clouddancer

I think these lawyerly terms and conditions are actually RAAus catching up to what the Australian Parachute Federation, the Sport Aviation Federation of Australia and Gliding Australia have been requiring of members for years. Flying is dangerous, leaping out of aircraft is dangerous, sign here please.

That is sadly well outdated, being pre Part 149, Part 103, pre-lots of good old days things.

En-Route Supplement Australia ( ERSA) - Gen -FIS - Inflight from either Airservices under Documents and Downloads or from OzRunways. This link will probably only work if you are logged into NAIPS https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/ersa/GUID_ersa-fac-2-9_27NOV2025.pdf Section 16.

Thank you, I couldn’t for the life of me remember the name of the wooden prop on the Gazelle and Skyfox aircraft

They don’t need to clear the air, the Tech Manual has already been quoted and is very clear.

Type certified is very different to LSA

Rotax engines have a calendar life as well as hours for TBO. As it was a factory built aircraft, the 912A in the Gazelle was only approved for use with a Woodcomp prop. Trying to change the factory approved prop on a Cessna requires a Supplemental Type Certificate, which is CASA speak for a RAAus MARAP. Staff at RAAus didn’t review the condition reports for compliance until a CASA audit which resulted in greater attention to this area. Gazelle aircraft are no longer factory supported, so MARAP is the only way to get legal changes made. it is not a RAAus problem, but they are trying to assist members to remain compliant using MARAP. if it wasn’t for MARAP, the aircraft would be grounded due to lack of Woodcomp props and Rotax 912A engines. Buyer beware (or seller, be aware)!

Hey ClintonB, while aviation is “inherently risky”, we can all take steps to reduce risk, and also need to remember the hundreds of thousands of hours safely flown in a year, privately and commercially. Taking a risk based look at our personal flying habits, not just saying, “it’ll be right”, using resources like instructors and other pilots we trust, can help us stay safe. Not accepting any dodgy aircraft maintenance, or taking shortcuts will also help.

Probably more to do with BFR in 3 axis, or weightshift microlight or powered parachute? If CASA accept flight reviews which don’t cover all your design feature endorsements it makes sense for RAAus.

I am only making a minor point, with potentially major outcomes for aviation. she will be right mate 🤣😉

Certainly more likely to, if we all assume it is male 🤣

If it was a driverlesss taxi, it would be allowed to go, not him? 😉 “One pulled up near us and did a quick u turn as soon as the traffic allowed him too. Amazing to see.”

There is a difference in the RAAus syllabus about solo at a competency standard of 3, controlled conditions and direct supervision of the instructor, yes the time is logged by the student ss PIC, but the instructor is authorising the flight and supervising the student. Once the RPC or RPL is issued, the pilot is authorising and responsible for the entire flight, unless under training for a nav endorsement, where they revert back to being a student being authorised to fly beyond 25 nm. clear as mud?

Try the main page of the RAAus website and scroll down for a complete explanation of the policy and a link to the policy. https://raaus.com.au/news/member-benefit-raaus-members-liability-insurance/