Should RAAus be split into "grass roots" and "high performance?"

[Powerin]

P.S. Gotta say this IMO (again-we all have 'em) has been a fruitful discussion. I think we are learning here.

Absolutely win...and thankyou DBI, your post on the low costs of early ultralight flying helped me understand.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Andy,Just to throw some perspective on this from a great advocate of LP minimum aircraft.

When we flew ANO 95-10 aircraft in the 80s, we had NO license or certificate ... although I was an unrestricted PPL then, there were no requirements. (no cost)

 

There was NO registration. (no cost).

 

We were NOT members of the AUF or anything. (no cost)

 

There was NO insurance. (no cost)

 

You could buy a Scout or STOLaero, or Condor or Mustang and take it to your mates farm and fly or crash it to your hearts content. (cost of the plane only $3-5K from memory)

 

The only rules were in ANO 95-10:

 

Max empty weight 115Kgs ... did NOT matter how heavy you were, the empty weight was all that counted.

 

NOT above 300' agl

 

NOT allowed to cross a public road.

 

Now if you compare that with the requirements of today can you see what Richard is upset about ... I can.

 

Why can't we have a US FAR 103 type category in Australia? It would put us back to the old ANO 95-10 days and reduce all costs, admittedly the liability would rise to the pilot personally but hell today we are MAUW 300Kgs and one bum in the 95-10 category ... who cares????

 

I still am uncertain whether if you fly any contraption below 500' on your own property that you need anything other than balls? You don't need a drivers license to drive the unregistered Ute on the farm, so why would it be any different if you had an unregistered ultralight and an uncertificated pilot on his own property???

 

I don't know the answers to that question ... Kaz might.

First issue ANO95:10 was 400lb all up and 4 lb sqft wing loading. I did not see to much quoting of empty weights back then.

 

to determine pilot weight.

 

 

[Methusala]

New

 

"What personnel Methusala? You mean the Ops Manager and Assistant?

 

Very little... very, very little."

 

Thanks for your input Winsor68, but if it took half of the hours that these persons put in and if we suppose that each position costs the organisation $100,000 pa then the cost is not "very little" at all! I think that this is one area where costs could be levied on a commercial cost recovery basis. My other point regarding the costs of the very high production standard of what is really an in house publication has not attracted any comment so far. Don

 

 

[winsor68]

New"What personnel Methusala? You mean the Ops Manager and Assistant?

 

Very little... very, very little."

 

Thanks for your input Winsor68, but if it took half of the hours that these persons put in and if we suppose that each position costs the organisation $100,000 pa then the cost is not "very little" at all! I think that this is one area where costs could be levied on a commercial cost recovery basis. My other point regarding the costs of the very high production standard of what is really an in house publication has not attracted any comment so far. Don

 

That is tiny IMO... Ra-Aus was created to be the operations centre for Ultralight flying?... The cost to membership should not be paying for most of this anyway. The Commercial flying schools would have to pay at least half of this cost in fees for the services the Ops Department should offer.

[Powerin]

New"What personnel Methusala? You mean the Ops Manager and Assistant?

 

Very little... very, very little."

 

Thanks for your input Winsor68, but if it took half of the hours that these persons put in and if we suppose that each position costs the organisation $100,000 pa then the cost is not "very little" at all! I think that this is one area where costs could be levied on a commercial cost recovery basis. My other point regarding the costs of the very high production standard of what is really an in house publication has not attracted any comment so far. Don

I guess it comes down to which costs we are willing to share amongst our membership and which costs should be user-pays. Like most aviation enterprises I get the feeling running an FTF is not a high revenue activity and margins are tight (if there are any margins). So the cost of audits of FTFs would be passed right on to students, or alternatively a potential FTF would look at the bottom line and say it's not worth the extra cost and shut up shop or not open in the first place.

Auditing of FTFs is something that hopefully ensures the safe and proper training of RAA pilots and as such affects the safety of all members and the reputation of the RAAus as a safe organisation. That benefits all of us. But I can see the point about us subsidising commercial operations.

 

I guess spreading the auditing and inspection cost over all members could be said to be encouraging more flight schools and lowering costs for students which may increase the membership of RAAus and grow the organisation. Whether that's a good or bad thing is another question.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Not good if all they do is fly right through to a CPL and disappear for 40 years. That brings no benefit to RAA flyers.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

This thread has split into two topics. We need to keep this thread about Minimum Aircraft - so I am creating a new thread "The Airspace Above Your Property" so we can really get our teeth into this one.

 

Sue

 

 

[David Isaac]

Good call Sue, I'll see if we can get these posts moved to your new thread.

 

Help Locks how do we do this?

 

 

[ahlocks]

List the posts you want moved and it will be done.

 

 

[David Isaac]

List the posts you want moved and it will be done.

Starting at:

my #77

 

Andy #78

 

my #79 & 80

 

Powerin #83

 

my #85

 

Powerin #88

 

Ozzie #89

 

Thanks sweety:augie: ... LOL

 

 

[kaz3g]

Here is an interesting twist to my comment in the above post ...What if the unregistered machine you flew on your own property not above 500' agl was not specifically compliant with any ultralight specification and had never been registered ... it could be some home built aircraft that meets 95-10 or other specs or not and has never been registered. Is it reasonable legally to suggest that compliance with any of 'our' CAOs does NOT apply where you fly this 'thing' on your own property below 500'.

Again I don't know the answers to these questions, but this discussion is worth pursuing.

Section 3 of the CAA defines an "aircraft"

 

aircraft ... means any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface

 

Section 9 sets out some of CASA's legislated powers and responsibilities

 

9

 

CASA’s functions

 

(1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the

 

following, in accordance with this Act and the regulations:

 

(a) civil air operations in Australian territory;...

 

by means that include the following:

 

© developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise

 

aviation safety standards;

 

(d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure

 

compliance with aviation safety standards;

 

(da) administering Part IV (about drug and alcohol management

 

plans and testing);

 

(e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;

 

9A Performance of functions

 

(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must

 

regard the safety of air navigation as the most important

 

consideration...

 

20AA Flying unregistered aircraft etc.

 

Flying an unregistered aircraft

 

(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:

 

(a) the aircraft is not registered under the regulations; and

 

(b) the aircraft is, under this Act or those regulations, required to

 

be registered under those regulations.

 

CONCLUSION

 

A person flying an aircraft above their own property must therefore have a licence and be in a registered aircraft to stay within the law. This is somewhat different to the law as it relates to the operation of motor vehicles on private property because (a) this is governed by state law, and (b) those laws apply to the operation of motor vehicles upon highways (NB All Crown land is regarded as a highway for this purpose).

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thanks Kaz,

 

Is it reasonable to conclude that the key words are :

 

(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:....

 

On that assumption is my back paddock classed as 'Australian Territory' for the purposes of the regulations?

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thanks Kaz,Is it reasonable to conclude that the key words are :

(1) A person must not fly an aircraft within Australian territory if:....

 

On that assumption is my back paddock classed as 'Australian Territory' for the purposes of the regulations?

You could always try to Succeed your property from the State/Government. Like "Hut river Provence".