T510 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour 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 They quote a finished price of $34k USD ready to fly with a Polini on the website, seems pretty cheap to me. Quick build kit is $22k with a 100% finished airframe...
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 If my memory serves me right it was a politician in 2000 that got the USA experimental aircraft law into Australia, essentially word for word. CASA have had fun with it since.
T510 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 3 minutes ago, Geoff_H said: 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. Part 103 in America is run by the FAA, no reason CASA couldn't do the same thing. I don't see that we need another organisation, RAA certainly seems to have forgotten the rag and tube light weight aircraft that have no interest in flying in controlled airspace. 1 1
jackc Posted January 9 Posted January 9 On 6/1/2025 at 5:55 PM, facthunter said: Can't hold the NEW GA back. Onward to the Moon and the Stars. Get with it ,or out. Nev NO, fly your own FAR Part 103, with NO numbers, RAAaus can’t do ANYTHING and CASA are too busy, frying bigger fish, and don’t even know where Western Qld, is 🤩 1
BrendAn Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 46 minutes ago, T510 said: 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. From what I understand casa have no problem with p103. Raaus have been stopping it. I don't know why they have a say in it but they do. There was group of aviation industry people pushing for it but they gave up.
spacesailor Posted January 9 Posted January 9 There you go !. HUMMEL ULTRACRUISER IS 103 LEGAL . The bird need only a few kilos removed to be there too . But loses a lot of it's 6g'6g strength, no canopy & tail-wheel only . spacesailor
jackc Posted January 9 Posted January 9 33 minutes ago, BrendAn said: From what I understand casa have no problem with p103. Raaus have been stopping it. I don't know why they have a say in it but they do. There was group of aviation industry people pushing for it but they gave up. It’s understandable that RAAus, want nothing to do with it…….they have commercialised a hobby for their own gain, organisation structural change, increasing regulation which has increasing costs to benefit them, at our expense. All perpetrated by do gooders, thinking that RAAus is the God of our Aviation Sector. It’s done many good things BUT it has a vested interest in getting money out of its members. All I will say is……it’s gonna need it when they get 6 figures plus, for legal fees from a recent Coroners Inquest FUBAR, which has not finished yet. And because of its structure, even Members may have to make up a shortfall 🤢 Someone please tell me I am wrong? 1
facthunter Posted January 9 Posted January 9 There's only Liability in it for the CASA. IF someone was put in charge of it they would see it as a punishment, NOT a Promotion.. Don't shoot me I'm only the messenger. RAAus don't want IT either, I'd Wager. Same Philosophy. AS for the general Public? Couldn't care LESS I would reckon. There ARE JOBS in all of this. Interesting ones. Nev 1
FlyingVizsla Posted January 9 Posted January 9 It would be up to the Minister and CASA to approve a 103 equivalent for Australia as it will need legislation. Such a tiny segment of the industry and population with very little economic benefit; I don't see it getting any priority. Apart from that, the media will whip up a frenzy about untrained amateurs in flimsy home built contraptions plummeting on the good citizens of the 'bergs. RAAus won't miss them as the 95-10 segment are the lowest revenue, but more complex because they are all different. The number of 95-10 on their register is low. The Annual Report doesn't say how many of the 3,500 planes are in each category. The 95-10 owners I know (us included) are not about to ditch the RAAus membership as we have other aircraft. There are 10,000+ RAAus members, not sure how many are Non-Flying. Best to hammer the Federal Minister with the 103 concept if you want any result.
T510 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 A majority of the people I speak to are not happy with the way RAAus is running the recreational side of flying. 1 hour ago, BrendAn said: From what I understand casa have no problem with p103. Raaus have been stopping it. I don't know why they have a say in it but they do. There was group of aviation industry people pushing for it but they gave up. Is there enough interest to get people pushing for it again? Surely with the right lobbying there would be a chance of getting it accepted by CASA.
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 .I have been told that the RAA have accepted, from CASA, responsibility for operation that involve expensive operations manuals, and external expert requirements that involve expensive experts, auditors and even more expensive insurance. All to be paid y members, I have not seen a balance sheet but have been led to believe that the organisation has financial issues that keeps them on their toes. Hence my belief that they may not be able to afford members leaving to fly Parr 103?????
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 The way I understand it the USA experimental rules allowed constructors to do their own maintenance. I believe this was so years ago. Now you have to do a course that CASA seems to need to approve. CASA want to control anything with safety attached, their charter, US set up for administration, the will never allow Part 103, RAA don't want it. Only a polly will get it for us.
T510 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 2 hours ago, Geoff_H said: .I have been told that the RAA have accepted, from CASA, responsibility for operation that involve expensive operations manuals, and external expert requirements that involve expensive experts, auditors and even more expensive insurance. All to be paid y members, I have not seen a balance sheet but have been led to believe that the organisation has financial issues that keeps them on their toes. Hence my belief that they may not be able to afford members leaving to fly Parr 103????? Financial mismanagement by the RAA should not be the reason for not allowing a FAA part 103 style regulation in Australia. It's disappointing that most pilot's I speak to have nothing positive to say about their interactions with the RAA or the path RAA have chosen moving forward. It also seems crazy that RAA aircraft rego is more expensive than VH Reg
turboplanner Posted January 9 Posted January 9 58 minutes ago, T510 said: Financial mismanagement by the RAA should not be the reason for not allowing a FAA part 103 style regulation in Australia. It's disappointing that most pilot's I speak to have nothing positive to say about their interactions with the RAA or the path RAA have chosen moving forward. It also seems crazy that RAA aircraft rego is more expensive than VH Reg If you're a a Member for RAA, I'd suggest you go onto their site and see the RAA classes available, even if you're not, there should be some information there if you're interested in entry level aircraft. FAA Part 103 is based on the US legal system; ours is based on the Australian system, so before condemning the industry, best to see what you can legally fly. If anyone thinks they can talk to a politician and he'll immediately say "No Problems mate, I'll get that through for you. there are procedures they follow and they involve referring to the same paperwork I'm suggesting.
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 Do can I fly a CriCri as a RAA? Unfortunately I guess that there maybe other aircraft as well.
turboplanner Posted January 9 Posted January 9 2 minutes ago, Geoff_H said: Do can I fly a CriCri as a RAA? Unfortunately I guess that there maybe other aircraft as well. No, RAA only handle single engine aircraft.
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 I am pretty sure that it meets Part 103. However the engine out characteristics are so similar to single engine aircraft that many country's class it as a single. Ot Australia
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 "FAA Part 103 is based on the US legal system; ours is based on the Australian system" What is different about the Australian system to the American system?
spacesailor Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) How different is the UK system. From " part 103 " . spacesailor Edited January 9 by spacesailor
BrendAn Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 2 hours ago, Geoff_H said: I am pretty sure that it meets Part 103. However the engine out characteristics are so similar to single engine aircraft that many country's class it as a single. Ot Australia i think you can get it registered. i thought twins were no go but i spoke to someone with an ultralight , i forget what breed it was but he had registered with twin solo 2 strokes.
BrendAn Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 2 hours ago, turboplanner said: If you're a a Member for RAA, I'd suggest you go onto their site and see the RAA classes available, even if you're not, there should be some information there if you're interested in entry level aircraft. FAA Part 103 is based on the US legal system; ours is based on the Australian system, so before condemning the industry, best to see what you can legally fly. If anyone thinks they can talk to a politician and he'll immediately say "No Problems mate, I'll get that through for you. there are procedures they follow and they involve referring to the same paperwork I'm suggesting. there are a lot better aircraft in part 103 than wheeler scouts in the original auf rules that i think you are alluding too.
turboplanner Posted January 9 Posted January 9 7 hours ago, Geoff_H said: "FAA Part 103 is based on the US legal system; ours is based on the Australian system" What is different about the Australian system to the American system? Talk to a lawyer.
Red Posted January 9 Posted January 9 (edited) 9 hours ago, spacesailor said: How different is the UK system. From " part 103 " . spacesailor I guess the nearest we have to part 103 is the Single seat deregulated category Quote an aeroplane. This includes powered parachutes and self-launching motor gliders, but does not include gliders (including self-sustaining gliders), rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters and gyroplanes), or lighter-than-air machines (balloons and airships). Only have a single-seat, and must only be flown with one person (the pilot). Not take-off weighing more than the single-seat Microlight weight limit. This is 300 kg for a landplane, 315 kg for a landplane with an airframe mounted total recovery parachute system, and 330 kg for a seaplane or amphibian. Have a stall speed (or minimum flying speed) not exceeding 35 knots calibrated airspeed. This is equivalent to 40 mph or 65 kph. But...you need to have a valid pilots Licence, its only the aircraft that is deregulated The only category in UK that does not require a licence is the sub 70kg class which consists mostly of powered parachutes and some very lightweight flexwings, I'm not aware of any fixed wing 3 axis aircraft that have made it in that class, it would be no mean feat to design one. Below is an example of what you can get into the SSDR class with a little imagination ... https://speleotrove.com/sirocco/G-2DROCO.html Edited January 9 by Red 1
Geoff_H Posted January 9 Posted January 9 2 hours ago, turboplanner said: Talk to a lawyer. I asked because this was your argument. Both countries have common law. I still see no other reason other than RAA wanting membership. 2
FlyingVizsla Posted January 9 Posted January 9 12 hours ago, turboplanner said: No, RAA only handle single engine aircraft. The CAO 95-10 Exemption (2024) does not specify engines, only MTOW and wing loading. This is reflected in the RAAus Technical Manual 4.3, December 2024, RAAus sets no design criteria. Builders are free to design as they wish and build using any materials they wish, but they add the words "low momentum". Multi engine, even jet engines can be 95-10, and they have been registered as such with RAAus. The challenge is keeping the weight below 300kg. There are now allowances for parachutes (20kg) and floats (55kg), taking the max for a water landing craft to 355kg. All other categories registrable under RAAus are single engine only. CASA have inserted "Note A microlight aeroplane is not a Part 103 aircraft." in CAO 95-10 Section 5.1 definitions.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now