ave8rr

Mat you are right there. For starters, WHY are we still requiring the rego in HUGE letters under the wing when this has been dropped for aircraft on the CASA Register. I don't think Experimental aircraft have ever had it but can be corrected on this. What other aircraft require a placard on the panel stating the MTOW and on it goes. The Tech manager should be aligning the Tech manual with the current CASA rules and regs.

NZ recently had 600Kg (was 544kg) MTOW approved as the max weight for Microlights(Ultralights) and the question was asked could aircraft that have a 650Kg MTOW e.g. Jodel D11 and Minicab etc now be registered under the class 2 microlight category on the ZK Register. The answer from NZCAA was NO. Any aircraft that has a Certified MTOW greater than 600Kg will not be considered and will have to remain as "experimental" and flown on a PPL/RPL as minimum. This was to stop what has been happening here in Aus with aircraft like these going onto the RAA register.

Probably time to review thread.... http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/landing-fees.52504/ Most of this has been discussed there.

Bundaberg Qld. landing fees are included in the hangar site lease which is about $1800.00 per year for a 15m x 12m hangar site. I am not sure that aircraft below a certain weight and / or on private ops pay anything anyway.

Just waiting for some "Skip" or is it VHF tunnel propagation to test repeater from KNX (YPKU) Mark.

There is a new owner of the company. Now in the Gore area which is in the southern part of the South Island. http://www.microaviation.co.nz/products.php Also in South Africa as the Bat Hawk. http://www.microaviationsa.co.za/pages/BatHawk.htm

http://flysafe.raa.asn.au/regulations/ac21-41(0)_050902.pdf. Dosn't appear to mention propellor "Type"

There are a number of 24 registered aircraft around fitted with a CSU prop. They dont have an "E" in front of the registration. I have seen nothing from RAAus re this....

So why not just register "19". Can still have a MTOW of 600KG???? This is yet "another" registration prefix for RAAus as if we havn't got enough now.

Well maybe not here in Aus but in NZ on the ZK register as a class two (two seat) microlight YES!

No but sounds like a great idea for this airframe.

Good to hear that you have some good interest in the project Alan. I thought things had gone a bit quite since the issue with the Troll but seems alot of people are still following this thread with great interest. Keep up the good work.

My Condolences to Wayne's family and many friends. I did not know Wayne but have heard so much of him (all good) over the years. I have to say I saw the photos on Sky News a while back. That centre section being burnt out like it was is not good. I never have liked having the fuel in the cockpit with you. These A/C have a 100ltr tank behind the pax seat. This was done of course so the wings are easily removable.

Spoke with RAAus head Office and they say they are having issues with the web site - for how long they dont know.

Escadrille, I think the Term RAAO is the term used by CASA for all Rec Av Organisations. RAAus is a RAAO along with the HGFA etc.

Hi Andy, I read this info on the SAAA site a day or so back also however, I think SAAA are just trying to get what RAAus already have in the 19-xxx category. SAAA want to be able to build, maintain, instruct/AFR etc outside CASA. I have an experimental aircraft and can look after it maintenance wise but unlike RAAus, have to do AFR's etc through the current GA system of training. SAAA are trying to get an "instrument" that will allow in house training from what I can understand. Just my take on it.

Hi Alan, this is an interesting question that has been asked as I have a Rans S6ES to put to gether when I get back home to Bundy in Sep. What is in armorall that gives it the UV protection?

I received this from CASA a few days back. I refer to your recent correspondence in which you request the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA’s) position in relation to Cessna Supplementary Inspection Document (SID) requirements. Firstly, the concept of continuing airworthiness covers all of the processes that ensure that, at any time in their operating life, all aircraft comply with the airworthiness requirements in force and are in a condition for safe operation. The requirement for the incorporation, or otherwise, of the Cessna SIDs in Class B aircraft is determined by the maintenance schedule elected by the Certificate of Registration holder, not by the category of operation. It is well recognised, however, that many operators in aerial work and in private category, have elected to use the CASA maintenance schedule (schedule 5). In this regard I confirm that there is nothing in Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 42B that specifically mandates compliance with, or incorporation of, a Cessna SID in this maintenance schedule. While there is nothing in Schedule 5 to the CAR which expressly calls up the manufacturer’s inspection or other requirements, however, paragraph 2.7 of Schedule 5 notes that, where a thing is required to be inspected under the Schedule, the inspection is to be a thorough check to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next inspection. CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspection) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)© defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials. In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Certificate of Registration holder and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained. Mike HigginsManager Continuing AirworthinessAirworthiness & Engineering Branch Standards DivisionCivil Aviation Safety Authority There will be more on this and as ruffasguts says...Alot of old Cesnas will be scrapped.

A bit off topic but were you at 10 ATC sqn in PN ? I was there from 1964-1968. Also flew on the Dak out of Ohakea/ Went on to join the airforce and did 5,000 hours on Orions. Flew the Dak and still have that endorsement on my CPL.

Waiting for the prototype Alan. Keep up the good work.

Diddy Pilot, the problem is that ATSB do not investigate RAAus accidents except on the odd occasion. They (ATSB) will help with some matters in respect to an accident. This may be as small as checking an instrument or GPS track etc. What we want is RAAus to attend all accidents and report a summary to the members with in 30 days as would be the case IF ATSB was carrying out the investigation.

John, I would rather see any (money) be put towards a proper ATSB type investigation of the accident. IF we were to get this information then we might reduce the current accident rate.

WA is UTC +8. Broome Tower usually on from 0700 local each day until dark or after. Derby is CTAF and would probably be the next best option.

Lockheed P3 Orion.

FT..Read Post 35.....