Aerolite 103?

[jackc]

As posted by Garfly.....
This Aircraft comes under the 10 rego scheme and can be kit built or assembled fly away, no more to pay. 
What are the limitations surrounding the building/operation of such an aircraft?

They have just built an electric model I am keen on......there is an Oz agent.

http://aeroliteaircraft.com.au/aerolite---prices-.html

 

 

[kasper]

Sorry to be a spoil sport but there are NO approved kits under 95.10.  You really cannot register a kit under 95.10. 
 

you MUST go through 95.55 and end up with 19- reg not 10- reg. 
 

AUF and RASus have improperly registered kit builds under 95.10 and you really do not ever want to be at risk of CASA on audit or even worse on a flight line inspection getting wind of improper registration 

[spacesailor]

AS 95-10 Hummel Birds found out through no fault of their own !.

spacesailor

[jackc]

3 hours ago, kasper said:

Sorry to be a spoil sport but there are NO approved kits under 95.10.  You really cannot register a kit under 95.10. 
 

you MUST go through 95.55 and end up with 19- reg not 10- reg. 
 

AUF and RASus have improperly registered kit builds under 95.10 and you really do not ever want to be at risk of CASA on audit or even worse on a flight line inspection getting wind of improper registration 

Interesting, I spoke with Darren Barnfield of RAAus today and I was  under the impression 10-rego was OK?  He also said it could be 19-rego too.   The build process followed is 19-rego, just send RAAus photos and descriptions at various stages of build with final inspection by an L4 and then the required test flight hours to achieve final sign off.

i maybe need to research further?

[Methusala]

3 hours ago, kasper said:

 You really cannot register a kit under 95.10. 

ANO 95.10 states the following:-

 

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

(c)   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 has issued a certificate stating that the kit meets the standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual.

[spacesailor]

(  d )

THAT didn,t work for those 16  Hummel builder,s

Who had seen REGISTERED 95-10 Hummels flying. With their cirtificated registration.

Even l have that cirtificate.

spacesailor

[Methusala]

Spacesailor, You have been dudded by the old "grandfather clause" switcheroo. I know that at least 1 Baby Great Lakes acrobatic biplane was registered as 95.10 by manipulation of this "get home free" card.

[Cooko]

Wasn't there more than a few 10 reg sapphires?

[kasper]

25 minutes ago, Cooko said:

Wasn't there more than a few 10 reg sapphires?

Yes. But they were all built and registered before 95.10 was closed to commercial manufacturers...and they are grandfathered into 95.10 but can’t be added to by more.  

 

and quoting the approved kit part of 95.10 is pointless. NO kit has ever been approved nor any plans approved under 95.10 because you can do it all under 95.55 without having to get approved status.  
 

factually it’s near impossible to get approval and then if they did you lose all the rights to fiddle because you have to build it EXACTLY to the kit or plans - no change of engine. No alternate prop. No changing the throttle handle to suit you. Nothing can be changed.  
 

95.10 is really only useful to backyard tinkerers who want to build a one off.  

[Methusala]

I suspect that more than a few people were pleased enough to build a Quicksilver as supplied. Surely another, well researched kit would receive similar reaction. I'm not familiar with this Aerolite thing.

[jackc]

Found this Document: CAO 95.10

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01242

 

Found this interesting but refers to other documents.

 

    6.4     A microlight aeroplane may be flown inside Class A, B, C or D airspace (the controlled airspace) only if the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)   an approval under subregulation 262AP (5) of CAR is in force in relation to the aeroplane;

(b)   the aeroplane is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

(c)   the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

(d)   the pilot in command:

             (i)  holds a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating, the valid privileges of which include operating in controlled airspace; and

            (ii)  has a valid flight review for the aeroplane’s class rating, under Part 61 of CASR;

(e)   if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

Note   Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with an approval issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR.

 

 

[kasper]

24 minutes ago, jackc said:

Found this Document: CAO 95.10

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01242

 

Found this interesting but refers to other documents.

 

    6.4     A microlight aeroplane may be flown inside Class A, B, C or D airspace (the controlled airspace) only if the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)   an approval under subregulation 262AP (5) of CAR is in force in relation to the aeroplane;

(b)   the aeroplane is not subject to any conditions that would prevent the flight;

(c)   the aeroplane is fitted with a radio capable of two-way communication with air traffic control;

(d)   the pilot in command:

             (i)  holds a pilot licence with an aeroplane category rating, the valid privileges of which include operating in controlled airspace; and

            (ii)  has a valid flight review for the aeroplane’s class rating, under Part 61 of CASR;

(e)   if the controlled airspace in which the aeroplane is operating requires a transponder to be fitted — the aeroplane is fitted with a transponder suitable for use in the airspace.

Note   Operations in Class A airspace in V.F.R. are only possible in accordance with an approval issued by CASA under regulation 99AA of CAR.

 

 

Not sure what that’s got to do with an aero lite kit coming into oz on RAAus 95.10. 
 

that part of 95.10 is the add on ... you still have to meet the definition of an airframe within scoop of 95.10 and you have to be a member of RAAus and hold a certificate from them.  
 

this extension is the double requirement to allow flight in some airspace that basic RAAus pilot and aircraft can fly in.  If you hold ga licence in addition tot the RAAus certificate AND the airframe-engine meets additional requirements for certification then you can fly in those bits of airspace ... but keep reading 95.10 because there are further limits on flight even within those airspace bits ... not over built up areas without glide clear etc. 

 

it is in there but it’s not practicable to use it to do much with it.  

[jackc]

I just searched around with my infinite lack of wisdom 🙂.  Being short on knowledge does not help and the RAAus site is not real helpful either.   
 

[kasper]

I think it’s fair to say that RAAus and tech are really focused on 95.55 airframes and ops of them.  95.10 is pretty inactive because nearly everything you can do in 10- can be done in 55 and get 19- reg.  With easier requirements and access to greater mtow 
 

but if you want to build something single seat and odd you have 10-   Eg twin engine - can only be 10-   Want to have a jet then you have to be 10- not 19.  Want to build a replica scale Wright flyer the. It’s for to be 10 as you can’t have 2 props in 19-
 

baaically if you are looking at a kit or plans you should be looking at  cao 95.55 and not 95.10.  

[Jim McDowall]

All this confusion of aircraft classes adds weight to my argument that all RAAus aircraft in private operations should be "experimental" category. This would absolve CASA of any liability(and pobably RAAus) under CASR 203.??? as all VH "experimental" aircraft are already. No need for any BS compliance with arbitary standards that create un-necessary silos and increased administrative load. 

[jackc]

Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with the US Part 103 setup.  You make it, you fly it, no licence etc.  You crash it? Your problem.

We have these bodies. CASA, RAAus, ASA etc who want to run it all, fine people for breaches of regulations but NO liability on their part IF they screw up?  RAAus is the body for Recreational Aviation regulation, but is a limited liability company?  Still have not figured out how that works in enforcing regulations, but what would I know?

All I see is a convoluted mess in administration of Aviation in Australia,  a system of rules piled on top of rules and wanting to change those rules every 5 minutes.   Benefits? More confusion........

[kasper]

46 minutes ago, jackc said:

Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with the US Part 103 setup.  You make it, you fly it, no licence etc.  You crash it? Your problem.

We have these bodies. CASA, RAAus, ASA etc who want to run it all, fine people for breaches of regulations but NO liability on their part IF they screw up?  RAAus is the body for Recreational Aviation regulation, but is a limited liability company?  Still have not figured out how that works in enforcing regulations, but what would I know?

All I see is a convoluted mess in administration of Aviation in Australia,  a system of rules piled on top of rules and wanting to change those rules every 5 minutes.   Benefits? More confusion........

Nope.  Nope.  Nope. 
 

been there.  Done that.  Got a parliamentary report setting out clearly why it’s not good

 

1.  Airframe empty weight limits as per 103 without mtow limits led to unsafe airframes.  We moved from the USA limit to 300kg mtow to assess that.

 

2. no training was the single most prevalent risk to any pilot bar none.  You need to be trained.  You need a two seater to train.  We got a two seater regime when the empty weight focus was removed from the single seaters.  
 

the reasons for training continue to exist.  The reasons to focus on mtow and minimum speed as the defining characteristics of ultralights continue to exist.

 

the real stress point as I see it - and have seen it over the past 30 years - ha been the initial jealousy of recreational GA of the freedoms the AUF that became worse after 1998 when AUF expanded into homebuilt 2 seaters with more capability

 

my observation is that RAAus and CASA since 1998 have been progressively and incrementally removing the freedoms/differences of the CAO airframes and moving them up to align with GA rather than relaxing the restrictions on GA.

 

and there is no safety case put forward with evidence just acceptance of it all.  

[jackc]

So, we have jealousy and politics getting in the way?  Typical of most things in Australia 😞. Safety of airframes?  Yes, 30-40 years ago.......not now as far as the US is concerned.

 There are around 10 aircraft brands of the part 103 regime That are compliant.

I would like to know crash data for the part 103 sector in the US.  Training?  Not so hard........theory being a basic BAK.

Practical?   Just like in the beginning, lots of ground runs slowly progressing to increasing heights above airstrip?

We could implement certain restraints on operation with aircraft requiring mandatory avionics.

Aviation would benefit in the long run as a foundation stepping stone to bigger and greater things.

Maybe we need to address the first paragraph?

 

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aviation-interests/ultralights/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights

 

 

 

[Thruster88]

All the 103 rules spelled out in simple English on one page, I like it.

[jackc]

CASA and /or  RAAus could create a 100 page manual from that one page 🙂

[Jim McDowall]

On 18/04/2021 at 9:54 AM, jackc said:

CASA and /or  RAAus could create a 100 page manual from that one page

The problem is bureacrats write the regulations requiring manuals to be approved by CASA with little instruction as to what has to be in the manuals. The likes of RAAus, GFA etc set out to impress CASA with how diligent they are and write extensive manuals which sometimes are in conflict with the law or often internally conflicted. They submit them to CASA who after numerous internal conferences and communications with the proponents eventually get an approval of a document that contain errors in law or otherwise.

This approach generates a lot of internal activity for CASA employees that justifies their existence.

Those of you with nothing better to do should read Sue Woods (of Jabiru fame) evidence to a senate committee earlier this year which illustrates the outside view of CASA's approach to the outside world at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/commsen/9146706b-6e31-4a9f-9fad-1b3fca2f099c/&sid=0006 

[jackc]

14 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

The problem is bureacrats write the regulations requiring manuals to be approved by CASA with little instruction as to what has to be in the manuals. The likes of RAAus, GFA etc set out to impress CASA with how diligent they are and write extensive manuals which sometimes are in conflict with the law or often internally conflicted. They submit them to CASA who after numerous internal conferences and communications with the proponents eventually get an approval of a document that contain errors in law or otherwise.

This approach generates a lot of internal activity for CASA employees that justifies their existence.

Those of you with nothing better to do should read Sue Woods (of Jabiru fame) evidence to a senate committee earlier this year which illustrates the outside view of CASA's approach to the outside world at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/commsen/9146706b-6e31-4a9f-9fad-1b3fca2f099c/&sid=0006 

Well, I took the time to read it and at the end, there was no discussion about a plan to move forward, or even anywhere:-(

Sad for Jabiru,  based on Sue Woods comment you would have to write off any chance of anyone wanting to run the CASA gauntlet to try and produce anything here.   Go electric?  Forget CASA, they are busy playing Drones and along with ASA restricting airspace.

Interestingly, I had a conversation  yesterday with an aviation business principle over this.   I mentioned the passing of the good old days of the AUF and the fact that I ‘missed’ out!  All he could do was sh1t can it......description of dead self taught pilots etc etc.

He shot me out of the sky,  I told him since 40 years ago, training methods and airframes of US Part 103 have come a long way. I mentioned electric Part 103 US possibilities here.   He jumped on me and said would I be happy flying at 500 feet everywhere, and I said YES :-). It’s better than nothing, like driving a car.

He handed me the CASA standard stonewall attitude, sadly he is right.

So, does everyone simply want keep having CASA and/or other organisations violating our collective rear most facing orifices?

We have emerging technologies in aviation thatt those organisations can’t ignore......unless we let them.

Well, I never got anywhere in this World by sitting on my hands and doing NOTHING.......
I only wish I had more aviation knowledge to try and do something about it.......

 

[spacesailor]

Aviation knowledge isn,t the problem !.

Blooody Bureaucrats will find ways to stop All fun pastimes, it,s their job to Look busy, at our expence.

spacesailor

[jackc]

11 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Aviation knowledge isn,t the problem !.

Blooody Bureaucrats will find ways to stop All fun pastimes, it,s their job to Look busy, at our expence.

spacesailor

I thought some of my comments might stir some feisty comment,  seems not so I can only assume everyone is happy with their lot in Aviation.

 

[Methusala]

28 minutes ago, jackc said:

I thought some of my comments might stir some feisty comment,  seems not so I can only assume everyone is happy with their lot in Aviation.

SorryJacko, many of us are to old and tired to put up much fight any more. Understand that we have been trying to carry the torch since the 60's when we marched through the streets of Sydney in the Moratorium against the Vietnam war. Carrying the torch for the plundered native forests through the 80's and 90's then trying to change minds on the mad plans to flame the Middle East in the "War against Terror" (haw, haw!). Watching, shocked as a functioning govt is replaced by a grotesque effigy shouting "Axe the Tax"  and (disgracefully) "Ditch the Witch. Now we are being led to a "Gas led " solution to the existential, urgent collapse of the living planet.

So...No , we don't easily become active in the face of such stupid resilience on the part of ill-in formed voters and a system which takes no mind of the valid opinions of voters.