Random Paperwork Inspections

[pmccarthy]

According to Ned Kelly it was all the fault of the police. But he was an angry man, and saying otherwise would have produced a quick and angry response.

 

 

[kasper]

Hope that was not a reference to me there pmccarthy ... I think working with the RAAus Tech for over 12 months to try and get the fix is not a quick and angry response ... and if you then had your registration cancelled by email from the CEO on completely false advice of the self same Tech office less than 4 weeks after its issued I think a bit of anger is justified ... as far as Tech office is concerned in my opinion there is a loud ring of truth in the old saying "lead a horse to water ..."

 

 

[jetjr]

So you'd prefer to stand on the apron and argue procedure with CASA than fit markings.... to prove a point about a flaw you have found in old tech manual?

 

Id have thought there was a way to submit electronic ACR in which case just resend it, if you didnt keep any copies or send registered mail it hardly their fault.

 

Wouldnt it be prudent to have a W&B done anyway?

 

 

[kasper]

So you'd prefer to stand on the apron and argue procedure with CASA than fit markings.... to prove a point about a flaw you have found in old tech manual?Id have thought there was a way to submit electronic ACR in which case just resend it, if you didnt keep any copies or send registered mail it hardly their fault.

 

Wouldnt it be prudent to have a W&B done anyway?

Its not in an old tech manual it is in the current one ...section 9.1

Electronic ACR is not possible and it still requires an L2 ... and its not required to register for the first time

 

If RAAus Tech actually are doing their job the forms and photos were received in the RAAus offices ... or they should not have finalized the registration

 

Why prudent to have a weight and balance on a weightshift? the balance is already marked n/a on all forms as it is not any part of the operation of the aircraft and the factually I have already been through with RAAus Tech over coming up 2 year this airframe has an empty weight variance from 125kg to 150kg depending on which engine and wing I am flying on the day ... the WHOLE engine setup on this airframe was designed by me to be plug and play - I have three engine modules that range in power from 40-100hp and they can be switched out in under 15 minutes and I have 5 different wings whcih can be switched out in under 5 minutes ... all flying as 1 aircraft (confirmed with RAAus) this is in fact up to 15 differnt combination of weight and performance ... the 'weight' form was submitted at the highest weight combination.

 

 

[kasper]

Oh and i will not be standing on the apron arguing with CASA - if they want to call me on it I have the letter from RAAus Tech confirming no regn display requirements and a copy of the Section 9.1 that currently applies to the airframe with the aircraft. If they wish to call me to account in court then I will just accept the invitation.

 

 

[storchy neil]

I admit I am slow as I see it you have a design that can be changed in three ways in a mater of minutes so that makes three separate aircraft

 

three separate weight and balance

 

three separate air craft

 

5 different wings

 

five separate weigh and balance neil

 

 

[kasper]

I admit I am slow as I see it you have a design that can be changed in three ways in a mater of minutes so that makes three separate aircraftthree separate weight and balance

three separate air craft

 

5 different wings

 

five separate weigh and balance neil

Not slow at all. Had to walk through this with RAAus Tech at the start of the process as what is the aircraft is very important when you come to registration and display of markings.

Question - what is the aircraft for RAAus - the trike unit or the wing?

 

Answer - the trike is the aircraft that requires registration not the wing

 

Outcome - flying 5 wings on the 1 trike only requires 1 aircraft registration. Note in logbook as to which wing is flown is all that is required

 

On changing engines - its only a note required in the aircraft logbook and I run three engine log books so I am clear

 

On W&B - its a bitch but weightshift aircraft have no application to the concept of W&B in the sense that 3axis aircraft have them ... they do not apply balance calcs as the balance limits for safe flight are not fixed by empty weight or even load weight of the trike but by hang point location ... and on 2 of my wings even that is variable in flight as I have an electric slider on the hang bracket.

 

Overall the RAAus Tech Manual and Tech Office personnel are not well acquainted with weightshift aircraft or design. I have been walking RAAus Tech through this for coming up 2 years and basically I am at the point of just taking my registered aircraft off and flying it with annual paperwork and fees to RAAus because they just do not get it.

 

... and if you think this is complex how do you think RAAus can deal with the Aircreation BioniX wing on their trike? It has in flight variable geometry with not only variable sweep but also variable camber and trim ... my wings are fairly 'normal' compared to that

 

 

[storchy neil]

thanks why I question you is so as the ones that have followed get a better understanding what rules and regs need clarification and why neil

 

 

[kasper]

Yep clarification is always good.

 

Particularly as with weightshift aircraft different countries consider different parts to be the aircraft for registration purposes ... for example in the UK the CAA consider the wing to be the aircraft not the trike ... if you own two wings you have two aircraft and you have different registrations (and callsigns) when you change from wing 1 to wing 2 etc.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Kasper thanks for the explanation it is the first time I have understood

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon Ned Kelly was indeed the fault of the police. The crimes done against him by the system in those days were greater by miles than what Ned did as an honest horse-thief.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I reckon Ned Kelly was indeed the fault of the police. The crimes done against him by the system in those days were greater by miles than what Ned did as an honest horse-thief.

He admitted stealing in the Jerilderie letter Bruce; we used to shoot stock thieves then so it all worked out in the end.

 

 

[503]

Not slow at all. Had to walk through this with RAAus Tech at the start of the process as what is the aircraft is very important when you come to registration and display of markings.Question - what is the aircraft for RAAus - the trike unit or the wing?

 

Answer - the trike is the aircraft that requires registration not the wing

 

Outcome - flying 5 wings on the 1 trike only requires 1 aircraft registration. Note in logbook as to which wing is flown is all that is required

 

On changing engines - its only a note required in the aircraft logbook and I run three engine log books so I am clear

 

On W&B - its a bitch but weightshift aircraft have no application to the concept of W&B in the sense that 3axis aircraft have them ... they do not apply balance calcs as the balance limits for safe flight are not fixed by empty weight or even load weight of the trike but by hang point location ... and on 2 of my wings even that is variable in flight as I have an electric slider on the hang bracket.

 

Overall the RAAus Tech Manual and Tech Office personnel are not well acquainted with weightshift aircraft or design. I have been walking RAAus Tech through this for coming up 2 years and basically I am at the point of just taking my registered aircraft off and flying it with annual paperwork and fees to RAAus because they just do not get it.

 

... and if you think this is complex how do you think RAAus can deal with the Aircreation BioniX wing on their trike? It has in flight variable geometry with not only variable sweep but also variable camber and trim ... my wings are fairly 'normal' compared to that

Powered parachutes dont fit also,my random audit was not mandatory and mentioned it was about increasing max weight above 600kg...???

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, that's the point I was making. The squatters were far bigger stock thieves than Ned was, they just had the corrupt law on their side.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Its not in an old tech manual it is in the current one ...section 9.1Electronic ACR is not possible and it still requires an L2 ... and its not required to register for the first time

If RAAus Tech actually are doing their job the forms and photos were received in the RAAus offices ... or they should not have finalized the registration

 

Why prudent to have a weight and balance on a weightshift? the balance is already marked n/a on all forms as it is not any part of the operation of the aircraft and the factually I have already been through with RAAus Tech over coming up 2 year this airframe has an empty weight variance from 125kg to 150kg depending on which engine and wing I am flying on the day ... the WHOLE engine setup on this airframe was designed by me to be plug and play - I have three engine modules that range in power from 40-100hp and they can be switched out in under 15 minutes and I have 5 different wings whcih can be switched out in under 5 minutes ... all flying as 1 aircraft (confirmed with RAAus) this is in fact up to 15 differnt combination of weight and performance ... the 'weight' form was submitted at the highest weight combination.

Hey Kasper, I'm interested to know what your rationale is for building and flying a mix and match trike ?

 

What determines the configuration for the flight ? Does the plug and play ( or plug and pray) add much in the way of maintenance costs and time. This appears to be a similar approach that many of the US trike owners adopt

 

 

[kasper]

Hey Kasper, I'm interested to know what your rationale is for building and flying a mix and match trike ?What determines the configuration for the flight ? Does the plug and play ( or plug and pray) add much in the way of maintenance costs and time. This appears to be a similar approach that many of the US trike owners adopt

well I wanted to play with designing my own wings so single seater was the way to go. r477 is enough to fly the wings and I can get up to 60knts out og the fastest wing on that ... then got access to a cheap 65hp .... then a cheap 100hp and it was easier to just build new engine frames that stay on the engines and its just 3 bolts to remove the engine.

just a quick way to play around with performance. the 65hp gives me 75knts on the 15m wing and im looking forward to trying the 100hp with the 10m wing

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Turbs, that's the point I was making. The squatters were far bigger stock thieves than Ned was, they just had the corrupt law on their side.

And a branding iron.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Way out in unfenced country one squatter was visiting his neighbour and boasting about how many "cleanskins" he'd branded. "Yep" he exclaimed, "I never eat my own beef!"

 

To which his host replied: "well you're eating it now!"

 

 

[WayneL]

Kasper, thanks for the description of your trike, wings and motors configuration. I and probably many others were not aware of this so that info was helpful in understanding your rego issues. I am not educated on HGFA rules but am wondering if you would have more success under them. Is there a reason why you want your

 

Trike under 95:10 regs?

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper, thanks for the description of your trike, wings and motors configuration. I and probably many others were not aware of this so that info was helpful in understanding your rego issues. I am not educated on HGFA rules but am wondering if you would have more success under them. Is there a reason why you want yourTrike under 95:10 regs?

95.10 under RAAus:

1. RAAus because I am an RAAus pilot since mid 90's and a member since lat 80's - it my association

 

2. RAAus because I hold three aircraft groupings on my pilots certificate - 3axis, weighshift and combined controls

 

3. 95.10 because within RAAus it appears Tech Office are not squarely trying to turn this into GA-lite on process and documentation so it was preferred over 95.32

 

4. 95.10 because I designed, built and flew this aircraft in the UK for 4 years under a 300kg design.

 

I have no interest in flying this single seater at higher than 300kg ... besides it has NO physical structure to take any more load - it is a bare frame with no fairings ... after the 'wide' section of the nosewheel (50cm) the fuselage is only 5cm wide will you get to the seat ... you get the idea. Short of me eating all the pies for quite a while and increasing my weight to over 125kg its actually not even possible to get to 300kg!

 

 

[kasper]

Getting sillier again...

 

RAAus CEO now says that it was accidentally registered in error and that the certificate and paperwork for the registration are not real. Oh and this is in an email so I am actually not going to take it seriously until I get it is writing in the post to my registered address but for the joy of it here is what it says:

 

1. The basis of the 'error' in registration was I phoned and asked for the registration finalisation fee to be enabled on the online portal so I could pay it ... it only had a number reservation fee paid prior to that. Apparently, in error, they processed a 'registration renewal' through the portal that I paid and that triggered the issue of the certificate with full registration in error - as it was not registered the year before the Full Registration is not real ... great review processes we have eh?

 

2. They cannot find the photos and weighing therefore they do not exist

 

3. Apparently the Aircraft Data Sheet they already have is not acceptable because engine and prop were both listed as TBA ... even though I have ALREADY been through the three engine and props issues with the Tech Manager and Jarad a year before

 

4. they are insisting that regn numbers NOT REQUIRED BY TECH MANUAL be applied and displayed in new photos.

 

... so dear RAAus members if this arrives in writing you can probably expect the December annual report to disclose additional legal fees because they have just pushed me past being pissed off into the realm of I will operate the aircraft and they can damn well attempt to either discipline me or point CASA at me and we can all have a nice day in court.

 

 

[storchy neil]

oh dear that old story lost the paper work that story has bloody well run its course with me to

 

approached by 2 raaus reps at the last meeting to write a letter about my problem with what is wrong since my first encounter with raaus re my aircraft in 11/2008 to 5/2016 yes bloody eight years

 

only this time they approached me with a man who in my opinion one who has great knowledge of legal requirments I would not like to frount him in court un less my case was 100% facts

 

this will be the third time that I will have sent paper work

 

kasper are there any safty isues involved in your case as in my case there were that would have led to an accident opinions of well known l2

 

neil

 

 

[kasper]

oh dear that old story lost the paper work that story has bloody well run its course with me toapproached by 2 raaus reps at the last meeting to write a letter about my problem with what is wrong since my first encounter with raaus re my aircraft in 11/2008 to 5/2016 yes bloody eight years

only this time they approached me with a man who in my opinion one who has great knowledge of legal requirments I would not like to frount him in court un less my case was 100% facts

 

this will be the third time that I will have sent paper work

 

kasper are there any safty isues involved in your case as in my case there were that would have led to an accident opinions of well known l2

 

neil

Safety issues on my documents lost?

Not that I can see.

 

1. a lack of photo of the aircraft in 1 of its 15 configurations is not a safety issue

 

2. the lack of knowledge of all details in RAAus of the engines and props is unlikely to be a safety issue

 

3. lack of a weight verification is hardly a safety issue or legal issue as the responsibility under the CAO sits with teh pilot at the start of each flight to be under 300kg and under 30kg/m^2

 

And given its a 95.10 and I am legally allowed to build it out of anything and everything (including paddle pop sticks) if I choose AND RAAus Tech cannot even limit the operations of the aircraft even for the first 40 hours AND I can make and fit any mods I like to the aircraft on a day-to-day basis all responsibility sitting with me hard to see the risk issue in cancelling my registration ... or magically un-creating the registration of the aircraft which is how they are now playing it.

 

The biggest issue from a safety perspective is communications - the that fact that they do not know the engine and prop make/model means RAAus could not make a focused communication to me if there was an issue with that specific engine make/model and would have to rely on general communication to membership of issues.

 

 

[nong]

Nong, registering an aircraft that was not airworthy sounds like throwing good money after bad.

Don. I happen to own two registered, non-airworthy, aircraft.

There are, in fact, thousands of registered, but non-airworthy, aircraft in Australia.

 

Many prefer to remain registered, so as to avoid the B S associated with placing a machine back on the register.

 

My point stands.