What do you predict will change in recreational flying in the next few years?

[Head in the clouds]

As an adjunct to my previous post - there are many fewer people interested in building planes than there were in the 1970s/80s, but there are still some that are, and one of the things I hear quite frequently is the question "what can I build".

 

Certainly there are plenty of kits out there for two seat aircraft but none of them are what youngsters, or young families where Dad wants to build something as a father & son project perhaps, or maybe a Dad just wants to get out of the house and into the shed/garage in the evenings instead of watching TV, would call affordable in the way that building a small sailing dinghy is, for instance.

 

The point is, as I hinted in an earlier post, that RAAus is not doing anything to actively promote homebuilding (or kit assembling) in the most affordable category that we have, which is 95.10. It seems to be totally forgotten just how hard some of us toiled to get 95.10 revised (it's Issue 5 now, in case anyone thought nothing had changed ...) so that it became a useful category under which you could build safe aircraft which could be operationally useful in that they could go reasonable distances at reasonable speeds and heights.

 

Originally we were stuck with unworkable and unsafe restrictions on height, MTOW, wing-loading and operational areas (flight below 500ft only, MTOW of 400lbs/254kg, wing-loading of 4lbs/sqft (18kg/sqm) and couldn't cross any gazetted roads which pretty much meant only flying around a farmer's paddock.

 

Now we have a very exciting and workable category. We can fly to 5000ft without any radio requirement (or higher with a radio), we have a MTOW of 660lbs/300kg (or 737lb/335kg for seaplanes/floatplanes or amphibs, or 704lb/320kg if BRS equipped, or 781lb/335kg for waterborne + BRS equipped planes), max wing-loading of 6.7lb/sqft (30kg/sqm) and no restrictions about where to fly except what you'd expect regarding CTA and Restricted areas etc.

 

This category is for single seaters only of course, and with those weight and loading freedoms you can have a really nice and low cost aircraft - for a start you don't need a $25K plus engine, $2-5K will get you all you need for exhilarating performance - so why aren't there thousands of them buzzing around everywhere?

 

Two reasons why (all extracts come from CAO 95.10 2011 Instrument - all bold/underline is added by me) -

 

© if the aeroplane first became registered with the RAA or the HGFA on, or after, 1 March 1990:

 

 

 

(i) the aeroplane was privately built;

 

(Note that this means you cannot buy a factory-built 95.10 - they're effectively prohibited in Australia by this clause)

 

Privately built means -

 

2.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3, for this Order an aeroplane is privately built only if:

 

 

 

(a) the aeroplane was built by a person, or was jointly built by not more than 4 persons, with a view to the aeroplane being owned by the person, or by 1 or more of the persons, who built it; and

 

 

 

(b) the person, or each of the persons, who built the aeroplane was, at the time of completion of the aeroplane, an eligible private builder; and

 

 

 

© the aeroplane:

 

 

 

(i) was designed by its builder, or by 1 or more of its builders; or

 

 

 

(ii) was built in accordance with a set of drawings or a data package, or a set of drawings and a data package, approved, in writing, by the RAA or the HGFA; or

 

 

 

(iii) was built from a kit approved by the RAA or the HGFA; and

 

 

 

(d) except in a case to which sub-subparagraph © (iii) applies — the parts from which the aeroplane was built (other than any recognised standard parts) were made by, or at the direction of, the person, or 1 or more of the persons, who built the aeroplane.

 

AND the CASA definition of an Approved Kit in this regard (as stated in 95.10 itself) is -

 

approved kit means a kit for the assembly of an aeroplane, being a kit:

 

 

 

(a) that was manufactured by the holder of a certificate of approval in relation to the manufacture of kits of that kind; or

 

 

 

(b) that was manufactured in accordance with an approval given by CASA; or

 

 

 

© if the kit was exported to Australia — in relation to which there has been issued, by the appropriate authority of the country from which the kit was exported, a certificate that is acceptable to CASA and that relates to the airworthiness of the aeroplane that can be assembled from the kit; or

 

 

 

(d) in relation to which the RAA or the HGFA has issued a certificate stating that the kit meets the standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual or the HGFA Operations Manual, as the case may be.

 

And this brings us to the second part of the reason why we don't have any of these potentially excellent aircraft buzzing around our skies sipping a meagre 6l/hr and living in backyard trailers instead of mega-dollar hangars -

 

Because despite repeated requests RAAus has done SFA about making the process easier (read "at all possible") of getting Plans and Kits approved. There is no facility in place to do this. This is just another perfectly blatant example of how the RAAus has deliberately moved into being a replacement for failed GA folk rather than a specifically sports/recreational flying organisation.

 

Not only should RAAus have been working on establishing the facility to get kits and Plans approved, they should have been actively working on getting interested people developing these Plans, at the least, and critical components as sub-kits, for people who can build most of the plane from plans but don't have the expertice or machinery for the major structural items like strut attachments, engine mounts and similar.

 

ALTERNATIVELY - instead of having to jump through all these stupid hoops, RAAus could have been actively (anytime now - or in the last 25 years would have done ...) working to just get rid of those totally nonsense restrictions in the CAO itself. We've had the thing (95.10) written ourselves (1976 - Ron Wheeler of Wheeler Scout Aircraft fame) and then we changed it four times, so why not just make the last minor change that makes the thing useful, instead of it just sitting there with no-one able to benefit from it. AFTER ALL - we don't need any stupid Approvals for Plans to build 2 seaters under 95.55, NOR do any of the kits offered in 95.55 have any approvals whatsoever (did you all know that?), so you can assemble a totally unapproved/untested 95.55 kit and take some unsuspecting person as a passenger, but you can't buy a single seat 95.10 Plans or kit from the same kit manufacturer - how dumb is that?

 

EDIT - I forgot to mention that there's probably no-one in CASA or RAAus that's actually suitably capable or qualified to provide the required Approvals anyway, the producers of those plans and kits would know more about them than anyone, and be the best to provide the 'self-approval', as is used for the 95.55 kits/plans. Further, it divides the whole category in two, that anyone can design and build their own 95.10 from their own back of napkin sketch, and self-approve it, but someone else who would rather use the Plans from someone more design-orientated, cannot do so unless those plans have been approved by a body not qualified to do so - total madness ...

 

Just to show what other countries are doing - these are the type of planes that you could be building for just a few thousand dollars materials cost and powering with a $5000 half VW or MZ, or even a $2000 Briggs and Stratton or MotoGuzzi conversion, they only need 25- 30hp to cruise around 80kts! -

 

 

 

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

The AUF was founded by home builders who paved the way for all of us.Most factory builds started life as a home build created in the mind of a dreamer and motivator in the early days..threw the 80's many home builds were being built and some went into manufacture...it was a very exciting time with ingenuity in abundance.

Even today a lot of non aircraft folk think we still ( ok I do) fly theses tiny home built contraptions....

 

They don't know that the likes of a jabiru is a " Ultralight" they can afford to fly!

 

Even my lightwing non flyers presume is a " real plane. 'GA ". I have family who would not dare fly in a thruster but happily jump in the lightwing? Go figure lol

 

I understand RAA name was meant to represent the diversity of aircraft but what got lost was the association of affordable safe flying.... That's the Key for membership growth I believe..

 

Flying for fun is a great modo but agree a bit " Naff"

 

I don't like the word " Sport" as it's not really a sport!

 

As far as "RAA". I too have to explain to new comers what it is but, as soon as I say "Ultralight Aircraft" They understand..

 

Ultralight Aircraft conjures up thoughts of cheap affordable flying but also of unsafe flimsy contraptions...

 

It's a tuff one but really needs to relay : affordability, Accessibility. Safe and most important FUN!!

 

Scratching head on this one! Good luck :)

 

All IMO

Nice post FM.

 

Yup, I agree about the name things you brought up.

 

In Europe they have got around it by calling what many of us fly these days VLAs i.e. Very Light Aircraft, I think it's their category above the 450kg ultralight/microlight class and below 600kg. Then above that is Light Aircraft in General Aviation.

 

As you mention the word "ultralight" seems to conjure up images in peoples' minds that are probably a bit negative for us these days, so perhaps we should be thinking along the lines of promoting the 'Very Light Aircraft Flyers' Association' banner? Or "Lightweight Aircraft Flyers' Association"?

 

 

[flyerme]

And I most definitely am keeping 95:10 alive :). Hoping the movie will inspire the next gen of 95:10ers. I. Now have 4 95:10 myself ;).

 

I have hooked in one new comer ( low income earner) who is very keen on owning his own 95:10 once gets his ticket..

 

defiantly agree in lack of home builds theses days:(

 

Lack of promoting them also

 

and they are actually very simple to build in the shed!!!!!!!

 

But the future with people like you spreading the word looks bright:)

 

The other thing is ( and no offence to anyone) most just don't fit in the ol 95:10 anymore- there I said it... Lol

 

They just built them to fit me( 68 kgs ) he he he

 

Happy days and happy days to come

 

 

[facthunter]

At 68 Kgs you definitely qualify as a "light" aircraft Pilot, Flyer me. You achievement at lightness is not easy to equal. As to a NAME, Recreational is not the worst I could think of. eg Dangerous Funny Plane Flyers.AssociationNev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... RAAus is not doing anything to actively promote homebuilding (or kit assembling) in the most affordable category that we have, which is 95.10...

Perhaps this is another reason that RAA, instead of re-inventing the wheel, should get together with SAAA.

 

They have a focus on home-builders and their people fell over themselves to help me when I started designing my first plane.

 

 

[facthunter]

I've resigned from the main body but have a chapter 20 membership. That works well for me. Based at Kyneton Victoria. I've met their new President. They have probably got over the drama of a few years ago. They are not a big organisation. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I'm in full agreement with Roundsounds about the name of the RAAus. Juliet said "what's in a name" and history has shown that the answer, where business is concerned, is often "a lot of the difference between success and failure".Any thoughts?

Yeah, what the hell is AUF? This acronym stuff needs to be severely killed with fire..

 

The names are confusing, there's too darn many of them and outsiders have no clue as to what they are even hinting at.

 

Even though my example of CAMS in motorsport starts with an acronym, have a look at some samples;

 

One Day Licence

 

Competition Licence

 

Super Licence

 

Touring Cars

 

Sports Cars

 

Open Wheelers

 

MA, Motorcycling Australia is the same.

 

I.E. no bloody acronyms, no confusion, obvious and clear to the category you want.

 

I am baffled daily in this forum when I see acronyms left right and center, it's a disaster for new people coming in. what the hell is "95:10" and where do I find it - why would I know seeing it for the first time, as with "RPL", "LSA" etc.

 

Flying for Fun Aus (is not "naff", it's clear and concise) or Amateur Flying Australia would be good with classes of;

 

Amateur Provisional Licence

 

Amateur Licence (State and National maybe)

 

Very Light Single Seat

 

Light Dual Seat

 

Regional Flying

 

Etc, clear as water.

 

"Sport" should never be used, it sounds competitive and unwelcoming to nervous beginners.

 

 

[Spooks]

Same over here. Licences are

 

NPPL(p)

 

NPPL(m)

 

NPPL SEP

 

EASA LAPL

 

EASA PPL

 

CPL

 

ATPL

 

Gets very confusing when just starting out! Almost put me off flying as I didn't know where to start.

 

I think making aviation more 'user friendly' would help. Currently seems to be a case of over complicating something that is pretty simple.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

NPPL(p)

NPPL(m)

 

NPPL SEP

 

EASA LAPL

 

EASA PPL

 

CPL

 

ATPL

There's old hands here saying "Easy, whats the problem?".

 

Well let me throw in my own acronym, it's B/S.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree Bex. I just hate the way CASA TIFA too FM . It makes it THTU .

 

One day I said to myself get a GOY and bloody well look them up as you go.

 

Well the second FA wasn't in ABGICF.

 

Years ago, they sent stuff over wires and needed abbreviations. Now they continue to do it to obfuscate.

 

Here's the sort of glossary CASA never provide in any way I can find. But like CASA I will leave a couple out just for fun.

 

TIFA= talk in fu-er-funny acronyms:FM = frigging much: THTU =too hard to understand: ABGICF=any bloody glossary I could find.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would have thought AUF...... Australian Ultralight Federation... would be one of the most simply descriptive and appropriate at the time. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Any sport or recreation you take up has a learning curve and to be proficient you need to do the learning. To fly you have to know what rules we fly by and the theory of flying, so you become a student. Don't complain if you can't understand. just look for the reasoning.

 

About 60 years ago I took up photography as a hobby and if you think flying is hard, it is nothing compared to photography as it was before digital times. Not so many acronyms, but a hell of a lot of chemical formulae and optical theory.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

To fly you have to know what rules we fly by ..... Don't complain if you can't understand.

I will complain and I am. The acronyms are ridiculous and an unnecessary extra step of confusion and learning.

 

It also goes somewhat towards the "Old Boys Club" nudge nudge wink wink secret code priggish'ness of flying of which you have just demonstrated. It's not inviting to outsiders and that's one area that needs to be worked on.

 

Over the last 30 years I have watched Motorcycling Australia increase their member base dramatically by actually pretending they are there for the Members and efforts to introduce new people to the sport, what radical thinking. They sort and found better insurance deals for clubs and actively changed their top heavy (professional motorcycle racing) lean towards amateur racing and especially Juniors. But also learnt how to become friendly, helpful and simplify everything across the board.

 

On the other hand, the Confederation of Australian Motorsports couldn't be more hated by it's base members. Since F1 came to Adelaide and the World Rally Champs and other programs like V8 Supercars, everything costwise went up to pay for those events and all the base members literally forgotten. It got so bad that another association, Australian Auto Sport Alliance was started of which CAMS took them to court to block them and lost. They work, like Motorcycling Australia, on introducing people to the sport from base level and looking for insurance deals for clubs, cheap licences and general promotion of low cost motorsports. They are of course very successful today ..

 

Lastly and for what it's worth, I was a member of Brisbane Motorcycle Club who had been "Doing it this way since 1972" and I didn't like "this way" at all so I started a new club and ran it for 8 years that went on the be Australia's most successful club of it's type under my guidance and structuring. I kept it as simple as possible, I put big effort into catering for the lowest denominator members and the most critically crucial key to it's success, I did not use a single acronym.

 

 

[scre80]

So lots of good conversation going on here. Some great suggestions too.

 

The challenge, what can we all do to promote RA Aus? Bring the young people in, keep it simple and keep costs down. RA Aus has some great potential.

 

 

[Spooks]

I'd have thought the easiest way to promote it to youngsters would be to get a presence in school / university as a flying club. Maybe offering free experience lessons to those at school and aiding in aircraft availability with the university groups?

 

There are rugby, soccer, football, ice hockey etc clubs in these environments so why not recreational aviation?

 

 

[scre80]

I'd have thought the easiest way to promote it to youngsters would be to get a presence in school / university as a flying club. Maybe offering free experience lessons to those at school and aiding in aircraft availability with the university groups?There are rugby, soccer, football, ice hockey etc clubs in these environments so why not recreational aviation?

Totally Agree. Must be 5 to 8 high schools within 10km from the Airfield I fly out of. Great opportunity.

 

 

[Spooks]

I think it goes beyond being a pilot too. It'd be a great way of enticing students to all areas of aviation from engineering to mechanics to design to ground crew etc.

 

And let's face it. Although flying can be expensive, an hour's lesson costs less than getting blind drunk on a weekend!

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Totally Agree. Must be 5 to 8 high schools within 10km from the Airfield I fly out of. Great opportunity.

Schools are always up for educational excursions, why not to an airfield and show them around planes and flying.

 

 

[scre80]

Would love to see RA Aus pushing this from an organisation perspective, I have dropped them a line.

 

I am also going to speak to my local flying club committee.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think it goes beyond being a pilot too. It'd be a great way of enticing students to all areas of aviation from engineering to mechanics to design to ground crew etc.And let's face it. Although flying can be expensive, an hour's lesson costs less than getting blind drunk on a weekend!

Well that's one comparison....

 

Another is the cost of cigarettes. During a recent trip a small package of cigarettes was delivered to a Roadhouse owner while I was there; you could hold it in one hand. He ruefully looked at it and told me he had to pay $3,000.00 for it - about $6000.00 at retail - a staggering amount for such a small parcel.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I really like your idea of volunteer checking inspectors Turbo. In gliding, the use of a second pair of eyes is required for annual inspections and on re-rigging. I had no idea that they have been doing more and better in motorsport.

 

This is a thing that the RAAus could begin to emulate and it could really help.

 

I heard of a Jabiru that had an extra fuel tank installed in the fuselage such that the center of gravity would have been way too far back. Of course he was breaking rules, but I think he just had no idea. Well the volunteer inspector would have picked it up for sure. And if the owner had not got a volunteer inspection, this would be picked up at annual time.

 

But I'm afraid that the thinking of RAAus might be to respond with bans and steer work to paid people.

 

This would give RAAus an easier time with fewer people to police, but it would price even more of us out of flying.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well the "thinking of RAAus" can only be that if the members continue to allow the people elected as board members to go off and make their own decisions, do their own thing as if they were company directors.

 

You own the Association, and need to take control of it.

 

If you go through the RAA accident/incident reports, you'll see plenty of very obvious mistakes, which a volunteer oversight group would normally pick up.

 

Same goes with pilot behaviour; Volunteer Stewards can see a problem developing on the local field.

 

 

[ave8rr]

If RAAus manage to get any weight increase then I am sure there will be a big change to the maintenance requirements. This will probably be some sought of independent inspection prior to Rego renewal.

 

I believe that is what happens in NZ, UK etc.

 

I also believe there will be some changes to the medical requirements. Maybe a visit to a doctor for a general health check at Certificate renewal. There has been two or three accidents this past 12 months due to a "Medical" issue.

 

I am not saying I am for any of this but can see these becoming a Regulator (CASA or RAAus) requirement.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

All this is just pushin toward GA standard not a good direction too go ...

 

We are all flying for fun and afordabity all this wanting more weight and access to controlled space is G A territory so move up too sports categories and leave the basic AUF strutor alone I for one beleave that the RAA has lost what it was designed to cater for .

 

Just my two bob worth

 

Doug

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree with some of you sentiments but the AUF just evolved with grudgingly given small blessings, over time. Some of the restrictions were ridiculous. You could hardly say it was "designed". WE are still evolving. I wish we built more as that takes a lot of the expense out of it for some who can't justify over $100,000, for a plastic or composite that in some cases you can't work on or modify. Nev