Lightwing grounding

[flyerme]

All sorted mate .very good response from our new techy and tech team also very accommodating .

 

So when's the next fly in over your way?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

how did they sort it out?

 

 

[flyerme]

As per David see post11

 

 

[jetjr]

Must be missing something here.We four built our original 230 and trained in same. Perhaps the rules have changed?

Don't think so.

 

Phil

Yes the builder can train in it but no one else can

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Yes the builder can train in it but no one else can

Thanks for clearing that up JR

Phil

 

 

[jetjr]

Jetjr,it is inconceivable that at least one of the owners did not ask both Lightwing and RA what approvals was necessary. There are a reasonable number of aircraft concerned, and anecdotally I have been told ALL GR532>582s are affected - which implies RA said it was OK. Or did they miss every plane that changed at registration, and not one owner asked what the rules were? There is nothing in writing because if no approval is required, nothing needs to be recorded. I know a number of the aircraft files have a notification of engine change on them, and there are no comments on the file to query this or suggest that this was an issue.

 

Or are you suggesting individual owners should have a level of air legislation knowledge equal to Dafyydd's, which would make the technical manager's position rather redundant?

 

The point is, individual owners did ask, and did do reasonable due diligence.

 

They were given incorrect advice, and are now being called to account - for the errors of people who were paid to know better.

 

Note flyerme's new prop last year for an engine for the aircraft, while he is now told is the incorrect engine for the aircraft.

No you dont need in depth knowledge like Daffyd but a good knowledge of the rules and limitations of your aircraft would be a good idea.

No ones disagreeing that RAA dropped the ball and should have picked up the problem. IF there was advice given it clearly was wrong. Would have thought getting something in writing was a good idea.

 

Doubt this will be the last tidy up in regards to licencing and registrations.

 

Why pay RAA, why pay any other administration body like RTA, VICroads, police etc etc they are supposed to oversee training, organisation and keep checks on licensing and inspection in place to allow things to happen safely and within rules set by regulator.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

All sorted mate .very good response from our new techy and tech team also very accommodating .So when's the next fly in over your way?

Tim,

We are pretty active at YLOX. Currently have the bird scarers based here until the end of this month, worth the visit

 

Mostly BBQ Sundays other times.

 

Officially 3rd Sunday you get salad!

 

Looking forward to catching up again

 

Cheers

 

Phil

 

 

[Downunder]

No you dont need in depth knowledge like Daffyd but a good knowledge of the rules and limitations of your aircraft would be a good idea.No ones disagreeing that RAA dropped the ball and should have picked up the problem. IF there was advice given it clearly was wrong. Would have thought getting something in writing was a good idea.

Doubt this will be the last tidy up in regards to licencing and registrations.

 

Why pay RAA, why pay any other administration body like RTA, VICroads, police etc etc they are supposed to oversee training, organisation and keep checks on licensing and inspection in place to allow things to happen safely and within rules set by regulator.

And there lies the crux of the problem.

Is the RAA a government department or an association?

 

Neither?

 

 

[ozbear]

And there lies the crux of the problem.Is the RAA a government department or an association?

Neither?

RIP the AUF we now have frankensteins creation !

 

 

[dodo]

jetjr

 

a good knowledge of the rules and limitations of your aircraft would be a good idea.

In a general sense I agree with you, both on owner responsibility, and that RA shouldn't have to pay for every fix to a mistake...

 

 

 

but in this specific case, I disagree totally. Having advice by Lightwing, the Rotax distributor and RA, it would be a very suspicious person to seek another opinion - and where would you have found it? Most most GA engineers would have said "Well, normally, umm...but this is a strange exception where 25 reg ultralights don't have a type certificate, so I do not know". So where else would you go? CASA would probably refer you to RA. You could pay a lawyer to research it for you - at rather more than the cost of a new engine!

 

I also don't think RA should normally pay for such mistakes, but in this case, they seem to be brushing it under the carpet and making it an individual aircraft problem, rather than seeking a general solution to what was a systemic problem. And they did get 10 years of rego money for every single aircraft, where just one crash could have exposed them/us to a very expensive court case.

 

Lightwing haven't come out of this looking that clean either, as far as I can see.

 

As Dafydd says, it is very much caveat emptor, but you would have hoped RA would be less secretive about the issue, and more involved in a solution rather than just telling owners their aircraft is unregistrable.

 

Dodo

 

 

[Doug Evans]

RIP the AUF we now have frankensteins creation !

I disagree now we have an option for lsa sport pilots to get more freedom and in doing so I feel that free up some of the RAA

For the real ultralights sector so u guys with ya sports craft will now be closer to ga but not encure the cost

 

So this should be a good thing for all .

 

Doug

 

 

[metalman]

i have a mate with an ibis. the ibis is amateur built because it is not factory built. he said it is like buying an aircraft second hand (from Columbia) and registering it here. no training etc because it is home built. they originally registered thembecause they believe that they complied with the rules but they didnt so therefore they are now the same as a homebuild because the factorie are not certified.

Is he local? I've got a few hours in the Ibis, my mate was the importer !

Matty

 

 

[dazza 38]

i have a mate with an ibis. the ibis is amateur built because it is not factory built. he said it is like buying an aircraft second hand (from Columbia) and registering it here. no training etc because it is home built. they originally registered thembecause they believe that they complied with the rules but they didnt so therefore they are now the same as a homebuild because the factorie are not certified.

Not exactly true. IBIS aircraft do make a kit version of the Ibis (or did) , but the majority are factory built in their factory in Columbia.

 

 

[ozbear]

I disagree now we have an option for lsa sport pilots to get more freedom and in doing so I feel that free up some of the RAAFor the real ultralights sector so u guys with ya sports craft will now be closer to ga but not encure the cost

So this should be a good thing for all .

 

Doug

I hope your right Doug I wonder what the future will be for 95-10 and -25

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Ll

 

I hope your right Doug I wonder what the future will be for 95-10 and -25[/quote95 -10 I think not much will change no so shore about 25 though We see in time to come. : keep watching this Channel !

[winsor68]

daza38 if the factory in columbia or cuba or whereeva it is built is not recognised by australia authority then it may as well be amature built because its not factory built. It just depends on how you interpret factory built it may as well be a bunch of guys in a shed.

Mostly the "recognized" factories are just a bunch of guys in a shed...

 

 

[dazza 38]

i

 

Mostly the "recognized" factories are just a bunch of guys in a shed...

daza38 if the factory in columbia or cuba or whereeva it is built is not recognised by australia authority then it may as well be amature built because its not factory built. It just depends on how you interpret factory built it may as well be a bunch of guys in a shed.

Nope, it is built by people employed by IBIS and their job is to build and manufacture aircraft hence they are not amature built. Not being recognised by a Australian authority has nothing to do with it.

PS- The IBIS is a well built quality aircraft, their initial grounding had something to do with a paper work issue from memory. Which is a real shame for the owners. It looks like a lovely aircraft. Since the initial grounding they have gone from 24 rego to 19 rego and are flying again.

 

 

[ave8rr]

iNope, it is built by people employed by IBIS and their job is to build and manufacture aircraft hence they are not amature built. Not being recognised by a Australian authority has nothing to do with it.

 

PS- The IBIS is a well built quality aircraft, their initial grounding had something to do with a paper work issue from memory. Which is a real shame for the owners. It looks like a lovely aircraft. Since the initial grounding they have gone from 24 rego to 19 rego and are flying again.

And there I have a problem in that the aircraft were/are built in a factory and RAAus have now registered them 19/experimental something that can't be done if not 51% built by the builder. I think RAAus have done this to get themselves out of a hole. My pennies worth on this one.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

What gets me is why isn't it a simple solution of transferring the aircraft to an experimental category. The way things are going I can defiantly see the demise of RAAus. Bring back the AUF I say!!!!!

It is. There are people in CASA and RAAus who don't understand experimental. The other point is this - BCAR(S) (CAP 482) allows demonstrating reliability by service history - see the Warp Drive / 912 combination. CASA has finally killed off the CAR 35s (by changing the regs), and the new regs are almost unworkable. CASA insist that someone else make the engineering assessment, but there's nobody left. Aviation WILL get safer, as modifications and non-standard repairs can no longer be approved. CASA has won, unless something political is done.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Ross, I thought that to be "experimental" then the 51% rule applied? I am still wondering how some 24 registered aircraft are being registered E24 due some mods like VP props etc. Can you please explain.Cheers

For GA, there are a stack of subcategories under Experimental. You are talking about experimental-amateur built. try experimental - private use, which is designed to allow one - and one only - of any new configuration to be kept airborne after testing.

Note that CAO 95:55 only addresses experimental - amateur built. The issue is this - unless RAAus can demonstrate an exceptionally high risk is posed by your aircraft, they are causing you loss/damage in breach of the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act 1988. Take the mongrels to court.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

IIRC the 582 has a larger bore & stroke than 532 and a different ignitionCheers

 

John

The 532 was higher compression, not well suited to ULP; the 582 does the same job on lower octane fuel...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

What follows is my personal views and may almost be worth what you paid to read them.......

 

Whether RAAus produces good outcomes or not, has in past years been entirely a function of the individual qualities of the techman and perhaps his offsider. We as an organisation have "apparently" insisted on cheap and affordable aviation and like many things in life that are cheap there is a reason for it!

 

In large corporate environments quality of outcome that a consumer see's should never be the function of a single individual, and creeping problems should not remain undetected until we have coroners or judges poking for skeletons in closets. Rather the quality should be tested by a validation mechanism within the build/design loop and then again by independent auditors who audit the process rather than the technical outcome, believing that if the process is valid and that is determined by the in loop validation, then providing that the auditor proves the process is applied in all its glory then in general the corporation should produce a quality product. Of course there are exceptions but in general a well run independent audit program is not an optional function of any sizable business.

 

Anyone who has read the full details of the CASA audits can be left in NO DOUBT that we have neither in process validation NOR independent audit. Until such times as we establish both of these things then history will repeat ad infinitum or until CASA gets the sh!ts well and truly and tells us and our BBQ to buggeroff for all time.

 

Geoff Kidd, and the other "troublemakers", self included, that kicked off the last year feb 9th extraordinary general meeting made this point and it was hopefully to be addressed in the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) changes but as yet Ive seen nothing and heard nothing that suggests anything around these vital and not optional functions of large organisations is being addressed.

 

It will cost, it always does, but to me I'd rather pay a few more $ per year safe in the knowledge that the likelihood of being able to amble out and fly in 10yrs time should still be there, today, if we are brutally honest, the likelihood of being able to do the same thing in 10yrs time is much less sure and therefore the risk that I own a large garden ornament is proportionately higher.

 

I'm not sure if I will be at Temora this year but hopefully someone will who will ask the question, just when will we start upo regular in loop validation and independent process audits... It will be these that protect us against CASA being forced to ground us because from there perspective we were making all the right noises, but only producing circular motion accompanied by unsustainable altitude loss.......

 

I regularly discuss current realities with a number of the current board members and as I've said elsewhere I believe we are better off than we were 12 months ago, in that we have improved from flat spin to merely flying along on the edge of a stall will full warning buffet in action.......We need to generate a list of priority directions and let the employee team address those. If they haven't time to do so then employ additional staff to build in the ability to change. If it costs me as a member more then so be it! I didn't buy my aircraft with a view to depreciating it over 5 years! I want it to have a useful life of 30+ years and if I have to pay something extra to achieve that then so be it! I want that list created and distributed and agreed upon and I want it then time bound and agreed by the staff and in doing that I want a plan of attack and costs to achieve the outcomes.

 

Andy

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Anyone care to offer an opinion on a 19 registered Jab 160 fitted with a Rotax 912s. [has been , and is currently registered] what will RAA say about this ? in the revised pattern of thinking

There is a J-160 with a 912 running around, Approved under CAR 35 Engineering Order; I believe it's at Boonah now. I know of no other Approved J160/912...

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Andy,

 

I agree with most of what you said except the bit about us (RA-Aus members) paying more for it. There is, as you know and have identified, a goldmine of economies available to RA-Aus with better systems. There is also the fact that a significant proportion of RA-Aus aircraft (including your own) operate on AVGAS - just like GA aircraft - and yet out of the $2.5+ million p.a. RA-Aus spends on administration, CASA kicks in about $100,000 p.a. This is patently, grossly unfair.

 

I wonder if we would have annual pilot Cert and Registration renewals if CASA paid their fair share of RA-Aus admin? GA don't have these "features". (We would still have to pay for our Magazine and Liability Insurance but why should we be paying for Admin?)

 

We have had, in my view, cheap and largely ineffective administration because in part at least, it has been on the cheap. If CASA had to administer 10,000 more pilots and 3,500 more aircraft, it would cost them more like $25 million than $2.5 million. There is no way they would ever want RA-Aus to collapse as they couldn't afford to do it themselves. Instead of $100k we should be getting at least $1 million p.a. from CASA on the basis of fair sharing the bounty they get from the AVGAS levy.

 

I, of course, do not know for a fact how much CASA gets from the levy on AVGAS consumed by RA-Aus pilots and the chances are they don't either. In the beginning, probably zero RA-Aus (then AUF) aircraft would have been fueled with AVGAS. But, things have changed, and yet there's no recognition from CASA that they are spending RA-Aus money hassling GA rather than defraying RA-Aus administration costs.

 

Don

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Don

 

I like most don't actually want to pay more, but my post should be read as If its a choice between paying more to ensure longevity, or paying less and bugger the future then I'll relatively happily go for the first option.

 

A number of folks have suggested that we need to go back to our ultralight origins and the at risk element is very different between now and then in terms of raw $ that are at risk per member. A $10k rag and tube aircraft is a lot less to have at risk than a $120k+ new box.......Im just surprised that more of those that have the later aren't concerned for the future......I guess sometimes the number of zeros can be misleading....If as a person the bigger number represented 1% of your overall wealth then perhaps for a poorer or younger (generally the same thing...at least in my life it was!!) person that $10k that represents 10% of available wealth has more to loose in real terms......... Anyway, the point is its my opinion that both types of aircraft owners, unless things change, are at risk of loss at present. Im sure some will say, CASA cant allow for a whole group to be grounded, and perhaps in the longer term that is correct, but in the shorter term an extended period of grounding is a very real possibility. Further I would expect in the event that CASA determine d that the RAAus experiment was to be drawn to a conclusion then all paperwork relating to your aircraft and or pilot qualifications history would be essential as the basis for re-establishing your right to aviate. for many such a requirement might be difficult and an expectation that RAAus has all that paperwork may well be misplaced optimism.....

 

Your points about additional funding and economies available to be exploited are real, but to be honest getting additional funding in present government budget realities may be as likely as winning lotto no matter how reasonable the argument is, and the potential exploitable efficiencies today seem as far away from reality as they were last February 9th. Rightly or wrongly I can see members being asked for more $ as being the more likely of the two at present IF progress towards a sustainable future is indeed started...

 

Andy