So what's the big announcement on Friday

[frank marriott]

Higher weight == higher stall speed (all other factors kept the same) == higher chance of stalling on the turn final == less safety due to stall/spin.You have no evidence that a higher weight would improve safety.

What is actually being referred to here is incompetentance. Surely you fly an aircraft with reference to its performance figures.

 

What you are suggesting here is the RPL should not be classified as the same as an RAA cert as stated by CASA because if the 1500kg limit.

 

If someone is incapable of analysing the performance figures of an aircraft and fly accordingly, then quite frankly they shouldn't be flying.

 

I am not buying into the pros and cons of the design limit as it exists just pointing out IMO that the stall/spin arguement relates to pilot competence.

 

If you are flying an approach too close to the stall it would not matter if that speed was 30,40,50,60etc. Fly the aircraft according to ITS design limits not a legislated limit according to its registration type.

 

 

[M61A1]

only if we ask for 700 and not RPL equivalency which is 1500Kg'sThe real trick is that as a generalisation owners who aren't qualified should not imho, maintain a 1500kg plane, by virtue that at 1500kgs its not likely to be simple or easy to maintain.....at what point would we move from owner maintenance to appropriate L2 or > or LAME maintenance

How is a 1500 kg aircraft different to maintain than a 450 kg aircraft? I have maintained stuff from 300 kg MTOW to over 100000 kg.

I don't see any real difference except one is used to carry the fare paying public for long distances or deliver weapons miles away in adverse conditions with high surviveability and so requires certification of it's parts and processes to ensure public safety. There is no difference in maintaining a Savannah or a 172 or a Bell 206 or a Blackhawk imho.

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Thanks Frank, you hit the nail smack bang in the centre of the head!!

 

 

[M61A1]

Higher weight == higher stall speed (all other factors kept the same) == higher chance of stalling on the turn final == less safety due to stall/spin.You have no evidence that a higher weight would improve safety.

There is plenty of evidence, and we are not talking about keeping all other factors the same. My friend's Auster, for example, way heavier than my Drifter, can approach and land slower. Too heavy for Raa, but has been around for years, I bet you won't see many of our current fleet of aircraft last as long. Why not a Piper Pa-25 on the register? it flies slowly and is single seat.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

How is a 1500 kg aircraft different to maintain than a 450 kg aircraft? I have maintained stuff from 300 kg MTOW to over 100000 kg.I don't see any real difference except one is used to carry the fare paying public for long distances or deliver weapons miles away in adverse conditions with high surviveability and so requires certification of it's parts and processes to ensure public safety. There is no difference in maintaining a Savannah or a 172 or a Bell 206 or a Blackhawk imho.

If that were true then the defence forces and the rpt carriers wouldn't be providing or looking for people with multi year training under their belts cause anyone who could read a manual would be perfectly capable of doing the job......but that isn't the case, they won't let you near the equipment until you've 3+ yrs of training, and even then your real training starts.

 

Avionics is my area so in a simple raaus aircraft the avionics common areas are power and pretty much that's it... Move to heavier aircraft with more complex avioninics and now there are multiple system interconnects and dependencies......as an example devices that transmit will have connections to prevent individual Tx when doing so would affect the other systems that are actively Rx'ing. Complex avioninics is not in the main user serviceable. If I go back to my days on F111's the engine and airframe guys were well trained specialists, I couldn't do what they did, nor could they do what I did, and an owner sure couldn't do it all......

 

 

[M61A1]

If that were true then the defence forces and the rpt carriers wouldn't be providing or looking for people with multi year training under their belts cause anyone who could read a manual would be perfectly capable of doing the job......but that isn't the case, they won't let you near the equipment until you've 3+ yrs of training, and even then your real training starts.Avionics is my area so in a simple raaus aircraft the avionics common areas are power and pretty much that's it... Move to heavier aircraft with more complex avioninics and now there are multiple system interconnects and dependencies......as an example devices that transmit will have connections to prevent individual Tx when doing so would affect the other systems that are actively Rx'ing. Complex avioninics is not in the main user serviceable. If I go back to my days on F111's the engine and airframe guys were well trained specialists, I couldn't do what they did, nor could they do what I did, and an owner sure couldn't do it all......

Actually.....anyone who can read a manual COULD do the job. The current Cert IV training stuff is useless, just as well the manuals tell you everything. The training is just part of the certification.

As far as avionics, why would that be more complex just because you were allowed a few more kg's, or is this the root of the problem? We get a weight increase, and instead of making a more durable crashworthy structure, we fill it with gizmos.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

1500kg plane was probably not originally designed for VFR only ops. As such avionics Loadout will probably be significantly more complex... Talking to my own area, being able to read a manual does not make an avionics tech because manuals can't cover every possible fault, so you have to fall back on training.

 

 

[M61A1]

1500kg plane was probably not originally designed for VFR only ops. As such avionics Loadout will probably be significantly more complex... Talking to my own area, being able to read a manual does not make an avionics tech because manuals can't cover every possible fault, so you have to fall back on training.

We are talking home/kit built .....right? I've seen Savannahs with flasher avionics than Bell 206s and base model Cessna and Pipers.

Still not seeing how adding a few kilos to the airframe for durability and redundancy means that it will be more difficult to maintain than what we currently have. The technology is the same, it's just slightly heavier/larger.

 

 

[kasper]

10 pages of thread and my summary is:

 

RAA are going Recreational without care for the differential between Recreational (used to be called GA) and Ultralight/Microlight aviation.

 

If the RPL and GA are to be at all differentiated from RAA certificates and aircraft then CASA are going to be looking not at lowering RPL/GA to RAA levels but demand RAA comes up to RPL ... and with that lack of very clear enunciation of WHY RAA and its pilots/aircraft are not GA we are doomed to have a thousand cuts from CASA until we damn well are GA.

 

I am NOT saying that higher performance and higher weights are not nice and beneficial BUT what I think we need is to stop trying to take over the GA world, sit back and work out what we are all about and how we differ from other sports aviation and then work with the other RAAOs and CASA on how to simplify movement between areas - if the hand off and transfer to GA were not so difficult AND the processes really very different between RAAOs and GA under CASA then there would be so much less leakage and demand for RAA to cover GA.

 

So there you go - what we need is NOT a CASA happy-smilie-face-making launch of what looks VERY like a public servant/PR designed unhelpful-to-actually-changing-safety month BUT an actual RAAO for GA to which CASA can hand the GA and RPL ... then with deregulated ALL non-fare paying non-commercial being led by organisation from the membership CASA can worry about things other than how to make RAA more GA like

 

 

[M61A1]

Kasper, I'm into old school ultralights, but I really can't see what would be wrong with the scenario you describe in your last paragraph. Where those who are in it for business are regulated accordingly, and recreational pilots can fly what they want and are regulated accordingly. I don't see a difference between a PA-25 and a Scout, except that maybe you probably need better skills for the Scout.

 

To me the GA bit is about the regulation, not so much the aircraft.

 

 

[Nobody]

We are talking home/kit built .....right? I've seen Savannahs with flasher avionics than Bell 206s and base model Cessna and Pipers.Still not seeing how adding a few kilos to the airframe for durability and redundancy means that it will be more difficult to maintain than what we currently have. The technology is the same, it's just slightly heavier/larger.

NO. Isnt the discussion above about factory built. If you want more than 600kg in a kit build why wouldn't you build it with the help of SAAA and fly it with an RPL? The issue here is that some factory build aircraft are supposedly designed for more than 600kg and the change would allow them and other older GA aircraft to be registered and flown in RAAus.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

We are talking home/kit built .....right? I've seen Savannahs with flasher avionics than Bell 206s and base model Cessna and Pipers.Still not seeing how adding a few kilos to the airframe for durability and redundancy means that it will be more difficult to maintain than what we currently have. The technology is the same, it's just slightly heavier/larger.

No, I was responding to your claim that if you can maintain a RAAus aircraft you can therefore maintain any aircraft. That may be true for some things, but it is not true for everything on all aircraft of any type...

 

I'm sure for every generalisation there will be outliers but how confident are you that the "manuals" for say a 30 year old current GA aircraft of around the RPL weight limit will have everything needed to maintain it......I'm guessing that the manuals will address the high points and aircraft unique aspects but will rely on training to fill in the detail....but I don't know that to be fact.

 

Andy

 

 

[M61A1]

Well, not from my end. Yes those you mentioned would benefit, but I think the biggest gains would come from being able to build a better structure, than use some of the weak existing designs to carry more. Of course some manufacturers will still build a flimsy structure but advertise that it can carry more.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Fresh in everyones email today - I love it - I guess hes been reading the thread lol

 

FROM THE CEO

 

Hi and welcome to Spring.

 

Around the country our members are taking to the skies again as fine weather abounds. This month we talk about Safety.

 

We also bring you an update on endorsements we are chasing for our members. Access to CTA and a weight increase are our priority.

 

A meeting was held on 1 May 2015 at Airservices Australia in Canberra. The response from Airservices Australia was encouraging, based on an initially simplistic assessment as a service provider that the potential increase in traffic levels could be managed appropriately, discussing charges as required, and no major objections to the proposal.

 

The board will consider the progress made to date with a view to a formal approach being made to the regulator before the end of the year.

 

In the next issue of enews we will bring you an update on our progress towards a weight increase, which is also being discussed at the forthcoming board meeting.

 

 

[PA.]

This is good news, now I can have my cake and eat it.

 

 

[eightyknots]

This is good news, now I can have my cake and eat it.

I hope it won't become a case of "GA, here we come!"

 

 

[Litespeed]

Hey,

 

Stone the crows, that sounds suspiciously like a good communication to members on some very sensible things.

 

I stand corrected

 

Well done CEO

 

 

[Ada Elle]

There is plenty of evidence, and we are not talking about keeping all other factors the same. My friend's Auster, for example, way heavier than my Drifter, can approach and land slower. Too heavy for Raa, but has been around for years, I bet you won't see many of our current fleet of aircraft last as long. Why not a Piper Pa-25 on the register? it flies slowly and is single seat.

Is the argument, essentially, that you want access to GA planes without having to go through GA training or have a GA medical?

 

My argument was that the same plane, with higher MTOW, is not safer; it is in fact potentially less safe. A 350kg plane with 550kg MTOW is less likely to have a stall/spin incident than the same plane loaded to a 750kg MTOW.

 

In what proportion of fuel exhaustion emergencies would a larger fuel load (and the same fuel management strategy) have prevented the accident?

 

 

[DrZoos]

Is the argument, essentially, that you want access to GA planes without having to go through GA training or have a GA medical?My argument was that the same plane, with higher MTOW, is not safer; it is in fact potentially less safe. A 350kg plane with 550kg MTOW is less likely to have a stall/spin incident than the same plane loaded to a 750kg MTOW.

 

In what proportion of fuel exhaustion emergencies would a larger fuel load (and the same fuel management strategy) have prevented the accident?

Is it really more likely to stall or is it only if its flown at a lower air speed? And couls an altered op manual eliminate this risk, especially if that extra weight was used for some safety features

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Is it really more likely to stall or is it only if its flown at a lower air speed? And couls an altered op manual eliminate this risk, especially if that extra weight was used for some safety features

What safety features can realistically be retrofitted?

 

Is a J230C, with one POB, any safer at 700kg than at 600kg?

 

1. The extra weight means that you need a larger paddock for the inevitable engine failure forced landing

 

2. If you are approaching at say 60kt for a short runway landing, the higher stall speed turning final would lead to a higher risk of stall/spin; or the higher approach speed means you may overrun the runway.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Is the argument, essentially, that you want access to GA planes without having to go through GA training or have a GA medical?My argument was that the same plane, with higher MTOW, is not safer; it is in fact potentially less safe. A 350kg plane with 550kg MTOW is less likely to have a stall/spin incident than the same plane loaded to a 750kg MTOW.

 

In what proportion of fuel exhaustion emergencies would a larger fuel load (and the same fuel management strategy) have prevented the accident?

That was my point too.

 

Be careful what we wish for: the clamour for ever-increasing weights will eventually cause trouble for recreational flying down the track as this is likely to require greater regulation and then potentially morph into a GA-type situation with similar requirements.

 

 

[Litespeed]

We want the happy medium in-between.

 

I do not want to be GA

 

I do not want to fly at night or IFR

 

I do not want to have more than two souls on board

 

I do not want to be paid for flying passengers or cargo

 

I do not want to be over regulated

 

I do not want to have full medical

 

Nor do I expect to fly a heavy into a tiny strip

 

Nor do I expect to have a 700kg aircraft stall like a 300kg one.

 

 

[slb]

CTA entry and a MTOW weight increase ?.......not a fat chance with our current safety record this year...that's just shear reality and pipe-dreams right now folks. In case you hadn't noticed we just dropped ten rungs on the ladder, now your organization has to start climbing again on your behalf, to just put us back where we were prior to Jan 1 2015.

 

In the next issue of enews we will bring you an update on our progress towards a weight increase, which is also being discussed at the forthcoming board meeting.

now I'm confused ....

 

 

[kasper]

What safety features can realistically be retrofitted?Is a J230C, with one POB, any safer at 700kg than at 600kg?

 

1. The extra weight means that you need a larger paddock for the inevitable engine failure forced landing

 

2. If you are approaching at say 60kt for a short runway landing, the higher stall speed turning final would lead to a higher risk of stall/spin; or the higher approach speed means you may overrun the runway.

A bit too biased

1. Jabiru engine are NOT inevitably going to fail - that statement alone should be backed up by either your personal experience of 100% failure in multiple Jabiru engines over time ... many hundreds of hours under my belt in instructing in Jabs and while i agree they need a heck of a lot more knowledge and care than an average 912 they are not all going to fail.

 

2. No a J230 with 1 POB at 700kg is not safer ... it is EQUALLY safe as both loadings are potentially within the demonstrated safe operating range for that aircraft...your implicit assumption that RAA pilots are incapable of understanding and assessing handling characteristics of an aircraft within its permitted and safe operating envelope says more about your perception of pilto skills than the safety as an item that relates to airframe MTOW/operating mass.

 

Now if your issue is with training - pilots or instructors - then please talk to that and not to airframe elements you clearly are not across as evidenced by your other posts incorrectly talking on 95.10 and this post regurgitating as fact unsupported and patently false claims on the Jabiru engine.

 

Cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

Ada you lose me when you just repeat the stuff about Jabiru engines. To be realistic you have to compare them with engines other than one type of Rotax. There are many engines out there far worse than Jabiru for various reasons. They are old. Not used often and people haven't the skills to maintain them they used to have, nor are many parts readily available, plus there are "GURU''s" who play with modifications that are not all they are cracked up to be at times. If you are running a gypsy 1 -C or any old radial, like a Warner Scarab you will be working on it far more than the normally maintained Jabiru that would have been running on a school line up. I'm happy to fly old vintage aircraft with crappy engines but not over houses wall to wall. and you take engine failure into account (Like you do with a multi engine) Nev