RAA, Recreational Aircraft and ultralights ...

[Marty_d]

Or is is that higher classes of flying are ridiculously hard to meet for most and 103 less hassle and cheaper?

Did you mean "higher costs"? If not I'm confused.

 

 

[jetboy]

Could RAA be better served with the NZ part 103 solution?

 

It was based on the Canadian Advanced Ultralight system with acceptance of BCAR 'S' and French definitions coming in later.

 

The reasoning for the rules was "low inertia" and low risk to others / property due to flight restrictions.

 

http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Part_103_Brief.htm

 

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC103_1.pdf

 

Registration is with CAA like any other aircraft as is the first flight permit inspection after that all things are handled by one of the 3 part 103 organisations. The craft must continually meet the design rule specifications for which they were accepted under and be maintained per the requirements of the operating manuals. The organisations can approve mods where that is allowed under the design rule. Part 103 does not include experimentals, small GA, LSA or hire / reward operations - which are covered under another rule and done with LAME maintenance.

 

I dont think many could operate under the old rule - called CASO 19, it limited empty weight to 150 kg and had a minimum wing area.

 

 

[kasper]

I don't think the NZ system is as free as the current RAA system and I think RAA would better serve members by treating from an operational perspective factory built separately from home built/experimental.

 

This is not to say that everything should go back to 390kg MTOW fabric and tube ultralights etc. but to accepts that RAA aircraft are not 'old school' ultralights only BUT that there is a fundamental difference in the airframes within the RAA realm that should be maintained regardless of it flying at 50knts or 135knts.

 

This was the initial logical separation between those that were designed to an accepted set of criteria by an organisation that had undertaken the manufacture to the accepted design standards and those that were not.

 

On the basis that the aircraft came out of a factory and had been tested to an acceptable level the use to which the aircraft could be put was expanded beyond that of those that were not so designed and manufactured ie the experimental ones.

 

On this logic was based the use of aircraft for hire and reward.

 

On this logic was based the requirement for L2 maintenance for those used for high and reward.

 

On this basis was based the initial extension of operational limits into airspace that was previously not available to any AUF/RAA aircraft

 

Where I consider RAA went wrong is that they sort removal of operational restrictions without differentiation between the factory built and the non-factory built airframes - focused on getting expanded access based on pilot endorsements/qualifications.

 

The result of this is in my opinion the ability of CASA to turn around now and say

 

1. ops between the two areas of airframes is approximately the same therefore

 

2. risk to persons outside the plane are approximately the same therefore

 

3. maintenance and modifications between the airframes should be approximately the same

 

If the board were to have a stated policy position on what the difference should be between the airframes coming out of factories and those coming out of garages then it would be much clearer to assess apparent policy positions as articulated by the RAA exec, tech and ops areas because at the moment there is a situation where board members when asked can and have said that 'that's for the executive to deal with - the board to not micro-manage as we have in the past'

 

If there was the stated policy position of the RAA board then the RAA executive an tech department would not be managed by the RAA board but they would be bound to follow the board policy in dealing with CASA in discussion of changes requested to be included in the tech manual etc. and when conflict between RAA policy and CASA position exists they would have to either hold the RAA line or refer back to board.

 

Frankly I am going to piss off RAA employees here - it's for the board to set policy (even if its not in line with current legal positions) and its for the executive and employees to implement and manage operations within the legal requirements and to operationally seek through change to the legal requirements the implementation of RAA policy.

 

Yes the exec and employees have input to the policy formation within the board but ultimately its the board that is responsible for policy not the exec/employees.

 

Only in this way - and with clear statement of the policies of the RAA to the membership - can the membership hold the board to account for policy positions.

 

On calls within this thread for US style 103 - my opinion is to forget it in Australia. We had that before 1988 ... and the HORSCOTS report fundamentally and comprehensibly set out why no training in ultralights was never going to be acceptable - the pilot certificate is here and will stay ... no politician will move away from that as the first death of an untrained pilot after removal would be their political death knell. And in any event how many actual 103 US ultralights are really 103 compliant? the fat ultralight situation in the US should not be allowed in another country and from a physics perspective focusing on MTOW and wing load is more logical - 300kg of aircraft, pilot and fuel flying at 45kts has the same energy regardless of the distribution of mass between the airframe and pilots/fuel - trading useful load to airframe can be a safety enhancement ... as noted by HORSCOTS in the report that removed the 115kg empty weight from 95.10 ...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Kasper

 

Many years ago I was furious at the board at the time...not sure if you were a member back then in 2011 when we had just been grounded by CASA for failing the same Audit 4 times in a row.....At the end of the day the underlying issue was that the systems used within RAAus were simply not up to the task of ever meeting the Audit requirements for the size of the membership and aircraft base that we had at the time......

 

I was part of a group that called an Extraordinary GM to try and unearth the failings in a way that all members could see...... I believe that the group was successful in that endeavour because the old board members that presided over the audit timeframe mostly over the next 12 months resigned or were replaced through elections and a substantial portion of the group I was part of now, are board members of the organisation, myself being the last to take office in October last year.

 

What we found was the organisation was unsustainable and we set about to change that. Its my personal view that we had many many years of neglect to try and make up for and we have started that journey. Today RAAus isn't what we want it to be, but we are very close to being sustainable, rather than on a fast train to irrelevancy, and about another 10ish months from delivering core and fundamental systems changes that will provide the basis for significant improvements.

 

If the decay/neglect took a decade(ish) to put in place, then how fast can members reasonably expect it be fixed given that the board majority needed to drive the change needed wasn't really available until October 2014 and the appropriate president not in place until Early 2014?

 

If you feel the journey is too slow (and we all feel that from time to time) then the right approach instead of bleating here continuously is to stand for the board and offer your substantial aviation law expertise, your substantial Aeronautical engineering expertise to the board...Im sure we would be the better for your inclusion.

 

Be part of the solution, after all its a members organisation and your a member....aren't you? The next elections for NSW will have the current president stand for re-election (assuming Mick is up for another period) if you win that election then you can also stand for President....Now theres an offer you cant refuse...can you?

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

Doug, up in the air is the place for speed. That was one of the main advantages of flying. It is all relative of course. Even 500 mph seems slow at height. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Did you mean "higher costs"? If not I'm confused.

I guess it all comes down to cost eventually, so yes.

 

I was thinking of medicals, storage, transport etc.

 

 

[terryc]

I was part of a group that called an Extraordinary GM to try and unearth the failings in a way that all members could see...... I believe that the group was successful in that endeavour because the old board members that presided over the audit timeframe mostly over the next 12 months resigned or were replaced through elections and a substantial portion of the group I was part of now, are board members of the organisation, myself being the last to take office in October last year.

 

And now the present board has honoured a board member with life membership who was part of the problem. Geee

 

 

[kasper]

KasperMany years ago I was furious at the board at the time...not sure if you were a member back then in 2011 when we had just been grounded by CASA for failing the same Audit 4 times in a row.....At the end of the day the underlying issue was that the systems used within RAAus were simply not up to the task of ever meeting the Audit requirements for the size of the membership and aircraft base that we had at the time......

 

I was part of a group that called an Extraordinary GM to try and unearth the failings in a way that all members could see...... I believe that the group was successful in that endeavour because the old board members that presided over the audit timeframe mostly over the next 12 months resigned or were replaced through elections and a substantial portion of the group I was part of now, are board members of the organisation, myself being the last to take office in October last year.

 

What we found was the organisation was unsustainable and we set about to change that. Its my personal view that we had many many years of neglect to try and make up for and we have started that journey. Today RAAus isn't what we want it to be, but we are very close to being sustainable, rather than on a fast train to irrelevancy, and about another 10ish months from delivering core and fundamental systems changes that will provide the basis for significant improvements.

 

If the decay/neglect took a decade(ish) to put in place, then how fast can members reasonably expect it be fixed given that the board majority needed to drive the change needed wasn't really available until October 2014 and the appropriate president not in place until Early 2014?

 

If you feel the journey is too slow (and we all feel that from time to time) then the right approach instead of bleating here continuously is to stand for the board and offer your substantial aviation law expertise, your substantial Aeronautical engineering expertise to the board...Im sure we would be the better for your inclusion.

 

Be part of the solution, after all its a members organisation and your a member....aren't you? The next elections for NSW will have the current president stand for re-election (assuming Mick is up for another period) if you win that election then you can also stand for President....Now theres an offer you cant refuse...can you?

 

Andy

Yes I was part of the membership back in 2011 - have been a member since 1994

But I do find it galling for you to say that to be part of the solution I have to put myself forward AND get appointed as a board member ... we have more people in the association membership than could ever sit on the board and for an actual board member to say get on the board or effectively you care not part of the solution is right up there with the Tech manager last week telling me I don't own an affected aircraft therefore its not my problem.

 

Either we are a membership organisation with an exec and board that is open to listening to the membership or we are not.

 

The RAA employees when I have been speaking to them on actual live issues I have with my aircraft over the past 7 months have demonstrated themselves repeatedly to not actually get the policy issue behind the question raised and simply turn on me and say I am being obstructionist by not just doing what they say ... even when what they say is not within the tech manual and is in fact directly against the tech manual!

 

The RAA board do not have a member accessible RAA run forum such as this one and so there is not a formal RAA way of raising and discussing issues or points other than through this public forum so here we are - talking very publicly on a forum that is available.

 

And given the ample evidence in the last 12 months under the new exec and board of the RAA issuing a new Ops manual to the membership without prior view how can you be surprised when members come along after the event (because we were not included before the event) and say openly there are problems.

 

And we are about to get a new Tech manual - again without membership visibility and only snippets of change disclosed - and when you do raise with Tech serious fatal flaws in the drafting of what has been previewed (reg markings) and get attacked what do you expect?

 

So here is your factual challenge that shows what is about to happen with a tech manual change that was never released and reviewed by people affected by it - look at the drafting of the new Tech Manual on regn markings and tell me where and what size I have to mark a 95.10 weightshift aircraft ... hint - the first line of 9.1(3)(a) gives the answer - only fixed wing 95.10 are included in the tech amendment requirements to display markings.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The RAA board do not have a member accessible RAA run forum such as this one and so there is not a formal RAA way of raising and discussing issues or points other than through this public forum so here we are - talking very publicly on a forum that is available.

Kasper

 

You know what, your correct this is not the place to have this discussion.....and so I wont. My email address, as all the other 13 board members email address can be obtained on the usual early page in the magazine.

 

Andy

 

 

[kasper]

KasperYou know what, your correct this is not the place to have this discussion.....and so I wont. My email address, as all the other 13 board members email address can be obtained on the usual early page in the magazine.

 

Andy

Yep, and I have a nice collection of replies from board members on the emails sent saying the issue is being looked at by the exec and you will hear in due course ... waiting still

 

 

[rhysmcc]

if it's not an email it's a phone call to the office. 10,000 members deserve an open forum to discuss and debate the issues. Half the time we don't even get to know what the issue is until the decision by the "representative" board is made. Where's the policy manual that should be governing the staff?

 

PS where is the recent board resolution regarding the life time membership appointment?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

PS where is the recent board resolution regarding the life time membership appointment?

It was a decision made at the board meeting on the day after the last AGM it was announced as a board decision back then. It had nothing to do with yesterday's board meeting in Canberra, other than we used the break at lunchtime to present the award to Paul.

 

Andy

 

 

[TK58]

PS where is the recent board resolution regarding the life time membership appointment?

Hi Rhys,

 

It's in the minutes of the October Board meeting. While I have been among those very critical of that particular individual's actions in recent years, I changed my view after seeing from the inside what's actually involved in governing an organisation like RAAus. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that was done, but there's no denying the contribution this individual has made over a lot of years and I have no concern with recognising that.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

 

[TK58]

10,000 members deserve an open forum to discuss and debate the issues.

Perhaps, although this forum is available to everyone and very few (in percentage terms) use it. Also, look at the effort that goes into moderation of something like this forum. It's a cost RAAus can't afford at the present time. However it has been discussed and is on the list for the medium term. As Andy has said, the immediate goal is to return stability to the organisation - both financial stability and organisational stability in terms of staff turnover, processes working effectively, etc. We're pretty close to achieving that so then we can devote some attention and resources to 'nice to haves'.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

 

[TK58]

There's another element in all of this that I haven't seen discussed. Quite a few of the things that members have been arcing up about in recent times relate to requirements that were always there but haven't been enforced (and many people seem to be unaware of). For example, how many of you have calibrated your Altimeter in the past 2 years? That's been in the Tech Manual for at least the past 8 years, but not many people seem to be aware of it, and even fewer do it.

 

If we want CASA to take us seriously and extend our privileges (either by granting new ones or by relaxing existing restrictions) we need to demonstrate compliance with the regulations as they are now. CASA's view of the world is that if you're not compliant you're not safe - regardless of how seemingly ridiculous the requirement (e.g. declarations every 28 days for Jab passengers, etc.). We can argue till we're blue in the face that that's a dumb approach, and we can work (and are working) to change it. But for now that's the world we have to operate in.

 

Cheers,

 

Tony

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So how exactly does the RAA make your 103 style aviator safer? I personally think the RAA should focus on education and events and let CASA focus on enforcement. Too often the RAA is the meat in the sandwich between the members and CASA. And then the RAA gets high jacked by the old boys club and displeases everyone.

 

I would support a move by the RAA to relinquish control over the 103 style ultralights, as I am sure that would create an small industry building these things.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

This thread began if I recall correctly with Kasper saying, in essence, that the growth of what he calls GA Lite has somehow caused a detriment to the Ultralight movement.

 

I would dispute that 100%.

 

People started flying ultralights for fun and because it was affordable by just about anyone. I will never have the courage if that is the right word to fly such aircraft. A lot of people died teaching themselves to fly in single seat R&T aircraft that they designed and built themselves many with little or no technical training.

 

There were extraordinary restrictions on that sort of flying. 300 ft, not over public roads, etc. Do you really think that being allowed to fly to 10,000 ft and have 600kg MTOW is somehow stopping you from flying ultralights around the back paddock? I just can't see it.

 

Yes, we now have to have radios at most airports. Yes, if you want to go above 5,000 ft you may be required to have a transponder, yes, if you make alterations to the flight controls you need to have a second inspection, and yes to a heap of other things that just might save your life or the life of somebody you fly over.

 

There are more aircraft closer to 600kg MTOW in RAAus than ultralights because that's what people can afford and want to fly. I'm keen to fly to Horn Island and I want to get there in my lifetime so 100 knots and 100 litres of fuel and being enclosed has quite some appeal. But I don't see how or why this is impinging on the rights of R&T flyers.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of this gets down to speculative opinion. The more informed it is the more valuable, and worth considering.. I would hope the RAAus doesn't ever put things in the way of any group on purpose, but a whole lot of Jabiru's existing,shouldn't stop a few Quicksilvers or such, flying.

 

They aren't mutually exclusive. I doubt there will be a rush back to the basic planes myself but that is just my opinion. Having NO control over them whatever, is unlikely to be realised, How could this be justified to the public, if a collision for example, happens? or even a few solitary prangs.? You long for" better" things that existed in the past, fine , and it's natural. I used to ride legally without a motorcycle helmet, but I don't now. WE have moved on, and there is no reason to believe it won't keep on happening. That is the nature of things. Change..

 

I can remember flying max 300? feet. The scenery goes by a bit faster but you don't have much time to do anything if the motor stops.. Our planes regularly fly across Australia. Can we go back ? Will we ? I can't see it. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

How can we justify the recent collision of two registered and certified ultralights?

 

Poor argument with the recent UK lifting of restrictions and the long safe operating history of FAR103. We can go back it just needs a few of those 'who don't' replaced by those 'who do.' We were very lucky with the GFC it did not slow down our fun and games as it did in the US. The GFC was one reason for the recent popular return of 103 types in the US. Biggest increase was the PPGs. Even Canada has had recent relaxations in regulations with owner maintenance on the lower GA types.

 

And meanwhile in Australia another million and another year passes by.

 

 

[kasper]

This thread began if I recall correctly with Kasper saying, in essence, that the growth of what he calls GA Lite has somehow caused a detriment to the Ultralight movement.I would dispute that 100%.

 

People started flying ultralights for fun and because it was affordable by just about anyone. I will never have the courage if that is the right word to fly such aircraft. A lot of people died teaching themselves to fly in single seat R&T aircraft that they designed and built themselves many with little or no technical training.

 

There were extraordinary restrictions on that sort of flying. 300 ft, not over public roads, etc. Do you really think that being allowed to fly to 10,000 ft and have 600kg MTOW is somehow stopping you from flying ultralights around the back paddock? I just can't see it.

 

Yes, we now have to have radios at most airports. Yes, if you want to go above 5,000 ft you may be required to have a transponder, yes, if you make alterations to the flight controls you need to have a second inspection, and yes to a heap of other things that just might save your life or the life of somebody you fly over.

 

There are more aircraft closer to 600kg MTOW in RAAus than ultralights because that's what people can afford and want to fly. I'm keen to fly to Horn Island and I want to get there in my lifetime so 100 knots and 100 litres of fuel and being enclosed has quite some appeal. But I don't see how or why this is impinging on the rights of R&T flyers.

OK I'll unwrap this ...

1. never said go back to pre-HORSCOTS 300ft not over public roads etc.

 

2. Never said plastic fantastics or upper end of RAA was not good

 

My issues are around two areas that appear to be happening:

 

1. removing the distinctions between experimental/homebuilt and factory built by moving the requirements up to the factory level

 

2. seeking greater and greater access to airspace and functionally removing the distinction between GA and RAA allowing politicians, media and CASA to reasonably seek to move the requirements up to GA parity

 

To be honest the raven weightshift in my profile pic had a panel that had 4 screens and not one steam driven gauge ... the contents of the dashboard cost over $15k but with twin coms and full mode S technically I had enough electronics to go into any airspace in the UK ... just a bit more sedately than the average 737.

 

I am not against the upper end of RAA - however I'm just dead against what appears to me to be a continual moving up to GA and being willing to give away current freedoms - and the first wedge is RAA tech putting back to CASA (for whatever reason) a proposal that all 19 reg experimental not owned by the original owner cannot be modded without tech oversight and signoff.

 

All 19 reg are experimental and I don't give a damn if many or even most of the people paying $100k+ for a second hand fast kit are already paying an L2 or a LAME to look after their 'affordable' GA-lite aircraft - its not factory, its not GA and if you drag the lot of 19- along with you you have removed a significant current freedom to make and do what we like with the experimental category we have.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Why is the techie trying to make changes to the rules IT IS NOT HIS JOB!!!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Don, the part 103 ultralights are going very well in the US, primarily because they are the cheapest path to a factory built plane and are a popular re-entry path for many pilots who can't afford $200K LSA.

 

 

[503]

I'd be happy with a one seat 103 ppc ,cheep and safe,no more rego yes please

 

 

[kasper]

I'd be happy with a one seat 103 ppc ,cheep and safe,no more rego yes please

95.10 is more than US FAR103 and has the ability to sell approved kits (nobody has bothered getting approved) and the regn costs are only $70 after new fees start applying ... and thats not a terrible annual cost ... though of course given its not subject to inspections and airworthiness sits with the owner I would at best ask for a structure of lifetime regn fee as current initial fee + transfer fee to cover admin costs - there ARE admin costs of running a register that assigns numbers to aircraft and those costs sit with RAA while US FAR103 are regn free.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

FAR 103 offers all of 95:10 plus more. Plans, kit or ready to fly. Not only just fixed wing like 95:10 but also lighter than air, rotary wing, PPG, PG, trike, rocket ship or martin back pack. as long as it's under the weight and speed limit it's on. No fees, no BS just go run a muck.