daza Posted May 12, 2015 Posted May 12, 2015 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. 95.10 has no speed limit though! Daza 1
kasper Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 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. And in addition to no speed limit (thanks daza) it offers you - access to flight radio and - a regn number and - more than 115kg empty weight ... 95.10 is MTOW limited and you can have brakes etc that many 'FAR103' aircraft cannot have ... and its sad to see people defend FAR103 while ignoring the VERY LARGE issue of overweight FAR103's ... Yes you cannot buy an out of the factory ready to fly 95.10 - and that's not available ... under the CAO at all ... but if its under 70kg it can come out of a factory and fly away ... see 95.8 But it is possible under 95.10 to buy a kit 95.10 - BUT at the moment nobody has bothered with going down that route BUT a kit 95.10 is possible ...
Guest ozzie Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 You'll be surprised just how many Far103's have things like brakes etc. Radios, floats, skies, BRS, tundra kits, EFS cockpits. Actually don't see why you need all that crap anyways. My Lazair didn't need it. Hop on facebook and have a talk with the Dayton boys they will set you straight. There are a few kit 95:10 aircraft here. I'm sure the Australian Quicksilver agent will bolt up an MXL sport for ya if you can't work out how to turn a spanner. 103 is a more sensible empty weight limited. CGS Hawk was built for the more XL sized pilot. Ol Chuck would not have had a hope if he lived here and wanted to fly his hawk under 95:10. Best to toss that 95:10. The reason no one has put a new design under it lately is it is poorly thought out. And the system cost and paperwork is geared for more profit returns of the parrots.
kasper Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 You'll be surprised just how many Far103's have things like brakes etc. Radios, floats, skies, BRS, tundra kits, EFS cockpits. Actually don't see why you need all that crap anyways. My Lazair didn't need it. Hop on facebook and have a talk with the Dayton boys they will set you straight. There are a few kit 95:10 aircraft here. I'm sure the Australian Quicksilver agent will bolt up an MXL sport for ya if you can't work out how to turn a spanner. 103 is a more sensible empty weight limited. CGS Hawk was built for the more XL sized pilot. Ol Chuck would not have had a hope if he lived here and wanted to fly his hawk under 95:10.Best to toss that 95:10. The reason no one has put a new design under it lately is it is poorly thought out. And the system cost and paperwork is geared for more profit returns of the parrots. Bit confused Ozzi - given that the 103 is weight limited and upper speed limited I fail to see how anything that IS 103 compliant could not meet the wing area and load requirements of 95.10 ... No need to talk to people about 103 and what can be done under 103 ... I have flown a lazair around The Oaks and several other sub 115kg empty weight older 95.10 aircraft (don't forget that 95.10 WAS 115kg empty limited but was changed to MTOW and wing load limited to address safety issues and the 'creepping' empty weight issues). There are no kits approved under 95.10 ... I suspect the reason people don't bother with putting a design through is more to do with economics ... get a kit approved for 51% and 19 reg and you can charge $$$$ more than any 95.10 will cough up ... and a two seater is more highly desirable from a sales perspective ... and so many of the punters are drifting down from GA and require a 912 ... and hey presto the kits end up with 19 reg.
DonRamsay Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 . . .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 . . . Thanks Kasper, that is the clearest explanation I have ever read of this concern that more privileges for RA somehow hurts rag and tube. I think I finally understand it. If I read you correctly, it does not necessarily follow that fast RA aircraft and pilots gaining access to CTA would affect the RA rules for more basic aircraft still restricted from entering CTA but you suspect that that could be the outcome. More privileges often come with more restrictions. But it is not obligatory for RPL pilots to fly in CTA - they have to do an endorsement for that. Surely it would be the same for RA pilots needing an endorsement on their RPC to have access to CTA. The same restrictions would apply to RA pilots as to GA (RPL) pilots. They would need to be flying an approved aircraft (including avionics VHF & TXPNDR). Why would any of those requirements be applied to somebody who wants to fly more basic aircraft in Class G under 5,000 ft AMSL? . . . I'm just dead against . . . 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. The Tech Manager does not act without the approval of the CEO and, on matters of policy, the Board. This is a significant change from the old days when the Tech Manager considered that he had a one-on-0ne relationship with CASA. If you have a problem with anything he does, give Darren the courtesy of a chance to make sure you have the full, correct facts and the reason for his decisions. Then, if you consider it necessary, progressively elevate your enquiry by talking to the CEO and then to Board Members if you don't like his answers. You could be doing us all a favour. These are just people with a job to do. Darren has impressive qualifications and experience and and I've found him easy to talk with and helpful. 2
kasper Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 much clipped ...The Tech Manager does not act without the approval of the CEO and, on matters of policy, the Board. This is a significant change from the old days when the Tech Manager considered that he had a one-on-0ne relationship with CASA. If you have a problem with anything he does, give Darren the courtesy of a chance to make sure you have the full, correct facts and the reason for his decisions. Then, if you consider it necessary, progressively elevate your enquiry by talking to the CEO and then to Board Members if you don't like his answers. You could be doing us all a favour. These are just people with a job to do. Darren has impressive qualifications and experience and and I've found him easy to talk with and helpful. Done and done. 7 months of corro with Tech office - both Darren and Jared - emails, phone calls, letters - then emails to CEO and board, telephone calls with CEO and I'm awaiting the letter that Michael as CEO is writing to me addressing my concerns. 1 1
jetjr Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Kasper, RAA was plainly told that in CASA eyes we were NEVER allowed to modify 19 unless you were builder. This was discovered as MARAP was being finalised and they were to be included. They were prepared to rewrite 95.55 to clear this up. What else do you reckon they might tidy up in this process?? Tech have negotiated a position which means the current position, as we saw it, remains, you can modify what you like even if you didnt build it. In order to get SAAO to swallow this there had to be some recording and safety check of mods. We could either submit to say annual inspections, (this was put down by board) OR have major modifications recorded and inspected. Not every 19 owner has the sense and skill to (or brains NOT to) be doing major mods . And we are only talking about major modifications, airframe, engine, fuel system etc........ Things which if you get wrong means you could crash. Getting an L2 to check off (not "sign off" with any liability) that a mod has been done safely isnt a big deal. Some of the problem is that as members we see the issues as how it was historically or we thought it was, then the end result. NOT what it could have been if regulator had its way. Also theres the position that regs wont change if we dont. Never been the case, regulation is a creeping thing and what some see as a loss is way better than the alternative. 1
DonRamsay Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 A good friend of mine modified his Jodel in some very dramatic ways including a complete redesign of the wing and its reconstruction. This is not just amateur built from a kit or even plans, this is in the ordinary sense of the word, aeronautical engineering. In this case the engineering is being done by a very intelligent school teacher and a self-educated but not qualified "aeronautical engineer". How could it be to his (or his wife's) disadvantage to have an L2 have a look over his shoulder?
kasper Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 Kasper,RAA was plainly told that in CASA eyes we were NEVER allowed to modify 19 unless you were builder. This was discovered as MARAP was being finalised and they were to be included. They were prepared to rewrite 95.55 to clear this up. What else do you reckon they might tidy up in this process?? ... What do I rekon might tidy up the process? Well the Board and tech could just as easily act as the defender of the membership and point out that despite what CASA might have thought to have been the case we have in fact operated 19 reg aircraft for the past 17 years on the basis of 95.55 as it is actually written and could CASA please provide the safety statistics to show that 19 reg aircraft under initial builder are materially safer than 19 reg owned by second and subsequent owners to support ANY change to the actual 95.55 to make distinction between initial builder and subsequent owner on mod? If CASA are wanting to do it anyway (and yes they can write whatever they like in draft CAOs) those CAOs need to be tabled in parliament and are subject to disallowance ... and if CASA want to do something that is not supported by robust statistics on safety grounds then RAA board could go to the politicians and get members to individually write to politicians etc. RAA is not JUST an administrator of CASA it is a POLITICAL organisation defending and supporting the RAA membership. So there are HEAPS of things I rekon the board and executive could do that are not what appears to be happening ... CASA are not without control or oversight themselves, just because it is very difficult to move around CASA does not mean that there should not be very active consideration of doing just that when CASA as regulator appears to be doing things that are not supported by evidence and in particular where there is 17 years of history showing otherwise. Cheers. 1 1
kasper Posted May 13, 2015 Author Posted May 13, 2015 A good friend of mine modified his Jodel in some very dramatic ways including a complete redesign of the wing and its reconstruction. This is not just amateur built from a kit or even plans, this is in the ordinary sense of the word, aeronautical engineering. In this case the engineering is being done by a very intelligent school teacher and a self-educated but not qualified "aeronautical engineer".How could it be to his (or his wife's) disadvantage to have an L2 have a look over his shoulder? How could it be to his or his wife's disadvantage to have an annual inspection, or have all maintenance done by a LAME? This logic of a little bit more oversight is always a bit better is in my opinion the well greased slope of getting rid of experimental - either we have experimental with freedom or we do not. In my opinion this is effectively abandon experimental and moving back to 101.28 where you need to meed design standards (with engineering proof) or accept history of safe ops of overseas - end of OZ design freedom is really easy to achieve here ... 2
facthunter Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Most L2's (I hope) wouldn't feel qualified to buy into major redesign. Bill Whitney did have discs and notes that are very easy to understand about the elements of aircraft design. Anyone who puts the time in with proper references will get the gist of it. ( Well almost everyone. There has to be exceptions). IF you go over any aircraft you will most likely find things that could have been designed better. The Jodel is wood and I wonder how many would be able to design a wood plane these days? It's hard to get specs for pieces of timber as they vary a lot and can have faults like felling shakes etc. Nev 2
turboplanner Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 A good friend of mine modified his Jodel in some very dramatic ways including a complete redesign of the wing and its reconstruction. This is not just amateur built from a kit or even plans, this is in the ordinary sense of the word, aeronautical engineering. In this case the engineering is being done by a very intelligent school teacher and a self-educated but not qualified "aeronautical engineer".How could it be to his (or his wife's) disadvantage to have an L2 have a look over his shoulder? An L2? What about an aeronautical design engineer? What has been going on here? Unsupervised, unqualified design, involving safety components, is contrary to most Australian industry practice today 3
kasper Posted May 14, 2015 Author Posted May 14, 2015 An L2? What about an aeronautical design engineer?What has been going on here? Unsupervised, unqualified design, involving safety components, is contrary to most Australian industry practice today Hope that was tongue in cheek .... its EXPERIMENTAL therefore industry practice, Australia or otherwise, is not relevant. Paddle pop sticks as building materials are allowed, shoving a monster fuel injected 2 stroke into a Jabiru kit is allowed, cutting a few feet out of (or adding a few extra feet into) a wing on an existing design is allowed. Are all of these desirable, maybe not - probably not for the paddle pop sticks, Are all of these 100% safe, probably not, but they are NOT aircraft that are required to meet design standards, they are experimental. You fly at your own risk - if you do not like the risk do not fly the individual aircraft or these series of aircraft and go fly something from a factory that meets a design standard. Stop trying to shoehorn experimental into factory requirements 1 3 1 1
Guest Andys@coffs Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 An L2? What about an aeronautical design engineer?What has been going on here? Unsupervised, unqualified design, involving safety components, is contrary to most Australian industry practice today Hang on that's only half the story...if you look at the additional exclusions that apply to 19 and the requirement for a testfly period in a very specific location you can see that it is not exactly "build and hope" at a community level, rather the builder has every opportunity to kill himself, but if following the mandated exclusions it really should only be himself and no other...... After the testfly period where the risk of imminent demise is somewhat mitigated the restrictions are removed, but not completely, they still cant go to some locations where where factory built aircraft can....as remaining risk mitigation.....
turboplanner Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 Hope that was tongue in cheek .... its EXPERIMENTAL therefore industry practice, Australia or otherwise, is not relevant. Paddle pop sticks as building materials are allowed, shoving a monster fuel injected 2 stroke into a Jabiru kit is allowed, cutting a few feet out of (or adding a few extra feet into) a wing on an existing design is allowed. Are all of these desirable, maybe not - probably not for the paddle pop sticks, Are all of these 100% safe, probably not, but they are NOT aircraft that are required to meet design standards, they are experimental. You fly at your own risk - if you do not like the risk do not fly the individual aircraft or these series of aircraft and go fly something from a factory that meets a design standard. Stop trying to shoehorn experimental into factory requirements Ah yes, the myth that you fly at your own risk.........perpetuated by the brave, but not any more. The attitudes surfacing here and the indication that formal supervision is absent presents some serious problems for RAA and CASA You can still build your own car without spending the millions on crash testing, but there are safety steps which must be followed. If these principles have passed your EXPERIMENTAL then some quick changes are needed if people are to protect themselves.
kasper Posted May 14, 2015 Author Posted May 14, 2015 Done and done. 7 months of corro with Tech office - both Darren and Jared - emails, phone calls, letters - then emails to CEO and board, telephone calls with CEO and I'm awaiting the letter that Michael as CEO is writing to me addressing my concerns. Well the letter arrived by email ... - I'll leave it to the Tech Manager to announce the new changes to the Tech Manual bits that apply to registration markings; - I'll leave it to the Tech Manager to publish the clarification in the next magazine to the issues I had with his article in the April magazine - I'll have to think about what they said about 19 reg modifications by non-original builders ... One thing that I do feel grumpy old git about is that the letter is dated 2 weeks ago and they had to change the Tech Manual to make it a requirement for me to mark my plane to get registered because they drafted it wrong the first time ... I've been waiting 7 months for this and they held back a letter confirming I was in fact right until they could get CASA to approve the changes in the tech manual to make me wrong! 1
jetjr Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 Good that you have some sort of resolution Going back a few posts you seem to think that if RAA fight CASA there is some chance of success........you are kidding yourself There is no give or movement from CASA in its regs. What they have to do is come up with systems which work around the problems. Providing CASA the feeling that safety concerns are suitably managed. Interesting you keep on about experimental freedoms, GA Experimental certificates act in far more strict way than the new RAA system You need engineering oversight - not LAME of L2 - and CASA can dictate whatever restrictions and time limitations they want No one except original builders can even maintain their experimentals let alone modify further Development models and manufacturers can do some things but not owners. Should read up on this before wishing it on us
facthunter Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 It would be rather inconsistent if you can design and build a plane from scratch but can't improve another homebuilt that you are capable of fully assessing structurally and aerodynamically. Nev 4
turboplanner Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 Yes, but what if you design and build the aircraft from scratch then ten years down the track another turkey comes along, bolts the wings off something else to the fuse and away he goes.
kasper Posted May 14, 2015 Author Posted May 14, 2015 Yes, but what if you design and build the aircraft from scratch then ten years down the track another turkey comes along, bolts the wings off something else to the fuse and away he goes. And that's what experimental is all about ... not the turkey but the ability to mix n match and chop n change as and when you like ... 99% of plane will never have radical change but its that 1% that do that dragging everything up to GA - even GA experimental - is going to kill off 1 2
facthunter Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 The fuselage is only there to put stuff in and keep the wings and tailplane at the right distance /angle. Just about anything can fly. It's making it fly nicely that takes the effort.. Nev 2
jetjr Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 Kaspet until now WE WERE the same as GA experimental, with the benefit of self maintained.... In CASA view we always have been. Problem is we all thought otherwise. As a result of self maintained we couldnt and cant do CTA Your idea that all experimental can just make any change they want isnt correct. Unless you built it you need part 21 approval and sign off from CASA. Your asking for a special RAA experimental without checks by anyone. If its only 1% of 19 reg doing significant mods, whats the problem? All the minor stuff is a log book entry like always
fly_tornado Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 I would have thought that lack of maintenance is a much bigger problem than modifications for all RAA planes.
Doug Evans Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 I would have thought that lack of maintenance is a much bigger problem than modifications for all RAA planes. I would say that most RAA planes are in far better condition then our GA counter parts as people that fly for fun love there sport and you would find that most put hours of time into the pride and joys where the ga guys relies on lames to look after there craft and use there craft for transport rather then there second love but there are some 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now