flyvulcan

Confirmed, Narromine.

The mother or your wife? If it's the mother, you have my utmost admiration!

Hi everyone, The SAAA just confirmed to all its members the dates for AusFly 2015. They are 4,5,6 September. Friday is the trade day and practise day while Saturday is the public airshow. Departures are available early Sunday for those wishing to head home for Fathers Day. So get planning now and lets make "Ozkosh" the best recreational aviation fly-in possible. Cheers, Dave

Bex is looking forward to his marriage in 12 years time!

The SAAA has confirmed that AusFly will be held later this year. A proposed weekend was recently advised to SAAA members but it was subsequently found to conflict with a Fathers Day and there is concern that attendance may be affected so another date is being considered. Once I hear something firm, I'll post it on this site and everyone will have the opportunity to support our very own "Ozkosh".

Hi Mike, rgmwa summed it up nicely in his post #11 where he indicates that the MPC and weighing issues are not SAAA issues, but CASA imposed issues, based on regulatory requirements. The MPC and weighing modules of the MPC were initiatives that were developed and implemented by SAAA for its members to address the CASA regulatory requirements and allow its members to conduct their annuals and continue weighing their aircraft which technically, they had (unknowingly) been doing illegally in the past. It is not right that you blame the SAAA for CASA's rules or actions. The SAAA has been proactive in providing short term or interim solutions for their members to conduct the annual inspection on aircraft that they have built, and to conduct the w&b on their aircraft in order to allow them to comply with the CASA rules. Please remember that CASA has imposed the requirement to do the MPC with w&b module, not the SAAA. Also note that anyone can develop and gain approval to conduct a suitable MPC/w&b course so if you object to doing the SAAA developed course, then by all means develop your own, get CASA approval for it and make yourself some dollars by offering it at a cheaper price than the SAAA course. Where I wholeheartedly agree with you is that it would be better to change the regulations and have a permanent acceptable solution to these issues. I also agree that this is one area where the SAAA could be more proactive. However, the problem that the SAAA faces is that it is a small organisation with just over 2000 members and as such, it is barely sustainable. There are minimal permanent employees (I believe it will be just the GM and one office staff member), with much of the work being done by the voluntary National Council and a small cadre of volunteers to support them. Most of the NC are in full time employment and have to fit their SAAA responsibilities in around their full time commitments. The SAAA is not like the EAA with extensive resources. The SAAA has to prioritise its limited resources and unfortunately, lobbying to actually change regulations is one area that has suffered. There is much work done to provide immediate short term solutions to CASA issues, but there is limited scope with the available resources to address the long term (i.e. the regulatory change) solution. If the SAAA could just pick up another 1000 members, they may have scope to take on another full time employee that could have regulatory reform lobbying as part of their job description. At the end of the day, you can build, fly and maintain your experimental aircraft outside the umbrella of the SAAA, as long as you comply with the CASA regulations (just like the SAAA members have to). If you want to sign off the annual inspection and do your own w&b without doing the SAAA approved course, then by all means develop your own and obtain CASA approval for it. However, please do not place any blame for this situation on the SAAA. They have developed solutions for CASA imposed problems for the benefit of their members. I appreciate that some volunteers in the SAAA stepped up to the mark and developed an MPC so that I am allowed to conduct the annual inspection on my aircraft. To those volunteers I am grateful, because if they had not done so, under the CASA rules, I would not be able to do my own annual inspection. Cheers, Dave

Amen to that! As a member of both organisations since their inceptions, I would be very pleased to see close cooperation between them. They both now have clearly defined areas of Sport Aviation to administer and are both happy with the areas that they have. When the "Ultralighters" first split from the SAAA, there was some angst but now 35 or whatever years down track, we are way past that stage. The time for closer cooperation between all the Sport Aviation bodies is well and truly upon us. Let's showcase this cooperation at this years AusFly and make it the best RecAviation airshow ever!

The SAAA is currently advertising for a General Manager on their website (http://www.saaa.com/Information/Employment.aspx). It looks like the incumbent will play a significant role in the development of their CASR Pt149 approval, as well as the day to day administration of the organisation. It would be nice to see them form a good relationship with Darren Barnfield and encourage some cooperation and synergy between SAAA and RAAus for all the members benefits.

Hi Bruce, I shall probably go experimental through the SAAA. I am a member of both organisations and am fully licensed so a one off rego fee will do me. Since I bought my Fokker, another SAAA member from Adelaide has ordered a kit from Airdrome Aeroplanes. He just finished building an RV8 and has decided that the WW1 replica will suit him. So I'm looking forward to finishing my project, shipping it over to Adelaide and joining flyerme and my buddy in doing some gentleman's jousting. If either of them "shoot me down", which is highly unlikely (), I'll just jump into my Komet jet and give them what for! Cheers, Dave

Whoops, I got distracted by a call halfway through my post and didn't answer the questions... I have exactly 34.0 hours build time to completely finish the rudder other than covering. Robert Baslee does it in 3 hours. I was learning the build process and tricks along the way and incorporating enhancements that are more in line with "standard aeronautical practices". If I was to do the rudder again, with exactly the same enhancements, it would probably take me around 10-15 hours. You simply can't reduce the deburring, surface finishing etc. steps that I used and Robert Baslee doesn't. Looking at the plans for the horizontal stab and elevators, I am estimating maybe 30 hours to knock them out, again incorporating different techniques to Robert Baslee's. I'm not saying Robert's techniques or practices are wrong, there are many of his aircraft that are flying successfully having been built exactly as he does. It's just that since it's my backside in the seat, I'd prefer to have 100% faith in my build. Hopefully we should have the rest of the tailplane done in the next few weeks. I'll let you know how accurate my 30 hour prediction is. Cheers

Hi Bruce, Work has stopped for the last 2 months while my family visited me from Oz and my build partners family relocated from the sandpit back to Oz. I didn't want to push ahead without his participation and rob him of the enjoyment of the build. Both our families are now gone and it will be back to the build within the week. I am keeping a somewhat pedantic record of the build, including labour, costs, equipment and accessory purchases so I will be able to give an accurate description of what I have put into it. The tailplane kit was comprehensive and everything that was needed for the stock construction of the tail was included. However, we used additional gussets which necessitated the requirement for a very small amount of additional aluminium sheet (only about 6" square additional so not much) and we also required additional rivets. Again, not a lot of them. The instructions do not include any corrosion inhibiting measures, so if you want to go that route, that is extra. The plans and instructions for the tailplane come on about 8 sheets of A4 sized paper. Dimensions are given but are approximate and you will need to draw up your own full sized templates from scratch (not too hard or time consuming). The instructions are very basic and looking at build logs such as the one I am running now will help you through, both in techniques to do things and by giving clarification to some of the instructions. The build technique is very simple and is nothing to be daunted by. It would be an easy build for a first time builder. We shall be getting the fuselage kit delivered in a couple of months. In the meantime, we shall knock over the horizontal stab and elevators. I shall continue to document the build here for all to see. Cheers, Dave

See post #76 from Jmbb74 for the answer about the speed on final... I suspect the vid was normal speed and it was just the aspect which gave the impression that it was a mach run.

Scott, The Sport Aircraft Club of SA has a Sonex build going on as a club project. It is located on Portrush Road opposite Burnside Village. Check out their website and contact them to arrange to attend a build session where you can check out the kit and construction method. Cheers, Dave

Hi Garry, There is a new National Council in the SAAA that may be receptive to renouncing your ban on advertising in their magazine. Unless there is demonstrable fault with the product or lack of integrity on the part of the manufacturer/supplier, I feel that the SAAA should be supporting the local industry of which you are a big player. I know someone else that is in your position with the SAAA and I feel that these "bans" which are in place should be reviewed. I shall communicate with the few that I know on the new SAAA NC and find out whether something can be done. As for your glider, there should be nothing stopping it from being flown under one of the provisions of the experimental category. Cheers, Dave

Hi Yenn, I'm not sure if you made a typo in your first sentence but no, you do not need to be a SAAA member to build, register and obtain a CofA for a VH experimental aircraft. The SAAA certainly supports and assists during the build/registration process but that is all. The SAAA offers guidance to builders in the form of their Technical Councillors. These experienced TCs are volunteers who are available to provide advice to builders and who, at the builders request can offer stage inspections on the builders project. These voluntary stage inspections can serve two purposes: the first is that there is an experienced set of eyes to look over the workmanship of the builder and the TC can make suggestions (but not mandate any changes) regarding the build; the second benefit of these TC stage inspections is that as part of the SAAA Builder Assist Program(BAP), three stage inspections carried out by a TC during the course of a build qualifies that aircaft for discounted insurance premiums with the SAAA's recommended insurer. Another role of the voluntary TCs is to prepare the builder for the final CofA inspection by the CASA AP (who is not necessarily a CASA employee or member of the SAAA). The TCs generally do not charge for the inspections that they conduct. However, it is customary for the builder who requests the inspection to look after the out of pocket expenses for the TC and usually, there's some hospitality thrown in after the inspection. The SAAA also offers a CofA pack which contains a checklist and relevant documentation to ensure that the applicant for a CofA is fully prepared for the inspection and has completed all the requirements to pass the CofA inspection. So again, at this point in time, the SAAA has no "authority" in respect of registering an aircraft in the GA experimental category and no one is under any compulsion to be a member of the SAAA to do so. The benefit of joining the SAAA is that there is a lot of experience and support available to a builder to facilitate an easier path through the CofA application process. All applicants for a VH experimental certificate will have their inspection done by a CASA AP (not an SAAA AP - there is no such thing). However, some of the CASA APs (who all do charge for their inspections) are also members of the SAAA and their inspection rates may be preferential to SAAA members. Yenn, if you have complied with the 51% rule during the construction of your Corby and you have the required evidence to prove it, you may contact any one of the CASA APs to carry out your CofA inspection. Having operated your Corby under the RAAus system does not preclude it from being eligible for VH experimental registration and the cost to do so would not necessarily be any higher for you than for a SAAA member to register your aircraft. Again, you do not need to be a member of the SAAA to do this. All that said, I would certainly welcome you into the SAAA if ever you decided to supplement your RAAus membership with a SAAA one! A buddy of mine is in the throes of finishing a Corby with a (err herm..) Jab 2200 (gasp of horror from some...) Cheers

At this point in time, builders/operators of GA experimental aircraft are not required to be members of the SAAA. Pilots are fully licensed and aircraft are VH registered, both these functions being administered by CASA. Even the inspection for the issue of a CofA is conducted by a CASA Authorised Person (AP), most but not all of whom happen to be members of the SAAA, but are not acting in any SAAA capacity.

Thanks Don, The few questions that I posed and which you answered both clearly and succinctly are the tip of the iceberg as part of the process to determine whether it is in the interests of the organisation to retain its current HQ facility or to consider alternatives. From your answers to those few questions alone, there appears to be the start of a case to explore the possibility of relocating the HQ. Clearly, a project to determine the desirability and feasibility of relocating the HQ will be an extensive one, both in manpower and time. However, the issue could have a major impact on the overall strategic plan for the organisation as a whole. In my opinion, the project to assess the feasibility of relocating the HQ could start now. It could be done with minimal impact on the resources of the Board by calling for volunteers from outside the Board to form the HQ Project Team and have the project supervised and managed by a single member of the Board. RAAus has a bit of a history of not addressing things "because they are working fine now". ie "we don't need to review the registration process because it is working" and "we don't need to upgrade the computer system to monitor the member database because the system is working" or "we don't need to address the Jabiru engine issues because it's all ok". As an organisation, we could probably do with more detailed strategic planning combined with a more efficient Project Management program and a Quality System that identifies deficiencies in our systems/processes/planning in order to improve as an organisation. Perhaps the lack of a publicly identifiable "home" for RAAus is having an adverse impact on our ability to recruit new members? Perhaps it's having an adverse impact on our members themselves because they have no pride in their HQ being a dingy office block in an unappealing industrial suburb... Just picture the following advertisement "Experience AusFly 2017 at XXXX airfield, the leading recreational aviation facility in Australia and proud home to RAAus and SAAA". As a member, that sort of promotion makes me feel better about my organisation. Why not start the process for assessing the feasibility of relocating the HQ now so that we get the ball rolling instead of waiting for something to go wrong, then reacting? Such a project does not need to interfere with the running of the organisation, nor detract from existing priorities and projects.

I might have missed this detail and I don't have access to the annual financial report but could some one please indicate whether we own or lease the current office facility and if we own it, what is its current value? It could be that we are sitting on a $1m asset that is appreciating nicely, or we could be sitting on a $1m asset that is not appreciating at any great rate. Is there anything about the current office that motivates the members to visit? Indeed, is there anything about the (physical) current office that positively motivates the members in any way or make them feel proud about their organisations headquarters? Is the current office/HQ simply a space where business is conducted and nothing more? Are there any benefits to the office being located in its current place (accessibility to CASA, convenience to visit, cheap council rates, etc)? What if instead of having a $1m (or whatever it's worth) non-descript, office complex in an industrial suburb of Canberra that no one visits except on business, the organisation had a new custom built headquarters facility that incorporated office space for our admin staff, a meeting/training room, a club house facility for resident and transient members, and attached hangar suitable for aircraft stowage and to host the annual AGM, all looking out over an airfield that could host the annual AusFly event and all this for significantly less cost than the Fyshwick office... Okay, many of you say that the location of the office is not a problem/issue. That may be the case but at the same time, it cannot hurt to investigate whether there is a better option than the one we now have. We might just be able to have a cheaper facility that free's up some of the organisations assets, and at the same time have a much better and functional facility that offers not just improved office space, but other tangible benefits for the members.

A potentially good engine monitoring system (EMS) for the Jab is one offered by MGL avionics. I have recently bought one for an engine project that I have and so far it is working well. It offers monitoring and alerting of a total of 12 CHT/EGT parameters so will monitor all of the Jab3300 requirements (6 x EGTs plus 6 x CHTs). The EMS, plus it's required RDAC (Remote Data Acquisition Computer) cost me around USD1300. Alternatively, there is their mini EFIS which has all the functions of the EMS, but with full flight instrumentation as well. This is around $400 more than the EMS. They fit into a standard 3.1/8" instrument hole. http://www.mglavionics.com/html/xtreme_efis.html is a link for the EFIS. The EMS is on the same site. This EMS/EFIS has preset alarms to allow specified parameters to be set and monitored. It means that if any single preset CHT/EGT threshold is reached, the pilot is alerted of the fact, even if they do not have that parameter displayed on their instrument at the time. It also has data recording so engine condition can be monitored and should a failure occur, any trends leading up to the failure can be observed. I have posted this so that Jab owners can see that there are reasonably priced options available to monitor all the parameters required and warn/record any exceedences without actually physically observing the exceedences (don't we look outside the cockpit 90% of the time?).

Could one of the Board Members who frequent this forum possibly provide a breakdown of the demographics of the RAAus membership base so that we have a true indication of the demographics involved? Firstly by state which should be easy to extract from our membership database, and if possible by City region (so Sydney area, Brisbane area etc.). Once we have the demographics of the membership base, it may be easier to drill down to a region that may be desirable from a members accessibility perspective. In general, perhaps the Board could establish a working party to properly investigate the viability of establishing a new HQ for the organisation? I suggest that the Board call for volunteers to participate in the working party, to be supervised by a nominated Board member, and whose findings would be reported to the Board for their consideration. Having volunteers from outside the Board to do the leg work would minimise the impact of such a project on the ability of the Board to run the organisation.

The Vans spec sheet from their website lists the BOW for the RV9 as being in the 1015-1057lbs range (460-480kgs) so KRs measured weight of 950lbs (430kgs) is realistic with careful monitoring of weight during the build. Even if KRs RV9 came in at the bottom end of the Vans range (460kgs), that still leaves 140kgs for pilots/fuel/payload. So he has a high speed medium range single seater, or a very short range two seater for lightweight pilots, so be it. That's KRs choice. If it's legal, let's not support any action that deprives him of that choice and let's not give him any grief over his choice.

Sorry, typing slip and I can't edit it now... No offence intended for Bob.

Perhaps it would be prudent to: A. Determine the need or desire to relocate the office; and B. If a need or desire to relocate the office is determined to be desirable, then establish a list of essential and desirable criteria for the location, in order to be able to conduct a comparison of suggested locations for suitability. My personal opinion is that I would like to see a "home" for RAAus. This is not a "need", it is a "desire". I would like to see something along the lines of the EAA, that is, they have a HQ which is based at the airfield where their annual convention and airshow is run. The benefit of this arrangement is that our members, and eventually the general public will start to relate "location x" as being the home of RAAus and the place for the best airshow in Australia. Being a member of the SAAA as well as RAAus, I would personally like to see both organisations based at the same airfield, running a combined annual airshow extravaganza (AusFly) with smaller regional fly-ins spread out throughout the year. The airfield could become the sport/recreational aviation Mecca of Australia. My suggestion is to have the office located at an airfield which is fairly central to the major centres of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, so in an area bounded by say the River Murray to the south, Mildura to the West, the East Coast to the east and perhaps Coffs Harbour to the north. Within a 2-3 hour drive of Melbourne or Sydney to provide bearable public access would be desirable. With RAAus and the SAAA (and possibly some of the other recreational aviation bodies as well) being based at the airfield and with the annual AusFly airshow being assured of being run at that airfield, local council would have the motivation to improve facilities at the airfield to cater for this large annual event. Good camping facilities, quality infrastructure at the airport, local community support etc. could be gained. The annual AusFly airshow could be run at "airfield x" over a long weekend such as Easter which would allow the maximum number of members to attend. Then each region could host a smaller annual regional fly-in once a year. The regional fly-in could shift location each year to spread the regional access a bit. So for example, the Southern Regional Fly-In (SoRFI to cover SA) could be held at Aldinga one year, Port Pirie the next, Goolwa the next etc.. Then there would be the NERFI (North Eastern Regional Fly-In) to cover QLD, SERFI to cover NSW and Vic, NoRFI for the NT, and WeRFI for WA. These could be held on different weekends throughout the year to allow participants from outside their region to attend without any clashes. I know that a proposal has already been recently submitted to RAAus (and SAAA) from a significant regional NSW council who are keen to establish their airfield as the primary sport and recreational aviation airfield in Australia. They are offering good incentives to get RAAus and the SAAA to establish their HQ facilities and the AusFly airshow at their location. There are significant benefits to both organisations to consider such proposals. Can you imagine visiting HQ and seeing an active flying school, hangars with interesting aircraft under construction, the circuit area buzzing with ultralights, homebuilts, gliders, warbirds etc.? Wide open spaces so no noise complaints yet only 5 minutes from the airfield to a decent regional centre with a river running through it for watersports and fishing, a golf course outside the front gate to the airport, a residential Airpark attached to the airfield with direct access to the airfield for the residents, a great WW2 history... And with a council that is proactive in supporting our organisations and our pasttime who is prepared to upgrade their already good facilities to meet the requirements for AusFly and a local community that will also support AusFly. It could be a reality if we were motivated to do it. Let's get motivated! Let's make a home for recreational aviation in Australia. Phew, rambling over... That's my two nobs worth... Time for a beer...

Clearly, the two "rebuilt" Cessnas did not comply with the regulatory requirements. Rebuilding a previously certificated aircraft does not comply with the amateur built provisions, as elaborated on in relevant explanatory documents. I'm not sure what your point is in your second paragraph. Regardless of the name or heritage of an aircraft, if it meets the eligibility and applicability requirements of the regs, then it is eligible to operate in accordance with those regs. Just because someone feels like an RVx should not be under the RAAus auspices, it doesn't mean that another RAAus member, whose RV type aircraft meets the appropriate criteria should be deprived of his right to operate his aircraft in accordance with the regs.

Sorry Deb, I misconstrued your second paragraph to mean that you thought the formula applied. My mistake. WRT your first paragraph, under the amateur built provisions (subpara 1.2 (e)), each aircraft is essentially considered to be a one-off and each aircraft is considered on its individual merits, not on the merits of the kit or kit manufacturer on which the aircraft is based. Technically, KRs aircraft is a KR RV9, not a Vans RV9. He can put either one or two seats in it regardless of how many seats Vans designed the RV9 for. This is the beauty of the amateur built class, you can do what you want with the aircraft, as long as it meets the applicability requirements of the CAO95.55.