Proposed CASR Part 103 is out and you should review it.

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Sorry Andy - but stuff 149. Do you know so little about politics?

 

It has been very clearly said that all of 95 series will be rescinded - period - and replaced with 103.

 

So the actual flying is being controlled first and then who administers it will be addressed!

 

I am not picking a fight with anyone Andy, I simply fail to see why something so essentially simple cannot be dealt with simply - that was what AUF was about!

 

Can we not have a sensible platform where we can all live in harmony?

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Tony

 

I cant say I fully understand your concerns, perhaps I am politically naive, but until someone has proven to be untrustworthy I will give them the cautious benfit of the doubt.

 

I can accept that in an ideal world the consultation period for 103 and 149 probably should have been simultaneus but I also accept that while you and I havent been involved in the formulation of 149 the guys running RAA state that they have been involved and therefore I assume they have a pretty good understanding of what 149 will look like and how it will complement 103. The right to administer would seem to me to be clearer in 103 than it is in any of the 95's. and I cant imagine the 103 and then the 149 being 180 degrees out of phase with each other with RAA acceptance.

 

I also would say that the RAA staff have nothing to gain by pushing an agenda which might in time reduce their involvement.

 

I may be politically naive, but as you rightly identified above, Middo doesnt appear to suffer that same affliction and I doubt strongly that RAA's view of "there is more good than bad in this " would have been promalgated if Middo didnt agree with that position. (my supposition rather than knowledge of fact)

 

Lastly I would ask again, What bit do you percieve that we are loosing? If I were to acknowledge being politically naive, what sequence of underhand events or political manouvering do you see occuring that will damage us and which I would presumably see if not so naive.

 

The previous example of Middo having to go to parliament would seem to me to be just as likely to occur post 103 as it was pre 103 and nothing has occured (or can short of constitutional change) that would prevent us using the same tactics again if needed.

 

I understand your comment around "not picking a fight" I dont take it personally, rather I'm just wanting to better understand your point of view. So far I havent really seen anything that would change my consultative response to the NPRM 103 which is pretty well aligned to what RAA are saying. However I will be considering alternate positions

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

OK Andy! Firstly thank you for your courteous reply!

 

 

I will reply by attempting to be both simple and blunt.

 

 

First – I will not be drawn into comments about personalities in RAAus unless it suits me. This is not one of those occasions and there are laws of libel that I have to consider in view of how much is actually on the public record v’s what is ‘known’.

 

 

However, if you want an example then take this on board. The ill-feeling about AUF/RAAus management has been so deep seated that a break-away group was seriously proposed and is still there – it is in fact quite large! I know that because I was several times asked to be one of the leaders of it. I steadfastly refused because I do not believe division in a small movement will do any good for anybody! The whole prospect has been politically neutralized at administrative foundation level anyway so is a total waste of time!

 

 

Second – I believe it should be quite apparent that there is a vast difference between having your ‘own’ Act of Parliament, specific to your own needs, that you can trot off and appeal if the need arises (per the 95.55 case cited above)? Or – having your interests becoming a minor, convoluted, part of a broad aviation ordinance where you are but a small interest group howling against ‘National Legislation’ with no real identity of your own.

 

 

The cost of that is appalling to a member funded group as we have already seen over many years while we ‘fought them in the trenches’! But we lost, or are losing, our fundamental freedoms in the process! In my opinion anyway.

 

 

Now I appreciate that (for want of a better expression and I mean no derogation here) the ‘Plastic Fantasitic Brigade’ will require their own legislation – as they rightly should because in any sense of the meaning they should be part of GA – or at least an independently controlled sub-part of GA that nobody had the guts to address directly but so easily could have!

 

 

But why take the legislation of the honorary groups with very unique and simple aircraft from them in the process?

 

 

I am denying nobody anything – I support it all! I just do not want to see what we have already got up in smoke – because we will NEVER get it back! So why let it go without at least the fight that was put on to get it in the first place?

 

 

In public terms the 95 legislation consumed a great amount of the tax payer’s money but is now in place and working. Why squander that money and a workable system?

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

OK I'll just add a bit.

 

When i first started flying MINIMUM AIRCRAFT in '76. i had a great ANO95-10 to use. no license no rego. just some sensible rules to follow. then when the AUF came along. (and what a battle that period was). We lost a lot if not all of the freedoms that that ANO had for us. Along came a license and rego (please pay). Those who did not want to play by the new rules submitted their wants to the new auf and never heard from them again. (what submissions) most of the then board had fiscal interests in the 95-25 (you work it out) aircraft. some complied under the threat of heavy fines and jail. some gave up and sold their grass roots machines and some took the risk and kept flying and still are taking the risk. then a few years on come more regs more rules more threats of jail and fines. Now all we have of the grass roots end is a handful of people who have to fit in a catagory that is not designed for lightweight aircraft. The AUF effectivley killed off minimum aircraft. Meanwhile in the USA they followed a similar path as us and they now have their light sport aircraft and they still have their grass roots ultralights (classed as recreational vehicles) in a catagory by themselves. no rego and no license. and many of the early machines are still available to purchase new today. it is a healthy industry that can be used as a entry level for newbies before they bite the bullett and shell out for a LSA.

 

Now here i am again about to go thru another change and i am being told that i am not losing any fredoms. CRAP. Now i am in a higher weight of 350kgs with a stall speed of 45kts catagory. Now my takeoff weight is only 143kgs with a stall of 18mph and a cruise is under the 45kt stall speed. So why should i be forced into this when i operate at less than half the minimum limits.

 

why should i be forced into this when the HGFA have a nanolight (weightshift) catagory for trike and powered paragliders with a empty weight of 70 kilos ( i'm only 3 kilos over this limit.). i feel a bit discriminated on here.

 

What is next, mandatory 5 instrument packages and carraige of radios?

 

How do i comply with the bi annual flight review.? do i find myself failed when i hop into some plastic parrot and find that i need three hours just to keep up with the dam thing. and it can go on.

 

As for those who do feel that this new change is for them i say great because one day i will be flying something that will fit and i want a good solid base of understandable regulation to fly it. BUT as i am still interested in flying at the other end of the scale i feel that it does not suit me at the moment. I have a lot to do and learn with the Lazair, and plenty of experimentation left with power plants and fuel. i feel that i cannot acheive my goals with what is being proposed. i also feel that the RAAus in spite of some individual board members claims to support my grass roots interests is not so. the reason very few grassroots types turn up to Narromine is that we are not catered for, in that we do need a seperate display and flying area and kind comments.

 

We kept quiet a long time back and it cost us. I will be submitting to the NPRM and if needed the minister. it feels like i was told to turn up for a soccer match and when i arrived someone gave me a bag of golf clubs.

 

I apologise now to those that this may slow things up for. but i would rather spend 6 months sorting this out rather than waiting till the next chance that may never come.

 

OZZIE

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Ozzie

 

Ok, understand the history that youve shared and can perhaps understand why you have responded in the way you have, however if looking at 103 in isolation to other RAA or CASA things which may or may not happen and can be fought, or not when proposed, what is it that 103 removes from you or prevents you doing in the future. As I understand it there is nothing in the response you provided that 103 would be responsible for.

 

Your points:-

 

1) The weight limitations increase. My reponse,so what 103 doesnt prevent you from continuing to do what you've always done.

 

2) HGFA have a nano lite category which you arent eligable to participate in. My repsonse And?

 

3) Mandatory radios and 5 instruments next. My reponse, Where in 103 does it even suggest that is on the agenda, or who in any official capacity has suggested that someone (RAAO's or CASA) is looking at this? please dont presume that any change is the forerunner to kaos!

 

4) bi-annual flight review. My response. this in no way relates to 103 rather is a RAA ops manual requirement section 2.07. In otherwords you need this now independant of whether 103 is accepted or not.

 

5) bi-annual must be done in a plastic fantastic..... My response There is no requirement for this to occur, so why infer that there is? In fact the very value of what a Bi Annual is trying to achieve is completely negated if the check Aircraft is vastly different to what you usually fly.

 

So with all that said. What exactly would you change about the current proposed 103? As I see it, it takes nothing away from anyone?

 

I would also point out that while my discussions in the early part of this thread related to faster "plastic fantastics", my current mount is a 55kt trike, more towards your end of the spectrum. I dont see that I loose anything whether driving a future J230 or my current 95.32 trike.

 

To be taken seriously by any of the powers to be, be it within our repsective RAAO's or within CASA or the minister, any interaction we have with these people must be logical, be able to be factually substatiated and be devoid, to the greatest extent possible, of any emotion.

 

So in concluding can anyone provide any factual substatiation of why the proposed 103 is worse than what we already have now because I simply cant see it. Anyone??

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Admin]

[johnprop]

G'day Mike,

 

"recreational aircraft" to describe our fleet in all it's sizes, shapes and configuration sounds OK to me but "ultralight" has to go.

 

We are all recreational flyers. We fly for recreation and build for our enjoyment and educational benefit.

 

Cheers

 

Clive

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Andy. you missed my point.

 

There is nothing wrong with 103.

 

I can live with it. because it suits my plans for the future.

 

but right now i prefer to have a lower weight catagory similar to the hgfa nanolights. with simple easy and workable rules. some of the proposed rulings just do not suit some of the earlier aircraft.

 

the emotion just comes from being swept up in the flood.

 

your 55kt mount is 7 knts above my VNE.

 

blue skies

 

 

[Guest danda]

Change will always bring two sides those for and those against so far in this debate the biggest words used have been I or ME however my question would have to be how will these changes effect US the majority also how will these changes effect the future of recreational aviation so that we can all enjoy the joys of flying in whatever type of aircraft we whish to fly.

 

Don

 

 

[TechMan]

Ozzie,

 

Can you expand on what rulings you are referring to?

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So RAA management, Anything new to report around the 103 / 149 process? Nothing on the CASA site and nothing on this site.

 

Any feedback from CASA as to the general flying public responses around 103?

 

Andy

 

 

[TechMan]

Nothing as yet Andy, consultation with the public only finishes at the end of this month, so after that we will know more.

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest Fred Bear]

Not really scrolling above to see this whole thread but this Part 103 should be signed and reviewed by all of us (as per the latest RAA mag). As the RAA said, if we do nothing about it we will be the ones whining when things go pear shaped and it's too late. I see so many comments though about the use of the word 'ultralight/ultralights' and I wonder why people are so against it? It maybe just me (and a few others) but I feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of the word(s).Look at my web page name.I would not change it for the world.I think essentially it's the media that turned it into a horrible word that for the general public means death traps, disaster,dangerous and "Anyone who flies in those things is gonna die" type myths.

 

 

[Guest danda]

Darren I think you are right my son tells me that it makes fora good headline however from my observations it doesn't matter what the name is as you yourself have noted that in many posts when a light aircraft is involved in any kind of incident it becomes an ultralight regardless of the type or rego Rather than facts its far easer to lump all light aircraft under the same category. I believe the problem lies in education, its easy to just blame the media however they are under a great deal of pressure to out the next story and to make each story as sensational as they can that fact is that the more sensational the head line the more papers you are likely to sell or watch your news or current affair show facts rarely figure.

 

However I believe it up to the RAAus to try and educate the media as to what is what, it is also up to us to fly a safely as we can, do our maintenance, do our pre flight checks if its a new airfield check the surroundings and guard ourselves from complacency, as I see it, it would be the bigest danger we have.

 

Once you have done all that there is no reason we can't enjoy every flight and the fire of passion for this fantastic sport can remain as strong as it did the first day we say our buts in the seat of our first aircraft with the controls in our hand.

 

Don

 

 

[TechMan]

An update on Part 103. The deadline for submissions has been extended to the 29th June (hopefully this year).

 

They are trying to line up Part 103 with Part 149 NPRM release, though the lawyers have got a hold of it at the moment, so who knows when things will happen..

 

That's all I know at this stage.

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

An update on Part 103. The deadline for submissions has been extended to the 29th June (hopefully this year).They are trying to line up Part 103 with Part 149 NPRM release, though the lawyers have got a hold of it at the moment, so who knows when things will happen..

Chris,

 

I filled in Part 103 when it was first mentioned on the CASA website. Do we need to do the same for Part 149 and is it on a different URL? And as before, is there an indication of the type of responses we should be providing that will benefit the RAA if we dont have time to read the whole NPRM?

 

Regards,

 

Jan

 

 

[Wilfred]

Comment periods extended for sport & rec NPRMs (Parts 103/105/149)

 

CASA is pleased to advise the aviation community that the consultation periods for CASR Parts 103 and 105 (in NPRMs 0603OS and 0605OS) have been further extended. This will align them with the expected closure date for the Part 149 NPRM 'Recreational aviation administration organisations' which is due to be published soon.

 

Aligning the consultation period closure dates will allow the complete sport/recreational aviation regulatory package (Parts 103/105/149) to be reviewed in total and in context. The new common closing date for all three sport/recreational aviation NPRMs will now be 2 July 2007. For a list of consultation documents currently inviting public comment, please visit http://rrp.casa.gov.au/respond

 

 

[facthunter]

CASR Part 103

 

With the extension of time, let's keep this alive as a line of communication and try to get as much response as possible . I for one, would not like to see any of the privileges of a minority lost,with the simple, cheap, historically significant craft, any more than I want to see the boundaries pushed too quickly at the other end by an excited minority, who might want to go to a complicated environment, ahead of the system, or take the system with them, requiring more complexity than most of us want. (cost & training ) We have done very well in this country. When I first started flying none of this sort of activity was available, to any real extent. Now we are as well off as anyone in the world, as I read it.

 

We have always had our detractors, and I don't think we should get too worked up about some of the ill-informed, prejudiced comments that appear from time to time, except to minimise the amount of bad practice we allow them to notice.

 

Regards ...Nev..