Ultra Lights Take Off

Today the movement abounds in comparatively high­ powered fully equipped, single, two-seat and even four place machines – Pitts Specials;-Cassutt. Racers, BD-4s, Wittman Tailwinds, Thorpe T-18s and Mustang IIs. Many of these are aerobatic with cross-country performances that more than match those of many commercially produced light aircraft.

Spectacular displays by amateur-built Pitts Specials have become a feature of most Australian air shows. And achievements such as Clive Canning’s marathon flight to the UK and return in his Thorpe T-18, as well as Bryan Davies’ record-setting nine and a half hour dash from Perth to the Latrobe Valley fly-in in his Mustang II, speak for themselves.

Progressively, this subtle but relentless shift in emphasis rendered the title ultra-light something of a misnomer and for this reason alone, there grew a need for a new name which would more accurately express the Association’s changed character.

But this was not all. Membership of the Association had gradually spread to encompass aviation interests well beyond the intent of the original ANO. Some members were primarily interested in aerobatics, some were restoring and rebuilding vintage aeroplanes, and others were wanting to build and fly rotorcraft – particularly of the sort pioneered by Bensen in the US and Wallace in the UK. There were even a few whose taste (and presumably pocket!) ran to flying ex­ service aircraft such as the Wirraway and the Mustang. A situation parallel to that of the US Experimental Aircraft Association was emerging – a parent body with subsidiary divisions each specialising in a particular activity – amateur building, vintage restoration, rotorcraft, “warbirds” and aerobatics.

After much heart-searching, and not a little wrangling by the numerous parties concerned, this change in character was finally given substance in June last year when the original Ultra-Light Aircraft Association was incorporated, with a new constitution, as the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia. The new name certainly embodies the expanded nature of the Association’s aims, “to promote . . . the design, construction … restoration . . . and operation of ultra-light, amateur-built, vintage, sport aircraft, rotorcraft, gliders, powered sailplanes and all kinds of aircraft for educational, recreational and research purposes”. You can’t get much more comprehensive than that! ‘ The Association’s bold move was vindicated on the last day of 1977 when, for the first time in Australia, an amateur­ built gyroplane was authorised to fly at the SAAA’s annual convention and fly-in at Latrobe Valley – the first to be held under its new banner. With the authorisation came a new ANO permitting approved associations to operate gyroplanes under certain specified conditions. It was a historic decision – up to that time the DoT had been unbending in its refusal to allow amateur-built rotorcraft to operate in any cir­cumstances.

Today, with 1000 members, 125 operational aircraft and a further 550 under construction, (including several of the high-performance but controversial BD-5s), the SAAA is look­ing to ways of extending its broader-mandate membership and providing resources to enthusiasts still unaware of what the association has to offer.

Part of the answer is seen in the promotion of the SAAA’s official organ “Airsport”, a publication previously circulated mainly to amateur builders. Now a professionally-produced quarlerly, the new glossy “Airsport”, is seeking a readership across the whole spectrum of recreational and sporting aviation.

Even so, the association’s problems are by no means over. During its time of pre-occupation with amateur-built aircraft, it lost the interest of many potential vintage members. Except in Queensland, where a flourishing Vintage Section of the SAAA developed, a number of former members of  the defunct Vintage Aircraft Association felt the SAAA had little to offer them and subsequently gathered themselves together to form the Victorian-based Antique Aeroplane Association of Australia. While not opposed to the aims of the SAAA, AAAA members feel they have little in common with some amateur builders and that their own association is better able to represent the interests of vintage owners, particularly in dealing with the DoT.

The SAAA do not agree, believing that their new constitution adequately provides for all corners under the one banner, making for a strong, responsible and politically effective group, which can act in the interests of all. They point to the powerful EAA in the US as their example.

Recognising the validity of this argument, moves are afoot on both sides for some sort of amalgamation and there are plans for members of the Vintage Section of the SAAA to meet with the AAAA executive to discuss the proposal. But concessions will need to be made by both sides and it seems certain that a lasting solution will not be achieved overnight. In the meantime, the present mood of cooperation can only be regarded as healthy.

Ironically, the SAAA’s other dilemma stems from the very DoT mood of liberality which gave the Rotorcraft Section such a boost at the Latrobe Valley fly-in. Some months before, another DoT order, ANO 95. 10, had given builders of “Aeroplanes . . . not exceeding 180kg . . . ” a carte blanche to fly their frail craft, subject to the observance of certain con­ditions, but with no strings attached concerning airworthiness standards. The concession was to cater for powered hang glider and similar “minimum” aircraft operations – a pastime which DoT regards as essentially sporting in character and over which they have no wish to impose controls – other than those necessary to protect the public.

The result has been what someone has so aptly called a “giant step backwards” – a proliferation of minimum aircraft amateur building (including some of very dubious design and performance) by people lacking any professional aeronautical training or advice. The likely results the SAAA fears, are fraught with danger, both to the individuals concerned and the amateur-built movement generally. With its undoubtedly wide background of experience and expertise, the SAAA feels a responsibility to help minimum aircraft devotees avoid the very same pitfalls that plagued the developing aviation industry over 60 years ago.

So far minimum aircraft exponents seem to have interpreted the SAAA’s overtures only as unwanted interference – and see no reason for compliance with conventional aeronautical standards. Yet it is indisputable that unsound manufacturing techniques and lack of quality control have, in some cases, been responsible for hang glider accidents. As things stand there is nothing to prevent the same thing happening with minimum aircraft.

The fact that most minimum aircraft enthusiasts lack any formal flying experience also fills some SAAA members with foreboding – and certainly some of the suggestions made by would-be minimum flyers for overcoming this deficiency does nothing to dispel this view.

It is to be hoped that minimum aircraft flyers will not be left to learn the hard way. Whether or not they are prepared to sit at the feet of the well-intentioned SAAA does not matter. The important thing is for them to recognise that today’s aeronautical standards – operational as well as air­ worthiness – are the sum total of what 75 years of aviation ex­perience has shown to be necessary.