kasper

Turbo, I would accept that drafts get written all the time within companies for proposals and were that the case I would understand ... however the best we can see from this is that it is a draft final communication for post agreement communication and it is evident on the face of his words as they appear in the magazine they know how unpopular this will be - not a draft of a possible but a draft of post execution with complete clear expectation of unhappiness. And yes, I was one very vocal opponent to the structure change in RAAus for pretty much every reason that has appeared to be an issue over the past years since the change.

Well I did get a written response from Mr Monk to my two direct questions of date of agreement with AAA and when was data first shared. It was not marked private or confidential so here it is: "At this stage RAAus has not made a formal comment or officially published anything to members on this matter. We continue to work with the AAA on this matter. The article you read was a draft and was not intended for publication. It has since been removed. At this stage no information has been shared. Thanks Michael" draw your own conclusions/speculate as to how the member response has gone down with the board.

Back to the core issue of RAAus disclosing private information collected legitimately for one purpose to a third party for a different and unrelated purpose without consent of the individuals ... Comminwealth Privacy Act - not legit for the purpose Mr Monke put in the magazine. So if RAAus are covered by the act the directors might like to gird their loins for answering the questions that will come from Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. They may may not have $3m of turnover to bring them within last year but once it does they are within ... and arguably the payments from CASA being them within the Act even when turnover is under $3 m. And yes Mr Monke. I am one member - or client as I’m referred to in your policies - who is more than a little angry. And given im just out of hospital after a car crash I’m stuck twiddling my thumbs looking for things to do for a couple of months and pi$$ed off with RAAus big time now.

Monospar with the little pobjoy radials by General Aircraft.

Looks like something Giulo would build from his Uk factory. Update - it’s a Maverick lsa from the USA. Can’t see it being too successful

Looks like a G801 Grindwalds Orion but the rear of the door is a bit wrong

Indeed. The audit was paper audit of Raaus records against requirements of the CAO and our own docs. They were numerous, widespread and horrid admin errors but not linked to actual failure or risk. unfortubnately it was the perfect total wave of failure in admin that allowed the current process of expand and unify everything to be played at the same time a play of just fix our shit up would have equally complied with the audit. But it we are where we are and unless something happens soon I can see me giving up trikes and just going GA experimental on three axis to leave to costs of raaus behind

Ax3

And the ligeti stratos - the facet opal and of course the facet sapphire. All easy on the eye to most people. The real test of Australian beauty from that time is the light wing ... great aircraft to fly and very honest ... but not universally accepted as beautiful

Thruter88 - Its a similar issue to that faced by trikes - why in terms of performance - do you NEED the power of a 912 vs a lower power/lower weight two stroke? For me the EclipsR with the 80hp 912 only really comes into its own when I fly solo and put the ferry tank on the back seat and the camping equipment under the skirt - I get full camping gear and 9 hours + reserve fuel on board and remain within the 415kg MTOW ... weight saving on a two stroke would not give me the same 9 hours fuel - I'd only have 6 hours + reserve. The reason factories stopped using two strokes is the market place for new trikes - sorry but 65+ yo students learning in 912 powered aircraft - fuel cost is a big issue for schools - will never look at a two stroke so they are on the way out... same reason newer trike never live with their wing in the bag and sit in hangars under full tension in the wing - that's shortening the life of the wing frame and probably keeping the skin a bit less scuffed but I'd hazard a guess than many older trike pilots who took up the aircraft later in life actually cant rig and de-rig their aircraft. Now when it comes to re-engining an older airframe the real question - provided its not a certified design - is whats available and how adventurous do I want to get as a the designer/owner. This thread might be talking about type approved airframes and the initial question is of someone looking for a not-too-adventurous approach to conversion.

Depends on your view - the DH88 comet racer is a beauty too look at but hard to handle - the DH106 comet airliner had real issues - thats the one you are thinking of - but to my eye is a very pretty jetliner

Well to bring it back to ultralights I'll nominate the Chilton DW1 - 320kgMTOW, 35-60HP and cruise 100-115MPH. And if you ask very nicely drawings are available once you obtain a build number from the design holder

Well done. I’m 25kg down from peak - two seater flown solo - and another 10 to go before the doctor has to find a different area to ask about.

Unfortunately if you are flying an RAAus registeed aircraft on an RAAus pilots certificate you are not within 61.505 as it is not a private pilots licence. I love wandering through the regs and the CAOs and even the Ops and Tech Manuals but 'm at work so I'll wander through them later and post again. One thing that RAAus staff AND RAAus pilots need to appreciate is that the Ops Manual and Tech Manual are not only subservient to the CAOs and Regs BUT as they obtain their authority through the CAO and Regs they cannot bind the member as a breach of the CAO and Regs if they cover areas that are not within the CAOs ... there are large swaths of the Tech Manual that are at best an admin requirement for RAAus members with the ONLY potential penalty being an RAAus action against the member for breach of the Tech Manual and no possibility of CASA or anyone else coming at you as you may well have completely complied with the Regs and CAOs ... and it would be anyones guess what an insurer would try and make of a situation where there is non-compliance with non-CAO enabled parts of the RAAus Tech and Ops manuals ...

My vote - “generic plastic four seat with training wheel up front” Full model designation probably includes “with blue stripe”

Ftrol is accepted by RAAus to grant the radio on your pilots cert. that’s how I got mine back in the dark ages. If you have not got the actual ftrol certificate give casa a call with number and they can track it down IF you did the whole course passed and had a ftrol issued. If not issued then you’ll be up for doing a radio cert with your RAAus school

We’ve had the alternate to wing loading in 95.10 for 20 years ... it’s called single seat 95.55 and it’s got a stall speed limit rather than the proxy of wing area. If you or anyone wants to built a Hummel that cannot meet the 95.10 limits of wing area you are and have been free to do so for 20 years and register it with 19- on the side 30kg/m^2 as a proxy for demonstrated stall speed or claimed stall speed is a simple measurable test and it is possible to build a very strong airframe within this limits BUT you will not have the weight capacity to add bells and whistles like brakes and big electrical systems and instruments.

It’s a company. The accounts are as per disclosure requirements and the board and management are not directly responsible to the shareholders — stop thinking I yourself as a member and you’ll start getting the position you individually hold. 1 of 9,346 votes at a general meeting ... a general meeting where 30 proxies held by management would see anything they want passed and the cynic in me saying they will use the company funds to use legal actions and directions to avoid unpleasant questions or ones they can’t stop if it came to a vote. The financials are again hard reading. Shareholder numbers are now back to where they were when the 2Ms took up control in 2014 and all I can see for it is a 17% increase in membership fees. A removal of a magazine. An organisation that is sized for a lot more people than we have is now JUST wiping its nose and the total cost of this has been several million dollars of direct cost to our association and the - on my opinion - total capitulation to CASA in an attempt to grow the business into GA to capture the members needed to support the empire and systems built using ultralight pilots funds. I’ll leave out the cost to members of having to navigate ever increasing admin and complexity.

I like my two into one on the 80hp 912. It’s definitely not a performance setup but it makes a nice square install with the exhaust cans under the pots

Agree facthunter... but LAME protection was stated by RAAus management. Not something I dreamt up which if it were the case would be classed a nightmare.

And could the good men and women at RAAus clarify why when it is flight at own risk in 19- reg the second and subsequent owners are treated entirely differently from the original owner builder? Or why and for what purpose the major change grounding until “cleared” by RAAus is needed? There are major lofical inconsistencies that RAAus have allowed and/or requested in the current tech manual that make me fear that engineering control and design substantiation are not far around the corner and the openly stated desire to “support” LAME businesses is an anathema to the rationale for RAAus experimental. And I’ll stop here because I know I’m a broke. Record on this one and the majority of members either disagree or are apathetic.

I'd agree except for 1 thing that is in my opinion a VERY big thing ... RAAus, CASA and most owners of kit built RAAus aircraft have the clear mindset that there is a manufacturer somewhere that they MUST obey and follow. The structure of 95.55 and the principle behind the entire amateur built aircraft under RAAus was that the builder takes ALL design responsibility at the time of construction and AT ALL TIMES thereafter. This mindset that a kit manufacturer is the designer therefore what they say goes is a VERY GA view of the world and is absolutely killing the concept and principles of the self built self certified self maintained airframes that we got in '98. 20 years later and from watching the slow decline in independence within the membership and the clear GA here we come to take you over attitude of RAAus I despair that WHEN CASA push through part 149 we will see the revamped equivalents to the CAOs under which currently operate looking more and more like the old CAO 101.28 that was used to throttle self built in Australian under SAAA for over 35 years before the reforms in '98. I recognise that you say 'recommendations' but you i'm afraid call them manufacturers ... they are not... They are designers and manufacturers of the kit of parts that the OWNER manufacturers and takes responsibility for from then on. I am sad to admit that I think it is too late to recover the heart of what the AUF was built on. Yes they made very large admin errors and were not terribly professional as demonstrated in the CASA audits ... but the RAAus response has been to bend over backwards to become GA and defend the plans to take it over for all recreational GA.

Apparently over 900kg and running direct drive each of those Hirths are not turning fast and from the look the exhausts are not tuned at all so very little power available. Keeping scale look has come at a price ...

Agreed. And if anyone from casa or RAAus ops are reading this I have DEFINITELY NOT breached that reg either as a passenger before I got a certificate / licence or after I got my certificates / licences.