kasper

And there is a reason they have to be members of RAAus ... a legal reason ... it’s that RAAus is responsible under the CAO to set and manage repair/maintenance and without membership the tech office have NO ability to monitor or manage the LAME ... CASA can manage and control LAME ops on the non”toy” aircraft because they are not under the CAOs that the RAAus aircraft are. true it would be possible for CASA to rewrite the CAOs to allow them to manage and monitor LAMEs doing work on “toy” planes BUT it’s then taking onto CASAs risk the ops of the “toy” planes ... which they have never wanted to do so there is an active reason for CASA to say no way to change from RAAus oversight of the airframes and maintenance

Sorry but this change was 23 years ago. You basically have no real chance of getting RAAus now to give an allowance off reg fees now for charges by AUF 23 years ago. So the way forward is that any airframe that you can fit with 95.55 as a home built can be reg with RAAus as a 19- reg airframe - regardless of if it was started to be built 6mths ago or 30yrs ago. Where anyone is looking at this on a part built or unregistered airframe you really are best calling RAAus and talking to the tech team - they are generally very helpful and can offer options where strict process and docs do not exist.

Not to worry - spacey has a BIT of a chip about being caught out with a rule change 23 years ago that only meant he needed to register change from 10- to 19- but he cannot let it go. ANY and ALL single seat foreign kits that are within the 600kg MTOW and stall lower than 45knts are single single engine, single prop and require more than 50% assembly by you CAN be assembled and registered in OZ with RAAus .... but it will be a 19- homebuilt - you CANNOT bring in anything from a foreign factory 9kit or fully assembled) and registered it as a 10- reg single seater ... that was the change 23 years ago Spacey can't seem to let go of.

First audit office report: A key shortcoming in Airservices’ procurement policies and procedures is that they do not give appropriate emphasis to the use of competitive processes. In addition, Airservices routinely failed to adhere to its policies and procedures in procuring services from ICCPM. As a result, Airservices’ procurement of services from ICCPM, on an exclusively sole-sourced basis, did not deliver value for money. Airservices demonstrated a lack of organisational commitment to the effective implementation of probity principles in respect to the ICCPM arrangements. It was reasonably foreseeable that Airservices’ contracting of ICCPM to assist with the OneSKY Australia project would give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interest and, potentially, actual conflicts of interest. But the ICCPM engagements were not effectively managed so as to ensure the OneSKY tender process was free of any concerns over conflict of interest that could impact on public confidence in the outcome. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/procurement-iccpm-onesky-australia-program Second audit office report: The records of the evaluation process evidence that the successful tender was assessed to be better than the other remaining candidates from a technical and schedule risk perspective. It is not clearly evident that the successful tender offered the best value for money. This is because adjustments made to tendered prices when evaluating tenders against the cost criterion were not conducted in a robust and transparent manner. Those adjustments meant that the tenderer that submitted the highest acquisition and support prices was assessed to offer the lowest cost solution. It is also not clearly evident that the successful tender is affordable in the context of the funding available to Airservices and Defence. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/conduct-onesky-tender

Indeed. When a volcano stopped play for big bus like planes we had great fun popping out from Stoke Kent to visit all sorts of places. And truth be told we could see the millennium dome in our circuit at 600’agl and could potter up the Thames below any radar ... the new year when we flew into city airport and landed was fun and proved we were invisible ... had to turn on transponders for them to find us and they were looking for us from the QE2 bridge at Dartford and didn’t actually see us till we got to the dome and turned in to land. ASIC is a joke. The industry knows it and even Govt departments know it but can’t say. And politicians can’t do anything after it’s been put in due to security. I just avoid the offending airports or just demand an escort as it required to be provided.

Post a photo of the bit your after - unclear if it’s the strut end up to the wing or the lower strut to plates And be aware that the lower strut steel insert also tends to corrode so I’d be pulling that as well. anyway have fun.

Sorry Octave. We stopped being an incorporated association 5 years ago. Company limited by guarantee and a non-profit is what we are. directors are currently not remunerated but are directors of the company.

You will find that in Spain and France many of the small fields will be Spanish/French only - airfield info will show it clearly - so you will need to be able to follow and do all comms in that language if you want to visit all/any airfields. Larger fields will be in English so you can avoid having to do it in local but you will be limited to more mainstream. I generally flew around the English language fields in Spain as my Spanish was not really up to it at the time but my French was functional for circuit use so I could get around most of it. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands are all full English as is the Uk 🇬🇧 😛. can’t get into Switzerland with a ULM so can’t comment on them. Northern Italy was fine with English legally but I found many airfields just ignored that and it was Italian all over the airwaves and I just followed process and fitted in with patterns.

And for the next example of unacceptable editing in the official RAAus magazine ... pg 74 where the UFO is described as “RAAus certified”nope. Sorry. No way acceptable to say any hone built RAAus aircraft is cerified by RAAus. I count it as very sloppy and not acceptable in the official journal of RAAus.

Shirt sperrin

But if you are looking at charging for use based on the damage they do rot the roadway then gvm is important. It already exists in practice as excise is more per km the larger the vehicle gvm as they have larger engines and more l/100km. once there is a fair basis of charge for use you then can overlay policy adjustment to address additional outcomes desired - increase the charge for ICE engines to cover their additional environmental ‘Costs’ to the country or alternate apply a discount to non-ICE engines to reflect a lower impact on the environment.

But when a foot launch three axis hang glider has a AU$25,000 engine added and will cost in excess of $125k landed in Australia I think we are not talking about the real world of recreational flyers.

Practical problems with current technology ... putting aside weight of the cells solar cells generally available run at a max of 285w/m^2 and that is with optimal angle to sun. The sapphire needs 13kw to cruise around in still air - its not a great glider but its pretty good for an ultralight. To fully power the cruise requirements of the Sapphire will require around 45m^2 of optimally oriented solar cells ... the sapphire has 9m^2 of wing and at best would contribute 20% of cruise power but realistically only around 10% so would need to carry in addition to the solar sufficient battery capacity to cover 90% of the planned range ... the installed weight of additional battery to cover that solar panel contribution would be a very minor fraction of the installed weigh of the panels. Realistically we will see second hand lower efficiency panels (165-200w panels) parked on top of aircraft hangars where their mass is not critical and they can top up aircraft batteries and feed into grids etc. Even if there weight of the panels in the airframe were not to be an issue they would only give you 1 hour of flight for 10 hours of sitting on the ground in the sun as a stand alone from flat battery position.

OK. ICE engines are just plain awful at efficiently converting stored energy into work - but they are the dominant technology and the fuel is very EASY to store and the distribution infrastructure is in place. As an example of how terribly inefficient it is here is my diesel car in terms of kw to do work. 5.8L/100km, average speed runs around 80kph (mostly highway) I pay 47.2c/L excise so I fund the roads at around $0.275/km But that 5.8L of diesel is very energy dense - its around 36.5Mjoule/L so converting that to watt hours I am using around 55.7Kwh of energy to do 100km Now look at an equivalent EV - the one I looked at has 180km range at highway cycle on 24kw battery ... that is 13.3kwh of energy to do 100km ... that is 4 times the efficiency of the diesel ... and even factoring in the losses in generating and distributing the electricity its still very efficient but of course nobody talks about all the embedded energy used to 'generate' and distribute the diesel so I am sticking to the 4x efficiency of direct electric motor to do work over an 'efficient' diesel. If Governments want to change the charging for road infrastructure from excise on liquid fuel to a km rate and base that rate on GVM I am perfectly happy to do that. But back to electrics in recreational aircraft - The practical problems are: 1. direct cost to install a system equal in power compared to an ICE 2. the low energy density in batteries compared to liquid fuel to deliver the same or acceptable range within low weights For the foreseeable future I see that electric recreational airframes are going to have very limited range (1-1.5hrs) and will cost a premium on ICE systems. The price premium could be addressed through subsidy to support an environmental outcome but I see that as unlikely due to current policy in govt and even if policy were to be reversed the primary area of subsidy/penalty of ICE would be in passenger vehicles so recreational aircraft are left working it out or accepting the cost ... but there are second hand battery systems coming out of EVs now that are very low cost ... rec flying started with recycled VWs so who wants to repurpose a Nissan Leaf or Tesla battery pack - they are available at really quite low cost compared to new batteries? On the range limits we I think have to accept that this is going to be our lot for the foreseeable future. Limited range. But to be honest what was the actual endurance of a T500 582 Thruster on its standard tank? same question of the R503 or r582 drifters on their standard tank? Its only in the last 20 years with CAO 95.55 that we have been allowed MTOW in rec aircraft that have allowed the installed weight of the R912 and weight to carry all that lovely energy dense fuel ... go back and look at what was available in 1990 and that is pretty much the endurance we can hope for (at greater speed and comfort) from a current electric rec plane.

But spacey ... as you have been told countless times before ... the day they closed 95.10 to the Hummel they opened 95.55 to the Hummel. there is no reason other than what I can see as blinkers as to why you continually post about the Hummel and 95.10 when the Hummel is and has always been able to be registered with RAAus.

But we don’t need any new rules 🙄

I can only repeat that the design limits of 95.10 are better than the USA and there is absolutely no restriction on what you can do with electrics in the single seat class. One electric engine - fine. 10 electric motors from models - fine small battery pack and an onboard petrol generator as an extender - fine. you can mix n match to your hearts content and as long as you have 1m^2 per 30kg mtow and stay under 300kg you are fine. we need no changes to the CAOs for single seat backyard enthusiasts we need no change to the CAO for single motor single prop 1 or two seat LSA factory or kit planes - muti-motor kit or factory would need CAO change. so over to the tinkerers - build it and go prove it works. It’s already been done in Tassie years ago with an electric single seat trike. if I had the $ and time I would gladly move both of my 95.10s to electric and I may still do that.

And I am thinking of the 95.10 thick wing Sapphire as the test vehicle for electric ... it can accommodate the batteries within the wing and can operate on around 20kw of power (currently has 20.5kw of KFM107ER in it) And that is easily doable with the plug and play from Geiger New system - a 4kg engine, 31kg of batteries and 8kg allowance for everything additional you are at around 43kg installed system Old system - the IC engine, heavy mount and fuel system and that is 32kg ... the fuel not carried takes the removed system weight to 46kg Like for like comparison ... I get a weight saving of around 3kg and accept an endurance of 1 hr allowing for 1 climb to 2,500ft (I did the calcs based on the power settings required on the KFM I am looking to take out) Now all I need it approval from he-who-must-be-obeyed for the spend and I am seriously looking at converting to electric ... esp. as their folding prop would allow better gliding in the big wing sapphire and I have 6wk of solar on the roof that are better charging my batteries than feeding back to the grid.

I'm pretty sure you would not like a part 103 rule ... under 103 your batteries are included in the max 115kg airframe weight ... unlike IC engines where they get to carry a max of 5USG/19.9L/14.3kg in addition to the 115kg airframe ... just to make sure electric is just that much more difficult. Under 95.10 in Australia you can have 300kg of MTOW (if you have 10m^2 of wing) and you can use it any way you like between airframe/people/batteries/toothbrush. Plus you are allowed to go as fast as you like and are not limited to a max speed at wide open throttle. If but for cost you can already buy a plug and play electric setup (motor, folding prop, controllers, batteries with BMS, flight instruments and even a nice little throttle lever) see https://www.geigerengineering.de/en/avionics/products The Australian design envelope for single seaters is VERY much better than the USA ... always has been and hopefully will remain so. The gripes and bitching is around the regulatory structures in OZ vs USA ... they win because they have none and are actively allowed to kill themselves ... not so in OZ.

But we are not looking at the practical needs in OZ for EVs: Firstly 75% of all cars live and run around cities for the vast majority of their operational lives - these could convert to EV on existing battery ranges - the reasons they are not are policy based and are covered off in an earlier post on this thread Other countries are looking at - and have implemented - extender systems to allow long range adds to existing batteries - see France and the leases towed extended battery system that is in use (admittedly limited) - picture blow - that will allow those 75% of cars to extend significantly - That pic is of a range of 900km at highway and that's available now with an ability to re-charge trailer battery packs at times/speeds that fit with electric availability but allow changeover in minutes - same or better speed than petrol pumping on the hume highway 😉 And you are comparing apples and oranges when you look at the TwH in liquid fuel vs EV direct electric - you get a shed load more KM per TwH of direct electric than you do on a TwH of liquid fuel. So there is no reason other than policy and already available systems that would facilitate switch over of liquid fuel passenger cards to electric for more than 75% of the Australian population. The 25% who live outside cities are more challenging as on average their km travels in total and per trip are higher and on std battery packs will require more frequent charging ... moderate infrastructure in towns car parks and/or modification to user behaviors (eg charge overnight every night at home) can address it for many in this group. Factually there are options available now to address many of the practical issues with the ability to switch operations to EV for the vast majority of use of the private car in Australia and the single biggest blockage to the move is the policy and support frameworks that are not there due to political decisions at the federal level of government.

Well it has flown so they either found reverse on the the backwards rotor or it was a frame issue on the ground test run.

You can only hope it’s either a deliberate reverse run or just an illusion due to frame rate. surely they’d didn’t put the motor in backwards.... it’s a a long way to go to fix it

Nope. Nope. Nope. been there. Done that. Got a parliamentary report setting out clearly why it’s not good 1. Airframe empty weight limits as per 103 without mtow limits led to unsafe airframes. We moved from the USA limit to 300kg mtow to assess that. 2. no training was the single most prevalent risk to any pilot bar none. You need to be trained. You need a two seater to train. We got a two seater regime when the empty weight focus was removed from the single seaters. the reasons for training continue to exist. The reasons to focus on mtow and minimum speed as the defining characteristics of ultralights continue to exist. the real stress point as I see it - and have seen it over the past 30 years - ha been the initial jealousy of recreational GA of the freedoms the AUF that became worse after 1998 when AUF expanded into homebuilt 2 seaters with more capability my observation is that RAAus and CASA since 1998 have been progressively and incrementally removing the freedoms/differences of the CAO airframes and moving them up to align with GA rather than relaxing the restrictions on GA. and there is no safety case put forward with evidence just acceptance of it all.

I think it’s fair to say that RAAus and tech are really focused on 95.55 airframes and ops of them. 95.10 is pretty inactive because nearly everything you can do in 10- can be done in 55 and get 19- reg. With easier requirements and access to greater mtow but if you want to build something single seat and odd you have 10- Eg twin engine - can only be 10- Want to have a jet then you have to be 10- not 19. Want to build a replica scale Wright flyer the. It’s for to be 10 as you can’t have 2 props in 19- baaically if you are looking at a kit or plans you should be looking at cao 95.55 and not 95.10.

Not sure what that’s got to do with an aero lite kit coming into oz on RAAus 95.10. that part of 95.10 is the add on ... you still have to meet the definition of an airframe within scoop of 95.10 and you have to be a member of RAAus and hold a certificate from them. this extension is the double requirement to allow flight in some airspace that basic RAAus pilot and aircraft can fly in. If you hold ga licence in addition tot the RAAus certificate AND the airframe-engine meets additional requirements for certification then you can fly in those bits of airspace ... but keep reading 95.10 because there are further limits on flight even within those airspace bits ... not over built up areas without glide clear etc. it is in there but it’s not practicable to use it to do much with it.