turboplanner

Why the poor takesups then? They are the benchmarks I mentioned on the other thread.

I have been advised by AOPA senior DAME that the DAMEs taking up the authority represents only about 25% of DAMEs. There appears to be no great interest in DAMEs adding this authority to their resumes because predominantly of the risks of litigation if someone they have deemed fit has an event. If 75% have said they are not going to get the authority it would suggest the idea is an abject failure.

I have attended coal industry conferences in India and they’d certainly intend great expansion and modernisation.

This whole thread is in the 'far fetched' category. I really cannot believe that anyone actually believes that a RAA registered aircraft has any significant inertia. FFS, there are fat motorbikes that have more inertia. If this is the level of intelligence in the forum, then go fly paragliders.

Ukraine I believe.

Which State is the aircraft coming from?

No such animal as what? There are weightshift 95.10 but a weightshift Hummel would be unique.

I am wondering how slippery the A22LS and A32 are, please? I remember reading years ago that if someone wants to be safe in a GA aircraft, it should not be too slippery, otherwise it can build up too much speed too quickly in an unusual attitude. In other words, if you are a low time instrument pilot, go with the C206 and not the C210, or go with the C182 and not the C182 RG.From what I have read, the A22 is easier to fly than the A32 because it slows down better. So, if you are a few knots too fast on final, you can slow down a bit and won't float too far. However, LSA aircraft slow down better than GA aircraft anyway. So, does an A32 slow down about the same as a Cessna 172, or more like a Cirrus SR20? The A32 is as fast as a 172 with almost as much payload and a lot less power, but it is also much lighter.

How much safer would the A22 be than an A32? If all you have to do is go round if you mess up a landing, why not get the A32 and 20 extra knots for $20 000? The Kelpie seems an ideal plane to me ('cept it does not fold), so why not make a A32 Kelpie? Very preliminary enquiries, you see.

That’s being very selective about the type of aircraft involved.I think these days many RAA builds are exactly the same aircraft as GA experimental. Jabirus and zenair variations etc can be built for either category.Same systems, same complexities.

Some years ago I contemplated building a kit aircraft' date=' even sought advice on this forum Skyranger verses X Air Hanuman When I got myself into a financial position to do this I reconsidered. The main reason I decided against it was that almost everything I read led me to believe the rules are too hard and the system is about to fail soon anyway. Perhaps part of the reason people are not building is a lack of positive mentors.

When I first staretd flying I was lucky enough to have some mentors who whilst acknowledging the difficulties and frustrations it is all worth it. These days when I am preparing the aircraft I hire it is not uncommon to see someone looking on, often a young person I always invite them over for a closer look and a chat. I tell them whats involved in learning to fly including the negative and frustrating parts of it but in the end I tell them what is the truth for me, flying is awesome and worth getting into.

 

I am no longer in a position to build or buy (spent my money somewhere else) but I made the right desicion.

 

I would imagine any person contemplating learning to fly or build who stumbles accross these kinds of postings may draw the conclusion that it is not an enjoyable pursuit.

Sorry mate you really are behind the times now ah,,,don,t you remember that RAA decided that we don't need 'regional board members any more, and gave the board member jobs to their mates,ie no Nth Qld reps anymore

Sorry Turby ' date=' but it was definetly RAA that has brought on the new requirements for build photos and approvals etc not CASA as RAA are trying to look like they have grown up and can manage the quasi GA aircraft that now dominate a '''SPORT'''regime originally designed and created for the affordable easy, and sporting side of aviation ,,not like now with all just using the freedoms created for such to go from Melbourne to Sydney or Canberra etc as fast and as comfortable as they can '[re, what GA is for'].......................Would make my old man turn in his grave to see the AUF destroyed in the way it is now ,,,very sad.............................

There's already a long thread on this with a lot of detail, which might answer your thoughts.

TurbsYES 16 builder's had/have problems with CAO95.10, and it's CASA regulation.

Builder's weren't told by RAA," of the "wing loading regs" when starting to decide which aircraft suited their needs.(HummelBird)

 

RAA took money from us for registration, THEN told us "Your aircraft doesn't COMPLY with the regs, unless registered before this DATE.

 

I have been told to go VH experimental, but why should I.

 

spacesailor

It's fairly clear from this thread that RAA needs to cater for all its members, and ELAAA the same.

I found the expiry date after about 3 minutes searching for 95.10, so you also had the opportunity to find that out before applying to RAA for membership.

In answer to your question on why you should go VH Experimental, if you can meet the medical, that currently looks to be your only path to a flying aircraft.

It would be a pity not to fly, when there is a path open to you.

Yes submissions where submitted, but ignored by the desk bound power hungry ''safety advisors'' and the new ''do as I say leaders in raa............

Amateur/home/scratch build is the owners design, if those people have the smarts to meddle in that pond so why aren't they allowed?A great deal of the innovations in the world came from those people.KP

I do not know that you know.. Some of these home built aircraft are complex. I know of one (19reg) its electronics was way up in the complexity stakes.A great deal of the electronics which is in GA started life in the home builds. After the testing it went on to the GA life with paper work, certificates and the magic TSO, still the same animal.... BUT... 10 x the original cost.KP

Have you read the new tech manual on 95.10 contruction processes and required material now,,,you used to be able to design build and fly your own creation "at your own risk , it,s your **** in that plane so you make sure you do it right' ,,now they are standing over your shoulder telling you how to do things they themselves have never done nor are qualified too dictate. So you are a little behind the times turbo when it comes to red tape and requirements for building a 95.10 aircraft.........

Turbs, you do write some rubbish at times. Aircraft can be as complex or as simple as you desire - it all depends on what you are prepared (unprepared?) to take on. Besides AUW, where it fits in the regulatory scheme of things is largely up to decisions the builder. You could put a Weedhopper on the GA register as an experimental category aircraft if you wanted and aren't some Jabiru types interchangeable VH to RAA?Builder support is more dependent on the associations people form with other like minded individuals rather than associations they join. And then the numerous builder forums, online resources like the EAA and interested professionals who can assist. RAA is really only a quasi regulator and SAAA seems to be looking for meaning in a post 101.28 age.

"Duty of care" That is OK however how do you get around the situation after some of these people have been told many times and still they can not comprehend.We run out of breath repeating the dialogue, what next.KP.

What is the difference between SAAA members and those of us who have built aircraft. As I see it we build ultralights and if we want to build an experimental, we join SAAA and can build exactly the same aeroplane.

Put a process in place where people will be responsible for their own actions, problem solved.KP

However, falling out of trees doesn't have much to do with building your own aircraft; there are a few issues with being qualified to use some tools, but mostly it's a matter of checking the build to ensure that you comply with the build instructions. I don't think the checking regime and test flying has altered much in the last 20 years.

One issue has been that people are taking on GA type aircraft as projects, and that probably should be left to SAAA members.

Several years ago I went to the Watts Bridge flyin. A great event with anybody and everybody able to roam around the aircraft parking area - there was great interest in all types of aircraft by all age groups. The next year I went to the Watts Bridge Airshow. Patrons were not allowed beyond the barricaded area and were generally treated like cattle. Lots turned up but any potential to recruit was minimised because, as any car dealer will tell you, the first challenge is to get the customer to sit in the car. Excited potential new recruits could only get seriously sunburned whilst being "lectured" about how to learn to fly - sell the sizzle first and fill in the gaps later.

With a fly in, you only have to separate the people from the aircraft if someone is arriving or leaving, and that can be made very easy by some forward planning.

At Ballarat years ago there was an aerobatics competition with international competitors and aircraft. The aircraft had to taxy through the spectator line to and from their performances, and this was achieved very simply by marshals holding orange plastic barrier meterial. It was great getting withing a couple of metres of these specialised aircraft.

However, that's not the issue in this thread, which is about building aircraft.

On the RC model scene, the same issues applied, which dropped membership off; Much the same tolerances applied as a full size aircraft, and rigging errors or control jams could quickly see your expensive pride and joy smash into pieces. It was solved in that sport by the supply of plug and play kits, which could be completed in a reasonable time, and the jigging produced good base quality control.

Young ones being encouraged....NONE.The rigmarole which one has to go through is unbelievable. All in the name of this so called "safety", "safety","safety".There is nowhere that this simple formula is displayed.. good culture + procedure + process=safety.

 

In this situation good culture is the correct construction that is not being satisfied till all is correct.(construction)

 

KP

its a new economy, back in the heyday of GA, the 1970s, every service station had a garage attached to it and making and fixing things by hand was a common. the world has moved on, people are more interested in seeing the world than their own backyard