More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, BrendAn said:

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

That just requires enough people to vote for other people to get them into Parliament to organise a majority to examine each unpopular rule, end it immediatelt, or sunset it out.

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, jackc said:

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.

I don't know the legislation and I can't be bothered researching it, but there's legislation to investigate people who try to use those ways, it's a malfeasance so there's possible prison time involved.  For anyone contemplating those ways of getting around lawsuits,  the reality is it's much cheaper to adequately cover your PL with insurance, in recreational aviation for at least a quadriplegic situation which a few years ago was around $13 million, or where any aviating will be done around the tens of millions of dollars if an RPT aircraft with passengers hits you because you were non-compliant.

 

Walking away from your obligations because you want a lifestyle is not going to bring in many customers once they find out.

 

4 hours ago, jackc said:

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? 

I don't begrudge anyone coming up with something new; that's the way we advance and I do that myself so I'm on familiar ground, but this is social media; at any time I could be talking to several sock puppets out for their regular thrills, or I could be talking to genuine people wanting to make a difference. I'm happy that in this case, I've pointed out the issues that will have to be addressed, just as people like me who work in developing new product from overseas have to do. It's usually in a cycle of about four years from the start of the development project to the point of landing the first pilot, things go wrong where you spend months finding a solution, the budget often goes out the window and has to be recovered over years of production if the product goes well.

 

I'm confident that the short bursts of information here are enough to help someone do the research required to introduce something new.

 

 

 

 

[aro]

10 hours ago, turboplanner said:

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.

You don't seem to have read the FAR 103 information.

• The FAA can inspect an ultralight to see whether it meets the standard
• It is the responsibility of the pilot or operator to provide evidence that it does

The FAA even provide you with the information to provide satisfactory evidence:

"The use of the graphs provided in Appendixes 1 and 2 will be acceptable for determination of the maximum level flight speed and power off stall speed if your ultralight has no special limitations to maximum speed or power and no special high lift devices"

 

The Technical Standards Committee is only required if you have special limitations or high lift devices e.g. automatically deployed speed brakes to meet the requirements. I guess to stop people getting too clever with workarounds.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, aro said:

You don't seem to have read the FAR 103 information.

• The FAA can inspect an ultralight to see whether it meets the standard
• It is the responsibility of the pilot or operator to provide evidence that it does

The FAA even provide you with the information to provide satisfactory evidence:

"The use of the graphs provided in Appendixes 1 and 2 will be acceptable for determination of the maximum level flight speed and power off stall speed if your ultralight has no special limitations to maximum speed or power and no special high lift devices"

 

The Technical Standards Committee is only required if you have special limitations or high lift devices e.g. automatically deployed speed brakes to meet the requirements. I guess to stop people getting too clever with workarounds.

I was addressing the first part of the applicable document. That was enough to show that Australia-wide standards would be required and that was enough to show that an organisation would be required. The organisation could take any form. It could be one person travelling all over Australia; it may even be possible to operate electronically, but that would inevitably encounter dissidents, so standards and rules would need to be voted on, so might as well go for an IA from the start.

”TSC in only required etc” That means you have to have one even if it’s only needed once a year. People have to do their homework.

[facthunter]

I'm confused about HIGH Lift devices  and your example, Aro. Speed Brakes. Also does FAR part 23 come into this argument? 

           Also unless there's a sunset clause in some regulation you'd need to be advised  of it's cessation and the thought music behind such a situation.   Again I suggest that IF it's a goer in the US why the problem here?  We accept their airworthiness standards pretty much all the time, and WHY not?  They have infinitely more skin in the game than WE do . Nev

Edited June 12, 2023 by facthunter

[aro]

19 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I was addressing the first part of the applicable document.

The first part is just definitions. You need to read further to find when a technical standards committee would be required.

 

E.g. an equivalent in Australian regulations, certain modifications to aircraft need to be certified by an engineer. That doesn't mean that Australian aircraft cannot operate if there are no engineers that can do that job - it just means you can't make the modifications. It's only a problem in the circumstances when they are actually required.

 

And you only have to form an organization if it says an organization is required. If it says 3 qualified people, you just need the 3 qualified people.

 

[aro]

25 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm confused about HIGH Lift devices  and your example, Aro. Speed Brakes. Also does FAR part 23 come into this argument?

Speed brakes was an example in the FAA AC.

FAR 103 is limited to aircraft that cannot exceed 55 knots at full power in level flight. Automatic speed brakes was given as an example of an artificial way to meet that limitation. It's not something they are recommending - they are intentionally making it more difficult  to meet the regulations artificially than simply by building a low power, high drag airframe.

 

No, part 23 does not apply. From the AC:

"The FARs regarding aircraft certification, pilot certification and aircraft registration are not applicable"

 

It's worth reading the actual regulation - it's only 2 pages.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-103

[facthunter]

You have explained it amply .Thank you. Speedbrakes are indeed complex to ensure their symmetry etc.  Nev

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, aro said:

The first part is just definitions. You need to read further to find when a technical standards committee would be required.

 

E.g. an equivalent in Australian regulations, certain modifications to aircraft need to be certified by an engineer. That doesn't mean that Australian aircraft cannot operate if there are no engineers that can do that job - it just means you can't make the modifications. It's only a problem in the circumstances when they are actually required.

I only outlined what action triggers what action; there's no point asking me to build the structure; the people involved get to choose how they do it, however in answer to your comment:

 

"when" is a positive word ("if") is not and it indicates that there will be a time when a technical standards committee will be required.

 

A technical standards committee can't just be two mates; you need multiple people with suitable qualifications.

 

And yes, you could do what you said and not allow modifications, but who makes that decision, and who is going to listen to him and how is he going to handle a tiny goup of aircraft all over Australia, and how can they appeal that decision when they inevitably want to fit things like low flotation tyres or carry more payload.

 

Thos promoting this have to address all those issues, not us.

 

You only have to read posts on this site to know that as soon as these people start requiring someone to do more work or pay more money on their aircraft, they are going to fire back; then you have a deadlock, so it follows that you need a formal structure to make it work. It might not say that in the documents you've read, but you'll soon find out why an organisation needs to be set up to handle these people.

 

2 hours ago, aro said:

 

And you only have to form an organization if it says an organization is required. If it says 3 qualified people, you just need the 3 qualified people.

 

If you're proposing to handle it you have to make that choice, at the same time ensuring safety and natural justice; goe with the job.

 

Edited June 12, 2023 by turboplanner

[aro]

I think you're missing the point of the US FAA part 103.

 

Part 103 is for ultralights that are slow enough and light enough that they don't require an organization to administer. The pilot is 100% responsible for their own safety.

 

Part 103 ultralights

• don't require airworthiness certification standards
• cannot have an airworthiness certificate
• pilots are not required to have any training
• ultralights are not required to be registered with any organization

Eligibility requirements are:

• maximum empty weight 254 pounds
• 5 gallons maximum fuel capacity
• maximum 1 seat
• maximum speed 55 knots in level flight at full power
• maximum stall speed 24 knots

The only thing to administer is eligibility, and the pilot is required to provide evidence to the FAA if required. The FAA are helpful enough to provide graphs etc. which they will accept as satisfactory evidence if the ultralight fits those parameters.

 

The AC is an Advisory Circular, it is only advisory. Basically the section you are focusing on says we know people will try to bend the rules, and if you're going to bullshit us about the magical capabilities of your ultralight that doesn't fit the parameters we provided, you need to find 3 qualified people willing to sign their names to the bullshit. The FAA obviously hope that this is not required, but is realistic enough to document it. A technical committee doesn't need to do any complex evaluation, just answer the questions "Is the maximum speed at full power less than 55 knots?" and "Is the stall speed less than 24 knots?"

 

You want to put balloon tyres on it? Put it on the scales, if it's less than 254 lb and the stall speed calculation works, go for your life. That's all there is to it.

[spacesailor]

Part 103 

Maximum speed 55 mph ! .

RAA 

Minimum speed 40 mph ! .

Blooody hard with only 15 mph flying envelope .  And will they be limited to 300 ft ! , as were the first AUF aircraft. 

A deadly hight ! , it was determined. 

Will CASA even allow a more dangerous aircraft to even fly .

RAA WANTS bigger,  heavier, and safer aircraft,  ( General  Aviation) , ' At the expense of the smaller  exAUF aircraft they inherited. 

So leave the smaller more economical aircraft to other's .

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, aro said:

I think you're missing the point of the US FAA part 103.

 

Part 103 is for ultralights that are slow enough and light enough that they don't require an organization to administer. The pilot is 100% responsible for their own safety.

 

Part 103 ultralights

• don't require airworthiness certification standards
• cannot have an airworthiness certificate
• pilots are not required to have any training
• ultralights are not required to be registered with any organization

Eligibility requirements are:

• maximum empty weight 254 pounds
• 5 gallons maximum fuel capacity
• maximum 1 seat
• maximum speed 55 knots in level flight at full power
• maximum stall speed 24 knots

The only thing to administer is eligibility, and the pilot is required to provide evidence to the FAA if required. The FAA are helpful enough to provide graphs etc. which they will accept as satisfactory evidence if the ultralight fits those parameters.

 

The AC is an Advisory Circular, it is only advisory. Basically the section you are focusing on says we know people will try to bend the rules, and if you're going to bullshit us about the magical capabilities of your ultralight that doesn't fit the parameters we provided, you need to find 3 qualified people willing to sign their names to the bullshit. The FAA obviously hope that this is not required, but is realistic enough to document it. A technical committee doesn't need to do any complex evaluation, just answer the questions "Is the maximum speed at full power less than 55 knots?" and "Is the stall speed less than 24 knots?"

 

You want to put balloon tyres on it? Put it on the scales, if it's less than 254 lb and the stall speed calculation works, go for your life. That's all there is to it.

So far we've been discussing the document presented which dates from 1982/1983 not long after AUF started. No one has come up with a set of regulations which are newer so far, so that's the first issue to be resolved.

 

You haven't addressed your obligations under Australian legal jurisdiction which includes Australian Public Liability.

 

Let's say 23 people buy kits for Queensland. NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.

That's 5 different legal jurisdictions and five people wanting to fly and all interpreting whichever version of the US Part 103 is current, and how that might be fitted into their jurisdiction. It's very clear from the old regulations where the buck stops; it stops with them; they all have a different jurisdiction and they all have to navigate from ground zero, as you would have it.

[jackc]

Take what aro has said and transfer it holus bolus to Australia,  CASA takes it on board exactly as U.S. FAA does.  Leave RAAus out of it, they started with it and have run their race with what they have done and to this day have grown the sector to become more regulated over time and closer towards GA with more expensive aircraft etc. 

We only need to answer to CASA at the same levels as U.S. Part 103 answers to FAA.

 

[aro]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So far we've been discussing the document presented which dates from 1982/1983 not long after AUF started. No one has come up with a set of regulations which are newer so far, so that's the first issue to be resolved.

 

You haven't addressed your obligations under Australian legal jurisdiction which includes Australian Public Liability.

I posted a link to the actual regulation, "up to date as of 6/08/2023" (US date). How new do you want? I suspect the AC hasn't changed since 1982 because the regulation hasn't significantly changed.

 

Whose obligations? Even in Australia it's possible to be responsible for your own actions, not everything has to be administered by an organization.

 

 

[old man emu]

18 hours ago, turboplanner said:

So we would need to see

(a) If it still existed

(b) If so what CURRENT requirements there are.

Turbo,

I've done a search and I was current as of 8 June 2023. It would appear that there have not been any changes to that Advisory Circular.

Federal Register :: Request Access

WWW.ECFR.GOV

 

 

I think this is where US Federal Regulation 103 would clash with CASR

§ 103.7 Certification and registration.

(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.

(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.

 

I think (b) and (c) are required under CASR.

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, jackc said:

Take what aro has said and transfer it holus bolus to Australia,  CASA takes it on board exactly as U.S. FAA does.  Leave RAAus out of it, they started with it and have run their race with what they have done and to this day have grown the sector to become more regulated over time and closer towards GA with more expensive aircraft etc. 

We only need to answer to CASA at the same levels as U.S. Part 103 answers to FAA.

 

You haven't yet identified if what you've shown us is still current; that would be a good start.

All my posts above are based on operating independently of RAA. (I wouldn't take that path since it appears there are similar aircraft available within the RAA structure which have had around 30 + years of development and specification processing) I've just assumed what you've said. 

I've also worked on what you've said about only needing to answer to CASA at the same level as U.S. Part 103 answers to FAA, but pointed out you can't just do that in Australian jurisdictions; you have to adapt to the reality of Australia so going forward the actions would be:

1.     Research 103 to find out whether the old typewritten document referred to is current + the same.

2.     Since all the people involved have responsibilities under Australian law (importer, seller, owner, builder etc) put together a road map of how that could be handled across Australia.

 

 

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

You haven't yet identified if what you've shown us is still current; that would be a good start.

OK you have a current date, so just current regs.

 

[jackc]

4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So far we've been discussing the document presented which dates from 1982/1983 not long after AUF started. No one has come up with a set of regulations which are newer so far, so that's the first issue to be resolved.

 

Turbs, so why change something the FAA has seen fit not to change?   The fact that the FAA rules have not changed over time is testament to the fact they must be happy how its working. 
IF we take FAA regulations and do what Australia historically does, make ego driven b/s changes and just fcuks up the principles of FAA FAR Part 103.  The whole principle would be destroyed in what we seek.

But at times I think some people in Aviation would like it to fail, too many Curmudgeons  in this country 😞 

[old man emu]

Turbo.

The Regulation is current.

[aro]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

2.     Since all the people involved have responsibilities under Australian law (importer, seller, owner, builder etc) put together a road map of how that could be handled across Australia.

 

Much the same as amateur built experimental works I would imagine. Have you noticed all the aircraft getting around with EXPERIMENTAL written on them? RV-6, 7, 9, 10, Jabiru etc.

[old man emu]

Let's straighten some things out. 

 

Part 103 has been shown by several her to be current as of last Thursday, and not likely to have changed over the weekend.

The Advisory Circular was indeed produced in 1984. It is a completely different document from the published Part 103 document. The AC puts meat on the bones of the law. It does not have any legal status, but is an aid to understand the law.

[aro]

9 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I think (b) and (c) are required under CASR.

There is already a raft of exemptions from CASR, one set is the whole basis for RAA possible and is an exemption from pilot licensing requirements and airworthiness standards.

[old man emu]

Just now, aro said:

There is already a raft of exemptions from CASR, one set is the whole basis for RAA possible and is an exemption from pilot licensing requirements and airworthiness standards.

Yes. There are exemptions from a pilot holding a CASA-issued licence, and an aircraft having a CASA-issued registration, BUT you can't pilot if you don't have either, not can you fly an aircraft (of the type we are discussing) without either.

[jackc]

Maybe I need to plan a trip to the U.S. and see some people in the relevant organisations and some of the aircraft vendors. 
Been a few years since I have been to the U.S. when I did business there.

[aro]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Yes. There are exemptions from a pilot holding a CASA-issued licence, and an aircraft having a CASA-issued registration, BUT you can't pilot if you don't have either, not can you fly an aircraft (of the type we are discussing) without either.

I don't completely understand that sentence, but my point is that CASA can and do write exemptions to the regulations that could easily provide FAR 103 equivalent.

 

In reality, CAO 95.10 and CAO 95.55 come pretty close - the main difference seems to be the requirement to be a member of RAA, and the rules they set in place. The best approach might be to lobby RAA for more focus on CAO 95.10.