More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[BrendAn]

59 minutes ago, jackc said:

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 🙂 🙂 

it works in america it will work here.   turbs will argue til the cows come home trying to prove nothing can work here.  there is a group of people in the powered parachute community that have been pushing casa for part 103, i don't know how they are going. 

[jackc]

Maybe we need to join forces 🙂 

[turboplanner]

So, just a troll.

[BrendAn]

29 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So, just a troll.

not calling you anything like that. i just said you will never agree that part 103 can work here. and you might be right. i apologise if you think i called you a troll.

[jackc]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained…..

[old man emu]

I found the Aerolight 103 specs which show a MTOW of 272 kg. That's 125 kg empty weight + full fuel. That would let a Fat Bastard of 147 kg get off the ground. Even a solid bloke of 120 kg could take off with a full tank and another 20 litres in a jerry can for four hours' endurance. allowing for a refuelling stop after 2 hours.

[aro]

11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

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 Archives content date

Oh FFS, 

The "Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) provides a way of exploring the Code of Federal Regulations as it exists today and at points in time back to January 2017."

If you read further, they say it's not real-time, but "generally the eCFR is current within two business days"

 

What do you want - something personally signed and dated by President Biden? Just because CASA re-write things every 3 years doesn't mean that is how it has to be done.

 

Large parts of Australian aviation operate under instruments and exemptions, so I doubt there would be difficulty if CASA actually wanted to do it. They could take CAO 95.10 and delete the conditions that refer to RAA and you would be basically there.

 

Or they could create a new CAO copied from CAO 95.10, change the weight etc. to reflect FAR 103 and delete the stuff about RAA.

 

If we didn't have all these exemptions to regulations via the current instruments I would be doubtful. But this is how CASA operate all the time. It's how RAA exists. It would be nothing unusual.

[spacesailor]

aro said .

'' Or they could create a new CAO copied from CAO 95.10, change the weight etc. to reflect FAR 103 and delete the stuff about RAA. '' .

Don't forget that ' wing loading rule ' .

to let the Hummle Bird aircraft back into 95-10 category .

Then a little more weight for more power & we'll be ' soaring like an eagle . LoL

spacesailor

[jackc]

Hummelbird Ultracruiser is Part 103 compliant.  
 

https://www.hummelaircraft.com/ultracruiser

[jackc]

The way thingsare going Part 103 will be all you can afford……

 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by jackc
Pic edit

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, jackc said:

The way thingsare going Part 103 will be all you can afford……

 

 

what increased costs have they had

Edited June 14, 2023 by BrendAn

[jackc]

4 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

its just wrong. they have no increases to absorb. 

Its a company raising its prices how they want.  I will bet some CFI’s will call it a day. Flying School rates will rise to cover it and in these times of an economic squeeze they may well decide its not viable to continue.

 

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, jackc said:

Its a company raising its prices how they want.  I will bet some CFI’s will call it a day. Flying School rates will rise to cover it and in these times of an economic squeeze they may well decide its not viable to continue.

 

Then you should start laying down the draft regulations and specifications for an Australian version of US FAR 103 without delay. 

[jackc]

That is easy, just cut and paste all the FAA stuff and go for it 🙂.  

[Thruster88]

We won't be able to call it part 103, that is already in use.

https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/rules/part-103-casr-sport-and-recreation-aircraft

 

The pic on the header of this thread is me living the dream, no license, registration or training. 1984 the year the AUF started. 

[jackc]

We just give it another designation, CASA adopt the FAA rules  and do like the FAA does and away it goes.  The FAA leave it up to organisations like the EAA to support the sector and by being a member of that type of organisation you get support and you participate.  FAA and EAA dont even have crash statistics data, because I asked for it, being an EAA member and doing research etc.  IF a heap of these machines fell out of the sky, no doubt FAA would come down like a ton of bricks. I know people hate the concept, thats fine as they dont need to participate, just leave the people alone who want to give it a go.

[old man emu]

It would cost me $410 ($435 with entry into controlled airspace approval) in total for my initial membership year with RAA.  Then a minimum of $325 annually to remain a member. I have a CASA licence that requires me to have  a Class 2 annual medical with a DAME since I can't get a Basic Class 2. That medical would cost between $250 and $300, but I could also probably get the doctor to complete my Heavy Vehicle Driver's medical, which I need annually, at the same time.

 

Given that the costs to hire aircraft registered under either system are the same, why would I want to restrict myself by adopting RAA limitations on operations?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

IF a heap of these machines fell out of the sky,

Therein lies the rub! 

Let's say that 99.9% of operators of Part 103 compliant types do so with a high degree of safety. As soon as the aircraft operated by that 0.1% comes a gutza due to operating stupidly, the other 99.9% will be painted with the same brush,  and before the paint dries, there will be cries from the self-appointed media experts for strict controls to be placed on these "death traps". No amount of self-regulation, or regulation through an Association will stop the 0.1%-er entitled idiots bringing a whole activity into disrepute. 

 

 

[jackc]

Backward thinking Australia all over, life has its elements of risk and nothing is perfect, just look at our recent most tragedy. All the qualifications in the World could not stop it……it comes down to the brains or lack of by an individual.

Its impossible to protect all individuals, from themselves despite having mountains of rules…..

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Therein lies the rub! 

Let's say that 99.9% of operators of Part 103 compliant types do so with a high degree of safety. As soon as the aircraft operated by that 0.1% comes a gutza due to operating stupidly, the other 99.9% will be painted with the same brush,  and before the paint dries, there will be cries from the self-appointed media experts for strict controls to be placed on these "death traps". No amount of self-regulation, or regulation through an Association will stop the 0.1%-er entitled idiots bringing a whole activity into disrepute. 

It's not exactly like that; what you're talking about there are political decisions which are based less on fact than the impact on the voter at the next election.

 

If you use the RAA as an example; the actual risk per mission based on the fatality rate is many times that of a car driver who is subjected to massive prescriptive legal restraints, based on the number of fatalities per mission. However there's little political risk because almost all the lawsuits for negligence  stay within the RAA self administering organisation.

 

Same goes for balloons hang gliders, etc.

 

The political decisions will bite if a big group of people are killed; We currently have two major bus crashes where drivers have been immediately hit with the most serious charges, but buses are unlikely to be banned because politically they are needed.

 

However a fringe activity or sport can be gone in a second if it's a fly by night operation; but a good example of the effect on an organisation like the 10,000 people in RAA was the fallout from a pilot terrifying a group of boat passengers with repeated low passes followed by a plop in the water. RAA maintained they were not involved because the aircraft wasn't registered; CASA involved them by conducting an audit which addressed that situation and everyone moved on.

 

It's legal in Australian jurisdictions to attach yourself to a kite by a strap, jump off a cliff, and fly for as long as you can glide, IF you take legal liability and follow the rules and regulations for operations.

 

The same safety level with a seat and engine shouldn't be too hard to put down on paper and get support for.

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, jackc said:

That is easy, just cut and paste all the FAA stuff and go for it 🙂.  

That's all you need to do, then discuss which clauses will work in Australia/change/add new ones etc for Section A - Management

Section B - Aircraft Specification

[jackc]

With my limited knowledge I will see what I can come up with, will be able to glean information from the  EAA as a start….

[onetrack]

Well, this prang must go down as a useful indicator of how safe Part 103 aircraft are! It fell apart in a major fashion in the forced landing, but the "unregistered pilot" of the "unregistered aircraft", escaped with only minor injuries! I guess he might be looking for something more reliable than a Polini power plant, next time around?

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=608984557880489&set=pcb.608986051213673

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, onetrack said:

Well, this prang must go down as a useful indicator of how safe Part 103 aircraft are! It fell apart in a major fashion in the forced landing, but the "unregistered pilot" of the "unregistered aircraft", escaped with only minor injuries! I guess he might be looking for something more reliable than a Polini power plant, next time around?

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=608984557880489&set=pcb.608986051213673

With my farming background I can see furrows in the background pretty much leading straight off into the distance at about 45 degrees angle to the furrows the photographer is standing on which makes the furrows a headland. If that is the case, out to the right where the plane came from in the landing, it would have been landing across the furrows which will be at right angles to the ones in the distance, and the sympathetic vibrations caused by the furrows had shaken the parts off forward of the undercarriage.

There's a photo floating around of a Jabiru after a similar landing; it let go at the top of the A pillars and the whole front section, engine and all fell onto the ground like this one. The instrument panel went with it and in the photo you can see the front of the seats and you would have seen the unprotected knees and torso of the occupants before they go out.

 

This is not so much showing a weakness of either aircraft, but the tremendous destructive force of corrugations.

 

When trucks were designed in Australia we had a section of Belgian blocks in a short loop and drivers would be allocated to drive round the loop for about six weeks. This produced the cracing/wear factor of over a million km of highway driving.

[Thruster88]

With my farming background I see a field of soybeans. Soybeans have to be harvested with the cutter bar on the ground, they even have flex Draper headers now for a close cut. Soybeans are planted leaving the field completely flat and are often rolled after seeding for more flatness. 

 

I see an incipient stall spin. Training may help but history shows it is not always effective.