More FAA Part 103 Saga…..

[BrendAn]

8 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

Do say this about every aircraft accident . Are pollini the only engine that has ever failed.

[old man emu]

A picture is worth a thousand words, but the ones here are speechless. Where's the source of the pilot licence, aircraft registration and cause of forced landing?

 

It's fair to assume that being Part 103, the pilot did not have a FAA licence, nor would the aircraft be registered with the FAA. What about the Polini engine? Are we going to be taking Jabs at it now?

[facthunter]

They are Light, Fly slow and land slow and have a low wing loading. That's a good start for a safe flying scene. About as risky as a hang glider and less risky than being near a golf course or when people are hitting sixer's into the stand or a game of Rugby Union OR Motorcross  and desert racing rock climbing skiing etc.  Nev

[old man emu]

My only concern is the narrow speed range. The Yanks say 24 mph stall to 55 mph top speed (is that VNE or cruise).  That's 20 to 47 kts CAS.  That would be OK if you were using the plane for checking fences and bores, or potting stock or vermin, but I'd like maybe to get up to 80 kts to cover the A to B a bit quicker. You could argue that the DH Tiger Moth cruises at 58 kts, but its VNE is 95 kts. I know it has a 130 HP engine, but a J3 Cub can do 65 kts on 65HP.

 

I wonder of that Badlands airframe would handle a higher speed, since it is said to have a Max Speed of 69 kts.

[facthunter]

I think a Tiger will cruise at 78 knots. Nev

[old man emu]

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

I think a Tiger will cruise at 78 knots. Nev

While looking for that cruise speed I came across both the figure I quoted and the one that Facthunter did. Personally, I think that something around 75-80 is the correct figure.  I wonder if the variation is due to engine type.

[jackc]

No one, not even the FAA keep records of incidents or crash statistics.  They have the understanding that the Part 103 people just run their own race and stick to the FAA A4 1 page of rules. Bet no one even gets a ramp check 🙂 

[turboplanner]

Well I don't think we have to worry too much about Part 103 in Australia because no one seems to have the skills required to get it started.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

no one seems to have the skills required to get it started.

The skills in writing up what we could call in general terms an Operations Manual, a business plan and the rules or constitution by which an entity is operated are easy enough to create, and many people have these skills.

 

The real skill after the entity has been created on paper is to first get a core group of people competent in managing the operations of the entity. That's your "Board of Governors". The next thing, and the thing that takes a lot of inter-personal relations skill, is getting people with a wide variety of experiences, opinions and desire to be involved to become part of the entity. 

 

You only have to look at the diversity displayed by users of this and the sister forum to see that a successful entity is built on the application of the above skills.

 

Could an entity be created to deal with a subsection of aviation that is involved with aircraft equivalent to FAA Part 103? Sure it could. But the entity would have to comply with CASR Part 149 and become a Self-Administering Aviation Organisation.

 

Is it worth the effort?  I can't answer that one.

[BrendAn]

6 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Well I don't think we have to worry too much about Part 103 in Australia because no one seems to have the skills required to get it started.

i don't think that is correct. if jackc, ome and aro put their heads together they could do it.  what about you turbo, i am sure you have the ear of the biggest players in the land. you could make a huge input to get the ball rolling.

Edited June 22, 2023 by BrendAn

[Thruster88]

I bought a nice condition totally original single seat Thruster last year for only 5k aud. New 103 kits are at least 15k us. Not sure there is demand anymore for the simple machines.  

[BrendAn]

32 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

I bought a nice condition totally original single seat Thruster last year for only 5k aud. New 103 kits are at least 15k us. Not sure there is demand anymore for the simple machines.  

wasn't that one still in new condition.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

i don't think that is correct. if jackc, ome and aro put their heads together they could do it.  what about you turbo, i am sure you have the ear of the biggest players in the land. you could make a huge input to get the ball rolling.

We already have the equivalent class here in Australia, doesn't matter which head you raise.

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

We already have the equivalent class here in Australia, doesn't matter which head you raise.

ok. so because we have 95.10 under raaus casa will not add anything else. is that what you mean. 

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, BrendAn said:

ok. so because we have 95.10 under raaus casa will not add anything else. is that what you mean. 

No, I meant I wasn't silly enough to get involved in any twin class red herring.

[jackc]

Well I am making plans and I am looking into another piece of legislation that may hold an important key….

[old man emu]

Perhaps the biggest problem was the creation of Part 149. That makes it difficult to introduce another Self-administering organisation.

 

It is ridiculous that the States and Territories can deal with motor vehicles of various classes and drivers requiring various skills under the same national legislation (Australian Road Rules and Australian Design Rules), but the Commonwealth cannot.

 

All CASA would have to do is establish a number of classes of aircraft and set rules for the quality and maintenance of aircraft in each class. At the same time a number of classes of pilot's licence could be defined. That would require an increase in Public Sector employment, but CASA already has a schedule of fees for many of its functions that would go to meeting that increase in costs.

 

 

[turboplanner]

37 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Perhaps the biggest problem was the creation of Part 149. That makes it difficult to introduce another Self-administering organisation.

 

It is ridiculous that the States and Territories can deal with motor vehicles of various classes and drivers requiring various skills under the same national legislation (Australian Road Rules and Australian Design Rules), but the Commonwealth cannot.

 

All CASA would have to do is establish a number of classes of aircraft and set rules for the quality and maintenance of aircraft in each class. At the same time a number of classes of pilot's licence could be defined. That would require an increase in Public Sector employment, but CASA already has a schedule of fees for many of its functions that would go to meeting that increase in costs.

 

 

The States are Sovereign; the Commonwealth has no powers in the States except those ceded to it by the States.

To my knowledge CASA has not limited the number of Self Administering Organisitions. So far we are just being taken for a ride in fairyland here so I wouldn't give it any serious thought.

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, turboplanner said:

The States are Sovereign; the Commonwealth has no powers in the States except those ceded to it by the States.

Quite correct, but what has happened with the Australian Road Rules in particular is that the States and Territories got together with the Commonwealth and created a common set of rules for the whole country. Then each State or Territory took that set of rules back home and replaced its existing traffic laws with the common set. Each government was still able to add or subtract to those rules to suit its needs in particular areas. That wasn't a ceding of powers, just a sensible idea. The Australian Design Rules are set by the Commonwealth for all vehicles manufactured or imported.

 

I'm not sure, but one area could be the requirement for annual roadworthiness inspections. Back in the day in NSW those inspections were required for all vehicles, even a car that was only one year old. Now the time before a new car has to have an inspection is a couple of years, but being in the habit of buying new cars, I don't know the exact number of years.

[turboplanner]

34 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Quite correct, but what has happened with the Australian Road Rules in particular is that the States and Territories got together with the Commonwealth and created a common set of rules for the whole country. Then each State or Territory took that set of rules back home and replaced its existing traffic laws with the common set. Each government was still able to add or subtract to those rules to suit its needs in particular areas. That wasn't a ceding of powers, just a sensible idea. The Australian Design Rules are set by the Commonwealth for all vehicles manufactured or imported.

 

I'm not sure, but one area could be the requirement for annual roadworthiness inspections. Back in the day in NSW those inspections were required for all vehicles, even a car that was only one year old. Now the time before a new car has to have an inspection is a couple of years, but being in the habit of buying new cars, I don't know the exact number of years.

That was the idea; but since then the States have continued with ad hoc changes. Victoria has no passing on double lines, except that there are cases where you can, it has left hand solid lines which you can cross to park by the side of the road etc. and it has Yellow solid lines which you cannot cross to the left, and so it goes on.

 

Truck operators in particular wanted a common set of regulations around Australia, and that was achieved by the NAASRA study team in 1975 except the study team forgot about coaches, so they had to be converted to single tyred lazy axles to be legal. We had those National regulations for a few months until WA decided they were ridiculous and allowed different lengths and weights - a much more sensible system. Queensland quickly followed with oddball regulations. A Victorian semi trailer leaving Wodonga for Melbourne every day could carry over a tonne more load than a NSW trailer leaving Albury on the other bank of the Murray River. The latest iteration is where the states first decided to all agree on regulations then introduce the new ones into Queensland law and the new regulation would be mirrored by all States and Territories, except that WA retained their own longer lengths and better load distribution and each State still had variables. That was seen to have worked and The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) was set up on Queensland, but instead of hiring about 20 people to monitor changes to regulations, it first was grown to an 800 person unit mirroring Queensland Transport, but then the States saw the advantage of closing down their own Transport bodies and having all trucks regulated from Queensland, so we had an operator requiring a wide load permit to build a hay shed in Victoria phoning someone in Queensland with return phone calls asking where the hell Ecklin was, and a permit would emerge a week or two later instead of 30 minutes. NHVR currently has cars with sirens and a building programme of NHVR checking stations around the country.

It dwarfs CASA.

Getting back to cars, there's nowhere so far where you can operate motor vhicles on the road by setting up an Incorporated Association as a Self Administering Organisation.

Both trucks and cars are governed prescriptively.

So in Aviation we are ahead in freedoms.

 

 

[aro]

On 22/06/2023 at 11:42 AM, old man emu said:

The skills in writing up what we could call in general terms an Operations Manual, a business plan and the rules or constitution by which an entity is operated are easy enough to create, and many people have these skills.

 

The real skill after the entity has been created on paper is to first get a core group of people competent in managing the operations of the entity. That's your "Board of Governors". The next thing, and the thing that takes a lot of inter-personal relations skill, is getting people with a wide variety of experiences, opinions and desire to be involved to become part of the entity. 

If you have all that it's not FAR 103 equivalent.

 

FAR 103:

- No license

- No registration with any organization

- No airworthiness standards

That's the whole point.

 

Personally, I think training and licensing are a good idea, but if you want to talk FAR 103 equivalents...

 

Duplicating 95.10 under another organization would be a different approach, but I think it would be easier to get it going again under the RAA umbrella.

[aro]

On 21/06/2023 at 12:12 PM, old man emu said:

My only concern is the narrow speed range. The Yanks say 24 mph stall to 55 mph top speed (is that VNE or cruise).  That's 20 to 47 kts CAS.  That would be OK if you were using the plane for checking fences and bores, or potting stock or vermin, but I'd like maybe to get up to 80 kts to cover the A to B a bit quicker.

It's 24 knots max stall to 55 knots at full power straight and level. That's a reasonably wide range, equivalent to 44 knots stall and 100 knots max speed in percentage terms.

 

If you want to go somewhere you are looking at the wrong category - FAR 103 is about getting in the air, and little else. 5 gallons maximum fuel and 55 knots at full power isn't really a travelling machine...

[facthunter]

 Aviation Law extends to  all areas under the control of the commonwealth. I  can't think of any differences from state  to state, (Nor should there be) It's confusing enough already for the average operator. Nev

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

 Aviation Law extends to  all areas under the control of the commonwealth. I  can't think of any differences from state  to state, (Nor should there be) It's confusing enough already for the average operator. Nev

The only powers the States have for anything to do with aviation is the control of intrastate RPT air routes. "Free trade between States" permits a commercial carrier to operate between, say Wagga and Mildura for example, but the carrier has to have the approval of Transport for NSW to carry between Wagga and Broken Hill. I'm sure this also applies to other States. This all came about following a High Court challenge to the Federal Government trying to ban carriers other than TAA from routes between the capital cities.

 

The States and Territories have no control over any unscheduled commercial movements unless they duplicated an existing service. For example, Butler Air Transport aircraft were often chartered to take sporting teams from place to place. Lawn bowlers did it a lot. Say the bowlers wanted to go from Sydney to Parkes with BAT on the same day that a BAT scheduled service occurred. BAT would have to apply for a permit for the flight.

[facthunter]

My reference is to Air Legislation, Not commercial interests  I've operated TAA aircraft on  Qantas routes plenty of times and even flown a CASA owned F27 on a search in bass strait. State borders mean nothing where AIR law comes in.  International is another matter where the operator gets approval from the other Country. NZ is an example.  Timor L'este is another. THAT was operated under a Qantas flight number. The Route belonged to Qantas.( 1969.)  Nev