A time now sadly gone,

[turboplanner]

Young ones being encouraged....NONE.The rigmarole which one has to go through is unbelievable. All in the name of this so called "safety", "safety","safety".There is nowhere that this simple formula is displayed.. good culture + procedure + process=safety.

 

In this situation good culture is the correct construction that is not being satisfied till all is correct.(construction)

 

KP

If the processes did not produce safe aircraft, then that era is over. You can’t operate a tractor without a ROPS, you can’t hand build a car without progressive crumple rate, you can’t sell food without being qualified. However it seems to me that the home-builts are not a significant percentage of injuries and fatalities, and if that is the case what inappropriate procedures has the sport been stuck with. “Safety, safety, safety” tells us nothing.

[M61A1]

You seem to have mistaken "can't" for "not allowed"....the two are very different.

 

It has been clearly established by people far more qualified than myself that the more regulated something is, the less it will grow.

 

We live in one of the most regulated countries in the world, why is anyone surprised that most industry is dying off? The only industry growing are the ones killing industry. ie: safety , quality and training. What will they do when they've killed it all off?

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Several years ago I went to the Watts Bridge flyin. A great event with anybody and everybody able to roam around the aircraft parking area - there was great interest in all types of aircraft by all age groups. The next year I went to the Watts Bridge Airshow. Patrons were not allowed beyond the barricaded area and were generally treated like cattle. Lots turned up but any potential to recruit was minimised because, as any car dealer will tell you, the first challenge is to get the customer to sit in the car. Excited potential new recruits could only get seriously sunburned whilst being "lectured" about how to learn to fly - sell the sizzle first and fill in the gaps later.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Several years ago I went to the Watts Bridge flyin. A great event with anybody and everybody able to roam around the aircraft parking area - there was great interest in all types of aircraft by all age groups. The next year I went to the Watts Bridge Airshow. Patrons were not allowed beyond the barricaded area and were generally treated like cattle. Lots turned up but any potential to recruit was minimised because, as any car dealer will tell you, the first challenge is to get the customer to sit in the car. Excited potential new recruits could only get seriously sunburned whilst being "lectured" about how to learn to fly - sell the sizzle first and fill in the gaps later.

There's a big difference between an airshow and a fly in, in terms of insurance and safety obligations, because aircraft are performing above a crowd and there is a history of crowd injuries and fatalities. Aircraft starting up and taxying on their way to or from performances have to be separated from the crowd. There's nothing to stop anyone running an airshow, but you wouldn't do that if your aim was to bring in new members by getting them up close and into aircraft.

With a fly in, you only have to separate the people from the aircraft if someone is arriving or leaving, and that can be made very easy by some forward planning.

 

At Ballarat years ago there was an aerobatics competition with international competitors and aircraft. The aircraft had to taxy through the spectator line to and from their performances, and this was achieved very simply by marshals holding orange plastic barrier meterial. It was great getting withing a couple of metres of these specialised aircraft.

 

However, that's not the issue in this thread, which is about building aircraft.

 

On the RC model scene, the same issues applied, which dropped membership off; Much the same tolerances applied as a full size aircraft, and rigging errors or control jams could quickly see your expensive pride and joy smash into pieces. It was solved in that sport by the supply of plug and play kits, which could be completed in a reasonable time, and the jigging produced good base quality control.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Put a process in place where people will be responsible for their own actions, problem solved.

 

The crux of the matter people will not put up their hand and take the blame by them selves they will want to wriggle out of it and blame someone else.

 

As kids when we fell out of a tree, we planned not to that again do it some other way BUT now they blame whoever planted that tree.

 

KP

 

 

[fly_tornado]

"Duty of care" is the one of the cornerstones of our legal system.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Put a process in place where people will be responsible for their own actions, problem solved.KP

That's the way it used to be in the 1920s, and the problem was not solved. People sold shoddy machinery including aircraft and took people for rides on a "caveat emptor" basis.Now there are guidelines.

 

However, falling out of trees doesn't have much to do with building your own aircraft; there are a few issues with being qualified to use some tools, but mostly it's a matter of checking the build to ensure that you comply with the build instructions. I don't think the checking regime and test flying has altered much in the last 20 years.

 

One issue has been that people are taking on GA type aircraft as projects, and that probably should be left to SAAA members.

 

 

[Yenn]

What is the difference between SAAA members and those of us who have built aircraft. As I see it we build ultralights and if we want to build an experimental, we join SAAA and can build exactly the same aeroplane.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What is the difference between SAAA members and those of us who have built aircraft. As I see it we build ultralights and if we want to build an experimental, we join SAAA and can build exactly the same aeroplane.

There are more design components, more systems, and more complexities in a GA size aircraft than, say, a Thruster, and the expectations and flight applications are wider and more complex. Does RAA have the same builder support level as SAAA?

[Keith Page]

"Duty of care" is the one of the cornerstones of our legal system.

"Duty of care" That is OK however how do you get around the situation after some of these people have been told many times and still they can not comprehend.We run out of breath repeating the dialogue, what next.

 

KP.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You sound like a bloke who has been talking to one too many insurance salesman

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Duty of care" That is OK however how do you get around the situation after some of these people have been told many times and still they can not comprehend.We run out of breath repeating the dialogue, what next.KP.

I presume you are talking about ELAAA; a sanction regime; warning, 1 month, 3, 6, 12, 24, life. Natural justice regime such as Appeals Tribunal. All volunteers. I worked with it for 12 years, and we modified behaviour, got rid of the dangerous ones.

[Jim McDowall]

There are more design components, more systems, and more complexities in a GA size aircraft than, say, a Thruster, and the expectations and flight applications are wider and more complex

Turbs, you do write some rubbish at times. Aircraft can be as complex or as simple as you desire - it all depends on what you are prepared (unprepared?) to take on. Besides AUW, where it fits in the regulatory scheme of things is largely up to decisions the builder. You could put a Weedhopper on the GA register as an experimental category aircraft if you wanted and aren't some Jabiru types interchangeable VH to RAA?

 

Does RAA have the same builder support level as SAAA?

Builder support is more dependent on the associations people form with other like minded individuals rather than associations they join. And then the numerous builder forums, online resources like the EAA and interested professionals who can assist. RAA is really only a quasi regulator and SAAA seems to be looking for meaning in a post 101.28 age.

[turboplanner]

Turbs, you do write some rubbish at times. Aircraft can be as complex or as simple as you desire - it all depends on what you are prepared (unprepared?) to take on. Besides AUW, where it fits in the regulatory scheme of things is largely up to decisions the builder. You could put a Weedhopper on the GA register as an experimental category aircraft if you wanted and aren't some Jabiru types interchangeable VH to RAA?Builder support is more dependent on the associations people form with other like minded individuals rather than associations they join. And then the numerous builder forums, online resources like the EAA and interested professionals who can assist. RAA is really only a quasi regulator and SAAA seems to be looking for meaning in a post 101.28 age.

I guess you could make a Thruster more complicated than a Jab if you tried, but that wasn't what I was getting at Scratch the idea, everyone builds everything if that's what you want; only problem is the point of this thread; doing it as it has been done is leading to extinction.

[bull]

That's the way it used to be in the 1920s, and the problem was not solved. People sold shoddy machinery including aircraft and took people for rides on a "caveat emptor" basis.Now there are guidelines.However, falling out of trees doesn't have much to do with building your own aircraft; there are a few issues with being qualified to use some tools, but mostly it's a matter of checking the build to ensure that you comply with the build instructions. I don't think the checking regime and test flying has altered much in the last 20 years.

 

One issue has been that people are taking on GA type aircraft as projects, and that probably should be left to SAAA members.

Have you read the new tech manual on 95.10 contruction processes and required material now,,,you used to be able to design build and fly your own creation "at your own risk , it,s your <mod censored> in that plane so you make sure you do it right' ,,now they are standing over your shoulder telling you how to do things they themselves have never done nor are qualified too dictate. So you are a little behind the times turbo when it comes to red tape and requirements for building a 95.10 aircraft.........

[turboplanner]

Have you read the new tech manual on 95.10 contruction processes and required material now,,,you used to be able to design build and fly your own creation "at your own risk , it,s your **** in that plane so you make sure you do it right' ,,now they are standing over your shoulder telling you how to do things they themselves have never done nor are qualified too dictate. So you are a little behind the times turbo when it comes to red tape and requirements for building a 95.10 aircraft.........

You haven’t been able to do things at your own risk for several decades now; probably never caught up with that. I haven’t looked at 95.10, but anyone was free to make submissions prior to the close off time, and that includes RAA. New legislation frequently has mistakes, and if you say nothing it just becomes concrete. I can remember plenty of criticism on this forum, but were those criticisms ever turned into submissions?

[bull]

You haven’t been able to do things at your own risk for several decades now; probably never caught up with that. I haven’t looked at 95.10, but anyone was free to make submissions prior to the close off time, and that includes RAA. New legislation frequently has mistakes, and if you say nothing it just becomes concrete. I can remember plenty of criticism on this forum, but were those criticisms ever turned into submissions?

Yes submissions where submitted, but ignored by the desk bound power hungry ''safety advisors'' and the new ''do as I say leaders in raa............

[bull]

You sound like a bloke who has been talking to one too many insurance salesman

I can sell you a really nice island ,if you want one ,,just outside of Cannonvale in the Whitsundays mate , she,s a beauty close to Airlie beach and great views, only 200000 bloody cheap ......................

[Keith Page]

There are more design components, more systems, and more complexities in a GA size aircraft than, say, a Thruster, and the expectations and flight applications are wider and more complex. Does RAA have the same builder support level as SAAA?

I do not know that you know.. Some of these home built aircraft are complex. I know of one (19reg) its electronics was way up in the complexity stakes.A great deal of the electronics which is in GA started life in the home builds. After the testing it went on to the GA life with paper work, certificates and the magic TSO, still the same animal.... BUT... 10 x the original cost.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

I do not know that you know.. Some of these home built aircraft are complex. I know of one (19reg) its electronics was way up in the complexity stakes.A great deal of the electronics which is in GA started life in the home builds. After the testing it went on to the GA life with paper work, certificates and the magic TSO, still the same animal.... BUT... 10 x the original cost.KP

Well you’ve put your finger on one cause which puts some builds outside the reach of the amateur builder. If the intent is to save this sector from permanent loss, you need to refocus on very simple aircraft, and, as I previously mentioned, plug and play for any complex sub assemblies.

[Flying Binghi]

I do not know that you know.. Some of these home built aircraft are complex. I know of one (19reg) its electronics was way up in the complexity stakes.A great deal of the electronics which is in GA started life in the home builds...

Yep, years ago I put a ProNav 100 GPS (Garmin 100) in me ultralight and had the VH drivers looking in wonder at the thing. For a short time I were the only light aircraft about with one of them newfangled GPS thingys. Easy to do when your not worried about certification or radio tech costs.

.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Well you’ve put your finger on one cause which puts some builds outside the reach of the amateur builder. If the intent is to save this sector from permanent loss, you need to refocus on very simple aircraft, and, as I previously mentioned, plug and play for any complex sub assemblies.

Amateur/home/scratch build is the owners design, if those people have the smarts to meddle in that pond so why aren't they allowed?A great deal of the innovations in the world came from those people.

 

KP

 

 

[Keith Page]

Yep, years ago I put a ProNav 100 GPS (Garmin 100) in me ultralight and had the VH drivers looking in wonder at the thing. For a short time I were the only light aircraft about with one of them newfangled GPS thingys. Easy to do when your not worried about certification or radio tech costs.

 

.

Go and have a look at Levil Aviation . I think it is wonderful what they are doing.Just wonderful equipment for the amateur builders and affordable.

 

KP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Amateur/home/scratch build is the owners design, if those people have the smarts to meddle in that pond so why aren't they allowed?A great deal of the innovations in the world came from those people.KP

I haven't seen anything from ELAAA supporting this grass roots sector. What policies do you have in place for them?

[turboplanner]

Yes submissions where submitted, but ignored by the desk bound power hungry ''safety advisors'' and the new ''do as I say leaders in raa............

If anyone had problems with CAO95.10, it's a CASA regulation so your objections and submissions should have gone to CASA.RAA Ltd may have made comments or submissions, but I didn't see any.