RAA
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take anything before a court and it is a roll of the dice - HLB would know this too! (if the law was simple there would be no need for days of arguement about points of law - as apposed to just the facts of the case).
Lets get back to what is good for aviation.
Is 100 hours in a 3 axis RAAus aircraft just as useful as 100 hours in a glider or gyrocopter? - Yes
Does it have an effect on safety? - No
Will it lead to the end of aviation as we know it? - No
SO WHO CARES !!
Lets get back to what is good for aviation.
Is 100 hours in a 3 axis RAAus aircraft just as useful as 100 hours in a glider or gyrocopter? - Yes
Does it have an effect on safety? - No
Will it lead to the end of aviation as we know it? - No
SO WHO CARES !!
Take anything before a court and it is a roll of the dice - HLB would know this too! (if the law was simple there would be no need for days of arguement about points of law - as apposed to just the facts of the case).
Lets get back to what is good for aviation.
......
SO WHO CARES !!
Lets get back to what is good for aviation.
......
SO WHO CARES !!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CASA executive can make any excemptions they want without changing the rules. Nobody said the definition of an aircraft changed years ago, however an excemption has been made which over-rides the regulations.
The CASA executive can make any exemptions they want without changing the rules. Nobody said the definition of an aircraft changed years ago, however an exemption has been made which over-rides the regulations.
The letter floating about is an interpretation, not an exemption from anything.
RAAus aircraft operate under exemptions to the CARs published in CAO 95.55 (and others).
Exemptions are created by instrument and those instruments are published, eg: various airlines have had exemptions against carrying the normal compliment of Cabin crew.
A letter from a CASA officer giving an interpretation of the Regs (and I have received one or two myself) is not an exemption.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in the ether
Age: 26
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet when the founders of RAA got together with CASA to reduce the regs and introduce a RECREATIONAL flying category they never imagined that a few years later a bunch of people would try to remove the RECREATION component and set up commercial operations under a RECREATIONAL tag
Just to throw another spanner in the works..
I spoke to a CFI who's school caters for both RA and GA, and he has a written confirmation from casa stating that RA hours wont count for the 150 hour course but can for the 200??..
All i can say is what the??
Seem that there are, as has already been stated, 3 or 4 differing answers...
I spoke to a CFI who's school caters for both RA and GA, and he has a written confirmation from casa stating that RA hours wont count for the 150 hour course but can for the 200??..
All i can say is what the??
Seem that there are, as has already been stated, 3 or 4 differing answers...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry XXX mate, not correct.
The letter floating about is an interpretation, not an exemption from anything.
The letter floating about is an interpretation, not an exemption from anything.
If what you say is true and that it is an interpretation, then yes, shaky ground indeed.
Clinton,
With all due respect, I disagree.
That was the point at which "ultralights" became "Australian aircraft", and were counted for the first time in the Australian fleet, for purposes of ICAO reporting, because the "conventional" (ie:VH-) fleet had dropped below 10,000 aircraft.
This was the point at which an aircraft didn't have to be an Annex VIII aircraft to be included in the list of Australian aircraft.
The idea that command hours on a C-150/152 are of greater career value than in a modern Jabiru, based on the aircraft alone, is laughable.The latter is faster, has longer range, often better equipped, and is in no way a lesser "Australian aircraft" than a C-150/152.
I further suggest that much of the problem debated here is caused by the various dates that various legislation has been enacted, and the perennial problem of changes not catching "unexpected consequences".
I am further of the opinion that "letters of interpretation" or "CASA policy" have no standing, when contrary to the law as enacted. You know the form, better than I do, for making concessions/exemptions lawful by a legislative instrument.
This is something that should be put on a sound footing, sooner rather than later.The idea that a pilot could be stripped of a CPL, because of the lack of legal standing of of a CASA"letter" , is abhorrent.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Some models of Jabiru can be VH- registered, registered as an LSA, or just registered as an "ultralight" --- just to add a few more combinations and permutations --- but don't anybody hold their breath waiting for the RPL that was first proposed (in the modern era) in 1996.
With all due respect, I disagree.
That was the point at which "ultralights" became "Australian aircraft", and were counted for the first time in the Australian fleet, for purposes of ICAO reporting, because the "conventional" (ie:VH-) fleet had dropped below 10,000 aircraft.
This was the point at which an aircraft didn't have to be an Annex VIII aircraft to be included in the list of Australian aircraft.
The idea that command hours on a C-150/152 are of greater career value than in a modern Jabiru, based on the aircraft alone, is laughable.The latter is faster, has longer range, often better equipped, and is in no way a lesser "Australian aircraft" than a C-150/152.
I further suggest that much of the problem debated here is caused by the various dates that various legislation has been enacted, and the perennial problem of changes not catching "unexpected consequences".
I am further of the opinion that "letters of interpretation" or "CASA policy" have no standing, when contrary to the law as enacted. You know the form, better than I do, for making concessions/exemptions lawful by a legislative instrument.
This is something that should be put on a sound footing, sooner rather than later.The idea that a pilot could be stripped of a CPL, because of the lack of legal standing of of a CASA"letter" , is abhorrent.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Some models of Jabiru can be VH- registered, registered as an LSA, or just registered as an "ultralight" --- just to add a few more combinations and permutations --- but don't anybody hold their breath waiting for the RPL that was first proposed (in the modern era) in 1996.
Sokpuppet,
CASA and Recreational Aviation Australia did no such thing.
CASA has only been around since the mid-90's, when CAA was split up
Self administration has been around since not long after WWII, in the GFA case.
The advent of the Australian Ultralight Federation ( with a very recent name change to Recreational Aviation Australia) grew out of the "Darling Report", from memory in the early '80's, (long before "CASA") and it was suggested that SAAA take over administration of "ultralights". Indeed, it was more of an ultimatum, (CAA or whatever it was then refused any direct involvement), the Minister said that, if community (self) administration was not set up, the relevant aircraft would be grounded.
As always, there were many objectors to such a change, forecasting the end of civilization as we know it, bodies plummeting from the skies etc ---- all the usual stuff from the "the only acceptable change is no change" brigade. But Government policy it was (and has been ever since) and the Government prevailed over the naysayers, many of whom have not caught up, to this day.
The SAAA declined, so a breakaway group from SAAA set up the AUF, with just a handful of members. One of the founders,AUF pilot certificate holder No. 2, still lives in Bunderberg. He's not No.1, because he and the other main founder tossed for who got No.1.
Growth was steady but unspectacular until 1998, when it was decided that new CASR 21 Experimental Amateur Built aircraft that fell within the weight limit of AUF administration, (488 kg AUW, later increased to 544 kg) could be registered with/administered by the AUF. Not to be confused with 95.10, 95.55 etc. aircraft.
After this, expansion of the AUF was rapid, going from about 2500 members in 1996, to today's 10,000+, with the number of RAA aircraft outnumbering active VH- single engine aircraft.
The advent of the "Light Sport Aircraft" as a design/certification category gave a further boost to AUF, and, I assume, helped play an important part in the name change, as "AUF" were no longer about "ultralights", but a range of certification categories, and Recreational Aviation Australia became the new organization name.
Maybe the arrival of the new C-152 replacement will help, Cessna will not be happy if the aircraft cannot be used in many flying schools doing CPL training.
The Flycatcher (sorry, Skycatcher) is NOT a FAR 23 aircraft, it is certified as an LSA --- have our complex, convoluted and contradictory regulations caught up with that ---- if they hits Cessna sales, watch the rapid action to redress any "anomalies".
Tootle pip!!
CASA and Recreational Aviation Australia did no such thing.
CASA has only been around since the mid-90's, when CAA was split up
Self administration has been around since not long after WWII, in the GFA case.
The advent of the Australian Ultralight Federation ( with a very recent name change to Recreational Aviation Australia) grew out of the "Darling Report", from memory in the early '80's, (long before "CASA") and it was suggested that SAAA take over administration of "ultralights". Indeed, it was more of an ultimatum, (CAA or whatever it was then refused any direct involvement), the Minister said that, if community (self) administration was not set up, the relevant aircraft would be grounded.
As always, there were many objectors to such a change, forecasting the end of civilization as we know it, bodies plummeting from the skies etc ---- all the usual stuff from the "the only acceptable change is no change" brigade. But Government policy it was (and has been ever since) and the Government prevailed over the naysayers, many of whom have not caught up, to this day.
The SAAA declined, so a breakaway group from SAAA set up the AUF, with just a handful of members. One of the founders,AUF pilot certificate holder No. 2, still lives in Bunderberg. He's not No.1, because he and the other main founder tossed for who got No.1.
Growth was steady but unspectacular until 1998, when it was decided that new CASR 21 Experimental Amateur Built aircraft that fell within the weight limit of AUF administration, (488 kg AUW, later increased to 544 kg) could be registered with/administered by the AUF. Not to be confused with 95.10, 95.55 etc. aircraft.
After this, expansion of the AUF was rapid, going from about 2500 members in 1996, to today's 10,000+, with the number of RAA aircraft outnumbering active VH- single engine aircraft.
The advent of the "Light Sport Aircraft" as a design/certification category gave a further boost to AUF, and, I assume, helped play an important part in the name change, as "AUF" were no longer about "ultralights", but a range of certification categories, and Recreational Aviation Australia became the new organization name.
Maybe the arrival of the new C-152 replacement will help, Cessna will not be happy if the aircraft cannot be used in many flying schools doing CPL training.
The Flycatcher (sorry, Skycatcher) is NOT a FAR 23 aircraft, it is certified as an LSA --- have our complex, convoluted and contradictory regulations caught up with that ---- if they hits Cessna sales, watch the rapid action to redress any "anomalies".
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 19th Mar 2010 at 13:27.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not just the "spycatcher", Piper have the same thoughts
PIPER ENTERS THE LSA MARKET WITH THE PiperSport
SEBRING, Fla., Jan. 21, 2010 – Piper Aircraft, Inc. announced details and unveiled its all-new PiperSport here today, underscoring its foray into the Light Sport Aviation segment with a world-class aircraft that speaks to Piper’s heritage in bringing seminal, entry-level airplanes to market while offering features and performance normally found in more expensive, high-end aircraft.
Piper President & CEO Kevin J. Gould made the announcement during a news conference held here this morning at the Sebring U.S Sport Aviation Expo 2010.
“With the PiperSport,” Gould said, “Piper is entering what is undeniably one of the most exciting market segments in general aviation. This burgeoning segment is becoming vital to our industry and playing an ever-increasing role in developing general aviation’s next generation of pilots. The PiperSport is an amazing entry-level aircraft that will bring new customers into Piper and lead the way for those customers to step up into more sophisticated and higher performance aircraft within our line over time. Moreover, as the only aircraft manufacturer to have models in every market segment, Piper continues to expand its business model to ensure that we are in tune with the times and that we meet the needs of our customers at every level.”
The PiperSport, manufactured under a licensing agreement with Czech Sport Aircraft (CSA) and distributed through Piper’s master distributor, PiperSport Distribution, Inc., is immediately available for sale, with first deliveries scheduled for April.
The PiperSport features a rate of climb of 1,200 feet per minute and is capable of reaching a maximum cruise speed of 138 miles per hour and an altitude of 10,000 feet. The aircraft has a gross weight of 1,320 pounds and 600 pounds of useful load. With the ability to run on automotive fuel, the PiperSport’s 30-gallon fuel capacity gives the aircraft a range of 600 nautical miles and the ability to refuel virtually anywhere in the world that offers either 100LL or premium, unleaded automotive fuel.
There are three variants of the aircraft: The PiperSport, which sells for $119,900; the PiperSport LT (primarily a training model), which sells for $129,900; and the PiperSport LTD (professional model), which sells for $139,900. Each model features the latest in luxury – from leather seats to cutting-edge design – and is equipped with a 100-hp Rotax 912 engine and a BRS complete aircraft parachute recovery system. Each model also features the same gross weight, speed, fuel capacity, and range.
As to specific models, the PiperSport includes:
• Dynon D100 Flight Display
• Garmin 495 GPS
• Garmin SL40 Nav/Com
• Garmin GTX 328 Transponder
• Ameriking ELT
• PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
In addition to the equipment that the base model PiperSport includes, the PiperSport LT substitutes the Dynon D120 Engine Monitoring system for the PiperSport’s analog display, and the top-of-the-line PiperSport LTD also features the Dynon AP74/HS34 autopilot.
Gould underscored Piper’s heritage in light aircraft and pointed out that that CSA – Piper’s supplier – is a leader in the LSA industry. He added that the PiperSport models build on CSA’s excellent products and reputation with added features specifically for the PiperSport.
“Piper’s heritage dates from what was one of the original ‘LSA’ aircraft of its time: the venerable Piper Cub,” Gould said. “Consequently, Piper is in many ways returning to a market segment we played an integral role in inventing ... but with all the modern, state-of-the-art elements that our customers expect today, from design and manufacturing to performance, avionics and reliability.
About Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Piper Aircraft Inc. is headquartered in Vero Beach, Fla. Piper’s rich legacy is born of 72 years of unparalleled history, with almost 150,000 aircraft brought to market and more than 160 models certified. Approximately 90,000 of those aircraft are still flying and being serviced and supported on every continent by Piper’s 65 service centers, 27 dealers and 2,500 field personnel. Piper is the only general aviation manufacturer to build and offer aircraft for every general aviation mission, from trainers and high-performance aircraft for personal and business use to turbine-powered business aircraft and the PiperJet. For more information about Piper Aircraft and to find an authorized service center near you, please visit www.piper.com.
SEBRING, Fla., Jan. 21, 2010 – Piper Aircraft, Inc. announced details and unveiled its all-new PiperSport here today, underscoring its foray into the Light Sport Aviation segment with a world-class aircraft that speaks to Piper’s heritage in bringing seminal, entry-level airplanes to market while offering features and performance normally found in more expensive, high-end aircraft.
Piper President & CEO Kevin J. Gould made the announcement during a news conference held here this morning at the Sebring U.S Sport Aviation Expo 2010.
“With the PiperSport,” Gould said, “Piper is entering what is undeniably one of the most exciting market segments in general aviation. This burgeoning segment is becoming vital to our industry and playing an ever-increasing role in developing general aviation’s next generation of pilots. The PiperSport is an amazing entry-level aircraft that will bring new customers into Piper and lead the way for those customers to step up into more sophisticated and higher performance aircraft within our line over time. Moreover, as the only aircraft manufacturer to have models in every market segment, Piper continues to expand its business model to ensure that we are in tune with the times and that we meet the needs of our customers at every level.”
The PiperSport, manufactured under a licensing agreement with Czech Sport Aircraft (CSA) and distributed through Piper’s master distributor, PiperSport Distribution, Inc., is immediately available for sale, with first deliveries scheduled for April.
The PiperSport features a rate of climb of 1,200 feet per minute and is capable of reaching a maximum cruise speed of 138 miles per hour and an altitude of 10,000 feet. The aircraft has a gross weight of 1,320 pounds and 600 pounds of useful load. With the ability to run on automotive fuel, the PiperSport’s 30-gallon fuel capacity gives the aircraft a range of 600 nautical miles and the ability to refuel virtually anywhere in the world that offers either 100LL or premium, unleaded automotive fuel.
There are three variants of the aircraft: The PiperSport, which sells for $119,900; the PiperSport LT (primarily a training model), which sells for $129,900; and the PiperSport LTD (professional model), which sells for $139,900. Each model features the latest in luxury – from leather seats to cutting-edge design – and is equipped with a 100-hp Rotax 912 engine and a BRS complete aircraft parachute recovery system. Each model also features the same gross weight, speed, fuel capacity, and range.
As to specific models, the PiperSport includes:
• Dynon D100 Flight Display
• Garmin 495 GPS
• Garmin SL40 Nav/Com
• Garmin GTX 328 Transponder
• Ameriking ELT
• PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom
In addition to the equipment that the base model PiperSport includes, the PiperSport LT substitutes the Dynon D120 Engine Monitoring system for the PiperSport’s analog display, and the top-of-the-line PiperSport LTD also features the Dynon AP74/HS34 autopilot.
Gould underscored Piper’s heritage in light aircraft and pointed out that that CSA – Piper’s supplier – is a leader in the LSA industry. He added that the PiperSport models build on CSA’s excellent products and reputation with added features specifically for the PiperSport.
“Piper’s heritage dates from what was one of the original ‘LSA’ aircraft of its time: the venerable Piper Cub,” Gould said. “Consequently, Piper is in many ways returning to a market segment we played an integral role in inventing ... but with all the modern, state-of-the-art elements that our customers expect today, from design and manufacturing to performance, avionics and reliability.
About Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Piper Aircraft Inc. is headquartered in Vero Beach, Fla. Piper’s rich legacy is born of 72 years of unparalleled history, with almost 150,000 aircraft brought to market and more than 160 models certified. Approximately 90,000 of those aircraft are still flying and being serviced and supported on every continent by Piper’s 65 service centers, 27 dealers and 2,500 field personnel. Piper is the only general aviation manufacturer to build and offer aircraft for every general aviation mission, from trainers and high-performance aircraft for personal and business use to turbine-powered business aircraft and the PiperJet. For more information about Piper Aircraft and to find an authorized service center near you, please visit www.piper.com.
# # #
Graphics/photos/video available upon request
For further information, contact:
Mark S. Miller
(772) 299-2900
Fax: (772) 978-6597
mail to: [email protected]
www. piper.com
For additional information or questions about
the general aviation industry, contact the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
(202) 393-1500
www.GAMA.aero
Graphics/photos/video available upon request
For further information, contact:
Mark S. Miller
(772) 299-2900
Fax: (772) 978-6597
mail to: [email protected]
www. piper.com
For additional information or questions about
the general aviation industry, contact the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
(202) 393-1500
www.GAMA.aero
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SokPuppet,
A pleasure.
Come to think of it, I am going to give the MD of the local Cessna agents a call, and let him know there may be a problem using Skycatchers for CPL training in Australia ---- because students may not be able to log the hours ---then sit back and watch the action.
He will be on to Albanese in a trice, and Albanese will listen.
Clinton,
Perhaps I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly, I will have a think about it tomorrow (later today --- say he looking at the time) but in short, the industry has run far ahead of the rules, and RAOz aircraft are just as much "registered" "Australian" aircraft as those carrying VH-.
Tootle pip!!
A pleasure.
Come to think of it, I am going to give the MD of the local Cessna agents a call, and let him know there may be a problem using Skycatchers for CPL training in Australia ---- because students may not be able to log the hours ---then sit back and watch the action.
He will be on to Albanese in a trice, and Albanese will listen.
Clinton,
Perhaps I have not expressed myself sufficiently clearly, I will have a think about it tomorrow (later today --- say he looking at the time) but in short, the industry has run far ahead of the rules, and RAOz aircraft are just as much "registered" "Australian" aircraft as those carrying VH-.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled, there is no need to call anyone as LSA aircraft can be registered GA or RA-Aus. Indeed there may be RA-Aus registered Skycatchers out there eventually though.
Contrary to what many people may think, LSA was actually invented (or should I say adopted in Australia) for the GA market to compete with RA-Aus by allowing more affordable GA aircraft at the bottom end of the market from local manufacturers. It was intended to help not only training establishments but those local manufacturers.
It's in the CASA mandate for GA published quite some time ago.
Contrary to what many people may think, LSA was actually invented (or should I say adopted in Australia) for the GA market to compete with RA-Aus by allowing more affordable GA aircraft at the bottom end of the market from local manufacturers. It was intended to help not only training establishments but those local manufacturers.
It's in the CASA mandate for GA published quite some time ago.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not forget the Australian manufacturers locked into the same concept. The Goard Brumby from Cowra is a little beaut.
Brumby Aircraft Australia
Brumby Aircraft Australia
VH-XXX,
I would suggest that the LSA is the US catching up with what we have been doing for about 20 years, and to a lesser extent catching up with EASA(JAR)VLA.
The adoption of the FAA LSA design rules was straight forward, BECAUSE CASR 21 to 35 is largely (but not entirely --compare FAR and CASR 189, as one example) a certification framework references to the FAR. QED.
JAR/VLA and the US Primary Category already rate a place in CASR 21 etc. But, once again, the Australian Primary Category is less inhibited than the FAR, we do not limit it to a single engine, for example.
Let's take a case of a pilot who gets an RAOz Pilot Certificate on a Flycatcher, then goes on the get a PPL, on a VH- Flycatcher, counting some of the RAOz hours.
The he, she or it decides they want a CPL, almost all done on a Flycatcher --- does it make any sense that, suddenly, some of the Flycatcher hours cannot be count (depending on the course) --- because of a set of rules that were written before all this was even envisaged.
Exactly the same thing can happen now, with the various models of Jabiru, and a bunch of aircraft out of Eastern Europe.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I don't think (in fact, I know) that "helping GA compete" was not a significant consideration in adopting the FAA LSA rules. Many flying schools have long since been both CASA and RAOz licensed schools, to cater "for the market" --- and have had access to aircraft that could be registered with either.
Putting a VH- Jab (or Flycatcher, or Tecnam or etc., etc) versus the same aircraft RAOz registered, on the line is a business decision that operators have been able to make for quite a while now.
What would give GA a real fillip would be the RPL, that was all ready to go in 1999, here we are 10 years later, with no progress, while many EEC countries have already put in place a "sub-ICAO PPL" license, called in the UK a "national PPL".
I would suggest that the LSA is the US catching up with what we have been doing for about 20 years, and to a lesser extent catching up with EASA(JAR)VLA.
The adoption of the FAA LSA design rules was straight forward, BECAUSE CASR 21 to 35 is largely (but not entirely --compare FAR and CASR 189, as one example) a certification framework references to the FAR. QED.
JAR/VLA and the US Primary Category already rate a place in CASR 21 etc. But, once again, the Australian Primary Category is less inhibited than the FAR, we do not limit it to a single engine, for example.
Let's take a case of a pilot who gets an RAOz Pilot Certificate on a Flycatcher, then goes on the get a PPL, on a VH- Flycatcher, counting some of the RAOz hours.
The he, she or it decides they want a CPL, almost all done on a Flycatcher --- does it make any sense that, suddenly, some of the Flycatcher hours cannot be count (depending on the course) --- because of a set of rules that were written before all this was even envisaged.
Exactly the same thing can happen now, with the various models of Jabiru, and a bunch of aircraft out of Eastern Europe.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I don't think (in fact, I know) that "helping GA compete" was not a significant consideration in adopting the FAA LSA rules. Many flying schools have long since been both CASA and RAOz licensed schools, to cater "for the market" --- and have had access to aircraft that could be registered with either.
Putting a VH- Jab (or Flycatcher, or Tecnam or etc., etc) versus the same aircraft RAOz registered, on the line is a business decision that operators have been able to make for quite a while now.
What would give GA a real fillip would be the RPL, that was all ready to go in 1999, here we are 10 years later, with no progress, while many EEC countries have already put in place a "sub-ICAO PPL" license, called in the UK a "national PPL".
Last edited by LeadSled; 20th Mar 2010 at 07:46.
Leadsled
As I said before, it is largely about quality control. There is 2/10 of 3/5 of F/all quality control in RAAus - only the pride/honour of the CFI.
CASA does not monitor RAAus, cannot vouch for the quality of its output or safety, and does not warrant the 'product'.
CASA does not monitor RAAus, cannot vouch for the quality of its output or safety, and does not warrant the 'product'.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that the LSA is the US catching up with what we have been doing for about 20 years, and to a lesser extent catching up with EASA(JAR)VLA.