JabiruJoe

I guess you all know by now, but for those that followed and contributed to the original thread of this post and aren't aware of it, all problems have been sorted and the aircraft effected were returned to the original 520kg MTOW some months ago. I gave brickbats where necessary and now the bouquets....thanks to those in RA Aus that saw a responsibility to correct an injustice. The evidence was pretty clear as to what had happened, and steps taken by RA Aus, Michael Coates, the manufacturer, foreign regulatory bodies and owners to provide necessary documentation brought about this resolution. This was a fairly onerous and drawn out exercise but the outcome is 100% satisfactory. I would again like to thank those that gave and offered legal advice and pledged financial backing should push have come to shove. It didn't because more reasonable minds saw fit to work hard on resolving the problem. Ra Aus might need some pushing but where an injustice has occured they will work hard to rectify it for members. This outcome is a reason to give it full support as one day it may be you that needs their help.

South Grafton NSW refer to ERSA. Cessnock NSW refer to ERSA Port Macquarie NSW refer to ERSA Old Bar NSW soth east Taree (TRE) Ballina NSW refer to ERSA

Off topic and in a brief response to the above post...fantastic, well done Peter, that help is what contributes greatly to the joys of flying when those"joys" come a little unstuck.

Hi Sigurjon, Wonderful, pretty country you have but lots of cloud. My daughter lives in Reykjavic so when we visited had a few weeks of touring around. Didn't see a Puffin unfortunately, or the Northern Lights.......maybe next time Enjoy the build and fly safe.

Top idea, particularly like the bit about Android as RWY is very limited in its info on non ERSA airfields, of which there are plenty. User acccepts all risk for accuracy is essential so if possible, contacts to check the status of the field would be good.

But it has on all fronts, and CASA accepts TCs of EASA member states. The Czech Republic is a member state too. Just another reason not previously mentioned for acceptance.

Okay, I'm back again for a further update.... Since the above post I have beèn very busy running around. The information I now have is from people who SHOULD know, however has to be verified by people that DO know. The situation seems to be that there is a case that has a better than average chance of proving, due to the documentary evidence available. It is based on the following:- ● RAAus, as the CASA delegated authority, performed an act it (according to RAAus) was not authorised to do in permitting aircraft to fly at a higher than permitted MTOW. ● RAAus continued to permit this state to exist for a number of years. ● RAAus provided evidence that the higher MTOW was THE approved MTOW at the time of purchase. ● RAAus (via the Tech Manager) issued official approval documents to operate at the higher MTOW The opinion is that as a result of the above, a case of negligence can be mounted jointly and severally against:- ● CASA by not providing sufficient regulatory oversight on the operations of RAAus (as its delegate) and allowing this situation to exist, ● RAAus by not providing sufficient oversight of the Technical Manager and allowing this situation to exist, ● RAAus by not having an effective method of storing information for future retrieval. Resultant effects of the above could be:- ● Loss of amenity of the aircraft for its purpose that is demonstrable ● Personal financial loss that is demonstrable ● Personal anxiety So, where to now? Tomorrow I hope to make contact with the CEO and will know how progress is going. At this stage I have the feeling that because I have been reasonable in our discussons they are considering it as non urgent and continually putting me off with stories of progress and how hard they are pursuing the issue. A week ago I was meant to have been e-mailed the check sheet that the Tech Manager had given the CEO. It has not arrived yet, so you can get a bit of a picture from that. Also this past week I was phoned by an interested party who was insistent that two individuals with power in CASA had an axe to grind with RAAus. They somehow became aware of the filing fiasco of RAAus and decided that was a good place to start. Gossip, yes, but interesting that this situation is a result of lost data. Some of it is data on RAAus letterhead that even I have supplied to RAAus because they did not have it!

So, its now April 4th and I will try with an update on progress, or, depending on your perception, lack of it. A list of required documents was submitted by RAAus to the importer that were deemed necessary to comply with CASA's evidentiary(?) requirements for higher MTOW. Both RAAus and the importer advise that the list was supplied quickly AND completely. As I was informed that "as soon as we (RAAus) have the documents we simply review them, forward onto CASA the paperwork and the recommendation for a higher MTOW, then they approve it and it should not be very long before a return to 520kg is obtained", I assumed that was it. But no, now I am advised that there has been a check list of multiple XL spreadsheet lines that needs complying with. My question then, was if the 520kg was certified as being in the original design and flight tests, as done by the country of origins certifying authority, why the extra spreadsheet checks? This was not satisfactorily answered, rather a reply question something like was that certifying authority recognised by CASA? This is like the chocolate ads that have the blocks all lined up. There is obstruction after obstruction after obstruction. All after this same body, RAAus, authorised the weight in the first place after receiving all the paperwork, dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Just on the CASA recognition, as I get it, the system in the Czech Republic is a bit like the system here........in the Czech Republic the government aviation body does not certify ultralights. It has delegated the LAA-Cz to do that. If the LAA-Cz certifies an aircraft the aviation body accepts it as having passed the designated requirements. The LAA-CZ is the ONLY ultralight certifying body in the republic and its outcomes are recognised and adopted by the Czech Republic's administering aviation body. Before the original registration here in Australia could be done, the legality/validity, call it what you will, of the LAA-Cz had to be determined, and it was done on a government to government level. The end result was that Australia accepted the authority of the LAA-Cz to issue the 520kg certification. Now, think about this....after all the hoops had been jumped through to get the aircraft registered, there would have been some kind of communication (hard copy or electronic) from CASA to RAAus saying "yep, go ahead and register this aircraft at 520kg". So, all RAAus has to do is produce that communication which will be in the original file on registration application for the aircraft. I was told last week "that the filing system was in good shape and nothing has been lost"........ so it should be quite easy to produce. On production of the file it could be seen that all the requirements for the higher MTOW have already been met, that is why RAAus issued the Compliance Certificate. If past decisions can be verified on production of relevant files, why the runaround? If the effort is to hide a past wrong, diffuse negligence or even an illegal act then it will not work. Any of the above need to be rectified immediately. From the off forum support it is obvious that I am not alone in the determination to have this rectified immediately or have other channels initiated to do so. Responsibility for actions taken, good or bad, have to be owned. I shoot someone, I go to gaol, I save someone, they say thanks. This is no different.

Maitland (NSW) has mogas available through the Aero Club in trailer (v. Small tanker towed behind quad) form during office hours.

Nothing to advise yet, other than paperwork is being assembled by various authorities and I will be updated by the CEO next Friday 18th March. Whilst some reports on predicted progress have a very optimistic time frame for resolution, others are vague enough to implant in my mind a significant delay. So first things first and I will wait for the phone call on Friday.

I'm hopeful good things are starting to happen...it seems there are some amongst us that have encountered this exact problem and it has been rectified quite quickly and painlessly. Let's hope this is the case in this scenario. Let you know more when I know more.

No problem Oscar, I didn't mean to imply combat, I'm just very thankful for your comments and those of everyone else too. It is a situation I am in that I am looking for advice to slove and extricate myself. So, the TC, according to RA-Aus document is #UL-05/2000 issued by "The LAA. CR", it goes on to say"1. Allegro 2000 aircraft are restricted to a maximum Take Off Weight of 520kg", "2. This acceptance is based on the approval form(sic) the LAA. CR that the Allegro, strength, and flight tests have been completed, and a certificate issued" all dated 24 Sept 2004. The LAA. CR document is signed by a Vaclav Chvala, Chief Engineer, LAA. CR

Round and around..MTOW on TC was 520kg. That's TC, not POH, not exceeding TC limit. TC was 520kg.

Thanks Oscar, if it gets to the litigation stage that will be a point to examine, however I trust sense will be seen and responsibility accepted and errors corrected. If MARAP is the way to go then MARAP it should be, but quickly, not the snails pace it has been proceeding at. The Czech certification authority's certificate (I have a copy) says ...."all strength and flying tests for the Allegro 2000, for MTOW 520kg has been completed... (and a certificate is issued)". It could be possible that the aircraft might then have another smaller MTOW applied somewhere, but if yet another different place wanted to do the 520kg MTOW then all the testing/design work has been done for 520kg by the certifying authority. This would mean that if the country the plane is registered in had a limit of 450kg MTOW then that would be the limit. If the country of registration had 510kg or 520kg then that would be the limit because up to 520kg MTOW is covered in the original certification document. All a bit of a moot point though. The purpose of my comment is to correct the bit about incorrect PoH details as the acccepted one by RA-Aus. It is not the POH figure, the figure came from the certificate issued by the Czech certifying authority. RA-Aus did not authorise a HIGHER weight than that certified, they merely authorised the plane to operate at the "up to a maximum 520kg" figure it was built to, test flown to, and certified to, by the country of origin's certifying authority.