djpacro

Yes indeed. Biden's time was a debacle and we have been saved from a disastrous Harris. I lived in the USA for several years and wanted to stay longer - if I had been there as a younger man I probably would've stayed the rest of my life. The UK is off my list of countries to visit again, Australia has been heading down the same dangerous path. I'm off to enjoy my American airplanes, my American car and to visit Oshkosh this year. I'll leave you all to it.

CASA has this sensible new AC:

Land and Land Ownership | Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping "Apart from these and other similar statutory exceptions, the surface owner does own the airspace above their land in the sense that, subject to building regulations, they are fully entitled to extend their occupation of the air, for example, by building high-rise developments. However, judgements in recent cases are interpreted to mean that an owner's rights extend only as far as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land."

Hopefully some-one can help you with that. CASA flight school Operations Manuals generally have the specific base(s) identified, even those of us who have one of the new-fangled Become a single-person instructor flight training operation | Civil Aviation Safety Authority - however, I see provision for a temporary Flight training locations | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (educating myself here). Unfortunately, CASA's website does not help finding Part 141 flight schools. My suggestion: look more widely than this website. Perhaps approach some flight schools directly. It is going to need an experienced instructor with the appropriate authorisations to do it all.

Not going to get approved for a "FACTORY BUILT TYPE ACCEPTED 95.55", especially an LSA. You'd need to prove compliance with the ASTM specification.

and doing "it", the approval of a change, "right" for a "factory built type accepted" aircraft, especially an LSA is where all the work is

Perhaps there is a factory option and an associated flight manual supplement? I believe that you have a 24 series registration "FACTORY BUILT TYPE ACCEPTED 95.55" which obliges you to follow specific rules about any modifications to the aeroplane OR .... not.

Not necessarily. My POH for the Sportstar states "Minimum weight of crew ... 55 kg". It is not the only aeroplane where the loading system requires ballast with petite pilots. Yes, I think that you have it right too. But I'm a "has been", of course. Weight Control Authority for about 40 years.

I've been through that. I found an appropriate POH and Maintenance Manual - the latter has the moment arms same as you stated. Your spreadsheet seems fine to me. My wife and I total about 150 kg and she would want to take more luggage than the 15 kg max of the Sportstar. Lucky, we have a different type. Max baggage is 15 kg and max fuel is 65 litres regardless of balance.

Great stuff.

Which model of the Sportstar? The POH for the Sportstar Max that I grabbed from online is different. It has fuel arm of 26.75 in (679 mm) and baggage arm of 43.65 in (1083 mm) assuming my arithmetic is correct! Crew moment arm is also different from your spreadsheet - 545 vs 500 mm. Suggestion: to check your spreadsheet use the example given in the POH. And ignore those who say use different datums etc, just follow the POH and the TCDS.

browser tripled it

browser tripled it

Not quite right - see the USA FAA guide (CASA is similar - they require proof of no side effects) Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners | Federal Aviation Administration

Even more ridiculous with the correct interpretation of the rules. Take a look at websites for Essendon and Moorabbin airports, for example - ring them up and ask.