Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
JabiruJoe

Weight restricted MTOW

Is the MTOW of your aircraft restricted and/or would you suppot a class action to return it to its o  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the MTOW of your aircraft restricted and/or would you suppot a class action to return it to its o

    • Yes and might support a class action
      9
    • No
      20
    • Yes but would not support a class action
      4


Recommended Posts

The X Air Australia website says 560 kg "maximum weight" (see http://www.mcp.com.au/xair/aircraft_models/hanuman/hanuman.html) but I understand the same plane is sold as X Air LSA at 600 kg "gross weight" (see http://www.x-airlsa.com/). Go figure!

I think your maths might be a bit off ... the link to the US LSA site list gross/MTOW as 1234lb ... divide by 2.2 = 560kg

 

And in OZ its a kit so self declaration - designers MTOW is a guide to the builder but not a limit nor a required starting point from which anyone can argue you need to justify greater up to the max of 600 so long as you meet the stall reqs

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andys@coffs
Agreed you should talk to the CEO and the President ... and they may get you along the lines of a hot foot to the MARAP to get you up and flying at higher MTOW ... but I suspect if you want more than just the increase in MTOW ie financial recompense for value reduction/inconvenience etc it would be unlikely for the RAA to offer $$ without using a lawyer on their side to establish liability (its not a commercial organisation after all, its a member one) so if you are bent on looking for $$ you are likely to be either engaging or dealing with lawyers on this.

Note - I am a solicitor myself and my advice to me has always been DO NOT go to legal remedy as a first option and not even second but as a last ... and then only if there is no option and the situation I am in is completely unworkable for me. Managed to get through life so far without using solicitors in actual legal action - only for advice and conveyancing and hope to end my days in the same state.

I would imagine any claim of negligence will be passed to the associations indemnity insurer of the time..... Rest assured they will throw their lawyer pack at the problem, which requires you to have reasonably competent counsel...... The only potential saving grace is that I imagine the facts are all well known by virtue of previous claims......if I were in the same situation I wouldn't do anything at all until I knew the circumstances of the previous claims and the outcomes......by what ever means necessary........id guess confidentiality agreements might well get in the way.......

 

Understand that once RAAus passes a statement of claim to its insurers, it becomes an interested observer and the insurer runs the whole process to its advantage as you would expect.....which is a two edged sword when, for example an outcome of damages might well exceed any insurance cover, and the insurance company is merely limiting its costs......

 

Andy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I suspect if you want more than just the increase in MTOW ie financial recompense for value reduction/inconvenience etc it would be unlikely for the RAA to offer $$ without using a lawyer on their side to establish liability (its not a commercial organisation after all, its a member one) so if you are bent on looking for $$ you are likely to be either engaging or dealing with lawyers on this.

Thanks kasper...nope, I do not want any form of compensation other than a return to the MTOW of 520kg.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input (#23) too Andy. I was planning a phone call to the CEO after absorbing all the info I hoped to get on the forum. I fully understand the cost benefit bit and my aim is not financial, rather a usable aeroplane bought after asking pertinent queations of RA-Aus. The main critera was met at the MTOW advised and registered at which now seems to have been done illegaly by that very body. How come I am now penalised after doing the due diligence on the very subject. Should the situation that is affecting others by their actions not be rectified? Should they not be responsible for their actions. Rectification to the previous MTOW that they advised was the correct one, is in my mind an obligation.

 

I have a very expensive single seater. Or is it an anchor?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
though perhaps he might appreciate a wry laugh right now to stop from going nuts at the apparent insanity of his situation:

Aint that the truth!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Understand that once RAAus passes a statement of claim to its insurers, it becomes an interested observer and the insurer runs the whole process to its advantage as you would expect.....which is a two edged sword when, for example an outcome of damages might well exceed any insurance cover, and the insurance company is merely limiting its costs......

........... and I think - with any notice of a potential claim to the insurer - the insured cannot admit any liability / wrong doing (these are usual standard rules of 'insurance cover' with the insurance Co)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go talk to a solicitor who is able to answer that one because I cannot for a whole heap of reasons relating to not holding a current practicing certificate etc.

I may well be a solicitor but I am not practicing and I am not giving legal advice - I am in effect sitting here on a forum playing the legal version of 'emperors new clothes' with the limited data available and my understanding of the inter operative aspects of international certification of aircraft.

 

Nothing I say is legal advice and is purely my personal opinion.

 

A good/well respected solicitor for aviation matters has been provided on this thread and if you (or a group of affected individuals) wish to engage a solicitor to clarify what they consider to be your options that's for you.

I understand and respect that Kasper, it's great information and hope you continue to contribute.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JabJoe: for some reason, the link to the copy of the Coroner's Findings on the Smith Guthrie deaths ( the Goulburn Sting crash) that was available on this site (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi45JC_04_LAhVDp5QKHaBEDkMQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recreationalflying.com%2Fimages%2FSmith%2520and%2520Guthrie%2520Finding%2520-%2520Final.doc&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&bvm=bv.114733917,d.dGo ) seems to be not working, which is a pity as it contained some possibly pertinent background information for you, relating to the validity of information presented by MC including to RAA..

 

However - should you decide to run hard with this matter and engage Spencer Ferrier, I can provide a contact for Spencer who has a lot of extremely useful information that might cut short the time required to assemble a comprehensive overview of both the broad issues and some of the detailed issues that may be extremely pertinent to the case. This person is very well-known to Spencer, (they worked together on the rewrite of parts of the CASRs for some years). As an expert witness in the Smith-Guthrie case, he assembled a detailed examination of the situation which I am reasonably sure he would be willing to brief Spencer about, and can also indicate other sources of specific information germane to your situation. He is more likely to be willing to discuss these matters with Spencer than any other legal beagle.

 

If you choose to pursue the matter through Spencer, PM me and I will provide you the contact name. I won't disclose this publicly.

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andys@coffs

I was taught at uni that engaging a lawyer required a business case, even for personal situations. The worst case is where raw emotions drive litigation.

 

If I were in your situation as a starting point I would want to understand the real dollarised value of the damages you believe you have suffered and then I would want a best case outcome with a likely hood of achieving that from the lawyer and a worst case outcome with a likely hood of achieving that. Also separately best and worst case for litigation costs....

 

Once you have that you have the basics to determine if there is a business case that would stand scrutiny to proceed......

 

I can't do it for you but having seen real business cases around litigation in business I would wonder if the real dollarised loss you've suffered ( or more likely will suffer in the future) are of sufficient size to justify proceeding.... Where the aircraft was linked to a business ( training, but now insufficient MTOW, or if extra MTOW was made available but required a change in class of registration such that training was no longer possible, ie E24 or 19 etc) then the damages dollarised might well be big enough to justify proceeding.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha - obviously, a temporary glitch, quickly fixed.

 

Incidentally, it has been pointed out to me that I may appear to have some personal axe to grind with Mr. Coates, and/or have inadvertantly cast aspertions against him. I wish it to be known that I certainly do not have anything personally against Mr. Coates and I most certainly would not wish anybody to draw the conclusion that I am in any way suggesting that Mr. Coates has acted improperly, unethically or dishonestly.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Coroners Report Linked to above

 

One could be forgiven for doubting whether any maintenance or servicing was ever performed on the aircraft while owned by Coates. His record keeping was so appalling and to the extent that it existed at all, inaccurate, that we will never know. Very little if any of his two days oral evidence could be accepted other than his own admission as to his deceptive, or fraudulent dealings with RA Aus in relation to the registration of aircraft and use of unregistered aircraft, his ‘re-registering’ of an unregistered plane, his continued use of Czech registration in Australia in contravention of requirements, and his wrongful use of the serial number of an aircraft in Australia, on an aircraft in the USA. He compounded the litany of dishonesty by having prepared the Condition Report in August 2004 required for the sale to JG despite being prohibited from doing so by his pecuniary interest (i.e. ownership) of the aircraft on which the report was compiled, and further, without the qualification required to do so. There is a strong likelihood that records which he did produce to the court were prepared for court production, and also that ‘Logs’ were not contemporaneous but may have been fictionally backdated to ensure a sale. He admitted that much of what was written by him in his Sting newsletters stretched the truth or were ‘sales puffery’ for marketing purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA can change the rules and impose limitations whenever they want and without much justification or evidence.

 

If CASA directed RAA to limit the aircraft to lower MTOW then your getting ready to argue with them. Doubtful you will get anywhere

 

Queue up behind thousands of Jabiru engine owners.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Gandalph; the document referred to earlier is not the transcript of a Court hearing, but a Coroner's report.

 

As I recall, this matter never got to Court, but was settled out of Court, which leaves us very much in the dark over what the final agreement was.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Turbs, I don't know if the families of Neville and John pursued any civil action after the inquest so I don't know if there was a "final agreement".

 

While the Coroner might not have had detailed native knowledge of matters aeronautical, she would have had access to expert advice to provide her with guidance. One would hope that she availed herself of that expertise. It's always easy for people involved in these matters to assign motive to others but the Coroners scathing comments should leave no doubt about the value she placed on some of the evidence presented.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the precise steps involved in a completed MARAP process to increase the MTOW? Not the application process, the approval process. I have made the question to RA-Aus but the reply has been less than detailed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ring the tech manager, he processes and approves it.

 

I heard there had been some hold up from CASA and approvals.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oscar simply raised this issue as one in which some work had been done on aircraft specifications. That's where it should be left.

 

A coroner has the authority to find out how someone died. That's been done, and always there are people who agree or disagree.

 

Anyone who has suffered a loss has the option of taking someone to Court, but has to prove negligence, and maybe that's been done, maybe it hasn't.

 

However the OP issue revolves around specifications and compliance, not this crash; time to move on.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andys@coffs

I haven't looked at MARAP for a while....as I recall it stands for modification and repair....... So I have to ask, what is physically being modified or repaired? If the answer is that effectively nothing, them how can it be a solution to this problem? As I understood it, it can't be applied to all registration types, but in this case as the OEM no longer exists then perhaps that's the way forward...... But I believed that the engineering costs will be significant and to be cost effective will likely need a bunch of folk in the same boat to spread the costs......

 

Andy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Campbell I personally have no meat in this pie but please don't only post once.

 

This thread is about as clear to mud to me and it has me curious. Firstly I wasn't aware that MC was here? (I don't know him and have never even heard of him) both Wings and Asmol have talked about MC in the third person since and I can't work out who else could be him!

 

Anyway I have no interest in this case except that my curiosity has been raised as a sideline watcher.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Campbell,

 

If my memory serves me correctly, MC was banned from this forum some time ago. I don't know about PA's status here. Are you implying that Asmol and Wings could be either MC or PA? If that's correct then perhaps, in the interests of transparency, they should declare their interest. If it's not correct, then I'm not sure about your claim that they've hijacked this forum.

 

Something for the Moderators or site owner to look into perhaps?

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the thread and try to garner some input on the MTOW issue rather than have an emotive discussion on the circumstances surrounding two poor souls deaths..........

 

If the "M" in MARAP means "modification", that does not exclusively mean a physical mod necessarily. The adjustment of the MTOW is a modification under the guidlines is it not?

 

When I submitted my MARAP papers, the process said it might take 12 months on some cases. As I had previously been advised as per the first post, I did make contact with RA-Aus after a few months and asked how it was going. When told it had not even been started and would not be started for quite a while, I let the person know of my displeasure to which, on numerous times, I was stonewalled with the comment "you were advised it could take 12 months". Well, guess what, its well over 12 months (over two years in total in fact) that the MTOW limit has been applied and MARAP has not changed a thing. That is two years of an aircraft that cannot do the job for which it was purchased (post #1) I imagine there will be blame shifting when I do make contact, will there be any acceptance of responsibility for their actions I wonder.

 

If CASA can make directives as it desires and without explanation as has been suggested in this forum earlier on, and they are just as culpable as RA-Aus due to their lack of oversight, then why can't they direct an interim increase until MARAP solves the problem? Is it true that CASA can make such a directive? Is it a realistic expectation of the MARAP to think it can rectify the situaton within a reasonable time?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be because the UK definition of microlight is 450kg extended to 472.5 if and only if full recovery chute is installed - nothing to do with the airframe and entirely to do with the class of registration in the UK.

And as the Hanuaman is a homebuilt in Australia from kit the MTOW is not a certified MTOW as such BUT the declared MTOW of the builder such that it still complies with the stall limits of the 19 series experimental homebuilt. So 600kg is legal in Australia so long as the aircraft can meet the stall performance at that MTOW ... many people overlook the fact that 19 reg aircraft in australia (like SSDR in the UK) are NOT limited by the original designer/kit manufacturer declared MTOW but are at the declared MTOW of the builder as they are for the registration purposes the designer

 

I know how the classifications are set out I was merely pointing out the ludicrous differences between countries as it is the same airframe etc.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...