Mriya

PS. Not aiming to offend in my last post. Hope my comment is taken in the spirit that I intended. I wouldn't claim to be an expert either and so am also happy for anyone to highlight any errors in my understanding. I think the thread does demonstrate that there is a high level of confusion regarding the different categories of aircraft and maintenance options/requirements that exist. The bottom line regarding factory LSA aircraft is that ANY mods done without factory authorisation compromise the Certificate of Airworthiness. I see some people suggesting that a prop substitute can be easily reversed, however this does not take into account potential harmonic damage to the crankshaft/drivetrain when operating it with an untested/unapproved prop. Simply putting the approved prop back on can't garuantee full restoration of the original CofA configuration, which then opens a can of worms regarding what maintenance work is needed to properly restore original factory LSA design once you start tampering with any aspect of a LSA.

Apart from the fact that it is wrong LSA describes a specific certification process under which a Certificate of Airworthiness is granted. This process also comes with strict rules regarding modifications or repairs (especially for factory built aircraft). As for the question regarding what is an ultralight, I'd have to say anything which can be registered under RAAus could be classed as ultralight. Obviously we could further sub-divide this category into different types of ultralights (minimum, weight-shift, LSA, High Performance, Powered-parachute, etc).

LSA stands for "Light Sport Aircraft". This a a category of aircraft where the initial design certification and ongoing airworthiness support is primarily the responsibility of the aircraft factory/designer. In effect CASA (or the appropriate National Airworthiness Authority) outsource any initial or ongoing airworthiness responsibility relating to a LSA category aircraft. Due to the design requirements LSA aircraft air also commonly registered in the ultralight category as they qualify for registration by RAAus (Some operators, including my employer, have opted for VH registered LSA's, which CASA also allow to be registered by them and then requiring a CASA PPL to fly them). So in short a LSA aircraft is defined by the certification process (and rules). In fact I believe with some aircraft it has been possible to specify whether you wanted it delivered with a factory LSA CofA, or alternatively with a conventional CofA issued by the NAA. The implications of this choice are how you get modification/repair approvals (ie, Factory Approval vs CASA CAR35 Engineer) Hope this helps.

Glad that I could squeeze a response out of the JBAAG following seeing a number of my responses deleted from their FB page over the last couple of days. Seems like their lies will ultimately come back to haunt them. Keep up the fight and I'd encourage everyone here to jump on FB and support the guys at Jaspers Brush. Who knows when any of us will be next, with the opposition to aviation that is out there. Good to see 131 likes at last count in support, compared to the 20 likes opposed to the airfield. Lets make this number even better...

The Mode C transmission protocol contains no individual aircraft data. As another forum response highlighted the only distinguishing features when using Mode C would be 'IDENT' if used or by squawking another code as opposed to the standard VFR OCTA 1200. Mode S however is a protocol which includes specific aircraft identification data. Most transponder equipped aircraft would currently be Mode C capable only, however given the various airspace equipment requirements being rolled out over the coming years, it would be short sighted to equip your new pride and joy with anything less than a Mode S transponder if you have to choose.

Last time I checked, I was still a guy, but I have to agree with the majority and go track-up:poking:

The following statement can be found at Wikipedia regarding the Foxbat, although I have not personally seen one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroprakt_A-22 The kit comes with either the 80 hp (60 kW) Rotax 912UL or optionally the 100 hp (75 kW) Rotax 912ULS. The 85 hp (63 kW) Jabiru 2200 can also be fitted.[

I could have tracked him down having links with MAF myself, but only just saw your post now. Glad you have made contact .

It seems lots of new discussion threads could be spun out of the recent comments and I note that each contributor has valid points. As always the deeper you dig the 'greyer' an issue can appear. My initial answer reflects how a large number of L2's would respond in practice to someone requesting them to allow an engine to be run 'on condition' in a FTF or for hire (For whatever it is worth I am a L2 & LAME too). Yes the RAAus Tech Manual (Sect 4.2.5) does set out a pathway for operating 'on-condition' even in a flying school context, however I would suggest that the statement right at the start of this section in the Tech Manual where RAAus recommends abiding by the manufacturers schedule means a L2 would need to be very brave or ignorant to allow on-condition engines to be used in this manner. As others have pointed out as soon as the first aircraft suffers an engine failure if 'on-condition' (especially if a fatality or serious injury is involved) everyone else concerned will be ducking for 'legal' cover and the L2 will be hung out to roast for making a bad call by allowing the engine to continue till it failed. To go against an RAAus (and for that matter CASA) recommendation is leaving oneself way too exposed in my view. So in closing although E404 is technically correct in saying pathways may exist to run 'on-condition', as a L2/LAME you won't find my signature on an aircraft with an engine at that stage in its life, unless it can be clearly shown that even in a worst case scenario I won't be made a scapegoat. As others have already stated a flying school ought to be able to budget and plan around the manufacturers TBO interval, ensuring that sufficient money is put aside for each hr flown to cover replacement engine costs. A healthy market currently exists for engines close to TBO with private owners willing to snap up a Rotax 912 with a couple of hundred hrs left to run. This all helps to minimise engine changeover costs for the FTF's and provides me with some comfort in the knowledge that the laywers will not see me as the path of least resistance in obtaining a payout for the widow of some unfortunate soul.

Sad to see...I was out in a Lightwing GR912 at The Oaks last Thursday, brushing up on my tailwheel technique after an almost 2 year break since last flying a taildragger. It is satisfying when you 'nail' a landing in this machine. Tough times for family and friends in Tassie. I have seen a little of the impact at my home airport in the last few months when a similar tragedy struck our local aviation community.

Connecting all the dots from the Q & A's in this thread, manufacturers call for an engine overhaul based on TTIS or calendar time, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. If either of these limits is overrun the engine is now being used 'ON CONDITION'. Engines operated 'on condition' are not allowed to be used for 'hire & reward' or in a flying school. In short operating an engine 'on condition' is a concession allowable for private aircraft owners only.

As a LAME/L2 I must point out that in order to certify an aircraft as airworthy, I need to be able to refer back to approved data. One source for this data is of course the Aeronautical Engineer, without which I have not got the legal authority to do mods or repairs beyond those already approved in manufacturers data. The reality is that both skill sets are required and that without the LAME or AE aircraft would be grounded. As an example of our complimentary nature, recently our workshop had an older style 172 main leg with some corrosion damage which was beyond Cessna limits. Our gut feeling was that the location and depth of blendout should not adversly affect the strength of the leg, however we require the AE to 'crunch the numbers' and provide us with a legal approval to repair the leg. End result is that the customer does not need to purchase a new leg saving a few thousand dollars. From my perspective it makes perfect sense for a Tech Manager to have LAME & AE quals if at all possible as the skill sets of each qualification would be useful in that role. I am in no way trying to make any comment on whether Adam was qualified for the role. I do not know what quals he holds or any of the background regarding his departure. All I know is that he was very helpful in the limited communications that I had with him as Tech Manager and wish him well for the future.

I'll second all the comments regarding 'cheap plane'. The reality is that these two words don't really go together. Yes some aircraft are 'cheaper' in comparison to their more expensive cousins, however as with most things in life, you will get what you pay for. It pays to do your homework before buying any aircraft because the one guarantee is that owning an aircraft involves significant ongoing expenses.

Confusion is a normal part of the human condition, or at least I hope it is, otherwise I'm in strife...

Hi Kaz, Good news is that H has been discharged from hospital and is back home. R will obviously have a much longer journey with serious burns. Certainly is a big blow here... Hope all is going well in your new job. regards, Justin.

Ditto to Ian's thoughts from everyone here at ACMA and AvServe.

I work out at Coldstream through the week (at ACMA) and love the friendly nature of everyone who calls it home. I'm sure Bob at YVFT would be delighted to help you get back in the air.

Last year's Tumut fly-in was great. Locals were friendly and the weekend was a pleasure to be at. It was my 1st opportunity to head off having gained my x-cnty endorsement a month earlier. My son & I flew up from Coldstream in a Tecnam P92 and camped underwing on the Saturday night. I wish I was going again, however this year it is not to be. Sorry none of that helps you with your question. I'm just reminising... regards, justin

Hi Bryan, Is that a hypothetical or real question? As a L4, your question is outside my normal scope and would have to refer you on to someone else for an answer, but my gut feeling is that you have just described a situation that sounds 'way too commercial'. If you simply had someone happy to fly you for free I suspect you would be OK, but to my knowledge the only allowable exception for getting paid to fly in RAAus is as a Flight Instructor. If this is a real situation, I'd be seeking clarification on its legality from RAAus because it sounds like an arrangement which could get everyone concerned in strife. regards, Justin

Your observation is correct. RAAus does not have a direct equivalent to CASA Sched 8. If a RAAus aircraft is to be used for hire or reward, then a L1 (pilot/owner) is limited to conducting a daily inspection only. Any maintenance (including that specified in CASA sched 8) must be done by a L2. The only way around this was mentioned earlier in this thread, where someone may apply for a Line Maintenance Only L2 Authority, however you will note that this work is then still being done under the authority of a L2, even if their scope has been limited. With regards to CASA Sched 8, it should be noted that CASA 'strongly recommend' that pilots seek guidance from a LAME to become familiar with how to perform the allowable tasks and they are also required to have access to current maintenance data, while using calibrated equipment. Hope this helps:book: Justin

G'day all, To introduce myself, I hold a student licence with RAAus and have had a great time so far training in a Jabiru at The Oaks, training with John & Dave since last July. I have currently clocked up about 15 hrs flying time with them while I was living at Camden. I was able to do my first full nav exercise from The Oaks with Dave just before Christmas. A 'career change' of sorts has seen me move 'South of the border' in the last few weeks though! From February 08 I will be 'based' at Coldstream Airport as an Engineering Instructor, assisting with the engineering training programme at the Mission Aviation Centre located there. I suspect this new role is going to keep me busy for some time, however I am keen to complete my RAAus Pilot Licence as soon as time permits. Not having lived in VIC before I have no idea of what options exist in my new area for completing my training. Does anyone have recommendations / tips on the options that may exist for completing this training close to me. Also, I am aware that some Ultralight activity occurs at Coldstream, and so would love to meet any one else who flys from there. Send me a reply, or just drop in and ask for Justin at 'MAC' from next week. (4-2-08) Regards.