Spot the problem ...

[kasper]

See attached - answers on a postcard

 

TechTalkApril2015.pdf

 

TechTalkApril2015.pdf

 

TechTalkApril2015.pdf

[Downunder]

You cannot build from a manufacturer but building from a manufacturer is good?

 

 

[kasper]

No. The problem is far far more basic than that ...

 

 

[kasper]

How about this as a hint ... what CAO is this from:

 

"1 Application

 

1.1 This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane that:

 

(a) is not a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; and"

 

Now if you guess correctly re-read the Tech Talk and see if there is a problem ...

 

 

[storchy neil]

oh no the answer is your eye sight is failing :cheezy grin:don't read the fine print neil

 

 

[Happyflyer]

OK, so CAO 95.55 specifically excludes weigh shift and PPC aircraft so can not be the reference for the discussion of these aircraft.

 

95.32 is about these aircraft but does not mention build kits. So where is the information about home build kits for these aircraft written?

 

 

[kasper]

OK, so CAO 95.55 specifically excludes weigh shift and PPC aircraft so can not be the reference for the discussion of these aircraft.95.32 is about these aircraft but does not mention build kits. So where is the information about home build kits for these aircraft written?

Yes is does 95.32:

1.1 Factory built and factory kit

 

1.2 LSA

 

1.3 Experimental LSA

 

1.4 Homebuilt

 

In addition you can go 95.10 for single seater and then you can go multi engine or jet ;-)

 

Oh and the Tech Manual section the Tech Manager refers to in his Tech Talk only apply to 95.55 experimental not 95.32 or 95.10 experimentals so basically other than accepting as a fact people have been asking about homebuilt weightshift and PPC everything substantive relating to the regulation is in fact wrong ...

 

 

[slb]

Good pick up kasper.

 

There is also a rumour going around that RAA wants to off-load their PPC's so maybe that explains the somewhat strange explanation. Builder carries full responsibility - doesn't make any mention of passengers.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

PPC rumour is categorically not true, RAAus seeks to be inclusive not exclusive .....

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

SLB, are you sure the rumour wasn't the other way around, and some PPC's trying to off-load RAA?

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

The biggest issue with kit builts is it has been stated a kit is unlikely to comply with the 51%/major portion rule and be unable to rego as a homebuilt. However there is no definition of what makes up 51% or major portion. When queried RAA has been unable to say what exactly would be considered 51% or above, and simply refers builders back to the rules, which only state 51%/major portion. No help at all. It is very hard to comply with the rules when there actually is no idea what the rule means.

 

You can actually import a kit and build it, find you cant register as homebuilt but as it is not an approved design cannot register as a factory built. These are the guys that will be forced into flying as unregistered with no pilot certificate or just scrap their dream machine.

 

 

[facthunter]

Factory built means just that as far as I can recall. IF you build it at the factory perhaps there is room to manouver with the wording and documentation..

 

The 51% rule is an old concept going back to the "educational" aspect of your involvement. It's been fiddled with or ignored, a lot lately with quick build etc and this is where subsequent owners become entangled with as yet unresolved issues.

 

. Probably about time for it to be revisited/scrapped. It's no guarantee of you knowing much, which must be the essence of all this. It's no guarantee you can service /repair an ageing or damaged plane either, but it's a start.

 

We need to be able to design, build fly and maintain our planes. safely and without undue paperwork and bureocracy, HOPEFULLY

 

. Not everyone one would be able to or wish to. THEY purchase a plane and have it serviced by someone else.

 

Let's get on with the job of being able to. Nev

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

The last couple of paragraphs in that article gives me the impression that the 51% rule is really not required. If the builder is fully responsible for all elements including the quality of the build and airworthiness, (as they should be) why is there a need to specify how much of the build must be completed b y the builder, especially if no one can say what 51% actually is.

 

It seems a bit strange RAA cannot say what constitutes 51% yet the person making the decision MUST know what criteria they use or they couldn't make a decision.

 

I can import a fixed wing kit of several thousand parts and put it together without manufacturing anything and that is OK for 51%. A PPC of a couple of hundred parts is not. Where is the line drawn and why? RAA certainly won't say.

 

 

[facthunter]

ALL needs review. We have dinasaur bones all over the floor with IT and latest technology tripping all over them. We grew like Topsy in fits and starts taking advantage of any crack in the rules to get a place in the sun. Time to consolidate and sort the anomalies. Work on exemptions or the world will end before we get anywhere. Nev

 

 

[slb]

PPC rumour is categorically not true, RAAus seeks to be inclusive not exclusive .....

Well that's good news as my understanding was that this may have been said at a recent meeting between RAA and HGFA. I think the HGFA have PPGs and RAA have PPCs - is that correct?

 

(I am not sure what the difference is between them)

 

 

[kasper]

The biggest issue with kit builts is it has been stated a kit is unlikely to comply with the 51%/major portion rule and be unable to rego as a homebuilt. However there is no definition of what makes up 51% or major portion. When queried RAA has been unable to say what exactly would be considered 51% or above, and simply refers builders back to the rules, which only state 51%/major portion. No help at all. It is very hard to comply with the rules when there actually is no idea what the rule means.You can actually import a kit and build it, find you cant register as homebuilt but as it is not an approved design cannot register as a factory built. These are the guys that will be forced into flying as unregistered with no pilot certificate or just scrap their dream machine.

Actually the exact same major portion issue applies to the 19 reg 3-axis ... and yes that is a real issue under 95.32 para 1.4.

 

However, 95.32 is BETTER than 95.55 because it allows a FACTORY KIT to be assembled without the major portion rule PROVIDED the manufacturer has a certificate acceptable to CASA - three options depending on where the kit originated.

 

This is NOT available to 19 reg experimentals SO if there is a foreign weightshift or PPC with a manufacturer holding a certificate in relation to the factory built that CASA accepts YOU CAN ASSEMBLE YOUR OWN FACTORY BUILT ...

 

Not aware of RAA having to face this one yet and if they would put 32 or 18 reg on it ... as it would be under 1.1 not 1.4 I would argue that it is in fact 32 reg and fully available to be used for hire or reward ... possibly this is the way to open an Australian 'factory' or agency for foreign manufactured weightshift or PPC - no need to actually manufacture just work out and demo that the foreign manufacturer has the required certification and bingo - instant pop up australian 'factory' without needing to meet any of the manufacturing oversight and controls ...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Discussions might have occurred at staff levels (I don't know if they did or didn't) but ultimately the board gets the say in which aircraft types RAAus administers...we on the board have discussed PPC's in quite some detail of late, but not in the context of "Lets get rid of them......"

 

Well that's good news as my understanding was that this may have been said at a recent meeting between RAA and HGFA. I think the HGFA have PPGs and RAA have PPCs - is that correct?(I am not sure what the difference is between them)

[503]

The difference seems to be that one is much safer than the other