Heli's and RA-Aus

[HobbyCAD]

Hi There all,

Does anybody have the latest on if amateur built heli's are going to be allowed to be registered under RA-Aus, not the civil VH register?

Trying to figure out why was it not done before, I have been given the answer that to be able to fly an RA-Aus aircraft, you need to have an RA-Aus licence. To get an RA-Aus licence, you need to be trained in an RA-Aus aircraft. There were no dual control RA-Aus helicopter available, as the max weight did not allow any to be registered under RA-Aus.

I "hear" this max weight has now been raised, allowing something like an Exec to be registered under RA-Aus. Is this true? Are any dual control kit-built heli's being registered under RA-Aus? If so, can we now then obtain an RA-Aus heli licence? Is CASA adressing this, any guidelines being laid down? Will it be 25 hours under instruction? How will we then convert to a single seat, say a Helicycle, or stay with piston, say a Mosquito or Mini-500?

...or do we still have to comply with FAR part 27.......

Regards,

Francois

[HobbyCAD]

....hmmmmmm ...! 65 hit's and no replies, now I know why the issue is still hanging out there, nobody is interested to talk about, or do anything about it !!

Are'nt there any amateur built heli owners out there, that are a bit fed-up with having to spend $30,000 on a flying ticket, to fly a $40,000 machine, where the RA-Aus guys are paying only $3,000 to fly their $60,000 machines?

Let's get some clarity on the issue. I'm sure there are some Exec 162F, Safari, Baby Bell owners out there that will have their machines available for instruction. I'm sure there are some instructors out there, wanting to make some money.

Any replies on the topic ......?

Francois

[russ]

My understanding is bad news for you..........it's guna cost you 30 grand...........sad, but true.

Might've changed your mind about commencing your build, if you got legit info beforehand. Would now pay to contact the "recreational" dept, within CASA, them guys will give you the good oil..............:(
A few of em, have recreational aviation backgrounds.

good luck

[HobbyCAD]

Yes Russ, you are correct, and I knew this, before I started. Looking deeper into the issue, I'm not so sure it's a forgone fact that it's an absolute No-No. It seems to me that there are ways and means, but no-one has been willing to take the hard slog through the beaurocratic minefield to sort it out.

We currently have a fixed wing ultralight license, an RA-Aus license, a proposed RPPL license, and a GA license. I really think us heli guy's have been left behind.

As a newcomer to the scene, it seems to me when CASA decided to get these small airplanes "out of their hair", they created RA-Aus, and handed over the small stuff to them, to regulate and administer. Same with gyro's, they created ASRA, another regulating body that does "all their own thing", under the blessing of CASA. Somehow, they were a bit reluctant to do the same with driven rotor machines. CASA seemingly wanted to keep some say in them, thus keeping the registration under VH. But that's all they kept, they handed over ALL the "checks and balances" to SAAA !! Under SAAA, you can technically still take your lawnmover, strap some rotors to it, get them to check it out, and issue a C of A. If it's a 51% build, CASA has nothing to do with the process, SAAA manages it. Why not let go of the pilot training as well. Does not help you enforce a GA trained pilot, but the system allows you to then fly a non-GA helicopter.

It seems an easier way to get RA-Aus to include a heli rating. I believe there are increases in MTOW in the works, right to where something like a C-150 or Piper Tomahawk would qualify to be registered under RA-Aus. That surely allows heli's to be registered as well.

It seems it's not a fact that heli's are catagorically not allowed under RA-Aus, it's that there has simply not been enough requirement to get it going. Would that be a correct observation on my behalf? If enough people get together, and show that the ability to practise the sport is being hampered by the lack of a rating, maybe we can get the ball rolling. I believe there are a lot of aircraft being allowed under RA-Aus, that are just as complex, if not more, than a simple well engineered kit helicopter. Why allow a heavier fixed wing aircraft to be piloted by a 20 hour pilot, but not a helicopter by say a 40 hour trained RA-Aus heli license? If the same technical standards of C of A issue that SAAA currently enforces is maintained, why not get together, work with CASA, SAAA to define a minimum heli pilot training course, define the minimum technical standard for an RA-Aus training helicopter, and get the ball rolling....!!!

There are many high performance, high energy gyro's entering the market, that are ever so much complicated and as big as an RW-162F, why are they allowed to operate under ASRA registration and training, and not us heli guy's under RA-Aus or SAAA training ?????.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for safety and regulation, but I'm also one for fairness, where the current system encourages the development of experimental amateur built aircraft, as well as flying them as a recreational pasttime, but the possible over regulation of the system currently limits, just about destroys this same activity for helicopters.

To all the guy's tuning in, I know what the current rules state, what I'm trying to get comments on, is why it is currently NOT ALLOWED or NOT DONE under RA-Aus ......

Regards,

Francois

[russ]

To all the guy's tuning in, I know what the current rules state, what I'm trying to get comments on, is why it is currently NOT ALLOWED or NOT DONE under RA-Aus ......

You is askin the wrong guys here, i don't think anyone would know that answer...........factually anyway.

( hello boys protecting their own turf, could be part of it ) :D

[HobbyCAD]

Yes Russ, someone might have an agenda somewhere, but if we look deep and hard enough, we'll find someone to spill the beans.

I'm not picking on you, I'm only using your answer as an example, I apologise in advance for my statement, but it's EXACTLY the negatively charged statements you are presenting, that stops the thing in it's tracks. People follow the road of least resistance, if you put negative vibes out there, they automatically steer away from it. We need to gather support, not discourage guy's from participating in something we don't even have the answer for. Let's work together, and get the answers !!!!

Getting experimental, amateur built, light sport helicopters, what ever one wants to call them, flying under RA-Aus, will do the heli industry the world of good. Current GA instructors will have more oppertunity for work, some RA-Aus trained pilots will upgrade to GA licenses, even then possibly buy GA registered helicopters. It's a sure pathway to growing the GA helicopter industry. It removes one of the biggest stumbling blocks, the initial $$$$'s involved. What is now just about prohibitively expensive to do, will become more affordable.

I'm sure, RA-Aus fixed wing flying contributes to GA flying, why not the same for heli flying ??

Read what is RA-Aus's Mission Statement.

Mission Statement:

"To foster, encourage and develop safe Recreational Aviation in Australia with minimum bureaucracy and minimum cost"

It's Vision:

"To be recognised as a leader in the development, promotion and administration of Recreational Aviation in Australia.

In an alliance — both strategic and operational — with other aviation associations where resources, experience, technologies and skills are shared with each organisation's development potential is protected and enhanced so that Australian aviation is revived, encouraged and its future assured."

It's Objectives:

"To foster, encourage and continually improve the safe and responsible flight activities of powered recreational and sport aircraft within an easily accessible and low cost environment.

To revive, encourage and promote interest in Australian recreational aviation by encouraging participation in recreational flying.

To foster, encourage and continually improve the amateur aircraft construction in Australia of single and two place recreational aircraft for educational, recreational and research purposes whilst promoting and maintaining a regulatory framework in which to do so"

It's Values:

"Regulation specific to recreational aircraft must continue to exist which shall allow RA-Aus members to design and/or build and fly their own aircraft at their own risk and without undue supervision of the design/build process, but within the limits of regulatory categories. Such a concept nurtures knowledge, innovation and enterprise all qualities which are important in Australia's future.

Any appropriately qualified person should, with due care in observance of the flight rules, be able to fly recreational aircraft with minimum regulation.

Recreational flying shall be affordable and accessible to the maximum number of Australians.

The continued development of self administration of our own affairs"

WHY EXCLUDE HELICOPTERS ???

If you look at it broadly, make the new assumption the word aircraft means aeroplane and helicopter, why can't a small rotorcraft be registered under CAO 95.55 para 15? They can be within the 544 MTOW, under the 45kt Vso, under the 100kt Vmax, comply to the 51% build rule. Even under CAO 95.10, one can comply with it all, as well as have the rotor disk loading under the max allowable wing loading of 30kg/m2.

Enough said in this post, waiting for more to join the discussion....... For the regulators reading this post, I'm posting questions about the current regulation, not out of some type of arrogance or disregard, I'm trying to be part of recreational flying, as per the RA-Aus mission statements, flying a technically compliant helicopter, with a compliant pilots license.

Regards,

Francois

[MechFx]

HI Francois,

Good topic, all your points seem to make sense.

My thoughts .

The complexity of newer ultralights and some new Gyros is defintely approaching that of simple Kit helicopters but what isn't changing is the difficulty of flying them.
In fact most heli pilots seem to think it would be more difficult (and hence more training) to fly an Ultralight heli,(low rotor inertia, lack of automatic systems etc)

I think that would be the major stumbling block as far as a regulatory authority (CASA) handing over training to another body.

your previous points above seem to focus on the technical and engineering reasons why RAA should include Heli's. And I totally agree with this desire.
but Isn't the basis of this already in place with the SAAA (via VH Experimental)?

The $30k cost of a PPLH is directly related to machinery costs and number of minimum hours required. I dont beleive there are many heli schools out there making lots of money via labour so the way to make this more affordable would be to lower the machinery costs (Kit built 2place or new design) and secondly having a less minimum training hour requirement.

I dont think the minimum hours will change until someone (you maybe???) invents a drastically simpler control system.

I've done training in just about every type of flying machine and here is my version of the control inputs required for flight from a students point of view.

Fixed wing - point and shoot

Gyro - 3D point and shoot, dont point forward too fast.

Heli - imagine throwing your car keys into the sky from an aerodynamics point of view and then pat your head while rubbing your belly and riverdancing all at the same time. and never let go of anything. If you have to sneeze, wait till the lesson is over.


Back to topic, I think if Helis were much easier to fly then CASA would be more open to allowing outside regulation. All of the reasons you have made above make sense to me, but I think the stumbling block will remain as the absolute need for more complex training, and thats why you can already get your kit heli registered via SAAA but have to go mainstream for your licence.

I have a youtube page with a few Aussie kit heli's I have videos of, you're welcome to have a look
http://www.youtube.com/user/mechfx

I'm not sure if I agree that GA has benefited from the rise if RAAus. seems the opposite may in fact be true. But on the plus side , from an if you cant beat them join them point of view, there are quite few GA schools offering RAAus training which I think is a great thing to happen .

keep the topic going, there's lots to learn for everyone,

cheers
Art

[HobbyCAD]

Hi There Art,

Thanks for joining the discussion. I fully agree with your following statements:

The complexity of newer ultralights and some new Gyros is defintely approaching that of simple Kit helicopters.

The $30k cost of a PPLH is directly related to machinery costs.

It would be more difficult (and hence more training) to fly an Ultralight heli,(low rotor inertia, lack of automatic systems etc).
The main stumbling block here is the massive $$$'s to be spent on a GA PPL(H) license. If it could be done with an experimental heli, the cost would nosedive, making it more affordable. CASA, via the SAAA, aggrees that 2 place kit heli's, like the RW-162F and 600 Talon, are as safe as they need to be, for they are allowed to be registered as VH, are allowed to fly around where any RA-Aus aircraft can fly, no restrictions on the 2nd seat, no need to remove the dual controls, no mechanical or safety restrictions what so ever. So, they "theoretically" thereby aggree it is a safe machine to fly from both seats. Why not allow it for dual instruction. CASA just about copies all the US regulations, they train in RW-162's in the States, why not us Ozzies?

I'm all for keeping the training standard high. So if under RA-Aus, they require us to fly 40 hrs under training, then let it be so, it will still be cheaper that GA machine hours !!

I'm trying to follow a stepped approach here. Let's first get heli's to be technically accepted by RA-Aus, by including a couple of extra words under CAO 95.55 para "xyz". Then we have training heli's available under RA-Aus. Next step, set up the minimum training requirements. Develop the course, and implement it. While the training requirements gets sorted out, at least let people fly the RA-Aus heli's with GA PPL(H) licenses.

Or better, don't develop a new training course, use the current GA PPL(H) training schools and GA Helicopters, fly only those sections of training that are needed, similar to the fixed wing guys having to do only 25 hrs under RA-Aus, but 40 hrs under GA. It takes say 25 hrs to learn to "fly" the helicopter, plus a 5 hour supervised conversion to your RA-Aus heli, then issue an RA-Aus(H) licence. That's a 30 hour training course. Much better that 40 or 50 GA heli hours currently needed !!

Even better, keep the current SAAA technical inspection, still register under VH, do the reduced hour GA PPL(H) practical flying training, do a supervised 5 hour conversion to your experimental heli type, and issue a restricted heli license !!

Just a small thing that has been ringing in the back of my head, why this focus on "it would be more difficult to fly a low rotor inertia experimantal heli"? I think that gyro's, with their single seats, HTL, CLT instability issues, have just as many potential flying envelope pitfalls, than small heli's. Yet, that all runs regulated on their own under ASRA, CASA leaves it all up to them !!! ???

Regards,

Francois

[MechFx]

HI again,

Regarding the justification of CASA/SAAA approval of 2 seat Helis to fly safely in normal airspace, As far as I know VH Experimental excludes any type of commercial activities including flight training. Is this correct ? if so it seems that CASA is saying they are safe enough to fly in but not safe enough to train in ?

I'd also guess then that the SAAA has no training structure and that would be why you would advocate the RAAus avenue for acceptance?

The step by step approach makes a lot of sense.

The tricky bit would be convincing RAAus why they should include helis in their charter. Probably supply and demand would show the strongest case for this if it existed.

Opening can of worms now.........

Would it not make more sense for ASRA (with appropriate funding of course) be the body to govern Recreational Helicopters ?????
the R is already for Rotorcraft after all ?

- Training system already in place.(would need modification of course)
- Knowledgable rotary kit builders and product developers.
- The difference is much less between Heli and Gyro than between Fixed Wing and Rotary.

Thoughts ?

Art

[firefly]

Well that seemed to have quitened him huh?

Bit of an insult to em to class them with a gyro in their minds. :yikes:

[chenda]

Hi There all,

Does anybody have the latest on if amateur built heli's are going to be allowed to be registered under RA-Aus, not the civil VH register?

Trying to figure out why was it not done before, I have been given the answer that to be able to fly an RA-Aus aircraft, you need to have an RA-Aus licence. To get an RA-Aus licence, you need to be trained in an RA-Aus aircraft. There were no dual control RA-Aus helicopter available, as the max weight did not allow any to be registered under RA-Aus.

I "hear" this max weight has now been raised, allowing something like an Exec to be registered under RA-Aus. Is this true? Are any dual control kit-built heli's being registered under RA-Aus? If so, can we now then obtain an RA-Aus heli licence? Is CASA adressing this, any guidelines being laid down? Will it be 25 hours under instruction? How will we then convert to a single seat, say a Helicycle, or stay with piston, say a Mosquito or Mini-500?

...or do we still have to comply with FAR part 27.......

Regards,

Francois


Hi
not sure how all this works still trying to find my way around this site.I also want to get into ultralight heli,build my own
Chenda

[HobbyCAD]

Well that seemed to have quitened him huh?

Bit of an insult to em to class them with a gyro in their minds. :yikes:

No-one has been quitened down lassie !! Have just found the correct channels to talk too, right up there where it matters !! Seemingly no-one on this forum, except Art, is willing to discuss the topic with an open mind. This is a matter that has to be adressed, an answer has to be found.

Don't understand your reply of "..bit of an insult to em..", please explain, who is being insulted, and why??

What seems a fact to me, is that the current "method" of requiring experimental heli guys do all their training in something like a Robbie R-22, is also not perfect. They do it according to the current rules, get all trained up, wear the cap and T-shirt. Fully trained GA heli pilots. Then with that PPL(H), the system allows them to simply hop into their lightweight low inertia machine, with rotors turning the other way, with potential disasterious results. We need a system where we can train, get all our experience in our experimental heli's.

Regards,

Francois

[HobbyCAD]

Would it not make more sense for ASRA (with appropriate funding of course) be the body to govern Recreational Helicopters ?????
the R is already for Rotorcraft after all ?

- Training system already in place.(would need modification of course)
- Knowledgable rotary kit builders and product developers.
- The difference is much less between Heli and Gyro than between Fixed Wing and Rotary.



Art, I would have thought so myself, but there has been no attempt by any ASRA member to voice any opinion. This forum must be full of their members !!

I get the impression it's a "hot potato" to everybody, so they stay clear. They are happy with their Gyro's, seemingly they have no desire to include driven rotors.

Well, I'm knocking on doors, some answer, some shut them in my face, but at least, there are a couple that have listened, even some that are talking the same language.

Regards,

Francois

[bones]

I dont think its a case of the "hot potato" at all from my piont of view, the amount i know about heli you can write on the back of a postage stamp, so i got nothing to say so i dont, simple maybe you need to find more ultralight heli guys and ask them, and then if you get it sorted out then maybe maybe, ASRA would look at helping you out with the other side of it, as in being able to work under ASRA as far as CASA are concerned, but then you need TA's and instructors ect, it appears to be a long road ahead for you, and at this time it is some thing that probably alot of people like me, dont have the time, or the interest in doing, and by interest I mean i have not interest in heli's at this time. Quiet happy with my gyros at this time.

[HobbyCAD]

Hi There Bones,

Thanks for coming onboard the discussion. As the ASRA Treasurer and a spokesman, wouldn't you say the current ASRA mandate is only for gyroplanes? To include heli's under the current ASRA regulations, would that not be a TOTAL change of constitution? It would be great if ASRA showed a desire to take recreational helicopter flying under it's wing, they just need to show that they want it. I'd be willing to put ALL my time and effort into getting it done.

I'm not criticising your associations name, but is the "Sport Rotorcraft" wording not a bit misleading, should it not have been "Sport Gyroplane Association" ?

Regards,

Francois

[bones]

You raise some good pionts re the "TOTAL change of constitution" and as i said in the first post maybe maybe we could come on board and help the heli's out, it would have a lot of stuff to sort through, as you realise.
If you are serious i could ask the board for their oppion on this matter and get back to you on it.

I'm not criticising your associations name, but is the "Sport Rotorcraft" wording not a bit misleading, should it not have been "Sport Gyroplane Association" ?

Not at all thought the nmae started some 30+(i think)years ago, but we do fly on rotors so it is fitting and THAT is why if ASRA could help out, and by that i dont mean loading the people now with more work, but by other people stepping up to sort of run this side of it, then i personally dont have any problem with it, though thee could be some legal, constitution ect problems that would need to be worked out.

BTW i been away for 2 months so that is why i have been quiet.

[HobbyCAD]

If you are serious i could ask the board for their oppion on this matter and get back to you on it.


Hi There Bones,

Sure thing, please do present this to your ASRA Board, and see what is their feeling about it. As I said before, and if I have ASRA's backing on it, I'll join ASRA, and take up the massive task of getting experimental helicopters incorporated into the association.

Let me know what they say, I'm standing by in anticipation.....

Regards,

Francois

[HobbyCAD]

I'm stealing Peter Watson, aka Down Under on the RW Forum's words, they are a statement I would like to make, but applicable to helicopters....

2 things killing recreational flying in experimental amateur built helicopters. There is the bad publicity from what at times seems the amateur built helicopters magnetic attraction to accidents. There is also the fact that they are so weighed down by rules and regs designed to protect people from themselves, that a well engineered, well built, technically compliant amateur built helicopter can't legally get off the ground.

Perhaps the time has come for two categories of amateur built helicopters.

One category for those who simply want to buy a proven kit assembly machine, and learn to fly the GA way. These are the guy's happy with the current regulations.

Another category for amateur home builders, who like to build their own, fiddle about, make a few mods, and try them out. We want to learn to fly safely within the known limits of that machine.

Like fixed wing amateur builders, we want that freedom they have to train on their own machines. If fixed wing amateur builders are allowed to strap wings to their beds, stick an engine on it, and fly it, why can't we do the same ?? We both go up, weigh 400kg, and can come crashing down on public property.

Regards,

Francois

[bones]

Hi There Bones,

Sure thing, please do present this to your ASRA Board, and see what is their feeling about it. As I said before, and if I have ASRA's backing on it, I'll join ASRA, and take up the massive task of getting experimental helicopters incorporated into the association.

Let me know what they say, I'm standing by in anticipation.....

Regards,

Francois
Well i just spoke with the OPP's manager and i was right in most of my thinking, what was talked about was the fact the what would be needed to be done;
1. Need to find a working party of people prepared to do all of the following, as i said none of the current Board of ASRA are very likely to ask for more work than we do now.
2. write an opps manual, check lists, training proceedures ect.
3. you would need to find instructors, technical advisors or the likes, opps mananger ect
Just to start with, then if you can get all this done, it "could" be done as for eg. ASRA- sport helicopters as a complete separete arm of ASRA, how ever and this is the crunch bit, if you were to organise all this it would then have to be put to CASA for approval, if they say no we wish to keep it all the way it is, which they very well may, then all this work is nothing.

ASRA was set up with the "sport rotorcraft" name incase this exact thing was to be done in the future, i and Allan both said it would be good if it could happen but it would take A LOT of work.

So that is the best i can come up with for now, so there you have it the balls back in your court now.:cheers:

[MechFx]

Francois, I know of at least 3 ASRA members that also fly homebuilt heli's . If you like I can PM their contact details to you. There is also a couple (I think) of helicycle kits in the build process at the moment in OZ. I'm sure these owners would be more than happy to hear about what you are talking about. They could be contacted through Helicycle in the states.

Have you contacted the SAAA for some possible information too ?

cheers
Art

[HobbyCAD]

Hi There Art,

Yes, please send me the details of the heli guys in ASRA.

Not only are there a stack of Helicycles, there are Mini-500's, Mosquito's, Scorpions, Exec's, a lonely Lonestar, and some A/W-95's. There are even some scratchbuilt one designs. If I can trace all those unfinished, unregistered projects throughout Australia, I'm sure we'll end up with close to 75 machines. There are enough to make up a new set of rules for.

I have been in contact with SAAA, they have been very helpfull. The thing is, currently, as with amateur built aircraft, SAAA is responsable to manage the technical side of amateur built heli's. Their TI's check them out, and sign the paperwork to have the C of A's issued. To register the amateur heli's, you get a VH registration from CASA. Technically, the machines are regulated by SAAA, but the training component is under CASA. I have no problem with the SAAA checking out the amateur built heli's, my problem is that the training is still the full PPL(H). The SAAA does not currently want to touch the current heli licence regulation. They are currently establishing the RPPL, the Recreational Private Pilot License, a step up from an RA-Aus license. Only once that is up and running, might they look at a RPPL(H). With the talk of GA going to self regulation, there are so many possible changes on the way, I don't think they are interested in establishing another heli license.

So now we are looking at ASRA doing the amateur heli's. That means we have to take the current technical inspection responsability away from SAAA, give it to ASRA, and remove the PPL(H) license requirement from amateur built heli's, and create a heli training program under ASRA.

Art, what do you think, will SAAA give up being technically responsable for amateur built heli's. Do you think the current SAAA Heli TI's will be willing to act as ASRA Heli TI's? Do you think the current GA heli instructors will be willing to teach under ASRA?

Regards,

Francois

[MechFx]

Art, what do you think, will SAAA give up being technically responsable for amateur built heli's. Do you think the current SAAA Heli TI's will be willing to act as ASRA Heli TI's? Do you think the current GA heli instructors will be willing to teach under ASRA?

I dont really think the SAAA would want to give up the responsibilities they have already, I'm sure it was a lot of hard work getting where they are at the moment.
What may be a possibility would be for ASRA (the new expanded version) to run the inspections in parallel. similar to the way Trikes are governed by the HGFA and RAAaus.

Most helicopter folk I've met in the past are very enthuisiastic/passionate about choppers so they may be enticed to help in another realm, could be seen as another feather in their cap. Same may go for the GA Heli instructors.
I reckon because its so hard for new commercial pilots/instructors to get work in the industry, what we are discussing may provide an excellent way for new instructors to get hours up.

BUT ..... I think the ideal solution would be to somehow raise instructors and inspectors from within ASRA. look at the last couple of years in Australia and the emergence of more and more Gyro instructors from all over. some of these "newbies" (i say that with the utmost respect) may be inspired by the chance to instruct in quality homebuilt helis as well.

Lot of work ahead which ever way you look at it.

cheers

Art

ps I will PM the contacts later

[Adrian S]

Guys,

As a fixedwing & rotarywing pilot in most camps with reasonable hours 3000+ - ASRA, GFA, RAAus, GA . I also own and operate homebuilts in the gyro, helicopter and fixed wing groups.

Iam all for deregulation and simplifying things but -

Unfortunatly its a big but as the difference between the gyro and helicopter in the training and engineering is significant. The helicopter is more complicated to fly and is not as simple as a gyro from an engineering point of view.

My personal view is that a Helo pilot needs to have at least 500 hours experience to fully understand the helicopter before they should be allowed to teach someone to fly. A reasonable number of these hours should be in low enertia homebuilt helicopters and the difference between the R22/44 and my Lonestar is huge!

The present GA sylabus has already been optimised for the R22 and the R22 is probably the cheapest /most reliable trainer we have seen.

Most Homebuilt helicopters will not survive the stain of training operations for more than one student!

The prices people pay for a R22 training generaly only allows for aircraft replacement and $50 to $80hr for the instructor if you are lucky.

The bottom line is any Helo operation is high maintenance and very expensive if a student stuffs up. ie Gyro blades < $5000 but R22 Blade set > $50000. Insurance you say - A year of Helo insrance will pay for a few gyros!

When I was an ASRA Board member I undertook a simple review of what would be required for ASRA to take on Helo's and the outcome showed that it was going to place an unacceptable strain on ASRA for only a few people who wanted to go the helo route.

Possibly once we have all of the new sport aviation regs in place and have addressed the current safety issues ASRA is facing then there might be time to take helicopters on as well.

Just my 10c worth

Adrian :)

[HobbyCAD]

Hi there Adrian,

Thanks for your input to this subject. I think we should not be clouding up the matter, by bringing in comparisons or differences between heli, gyro and fixed wing piloting. They are vastly different. The same goes for the different engineering complexity side of it. We are talking learning to fly your own helicopter here, not how it controls, or how complex it is.

I think the 500 hour issue is a bit of an overstatement. If you need 500 hours to understand heli training, CASA is doing something wrong with GA training as well.

Your point of your Lonestar being a totally different machine to fly than the R22 you trained on, it's EXACTLY what bothers me. Current legislation makes us fly the Robbie, and as a low time PPL(H) holder, makes us jump into our low inertia experimental heli. This is where it get's dangereous. We need to be able to train in our own heli's.

I think your statement that experimental heli's won't stand up to training is wrong. If it won't survive training, it won't survive 50 hours once you jump out of the Robbie and into the same experimental heli. I think you should give the more professional builders a bit of credit.

It leads into the point that maybe an individual detailed technical inspection should determine the ability of each heli to be used for training, not a blanket "NOT ALLOWED".

It's exactly your point of it being expensive to do training, that gave rise to RA-Aus and ASRA being created. I ask the same be done for heli enthusiasts, make it more affordable.

I aggree with you, I don't think ASRA is going to touch amateur built heli's. I don't think RA-aus have the desire to do it either. It's going to be a long uphill battle.

[JAL]

I thought the rules allowed you to train in your own homebuilt helicopter if you can find an instructor that is happy to do that. I know you can do that with any other experimental or LSA aircraft. This would be the cheapest training as you carry the direct operating costs. You just cant set yourself up as a business and train others using your homebuilt machine.

But as far as training generally the RA_AUS ticket is much the same as as a restricted GA license which if you check the costs are pretty similar. You still need to add the appropriate endorsements to your sport pilot license (cross country, carry passengers etc) and when added up is not a great deal less than than a full GA PPL which gives you a lot more privileges. Really the main difference is actually the medical standards, with the sport pilot allowing a lot of pilots fly that would not be able with GA license.

My point is that in light sport the savings are in operating your own aircraft where you carry out your own maintenance on a machine you did not need to build yourself. The savings in training aren't that great and accept for the medical standard there maybe even a bit of a false economy doing a sport pilot license instead of a GA license, particularly when many flying schools use exactly the same aircraft and instructors to do both. There is a bit more theory in a GA license but that may be a good thing.

I would imagine that the difference in costs of doing a LSA helicopter license compared to a GA license would not be as great you would imagine. After all a two place machine would require the same amount of maintenance and fuel whether it is licensed as GA or LSA. I would also bet because of the complexity of the machines that CASA would require a LSA machine to be be maintained by a LAME if it was used for the business for training.

I think you frustration is justified when it comes to sport helicopters, I am just suggesting when it comes to training I think that at the end of the day it wont result in the savings you might think.

There is probably a business case for a helicopter kit manufacturer to offer training in your own machine once completed at an agreed rate for the instructor. It is a win - win, the helicopter manufacturer gets to check the quality of the build and that the pilot is trained in their machine well enough to reduce the chances of pilot error crashes that will ultimately damage their brand and the owner doesn't have the out pocket expenses of paying for the operation of another person's machine when they have perfectly good one in the hanger.

[gordon]

Hi for someone who has built a rotorway and got my pplh I think 40 hours is not enough flite time.good point about trying to keep costs down make the cost of buying a kit and getting your licience cheaper you get more people looking at kit helicopters fly safe gordon:D

[HobbyCAD]

This is the Coroners Report on an accident that seems to be fuelling requests for major change to the current CASA regs.

http://www.coronerscourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Coroners+Court/resources/file/eb1aa34be734765/finding_andrew_mull_117106.pdf

[Wisey]

So have their been any inroads on this proposal?

[Murray Barker]

Yes, the ASRA board are now in negotiations with CASA to administer helo's (home built and factory) up to 400Kg.
Single seat for now.

[Aussie_Paul]

Yes, the ASRA board are now in negotiations with CASA to administer helo's (home built and factory) up to 400Kg.
Single seat for now.


400Kg? MTOW or empty Murray?

Aussie Paul. :)

[Murray Barker]

Sorry I meant 450 KG's MTOW.
Very early days yet.

[Aussie_Paul]

Sorry I meant 450 KG's MTOW.
Very early days yet.

Thanks Murray, not nit picking, just wanted to clarify the figure for forum participants.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Wisey]

Roger that,

Have been speaking to a bloke in private about it... I am ready ;)