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

[spacesailor]

Then again .

My Hummel-Bird doesn't fit " 95-10-1103 '' category either. 

It's wings are too small   . Even through it was a " registered " aircraft .

( under AUF ) .

V H experimental,  or back to RAAus as a new registration , ' 95-19-whatever ' .

I would swap for a ' 103 ' aircraft . To get away from " them who like to be gods ".

spacesailor

 

Edited April 18 by spacesailor
A little more !

[spacesailor]

Get smaller wings . LoL

Mine . 6gs X 6gs . Just short of being 95-10- 1103 registered .

spacesailor

Edited April 18 by spacesailor

[BrendAn]

10 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Then again .

My Hummel-Bird doesn't fit " 95-10-1103 '' category either. 

It's wings are too small   . Even through it was a " registered " aircraft .

( under AUF ) .

V H experimental,  or back to RAAus as a new registration , ' 95-19-whatever ' .

I would swap for a ' 103 ' aircraft . To get away from " them who like to be gods ".

spacesailor

 

i don't understand all your rego drama. how come every other hummelbird in the world gets registered but not yours. surely its not the only one in australia.

[jackc]

So, the kit maker must have sanctioned the 544 rating at some time?  They would have been aware of what was going on in Australia ? 
Could an engineer certify the 544 MTOW?  Now have there been any structural problems with this model of aircraft?  And crashes with an adverse investigation outcome, due to airframe failure? 

[BrendAn]

29 minutes ago, jackc said:

So, the kit maker must have sanctioned the 544 rating at some time?  They would have been aware of what was going on in Australia ? 
Could an engineer certify the 544 MTOW?  Now have there been any structural problems with this model of aircraft?  And crashes with an adverse investigation outcome, due to airframe failure? 

no, they did not. kits were owner built and the raa requirement was the builder had to stipulate the mtow not the kit manufacturer. now they are changing it to manufacturers specs. mine should be 450 but because micheal coates put 490 on his website they let me have it.    there are no records of an xair structural failure. 

[jackc]

On principle, I would have stood my ground because RAA requirements were complied with on the day. So they changed their mind?

I think RAA gets a thrill out of making things hard?  Or has the Bristell fiasco spooked them?  Not sure that is done and dusted either, from what I hear. 🤢

[BrendAn]

4 minutes ago, jackc said:

On principle, I would have stood my ground because RAA requirements were complied with on the day. So they changed their mind?

I think RAA gets a thrill out of making things hard?  Or has the Bristell fiasco spooked them?  Not sure that is done and dusted either, from what I hear. 🤢

i would not accept 450 kg which they did to 2 xairs before mine. i thought 490 was a good compromise.  what is the bristell fiasco about.

[jackc]

I believe there is a court action involved, something to do with grounding of aircraft from what I was told. 🤢

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, BrendAn said:

i don't understand all your rego drama. how come every other hummelbird in the world gets registered but not yours. surely its not the only one in australia.

This was explained by Kasper on this site.