Vag, you said:
I also note that some seem to assume that CASA has not had a role in RA-Aus. and that they are only now getting involved. That is not the case. The Civil Aviation Act applies to ALL forms of aviation activity and the Parliament holds CASA accountable for that.
Not quite so Vag, for example: -
Civil Aviation Order 95.55 Instrument 2011
3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988:
(a) Parts 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 5;
(b) regulations 36A and 37;
(c) subregulations 83 (1), (2) and (3) in respect of VHF equipment;
(d) regulations 133, 139, 155 and 157;
(e) regulations 207 and 208;
(f) regulation 210 as far as advertising of flying training to qualify for a pilot standard specified in the RAA Operations Manual is concerned;
(g) regulation 230;
(h) subregulation 242 (2);
(i) regulation 252;
(j) regulation 258.
5.1 For section 20AB of the Act, a person is authorised to perform a duty essential to the operation of an aeroplane to which this Order applies, without holding a flight crew licence if he or she complies with the conditions set out in subsections 6 and 7.
Also you said -
I have built two aircraft from scratch, one under 101.28 and one EXPERIMENTAL. The latter was granted a 101.28 ABAA on the basis of a package of data I submitted to the CAA/CASA under the safe history of operation criteria. I did not find 101.28 "highly restrictive".
Don't forget that your aircraft type was granted an ABAA based on the safe history of its operation in
another country, where it was allowed to fly in the first place, under experimental legislation. Couldn't do that here until experimental became law.
Happy Christmas all.