More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[jackc]

Sorry, I think that RAAus would do nothing,  except sink the concept to the bottom of the Mariana Trench 😞 

RAAus is a company that makes money, a perceived threat to the income would be unacceptable………

[aro]

Is it being a member of RAA that you are objecting to?

 

If 95.10 under RAA was an option, what are the disadvantages compared to FAR 103? As far as I can see:

1) RAA would require pilot training

2) RAA have various other rules - BFRs etc.

3) 95.10 kits need to be approved in writing by RAA.

 

Pilot training doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

 

The biggest obstacle might be #3, RAA might not be inclined to approve kits. But that sounds like a hangover from before the Experimental rules were introduced in Australia. It might be feasible to align 95.10 builder requirements with GA experimental and/or RAA experimental requirements.

[spacesailor]

In 95 -10 you have to comply with their ' wing loading rule ' .

I believe it is their only class with this rule .

As most Australians are getting heavier  , so 95-10 needs a workaround to accommodate heavier pilots .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Wing Loading involves area as a variable  Nev

[aro]

6 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

In 95 -10 you have to comply with their ' wing loading rule ' .

We are comparing to FAR 103 here, so 24 knots stall speed and 254 pound (115 kg) empty weight. The 95-10 wing loading limit might be generous in comparison.

[spacesailor]

RAA only uses ALL UP WEIGHT

Including fatter pilots !.

Not a lot of 63.5 klgms Australians left in the over 40 age group .

spacesailor

[aro]

3 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

RAA only uses ALL UP WEIGHT

Including fatter pilots

95.10 MTOW is 300kg. FAR 103 empty weight limit is 115kg.

 

Add 14 kg for fuel (max 5 gallons) and the FAR 103 limits would allow a 170kg pilot before you hit the 95.10 MTOW - if you can meet the stall speed limit.

[jackc]

7 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

RAA only uses ALL UP WEIGHT

Including fatter pilots !.

Not a lot of 63.5 klgms Australians left in the over 40 age group .

spacesailor

If Part 103 works for portly Americans? It can work here……

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

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 😞 

OK, so post the current equivalent documents to AC103-7 and Appendix 1.4, and they become the first reference points where we can all see what the category is in the USA.

 

Then you need to put on paper the process of matching those documents to what is required by our jurisdictions in Australia, you actually have to do research in the various states. You don't have to include the "ego-driven b/s" you mention above, but you do have to comply with the duty of care requirements and the statutory responsibility. so they all need to be laid out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jackc]

Why do we need to consider the states, its a Federal issue?  The U.S. does not have differing rules for 48 states?  I might add under certain  circumstances Part 103 aircraft can be permitted to enter/pass through controlled airspace too

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

Why do we need to consider the states, its a Federal issue?  The U.S. does not have differing rules for 48 states?  I might add under certain  circumstances Part 103 aircraft can be permitted to enter/pass through controlled airspace too

You need to consider the States and Territories because Australia is a Commonwealth of six States each with their own Parliament and Governor acting as the King’s representative. Lawsuits after an accident are heard under the jurisdiction of the State or Territory where the accident occurred.

 

 

[jackc]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

You need to consider the States and Territories because Australia is a Commonwealth of six States each with their own Parliament and Governor acting as the King’s representative. Lawsuits after an accident are heard under the jurisdiction of the State or Territory where the accident occurred.

 

 

Any links relevant to our desired Aviation regime?  General laws maybe so, but Federal can override many of those too?

[jackc]

1 hour ago, aro said:

Is it being a member of RAA that you are objecting to?

Snip

RAAus are a company that you must be a member and answer to, for all aspects of owning and operating your aircraft.  Pay the appropriate fees including registration of your aircraft and membership.  Yes you do get insurance being in RAAus. 
GA Aviators answer to CASA and don't pay membership or registration for their privileges?

FAR Part 103 does not have any fees for licence or registration and I would ask for the same situation in Australia.  
We do not need an organisation set up to administer Part 103, that would add a layer of cost and added regulations we do not require.

[aro]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

OK, so post the current equivalent documents to AC103-7 and Appendix 1.4, and they become the first reference points where we can all see what the category is in the USA.

 

Current FAR part 103:

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

 

Current AC103-7:

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

[Blueadventures]

Maybe someone could make a list of plans, kits and factory built 'FAR 103' aircraft that RAAus would register as 95.10.   

[jackc]

7 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Maybe someone could make a list of plans, kits and factory built 'FAR 103' aircraft that RAAus would register as 95.10.   

But RAAus will not allow NO Rego, NO Licence and you would need membership, the very stuff,  the low budget Aviator wants to avoid……

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, aro said:

I don't completely understand that sentence

I was agreeing with you that 

 

4 hours ago, aro said:

There is already a raft of exemptions from CASR, one set is the whole basis for RAA possible

I forgot about gliders and some drones and balloons and gyrocopters. I was sticking to powered, heavier than air vehicles. But if you don't have a CASA plot's licence or an RAA pilot's certificate, it's illegal to pilot any aircraft. Further, if the aircraft is not registered with either CASA or RAA, it is illegal to fly it.

[aro]

10 hours ago, old man emu said:

But if you don't have a CASA plot's licence or an RAA pilot's certificate, it's illegal to pilot any aircraft. Further, if the aircraft is not registered with either CASA or RAA, it is illegal to fly it.

Sort of... there is nowhere that specifies either/or CASA or RAA.

 

The CASRs say that an aircraft must be registered, and a pilot must have a pilot license.

 

CAO 95.55 gives an exemption from those regulations, among others, subject to a long list of conditions. Some of those conditions are:

• The pilot must be a member of RAA
• The pilot must have a RAA pilot certificate
• The aircraft must be registered with RAA

This has some strange consequences. By my reading:

• There's no offence or penalty related to flying without a RAA license. If you fly a RAA aircraft without a RAA license, the offence is flying without a (CASA) license. Along with that you are also flying an unregistered aircraft, because you haven't met the exemption conditions in CAO 95.55. Plus all the other CASRs listed in CAO 95.55 that you might have violated.
• If you DO have a PPL but don't have a RAA certificate, you are not flying without a license. But you are now flying an unregistered aircraft because you haven't met the conditions in CAO 95.55.
• If you have a RAA certificate and are flying a RAA registered aircraft, you can technically still be charged with flying an unregistered aircraft and without a license if you don't meet other conditions in CAO 95.55. It seems unlikely that they would do that, but since there are no penalties specified related to the conditions in 95.55 (i.e. operating according to the RAA ops manual etc.) I think that is what they would have to fall back on, if they wanted to charge you with something.

So technically, if you violate any rule in the RAA Ops manual, you might be flying an unregistered aircraft without a license (strict liability offences of course).

[aro]

Circling back to FAR 103, the AC 103-7 says basically the same thing:

 

There are a number of elements contained in 103.1 which make up the definition of the "ultralight vehicle." If you fail to meet any one of the elements, you may not operate under part 103. Any operations without meeting all of the elements are subject to all aircraft certification, pilot certification, equipment requirements, and aircraft operating rules applicable to the particular operation.

 

So basically there is no such thing as violating a single FAR 103 condition e.g. being overweight. If you violate a single condition, ALL the exemptions are void. I suspect, legally, the same applies to CAO 95.55.

[facthunter]

IF you DO a heavy landing and not carry out a "required" inspection, THAT plane is NOT airworthy under the LAW.  Same if it's flown out of balance or over weight.  Nev

[kasper]

My beef with RAAus on 95.10 as they manage it

1 annual cost to RAAus of $390 for member and reg

2 they as an organisation ignore their own constitution and just do what they want eg elections

3 the tech manual has been incorporated into 95.10 … and despite knowing sweet FA about the concept of deregulated self design the tech office can now ground you for any mod

4 the whole direction of RAAus is toward GA or high end speed/weighty/airspace.

5 you have to do a BFR is an airframe hat bears no resemblance to your 95.10 at quite a bit of $$.  Especially if you are not where an RAAus school is … for me it’s a 4 hour drive to get to a school that remotely has an airframe like mine
 

95.10 has been effectively leveled up to way beyond experimental GA under CASA governance.   It bears pretty much no relationship to what it was 30 years ago when created - compared to the US where it’s remained pretty unchanged in its operation. 
 

I really prefer the 95.10 definition of the airframe and operating limits - it’s just RAAus has sucked ALL the fun out of it through its tech and ops manuals. 
 

and before anyone blasts

me on this that CASA required the changes to the manuals in part yes but is a large part it’s been empire building in RAAus that offered up more and greater limits that effectively entrench them as the sole controlling body to ever greater numbers of airframes.  
 

[jackc]

RAAus wont touch FAA FAR Part 103 with a 40 ft barge pole, UNLESS its its run their way. In which case the concept will fail on account of too many rules.

Best thing RAAus can do is ignore it, it does not exist……

But as people move on from Part 103, RAAus will pick up on those Aviators wanting to move up, but RAAus cant see the woods, for the trees.  They would want it their way, or its the highway. 
Besides RAAus is not structured to work with a Part 103 regime, as its a company.

OK chuck bricks at me…….

[jackc]

Air Venture 2023, how good is this 🙂 

 

Applies to FAR Part 103 Aviators.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by jackc
Edit add pic

[turboplanner]

This thread is a bit like trying to start a frog race.

Frog 1 keeps hopping out on the track then doing a U turn, bringing back a new blade of grass or something else that its found and then croaking loudly.

Frog 2 does a U turn into the shade.

Frog 3 manages to jump the wall and get into the spectators, never to be seen again.

Frogs 4 & 5 start mating

Frog 6 shows promise hopping down the track but then doubles back twice as fast.

 

There's no point in abusing either RAA or CASA because this class, FAR 103, doesn't exist in Australia.

There's no point, discussing 95.10 in this thread because it does exist, can be used, and it's so easy to start a thread called 95.10 so all the 95.10 information is consolidated; remember Tony's Thruster thead where everyone was focused just on getting more and better Thrusters into the air.

 

The progress so far is that someone is alleging that a link contains the leatest FAR 103 information, but couldn't actually post the document so people who would like to go ahead with it can discuss, clause by clause how it possibly could be used in Australia.

 

FAR 103 is a US category which fits into US legal jurisdictions; having declared RAA Ltd operations don't allow this type of flying which is more basic, you have to start to construct the flying category which is desired, and put it on paper. FAR 103 doesn't exist in Australia, CASA doesn't have a format for FAR 103, so no point talking to them, yet. FAR 103 crossed into Australian public liability which is different to USA, so you have personal responsibilities to others and you have to address those, and your solutions to risk will have to be specified clause by clause like they are in other classes.

 

It takes more than a few photos and a couple of links to something that is based on the laws of another country.

 

Someone needs to either type up the current US FAR103 regulations paragraph by paragraph and number each paragraph so they can be adopted/deleted/modified for Australian use and people here can post their ideas, or post their proposed Australian version which complies with Australian airspace regulations and laws.

 

I was about to try and convert the links that Aro posted a few days ago of the "current" FAR 103 regulations and I found the source of the first link was the US National Archives, and their June 9 2023 "current" date referred to the link showing what was loaded into the Archives as of that date; in other words the Regulations weren't current to that date, it was the Atchives content date.  The second document was FAA-AC103-7 "The Ultralight Vehicle issued by the FAA January 30, 1984.

 

FAR 103 Aircraft/kits available from the US would be built to the latest paperwork, so I'd recommend some more research directly with FAA, to find out what these aircraft are being built to, however that wouldn't mean they were acceptable to the rules you might have to come up with for Australia, so you might choose to just start with what Aro found, type it up para by para and work on it 1 para at a time, matching your preferred concept, e.g. no licences, to what you think might be acceptable to present to CASA.

 

For example where FAA lists the airspace the US Aircraft can fly in, the Australian concept would be type up to refer to our airspace terms, altitudes and distances.

[jackc]

Turbs, sorry to say there is ONE answer.  Just adopt FAA rules holis bolus, dont change anything.  WHY complicate the concept?
Next job?  Plan landing right to Avalon Air Show 🙂 🙂