How long until RAA get a weight increase approved?

aro, CASA themselves say if it's referenced on both and there's conflict, the CASR etc is the one to use. If it's misleading, blame them, but to me it's what I would expect to be a normal way of doing things.. It can only be correct if it agrees with the legal document that goes through the parliament. Nev

 

 

aro, CASA themselves say if it's referenced on both and there's conflict, the CASR etc is the one to use. If it's misleading, blame them, but to me it's what I would expect to be a normal way of doing things.. It can only be correct if it agrees with the legal document that goes through the parliament. Nev

The reason I said it's misleading is your statement made it sound like RAAus write the rules for RAAus pilots, but there may be some rules overridden by CASR etc.

 

That's not true - CASA write the rules for RAAus pilots as for everyone else. The RAAus rules are another layer on top of the CASA rules. RAAus pilots are required to comply with both.

 

 

It can only be correct if it agrees with the legal document that goes through the parliament. Nev

That's right; beats all other arguments.

 

 

CASA don't; write the rules for RAAus. but they are supposed to audit their manuals.. Exactly the same for Airline operators and Flying Schools with their AOC's etc I've seen them reverse an instruction that a previous CASA's rep had insisted be incorporated in the manual at the last check. You don't make a fuss and point out the obvious. You just say OK I will change that for you. and mutter "idiots" under your breath. Nev.

 

 

CASA don't; write the rules for RAAus. but they are supposed to audit their manuals.. Exactly the same for Airline operators and Flying Schools with their AOC's etc I've seen them reverse an instruction that a previous CASA's rep had insisted be incorporated in the manual at the last check. You don't make a fuss and point out the obvious. You just say OK I will change that for you. and mutter "idiots" under your breath. Nev.

If you do that no one in management knows and not only is the problem not fixed but the errors mutiply. That’s possibly what’s happening in a couple of the above posts. People make use of confusion .

 

 

In the big picture you are right ,but showing idiots they are idiots doesn't make life easy for you in the short term, especially of they have power over you. Neither thing was a safety issue. It was just the product of pedants and of little consequence or you WOULD take it further. They , in the environment they work in have to be seen to be doing something. They exist in all walks of life, even motorsport. I've made waves to be effective but you pick your time and make sure you aren't wasting it on some useless temporary symbolic victory. Nev

 

 

In the big picture you are right ,but showing idiots they are idiots doesn't make life easy for you in the short term, especially of they have power over you. Neither thing was a safety issue. It was just the product of pedants and of little consequence or you WOULD take it further. They , in the environment they work in have to be seen to be doing something. They exist in all walks of life, even motorsport. I've made waves to be effective but you pick your time and make sure you aren't wasting it on some useless temporary symbolic victory. Nev

We’re not talking something frivolous in this thread, but something which would be disruptive to GA and possibly the end of the bottom end of RA. Remember the CASA audits of RAA when it ignored CASA concerns about illegal aircraft three times then found out what the real regulations were in the fourth CASA audit. Reading through the CASA reports, it was clear that long term, let’s say, misunderstandings had taken place, and it finished up with a lot of aircraft permanently grounded; just how many we never found out.

 

 

If you go to the source legislation it’s usually much clearer.....snip......

Mmm nope!

 

The source legislation often does

 

not carry or refer to the detail of the exemptions found in other parts of the entire air law.

 

That’s the reason for all the layers of books we are talking about. Each outlines more details and if there are exceptions to the more general statements contained in the higher order text.

 

 

What really went on then has never become obvious. When CASA "pirates" your top people and fails (3?) audits of you in short succession, without helping directly ( Intervening) to sort anything, it's not got the RAAus future, or it's members at heart. Certainly so at that time..

 

With the Jabiru engine fiasco also it showed no real direction and caused a lot of unnecessary hardship to people who never did anything even mildly, of a criminal nature.

 

Techmen are the fall guys. Over worked generally and unsupported with the biggest turn over of any job in the show by a mile.. A large book could be written about all this . but the New GA is a creation of the two "M's". An over extended empire build attempt, that wasn't ever voted on as a policy change. In effect the Organisation was "Stolen" and Morphed into something of a quite different nature. Where that eventuates is still a matter for conjecture but it's effectively "out of our Hands". Now. Nev

 

 

Mmm nope!The source legislation often does

not carry or refer to the detail of the exemptions found in other parts of the entire air law.

 

That’s the reason for all the layers of books we are talking about. Each outlines more details and if there are exceptions to the more general statements contained in the higher order text.

I can understand your problem.

 

 

That's a slightly misleading way of putting it.CAA, CAR, CASR, CAO all apply to RAAus the same as GA, except where an exemption is granted i.e. the specific exemptions listed in CAO 95.55.

 

In addition, you have the rules written by RAAus (Ops manual etc). They apply because operation according to those manuals is a condition of the exemptions in CAO 95.55.

Part 200 of the CASRs gives exemptions to all RA-Aus aircraft from CASR’s but you are right in that all conditions of the exemptions have to be included in the RAAus manuals (Ops and Tech)

 

 

jetjr, there are no good reasons for the Class 2 medical. The experiment has been done, statistics collated numerous times - IT DOESN'T REDUCE THE ACCIDENT RATE.

 

You are all missing the point here.

 

Get on board with the AOPA push for RAAus style medical for GA, owner maintenance for under 600Kg or whatever weight. 1500Kg sounds good to me. That experiment has been done too in Canada which has had an owner maintenance category since 2003. This was audited by the FAA in 2013 who found the owner maintained fleet to be in at least as good or better condition than the traditionally maintained one.

 

the slogan - RATIONAL, EVIDENCE BASED REGULATION.

 

Then there is no need for RAAus to exist except to promote and educate on the activity. No need for expensive employees defending their rice bowls. RAAus aircraft can then go on the real Australian register not the mickey mouse RAAus one.

 

RAAus's shafting of the RPL/PPL medical, as an act of bastardry, ranks up there with the Meertens/Hall/Middleton approach to the Minister in 2003 to shaft a CASA proposal for a recreational pilot licence for all with the RAAus style medical. They even mentioned that while some may be worried about that, that there was no evidence a Class 2 medical did any good. Glider, ultralight and GA pilots were to be able to get and operate on this licence with the proviso that if you wanted to stay in RAAus or GFA you could continue to do so and operate under the existing rules.

 

 

Didnt say other wise Mike, discussion was about LAME maint for CTA. The push for medical reform should continue, however I personally think we will all be long gone by the time CASA let that go.

 

Keep reading the push from AOPA for "whatever RAA has", "same medical and RPL" and now here, mixed with medical and LAME for CTA. All different things and Im not sure what they are exactly asking for. The logic is good but that never moved CASA on other changes that I know of.

 

My point was, rightly or not, that there are reasons why RAA was able to negotiate these exemptions from medical and maintenance originally, basically less risk with less weight, slower stall, less pax and no CTA.

 

Now some of these are back on the table, I doubt the exemptions will follow over to these ops.

 

 

If you built the VH registered Amateur built experimental you can fly in CTA once Phase one testing is complete and you can maintain it yourself (apart from Transponder and altimeter calibrations) if you do the maintenance procedures course. The last bloke I spoke to about that said it was "farcical". Just a nasty little collusion between SAAA and CASA I guess. Some would call it corruption.

 

Once again the experiment has been done.

 

I don't know why everyone is so keen to preserve work for LAMEs. Looked at the average age and the way it is increasing lately? There will soon be few of them.

 

Two of the things I've observed during my life:

 

1. The human race is very bad at correctly identifying the problem that needs to be solved. People then wonder why the "solution" they came up with doesn't work.

 

2. The human race will not accept the evidence from experiment if it does not confirm their prejudices, even after exhausting the possible confounding elements in the experiment.

 

For a simple, very accessible confirmation see this forum.

 

Also others are:

 

The global warming hysteria (only unequivocal evidence I can find of the slightly increased CO2 level is that the planet is measurably greener. More plants growing better).

 

Neo keynesian economics. Sorry, borrowing money and spending (wasting) it doesn't make us richer. It creates more debt.

 

Cholesterol causes heart disease. Wonderful how you can pick the 7 countries out of 22 studied on saturated fat consumption to prove your hypothesis when the entirety of the evidence shows no correlation.

 

Causes of the current spate of terrorist incidents.

 

 

Ongoing LAME supply is the sleeping giant here. The demography of the workforce is heavily grouped at the retirement end of the spectrum and with many younger people only wanting to work for someone (ie they want someone else to carry the risk for their reward) many maintenance businesses will close in the not too distant future for the want of someone wanting to own them. AND these are the businesses that service GA (including RAAus but not RPT) so making the industry more dependent on them by more regulatory requirement where none need exist makes no sense IF the goal is to keep GA a vibrant and growing sector.

 

 

They will simply raise reward until it is attractive to run businesses and employ people and take the risk or insurance policies that LAME work involves

 

Looser is the aircraft owners and regulators can convince themselves its not their fault.

 

 

Pity there won't be any business as the owners decide to sell their aircraft O/S or scrap them. Then there may be questions about whether the regulators can justify their staffing. The industry is beset by fools.

 

 

They will simply raise reward until it is attractive to run businesses

If only it was that simple. There is a point where potential customers say "no way can this be justified" and sell their aircraft or choose to fly outside the rules (really only a short term solution that will give us all a bad name).

Another point I sought to make is that we are now reaping the cost of deleting competition from the education system. Competition is the fuel that feeds the fire that burns in every small businessman's (person?) belly. If you don't grow up in an environment where it is OK to succeed you dont learn to compete. And now with the atmosphere of mindless conformity that social media breeds it takes an unusual amount of guts to swim against the tide and buy your boss's business even if the terms are great.

 

Today a colleague told me about his client who has a business that turns over $150million p.a.and employs over 100 people. The kids work in the business, take home well over $100k each and basically want for nothing. The succession plan which has been in place for many years has failed as the kids don't want the responsibility even though the business is pretty much debt free. It appears the business will be sold up in its various parts for not very much to the incumbent management - I suspect the kids will end up well provided for but out of work.

 

This is not an unusual story.

 

 

So any RAA aircraft (with required gear and pilot) can access CTA? This has been discussed at length here and its seems to be not correct,Don't remember regs (and as for the majority of RAA pilots, I expect, don't really care about CTA) but onl;y aircraft with approval can use the CTA.

I thought only factory built or recognized engine aircraft, maybe even certified, were allowable. THIS excluded many RAA aircraft.

 

Whats happened in past and opinions CEO haven't anything to do with it.

You are confusing CTA with Built up areas. Not all CTA is over built up areas. You only need and approved plane/approved engine when flying over built up areas. For Class D you need a radio and for class C you need a radio and a transponder.

 

 

You only need and approved plane/approved engine when flying over built up areas.

????????

 

95.55

 

7.3

 

(a) states aeroplane limitations

 

(b) states engine limitations

 

These limits apply to all CTA & restricted areas not just over built up areas.

 

 

It’s a bit harder than that.If you have a kit build - I’m talking here about the current sutiuation and specifically about GA experimental so I am happy to accept it may be a bit different for RAAus and you build it yourself.

The kit manufacturer has to have specified some weight specifications to get the kit approved.

 

As the builder you could claim anything as the new weight but you would have to convince the person who issued the C of A that your weight is acceptable and the kit manufacturers weight is not.

 

This would probably have to be accompanied by testing which you couldn’t do because you have to build it and get it approved at the normal weight and fly it first then change the weights to prove your weights ok. Once it’s approved at a specific weight it’s difficult to change it to something else.

 

So it would be unlikely an authorised person would approve a weight that differed from the kit manufacturer.

Yes, it's different for RAAus kit builds. In that case the builder becomes the designer and can modify the kit any way he sees fit and doesn't have to justify any of those changes when he declares it 'airworthy' at the end of the build. So he/she could specify any new weight they wish, which is a bit of a concern when a lot of the kits are already pushing their design envelope. Many of them started out as 450kg designs which have been beefed up a bit, sometimes with a belt-and-braces approach, to bring them up to the newer 540kg and 600kg categories.

 

In some cases those earlier designs might have originally been +6, -3g designs that are working nearer to +4, -2g already (at 600kg). So someone just declaring a new weight of, say, 750kg and not severely limiting the Vne and Va, might be risking losing their wings on a turbulent day ... I'm concerned even more for the unsuspecting second owner who comes along a few years down the track.

 

 

I wish you to be right , HIC.

 

So the Jabiru I built from a kit can have any weight I wish less than 600kg?

 

That does not conform to the history of the matter where I placarded it at 480 kg ( due to an increased stall speed criteria) and registration was refused. Gosh I hope they were wrong and you are right.

 

 

Not quite, you have to claim and support the new MTOW.

 

Id have thought without some kit manufacturer backing or serious engineering review you get it through.

 

 

Yes jetjr, quite a few have got their SK Jabirus to have an increase in weight. Originally, the company would have gone broke if the first Jabirus had failed any strength tests, so of course they minimized the weight at which these tests needed doing at. I for one don't blame them at all for doing this and for being afraid to issue weight increases easily. I'm impressed that they were not destroyed by CASA before they got going.

 

But why RAAus/CASA makes it is so difficult to extend the weight increase to identical aircraft is a mystery to me. It must have something to do with how bureaucracies extort money or something.

 

Now I say it's difficult, but to be honest I haven't tried that hard. I've given up after a non-answered email for example.

 

 

No, you can't change the MTOW retrospectively, but you could have made it whatever you wished, up to the CAO max (at the time you registered it).

 

jetjr ... with respect, it's no good saying "I would have thought ...", what you need to do is consult the appropriate documents which were the RAA Tech Manual Versions 2-4. I can let you have a copy of 3 if you like and 4 is available online.

 

The reason you, as a builder, can just claim whatever CAO weight you like and can provide whatever justification you like for the data package, (or provide none!) is that the whole point of our experimental class is that no-one else in RAA claims to be, or indeed is, qualified to analyse any calculations you might provide, should you choose to do provide them ... so, as I said, in our RAA kit/owner design/builder category, you are the designer and certifier, it's in the Tech Manual ...