pgpete

The Hummelbird has a narrow cocikpit ( the diesgner was a small guy ) - the ultracruiser H5 is a scaled up hummelbird giving a roomier cockpit - and uses a full VW ( or 582 I suppose ) IIRC https://flyhummel.com/h5/

Simonini engines - particularly the mini 2 are used on Paramotors - eg nirvana paramotors. Reputation is good.

SIV - stands for Simulation d'Incident en Vol (French: Simulated Incidence in Flight; paragliding)

just guessing but i think it says : - To john Jacobson our New Guinea Safari Partner. Good flying. Arthur N Shutt June 1977 [unreadable] 2240 [unreadable] CFI Neil McDonald Nel clob 2729 Ray Cowley 2182 Eric Fordham DG Ferguson Peter Finch Rod Pascoe CLL Eliott perhaps see if google has any hits with these names?

yeah - to put it in perspective though - the closest Toyota dealer to Lightning Ridge is 3 hours away in Gilgandra. and Toyota have more resources than what we have. I'm guessing everything is a long drive from lightning ridge. In talking to a lot of the ML schools in QLD - many of them will trailer their ML to Airborne for major service and inspection, and I know some ML owners schedule their inspection with their CFI (who also is a level 2/BAI ) when they go there for their BFR.

Hi XC- Buzzard, as I dont know your real name - there's no way I can check your email enquiry got through - could you send your email enquiry again to [email protected] ? Our contact details are available on this page - https://www.hgfa.asn.au/contact Head Office Hang Gliding Federation of Australia 21 / 54 Commercial Place, Keilor East, Vic 3033 Ph 03 9336 7155 Fax 03 9336 7177 [email protected] But regarding your earlier enquiry - if you are already a member of RAA - you might find it cheaper to transfer the trikes registration to RAA rather than maintain membership across 2 organizations. Last time I checked, the costs of 1 pilot membership and 1 trike registration totalled up to being fairly similar across the two organisations. - if you are already a member of the RAA, it will probably be cheaper to register the trike with RAA. ( as you only have to pay for one membership) The registration transfer from one organization to another is a bit of a pain and some of that is due to the restrictions placed on us by CASA - CASA wants us to have a system in place so that at no time does the trike have registration in both organizations at the same time, the process has to ensure that the trike is de-registered in one organization and registered in another. But also the Certificate of Airworthiness/ Certificate of Compliance is linked to the aircraft's registration - so when the aircraft registration is changed a new certificate has to be issued. I can say that we have a good working relationship with Jill, Neil and the office staff at RAA, and both the RAA and the HGFA want to make the transfer process as easy and painless as possible. - and we are looking at ways to make it easier. Regarding inspections - yes what the RAA and HGFA do there is a little different. (we think our way is better ) - there is a list of BAI inspectors here - https://www.hgfa.asn.au/pilot-tools/bai-inspectors - I note that there's a couple of BAI inspectors in Tamworth which (relatively speaking) isnt too far away from Lightning Ridge. The HGFA will also accept an inspection report from a RAA level 2 maintainer. - but I dont have access to the list of RAA inspectors. Anyway, contact the HGFA if you need more info. Regards, pgpete

I used to fly with mates that had tyros - and I used to occasionally fly one of theirs for shits and giggles. The quoted cruise speeds on that website are "optimistic" - you will find that a standard tyro with a 447 likes to cruise around 45 knots. The stall speed seems about right as does the quoted climb rate. New pilots were always putting the tyros up on its nose - for whatever reasons - and the original design seemed to have a weak spot when it came to the tyro axles - new pilots were always busting axles. My only criticism of the tyro is that the fully flying elevator was quite sensitive - while the ailerons were " normal" so the controls were not well "harmonised" - and I never did like the stick feedback I got from the elevator - it always felt that if I let go of the stick it would whack to the forward stop. - but that could have been the particular example I was flying. The rudder was responsive and worked well. I personally didnt like the VW powered tyro - it just seems to be too much weight up there on the nose - but I've seen many hours clocked up on VW powered tyros. - just my own prejudices I suppose. I did chat to Geoff Eastwood about the fully flying tail - and he said at the time he was designing the tyro - flying tails were the current fad and he just went with it - he said that " if he was doing it all again today he would probably go with a conventional tail. " Just remember that as a low speed-low momentum aircraft you need to maintain airspeed right to the roundout which may mean lowering the nose more than you are used to.

Hi SLB, The short answer is NO. Why? - When the MOU was formulated in 2011 its focus was on Microlights only CAO 95.32 states: - This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (a) the aeroplane is a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; the MOU (2017 version) states : - Purpose In accordance with the CASA directive issued 22 July 2011, both parties are to provide assurance to CASA that the oversight of Weightshift Microlights administered by the HGFA & RAAus under CAO95.32 are standardised. This standardisation is to be across those elements of flight training and training aircraft maintenance as specified during the meeting attended by all parties 13 July 2011. So I think there is a specific stated difference between a weightshift microlight and a powered parachute.

Hi SLB, The short answer is NO. Why? - When the MOU was formulated in 2011 its focus was on Microlights only CAO 95.32 states: - This Order applies to a single-place or 2-place aeroplane in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (a) the aeroplane is a weight shift controlled aeroplane or a powered parachute; the MOU (2017 version) states : - Purpose In accordance with the CASA directive issued 22 July 2011, both parties are to provide assurance to CASA that the oversight of Weightshift Microlights administered by the HGFA & RAAus under CAO95.32 are standardised. This standardisation is to be across those elements of flight training and training aircraft maintenance as specified during the meeting attended by all parties 13 July 2011. So I think there is a specific stated difference between a weightshift microlight and a powered parachute.

Hi SLB , Downunder and any others interested in PPG/ PPC. Here's a quick rundown on PPG and PPC and the similarities and differences between the two. PPG [Powered ParaGliding] - originally started as an auxillary power unit for a paraglider - although is now treated by the HGFA as a separate category. PPG is flown under CAO 95.8 and can be foot launched or wheel-based - the weight limit is 70KG empty weight to be in the CAO 95.8 category. PPC [ Powered ParaChutes ] have a different history - and are flown under CAO 95.32. They are usually quite a bit heavier than a PPG - the most common example in Australia is the Aerochute. The Aerochute is typically Rotax 582 powered has two seats side by side, and uses a fairly low-tech square ram chute. The chute is designed to stay open in all but the roughest air and is fairly safe, but very inefficient. As I understand it the pilot cant reach the lines from the pilot seat and fix wing malfunctions. Until recently there havent been any Aerochutes registered in the HGFA - one of the reasons was the C of A documentation only mentioned RAAoz - last year this was amended by CASA and Aerochutes can now be registered in the HGFA. We have approx 5 Aerochutes on our register. -- Powered Para Gliders have developed to the point where large elliptical wings are available up to ~ 400 Kg AUW and wheelbases suitable for these wings are available using a range of engines including the Rotax 582. The fundamental difference is that a PPG elliptical wing is not as " bullet proof" as the Aerochute wing, and may require input from the pilot to correct asymmetric or symmetric deflations. (among other things.) but according to CASA its still just a form of weightshift aircraft and is flown under CAO 95.32. A top of the range PPG that is flown under 95.32 would be the Fresh Breeze Excitor [ Fresh Breeze // XCitor ] ---- its worth noting on the Aerochute site it says: - " The Aerochute Dual is a two seater powered parachute designed specifically with safety and ease of operation in mind. It is designed to be virtually stall or spin resistant and in the case of an engine failure it simply lands safely as a parachute would." Whereas the Fresh Breeze Excitor uses an elliptical wing - which is not stall or spin resistant - but a whole lot more efficient. ---- Right now in Australia, the expertise to fly an elliptical wing is in the HGFA, but suprisingly the only Fresh Breeze Excitor in Australia is RAA registered. ( I guess the owner got training in Germany ) Here's an example of some of the things you might have to deal with flying an elliptical wing. : - Cheers

Looking at the tail feathers and general configuration, I'm guessing that it was a Flightstar Pioneer. They were a nice aircraft back in the day.... My condolences to all involved.

latest PPG promo : -

1st Electric aircraft (trike) in Australia was done 10 years ago

Hi All, an interesting thread. As someone who is involved in to the day to day operations of the HGFA I’d like to offer my opinions – I don’t speak for the HGFA - I’m just offering my opinions. This thread started back in 2009 (8 years ago!) - and yes in 2009 the HGFA was going through an upheaval. Since that time we’ve had 4 new boards and 3 new operations managers. The HGFA now has stable management, a rock-solid web-based membership system, a new operations manual and much better governance systems in place. It was interesting that after the HGFA had a lot of this in place we then observed the RAAoz organization go through a similar upheaval. Recently it was time to review and update the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was originally instigated by CASA. The MOU was put in place to ensure consistency of management of this aircraft category between the two organizations. There was a meeting held between the RAA and HGFA on the 1st of June 2017 to reach agreement regarding the update of the MoU. Since that time we have been working with Jill Bailey in refining the improvements made. The MoU defines the training syllabus and standards, maintenance standards, and ensures communication of pilot qualifications and aircraft registrations between the two organizations. Sounds simple doesn’t it? - in practice it’s not so easy. Some of the things we’ve been working on:- You have probably already seen the new HGFA/RAAoz biennial flight review form - we collaborated on this and created a form and process acceptable to both organisations. The HGFA had a single course for Rotax/Microlight maintenance, but will now recognise and adopt the RAAoz level1 and Level 2 maintenance ratings – so there is consistency between the two organizations. The HGFA is updating its registration data package requirements to be the same as the RAAoz requirements, so there is consistency between the organizations. This will make transferring registration from one organization from one to the other quicker and easier. We are also looking at other ways to make the transfer of aircraft from one organisation to another easier. As both the RAA and HGFA are using the same insurer - we have looked at the possibility to allow RAA WM pilots to fly HGFA registered aircraft and vice versa. Last I heard the main problem was the RAAoz ops manual requirement – that RAAoz pilots must fly RAAoz registered aircraft. Changing this affects other parts of RAA operations. Work is continuing. This thread also asked why there are two organizations looking after this category. Historically - the ultralight category was created when someone bolted an engine to a hang glider, the AUF / RAA has its origins from HGFA aircraft (the Skycraft Scout was originally a Hang glider called Tweetie). RAAoz has made the offer to take over Microlight administration and in turn asked the HGFA to manage Aerochutes. - we looked at this but decided that the interests of our HGFA members were best served by having a range of aircraft categories and speeds that could be flown under the HGFA umbrella. In the HGFA, the aircraft we fly range from unpowered paragliders and hang gliders to the latest weight shift Microlights. We think this range is appropriate and good for our members. It’s also worth noting that the HGFA and the RAAoz organisations do have a different focus - the majority of members in the HGFA are paraglider pilots - which means HGFA activities usually doesn’t involve airports, our aircraft are usually influenced by European standards and activities. RAAoz aircraft and activities (like GA ) are mostly influenced by USA standards and activities. The HGFA will always have a focus on weight-shift and minimum aircraft - we are seeing growth in Powered paragliding - both foot-launched and wheel-based, as well as a renewed growth in light single-seat powered hang gliders eg Airborne T-lite HGFA is not seeking an increase in the max weight of CAO 95.32, is not seeking access to controlled airspace/GAAP airports, instead it seems our members are looking for fun flying at minimal costs, usually from dirt strip (no fee, no AVID, no ASIC) airports. For people trying to decide which organization suits you better - if you want to fly microlights, 3 axis aircraft, fly high end recreational aircraft and may aspire to work your way up the GA pilot ladder - then the RAAoz is for you. If you just want to fly, have fun, enter competitions or go for FAI records, fly paragliders, hang gliders, Powered paragliders and Microlights all under the same licence then the HGFA is for you. Cheers

I agree with the Multicom frequency but not the increasing CTAFs to 20NM - there are many hang gliding, paragliding and microlighting operations happening just outside CTAFs with no airband radio. - do you really want this traffic on the multicom frequency?