Jump to content

slb

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    320

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by slb

  1. slb
    I agree wholeheartedly. It wouldn't be hard to point all owners in the right direction for learning how to maintain their own aircraft (manuals for the aircraft and engine) and to seek answers from the Manufacturer, if they need to. They don't need an exam to be able to do this. The Tech team should be on hand to offer advice, but ultimately help them source the right information. There are too many variables out there to put all maintenance into a simple 'test of knowledge'. It doesn't help those that genuinely want to learn how. and if someone is already competent ... then let them maintain their own, without interference. Education without enforcement. Works in the UK and as Jim says above, also in Canada.
  2. slb
    or maybe they did just say 'No'?
  3. slb
    The HGFA have the same aircraft on their register as RAAus but the HGFA owners are allowed to maintain and modify without training, so I can't see that it comes from CASA.
  4. slb
    The fact is that if it is my backside in the aircraft, I would prefer to have maintained it myself than trust someone else to do it (providing I felt competent enough). We used to do that with parachutes. Would you rather jump with a chute you had packed yourself (under direct supervision) or one that had been packed by a stranger? The UK system works very well with no oversight of maintenance. Since they de-regulated their single seat aircraft, the onus is all on the pilot to look after his/her own safety. So far it has worked very well, also for the USA . Unfortunately for us, it seems that Australia is heading in the opposite direction.
  5. slb
    So, just to recap: PPG are flown under CAO 95.8 which would be HGFA only (as long as they remain under 70kg) PPG (over 70kg) are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA. PPCs are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA and would be classed the same as Trikes (weightshift microlights) So, are they also covered under the MOU between the HGFA and RAA, for training and maintenance?
  6. slb
    So, just to recap: PPG are flown under CAO 95.8 which would be HGFA only (as long as they remain under 70kg) PPG (over 70kg) are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA. PPCs are flown under CAO 95.32 and can be registered under RAA or the HGFA and would be classed the same as Trikes (weightshift microlights) So, are they also covered under the MOU between the HGFA and RAA, for training and maintenance?
  7. slb
    Surely some of the L1 incidents could/should have been picked up on a pre-flight. Therefore, inadequate pre-flight = pilot responsible. But who is at fault here - the pilot, the Instructor who taught him to do a preflight, or the CFI who did his last BFR? and does this come under Operations, or Maintenance?
  8. slb
    Well, I have just received an email from RAA entitled: Professional Development Program which announces the rollout of practical Level One owner maintainer courses. We will have to wait and see what that means and how they are going to do it. Lets hope that once everyone has completed it ..... there will be no L1 shortcomings at all! Then it will be on to the L2s and then the L4s but they will have to continue through to LAMEs who are not familiar with our aircraft and engines. The sky's the limit, so to speak.
  9. slb
    Sorry for your situation but it is certainly good news for all Tecnam owners in Australia.
  10. slb
    Exactly. I agree and the solution would be to run a practical course for those who would like one, and not have it forced upon them. For instance, go back to being able to maintain your own aircraft if you feel competent, if not get someone else to do your maintenance or book yourself onto a course. The Organisations should be promoting EDUCATION but allow those owners to choose their own levels as required.
  11. slb
    I agree with you Frank, but I was referring to the reference below and pointing out that the HGFA Engine and Airframe course does provide practical aspects for anyone seeking assistance to enable them to do their own maintenance. It is not mandatory but available for those who want it.
  12. slb
    I agree, as it depends on what else you fly as to the advantages of each Organisation. If you fly weightshift and also fly Hang-gliders then the HGFA is for you, if your other aircraft/passion is 3 axis then it would be RAAus. Powered paraglider vs powered parachute? I have no idea what the differences are, but surely by now you should also have the choice between the two, if not I guess they will have to specify the reasons why you can't fly with one. Aren't they under the same CAO?
  13. slb
    The MOU is just for Flight Training to be aligned between the two Organisations. No word on whether they have had a meeting since 2015, or whether there is an up to date MOU. RAAus no longer list it on their website. No reason not to keep the two Organisations for weightshift aircraft. Some models are now as expensive as 3 axis aircraft and there will always be Hang gliding and WM owners who want to belong to the same Organisation for both disciplines. The HGFA wins out on costs at the moment, much cheaper than RAAus, for now at least (although their costs went up recently, they just didn't tell anyone).
  14. slb
    but not for LSA, as below: check the Rotax documentation, some are 1500hr/12 years and some are 2000hr/15 years and some 1500hr can be upgraded to 2000hr by doing a modification to the oil pump relief valve, if it has the later type crankcase (check serial numbers).
  15. slb
    recognised courses on the L1 syllabus page. The HGFA course has practicals. I have completed the SAAA MPC/ HGFA Engine and Airframe course, do I need to complete the L1 exam? No, but you will need to provide RAAus with evidence before this can be recognised. If you have completed the SAAA MPC/ HGFA Engine and Airframe course and would like to apply for recognition of prior learning, please email [email protected] with a copy of your course certificate so that we can update your member record.
  16. slb
    Make the wing into solar panels and it would really make it cheap flying!
  17. slb
    You don't say who the Manufacturer is but I would contact them directly by email and send a photo to check their tolerances for wear and gain some advice. They may respond better to email than by phone.
  18. slb
    Yes, very glad to hear both Instructor and student received minor injuries only.
  19. slb
    We have seen some progress between the two Organisations. For a while now you can have your Bienniel Fight Review with either, regardless of who you are a registered with. This was always a definite no before.
  20. slb
    Rotax Line Maintenance Manual 05-10-00 (page 5) states that the maximum possible storage period of the engine is limited to 24 months. and that is providing the preservation directives have been followed.
  21. slb
    Rotax agents Bert Floods will also post to anywhere in Australia. Bert Flood Imports Home | Australian Aircraft Engine Distributer, Rotax Engines
  22. slb
    I think everyone on this site would wish him well and hope that he will feel fit enough to fly again in the future.
  23. slb
    Something that would normally be covered in training, so makes you wonder why he was caught up in it. Trying to outrun it maybe? Hope the pilot was ok?
  24. slb
    You can complete the survey on your laptop via the RAA Survey email link, as well as through this post ... I have just tried it and it let me complete it twice!
  25. slb
    Strange that you don't have to be a member, or even an ex-member to be able to complete the survey. I wonder how many responses they are expecting to receive?
×
×
  • Create New...