The fun is gone for me

[M61A1]

Go look at the parking area at Temora to-day, and you will find two-seat aircraft capable of safely flying a thousand miles on a good day.

This pattern - which starts from people saying "There really has to be a simpler way" - basically because they can't be bothered making the effort to understand whatever the existing way actually is - has been repeated at least four times within my memory. The cycle is just about to repeat itself yet again, to judge from the complaints. Plus ca change, plus ca meme

I went and had a look at Temora, realistically, if my only options were to buy something that I saw there, I would have to come to grips with not flying. There was nothing there, that even comes close to my budget, that includes the powered parachutes.

For me, I start to look for the "simpler way", once I've been smacked about with the harsh reality of just excessively difficult or expensive things have been made to be.

 

 

[M61A1]

We all come under the umbrella of CASA we the RAA are not exempt from the rules, we share the same airspace as GA other than we cannot go into controlled airspace, we have the privileges of flying over towns in certified aircraft so we have to consider the public to an extent who we fly over.Maintenance is a part of aviation if you don't want to have a L2 look at your plane once a year stay at 300ft and don't cross a public road and enjoy your flying going around in circles like the old days were, we have been given greater privileges and responsibilities than the old days so with that there comes a cost.

We cannot please everyone and never will but we should be grateful to some extent of what we do have at our disposal, some countries the only flying allowed is airlines & military.

 

Alf

Yes, maintenance is a part of aviation, it is already in the regs, we are already required to maintain our aircraft in accordance with the manufacturers specs or if your aircraft has no manual, the regime laid out in the tech manual. The whole idea is about maintaining it yourself, I'm an L2, amongst other qualifications. I educated myself to look after my aircraft and others, and this idea of having to pay someone else to do my maintenance is completely unnecessary. In the same manner as they say there is nothing stopping people flying 95.10, there is nothing stopping the uneducated having their aircraft professionally maintained. They need to leave the pilot maintenance concept intact. The largest part of any maintenance bill is usually the labour, so that is the biggest saving to be had. If you really feel that we should be forced to pay someone else for this, you are in the wrong organisation.

The idea that we should be happily accept unnecessary regs, because others have it worse, is utterly ridiculous, and should be treated as such.

 

The rules are already sufficient, they need to stop messing with them.

 

 

[facthunter]

M6 , I don't know if I would go so far as to say if you can't maintain it yourself do something else, or more precisely join another organisation, but I wouldn't have anything to do with this type of aviation IF I wasn't permitted to maintain and repair it. For me it is part of the equation. Build, design and repair is all part of it. I'm not speaking for everybody else. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

What I was saying is that there is nothing stopping the uneducated from paying for maintenance, we don't need to force the educated to pay someone else for what they are capable of doing. On top of that, the tech manual already clearly details what maintenance is required. There appear to be some non-maintainers pushing for extra regulation, while apparently unaware of existing requirements. Extra regs are just a stab in the dark at trying to fix a perceived problem.

 

In regard to the do something else, what I meant was, if you are not happy with the current maintenance regs, and believe that we need to be forced to pay a professional, perhaps GA is where you should be.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Yes, maintenance is a part of aviation, it is already in the regs, we are already required to maintain our aircraft in accordance with the manufacturers specs or if your aircraft has no manual, the regime laid out in the tech manual. The whole idea is about maintaining it yourself, I'm an L2, amongst other qualifications. I educated myself to look after my aircraft and others, and this idea of having to pay someone else to do my maintenance is completely unnecessary. In the same manner as they say there is nothing stopping people flying 95.10, there is nothing stopping the uneducated having their aircraft professionally maintained. They need to leave the pilot maintenance concept intact. The largest part of any maintenance bill is usually the labour, so that is the biggest saving to be had. If you really feel that we should be forced to pay someone else for this, you are in the wrong organisation.The idea that we should be happily accept unnecessary regs, because others have it worse, is utterly ridiculous, and should be treated as such.

The rules are already sufficient, they need to stop messing with them.

The current rules don't seem to be stopping people from killing themselves either in our organisation , maybe if everyone followed them the fatality rate would come down and not so many additional rules would be thrown at us.

 

And no I am not in the wrong organisation, if your happy about others sharing the skies with you that have no idea about maintaining their aircraft to a particular standard, or following correct radio procedures, circuit procedures, ect ect ect maybe your in a different world to me. and yes GA are just as bad except in the fatality rate of late.

 

As I said earlier we come under the CASA umbrella as does every other aviation activity in Australia and I am sure CASA isn't in it to just p!ss everyone off in the RAA, might just be to try and save some lives through neglect and stupidity of the pilots we share the skies with, if people want out because it is too hard or feel they know better then so be it. (when in Rome do as the Romans do or don't ever go and play in Rome if you don't like what they do)

 

The rules in your eyes might be sufficient but obviously CASA /RAA is seeing it differently.

 

Alf

 

 

[alf jessup]

M61A1

 

I agree totally with you that if you are trained to maintain your aircraft to the factory recommendations and suitably capable then NO you shouldn't have to pay for maintenance on your aircraft as long as you are qualified in that field.

 

But lets be real there will be plenty of cowboys out there in GA & RAA that wouldn't know how to change a spark plug.

 

Alf

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm sure they will reduce accidents. Less people flying less flying accidents. The unimaginative use restrictions and regs and fines etc. Whoopeydoo. It's supposed to be FUN though.Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I was at Mangelore when the AUF was first started; walking around, the only ultralight aircraft there that did not have an obvious basic structural design deficiency, was Keith Jarvis's Joey glider, which had a hotted-up VICTA lawnmower motor on it, mounted on a piece of Cessna lift-strut above the wing centre-section. It also flew rings around every other ultralight there. They were all single-seaters and mostly barely capable of flying at all; let alone safe by any measure....

Yes, I was there in 1983 and the following years as well. I well remember your jaundiced views about the ultralight fraternity. You might remember me too - I was the one that fat Kim Beazley tried to have his bouncers throw out of the gala (galah?) dinner, he failed at that too, for pointing out his inadequacies as Minister for Aviation.

 

Admittedly Keith's Joey wasn't a bad effort at all but I seem to remember it had a Robin EC25 244cc fitted by Sander Veenstra, not a lawnmower engine. There were a good few others that proved they didn't have the structural or aero design deficiencies of which some people apparently felt duty-bound to be critical. As for the Joey flying rings around anything, well not that I saw on any of the days, it just flew around quite nicely and sedately. The star of the ultralight show was undoubtedly the Chinook with its skilled young Canadian demo pilot flying in all of the varying weather conditions and literally flying rings around everything as well as doing a nice number in low level slips dragging the wingtips along the ground for long distances. Simple, but an impressive display of controllability in the often gusty conditions. Wouldn't be allowed now of course, dangerous, irresponsible, bad example and all that.

 

My own Macro that was there then didn't apparently have the structural design deficiency you accuse it of, it's still flying 31 years and three countries later, now in southern Africa.

 

Several of Sander Veenstra's aircraft are still flying, or were until recently, I haven't heard of any of them failing structurally.

 

There are, or were, Resurgams flying until quite recently, I don't think there was much wrong with them until Gordon B bored a hole through the carry-through for the two seat prototype.

 

I think the Betteridge Hornet was there too, perhaps not yet flying, but what was wrong with it structurally?

 

Robbie Labahn's Ranger and Hitchiker were still flying years later with no apparent structural deficiency.

 

There are a lot of Tyros (Geoff Eastwood) around still, I haven't heard of any of them falling apart ...

 

Gareth Kimberley's Skyrider - did any of them fall apart?

 

Col Winton had his Jackeroo, at least Werner Bekker did, the twin engined one, and Col brought the Grasshopper. Not the prettiest design solutions but I don't recall any having fallen apart due to 'basic structural design deficiency' the main thing they were guilty of is over-weight due to being over-engineered.

 

Dafydd, you're very critical of just about everything and anyone who doesn't have your engineering background and knowledge, and make it clear that you don't think 'amateurs' should be designing and building aircraft, regardless that many amateurs have designed excellent aircraft. Why is it then, that with your extensive training and vast store of knowledge, that you haven't got around to designing a plane yourself?

 

 

[M61A1]

The current rules don't seem to be stopping people from killing themselves either in our organisation , maybe if everyone followed them the fatality rate would come down and not so many additional rules would be thrown at us.And no I am not in the wrong organisation, if your happy about others sharing the skies with you that have no idea about maintaining their aircraft to a particular standard, or following correct radio procedures, circuit procedures, ect ect ect maybe your in a different world to me. and yes GA are just as bad except in the fatality rate of late.

 

Alf

I agree that standards need to be met as we share that skies. There appears to be a significant lack of evidence supporting the idea that extra maintenance regs will stop people flying into things. If people are not following the current rules, why would anyone think that making more rules will make people follow them.

We already have a place where aircraft are required to be maintained by professionals, and aircraft that that meet certain standards with pilots that have more stringent training requirements.

 

Many of us are quite happy staying right away from controlled airspace and the extra (and necessary) regulation that goes with it, we don't need these standards forced on us because some rec flyers want to play with the big boys. That is why I suggest, that, if a pilot (not necessarily yourself) wants the GA regs and benefits, go GA, don't try to force Rec in the same mould.

 

 

[M61A1]

M61A1I agree totally with you that if you are trained to maintain your aircraft to the factory recommendations and suitably capable then NO you shouldn't have to pay for maintenance on your aircraft as long as you are qualified in that field.

 

But lets be real there will be plenty of cowboys out there in GA & RAA that wouldn't know how to change a spark plug.

 

Alf

What I am hearing about in the mill is that even those trained, will require another person to complete a regular inspection, in the same way that an L2 is not allowed to sign off a condition report on their own aircraft. This is what I am against.

 

 

[facthunter]

That doesn't apply to LAME's and other GA qualified people does it? We were told we would never be subject to more stringent rules than GA. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Bit like the untouchables in India? Nev

 

 

[alf jessup]

What I am hearing about in the mill is that even those trained, will require another person to complete a regular inspection, in the same way that an L2 is not allowed to sign off a condition report on their own aircraft. This is what I am against.

M61A1,

 

Ok I totally agree with you on what you wrote as I was unaware of this, that fair sucks if that is the case as the suitably qualified L2 as you are would most likely know more about your plane than a stranger with the same L2 qualification.

 

I am picking up what your putting down.

 

Alf

 

 

[Teckair]

That doesn't apply to LAME's and other GA qualified people does it? We were told we would never be subject to more stringent rules than GA. Nev

And we would not have carbon tax ...... looks like you can't believe what you are told.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, I was there in 1983 and the following years as well. I well remember your jaundiced views about the ultralight fraternity. You might remember me too - I was the one that fat Kim Beazley tried to have his bouncers throw out of the gala (galah?) dinner, he failed at that too, for pointing out his inadequacies as Minister for Aviation.Admittedly Keith's Joey wasn't a bad effort at all but I seem to remember it had a Robin EC25 244cc fitted by Sander Veenstra, not a lawnmower engine. There were a good few others that proved they didn't have the structural or aero design deficiencies of which some people apparently felt duty-bound to be critical. As for the Joey flying rings around anything, well not that I saw on any of the days, it just flew around quite nicely and sedately. The star of the ultralight show was undoubtedly the Chinook with its skilled young Canadian demo pilot flying in all of the varying weather conditions and literally flying rings around everything as well as doing a nice number in low level slips dragging the wingtips along the ground for long distances. Simple, but an impressive display of controllability in the often gusty conditions. Wouldn't be allowed now of course, dangerous, irresponsible, bad example and all that.

 

My own Macro that was there then didn't apparently have the structural design deficiency you accuse it of, it's still flying 31 years and three countries later, now in southern Africa.

 

Several of Sander Veenstra's aircraft are still flying, or were until recently, I haven't heard of any of them failing structurally.

 

There are, or were, Resurgams flying until quite recently, I don't think there was much wrong with them until Gordon B bored a hole through the carry-through for the two seat prototype.

 

I think the Betteridge Hornet was there too, perhaps not yet flying, but what was wrong with it structurally?

 

Robbie Labahn's Ranger and Hitchiker were still flying years later with no apparent structural deficiency.

 

There are a lot of Tyros (Geoff Eastwood) around still, I haven't heard of any of them falling apart ...

 

Gareth Kimberley's Skyrider - did any of them fall apart?

 

Col Winton had his Jackeroo, at least Werner Bekker did, the twin engined one, and Col brought the Grasshopper. Not the prettiest design solutions but I don't recall any having fallen apart due to 'basic structural design deficiency' the main thing they were guilty of is over-weight due to being over-engineered.

 

Dafydd, you're very critical of just about everything and anyone who doesn't have your engineering background and knowledge, and make it clear that you don't think 'amateurs' should be designing and building aircraft, regardless that many amateurs have designed excellent aircraft. Why is it then, that with your extensive training and vast store of knowledge, that you haven't got around to designing a plane yourself?

Because I've been too busy designing and certificating them for other people. My memory may be faulty, but I recall the Joey was fitted with a reed-valve conversion of a Victa 150 cc engine, when I saw it at Mangelore.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Because I've been designing and certificating them for other people.

Have you actually designed a whole aircraft? Which one?

 

.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Have you actually designed a whole aircraft? Which one?.

No, I've always been called in to sort out the mess.

 

 

[winsor68]

The progression between then and now has been, in effect, a re-invention of General Aviation, but with limited weight capability so they did not compete with "real" GA aircraft.

A "reinvention of GA"...exactly my point...

 

 

[Oscar]

No, I've always been called in to sort out the mess.

That's not entirely true - your own aircraft design is sitting in your hangar and being worked on when there's a gap in the necessity to help resolve other people's messes. The old adage that 'the cobbler's children have no shoes' applies.

 

 

[David Isaac]

That's not entirely true - your own aircraft design is sitting in your hangar and being worked on when there's a gap in the necessity to help resolve other people's messes. The old adage that 'the cobbler's children have no shoes' applies.

Now that's an aircraft I would like to see. Come on Daffyd you are retired now (probably got less time LOL)

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

That's not entirely true - your own aircraft design is sitting in your hangar and being worked on when there's a gap in the necessity to help resolve other people's messes. The old adage that 'the cobbler's children have no shoes' applies.

Well, yes - it was designed for the Jab 3300, but I've been waiting for Ian Bent's developments. Still a lot of work to go.

The criteria of a "successful" design vary greatly from one individual to another. I would like to achieve an aircraft that is a tool, rather than a toy. Because I suspect that the economic circumstances that have allowed the explosion of so many LSA "toys" will not last; but the need for small, durable aircraft to do a job of work, be it mustering, or any of the many uses people find for aircraft, if their certification category allows such use, will continue. So I'm aiming at a small aerial-work aircraft that is just above the maximum weight limit for a recreational aircraft. The Jab 230C is really in this class - or would be if its certification category allowed this.

 

So in a sense, I'm using the infrastructure that has evolved from the recreational aircraft scene, to go one small step further. Such a step needs things you do not find in recreational aircraft, such as fail-safe structure in certain areas, and design to minimise the necessity for labour-intensive maintenance.

 

I don't want to talk about it more until it's flying - and that's several years off.

 

 

[stevron]

It might interest you to know Stevron that you can't usually carry full passengers and full fuel in a four seater GA aircraft, and you can't usually carry full passengers and full fuel in a six seater GA aircraft.In all cases performance and operations pre flight planning is required.

My car is geared to 305 km/hr, but I can't drive over the 100 km/hr speed limit

 

A sole pilot can use the full endurance of the aircraft with the larger tank, so people who fly alone no doubt want this feature.

 

If the tank was made smaller, the aircraft would save some weight, and you could carry two people and have full tanks; its just an engineering equation, and part of maximising the flexibility of flying

My point is , most things are good about flying an RA aircraft except they are just shy on take off weight and it's not that they can't carry the extra, because if I fit pods I can get an extra 50 and that 50 would make my flying options better

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think you mean pontoons and that clearly applies to water landing aircraft. It doesn't give you the liberty to just add 50 kgs. The airframe also has to designed to carry the extra 50 kgs in its structural loading. You just cannot increase the MTOW without consideration to G loadings. Look at the debacle caused by the illegally increased weight of the European LSAs.

 

 

[robinsm]

I prefer, after being through the "I am worried phase" and out the other side, to just go and fly. Pay my rego and do it. My 19 reg aircraft is fine, flyable and serviced regularly. Doomsayers and end of days forcasters go away, I fly rag and tube, I servicer it. I am not looking for GA priviliges. Geez people, If you don't like it go and fly GA etc.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I prefer, after being through the "I am worried phase" and out the other side, to just go and fly. Pay my rego and do it. My 19 reg aircraft is fine, flyable and serviced regularly. Doomsayers and end of days forcasters go away, I fly rag and tube, I servicer it. I am not looking for GA priviliges. Geez people, If you don't like it go and fly GA etc.

Yep, that's a practical viewpoint - for those who have the knowledge to do their own maintenance. Why should a LAME have to accept the liability of signing-out an experimental aircraft? I'm doing exactly that with my powered Blanik conversion. If you do not want to go into controlled airspace or fly over built-up areas, this is a good way to go.