannot be back in original markings - it would have cost nothing to RAAus and meant so much to our grass roots members.

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Hi Tony,

 

I am dissapointed to hear that!

 

To me the early rag and wire types are what recreational aviation is all about, the carbon fibre flyers that have followed owe a lot to these early pioneers.

 

This would have been a fitting way to honour one of the pioneering types in Oz recreational aviation. Come on board members, perhaps this issue needs to be re-visited!

 

Cheers,

 

HH.:thumb_up:

 

 

[farri]

Tony,

 

You have my support.

 

Frank.

 

 

[bilby54]

Hi Tony,

 

I have a question that deals with both rego numbers and aircraft preservation that you may like to comment on.

 

My non-flying Thruster (25-245) is the last aircraft operated by the so called "legal" mobile flying school. As you know, it will never fly in the condition that a lot of students gained their licences from and was presented as an operational aircraft.

 

Knowing the circumstances behind the aircraft as you do, I applied to the then AUF to have it transferred into my name but was knocked back as the previous owner (I am being extremely polite here) did not provide a receipt for the sale. The tech manager at the time would not let me register the aircraft but was happy for me to apply for a completely new rego for the same aircraft!! Still have trouble sleeping with that decision! The reason for the above may possibly reflect on some dark backroom regulation from the organisation about re-registering aircraft..... just don't know.

 

My other concern is that 245 is in such a horendous state that it would cost a big bunch to restore to flying condition and I am uncertain as to how to proceed with this. I am reluctant to bring it back to its original condition as it would be cheaper to buy a another flying example.

 

I wonder if it would be better left as is as a tribute to all of the students who unknowingly risked their lives while they trained in this machine? As a non-flying exhibit, this would be the creme de le creme!!!

 

 

[Matt]

Hi Tony & all,

 

An interesting read and I respect anyone with the passion and enthusiasm to support and promote the history of their chosen interest.

 

On the topic of registrations and 25-0001 specifically, if I've read the thread correctly, this mark is currently not in use? If that is the case, the I would expect that RA-Aus (as CASA or any other vehicle registration body do) would simply flag that registration as "available" - you can download the "list of available marks" from the CASA website, you can reserve one, you can buy and sell them, you contact your state vehicle registration body and ask for a registration number that is unused and you can also buy and sell registration marks for cars. What makes RA-Aus any different?

 

Is there anything in the RA-Aus operations manual / regulations / constitution or other official material that states that un-used (and therefore "available") registration marks are not to be re-used? If not, then I'd suggest that Tony has a more than valid request and if his (or anyone elses requests) are being met with negative or non-response I'd suggest there's a personal agenda at play which should simply not be allowed within the association.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Matt,

 

Thank you for your supportive viewpoint.

 

I am afraid that the situation is more convoluted than it may first appear, particularly in answer to Bill's questions and observations given above.

 

I am ploughing through a comprehensive resume of the entire area (complete with politics) and it will be a big read when it is posted in a couple of hours time.

 

There will also be some sound advice there in specific areas for sellers and buyers of aircraft. This may be history to some but our present has been formulated by our history.

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Bill,

 

 

I will answer your questions as best I may by using facts that I can verify (or indicate otherwise) – as long as people understand that this will be couched in a context of ‘my opinion’. I have no authority to ‘lay down’ RAAus Policy’ other than how I personally interpret it as just a financial member of the organisation and do so in a discussion forum.

 

 

GENERAL POLICY. This is reasonably widely known and is accepted as the way things are. Once an aircraft is first registered with AUF/RAAus then the aircraft’s serial number is irrevocably bound to the issued registration number. This union forever remains in place whether the aircraft is actually still in existence or not. So a registration number cannot be re-issued in the future to a different aircraft.

 

 

Many present members, for example, believe that if they buy an unregistered aircraft then they have to apply for a new registration. If the aircraft has been prior registered then the Data Base will throw up the number(s) and that rego number/serial number combination will be re-issued. You are effectively re-registering.

 

 

MEMBER GENERATED HICCUPS. Both AUF and RAAus were plagued by irresponsible members rorting the system. The biggest one was failing to transfer registration/ownership at the point of sale. There were cases where a present owner may be three or more times removed from a previous owner in whose name the aircraft still was as far as AUF were concerned. The prime reason for this was to evade the UACR requirements of transfer which in consequence weakened the Airworthiness system. But equally it could be simple laziness of doing the paperwork – which in turn displayed a contempt for a ‘controlling system’ that was steadily distancing itself from its membership.

 

 

In one case AUF got itself into an awkward legality position by accepting a registration transfer where in fact the aircraft was being purloined without the actual owner’s knowledge. I lay no blame at AUF’s feet for that – they were just trying to be pro-active in support of their membership.

 

 

But as a consequence we got a string of new forms and controls on transfers (that I totally support). I would most strongly urge everyone buying a second hand aircraft that if you do nothing else then you do not part with any money unless you have the previous owners signature and details on the RAAus transfer form. Download this yourself and present it for signature at the time of purchase. DO NOT accept “ah well I do not have the form here but I will forward it to you laterâ€. It is the seller’s responsibility to provide this but is something the buyer MUST have control of – because RAAus WILL NOT transfer the rego until they have that signature and details!!!!! You can become very badly unglued!

 

 

If you are buying an aircraft and do not wish to immediately register it then still send in a photocopy of the form to the Tech Manager with a request that it be lodged in the aircraft’s Master file pending future re-registration. I have done this a number of times with historic aircraft that I want but are presently unflyable or I have other plans for.

 

 

SMOKESCREENS. In your post you consider the possibility of ‘dark background regulation’ that may influence decisions on registrations. The actual answer may be a lot more banal and self serving than that.

 

 

From my earliest days in AUF I was fascinated as to why there was so much secrecy regarding the central Register. The usual answer to query was that the Policy was to protect the privacy of members. It did that all right but it was only protecting the shonks and saw AUF effectively robbing itself of income and encouraging as well as affording protection to the pirates! Those people could fly openly with lapsed registration numbers on their aircraft or evade paying landing fees. A de-identified Register – just a list of types and rego numbers/serial numbers, not names and addresses, would have harmed nobody.

 

 

Certainly there was a clause that CASA, SAR and the Police etc could have access to the Register if needs warranted this, but in effect it left the Register just as a (impaired) money making exercise and not a control measure that would have strengthened the growing movement.

 

 

I obtained carefully de-identified Register print outs for the Thrusters covertly – all of them – and this not only assisted me with my research, but it also rendered many owners legal, their insurance cover intact and, most importantly, enabled me to give sound advice on spares sourcing and material quality to assist in re-builds to keep their aircraft flying.

 

 

But the question remained – why the overall secrecy? When I was a Board Member I found out. Back in the very earliest days of AUF and 95.10, some aircraft came onto the register in kit form that did not comply with 95.10. Most notable of these were the HummelBird that was light enough but failed the stall speed requirement (something that still dominates us despite any weight increase).

 

 

Apparently some very senior AUF controllers had these machines in their possession (I believe there were maybe five of them) and it would have been idiocy to display this fact publicly just at a point when we were getting actual legality and priceless freedoms. So the Iron Curtain came down on the Register!

 

 

These days things have become a little more enlightened. We do have a full CURRENT register on the RAAus web site (you may find the first entry interesting) but it is useless as a research tool or for help to aircraft Support Groups. It only shows current registrations, not the maybe 1000 aircraft that were once out there and still may be, nor does it display serial numbers which are essential information points on how many aircraft were produced.

 

 

SOME ANSWERS. Using the above as a backdrop I can address Bill’s points and now some of Matt’s that have since come in.

 

 

• Bill, your first observation is covered above. You required the transfer forms to enable RAAus to act on your behalf. The whole situation was a mess revolving around a business sale rather than just change of ownership of an aircraft. As you learnt to your cost you need a VERY long spoon when supping with the devil!
   
   
  
• The response you received from the then serving Tech Manager makes no sense at all. It could only have been some kind of palliative because it could not have worked without some violent bending of understood Policy. You would have HAD to declare the serial number of a manufactured aircraft to preserve your 95.25 school status for legal operations. The data base would have thrown this straight back as already in use!!!!
   
   
  
• I indeed do know the circumstances of that aircraft (245) and several others that went through the same hands! That is bluntly an indictment of the school inspection system – which HAD to happen each year. You CANNOT miss a fractured boom right behind an engine with a crude external, non approved, sleeve repair that was falling apart and the engine was moving over 1†with light hand pressure!
   
   
  
• The fact that happened in the face of the pile of written complaints and formal reports that AUF/RAAus had accumulated over 13 years and done virtually nothing despite the machinery being at hand to stop it – is a demonstration of technical ineptitude, lack of instestinal fortitude, and total disregard for the safety and welfare of innocent members who were this creature’s prey!
   
   
  
• The fact that something could be done about this sort of thing was demonstrated, separately, by Mike Valentine and myself over two other rogue CFI/PE/L2 appointees. Both were taken out of the system totally and with no mercy shown. In the event, in the case of the person who savaged yourself, RAAus did eventually do something but it took extreme pressure to force the issue and even then the man kept his membership and pilot rating!
   
   
  
• I do not believe Bill that there was any ‘dark regulation’ lurking. It was simply (in my view) a consequence of people who were willing and motivated enough to do good, finding they had inherited current responsibility for something disgusting that had been allowed to persist for years, did not know how to handle it. So they took it to a heap of garbage that was handed to them and turned both on the Mobile Flying Training Facility and consequently yourself.
   
   
  
• They turned on the MFTF because it was expedient. They quoted what they liked to misquote and turned it into a subjective matter instead of referring to the control ordinance. They said that the ordinance was being changed – it has not been! It is a carbon copy of the previous Ops Manual! But let us take that issue up in a separate thread.
   
   
  
• Regarding the future of 245 I can only speak personally – because as you say it will take a great deal of fixing, yet was flying in an approved school as the main trainer. I do think it should be rebuilt. The MFTF trailer you have was designed to fit it and it should go back to its rightful conveyance. I think the MFTF issue is hardly dead yet – and any such outlets of standards and control are an essential part of a broad flung movement that should look after as many members as it is able! I do not think it should be set up to a visible example of what we let loose for so long unchecked, nor the management standard that permitted that to happen. Let us dwell positive and perhaps celebrate the survival of 25-0001 and 10-0001 that were total success stories!
   
   
  

 

 

Moving to Matt’s points:

 

 

• Your main issue Matt should have been answered above – but I will give you a valid example. This mainly concerns if they have actually ‘gone’ or just faded out of the scene for the time being and may in fact be gone.
   
   
  
• After my efforts on 25-0001 then 10-0001 turned up. This was also hale and hearty and still flying. The owners tried to re-register it. This should have been a formality for reasons given above. But unfortunately Policy had been broken by an ex-President and the number had been re-issued. The aircraft had also been sold on subsequently so some innocent member would have to be told his rego was actually invalid. I was involved with this briefly on an exchange of views basis and the scene moved on. I would dearly like to know what happened but expect it would be the same as what happened to myself over 25-0001 – too hard basket, do not respond and it will all go away!.
   
   
  
• 25-0001 was similar to the 10-0001 scene but a little more complex. The Thruster factory itself had asked for a re-registration and had issued a new serial number. BUT they had cross referred to where the aircraft had come from and that is (was?) on the AUF master files. So the pedigree of the aircraft is without doubt. If that original letter is no longer in existence then no matter – because I have several copies in my possession and I can demonstrate the validity of David Belton’s signature to the satisfaction of anybody (DB was the managing director of the Thruster manufacturing).
   
   
  

 

 

After all this dreary wending through the ever increasing complex web that is being woven, we have something simple:

 

 

25-0001 and 10-0001 exist and are flyable. They are an enduring monument to a movement now over a quarter of a century old that few in authority ever thought would survive.

 

 

At a time where another thread on these forums are saying we should promote ourselves in the media – what better way to do it than show the originals?

 

 

The sad part was that nobody was asking for much. With 25-0001 it required only the stroke of a pen and a cross reference between two files. With 10-0001 it was only a routine re-registration that was the aircraft’s by right as well as Policy.

 

 

While this background ‘Policy’ of promotion continues that ‘ultralights’ are dinosaurs and should be totally extinct now, then there is a far sadder loss. Our future is in fact dictated by a trajectory from our past that transits the present. Chop off the past and you can go where you want – but have to re-invent the wheel again – but risk losing the whole plot!

 

 

Is keeping our heritage so terrible – especially when it is still so well used? Plus can be used to give us greater credibility?

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

can confirm that 10:001 is still active and is hopped around it would do a circuit but Art needs to lose some weight. it carries it's original markings. the paper and payment was sent in but was never processed and the AUF/ RAAus never responded with a written reply. the cheque was never cashed or returned. a phone call to the office resuted in 'we will get back to you' (Art). we would never have found out the reason behind this if Tony did not get involved

 

if the owner of the ring in that carries the Scouts numbers turns up please don't be to upset when you find they have been removed with a box cutter.

 

I have been a member with several sport aviation "federations" over the last thirty years and have found all to have periods of mis appropriate behaviour of the top players.

 

what can one do. CASA don't give a flick and the govt are to busy with other problems. there seems to be no one who can oversee these govening bodies.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Aye Ozzie I feel for yourself, Art and 10-0001 herself

 

But before you get out the box knives spare some mercy please!

 

The 10-0001 rego transfer was just an ego trip and lasted only months (after the damage had been done). The aircraft was very soon sold on and the innocent buyer will be totally unknowing about how much angst there is over this in certain circles.

 

It is RAAus' challenge to sort out in equitable terms to both the present owner (who probably does not give a damn anyway) but primarily to 10-0001 herself.

 

That is a gauntlet I have no qualms about picking up and pressing for and I am sure that there will be a lot more others who would also.

 

On another thread regarding 'is there still an ultralight movement' the suggestion is that there very much is.

 

Should we collectively start turning over a few more rocks and find out?

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

will the current owner of 10:001 please identify themselves.

 

is it currently registed and flying?. would they be willing to give up that number and transfer it over.?

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

10-0001 Ring In Data

 

The aircraft that was re-allocated the 10-0001 rego number is presumably alive, well and currently registered as it is showing on the RAAus web site as current.

 

The aircraft is a standard kit built Lee Kestrel and would have been built in Brisbane.

 

It was test flown at Watts Bridge at the end of 1999 and then taken to its intended home at Kilcoy.

 

It does not (did not?) carry the full 10-0001 rego but one of the abbreviated 95.10 options. It therefore displays 10-01.

 

I was offered a fly in it and while I wanted to fly a Kestrel I was not keen on having this one in my log book as I already knew about the registration row that had by this time blown up.

 

The aircraft, I believe, soon changed hands but I do not know who to and I lost contact with it. The original owner had resigned as President of AUF and appears to have faded out of the scene almost entirely.

 

I would expect that the aircraft is probably still in the Brisbane area.

 

 

[WayneL]

Lea Kestrel 10-01 was last owned by Barry Evans and flown out of YCAB before he donated it to the Qld Air Museum in 2013

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Unless someone who is now in the RAAus Exec is willing to write the wrongs of the two light fingered perps who fraudulently took those -001 rego numbers to stoke their egos, i think that history will be lost forever. Middo has stated he will never give it up.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Sport Pilot June 2015 - Page 37 - the Assistant Ops manager is looking for the real 10-0001. See The Search for Number 1

 

http://issuu.com/michaellinke/docs/sport_pilot_jun_2015

 

 

 

Would someone like to respond to him pls?

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[winsor68]

Well blow me! Finally!