Plane crash, Mornington, south of Melbourne.

[Thx1137]

A fact is a fact. If it was reported that a VH aircraft crashed but it was in fact an RA aircraft we should still correct it. We certainly should try not to emulate the behavior of those that are against RA.

 

Obviously it is easier to get the will power to correct something when it is against us though!

 

It is terribly unfortunate that we have to mindful of political things when yet another of our small fraternity and their loved ones has suffered for their love of flying.

 

 

[facthunter]

True.

 

I am unequivocally for the truth here. (Hope I did not come across any other way). It is unfortunate indeed, but welcome to the real world. N..

 

 

[djpacro]

If a plane has a VH rego on it, it cannot be an ultralight

From Advisory Circular 21.1:

 

"10.1

 

 

 

Again, ultralight aircraft is not a category for the purposes of airworthiness certification.

 

 

 

 

In Australia, an ultralight is currently considered to be a single-engined aircraft with a MTOW not

 

exceeding 544 kg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are currently a number of different classes of ultralight aircraft in Australia, and they

 

are governed by different standards e.g. CAO 101.55, “Aircraft Certification Requirements -

 

Aeroplanes with a Maximum Weight Not Exceeding 450 kgâ€, or by CAO 95-series exemption

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

orders specifying particular configuration, weight and performance limitations etc. (for instance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAO 95.10 covering privately built single place ultralight aeroplanes).

 

 

 

 

 

10.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some ultralight aircraft may operate as normally registered civil aircraft, or under the

 

 

 

umbrella of a relevant sport aviation organisation.

 

 

 

10.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ultralight aircraft per se are not reflected as a category in either standard or special CoA.

 

However, depending on their registration status, design standards and modes of construction,

 

certain ultralight aircraft could be issued with a CoA in the amateur-built (ABAA), amateur-built

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or kit-built (experimental), primary or intermediate categories."

 

So, the Midget Mustang is an ultra light and some-one needs to apologise to the media for advising them incorrectly.

 

 

 

In the interest of accuracy I am hoping that this can be corrected

 

[octave]

My point here is that there is a lot of implied criticism of RAAus and the training and maintainance standards. Calling a VH registered aircraft an ultralight suggests that it is regulated by RAAus and this is not the case. This cuts both ways, GA aviation surely dont want their aircraft being described as and ultralight (even if it could be registered either way). Again I quote an article published earlier this week.

 

" Police will investigate whether low-flying ultralight planes are a safety issue in the area"

 

This is why the distinction is important. (again it cuts both ways). I also refer you back to the article "Light plane deaths up by 50%" the main thrust of this article is the suggestion the RAAus training and maitainance standards are questionable. Really I suppose the important thing is the regulatory system under which the plane and pilot opperate. When the media refers to a plane as an ultralight it suggests that the pilot is trained under RAAus rules and that it is maintained under RAAus standards.

 

Re - "So, the Midget Mustang is an ultra light and some-one needs to apologise to the media for advising them incorrectly."

 

My RAAus certificate would not allow me to fly a VH registered Midget mustang.

 

Perhaps if we want to split hairs we could inform the media that a VH aircraft is maintained as a GA aircraft and must only flown by a GA licened pilot and is not regulated by RAAus.

 

Does any else think I owe the media an apology?????

 

Cheers

 

Graham

 

 

[Skyhog]

Correct me if I'm wrong!The aircraft in question has too higher stall speed to be registered as an ultralight,therefore it's not an ultralight.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Maybe this discussion would be better left in a different thread other than this as this thread still directly relates to the Melb crash.

 

 

[octave]

Yes I would agree with that

 

 

[antzx6r]

Ultralight = 45knts stall

 

I was about to add the same detail. I think it's around 50knt flapped and 53 clean for the Midget Mustang. Great plane tho. I want one.

 

But that aside, Octave has the principle idea that is the real problem CASA/Airservices never thought this 'ultralight' thing was going to take off. And now that it has, there has been a pattern of making RAAus the fall guy for what is wrong with Class G airspace and CTAF airfields. Soon we will be gaining a higher weight increase and access to CTA. I suspect that this pattern will continue there. I was talking to a YAK pilot at the great eastern and he was saying there is a threat of CASA either grounding or (more likely) off loading to a self moderating system like our own. This is purely my own thoughts, but I can see CASA taking all recreation based aviation out of there hair but still under their 'power' so to speak. And then with all the bad press pointing squarely at us, having us grounded as a whole. Leaving only airlines and training facilities for airlines still in the air.

 

I know it sounds very 1984. But this is how politics works. And don't think for a minute that the guys at the top are beyond this kind of dirty pool. Call me crazy, but thats my nostra imput. Don't cry to me when it all comes down. :black_eye:

 

So our only counter for this movement is to redirect the blame for the 50% increase in accidents to where it belongs. Back at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Get the major reform they need so badly.

 

We are not sqeeky clean either. We need to weed out the bad eggs and keep vigilant with training and recency and aircraft maintanance. But we can't let the public continue to think that recreational aircraft and pilots are a dangerous hazard that should be grounded the first chance they get.

 

Apologise...? What for. Media need to shape up.

 

PS. This has nothing to do with the sad loss of our brother from Tyabb. He was as recreational as we all are and will be missed I'm sure. Please do not read this as an us and them thing. It's not. It's a call for media to get it together, for CASA to act like an 'authority' and not a political party (give us a safe environment) and a call to get aviation back to where it was at it's peak, a growing industry with passion.

 

OK... stepping down now. Peace out. :thumb_up:

 

 

[antzx6r]

Ha ha... You guys got that in while i was ranting. A great idea. Although there are many threads on the subject.

 

 

[Skyhog]

Ultralight = 45knts stallI think it's around 50knt flapped and 53 clean for the Midget Mustang. Great plane tho. I want one.

Couldn't agree more mate,I'd love to own one too.

 

 

[djpacro]

Ultralight = 45knts stall

Nope, read the advisory circular again. A ultralight is simply a MTOW of 544 kg.

 

 

[octave]

Does that mean that my RAAus Pilot cert allows me to fly Any Aircraft under 544kg (including VH Reg)? thats certainly not my understanding.

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

Nope, read the advisory circular again. A ultralight is simply a MTOW of 544 kg.

The only reference in the advisory circular to 45knt stall speed is in Section 8.2 ©(iv) with regard to JAR-VLA type certification:

 

8.2 Normal Category:

 

 

 

(a) normal category applies to aircraft which are intended for non-acrobatic operation,

 

 

 

having a seating configuration (excluding pilot seats) of nine seats or less, and a

 

 

 

MTOW of 5700 kg or less, or 2750 kg or less for rotorcraft;

 

 

 

(b) normal category aircraft must meet the airworthiness standards of CASR Part 23

 

 

 

(for aeroplanes), or Part 27 (for rotorcraft), or be automatically accepted from a

 

 

 

CASA-recognised country, or comply with the predecessors or equivalents of

 

 

 

these standards. It also includes aircraft which complied with the requirements of

 

 

 

the now-repealed CAOs 101.22 or 101.24;

 

 

 

© note that normal category aeroplanes which have been type-certificated under the

 

 

 

JAR-VLA design requirements carry more design restrictions than the broad

 

 

 

category specified in (a) above:

 

 

 

(i) single, non-turbine engine only;

 

 

 

(ii) two seats or less;

 

 

 

(iii) MTOW of 750 kg or less;

 

 

 

(iv) stall speed of 45 knots or less, in the landing configuration;

 

 

 

operating restrictions are also placed on JAR-VLA types fitted with an engine

 

 

 

certificated under CASR Part 32;

 

 

 

(d) notwithstanding the nine seat maximum limitation expressed in (a) above, normal

 

 

 

category includes aircraft certificated under SFAR 41 and SFAR 23 (with weight

 

 

 

and seating limitation extensions). The now-repealed CAO 101.22 allowed for

 

 

 

more than nine passenger seats;

 

 

 

(e) non-acrobatic operation includes:

 

 

 

(i) any manoeuvre incidental to normal flying;

 

 

 

(ii) stalls, other than flick stalls;

 

 

 

(iii) lazy eights, chandelles and steep turns, in which the angle of bank does not

 

 

 

 

exceed 60°.

 

 

[Guest Ken deVos]

45knt stall

 

Where we should be looking is here: http://www.auf.asn.au/operations/9555.pdf

 

in Sectionn 1.5 (f) and 1.6 (f).

 

To clarify IMO, the aircraft was a 'Light Aircraft' used for 'Recreational Purposes' but registered by CASA, not RA-Aus (possibly because of the stall speed, or perhaps the owner simply chose it).

 

 

[hihosland]

For the purposes of the CAOs an ultralight is, as stated, an aircraft with MTOW of 544.

 

"Registered with RAA" and "ultralight" are not completely synonymous terms although for most situations it suits us to treat them as such.

 

I don't believe that the current debate about the media and the use and misuse of the term 'ultralight' does the flying community any good at all.

 

The flying community are not misled by this usage and the general populace don't care.

 

A large number of RAA aircraft are only so registered as a result of choices made by the owners they could equally be VH or HGFA.

 

How an accident aircraft is registered is of as much interest to non flying persons as is which state authority issued the numberplate of a semi that crashed on the highway. I suspect that us making a big deal of this issue makes us look rather petty and self serving in the eyes of the average editor, and will look even more so should some day two RAA aircraft collide with the loss of 4 lives.

 

dem's my thoughts

 

Davidh

 

 

[antzx6r]

There was a conversation similar to this about climbing to within 300ft of circuit height before turning xwind. As I understand it, the hard and fast rule is to climb to 500agl before xwind and circuit height before downwind. And the advisory circular was just that, advisory, in order for slower climbing aircraft to be at circuit height by downwind. So like Ken says, The rule from RAAus website is the rule. Advisory circular is advisory.

 

 

[antzx6r]

I don't believe that the current debate about the media and the use and misuse of the term 'ultralight' does the flying community any good at all.The flying community are not misled by this usage and the general populous don't care.

 

A large number of RAA aircraft are only so registered as a result of choices made by the owners they could equally be VH or HGFA.

I get your point Davidh but meanwhile RAAus get all the blame for CASAs responsibilities leading to our demise. And the public do get the distinction but it relies on the catch fraises.

 

"I can't believe you fly them ultralights. They fall out of the sky all the bl:censored:y time!"

 

You are right, they don't care about registration bodies, they just here ultralight and run screaming. Why do you think we changed our name from AUF to RAAus?

 

 

[hihosland]

Why do you think we changed our name from AUF to RAAus?

 

But did it do us any good?

 

 

[octave]

I think the word ultralight is used to push certain buttons in the reader. The perception is that an ultralight is much more dangerous. We could just ignore this and allow perception to grow but politicians are easily swayed by public opinion.

 

Re "making a big deal" I sent a polite email to the VIC Police Media who were very happy to check the facts and then change their press release, they thanked me for bringing it to their attention and I thanked them for changing the press release. No big deal.

 

The fact that the public doesn't know the difference makes it all the more important that the news they get is honest and accurate, this also means taking the good with the bad. The annoying thing is that in a period where ultralight safety has improved the public perception does not seem to have taken that onboard.

 

 

[Ausmo]

Ultralight = 45knts stall So our only counter for this movement is to redirect the blame for the 50% increase in accidents to where it belongs. Back at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Get the major reform they need so badly.

I absolutely agree that reform is needed - but might it not be a tad unfair to lay all the blame at the feet of this particular villain?

 

Cheers!

 

Erik

[antzx6r]

Don't think i'm drawing a line in the sand, us good them bad type of thing. We can improve. But CASAs job is safety authority. For us and VH. I just think they should be doing a better job instead of pointing the finger.

 

 

[djpacro]

[/url]

 

[/url]THE pilot of an ultra light plane ....."

 

My point is simple - this article was correct in calling it an ultralight as it is per CASA's definition which is explained in that advisory circular. 

 

 

 

 

[antzx6r]

You're right DJP. And that just gives another example of CASA leaving a definition incomplete and confusing. Now some poor fool will go out an buy a Mustang kit thinking they can register it RAAus.

 

I know the media can justify calling it an ultralight and in court my argument would not stand up. But come on... where do you think the angry mob are going to point their burning torches when they get sick of low flying "ultralights" (CASA definition)?

 

Is that fair?

 

 

[octave]

This is why we should care about media stories about ultralights.

 

 

 

extract from "Why use computer-assisted reporting methods?" by Stephen Lamble

 

Why use CAR

 

"There is no single Australian Government register containing data about the death toll per flying hour in ultralights. But an in-depth analysis of official crash statistics and news reports gathered from different sources shows that in the years from 1992 to 2007 an average of 7.25 ultralight pilots or passengers were killed for every 100,000 hours flown."

 

So here we have a journalist drawing conclusions partly from news reports. Wether or not a 450kg plane is or is not technicaly an ultralight, if it is VH reg, the fact is that RAAus has nothing to do with setting maintainance standards or pilot training standards.

 

I am not suggesting that our safety standards or beyond question, we should all be striving for a 0 fatality rate, and anything we can learn from any accident wether be hot air balloon, glider, GA our RPT is important.

 

 

In these times of airports being sold off it could become increasingly difficult to find places to opperate from. It seems to me that our public reputation could be crucial in the establishment of new facilities or the continued operation of existing faclitcies.

 

 

Again this is not an us verses them, it does cut both ways, many RA pilots are also GA pilots and most importantly the loss of any fellow aviator is a tragedy.

 

Cheers

 

Graham

 

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Er... with a O320, 160 horse motor, the MTOW is 453Kg.

 

Would this mean that it COULD be RAA registered?

 

Ben