CASA Sport Aviation Self-Administering Organisations (SASAO) and other Organisations at 18/4/24

[turboplanner]

This shows the changes over the last few years.

WX00207.docx

[FlyingVizsla]

Recreational Ballooning has gone to CASA & the Australian Ballooning Federation is no longer a SASAO.

Hang Gliding Federation is now Sports Aviation Federation of Australia, and there is still overlap with RAAus with Weight Shift Microlights & Power Parachutes.

 

[turboplanner]

44 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

Recreational Ballooning has gone to CASA & the Australian Ballooning Federation is no longer a SASAO.

Hang Gliding Federation is now Sports Aviation Federation of Australia, and there is still overlap with RAAus with Weight Shift Microlights & Power Parachutes.

 

Yes, when you get to the power parachute and paramotor classes there are reasons for having two specialised bodies which enable you to do what you want to do since the training is a different standard and cost.

There’s more detail there but I couldn’t access it without a SAFA membership.

 

So out there on the paddocks there are several thousand people conducting affordable flying and communicating within the own bodies re flying reports, training, locations.

[jackc]

Looks like there could be some room for FAA FAR Part 103 🤩 SAFA?

[440032]

Why are some "Federations"? I can find a definition that fits aviation groups.

[turboplanner]

18 minutes ago, 440032 said:

Why are some "Federations"? I can find a definition that fits aviation groups.

In each State or Territory and example might be:

There may be 26 Clubs in a race car Association representing race tracks.

There may be 15 Associations each representing a different class of car.

There may be 2 Associations representing Promotors who finance and manage events.

 

They may all be represented as a Federation by the combined Race Car Associations, Class Associations, Promotor Associations.

 

The Federation is the Peak Body beloved by Governments who only want to speak to one person, thus never understanding the breadth of any issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18 by turboplanner

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, jackc said:

Looks like there could be some room for FAA FAR Part 103 🤩 SAFA?

These are respected groups and I wouldn't think any of them would be terribly interested in operating without licences or registrations or destabilising their supply lines by trying to bypass legitimate distributors.

[jackc]

So what you saying is, an unlicenced FAR Part 103 aviation sector is not respectable? Maybe I should pass your comment to EAA U.S. as a I am a member there, they can comment on the standing of Part 103 operations in the U.S.?

But really, Australia has no idea on many things, just look around at the way we run many things here. 
In your opinion on many things, itsYOUR way…….or the highway?  Not very progressive, is it 🤢

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, jackc said:

So what you saying is, an unlicenced FAR Part 103 aviation sector is not respectable? Maybe I should pass your comment to EAA U.S. as a I am a member there, they can comment on the standing of Part 103 operations in the U.S.?

No, I'm not making any comments on an unlicenced FAR Part 103.

I'm commenting on Australia where we have our own regulations which we have to comply with.

That should be very clear from the heading of this thread.

What people do in other countries around the world is a matter for their jurisdictions.

 

3 minutes ago, jackc said:

But really, Australia has no idea on many things, just look around at the way we run many things here. 
In your opinion on many things, itsYOUR way…….or the highway?  Not very progressive, is it 🤢

 

[facthunter]

RAAus  Certificate is NOT a licence either.    Nev

[jackc]

So you begrudge anyone suggesting something in Aviation that we could benefit from?  I might add that we once had?

Just because we don’t have the unlicenced category, you don’t want it?  Well that’s OK, but don’t down others who would want FAR Part 103, I have private conversations and phone calls with people, who think it would be great.

I have to ask Turbs, do you want to actively discourage an adoption of FAR Part 103 in Australia?  

[BrendAn]

30 minutes ago, jackc said:

So you begrudge anyone suggesting something in Aviation that we could benefit from?  I might add that we once had?

Just because we don’t have the unlicenced category, you don’t want it?  Well that’s OK, but don’t down others who would want FAR Part 103, I have private conversations and phone calls with people, who think it would be great.

I have to ask Turbs, do you want to actively discourage an adoption of FAR Part 103 in Australia?  

you will never win the argument with him jack. turbo thrives on rules and regulations. usa has a thriving part 103 system yet he is telling us it is somehow different here and we are not up to it.

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, facthunter said:

RAAus  Certificate is NOT a licence either.    Nev

amended to Certificates or Licences.

This was supposed to be an inert thread just showing the current structures of  SASAOs and other organisations within the CASA structure.

[facthunter]

Maybe he hasn't flown a Thruster or Drifter and doesn't know what he's missing out on. Nev

[facthunter]

I wonder if any of the top RAAus people have either. THEY pretty much ALL did when the AUF became the RAAus..Nev

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

No, I'm not making any comments on an unlicenced FAR Part 103.

I'm commenting on Australia where we have our own regulations which we have to comply with.

That should be very clear from the heading of this thread.

What people do in other countries around the world is a matter for their jurisdictions.

 

 

so why does casa follow faa then

[turboplanner]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

I wonder if any of the top RAAus people have either. THEY pretty much ALL did when the AUF became the RAAus..Nev

Well in doing the research on the SASAOs I found some trends that indicate that skills in that area attract customers.

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

so why does casa follow faa then

CASA is free to choose anything that works well from other countries, and it and its predecessors have done that.

In more recent years both CASA and FAA have changed regulations in line with ICAO and as a result the big gap between FAA and CASA is a lot less, and where people are comparing the rules they might remember, it pays to check both the current CASA regs and current FAA regs so see if they've changed to match ICAO.

[BrendAn]

5 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

CASA is free to choose anything that works well from other countries, and it and its predecessors have done that.

In more recent years both CASA and FAA have changed regulations in line with ICAO and as a result the big gap between FAA and CASA is a lot less, and where people are comparing the rules they might remember, it pays to check both the current CASA regs and current FAA regs so see if they've changed to match ICAO.

casa actually want part 103 from what i have heard but raa have been arguing against because it is a threat to their membership base which they rely on to fund the company.

and i should also say i am not a hater of raa even if it appears that way. i find the staff brilliant to deal with and passionate about aviation, i just think part 103 should be an option for those that want it.

its only going to be a small percentage of fliers anyway.

 

Edited April 18 by BrendAn

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

casa actually want part 103 from what i have heard but raa have been arguing against because it is a threat to their membership base which they rely on to fund the company.

and i should also say i am not a hater of raa even if it appears that way. i find the staff brilliant to deal with and passionate about aviation, i just think part 103 should be an option for those that want it.

its only going to be a small percentage of fliers anyway.

 

I did the work to bring our knowledge up to date on the Self Administering Organisations.

Maybe it's the Thruster and Drifter and the other classes guys who should be taking car of this sort of question - you know your sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I did the work to bring our knowledge up to date on the Self Administering Organisations.

Maybe it's the Thruster and Drifter and the other classes guys who should be taking car of this sort of question - you know your sector.

 

 

 

 

 

 

my xair doesn't fit in part 103 but i just think its good idea and is gaining popularity elsewhere.

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

my xair doesn't fit in part 103 but i just think its good idea and is gaining popularity elsewhere.

What does your Xair fit in?

 

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

What does your Xair fit in?

 

19 category.  270 kg empty 490 mtow too heavy for part 103.    was 544 mtow but jared at raa changed it to 490 when we did the transfer.

[jackc]

3 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

19 category.  270 kg empty 490 mtow too heavy for part 103.    was 544 mtow but jared at raa changed it to 490 when we did the transfer.

WHY did RAA drop your MTOW back to 490?

[BrendAn]

15 minutes ago, jackc said:

WHY did RAA drop your MTOW back to 490?

because when the kit was assembled the builder had to give raa a mtow of his own choosing so they used to all put down 544 which was the maximum raa weight at the time.

now raa have decided to go through every aircraft with a fine tooth comb when a condition report comes in and they realised the xair mtow was 450kg overseas and thats what they tried on me until i said no , just cancel the rego instead.

next day the tech boss rings me and says what can we do to make you happy. i said 450 was too low it makes my dual control aircraft a single seater . make it 490kg like it shows on the xair aus website. he agreed and that was that.

jarred said they were only doing it to make flying safer not to annoy anyone.  i agree , i think it would have been too heavy at 544, a hell of a lot of strain on the wing in turbulence.