Jump to content

jackc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,285

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jackc

  1. jackc
    If Part 103 works for portly Americans? It can work here……
  2. jackc
    Sorry, I think that RAAus would do nothing, except sink the concept to the bottom of the Mariana Trench 😞 RAAus is a company that makes money, a perceived threat to the income would be unacceptable………
  3. jackc
    Maybe I need to plan a trip to the U.S. and see some people in the relevant organisations and some of the aircraft vendors. Been a few years since I have been to the U.S. when I did business there.
  4. jackc
    Turbs, so why change something the FAA has seen fit not to change? The fact that the FAA rules have not changed over time is testament to the fact they must be happy how its working. IF we take FAA regulations and do what Australia historically does, make ego driven b/s changes and just fcuks up the principles of FAA FAR Part 103. The whole principle would be destroyed in what we seek. But at times I think some people in Aviation would like it to fail, too many Curmudgeons in this country 😞
  5. jackc
    Take what aro has said and transfer it holus bolus to Australia, CASA takes it on board exactly as U.S. FAA does. Leave RAAus out of it, they started with it and have run their race with what they have done and to this day have grown the sector to become more regulated over time and closer towards GA with more expensive aircraft etc. We only need to answer to CASA at the same levels as U.S. Part 103 answers to FAA.
  6. jackc
    Another John Moody YouTube video…. https://youtu.be/jvav17CxISY
  7. jackc
    Turbs if you want to get creative, there are ways of getting around law suits costing you everything you have. If that kind of stuff bothered me I would have departed this Earth long ago realising life was so dull and not worth living. Why begrudge people in our case with Aviation, the chance or will to make changes that may benefit some who want to participate in Part 103 be free of too many regulated constraints, and have fun? May as well croak in your rocking chair watching Netflix 😞. Think of Bon Jovi’s song ‘Its My Life’. I live by it 🙂
  8. jackc
    FAA Advisory Circular 103-7 https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22640
  9. jackc
    The Corporation has struck 😞
  10. jackc
    Problem I have is……precious little knowledge of Aviation or its history. Aviation Regulations are a minefield to study, in fact I have never seen such an abortion of legislation/regulation in my life. Hence I have a large handicap in being able to present a case. All I know is the U.S. has a KISS principle in setting up and administering its FAA FAR Part 103 regime, its covered in a few pages of requirements to comply. About FAA Part 103 for Ultralights | EAA WWW.EAA.ORG Adopted and effective in 1982, Part 103 formally established what truly is recreational flight. Its easy for our regulators to copy this and I accept there must me some kind of framework around this for admin of training and safety, but retain the U.S. FAA requirements/specification as defined by them. Would not be hard to alter the regime a little for our use here, but the plan must be closely aligned with FAA. NO actual licence, NO rego……. We are talking low budget Aviation here, a starting point. It may sow the seeds for RAA and GA Aviation, too. RAAus is a company, they wont make money, so they will never support it. So we start a ‘new AUF’ as another entity? Its a lower rung on the ladder below RAAus, all ladders have steps 🙂
  11. jackc
    Figured out how to do it……DONE Sorry about my FUBAR 🙂
  12. jackc
    Sorry peoples, I am IT deficient, It only worked for members I think. I was able to change it for ALL to post/read etc…..
  13. jackc
    Oshkosh details: https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-fly-in-flying-to-oshkosh/ultralight-arrivals
  14. jackc
    Yes its me again, the Part 103 serial pest 🙂 Sorry for polluting the recent RAA thread with my diatribe! But it comes from being passionate on the Part 103 saga. I am aware many Aviators maybe against this segment of aviation, but there are many people thinking the opposite, if somewhat clandestine 🙂. I don't see a problem with it, except that its deemed illegal by our CASA and some other Aviation Organisations. The FAA Part 103 regime is embraced in a big way in the U.SA. So where is the problem for Australia, well I know the problem here is too many fuddy duddy snowflakes who want to deny others, to pursue a more adventurous form of Aviation. AirVenture 2023 Oshkosh has even welcomed Part 103 aviators by providing an airstrip and ground/display area for them in support. Just imagine them rolling up to Avalon? They would get shot down 😞 I guess I could get very much more public about Part 103 and see what happens……I know CASA would hate that and my face is probably already a dart board in the RAAus lunch room but……..maybe its time to call it out……
  15. jackc
    Nothing ventured, nothing gained. i have been in contact with a few manufacturers and received invitations to visit. I almost think its worth following up. Go over to the US (been there on business about 6 times in my day job life) check out and do some Part 103 training/flying. I know I can get container space, because I have been offered by someone here in Australia, Buy one while there 🙂 Probably secure a dealership if I wanted, order a few kits etc. Unfortunately I am too old to set that up and then defend myself in an Aviation Regulatory War. Not illegal to buy, just illegal to fly……right now. Illegal to me, is a sick bird 🙂
  16. jackc
    People who are different will always have dissenters 🙂
  17. jackc
    We need a clandestine Part 103 report on your return, don't want to upset the Aviation Snowflakes, do we 🙂 🙂
  18. jackc
    Whats wrong with wanting what we once had, back? The US have the Part 103 segment which is similar to what AUF was. People would argue that the string bag airframes of the past fell out of the sky everywhere, and they were right. Airframes and engines have come along was since those days. RAA would probably never support the Part 103 US regime? Nor make any supporting submissions to CASA on it. But, we must understand that many of the people in Australia have got no drive to change anything, they just suck it up and whinge, how sad. Well, I dont and remember back to the days of CB……I was a pirate and got chased by the DOC and busted, the DOC charged me and 1 charge was under the Crimes Act 1914 and thats possible jail time. I defended myself and got off all charges. Because many people operated illegally it was decided to legalise CB and the rest is history. I went on to found my own business on the CB industry and lasted the rest of my working life for 30 years working for myself. I don't give in easily 🙂 But its hard in a rising Snowflake World 😞
  19. jackc
    Oskosh has even set aside a 900ft runway for FAR Part 103 aircraft to fly in to Air Adventure 2023. https://www.eaa.org/airventure/eaa-fly-in-flying-to-oshkosh/ultralight-arrivals
  20. jackc
    Read here…. Ultralights & Ultralight Aircraft | EAA WWW.EAA.ORG Enjoy the Ultralights Hall of Fame, find instructors or look for education programs that the EAA offers to ultralight aircraft enthusiasts of all kinds.
  21. jackc
    RAAus wont see it that way, They would argue no safety, loss of admin control, loss of membership money. They would cringe over someone unlicenced, possibly not trained, swooping around at 500-1000 feet in the middle of nowhere. Flying night VFR at midnight, on a full moon 🙂 The ‘Catch Me IF You Can Airforce’ That has a ring to it 🙂
  22. jackc
    You would count the number of people on 2 hands, but it could seed people to want more…….a possible boost in Aviation?
  23. jackc
  24. jackc
    Todays Truck Cabs have more structural integrity with included safety design……thankfully 🙂
  25. jackc
    Thanks Mike, I need to do this for each of my aircraft 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...