Where do we come from

[Chris Tarran]

Fascinating and touching to read the stories above about our shared passion.My parents were big fans of the legends of flying - Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm and many, many more. But, none of my family ever flew other than as an RPT pax. I built plenty of Airfix models but never got into RC. These days I wonder why but it was probably down to money and lack of initiative.

 

As a kid, I used to walk through the Royal Newcastle Aero Club (where Nev was although I didn't know that at the time) on the way to the adjoining sports fields. The smell of the hangars, the Chipmunks and Tiger Moths were larger than life.

 

I read Reach for the Sky (saw the film) loved Biggles and Blackhawk and any movie about aeroplanes. For some, never to be understood reason, it never occurred to me that I should learn to fly. Just seemed to be something that legends did.

 

When the penny finally did drop, I firstly went to two GA schools and came across arrogant GA CFI's who looked down their noses at me like I was a pimply faced kid. As I had turned 60 by then I wasn't going to cop that crap. Then, by chance, I discovered the Esqual and that it could be flown with an RAA pilot cert and it'd take just 20 hours!

 

Anyhow, despite a bit of a setback on Lesson 1 (got a bit queasy - never have since) I persisted right through the stage where I wondered if I'd ever be able to land an aeroplane. Now all I wonder is if I'll ever have another really good landing.

 

I've pushed to the top end of RAAus aircraft and am keen to get some more restrictions lifted particularly MTOW and CTA. I don't think of the CAOs etc. as giving us "privileges" but the reverse they just raise some of the restrictions that have no basis in being there.

 

I took an interest in the organisation only because it was then so badly run there was a real chance, a probability even, that it was not going to last much longer. It has taken nearly 5 years but I am confident we are now on the right path to a robust future. I believe CTA (only for those who want it, have the required equipment and are prepared to do the training) is within our reach and safer MTOWs are similarly achievable. Not going to happen overnight but it must happen.

I was fortunate to have a really good instructor so my experience has only been good and the GA instructor I discussed transition with was pretty easy to get on with.

 

I like the idea of being allowed in CTA, the aircraft I fly is equipped to do it and it opens up some options. Not so fussed about MTOW. If I wanted to fly heavier aircraft I'd do my PPL.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[pmccarthy]

My grandkids 3 to 5 years love planes and the Disney Planes shows. Thye love to fly. They call out Grandpa whenever a plane goes over. I reckon they are hooked.

 

I might add that I am the eldest son of an RAAF navigator who longed to be a pilot.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . I like the idea of being allowed in CTA, the aircraft I fly is equipped to do it and it opens up some options. Not so fussed about MTOW. If I wanted to fly heavier aircraft I'd do my PPL.

In my one-off experience as PIC flying into a controlled airport (Tamworth) I was so impressed as to how much safer it was than flying into non-towered aerodromes especially unfamiliar ones.

 

While it was quite stressful as a first timer in CTA, looking back on it, it was not rocket surgery and I think an endorsement would not be a challenge for anyone who has their XC endo. Being able to avoid Tiger country will be a huge boost to our safe access up and down the coast. After going in and out of Canberra (on RPT) in the last few days and seeing lots of light aircraft mixing it with the big stuff with no issues, I am convinced that having access to airports like that would add a lot to what you can do with an LSA. My Sling is as well or better equipped than most light GA aircraft and certainly a lot younger. There is no safety argument I can accept for keeping a trained and tested pilot flying over tiger country and denied access to very useful airports.

 

With regard to MTOW, I have no desire to do more than what my Pilot Certificate entitles me to do fly day VFR with max 2 pob. Essentially, I'd just like to fly my aircraft at its designed MTOW (700 kg) rather than the artificial, bureaucratic 600 kg. Limiting my strong aircraft to 600 kg just forces fuel management and range issues on me that I need not have. Allowing the Euro 750 kg MTOW in Australia would, over time, see a progressive improvement in the design strength and fuel capacity of two-seat light aircraft flying under RAAus without breaching the 45 Kt stall requirement. My aircraft at 600 kg has a stall of 39 knots and exactly the same aircraft at 700 kg is just one knot higher at 40 knots - what's the big deal?

 

Chris, you don't need a PPL to get CTA or even 1,500 kg MTOW, you can get all that on an RPL with the CTA endorsements. So, if it is available on an RPL why not then on CASA's declared equivalent qualification the RPC? I'm not about to trade my beautiful Sling in on an old clunker Piper/Cessna/ etc. to have two empty seats and a killer fuel bill but others might like to go that way and that should be their right.

 

 

[kasper]

clippedWith regard to MTOW, I have no desire to do more than what my Pilot Certificate entitles me to do fly day VFR with max 2 pob. Essentially, I'd just like to fly my aircraft at its designed MTOW (700 kg) rather than the artificial, bureaucratic 600 kg. Limiting my strong aircraft to 600 kg just forces fuel management and range issues on me that I need not have. Allowing the Euro 750 kg MTOW in Australia would, over time, see a progressive improvement in the design strength and fuel capacity of two-seat light aircraft flying under RAAus without breaching the 45 Kt stall requirement. My aircraft at 600 kg has a stall of 39 knots and exactly the same aircraft at 700 kg is just one knot higher at 40 knots - what's the big deal?

 

...

and your 700kg is just as artificial as the 600kg is ... the fact that your aircraft may have been designed to operate at a higher weight as a GA aircraft and is being 'artificially' restricted to 600kg to allow you to register it as an RAA aircraft is just an example of GA pushing their way into RAA - allow you to operate at what is a safe weight for your airframe because it was designed to that level then pared back is NOT a safety reason to increase the MTOW - just because you COULD carry more fuel is NOT a reason to allow increase for an aircraft that has been artificially registered in a lower weight class than its design limits.

Because frankly if it HAD been designed to the current 600kg the airframe would have been a few kg lighter and the fuel load available a little larger.

 

Where it HAS BEEN a safety issue is in design/registration classes where there were empty weight limits eg very old 95.10 115kg empty. That was a safety issue.

 

But if RAA want to go for 700kg I can probably google up a heap of 800kg airframes that can then be limited to 700kg to squeeze in and in 12months we will have the owners of that group demanding an increase for 'safety'

 

Sorry Don, but this pushes my buttons - we are either fundamentally different from GA or we are not. And I really am a grumpy old ultralight/microlight pilot - if I want 150hp and aerobatics I will dust off my PPL and hire an citabria, if I want to fly a trike or an ultralight I use my RAA certificate - they are not the same.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree with Don....I live in Coffs and hangar at South Grafton. If I fly with appropriate and due regard for tiger country then I can only fly north. West is absolutely tiger country and South is cut off by Class D airspace.....While Northern NSW and Queensland is great, there are times when I want to go south. I don't see why I need to hold a PPL (which Type 1 Diabetes in my case will always make a challenge/impossible) when the aircraft I fly will be exactly the same......I don't necessarily even want to land at class D just transit through safely rather than taking chances with tiger country around Bellingen/Dorrigo where if I was to go down without a radio call I might never be found......

 

I accept that in terms of recreation I don't have to fly south....but having invested a goodly sum in an aircraft I don't see why I shouldn't

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped ....but having invested a goodly sum in an aircraft I don't see why I shouldn't

So are you saying that because your Jabiru costs more than my 30 year old sapphire there is a differential in your rights to ask to fly through controlled airspace?

 

I keep coming back to what is recreational aircraft and evidence based regulation - IF there is no demonstrable evidence based difference in safety between a R582 and a Jabiru 2200 or a 912 and there is no demonstrable evidence based difference between a factory assembled and home assembled aircraft THEN the RAA should be standing up and saying to CASA ... in line with the red tape undertakings of governments ... sorry but we want access to this for all and if you want less than all DEMONSTRATE WITH EVIDENCE that there is a need.

 

The process of asking for small and incremental access to various bits of operational airspace etc is the reason it is such a difficult mess to navigate the airframes, engines, certificates, licences, medicals etc that we have today.

 

Back to the start - what level of spend on an aircraft entitled you, in your opinion, to ask for access to additional airspace?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Kasper,

 

I acknowledge your restraint in your reply. It is to your credit when you feel strongly but can write logically and with regard to the others point of view.

 

and your 700kg is just as artificial as the 600kg is . .

On this we must disagree. The people who designed my aircraft set out to build one with real reserve strength which can only come from super exotic composites or more metal. In this case, it was more metal. It was designed to be strong and the result ended up having good performance and fitted under the Euro 750 kg rules which are very similar to LSA. My aircraft has a "natural" designed strength that comes with an empty weight penalty. I compare it to my Tecnam Sierra LSA and while that is a lovely aeroplane, you can see where the extra 50kg of aluminium, rivets, and AN hardware went into the Sling. That natural strength is then penalised by the bureaucrat decided LSA rules forcing a reduced payload in fuel and range and therefore utility. In my book strength = good and stronger = better.

 

Even if we were entitled to go to 1,500 kg it would have no interest to me because of the fuel and performance penalty with no advantage in speed or range or payload. However, if somebody else wanted to do that it would be no skin off my nose.

 

... the fact that your aircraft may have been designed to operate at a higher weight as a GA aircraft and is being 'artificially' restricted to 600kg to allow you to register it as an RAA aircraft is just an example of GA pushing their way into RAA . . .

The only reason it has to be registered below its "fighting weight" is because a bureaucrat has written a rule that was meant to allow for simpler flying - no retracts, day VFR, one pax, etc. Restricting design strength makes no sense and should not have been included in the registration rule in the first place. In the USA they even have a ridiculous cruising speed limit which can make no sense to anyone. The only time speed matters is if you are going too slow or touching down. Silly rules are not a positive contribution to safe flying.

 

We probably start from a different point. I begin with flying is a right not a privilege. It is kind of like free speech. It should only be restricted when there is an issue of public safety. You can go out in a paddock, miles from anywhere and yell "FIRE" until your ears bleed with no harm to anyone but yourself. But, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and there is immediately a public safety issue. In that example a right, free speech, is reasonably restricted.

 

Now, applying that logic in aviation and every restriction that is placed on our flying has to be justified using the public safety argument. The onus of proof for the introduction of a restriction should be with the regulator. It should not be up to the individual to prove that what they want to do is safe. "Safe" is never absolute as was demonstrated tragically when a pilot was recently killed by his aeroplane while it was still in his hangar. "Safe" is a judgement call - a balance of of risk probability and consequence.

 

Because frankly if it HAD been designed to the current 600kg the airframe would have been a few kg lighter and the fuel load available a little larger.

My Tecnam is designed to a lower level of strength and has 50 kg less strength built in. It fits neatly under the 600kg limit with a good payload. But, it is intrinsically a weaker airframe - it is made in the same manner as the Sling but with 50kg less material. In my book, stronger = better.

 

But if RAA want to go for 700kg I can probably google up a heap of 800kg airframes that can then be limited to 700kg to squeeze in and in 12months we will have the owners of that group demanding an increase for 'safety'

RAAus is not seeking 700kg it is seeking equivalence with the CASA's competing qualification the RPL. CASA has put in writing that the RPL and RPC are equivalent qualifications. They are intended to compete. We just want to see that competition on a level airfield.

 

Sorry Don, but this pushes my buttons - we are either fundamentally different from GA or we are not. And I really am a grumpy old ultralight/microlight pilot - if I want 150hp and aerobatics I will dust off my PPL and hire an citabria, if I want to fly a trike or an ultralight I use my RAA certificate - they are not the same.

Kasper, this is one argument I don't ever follow. GA and RA are man made creations - totally artificial, historical and now anachronistic. They do not serve us well and create divisions that are not logical or helpful. A much more logical way to look at the aviation divide is commercial and recreational. Such a divide would be a much more logical for all sorts of purposes especially rulemaking. Regulations need to have more to do with the laws of physics and risk management than proper nouns.

 

You might be happy flying rag and tube but frankly, it puts the wind up me both figuratively and meteorologically. Similarly, you might be happy to dust off your PPL and fly a Citabria and do aeros. :plane:But, if you wanted to do those things you would not need a PPL as you can do them with the RPL which is on offer with no conversion required. If CASA stick to their newly declared principles you would be able to do them with an RPC.

 

The thing I don't understand is that if I want to fly in CTA and I have the aircraft to do it with and I've done the training and been assessed as competent why should my doing that bother a person who just wants to enjoy the thrills of stooging about in a Fisher Mk 1.?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Im sorry I now added that bit in my original post because I can see why you've focused on it......

 

If I owned a J160C that was type certified and maintained IAW etc then I can see no reason why I shouldn't have that access by virtue that the certification process is the evidence based process.. until such time as it suits CASA to just discard that....

 

But to the original question....The level of spend on an aircraft is in the main directly tied to its capabilities and fit out, and those in turn, ignoring pilot capability, are a function of suitability to enter CTA. As always the limitations as to whether you can or cant at the aircraft level, are tied up in the specified capabilities and cost is not mentioned but is real nonetheless...

 

The capabilities alone are not, as you know, the only predictor of cost, having that gold plated Transponder antenna will add to cost but do little for capability so answering the how many$ question is of course on its own unanswerable........

 

But as an aside my aircraft type, PPL in control, is not at all unfamiliar in CTA so Im pretty sure as long as Im legislatively allowed and have the appropriate skills then the aircraft of itself should not be a restrictor of access, I guess that they are already there, and have been for years, is of itself DEMOSTRATION WITH EVIDENCE.......A 95.10 scout however is probably not seen, PPL in control, mixing it up with the local dash8 in class D very often/at all so its highly likely that it shouldn't be there.....

 

So perhaps I would have been better writing in my original post that if you've spent enough to purchase an aircraft that of itself has all the boxes ticked to allow CTA access then the restrictions today must only be about the person not the total package......Could you say the same for your example aircraft?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . evidence based regulation . . .

That is all any of us want and it is what RAAus is seeking.

 

The process of asking for small and incremental access to various bits of operational airspace etc is the reason it is such a difficult mess to navigate the airframes, engines, certificates, licences, medicals etc that we have today.

Can't agree with that Kasper. The reason we have such a convoluted aviation regulation setup is because it has grown like topsy but at a glacial speed. CASA are pursing harmonisation of Australian regulation with ICAO and we have had the 1988 and 1998 Acts as major stepping stones. When Part 103 is introduced regulation for recreational aviation will be a lot simpler with the removal of exemptions based regulation. But I sometimes wonder if I'll see Part 103 in my lifetime. And if the introduction of Part 61 is something to go by (the last minute deferral for was it 12 months?) . . .

 

Back to the start - what level of spend on an aircraft entitled you, in your opinion, to ask for access to additional airspace?

Kasper, I think that question, in its current form, is aggressive and lacks respect and should be withdrawn. It is not up to Andy to say whether CTA is granted to 2 strokes or 4 strokes or Jabiru or Rotax or only Lyco/Conti.

 

What Andy and others are seeking in fact is the repeal of a "Safety" rule that restricts access to a safe route. The current rules can be seen to work against the safety of RAAus pilots and their passengers. Surely that is a good thing to seek? They are seeking the lifting of an unreasonable restriction not the granting of a special privilege to a few.

 

Don

 

 

[kasper]

Don,

 

If you were actually caring for the laws of physics for a separation then for ultralights we would have a trade between MTOW and stall speed not just a MTOW and blanket stall speed limit - lets face it 300kg of me and airframe hurtling towards the ground at 45kts is not the same energy to be dissipated/managed/risk mitigated as the 600kg of your sling hurtling towards the same ground at 45kts.

 

All categories of aircraft are arbitrary. If your only reason to separate is recreational use vs commercial use then there is no reason why the same requirements should not apply (and the same RAAO control) gyros, balloons, all trikes, all aerobatic aircraft, the old 747 I picked up from Qantas and only intend using to fly myself for recreation on holidays ... and I note the new draft RAA constitution include spacecraft so maybe the reach/grasp of the RAA really is to take on everything that is not commercial.

 

And weight = safety means in the extreme that so long as it can get into the air its safer the heavier it is ... so long as its recreational ... there are quite a few old planes around that can be had quite cheaply that are attractive

 

http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent=ap&man=Antonov&des=AN2&type=&grp=An-2&id=0

 

And I quite liked Kiev ... though I might choose to fly west on delivery ...

 

 

[kasper]

clipped ...Kasper, I think that question, in its current form, is aggressive and lacks respect and should be withdrawn. It is not up to Andy to say whether CTA is granted to 2 strokes or 4 strokes or Jabiru or Rotax or only Lyco/Conti.

...

 

Don

Andy made the point of bringing $$ invested into the question discussing access to airspace - its not aggressive in my opinion to put back to him a direct question clarifying the point he raised by asking him to clarify the $$ level that warrants the comment - not gonna be withdrawn

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

In my one-off experience as PIC flying into a controlled airport (Tamworth) I was so impressed as to how much safer it was than flying into non-towered aerodromes especially unfamiliar ones. While it was quite stressful as a first timer in CTA, looking back on it, it was not rocket surgery and I think an endorsement would not be a challenge for anyone who has their XC endo. Being able to avoid Tiger country will be a huge boost to our safe access up and down the coast. After going in and out of Canberra (on RPT) in the last few days and seeing lots of light aircraft mixing it with the big stuff with no issues, I am convinced that having access to airports like that would add a lot to what you can do with an LSA. My Sling is as well or better equipped than most light GA aircraft and certainly a lot younger. There is no safety argument I can accept for keeping a trained and tested pilot flying over tiger country and denied access to very useful airports.

With regard to MTOW, I have no desire to do more than what my Pilot Certificate entitles me to do fly day VFR with max 2 pob. Essentially, I'd just like to fly my aircraft at its designed MTOW (700 kg) rather than the artificial, bureaucratic 600 kg. Limiting my strong aircraft to 600 kg just forces fuel management and range issues on me that I need not have. Allowing the Euro 750 kg MTOW in Australia would, over time, see a progressive improvement in the design strength and fuel capacity of two-seat light aircraft flying under RAAus without breaching the 45 Kt stall requirement. My aircraft at 600 kg has a stall of 39 knots and exactly the same aircraft at 700 kg is just one knot higher at 40 knots - what's the big deal?

 

Chris, you don't need a PPL to get CTA or even 1,500 kg MTOW, you can get all that on an RPL with the CTA endorsements. So, if it is available on an RPL why not then on CASA's declared equivalent qualification the RPC? I'm not about to trade my beautiful Sling in on an old clunker Piper/Cessna/ etc. to have two empty seats and a killer fuel bill but others might like to go that way and that should be their right.

Thanks Don,

 

I agree with your sentiment. Your aircraft (and many others) are designed for a higher MTOW than 600kg. The Tecnam Sierra is available as a certified aircraft with a 620kg MTOW for example. I doubt the actual aircraft differs physically at all from the non-certified version. Jab 230/430 from memory are designed to 750kg. Therefore a moderate increase to the upper limit for the class would have some benefit for those with capable aircraft not the least the ability to fly 2 up with a full fuel load. Has to be an improvement in safety.

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks Don,I agree with your sentiment. Your aircraft (and many others) are designed for a higher MTOW than 600kg. The Tecnam Sierra is available as a certified aircraft with a 620kg MTOW for example. I doubt the actual aircraft differs physically at all from the non-certified version. Jab 230/430 from memory are designed to 750kg. Therefore a moderate increase to the upper limit for the class would have some benefit for those with capable aircraft not the least the ability to fly 2 up with a full fuel load. Has to be an improvement in safety.

 

Regards

 

Chris

So on that basis my UK trike which has been tested to BCARS at 472.5kg (both wing and trike) should be allowed to use all of that even though the type certificate says its limited to 415kg?

Because the UK that has stall speed that is an arbitrary number lower than 45kts that applies in Australia your logic says I should, in the name of safety, ignore the MTOW stated and be allowed to fly to the structural limits?

 

Trust me 1 up and with the second fuel tank I already hold 9.5hrs of petrol under the certiifed 415kg - allow me an extra 57.5kg of tank/fuel and I am toting around 17 hours of fuel ...

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

So on that basis my UK trike which has been tested to BCARS at 472.5kg (both wing and trike) should be allowed to use all of that even though the type certificate says its limited to 415kg?Because the UK that has stall speed that is an arbitrary number lower than 45kts that applies in Australia your logic says I should, in the name of safety, ignore the MTOW stated and be allowed to fly to the structural limits?

Trust me 1 up and with the second fuel tank I already hold 9.5hrs of petrol under the certiifed 415kg - allow me an extra 57.5kg of tank/fuel and I am toting around 17 hours of fuel ...

Hi Kasper,

 

Don't see why not. If an aircraft has been tested and certified in a country you would trust to have the engineering reputably and properly done and it meets the weight/stall numbers required for registration why should the local authorities impose a lower limit.

 

I have no experience or knowledge of weight shift aircraft so I am not really qualified to comment. I am just talking about 3 axis where some cannot be flown 2 up with full fuel because of a weight restriction lower than the aircraft is designed to.

 

By the way at 9.5 hours endurance I reckon your trike has way more range than your bladder.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

 

 

[facthunter]

Endurance maybe. Range has an airspeed component. Sorry kasper I'm only kidding. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Endurance maybe. Range has an airspeed component. Sorry kasper I'm only kidding. Nev

Doesn't matter if its range or endurance - the current 107L of petrol is entirely enough to keep me busy looking for a loo regardless of which flight target I'm flying to ;-)

 

 

[Chris Tarran]

Endurance maybe. Range has an airspeed component. Sorry kasper I'm only kidding. Nev

After a couple of hours in the air my bladder has a fair range.

 

 

[kasper]

And just imagine what it would be like if I used all 600kg ... 220kg empty weight trike + 100kg of me, helmet and flying suit + 280kg of fuel ... that's over 380L of petrol ... oh the bladder pressure !

 

 

[pmccarthy]

My experience driving in Italy is that dollar invested is what gives right of way. Crappy little hire cars give way to everyone. Everyone gives way to Ferraris, Porches, Mercs etc. So it goes. We could apply the same rules to flying.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't see any harm in allowing other "recreational" classed aircraft into the association. Yes it may have started out rag and tube ultralights but theres no harm in growth and change. As long as current aircraft and pilots aren't excluded what's the problem?

 

Get an increase of the LSA limit to 700kg (keep the stall limit), lets get amateur built aircraft up to 1500kg (put in limits if we are worried about overly complex aircraft, single fixed gear stall limit etc etc). Trade in the RPCs for RPL with self assessed fit for flight medical. Happy days.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

Back to the original thread topic.

 

I'm New to Aviation...

 

Off tomorrow to Ashburton to the Ashburton Aviation Pioneers to have a dekko at their planes and a chat with whatever instructors I can find around. First time that a free weekend has coincided with nice weather for quite a while!

 

As a little kid at primary school I was in the same class as Max Clears son, my first flight was a joyride in a B22 Bantam, I would occasionally hop on my pushbike and peddle down to the RC model club on saturdays when I was in an RC phase at high school and wander over to the hangers and chat with Max before heading home.

 

Roll on past uni and working in Hamilton to the point where Mum sold her little lifestyle block she bought with Dads life insurance money and bought a bigger productive farm in the southern alps just 15Km from the St Arnaud/Nelson Lakes/Lake Station strip and I came along with my sister to be a farm labourer on a family farm.

 

I took a few rides in a Grob Twin Astir G103 with the Nelson Lakes Gliding Club and considered getting my glider cert... it came down to That, A Motorbike and licence, or TESOL cert and wandering around overseas.

 

TESOL won and I spent 13 months in China.

 

Now I have the itch again for new experiences and am back to flying.

 

 

[M61A1]

I was born an "Aerosexual", and wanted to fly ever since I can remember. Because of that, I used to hang around the local gliding club and ride my bike down the road to the paddock where the Army Kiowas would land just to watch them. Saw something like a Scout at a local airshow, and wanted one then.

 

I joined the AirForce at 15 to become a maintainer. I was dumb and married young. My wife at the time thought that I should be more responsible and not learn to fly. So, as soon as possible after ditching her, I started learning on Drifters.

 

I love the old school ultralights, but I really don't see any reason for strict weight limits, a stall speed, perhaps, yes. In my opinion it's all about doing it yourself. That's where I think that the line in the sand should be. If it was made in a factory, then you are paying someone else to accept your risk, then maybe it needs to be professionally maintained and comply with tight regulation, but have greater privilege, like CTA access. As far as home or kit built, I don't see why you couldn't build whatever you want, including helicopters, with as many engines as you like, as heavy as you want, but, you are responsible for your safety and to ensure zero harm to the public.

 

 

[facthunter]

Interesting and I like it.. As to the last part, that is what SAAA do, and the complex stuff is no doubt built by "aeronautical artisans" like yourself. I think we should draw from the model of the EAA with an array of basic sturdy easy to build designs for those who don't want to re invent the wheel, or don't have the time left, to spend years building and learning the hard way.. Don't limit your self to this stuff but support it and that would make the building and approval process easier with less need for full analysis of the build, and the design every time someone decides to do their own thing. (which is so rare these days it is almost not happening). {In RAAus} Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The weight increase will make the very credible RVs eligible for RAAus and that would not be a bad thing. It would also allow a closer cooperation with even more common aims between RAAus and SAAA.

 

I like the idea that you had to have built it to maintain it but I doubt it would be broadly popular. My Sling is factory built and I have it L2 maintained. If I had the time or skill to build one I would but I don't. My L2 actually makes me do a lot of the grunt work (under supervision) and I am certainly benefiting from that as I get to know my aircraft intimately. There could come a day when I would feel confident to maintain my aircraft but I would, I think, always want it supervised by my L2. That's just risk-averse me.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's a fair enough approach. Not all builders would make good maintainers either but they are intimately involved with the build so are certainly familiar with it. You should have a copy of AC 43.13-1B/2A as a basis for inspection/ repair technique. Should still be available through the RAAus. Nev