The alternative was to pay the regulator's charges to do the same thing with less experience in the world of amateur building.
Vag277,
The real alternative, the preferable alternative, anathema to SAAA, was to have no charges at all, for no mandatory inspections, and for no mandatory membership of SAAA.
That is what you got, and as predictions then, and history now shows, that freedom has not resulted in threats to
"other airspace users and those on the ground under the flightpath", the limit of CASA's jurisdiction by political imposition. A political imposition (by legislation) opposed by those within and without CASA of the "they can't be trusted" brigade.
With the responsibility squarely with the builder, and with the approved person issuing the Certificate restrictions reflecting his/her responsibility for "other airspace users and those on the ground under the flightpath", and not anybody who voluntarily associated themselves with any risks associated by the builders efforts.
The greatest danger to recreational aviation in Australia comes from the recreational aviation bodies themselves as the bunch of silly, would be, amateur aviation bureaucrats running them pander to CASA for a pat on the head or a belly rub. Really people, you don't also have to enthusiastically hump CASA's leg.
Eyrie,
Once again, I agree. George Markey must be spinning in his grave.
The then president of SAAA's submission to the Forsyth enquiry asked that CASA force anyone building or OPERATING an amateur built Experimental to join SAAA. "To maintain the standard" Wonderful!
To create/maintain the cash flow, the only standard applicable the standard of living for those with their hand in the till -- or, more correctly, their hands in compulsorily acquired members pockets, the economic term is
"Rent seekers".
Re. Forsyth, the attitude of SAAA from 1996 to now hasn't changed much, has it?? Why are so many afraid of freedom?? The freedom to take responsibility for yourself, not sub-contract it to somebody else.
Tootle pip!!