RAA Tech Manual issue 4

[planesmaker]

M61A1, I am definitely in favour of others looking over aircraft projects and it should be encouraged, however, mandating through regulation is certainly not the best way to encourage people.

 

 

[Keith Page]

All this yelling and screaming here.. Home built, ammeter built call it what you like 51% plus must be made buy the owner. The owner is there own safety manager, being majority built by the owner the responsibility belongs to the said owner.

 

Regards,

 

KP .

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I can't say I am that familiar with the L1 test, its been a while since I looked at it but does it cover any sort of aircraft construction? It seems a bit pointless getting someone who knows less than the builder inspecting the plane.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

It seems to be a bit like the CASA part 61/141/142 rules, there wouldn't seem to be a safety case for creating these rules? Maybe they've been mandated by CASA? If the rules are trying to prevent accidents, where is education component? If warranted, the education should address the items to be ticked off by the L4 on the 8 pages of form 7.

 

Again, what responsibility is carried by the L4, they make certain "recommendations" on the final inspection report.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Any builder would be a damn fool not to accept constructive comment from an observer during a build but you're comparing apples to oranges David. Note that Kasper is referring to 95-10 single seat category of homebuilts where there never has been accomodation for protection of anyone excepting the owner/pilot. Houses aren't airplanes and sub 300 kg experimentals have always comprised of "build and do what you are prepared to prove will work with no risk to others" For the higher-paid help to now require four staged inspections for this category by some third party who has had no involvement in the planning & building of the machine has little merit and must certainly curtail innovation. More unnecesary regulation - More "GA, here we come"? Greyhound racing is currently on the nose but it may have more future than recreational avaition. Rgds Riley

Riley,

 

Yes I know that they are apples and oranges what I was trying to say is that inspections where safety and build quality is in all things we do these days, these aircraft may be a single seat and it is only your life in the seat but who is to say that some poor sap won't buy this aircraft off the original owner at some point?

 

I know that I would never buy some home built aircraft off Gumtree unless I had paperwork to say that it was signed off at the end of the build by a L4 and that during the build it had regular inspections by someone other than the builder, just all seems common sense to me and I would be happy to know that there is a very good chance that I will going home to my wife and kids at the end of that day...

 

I just think it is good idea and worth spending some extra money for peace of mind...but... that's me..

 

David

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I can't say I am that familiar with the L1 test, its been a while since I looked at it but does it cover any sort of aircraft construction? It seems a bit pointless getting someone who knows less than the builder inspecting the plane.

I believe the tech manual says an L1 approved by the tech manager. I doubt the newbie pilot with an L1 rating would get the gig. It would be an experienced builder and pilot who has been there done that but has no interest in being an L2. Why are some of you so negative? Cheer up and go for a fly!

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

M61A1, I am definitely in favour of others looking over aircraft projects and it should be encouraged, however, mandating through regulation is certainly not the best way to encourage people.

When I built my Savannah I had it looked over several times by L2 guys and of course a L4 with the final inspection. It was no drama

 

 

[planesmaker]

Our freedoms are being eroded away without good reason! No one has put up a good reason for introducing this regulation for a problem that does not exist.

 

 

[Keith Page]

We may need an Extra Special General meeting, to sort out this decaying process. We need an avenue to experiment with design and thinking not this micro managing.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I believe the tech manual says an L1 approved by the tech manager. I doubt the newbie pilot with an L1 rating would get the gig. It would be an experienced builder and pilot who has been there done that but has no interest in being an L2. Why are some of you so negative? Cheer up and go for a fly!

Because its unnecessary, regulations should fix problems not create empires for the bureaucracy. You give some people an inch and they will take a mile.

 

 

[aro]

Who would actually do these inspections? In these days where LAMEs won't issue a maintenance release for a C152 with an on-condition engine without a couple of paragraphs of disclaimers, they're not going to certify an inspection of someone else's amateur built aircraft. Nor would I.

 

It's a wise builder who has someone else look at their work. It's a wise inspector who makes sure their name doesn't appear on any paperwork relating to the work. You only have to look at this thread to see that people expect that these inspections increase safety by catching mistakes and preventing shoddy workmanship. It's a small step from there to liability if mistakes or shoddy workmanship are alleged after an accident. It doesn't matter how much you say you are not certifying airworthiness - if you have the inspection, it is likely to create a duty of care.

 

It would be worth looking at the requirements for Amateur Built Experimental in GA and removing anything not also required for GA. AB-E has been carefully designed so that ALL airworthiness issues lead back to the builder and no-one else (OK, and maybe the kit manufacturer, it's hard to get them off the hook.) Even the final inspection is about paperwork, no-one apart from the builder is putting their name to anything certifying airworthiness or build standards.

 

This RAA manual seems to be rooted in the pre AB-E days of ABAA. It even references ABAA, even though that went out almost 20 years ago. RAA never really caught up with the improvements with AB-E, now it seems they are going backwards. CASA also seem to want to roll back a lot of AB-E, but it is happening a lot more slowly with CASA than RAA.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

ARO has summed things up well.

 

 

[Downunder]

Our freedoms are being eroded away without good reason! No one has put up a good reason for introducing this regulation for a problem that does not exist.

The RAA now have a safety department with a manager and now, I think, one employee.

 

That department needs to justify it's existence.

 

As this department continues to grow and "empire build", the issues in this thread may seem minor in the long run.

 

This "industry" and the barrow it pushes need to be kept on a very short leash.

 

 

[M61A1]

Because its unnecessary, regulations should fix problems not create empires for the bureaucracy. You give some people an inch and they will take a mile.

For some reason things seem to work that way in this country. If someone makes a regulation, someone will interpret it in a contorted way even if written in the plainest English.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm still waiting for that to happen, (The last bit) Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Is there a significant history of RAA aircraft crashing due to build issues?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

If someone makes a regulation, someone will interpret it in a contorted way even if written in the plainest English

I think that's what the RAAPs were meant to resolve.

RAAP-1 Concerning Types Training makes interesting reading, I'm a little more confused having read it.

 

Here's what the FAA define an aircraft type as:

 

Type:

 

As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a specific make and basic model of aircraft, including modifications thereto that do not change its handling or flight characteristics. Examples include: DC–7, 1049, and F–27.

 

 

[M61A1]

The FAA definition of "type" is exactly what we don't need.

 

I think that it (RAA) was deliberately meant to be broad, but some simple minds couldn't cope with the interpretation, and wanted something specific to cover their arxe.

 

It's still relatively broad, but states what criteria you might use to determine whether or not one aircraft is similar in type to another for the purposes of how it handles and is controlled.

 

We don't need to be checked out in very specific (FAA def) type or model, that's just silly.

 

Using the new definition, if you ask yourself:

 

1. Is it similar config?

 

2. Will the wing fly similarly?

 

3. Are the controls similar?

 

4. Does it handle similarly?

 

5. Vne/Va/Vs similar ?

 

In the end, if you're not happy that it's similar enough or you're just not comfortable, get checked out.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

We don't need to be checked out in very specific (FAA def) type or model, that's just silly.

I wasn't suggesting that, in fact I believe it should be left to the pilot/aircraft operator to determine whether any training is required.

Just don't use the term "type" to describe aircraft of similar design and handling characteristics, particularly when the term has already been defined and accepted to mean as per the FAA definition.

 

 

[M61A1]

I'm still waiting for that to happen, (The last bit) Nev

You know why nothing gets written in plain English any more?

Because we have so many idiots that will claim they weren't specifically told that something was a bad idea ( and lawyers and magistrates that will give them money for being stupid), now they try to word everything so that it covers the most remote possibility of stupidity.

 

An example, to quote Jim Jeffries.....the whole bible could be summed up as "try not to be a c**t", but that would be too simple, no definitions etc, and so, we have a document full of "thou shalt not".

 

I wasn't suggesting that, in fact I believe it should be left to the pilot/aircraft operator to determine whether any training is required.Just don't use the term "type" to describe aircraft of similar design and handling characteristics, particularly when the term has already been defined and accepted to mean as per the FAA definition.

I certainly agree about pilots making the decision.

I think the reason that they have a list of acronyms and definitions at the front is for that very reason though. It is unfortunate, that depending on which department you are dealing with, even seemingly simple definitions differ.

 

 

[aro]

if you ask yourself:1. Is it similar config?

2. Will the wing fly similarly?

 

3. Are the controls similar?

 

4. Does it handle similarly?

 

5. Vne/Va/Vs similar ?

 

In the end, if you're not happy that it's similar enough or you're just not comfortable, get checked out.

It is quite possible to ask yourself those questions without specific rules.

 

Now, it's more like:

 

1. Is it similar config? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

2. Will the wing fly similarly? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

3. Are the controls similar? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

4. Does it handle similarly? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

5. Vne/Va/Vs similar ? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

Not so easy to answer.

 

Is there a link to the RAAP - I'm interested to read it but I can't seem to find it online.

 

 

[M61A1]

It is quite possible to ask yourself those questions without specific rules.Now, it's more like:

 

1. Is it similar config? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

2. Will the wing fly similarly? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

3. Are the controls similar? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

4. Does it handle similarly? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

5. Vne/Va/Vs similar ? ... in the opinion of RAA

 

Not so easy to answer.

 

Is there a link to the RAAP - I'm interested to read it but I can't seem to find it online.

I agree completely, an intelligent person would consider these things with being told to, but it appears that the previous definition was not adequate for some people. Judging from some of the posts on this forum at other times, there is a problem with understanding English and basic physics or both.

I don't consider myself a particularly educated or clever person, but I think I can look at an aircraft type and see how it might try to hurt me.

 

RAAPs can be found in the member section under PILOT heading- then Manuals and Resources.

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/5-om-71-august-2016-single-pages.pdf

 

 

[aro]

I don't have access to the member section* - I didn't realize they were secret members-only business.

 

* I am an ex member, I learnt to fly with the AUF, but I let my membership lapse after frustration with the RAA bureaucracy. Apart form your medical, once you have your PPL CASA are actually much simpler to deal with than RAA.

 

 

[terryc]

When I built my Savannah I had it looked over several times by L2 guys and of course a L4 with the final inspection. It was no drama

It wasn't a drama then but now you have to pay for it and when everybody realizes that they will have legal liabilities once they sign on the dotted line the cost will be in the thousands then we'll see if it's no drama

 

 

[ave8rr]

It would be worth looking at the requirements for Amateur Built Experimental in GA and removing anything not also required for GA. AB-E has been carefully designed so that ALL airworthiness issues lead back to the builder and no-one else (OK, and maybe the kit manufacturer, it's hard to get them off the hook.) Even the final inspection is about paperwork, no-one apart from the builder is putting their name to anything certifying airworthiness or build standards.

This is correct.....