turboplanner

33 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

i meant around the world. hummelbirds are popular.  you are giving me a headache. i need a rest .

you cleared my constipation anyway.🙂

Focus on how many are in RAA, many basic aircraft are popular in other countries. We have to focus on the ones that are legal to fly here.

10 minutes ago, aro said:

Join the SAAA and learn?

No point in silly trolling.

17 minutes ago, aro said:

The standards you refer to don't exist for GA experimental. They are a figment of your imagination.

No standards, no oversight, make your own decisions, at your own risk...............doesn't sound like the CASA I know.

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

There are a lot of hummelbirds flying so why is spaceys special.

 

Flying in Australia legally, under 95.10 regulation?

34 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

which one suggests it can be done, i was wrong about wing loadings, there is a section on that. i agree with what you saying but his aircraft may fit criteria under vh rules. for instance if the stall speed is too high for raaus . it might be ok for vh.

only an inspection by a vh exp inspector will provide the ultimate answer.

RAA aircraft are only allowed to fly if they can achieve the designated stall speed range in order that landing collisions will result in a lower level of damage/injuries. In this case the structure isn't going to be redesigned, tested and rebuilt to GA standards and stall speeds, so there's no rabbit hole there.

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

 i simply posted what i could find on the subject. i don't believe the comments about registering without inspection.

someone has to do an inspection to provide a coa.

stop trying to turn everything into some liability argument. 

It's not a liability argument, its very unlikely that an aircraft which has been grounded on safety grounds will be given a tick by another Administrator if they are given the original reasons yet here we've seen irrelevant documents posted suggesting it can be done.

There's a lot of skipping around going on here; either a refused RAA Aircraft CAN be flown in SAAA or another category or it can't.

The owner said 21 hours ago(these times will change as time goes on): "I believe the 95-10 Wing Loading" is not applicable to VH Experimental. Am I wrong?"

21 hours a document was posted: SAAA Controlled Document IppGen008-001 headed Convert RAAS amateur - built to VH Experimental.

This was a general advice information paper  which did not refer to cases such as where RAA has refused to approve/register and aicraft on safety grounds.

There was no mention that an aircraft had been refused on safety grounds, no suggestion that this would be advised to SAAA/CASA.

At 19 hours ago the owner said the advice which was being posted "does what is needed"

Your advice, your responsibility. If CASA rejects this point blank, what are you going to tell the owner?

6 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

. saaa inspectors are not going to pass an aircraft that is not airworthy.

Well the owner should be told that rather than be given a different story.

2 hours ago, aro said:

The SAAA are THE experts on this in Australia.

SAAA Authorised Persons probably issue the vast majority of special certificates of airworthiness for amateur built aircraft in Australia - not CASA.

So the SAAA documentation written to assist people to get their airworthiness certificate is an excellent source of documentation - probably the best there is. The next step is to talk to SAAA and an AP.

So are you saying that if you have an aircraft rejected on the grounds of safety by Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd, you just take it to SAAA and they will register it?

...and impediment to smooth flight. This can be corrected by light ..................

....vibrations into the structural section of.......

1 hour ago, BrendAn said:

Is this supposed to be for the never ending story.

I think you've summed things up very well.

What's going on certainly doesn't have much to do with RAA documentation.

33 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

 

I was rude to snap at you but if you read it you would see it explains the subject very well.

It might explain a subject very well, but when you are talking about an aircraft which has been refused registration for, as far as I remember, over a decade then it's best for the person involved to be contacting the organization responsible for registration rather than a third party who may not have an "Amendmment", "Sunset Clause" "Proviso" or any number of items the outside party might have missed in his opinion.

9 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

It's saaa listing the requirements for ra to vh. You would get the same thing off casa.

Not necessarily, but certainly it's not safe to provide advice from third party documents.

23 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

no mention of wing loading

You're quoting an SAAA document there.

17 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

Is that because you did not do your own maintenance, annuals etc. 

No it was more based on the distances, however RAA has stuck with aircraft ownership and maintenance from the AUF days so an owner pays for any mistakes in the aircraft specification or design, and pays the full cost of maintanance, annuals etc. where by a hiring regime/aircraft on the flight line you may be paying for only 100th of those costs.

.......eliminate air bubbles, overcome gravity and fill the gascolator for an uneventful flight over long ........................................

On 04/05/2025 at 7:53 PM, Keith Page said:

Turbo.. Big question here are you a member/shareholder/or other of RAAus or own a RAAus regestered aircraft?

Just interested..

No, tried RAA as a low cost alternative, but when I ran the spreadsheets found it was more expensive than GA, but my interest is in cross country.

,,,,,,write a letter to the government telling them how good NDIS is and recommending one more person to be added; that's not much cost to all the taxpayers; about two cents a session.

It just heppened that there was an election on and the Greens read the Bluey story in the Guardian, and ran full page ads about Albo ripping off the taxpayers with "free services".

It wasn't so much that the story came out or that Albo, like every good socialist was quite happy to go along with this, but the Greens headline which read XXXXXXX Albo!.

Albo flew [avref] into ......................

Yes, still interested in the progress.

......pop up clinic, and had to wait 17 hours until it popped up.

Ron's mood was not good and he abused the Doctor. This wasn't a good start because since Albo had been tightening the screws, the Doc had lost his BMW, his beach house, his annual holiday to Bali, and his two nurses, one of which was .................. 

......has aileronitis, and certainly not as bad as the does Cappy picked up in the back streets of Bombay. NES readers will remember that Cappy's ..........................

4 minutes ago, GolfWhiskeyHotel said:

I follow this forum at irregular intervals , but given the latest news re: Jabiru Gen 4 , I thought "I wonder what everybody is saying".  So I came for a look.  Now I know what everyone is saying . NOTHING.  Not one post?  But People are being told

"Your engine will require a new crankshaft" , please join the queue.  Has no-one anything to say?   I hear that 3 or 4 hundred engines are involved. Worldwide.  Seems to me to be a postworthy subject wouldn't you think?

My aircraft is not involved of course, being a J160 with 912uls engine. (coming up to its third year and MARAP yet to be completed) . Happy Hours in the sky................ Geoff

Depends whether it's a recall or not. If it is and Jabiru are paying for the changeover, that's quite normal for Australia, and should be commended.

.........ailerons, and even though I don't believe in ailerons, they do give me ......

57 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Let's unpack this a bit.. Everyone on this forum against ASIC, as far as I am aware, has maintained that ASIC (and presumably its lesser sibling, AVID) is for security checks to prevent terrorism. I did not, and I don't think anyonw has portrayed it based solely on some Die Hard type scenario. But, if I, as a pilot, am expected to pay for a security check for my flying activities, it is not fanciful to expect the risk to originate from my flying activities. Were the people and the ISIS cell you were talking about deteected as a result of ASIC/AVID? Were the terrorist activities they were planning or training for involve the use of private aviation? Or was it pure chance that someone decided they wanted to fly and apply for an ASIC? My point is, if the security checks are not related to a risk borne from aviation, why do pilots have to pay for the security check and renew every two (or 5 for the AVID, if it still exists)? And how would that be anything other than a tax dressed up as a security regime to fund more general surveillance activities? If it is based on a perceived threat from light sports and general aviation in the private sense (i.e. non commercial), then how is it fanciful to think that light aircraft would be involved in the scenarios that the ASIC is designed to detect and prevent? And why would it be invalid to question whether the cost is proprotionate to  risk, regardless of how convenient it is? And if I can get it immediately over the counter, how is that a proper security check before allowing someone to go on their way and commit a terrorist act before the secutiy check is carried out and they are stopped? And why, at the time of applying for my license (which is a cost) and paying the $90 to the government for my medical (of which all the work of entering the data is done by the DAME), can they just not run a security check anyway and not bother me? In fact, if I was a terrorist, applying for a ASIC (which has security in the name) would sort of deter me (although I admit, they are not all the smartest on earth)? 

 

It just doesn't add up as reasonable and to be quite frank, your assertion that ASIC does the job is invalid, because they can run these checks without it.. So I reiterate, it is either a dressed up tax or ASIO & Co are still lagging other coutnries like the UK who have a far higher terror threat for far longer and don't need this crap. And, both ASIO and MI5, and other countries' intelligence services are foiling terror plots daily without the use of ASIC or anything like it.

 

Yeah, it may only be $x00, and a bit of inconvenience, but I am with @skippydiesel on this - its just one of a continuing erosiion of rights and increase of costs with little actual beneift and should be resisted.. Otherwise we may end up with anti terrorist laws that lock up whistleblowers who, after all efforts to rectify the issue through their organisations decide to blow the whistle, while allowing those who are alleged to have committed crimes or at least misconduct to go free without investigation or trial. But, like countries such as even the USA, who promote whistleblowing and even reward it, Australia would not want that to happen, would it?

 

 

@skippydiesel put the response very well. And all the items you list are where the risk is directly from the user, and the risk has a relatively high probability of occuring. And, we already need to have a licence (or certificate) for various flying activities, so the argument that others need a licence is sort of moot. And the cost and effort you need to go through to obtain a licence is usually proprotionate to the risks and probability of those risks materialising your activity bears. I have no idea a firearm costs, but a PPL is,what, around $20K on average and on average takes how long? I am not sure how much an RPL or RAAus licence/certificate takes, but I would wager it is more than getting a gun licence, and for the average person, a lot longer, too.  Also, the sheep/cattle licence, if it is a thing rather than regs on registering your livestock and tracking its movements, is about traceability of livestock in the food chain - quite a big and real risk to manage. I am still not sure that the real risk of terrorism from private aviation is commensurate with that.

 

And, the most common vehicle for terrorism - cars/vans - do we do security checks on every driver and should we not introduce a DSIC? I mean, that would be popular at election time, right?

I'm tied up working on something else at the moment, but best  not to look for reasons an policies from any of us, but from the original sources. You realise they are not going to waste too much time on social media opinions.