More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[jackc]

Yes its me again, the Part 103 serial pest 🙂  Sorry for polluting the recent RAA thread with my diatribe!

But it comes from being passionate on the Part 103 saga. 
I am aware many Aviators maybe against this segment of aviation, but there are many people thinking the opposite, if somewhat clandestine 🙂. 
I don't see a problem with it, except that its deemed illegal by our CASA  and some other Aviation Organisations.

The FAA Part 103 regime  is embraced in a big way in the U.SA. So where is the problem for Australia,  well I know the problem here is too many fuddy duddy snowflakes who want to deny others, to pursue a more adventurous form of Aviation.

AirVenture 2023 Oshkosh has even welcomed Part 103 aviators by providing an airstrip and ground/display area for them in support.

Just imagine them rolling up to Avalon?  They would get shot down 😞 

I guess I could get very much more public about Part 103 and see what happens……I know CASA would hate that and my face is probably already a dart board in the RAAus lunch room but……..maybe its time to call it out……

 

[jackc]

Oshkosh details:

 

https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-fly-in-flying-to-oshkosh/ultralight-arrivals

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

Sorry for polluting the recent RAA thread with my diatribe!

That's OK. At least you have started a unique thread to allow the discussion to proceed. There's no need now to be a member of the Dia tribe. Simply present the arguments in favour of the introduction of Part 103-like conditions, and calmly respond to others' arguments. 

 

Remember to "play the ball, not the man" in order to keep the discussion to the expected high standard of this website. As for attitudes towards CASA and RAA, it would be best if they were not mentioned. Keep the discussion to "Part 103 - Yes or No?"

 

The first thing I would ask of you in relation to the debate is to present an outline of Part 103 and where Australian Regulations do not meet it.

[old man emu]

Jack,

Would you open this group up to all comers, please? OME

[jackc]

17 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Jack,

Would you open this group up to all comers, please? OME

Figured out how to do it……DONE Sorry about my FUBAR 🙂 

[jackc]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Snip…..

 

The first thing I would ask of you in relation to the debate is to present an outline of Part 103 and where Australian Regulations do not meet it.

Problem I have is……precious little knowledge of Aviation or its history.  Aviation Regulations are a minefield to study, in fact I have never seen such an abortion of legislation/regulation in my life.  Hence I have a large handicap in being able to present a case. All I know is the U.S. has a KISS principle in setting up and administering its FAA FAR Part 103 regime, its covered in a few pages of requirements to comply. 
 

About FAA Part 103 for Ultralights | EAA

WWW.EAA.ORG

---

Adopted and effective in 1982, Part 103 formally established what truly is recreational flight.

 

Its easy for our regulators to copy this and I accept there must me some kind of framework around this for admin of training and safety, but retain the U.S. FAA requirements/specification as defined by them.  Would not be hard to alter the regime a little for our use here, but the plan must be closely aligned with FAA. NO actual licence, NO rego……. We are talking low budget Aviation here, a starting point.   It may sow the seeds for RAA and GA Aviation, too.

RAAus is a company, they wont make money, so they will never support it. So we start a ‘new  AUF’ as another entity?

Its a lower rung on the ladder below RAAus, all ladders have steps 🙂 

[kasper]

Well US FAR Part 103 vs Aust CAO95.10

 

what we have they do not

Speed - we have no speed limits

weight limit - theirs is empty ours is MTOW - ours moved from empty to MTOW to provide safety

Operating envelope - much wider

Pilot requirements - we have training and ongoing they have none

 

what they have we do not - manufactured airframe complete ready to fly or assemble without 51% rule

 

What I would see as a mid way

 

Remove RAAus from the scene as a requirement for single seat 95.10 ops

 

remove from 95.10 the ongoing pilot training and airframe maintenance requirements and all reference to RAAus and HGFA leaving it an airframe definition and airspace operating cao.

 

what this would look like is

1. single seat 300kg MTOW

2. can be operated from self build, kit, manufactured

3. must have been trained at a point in the past to pilot level

 

so you must get trained to fly - that was the original person problem before 95.25 and AUF training. So if you have ever held a GA licence or RAAau or HGFA trike you have been taught to a level and you are on your own after that 

 

ongoing single seat ops should be allowed at your own risk so ongoing oversight and training is not critical - allows you to self select your risk 

 

any breach of air laws sits with CASA. You break the airspace requirements and you answer to the govt authority through the courts

 

any manufacturer of airframes has their own liability for product to meet.  Let them deal with their liability issues. 

 

reault would be you could start within RAAus or GA and semi retire to single seat and withdraw from them or stay if you want to have passenger carry privileges.

 

under this structure you are putting your life primarily at risk at your own risk.  Airframes can come from anywhere you like and can operate within the operational limits of current 95.10 with the 

[turboplanner]

8 minutes ago, kasper said:

Well US FAR Part 103 vs Aust CAO95.10

 

what we have they do not

Speed - we have no speed limits

weight limit - theirs is empty ours is MTOW - ours moved from empty to MTOW to provide safety

Operating envelope - much wider

Pilot requirements - we have training and ongoing they have none

 

what they have we do not - manufactured airframe complete ready to fly or assemble without 51% rule

 

What I would see as a mid way

 

Remove RAAus from the scene as a requirement for single seat 95.10 ops

 

remove from 95.10 the ongoing pilot training and airframe maintenance requirements and all reference to RAAus and HGFA leaving it an airframe definition and airspace operating cao.

 

what this would look like is

1. single seat 300kg MTOW

2. can be operated from self build, kit, manufactured

3. must have been trained at a point in the past to pilot level

 

so you must get trained to fly - that was the original person problem before 95.25 and AUF training. So if you have ever held a GA licence or RAAau or HGFA trike you have been taught to a level and you are on your own after that 

 

ongoing single seat ops should be allowed at your own risk so ongoing oversight and training is not critical - allows you to self select your risk 

 

any breach of air laws sits with CASA. You break the airspace requirements and you answer to the govt authority through the courts

 

any manufacturer of airframes has their own liability for product to meet.  Let them deal with their liability issues. 

 

reault would be you could start within RAAus or GA and semi retire to single seat and withdraw from them or stay if you want to have passenger carry privileges.

 

under this structure you are putting your life primarily at risk at your own risk.  Airframes can come from anywhere you like and can operate within the operational limits of current 95.10 with the 

The Achilles Heel in this is liability - you can't choose to partially accept public liability because it is based on Tort law, the injured party sues you if you had a duty of care and breached it, so the financial risk is the same as it is for RA and GA for the same accident. The argument that this class poses less risk because it would be smaller and more scattered doesn't stand up because PL doesn't kick in unless there has been an accident. Manufacturers and agents could also be sued by the injured party, but as we've seen those cases can also be lost by the injured party. In PL cases the injured party normally sues all those his lawyers claim to have had a duty of care and breached it; the owner of the land the aircraft was operating from, the manager of the site the aircraft operated from, the person who built the aircraft, the person who serviced the aircraft etc.

And how would you like to be the CASA witness:

Plaintiff's lawyer (PL): Mr CASA (C); "you exempted this class of aircraft from complying with certain of your rules?"

Mr C; "Yes we did."

PL; "How does this group compare with the exemptions of the Self Administering Organisions?"

Mr C; "This group doesn't hqave to comply with any rules under those formal exemptions, they just get cheap flying."

PL; "So they are much safer than aircraft flown under the Self Administering Organisations?"

Mr "C; On the contrary, history shows they are likely to have more accidents."

PL: "Who is responsible for Aviation Safety in Australia?"

Mr C; "Er...............................

So you would have to get past this issue of CASA having to decide what th do with the SAOs which have worked so well to protect the taxpayer, and you would have to set a taxpayer budget for people who flew in places all over the country with no rules.

 

[aro]

44 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So you would have to get past this issue of CASA having to decide what th do with the SAOs which have worked so well to protect the taxpayer, and you would have to set a taxpayer budget for people who flew in places all over the country with no rules.

VH Experimental seems to manage. All those RVs etc. getting around with EXPERIMENTAL on the side are not flying under a SAO. CASA does not set airworthiness standards for experimental aircraft. SAAA don't sent airworthiness standards either. SAAA are not a SAO, and builders/owners are not required to be a member of SAAA.

 

All liability is assumed by the builder and/or owner and/or pilot.

I would expect that RAA operates in a similar way for their amateur built aircraft - it seems unwise if they assume any more liability then CASA does for VH.

 

I doubt there have been any court case where CASA have been sued for failing to set rules for Experimental - I wouldn't expect any different for e.g. 95.10.

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

The Achilles Heel in this is liability - you can't choose to partially accept public liability because it is based on Tort law, the injured party sues you if you had a duty of care and breached it, so the financial risk is the same as it is for RA and GA for the same accident. The argument that this class poses less risk because it would be smaller and more scattered doesn't stand up because PL doesn't kick in unless there has been an accident. Manufacturers and agents could also be sued by the injured party, but as we've seen those cases can also be lost by the injured party. In PL cases the injured party normally sues all those his lawyers claim to have had a duty of care and breached it; the owner of the land the aircraft was operating from, the manager of the site the aircraft operated from, the person who built the aircraft, the person who serviced the aircraft etc.

And how would you like to be the CASA witness:

Plaintiff's lawyer (PL): Mr CASA (C); "you exempted this class of aircraft from complying with certain of your rules?"

Mr C; "Yes we did."

PL; "How does this group compare with the exemptions of the Self Administering Organisions?"

Mr C; "This group doesn't hqave to comply with any rules under those formal exemptions, they just get cheap flying."

PL; "So they are much safer than aircraft flown under the Self Administering Organisations?"

Mr "C; On the contrary, history shows they are likely to have more accidents."

PL: "Who is responsible for Aviation Safety in Australia?"

Mr C; "Er...............................

So you would have to get past this issue of CASA having to decide what th do with the SAOs which have worked so well to protect the taxpayer, and you would have to set a taxpayer budget for people who flew in places all over the country with no rules.

 

Long post for someone who doesn't have an interest in ultralight aircraft.

The U S have a good part 103 which is gaining popularity yet he is saying Australia can't manage to do the same. 

 

[spacesailor]

Why such a low weight of airframs AND pilot . . 300 klgm.

RAA are forever pushing for higher weights , why not start at the maximum or Average Australian weight per age bracket .

It Is very hard to Reduce what years have piled on our waistline. 

Remember AUF  were trapped for years with a dangerous low hight restriction  ( could be 300 ft ( to low for a parachute)) .

spacesailor

 

[BrendAn]

 

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Why such a low weight of airframs AND pilot . . 300 klgm.

RAA are forever pushing for higher weights , why not start at the maximum or Average Australian weight per age bracket .

It Is very hard to Reduce what years have piled on our waistline. 

Remember AUF  were trapped for years with a dangerous low hight restriction  ( could be 300 ft ( to low for a parachute)) .

spacesailor

 

It's not for everyone spacey but it would be good for people that want it. How many unregistered planes and pilots are out there now anyway. Part 103 doesn't have a 300 ft limit

[spacesailor]

Kasper wrote " it would look like this " .300 klgm Mtow , ! .

Two of my grand daughters  , partners would be heading for 300 klgm IN THEIR CLOTHS .

They are much larger than my 100 klgm , Makes me look puny when beside them . LoL

spacesailor

[jackc]

FAA Advisory Circular 103-7

 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22640

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

Long post for someone who doesn't have an interest in ultralight aircraft.

The U S have a good part 103 which is gaining popularity yet he is saying Australia can't manage to do the same. 

 

The US people can legally drive on the RH side of the road too, but it's not legal here; nothing to do with Australia not managing to do the same. 

There's no point in trying to introduce something from another Country without doing the basic homework , so let's see some detail.

 

[old man emu]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

so let's see some detail.

Turbo,

Have a read of AC 103-7 using the link that JackC provided. I reckon you have the knowledge to understand it.

[facthunter]

How can driving on a particular side of the road have any relevance to this  subject.? WE adopt aviation wise MOST of that the USA Does without question  so why not be consistent?. THEY  support Aviation. We try to make it safe by doing less of it, unless it's AIRLINES.  Anyone whose irresponsible can get a high powered car and commit madness in it and kill others. Flying a part 103 super light plane is unlikely to be a risk to others and even the pilot whose life is the only one involved. If you build it you will be careful. You don't put that much effort into killing yourself, if that's your aim. What's really  the difference with that and launching yourself off a high hill into the breeze with a hang glider?  Nev.

Edited June 11, 2023 by facthunter

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

How can driving on a particular side of the road have any relevance to this  subject.? WE adopt aviation wise MOST of that the USA Does without question  so why not be consistent?.

It is directly relevant because I was comparing the different requirements of the legal jurisdictions (which anyone can reference if they are prepared to actually research) rather than some vague feeling that if they do it over there, we should be able to do it here without any reference to the legal requirements of our State and Territory jurisdictions. We do that work for every single motor vehicle type and model we import; some don't make it to Australia. Same applies for liability.

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Anyone whose irresponsible can get a high powered car and commit madness in itand kill ohters.

That's not legal in Australia either; in most Australian States and Territory that will see you charged with manslaughter, and I know of one conviction in NSW for murder, around the early 2000's.

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Flying a part 103 super lght plnae is unlikely to be a risk to others and even the pilot whose life is the only one involved. If you build it you will be careful. You don't put that much effort into killing yourself, if that's your aim Nev.

The difference in Australia is that after someone is injured, his lawyers have the right to compensation, in some cases for life if you breached your duty of care, and some people are still a little hazy on what duty of care is all about.

[facthunter]

I'll say one thing about you turbs, you are consistent and you don't take on board others views often. If we went your way  most things would grind to a  sudden halt.  Nev

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Turbo,

Have a read of AC 103-7 using the link that JackC provided. I reckon you have the knowledge to understand it.

I did have a read of it and it looks as if the grass might not be as green over the fence as some posts have inferred.

 

AC 03-7 is dated January 30, 1984; The Australian Ultralight Federation (AUF) started 1983, so it comes from that very early era.

Part 103 became effective Oct 4, 1982.

 

So we would need to see

(a) If it still existed

(b) If so what CURRENT requirements there are.

 

As some people have said, the Operators were required to assess all risks; the Australian jurisdiction works differently.

 

Technical Standards required a group of at least 3 persons technically qualified to determine whether a given ultralight meets the reqiremets under Part 103.   So you have to have an Organisation to avoid having different technical standards in every town and some paddocks.

So, in Australia an Incorporated Association would be required. 

 

Part 103 aircraft were required to be recognised by a national pilot representative organisation, which could be that Incorporated Association or RAA Ltd

 

Aircraft did not have to be certified aircraft, but the onus was put on the owner/builder, and because of Australian liability, standards would need to be written and audited by the organisation.

 

Part 103 was based on assumption of self assessment and personal responsibility. That's why I wrote a very brief comparison between US and Aus jurisdictions, because in Australia someone is responsible in all activityies where someone could get hurt.   If you want to address that you will have to research a much longer batch of legal material than the "long" post I was accused of.

 

There were to be interaction touchpoints with FAA.    In Australia this would require Officials, so an Organisation represented in every State and Territory, and qualified officials.

 

....and so on.

 

All of this could be set up; the question is whether enough people would be interested in becoming members, especially when we already have similar Australian RA aircraft developed from the same era and fitting into our Self Administering Organisation network.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

21 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'll say one thing about you turbs, you are consistent and you don't take on board others views often. If we went your way  most things would grind to a  sudden halt.  Nev

I'm consistent because I'm going back to the facts, and they don't change.

I know around 60% of various industries wing it because they ignore self regulation and don't think it will happen to them.

That's why I post on various cases now and then, because that's where the reality is.

I know most people will get through their life without an incident let alone being sued because of it, but when it does happen it usually cleans the family out. It wrecks their lives.

It's so much easier to just follow what today's laws require you to do. Most people who work in large companies would be doing it every working day of their lives now.

 

[BrendAn]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I'm consistent because I'm going back to the facts, and they don't change.

I know around 60% of various industries wing it because they ignore self regulation and don't think it will happen to them.

That's why I post on various cases now and then, because that's where the reality is.

I know most people will get through their life without an incident let alone being sued because of it, but when it does happen it usually cleans the family out. It wrecks their lives.

It's so much easier to just follow what today's laws require you to do. Most people who work in large companies would be doing it every working day of their lives now.

 

There are too many rules . We need a bit of freedom. Especially Victoria. It feels like a communist state compared to WA.

[jackc]

Turbs if you want to get creative, there are ways of getting around law suits costing you everything you have.

If that kind of stuff bothered me I would have departed this Earth long ago realising life was so dull and not worth living.

Why begrudge people in our case with Aviation, the chance or will to make changes that may benefit some who want to participate in Part 103 be free of too many regulated constraints, and have fun?  May as well croak in your rocking chair watching Netflix 😞.  Think of Bon Jovi’s song ‘Its My Life’.  I live by it 🙂 

[jackc]

Another John Moody YouTube video….

 

https://youtu.be/jvav17CxISY