Part 103 equivalent in Australia

[BrendAn]

This subject has been getting kicked about the group for a long time.

There are some of us who would like to fly under the faa part 103 rules in Australia. Turbo keeps saying we already have it .

I would like turbo or someone to explain this.  I really hope it's true because it would open the door to affordable flying like in the auf days.

[BrendAn]

The uk now have the ssdr category.

Single seat deregulated.

I assume that might be there version of p103.

[440032]

We've had Part 103 in Australia for years. CASR Part 103 Sport and Recreation. 25 gobbledygook regulations.

The problem is, it's not exactly the same as US FAR Part 103 ultralight vehicles (13 plain English regulations) - which works great there and would here too.

[Geoff_H]

I could not understand the CASA Part 103 website.  I must have a comprehension problem?

[BrendAn]

Casa part 103 is a different thing altogether. Just uses the same number .

Edited January 6 by BrendAn

[BrendAn]

From what I have been told, casa want the faa part 103 rule here.

It completely takes away any responsibility from them .

Michael monk jumping up and down on the tv demanding investigations may help 103 come to fruition here.

[440032]

30 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

I could not understand the CASA Part 103 website.  I must have a comprehension problem?

CASA: "Mission accomplished!"

[turboplanner]

8 minutes ago, 440032 said:

CASA: "Mission accomplished!"

No it's not, those interested need to do a little more study than that.

[spacesailor]

SSDR

Sounds like it could be Useful. 

If only those Bureaucrats don't tinker with it .

Single seat , low power , 35 kits stall !.

HUMMELBIRD .

How about two engines and tiny ?.

spacesailor

[spacesailor]

I was thinking about the " Cri Cri " .

With it's two motors & props , it doesn't comform to Raa rules. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Why "think" about IT then? Neither of those you mentioned would fit a Part 103. I say IF the USA can have it why not US eh!.    Nev

[spacesailor]

Hummel-Bird squeezes in . Just not it's " wing loading " .

But

Those Bureaucrats can fix it !

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

30 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Why "think" about IT then? Neither of those you mentioned would fit a Part 103. I say IF the USA can have it why not US eh!.    Nev

These questions and answers are all on the record on this site. Some of our guys put a lot of effort in to help. Fixes ignored and the carping continued.

[facthunter]

Realistically, I don't think it will get a lot of support from  the Current RAAus. but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on that.  We used to fly things like the quicksilver MX. and Winton grasshoppers.  Nev

[BrendAn]

39 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Realistically, I don't think it will get a lot of support from  the Current RAAus. but I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on that.  We used to fly things like the quicksilver MX. and Winton grasshoppers.  Nev

The people in raaus that were pushing for it have all been let go over the years.

That's what I have heard anyway.

 

[BrendAn]

54 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

These questions and answers are all on the record on this site. Some of our guys put a lot of effort in to help. Fixes ignored and the carping continued.

 A couple of days ago you put up a brilliant post. Now you have gone back to being deflection turbo. Tell everyone they are wrong but never explain yourself.

Edited January 6 by BrendAn

[facthunter]

Can't hold the NEW GA back. Onward to the Moon and the Stars. Get with it ,or out.  Nev

[BrendAn]

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8dfe4ad8c3f0b7c59487e5045f636ae84e745a11bb261dcf336318c78e0ba412JmltdHM9MTczNjEyMTYwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3fb660a2-cc63-62fe-19da-75a5cdb663f5&psq=merlin+lite+part+103&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9ieWRhbmpvaG5zb24uY29tL21lcmxpbi1saXRlLW5ldy1hbGwtbWV0YWwtZnVsbHktZW5jbG9zZWQtZGVsdXhlLXBhcnQtMTAzLXVsdHJhbGlnaHQv&ntb=1

[BrendAn]

part 103 gives access to aircraft like this. 

[facthunter]

That would not be cheap or easy to build. The light Max weight  of this category would  be a show stopper for some. Nev

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

That would not be cheap or easy to build. The light Max weight  of this category would  be a show stopper for some. Nev

It is quite cheap and it's a kit so easy build.

[BrendAn]

There are quite a few p103 designs out now.

Affordaplane and 

Legal eagle are a couple.

 

[Geoff_H]

Part 103 would mean that RAA would loose members and money....Never going to happen, I have it on authority that they are in need of money.  SAAA only assist in aircraft construction, with Class 2 basic why go RAA?  Actually there are non SAAA people that can approve your build for a one off fee, SAAA need not be involved.

[T510]

39 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

Part 103 would mean that RAA would loose members and money....Never going to happen, I have it on authority that they are in need of money.  SAAA only assist in aircraft construction, with Class 2 basic why go RAA?  Actually there are non SAAA people that can approve your build for a one off fee, SAAA need not be involved.

Is it up to RAA to decide if we get P103 type regs, isn't that on CASA to determine if it is appropriate?

 

Will be interesting to see what the new CASA GA workplan outlines when it is released.

 

 

[Geoff_H]

No it is not up to RAA, but which other organisation would do it?  I would not think that any person would be listened to by CASA, other than some politician or so.