BurnieM

Most likely it is a Rotax 912ULS. This is a 100hp, 4 cyclinder, 1400cc carburated engine. There are thousands of these engines flying. They are very reliable.

Planes normally take off into the wind to reduce the length of runway required. Very few pilots would take off with a tail wind more than about 10 knots.

Just did it online today. Did about 3 hours of reading, references in the online notes and about 40 minutes for the exam. Out of 50 questions only about half a dozen actual maintenance questions and the rest about the rules. You need to know the name of the FAA advisory maintenance circular but dont bother reading it. I do not think they actually see it, it just appears on your membership record, in my case 2 minutes after the email saying I passed.

Daily commuting would still probably be legal. The flexibilty of rural areas allows many activities without council approval.

Short answer; yes he can fly below 500 feet over your house while landing on his property. Both of you have a right to enjoyment of your property. Both of you must be realistic in the actual, as opposed to perceived, risk of any activaty. If there are trees and power lines he may be restricted in the approach path he can follow. Perhaps there are options here but I would be careful to not attempt to aggressively persuade him to perform any actions he might consider dangerous. If he is landing once a week in daylight hours in a rural area I would consider this a low impact activity.

The PPL needs to be an RAAus member and do a 5 hour-ish RPC conversion. A GA BFR counts for both but a RAAus BFR only counts for RAAus.

I'm certified and an L1 too. Online does not really teach you a lot. A practical engine specific course would be better.

But do they ? 10,000 ga pilots to manage on what they say is an already limited budget.

I cannot see any way to currently get an L1 endorsement.

If you put Evektor in as a manufacturer here you get the official ICAO type codes for their different models - https://www.icao.int/publications/DOC8643/Pages/Search.aspx You can see Evektor re-used the EV97 code on 2 different models but neither is the Sportstar The Sportstar is EVSS. While your manual may have been accepted by RAAus as valid it could cause legal problems later on.

I understand what I am asking for. I am definintely pushing for factory involvement in this entry into the Australian market. I note a lack of factory involvement in the US market also. Without the factory being seen to support their product in our market people will just wait. How about a public statement from the factory about how they view the Australian market ?

Actually says "Flight Manual for SportStar Ultraight Airplane" but has everything I would expect in a POH.

This may be useful; says Sportstar POH, Dec 10 2003, second edition. Looks like it has a single tank. https://www.skyviewultralights.ca/student-resources https://www.skyviewultralights.ca/_files/ugd/f9edee_eee78221340d4f549dc388370bb89005.pdf?index=true

I understood that the Sportstar was approved as an LSA in the US in 2005 but probably built earlier. I believe the Eurostar was a lighter weight and only sold in Europe. Evektor re-used the EV97 ICAO identifier on the Harmony.

You known thats a EuroStar (EV97) POH right ? Dont you have an early model SportStar (EVSS)