Lightwing grounding

[jetjr]

Should we all then apply for RPL to get our moneys worth from CASA? ....... or maybe indicate we might

 

Even if we dont plan on using it.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . 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.

That's how I read it Andy. You know I am driven to see cost reductions before fee increases. We have the capital to achieve the cost reductions it is just a matter of will to get on and do it.

 

A number of folks have suggested that we need to go back to our ultralight origins . . .

That always sounds to me a bit like Cher's "If we could t u r n back ti-ime".

 

Nobody to my knowledge has ever done anything to reduce the privileges of people who want to fly 95:10 / 95:25, rag and tube stuff. Reality is that the great bulk of people who make up the membership of RA-Aus don't do it. Some don't even want to do it. Most do want to be able to go somewhere at a rate of knots not mess about in the back paddock. But so what? Neither interferes with the other. They are not mutually exclusive activities. One does not detract or enhance the other. If those that mourn the passing of the old days wanted to go out and re-form the AUF, they are at liberty to do so - if they can demonstrate to CASA that they have the resources in place to be an effective SASAO. I don't advocate that but I certainly wouldn't campaign against it.

 

. . . 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.

I understand your pessimism Andy but how could they, in good faith, put the fees up when they are sitting on a bundle of cash that is not earmarked for anything? Until the future strategy is clear and the cash flow analysis that matches that strategy has been determined, how would they know whether they needed more revenue or not? Hang on a minute, they must know because they've already put up the fees. Wonder when they'll tell us?

 

I am always reminded of the quintessential advice on strategy from that grand master of Business Administration, the Cheshire Cat, given to Alice in Wonderland:

 

Alice: I was just wondering if you could help me find my way.

 

Cheshire Cat: Well that depends on where you want to get to.

 

Alice: Oh, it really doesn't matter, as long as...

 

Cheshire Cat: Then it really doesn't matter which way you go.

 

RA-Aus needs to get a clear understanding of what it wants to become and establish the plan to get there. One small element of that is where should we call home?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Hey Don once upon a time I did not have to pay anyone anything, have numbers on my plane and could hop around at fence height, shut down engines, go ridge soaring, not worry about stupid placards. I never had to do a flight test with a trumped up instructor that could not do a crosswind landing to save his life, pay a fortune to get a certificate and endless endos. When the AUF came along they had not once asked me what I wanted or never did they consult me on changes to the ops manual. These GA blowins and GA waanabes just assumed that their decisions were what I wanted. Loss of privileges, it has been a long sad slide downhill for the originals.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Hey Don once upon a time I did not have to pay anyone anything, have numbers on my plane and could hop around at fence height, shut down engines, go ridge soaring, not worry about stupid placards. I never had to do a flight test with a trumped up instructor that could not do a crosswind landing to save his life, pay a fortune to get a certificate and endless endos. When the AUF came along they had not once asked me what I wanted or never did they consult me on changes to the ops manual. These GA blowins and GA waanabes just assumed that their decisions were what I wanted. Loss of privileges, it has been a long sad slide downhill for the originals.

Ozzie, this whinge is pointless. HORSCOTS changed all that - and it wouldn't have happened if there had not been a media blowout on all the fatal accidents. I was at the 1983 SAAA meeting at Mangelore, and there was the CAA's Trevor Burns spruiking for CAO 95.22 ( I think it was) and saying that unless people got together and formed an association right there and then, the CAA (CASA's predecessor) would stamp the movement out. It produced a result akin to a fox in a hen-house. George was the person who could shout the loudest, and he managed to shout-down the hubbub long enough to get the bones of an association together. Nobody but the CAA wanted it; they all wanted to be able to go behind a convenient gum-tree and keep clandestinely breaking the law. There were no GA wannabes; it was simply that the CAA recognised that the GFA was a workable model, and wanted the ultralight movement to do likewise - and would have exterminated it unless that happened.

All the things you are talking about are legal requirements; you either obey the regulations or you don't fly. Your choice.

 

George hammered out the least intrusive bargain he could get; I watched him do it. He marched into the Secretary of the Dept. of Transport's office, and in a voice that could be heard at least 50 yards away, said "You're a liar - and here's the evidence to prove it!" (and what's more, he was right. That's why they hated him). Without George, there would be no ultralight aircraft flying to-day. I got the rounds of the kitchen from Gordon Bedson because I dared to mention "airworthiness" - and he proved his point about two weeks later when his Resurgam came apart in the air.

 

CAO 95.10 is still there. You can still use it. Nobody is forcing you to move to "GA wannabe" aircraft. So stop whingeing, will you?

 

HORSCOTS required two-seat trainers and a proper training system. So there had to be instructors and pilot certificates etc.; this brought into existence CAO 95.25, which produced the Thruster, the Drifter, the original Lightwing, and the Sapphire. People stopped killing themselves trying to learn how to fly in marginal single-seaters, not above 300 feet AGL. It is absolute nonsense to say this was due to "GA Wannabes". It was an edict of the Federal Government, brought on by a very thorough enquiry triggered by media pressure, as a result of the stupidity of the people then engaging in that sort of flying - you brought it on yourself, in fact.

 

Whilst HORSCOTS was in progress, the U.K. CAA brought out the World's first design standard for ultralight aircraft, BCAR S. CASA drafted CAO 100.55 which allowed BCAR S to be used in Australia; and that resulted in the Skyfox and the Jabiru. Real high-performance, sophisticated aircraft, Oh Yeah! The accident rate continued to drop. The AUF became RAA and the movement grew amazingly.

 

You want to turn all that back? Really? How about a show of hands on that?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When the RAAus stop screwing up and stop treating me like I fly a 747 then i'll back off. I flew a 73kg ultralight powered by a pair of chainsaw engines stalling at 18 mph. For over thirty years. Very simple aircraft that has way too much regulation for it.Why the hell do I need the same crap that the top of the pile LSA need. I know all about what went on at Mangalore. I too was there. I was also part of MAFA committee for many years. I know how much work the SAAA did to bring every one together in that tent and how much work they did over the next three years to try and keep them together. Horscots was a white wash. Just put together for the pollies. I was part of the Thruster certification BCAR section S was a walk in the park compared to CAA goal post moving exercises. And George lasted how long before his attitude got him passed over as AUF president?

 

I knew George well and looked after his Harvard at Camden for a time. Plenty of things he regretted doing with the AUF.

 

And yes given todays BS of the RAAus and CASA I would very much prefer to go back to the good old days.

 

These LSA types should carry VH on them and if it was not for all the hard work of people who were around before the AUF they probably would. Going to be many years before I even give the RAAus another look until then it's off to USA once a year and FAR103.

 

As for accident rates compare them to the early days of skydiving and hang gliding, they too had very high fatality rates until they found their direction and footing.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

"And George lasted how long before his attitude got him passed over as AUF president?

 

I knew George well and looked after his Harvard at Camden for a time. Plenty of things he regretted doing with the AUF."

 

Three very turbulent years; and he resigned because the CAA would not hand over funds whilst he was the president (he drew too much blood, and they resented it, I think). And yes he didn't get it all right, and he knew it. But somebody had to start it, or it would have gone nowhere; and he was the one who did so. What went wrong subsequently was none of George's doing (he was a very strong advocate of the RPL, by the way).

 

You have not made a single contructive point, that I can see; if you have one, please make it.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

FAR 103.

 

LSA to VH-

 

Will the real 10-001 1nd 19-001 please stand up.

 

 

[winsor68]

These new LSAs should have GA rego on the side.

 

Someone should have fixed GA instead of hijacking Ra-Aus imo.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Seems to be two types now in RAAus. GA wannabees and GA rejects

 

 

[robinsm]

Yep, I must be a GA reject because I am definitely not a GA wannabe....

 

 

[Scotty 1]

Seems to be two types now in RAAus. GA wannabees and GA rejects

No Ozzie, there still are the genuine fly for fun types left in RAAus. It's just the GA wannabes and GA rejects are the most vocal. Could be said it is a bit like buying a block of land next to an airport, knowing of it's operation, and then campaigning to have it closed after you moved in.

Cheers Scotty

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

my friend bought a plane registered it GA. it cost him $135 for rego and that was a once off. raa members are being shafted. its not about insurance that makes raa members have to pay rego because the insurance you get is included in the membership fee and not the rego.

Yes, you are correct. The only "benefit" that RAA offers is DIY maintenance - and that's under threat because it's been managed so badly.

 

 

[M61A1]

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

Exactly how Boeing do it, just a bigger shed. They take a "Joe Average", and with very minimal training, tell him what his/her job is, and he/she does it.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Exactly how Boeing do it, just a bigger shed. They take a "Joe Average", and with very minimal training, tell him what his/her job is, and he/she does it.

Reduced to that level of over-simplification, that's how everybody does it. if you want to know a little more of the detail, look up CASR Part 21 subpart G

 

 

[M61A1]

Reduced to that level of over-simplification, that's how everybody does it. if you want to know a little more of the detail, look up CASR Part 21 subpart G

It really is that simple....they are all just people in a shed assembling parts made to a specification, to a specified drawing, using a specified process.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Sure; that's the bones of it. Now try to get a C of A for it. There's just one step you're leaving out. So did the Ibis people. It's called a "Production Certificate".

 

 

[M61A1]

Sure; that's the bones of it. Now try to get a C of A for it. There's just one step you're leaving out. So did the Ibis people. It's called a "Production Certificate".

That'll be the specification that they're building to. Generally the design/ certification process is far removed form the assembly line workers, two very different teams.

The point is essentially, they use a bunch of people with minimal training (the higher qualified they are the more they want to be paid), and sub-contractors who are supposed to make parts to the same specification, to specialise in their own particular task/s under the supervision of someone who knows what they're doing and will ensure they've done it right. Often even the supervisors are only trained in identifying the difference between "acceptable/unacceptable", with no idea why.

 

I would go as far as to say that in a smaller manufacturing environment, you will have workers with a higher skillset than the big manufacturers, because they are required to do multiple tasks, and may even be involved in testing and certification.

 

I do agree though, that if you are going to produce a product for the market, you should be going through the necessary processes to ensure your product meets the standards required.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

That'll be the specification that they're building to. Generally the design/ certification process is far removed form the assembly line workers, two very different teams.The point is essentially, they use a bunch of people with minimal training (the higher qualified they are the more they want to be paid), and sub-contractors who are supposed to make parts to the same specification, to specialise in their own particular task/s under the supervision of someone who knows what they're doing and will ensure they've done it right. Often even the supervisors are only trained in identifying the difference between "acceptable/unacceptable", with no idea why.

I would go as far as to say that in a smaller manufacturing environment, you will have workers with a higher skillset than the big manufacturers, because they are required to do multiple tasks, and may even be involved in testing and certification.

 

I do agree though, that if you are going to produce a product for the market, you should be going through the necessary processes to ensure your product meets the standards required.

I take your point about the shed and the people. That works for shearing sheep, too.

 

However an aircraft, an aircraft engine or an aircraft propeller is a "Class 1 Aeronautical Product". These products are eligible for a Type Certificate. The specification to which it's made is the "Type Design" (CASR 21.31). The process of proving that the product was manufactured in accordance with its Type Design, is called "Conformity" and the mechanism by which conformity is established is set out in the procedures manual that is required by CASA (or its equivalent) for the holding of a Production Certificate. So there's a very large elephant hiding behind your term "Specification". The whole business of LSA is to avoid having to have that elephant. However, to qualify for LSA accreditation, the manufacturer has to already possess the elephant - that's how Jabiru has done it, subsequent to the J160C - or to have in place equivalent procedures and people. If you ain't got that, nobody can legally fly your product.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . raa members are being shafted. its not about insurance that makes raa members have to pay rego because the insurance you get is included in the membership fee and not the rego.

I agree that on the surface it looks like "raa members are being shafted".

 

When you look at the components of the Membership Fee (@ $185 p.a.):

 

- about $70 p.a. is for the Magazine (est. for 11 copies p.a.)

 

- about $50 p.a. is for the insurance (guess but would cost a lot more if you bought it yourself)

 

- about $65 p.a. is to cover the salaries and office costs (the remainder).

 

Add the $135 p.a. of the 3,500 aircraft owners and they each face a cost of $200 p.a. that GA aircraft owner/pilots do not have to pay. In summary,

 

• 3,500 Aircraft owner/Pilots pay about $1.2 million (excl Insur & Mag)
   
   
  
• 6,500 pilot-only members pay about $0.4 million (excl Insur & Mag)
   
   
  
• 10,000 members pay an additional $1.2 million (Insur + Mag)
   
   
  

 

 

All up about $2.8 million.

 

Apart from the obvious inequity for aircraft owner/pilots, this is a lot of money raised from members and provokes the question: GA costs are covered by whom? Can you guess who?

 

Next question comes up is: How does CASA get funded? Levy on AVGAS + Consolidated Revenue?

 

Why is RA-Aus not funded the same way as GA when many RA-Aus aircraft are now fuelled by AVGAS?

 

In the early days, RA-Aus/AUF aircraft were fuelled by 2 stroke or MOGAS. The excise on these fuels helps to pay for roads but, aircraft are not supposed to travel on roads. Operators of off-road diesel equipment (principally open cut miners) get a rebate of the excise. Should RA-Aus MOGAS users get a rebate of the excise on fuel used in their Rotax 4 strokes?

 

Is it RA-Aus's fault that it gets only about $100k from CASA and not $1.6 million? To some extent it is but, do you think CASA is happily going to cough up $1.6m p.a. without a fight to the death? The Federal Government is (rightly) squeezing every drop of (public service) blood out of every stone (Dept.) it can and is not likely to give CASA an extra $1.6m to pass on to us, is it?

 

So, now we get to the RA-Aus Rule that goes along the lines of "The person who complains most about something that is not right - and RA-Aus funding is not right - gets the job of fixing it".

 

Quo Vadis DLW?

 

 

[jetjr]

Fuel excise is no longer tied to road funding, was separated some time ago, it is now general revenue. Its simply a tax and a big one.

 

Off road rebates are based on the same concept but can be given or taken away at will

 

It is not fair CASA dont fund more to RAAO

 

 

[M61A1]

I take your point about the shed and the people. That works for shearing sheep, too.However an aircraft, an aircraft engine or an aircraft propeller is a "Class 1 Aeronautical Product". These products are eligible for a Type Certificate. The specification to which it's made is the "Type Design" (CASR 21.31). The process of proving that the product was manufactured in accordance with its Type Design, is called "Conformity" and the mechanism by which conformity is established is set out in the procedures manual that is required by CASA (or its equivalent) for the holding of a Production Certificate. So there's a very large elephant hiding behind your term "Specification". The whole business of LSA is to avoid having to have that elephant. However, to qualify for LSA accreditation, the manufacturer has to already possess the elephant - that's how Jabiru has done it, subsequent to the J160C - or to have in place equivalent procedures and people. If you ain't got that, nobody can legally fly your product.

I think that this is some of what Ozzie was trying to put forward earlier, inasmuch as before LSA came a long, the "elephants" were generally produced locally and were well known to CASA and the AUF, then they opened the gates, and didn't check that those who said they had "elephants", actually did. Now all our RAA does is check "elephants".

You, yourself have also voiced concerns about the longevity of some of these new types, and think that you are entirely correct about that, and I think it will have consequences for all of RAA in the future, in the form of more regulation.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I think that this is some of what Ozzie was trying to put forward earlier, inasmuch as before LSA came a long, the "elephants" were generally produced locally and were well known to CASA and the AUF, then they opened the gates, and didn't check that those who said they had "elephants", actually did. Now all our RAA does is check "elephants".You, yourself have also voiced concerns about the longevity of some of these new types, and think that you are entirely correct about that, and I think it will have consequences for all of RAA in the future, in the form of more regulation.

Yes, I'm sure you're right about that. CAO 95.10 was in reality a very limited form of experimental category, introduced more than a decade before we got a real experimental category. Then the AUF was formed, and CAR 95.25 came along, and produced the Thruster, the Drifter, the Lightwing and the Sapphire. Those aircraft at least got a good look over by CAR 35 engineers, who weren't looking for any elephants, but just verifying that the bare bones of structural strength were there; and there was a very nominal form of flight testing. Then the CAA (Casa's predecessor) raised CAO 101.55, which allowed certification using the British microlight standard, BCAR S. That produced the Skyfox and the Jabiru. The CAA was involved, and they weren't hunting elephants, but engineering. So those aircraft were pretty thoroughly vetted - to the extent required by their rather limited design standard. Jabiru was producing aircraft years before production certificates became part of Australian legislation; they did it under CAR 30 - and got an automatic issue when CAR 30 was superseded by CASR Part 21, in 1998. So the home-grown product was indeed well known to CASA, though the AUF had no part in that process.

 

The "automatic acceptance" clauses in both CASR Part 21 and CAO 95.55 mean that nobody here is questioning the engineering of imported types; provided there is the smell of an elephant behind them. So some importers have taken advantage of that - and RAA people have been too gullible to realise what was going on. This would not have been possible had the importers been required to get an Australian C of A for their product, before presenting it to RAA for registration. But of course the RAA system does not include a C of A, so the doorway was (and still is) wide open. The aircraft would have had to be imported under an export C of A from their country of origin - and that's a pedigree of the elephant, so to speak. RAA has never been in a position to do more than look for the elephant; it has never had the technical expertise to delve into the engineering of the products - nor a mandate to do so.

 

The problem with LSA is that it is a formula for "regulation by litigation". Litigation takes years; it's a very slow process. If you regard the aviation industry as a vast machine, and consider what is controlling it - just as a mechanical governor controls an engine - there is an interesting parallel:

 

If the governor on a machine is sluggish or “sticky” in its action – i.e. it acts with a delay, so its response is always lagging behind the action –

 

the machine will “hunt”. If the phase lag of the governor exceeds a certain limit, it will aggravate the hunting, so the system becomes dynamically unstable and destroys itself. Imagine what would happen if the cruise control on your car was always ten seconds behind the action.

 

A practical example of this is given by “free market regulation” of aircraft manufacture; unscrupulous manufacturers will seek a quick buck by compromising safety standards (we’re already seeing this with some LSA imports). Other manufacturers will be forced to follow suit, or go out of business. There is a fall in prices, and a corresponding increase in demand, leading to a short-term “boom” in the market. Everybody is happy – for a while; then the accidents start, people become

 

disenchanted, and the market collapses. The unscrupulous manufacturers, if they are smart, walk off with their pockets full. The scrupulous ones, whose products were not unsafe, have gone bankrupt. Spare parts are no longer available, because the manufacturers have been destroyed. The consequences are catastrophic – and completely unnecessary, which I find infuriating. However the pain now being experienced in the RAA registration debacle has possibly caught this before it reached full cycle.

 

So I see LSA as a fundamentally de-stabilising influence on the industry, because the regulating effect has too great a phase lag. By contrast, type certification acts up front - so it has an overall stabilising effect - provided of course that its requirements are not so severe that they stifle progress altogether. We saw a great spurt of growth after the introduction of CAO 101.55 - so it seems to have been fairly close to the right balance. What we are seeing with LSA is too many players for the market. That's not a healthy situation. And what I saw as an expert witness for Carol Smith made me very concerned about the engineering in some of the LSA imports.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Don't confuse ANO and CAO. Two different ponies

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Don't confuse ANO and CAO. Two different ponies

Nope: CAO is simply ANO re-named. Some of then even retain their old ANO title

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The original ano 95:10 is nothing like the later CAO one