dazza 38 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 nope, per the draft of the new Part 61 an RAA guy would be handed an RPL. I'm not referring to the new exemption, that is not the RPL but effectively introduces it. Thankyou for the heads up David. That is was the way I initially interpreted it.I then though I must have had it wrong, because there was a thread here a while ago on it and a few guys said that it was going to be for PPL guys only. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The two persons on board Max with the second person being an"informed" person takes care of most of your third party liability plus not being able to fly over a populous area unless able to glide beyond, if the donk fails. CASA appear to be having some difficulty with single engined aircraft in general over towns. Heavier aircraft are not harder to fly, in fact they are generally easier. You also have a greater choice of engines and construction methods. For 2 POB the AUW would not need to be more than 850 Kgs probably, but why is it a concern?. The older type adherants would get more sympathy and support from builder -pilots than purchase and fly pilots generally. I trust the average builder to fly and maintain his plane with great care, provided he has the support and the checks are there to guarantee a quality result of the build process. Plenty of aircraft have an ongoing maintenance and inspection problem and that problem increases with time. The simpler ones are easier to rectify and troubleshoot. Some even have redundancies in various components. Pitch control should always have a fail safe mode, cause if it fails you are DEAD.( I also like to have a fairly strong plane in case I encounter extreme turbulence which I have about 4 times). This is one reason I tend to favour an aerobatic category of plane. ( Heavier, but it has to be). If that is not available I would choose one that can take about 6.5 G ( ultimate) at least. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebutler Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 My understanding is that RPL is for PPL guys only. RAA guys dont have the option of going to the RPL from a RAA certificate,they need a PPL first. I was thinking like you on this one Dazza, my understanding is that the RAA cert only allows the pilot to fly an A/C with a max weight of 600kg and also no controlled airspace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I recall a dual path being available from the RAAus cert. and from the PPL. The RP licence is a limited version of the PPL and is issued by CASA, so you need that to be able to access aircraft beyond the scope of the RAAus Certificate. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deskpilot Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 We have been through this weight thing before. Fun, Simple, OK under ^ 600 Kg? . Safe ......when you at building it too light? Two people, fuel, tiedowns and some gear. Over 300 kg there, so we have to build a plane under 300 kgs Empty weight. Why restrict yourself?. This is where this movement has had itself hung up for years. Shoots itself in the foot NO original homebuilt designs. Why can't you build things like Pietenpols, CUB replica's etc proven designs with cheap materials. Pilots and passengers are not getting lighter. Any prospective recreational pilot who weighs over 105 has got to find a midget instructor to stay legal. Going back to this post, Facthunter hits the nail on the head (no Smilie available) I'm will probably be too heavy for my 95-10 design in the end. Home design project weights should be increased in a class of their own, one that doesn't allow for super kits to be made even more unattainable for the average builder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Thanks Doug but my comments there relate to dual seat. I'm NOT across the older formula's but they DO seem to require a very light build. Some of the airfames are quite ingenious and the load paths etc look basic and good, but they all seem to be wire braced, and that sure simplifies things but you are not going anywhere fast once you do that. You end up with a very light wing loaded design, with a 50 knot cruise that gets put away when the wind is above about 5 knots.. Just thinking aloud. regards Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest general Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Well what about the Carbon Cub, which has got to be as close to being a snow job within our current weight limits as anything. Can't see why a piper Colt wouldn't be acceptable when the Carbon Cub, Aeronica Chief/Champ, Luscombe 8A, Auster or Cess 152 Aerobat are ??????........please explain !........................Maj... Hi Maj, been away and just saw the thread on weights. I own an Aeronca Champ in the 24 category which weighs 400kgs empty leaving 200kgs for 2 x 80kg passengers and 90 minutes fuel so they do exist (but not all obviously). I flew solo for a year hoping for the weight increase which finally arrived and find I am still on my own 99% of the time, which suits me and the old girl down to the ground. regards, general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Donald Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Hi Starion, the lightest empty weight I found , just by googling for a C150 was about 473KG.Could be lighter ones I guess.I havent realy had a good look. The Texas Tail wheel conversion kit saves a lot of weight, looks better and heaps more fun. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Mouse Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Just interested in this thread but I don't see an answer to the original question. What clause is the Colt registered RAA under? From my limited understanding I didn't think you could take a certified aircraft to the RAA register. For that matter how do the C150's, Luscombe, Ercoupe, Aeronca and other old GA types get on? Can anyone post a reference for me to read further, or a simple explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 SAAA have been talking about a system that lets non builders maintain their own AC. But that would give an option for heavier AC. Long shot Id say considering the 50% rule now on owner builders in regards to engines and everything. ie you can only maintain an engine you 50% assembled!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Just interested in this thread but I don't see an answer to the original question. What clause is the Colt registered RAA under? From my limited understanding I didn't think you could take a certified aircraft to the RAA register.For that matter how do the C150's, Luscombe, Ercoupe, Aeronca and other old GA types get on? Can anyone post a reference for me to read further, or a simple explanation. Early Cessnas are marginal on weight, the later ones???. Luscombe and Aeronca are ok (very light R&T types) can't say about Ercoupe. kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Is there only one Cessna150 on the Ra-Aus books? I am not so sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I am considering purchasing an Ibis LSA aircraft, after having flown this type recently, which is considered to be a safe & pleasant aircraft similar to a C150 but better. I have been following the comments about this type aircraft having been grounded by RAAus recently & have asked RAAus are these type aircraft going to be registered in the 19 category in future or are they going to remain in the 24 category, however to date there has been no response from RAAus. I want to know the above information with certainty so that an informed decision can be made about this proposed transaction, rather than acting in haste & being sorry after the event. Therefore if anyone has authorative information as to how these type aircraft are to be registered in future I would appreciate your comments, as I am finding it painful trying to hold my breath waiting for a response from RAAaus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I am guessing that we can conclusively say that the IBIS won't be 19 registered... I am at a loss to understand how it is currently. For registration of a homebuilt aeroplane under this section, there are, in general, five conditions that must be met - they are: 1. The aeroplane is an ultra light aircraft, where a person has built the majority part of it themselves, and for the sole purpose of that person’s education or recreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hi John, Adam Finn is the only person ATM I think who can tell you exactly what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 For registration of a homebuilt aeroplane under this section, there are, in general, five conditions that must be met - they are: 1.The aeroplane is an ultra light aircraft, where a person has built the majority part of it themselves, and for the sole purpose of that person’s education or recreation. That rule does not apply in the E-LSA category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hi Dazza, As mentioned previously I have asked RAAus to advise what category type the Ibis will eventually be finally registered under & if they intend changing the goal posts after the mess they have got themself into, which is what is rumoured may ocurr & when you here these type rumours you want to here direct from the horses mouth instead of hearing or talking to the donkey. Until RAAus can give a clear undertaking on this matter, then no one can make an informed commercial decision about the sale or purchase of this type aircraft. There is no point in getting caught up in a crab pot which is easy to get into but difficult to get out of, & there is no way I am going to get caught with my pants down whilst RAAus keep shuffling the deck chairs around on the Titanic. RAAus are the elected authorities on the members behalf & it is their duty & responsibility to administer these requirements & if they can't make responsibile commercial decisions within reasonable timeframes, how can they expect us little people to move forward to make informed decisions about buying safe & airworthy planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauple58 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Add to the Colts, Cubs nd Cessnas a couple of Morane MS880s (MTOW 770kg), and an Auster J2 Arrow (MTOW 659 kg) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now