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 )

[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.