Part 103 As Written By CASA

[jackc]

Subject says it all 🤩  Part 103 is documented by CASA here:

 

https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1998B00220/latest/text/3

 

 

I need to research this and see WHERE the U.S. FAA FAR Part 103 compares ?  A submission MAY be recognised by CASA in light of what is happening at RAA right now. The idea being to reestablish AUF freedoms previously held.

We have modern, safe airframes available that can be imported here, we have Drifters and Thrusters capable of being reclassified for approved training aircraft for the Part 103 aviation sector, all administered by CASA, outside of RAA.

What is not to like.🤩

Right now, if we don’t ask the question, we won’t get an answer. 

[spacesailor]

" ask the question " .

I've tried to make sense of that rambling document.  

I don't think my brain is educated in ' lawyer speak ' . Or amateur bureaucratic lawyer speak .

Lots of drug testing ,but no sign of " FAA part 103 " .

Please dig any useful information out . For the illiterate of us .

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

" ask the question " .

I've tried to make sense of that rambling document.  

I don't think my brain is educated in ' lawyer speak ' . Or amateur bureaucratic lawyer speak .

Lots of drug testing ,but no sign of " FAA part 103 " .

Please dig any useful information out . For the illiterate of us .

spacesailor

You would have to look at USA FAA documents for that. The link is just the Australian CASR.

[FlyingVizsla]

16 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Please dig any useful information out .

Spacey - you have to scroll a long way down to Section 103.  

 

This is part of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (not FAR 103 - that's the USA)

I agree, that this is hard to understand.  Section titled Part 103 refers to a number of things, but the "Part 103" aircraft are subject to the Part 103 Manual of Standards (someone will need to find this ...)

 

A Part 103 "aircraft" is:

a sailplane, hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider, powered paraglider or registered touring motor glider

empty weight under 70 kg

listed with a Part 103 ASAO - that's an Approved Self - administering Aviation Organisation - like RAAus, GFA etc

 

CASA doesn't want these micro flying things, so they insist that an ASAO take on the responsibility.  Any group that takes on something like this will have COSTS that have to be passed on to "members".  Then they will have to shoulder some of the responsibility - more costs, more oversight.  Getting much like RAAus?

 

Just my 2 bob's worth - it needs someone with more knowledge to untangle what that bit of Legislation means in reality.

[spacesailor]

Where in , " USA FAA DOCUMENTS " . Does one find " CASA " .

spacesailor

[FlyingVizsla]

OK - I looked it up on the CASA website.  There is a Working Group:-

 

A Manual of Standards (MOS) supports Part 103 and contains requirements of greater technical detail. The Part 103 MOS is not yet in effect. 

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-work/aviation-safety-advisory-panel/technical-working-groups/sport-aviation-part-103-manual-standards-technical-working-group#Latestupdates

You can see their updates there also - last one was 2021.  Don't hold your breath ....

[FlyingVizsla]

17 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Where in , " USA FAA DOCUMENTS " . Does one find " CASA " .

Spacey - Jackc is talking about Australia's version of FAA's Part 103 (no rego, no licence etc)

CASA is Australia's regulatory body, so Part 103 (like in the USA), won't come here unless they create it.

They are "consulting" with industry about what should be in the Manual.

[jackc]

31 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

Spacey - you have to scroll a long way down to Section 103.  

 

This is part of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (not FAR 103 - that's the USA)

I agree, that this is hard to understand.  Section titled Part 103 refers to a number of things, but the "Part 103" aircraft are subject to the Part 103 Manual of Standards (someone will need to find this ...)

 

A Part 103 "aircraft" is:

a sailplane, hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider, powered paraglider or registered touring motor glider

empty weight under 70 kg

listed with a Part 103 ASAO - that's an Approved Self - administering Aviation Organisation - like RAAus, GFA etc

 

CASA doesn't want these micro flying things, so they insist that an ASAO take on the responsibility.  Any group that takes on something like this will have COSTS that have to be passed on to "members".  Then they will have to shoulder some of the responsibility - more costs, more oversight.  Getting much like RAAus?

 

Just my 2 bob's worth - it needs someone with more knowledge to untangle what that bit of Legislation means in reality.

ANYTHING to do with Aviation in Australia costs money and getting WORSE 🤢

I am seeing what I can find out, I have has personal msgs and phone calls asking me questions and giving information.

this might get interesting 🤩

[spacesailor]

Thanks Flying Vizsla . I did get down there & read that sentence! . But my brain didn't find  an " aeroplane " . anywhere listed .

Not even a Human Powered Aircfraft

" Airglow "

 

 

spacesailor

[FlyingVizsla]

Things are changing rapidly.  Just have a look at YouTube for guys transporting themselves on multiple rotors, hover bikes etc.  Where do they fit in the CASA universe?  Our legislation is a long way behind technology.  How do you register a modular rotor contraption that has removable, configurable, engines, with number of seats fitted "as needed"?  Or autonomous aircraft, or flying cars?

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

A Part 103 "aircraft" is:

a sailplane, hang glider, powered hang glider, paraglider, powered paraglider or registered touring motor glider

empty weight under 70 kg

listed with a Part 103 ASAO - that's an Approved Self - administering Aviation Organisation - like RAAus, GFA etc

Note the empty weight. so you are usually part of the frame.

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

 

CASA doesn't want these micro flying things, so they insist that an ASAO take on the responsibility.  Any group that takes on something like this will have COSTS that have to be passed on to "members".  Then they will have to shoulder some of the responsibility - more costs, more oversight.  Getting much like RAAus?

CASA provide the freedom to fly away from paddocks and above 300 feet for the AUF spread of aircraft, but all had to be Self Administering AUF agreed to that and Recreational Aiircraft came out of the paddocks and cross country RA was possible.

 

So it's wrong to pick on CASA saying they don't want these "micro flying things" when the participants today self administer many different classes without problems all over Australia. Most of them are nopt "getting much like RAAus", they are RAAus registered, including light single seaters.

1 hour ago, FlyingVizsla said:

 

Just my 2 bob's worth - it needs someone with more knowledge to untangle what that bit of Legislation means in reality.

 

[FlyingVizsla]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

So it's wrong to pick on CASA saying they don't want these "micro flying things"

I'm not picking on CASA, but history tells us that they have moved away from administering individual aircraft in favour of administering an organisation that administers the lower levels of aviation - Models, ultralights, hang gliders etc.  They are moving away from Exemptions. 

 

That's why I doubt that a category of aircraft will be established which requires no registration, licence etc. in Australia.

[turboplanner]

42 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

I'm not picking on CASA, but history tells us that they have moved away from administering individual aircraft in favour of administering an organisation that administers the lower levels of aviation - Models, ultralights, hang gliders etc.  .

CASA was founded on July 6, 1995.

The Australian Ultralight Federation (AUF) with the aircraft this thread is talking about was established in 1983.

 

At the time the State, Territory and Federal Governments were closing down sporting and workplace administration because of exponential cost explosion as a result of lawsuits for negligence. Victoria's Department of Labour and Industry which admininstered some high risk sports like motor racing was shut down.  Governments started providing some limited protection for groups who registered Incorporated associations and complied with a Model Constitution and Public Liability Insurers came up with packages that were affordable and the new Associations took off. 

[facthunter]

CASA was only one of many names for the One Government Body, so your first statement is misleading. Then you go on with your usual comparison with Motor sport and  aviation.  CARs don't FLY and you can't black flag a plane.. When planes slow down they fall out of the sky at the bottom of it. Cars just pull off the side of the track. Nev

[jackc]

3 hours ago, FlyingVizsla said:

OK - I looked it up on the CASA website.  There is a Working Group:-

 

A Manual of Standards (MOS) supports Part 103 and contains requirements of greater technical detail. The Part 103 MOS is not yet in effect. 

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who-we-work/aviation-safety-advisory-panel/technical-working-groups/sport-aviation-part-103-manual-standards-technical-working-group#Latestupdates

You can see their updates there also - last one was 2021.  Don't hold your breath ....

AND note the names of RAAus staff members on that Working Group?  I would allege collusion for nefarious purposes? 

[facthunter]

What's in it for them? All small aviation groups have an interest too. It's been a divide and conquer Manoeuvre. Used all through History.  Only the CASA could breathe life into this and there you have somewhere Between Buckleys and a Snowflake in Hells chance there.. CASA want the easiest LIFE possible  and who in there would stick their Neck out on this for the risk involved and No real Kudos within the system. People want the action and benefits of being on the cutting edge. in that game. Nev

[jackc]

I have been giving a lot of thought to this and made a possible plan for myself. IF Part 103 looks like never happening in Australia.
I would sell all my aircraft and any associated equipment and get out of aviation in Australia.

Then I would travel to the US, buy a FAA FAR  Part 103 aircraft and a trailer for it. Since I have many friends in the US I would have a place to store it. Then  simply spend the money flying to the US for four weeks at a time probably four times a year and have an aviation holiday each trip and fly with thousands of like-minded happy FAR part 103 owners.

And forget Australia. NO RAAus, NO numbers, No licence and NO bullsh1t.

I have to get rid of the inheritance somehow, I don’t wanna leave any behind 🤩

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

CASA was only one of many names for the One Government Body, so your first statement is misleading. Then you go on with your usual comparison with Motor sport and  aviation.  CARs don't FLY and you can't black flag a plane.. When planes slow down they fall out of the sky at the bottom of it. Cars just pull off the side of the track. Nev

I noticed no one was really aware of ANYTHING about that era so I've just put up the dates, so you'll be able to fill us in on all these "many other names", and where someone might be trying to "black flag" a plane, and why.

[facthunter]

Never a straight answer from you. Anyone who's interested can look up the names. They are not critical to the discussion.. Motor sports are much easier to manage than "flying things" and the "Potential" Liability is a lot less.  The "Black flag" is an analogy as you well know that can't be done with a plane. There's plenty of other things that are very different. You just won't ever accept that.  Your lack of in depth Understanding of Aviation is constantly on  show in this matter.   Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Never a straight answer from you. Anyone who's interested can look up the names. They are not critical to the discussion.. Motor sports are much easier to manage than "flying things" and the "Potential" Liability is a lot less.  The "Black flag" is an analogy as you well know that can't be done with a plane. There's plenty of other things that are very different. You just won't ever accept that.  Your lack of in depth Understanding of Aviation is constantly on  show in this matter.   Nev

Let's not fantasise; what I put up were the basics; we don't need to know a team of medical specialists to brush our teeth.

Motor Sport had nothing to do with what I was saying. An Understanding of Aviation is not necessary to understand that AUF started before CASA did and CASA welcomed self administering Associations, and when all this came together.

 

AUF was up and running for years before CASA was a gleam in someone's eye.