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

760kg upgrade and CASA consultation

Recommended Posts

So its now mid year and all reports said that CASA would be going to public consultation about it now. I just checked the CASA website with consultations and there is nothing there at all. Attached is a article about it

 

So maybe June is now not midyear?....

 

https://www.australianflying.com.au/recreational/raaus-weight-increase-consultation-due-mid-year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is becoming an issue for those who want to build or buy and are waiting for the new standard. The Sling for example makes much more sense at 700 kg.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA are gunna do it. Just don't hold your breath. Those trying to get ELAAA up and going have been on the verge of success for so long that I doubt it will ever happen.

Of course our rose tinted glassed leaders are always saying it is going to happen. I haven't yet read their latest warm and fuzzy epistle, but I expect they are saying it will happen tomorrow.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It beats me why the two Mikes want to transform RAA into something it was never meant to be. Supposedly we now have a membership of 13,000 - surely that is enough to be able to operate successfully without adding old spam can aircraft to our register. This will add a complexity to all aircraft on the RAA register beginning with all aircraft over 600 kgs having to be LAME maintained. Just watch - that will filter down given time, management’s mantra is that they do not care about increasing the cost of aviation to recreational aircraft (after all - we have to support maintenance engineers apparently) We have lost our identity and been screwed over from within on any number of fronts since the arrival of Monke and Co and the subsequent inception of the LTD liability Company we are burdened with now. It has been reported that Monke has just purchased a GA registered aircraft - what hope has RAA of maintaining its identity if the Chairman (and some board members) prefer to support GA flying.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 4
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I spoke to them at Avalon, they were looking at LAME/L2 maintenance for training aircraft only and owner maintenance for private ops, although it was suggested that CASA may decide otherwise. It’s a pointless exercise if they get 750 kg but need LAME maintenance. It’s not like the aircraft are any more complex.

We need simplicity, but we will probably get the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have to support maintenance engineers

 

Although not surprised with the 2 responsible, I couldn’t believe it when they stated that in the Mag. Add to that the ongoing costs of CASA medicals - remember Monk voted AGAINST medical reform for the PPL on one of the BS committees he sits on (don’t kid yourself that a CASA medical does not come with any weight increase - not even being actively sort) - these two and a couple of their lap dogs are not good for the future of Recreational Aviation without whom would be a much greater organisation - but getting people to vote to show their real concerns is an issue, hopefully at least some more do before it is too late. Maybe even get back to a representative board where actual issues can be raised, discussed & voted on V the Canberra thought bubbles carried by 4 who believe they have greater understanding of everything aviation even though lacking in real experience in the aviation world.

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It beats me why the two Mikes want to transform RAA into something it was never meant to be. Supposedly we now have a membership of 13,000 - surely that is enough to be able to operate successfully without adding old spam can aircraft to our register. This will add a complexity to all aircraft on the RAA register beginning with all aircraft over 600 kgs having to be LAME maintained. Just watch - that will filter down given time, management’s mantra is that they do not care about increasing the cost of aviation to recreational aircraft (after all - we have to support maintenance engineers apparently) We have lost our identity and been screwed over from within on any number of fronts since the arrival of Monke and Co and the subsequent inception of the LTD liability Company we are burdened with now. It has been reported that Monke has just purchased a GA registered aircraft - what hope has RAA of maintaining its identity if the Chairman (and some board members) prefer to support GA flying.

 

 

Why have we been heading in this direction?

 

From the airport banter last Saturday. Because Michael M has become the dealer for CT aircraft and it's been in his/their interests for a long time to massage the rules to suit their personally evolving business direction.

 

The CT NEEDS to be rated at 750 kgs because of its low payload and that's the push on increased MTOW changes. Getting made in China has lifted the empty weight by more than 35 kgs and at 600 MTOW it's really a single seater. I was told other things but i won't mention it here because some was told in confidence but the above is publicly known.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have we been heading in this direction?

 

From the airport banter last Saturday. Because Michael M has become the dealer for CT aircraft and it's been in his/their interests for a long time to massage the rules to suit their personally evolving business direction.

 

The CT NEEDS to be rated at 750 kgs because of its low payload and that's the push on increased MTOW changes. Getting made in China has lifted the empty weight by more than 35 kgs and at 600 MTOW it's really a single seater. I was told other things but i won't mention it here because some was told in confidence but the above is publicly known.

Thanks for that Flyboy, it's taken a long time coming out. That appears to be a clear case of Conflict of Interest, and he should now step down pending a thorough investigation.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Winner 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purchased a Colt in need of a rebuild so I am hanging out for the 760kg. I hope it comes through before I make it airworthy or I will have to go RPL and that will put me under 2 systems. Working on my Jab will be OK but not on my simpler Colt. Hmmm,m Ken

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thats encouraging. Thanks for the link. I wonder where you would do the "recognised and approved maintenence course" for the people that build and fly their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where you would do the "recognised and approved maintenence course"

It is incumbent ofn RAAus to produce their own online free course. The syllabus is in the regs and there is enough course material around that already meets CASA's requirements to assist in the development.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hope that is ready when or before the 760kg comes in. I would never let a LAME work on my aircraft after the myriad of rough work and stuffups I have seen done by some of them. I would much rather do the maint and repairs myself....even if I have to get a L2 to sign off after inspecting it. Its my arse in the aircraft not theirs and I dont trust anyone but me doing it just because of that one fact.

 

Now dont get me wrong not all LAME or L2 are bad...I am not saying that at all but I would rather trust myself with someone looking over my shoulder than blindly relying on someone else to do it

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well said.

 

Unless forced I would always do my own. I have never paid a engineer or mechanic. Always myself that way I know the job and machine down to nut and bolt.

 

Also if I can't fix it myself, I can't afford to maintain it properly.

 

Naturally I seek advice if needed, I am a cheap skate but not stupid.

 

As a sport the last thing we need is $500 oil changes.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I hope that is ready when or before the 760kg comes in. I would never let a LAME work on my aircraft after the myriad of rough work and stuffups I have seen done by some of them. I would much rather do the maint and repairs myself....even if I have to get a L2 to sign off after inspecting it. Its my **** in the aircraft not theirs and I dont trust anyone but me doing it just because of that one fact.

 

Now dont get me wrong not all LAME or L2 are bad...I am not saying that at all but I would rather trust myself with someone looking over my shoulder than blindly relying on someone else to do it

One of the core fundamentals of the RAA is the ability to do your own maintenance....

I hope this is not going to be watered down.....

The fact that aircraft are not constantly "falling" from the sky for maintenance/mechanical reasons tends to prove current systems are pretty solid.

Most owners know their limitations and readily seek advice and assistance when required. All good.

By far, the weakest link tends to be the pilot, not the aircraft.....

Edited by Guest
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://aopa.com.au/increased-mtow-and-access-to-cta-for-raaus-when/?fbclid=IwAR1NbEXRRn9yozdSpa7CFb55l8bm_qgnLB9PSsx1DGULHQ1YhEpL3_jSQQA

 

Well worth a read!

AOPA magazine article that suggests the optimistic outlook that RAAus weight increases and CTA access are not far off,  in actual fact, continues to probably be just wishful thinking. 

 

Essentially,  direct  approaches to CASA by AOPA appear to have resulted in only denials that the subject is close and that discussions are not even on any agendas for the rest of this year. 

 

The article requests CASA to be more upfront and truthfully divulge where the issue is at. 

But I wouldn’t hold my breath!  

Edited by Jaba-who
  • Like 1
  • Informative 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the article, BUT I'M SKEPTICAL of any help to the old 95-10 rag&tube people. many will put flying aside &  take to simpler less expensive pursuits.

I know of a dozen that gave away building their dream, when CASA imposed the "wing load" rule.

So why should the imposition of a Full & Expensive medical, be any different, to CASA's "wing-load rule".

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

I read the article, BUT I'M SKEPTICAL of any help to the old 95-10 rag&tube people. many will put flying aside &  take to simpler less expensive pursuits.

I know of a dozen that gave away building their dream, when CASA imposed the "wing load" rule.

So why should the imposition of a Full & Expensive medical, be any different, to CASA's "wing-load rule".

spacesailor

I honestly think the days of considering RAAus being rag and tube  are gone. RAAus is now the home of plastic fantastics and relative high techs with just a small niche area for the rag and tube.  As each year passes the number of rag and tubes will further decrease. 

 

But regardless of how many there are, for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue."

The RAA committee thinks that too !.

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue."

The RAA committee thinks that too !.

spacesailor

The demeanour of the article seems to imply that CASA are not likely to, and never have said they would, allow CTA ENTRY without increased medical to a Class 2 or variant.

 

And CASA have stated that increased MTOW will most likely include maintenance by LAME, only at least for certain classes of those up-weighted  aircraft. (E.g.  certified a/c that fit the weights). 

 

Makes one wonder that, if they do make these  new rules - is CASA going to apply those restrictions to all in RAAus or have yet another divided hierarchy within the group ( to further divide and conquer?  perhaps) on top of the already divided levels between RAAus and GA recreational flying. 

Given that either one will be destructive on the broad group it could go either way and have the ( likely?) desired effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

The demeanour of the article seems to imply that CASA are not likely to, and never have said they would, allow CTA ENTRY without increased medical to a Class 2 or variant.

And CASA have stated that increased MTOW will most likely include maintenance by LAME, only at least for certain classes of those up-weighted  aircraft. (E.g.  certified a/c that fit the weights). 

 

That would be the logical path. It would be illogical fpor a safety authority to maintain that on the one had if you fly with this group and fly in this environment you will require medical and aircraft standards which have evolved based of safety standards established over 100 years, but if you fly with that group and fly in the same environment with the same aircraft you don't require the samemedical and aircraft standards.

 

RAA's whole existence and history is being allowed to fly under exemptions because the aircraft are kept well away from the operational and performance standards of GA.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of this is that "originally" CASA proposed an increase to 762 Kgs which by a strange co-incidence happened to include the C-152 and Piper Tomahawk weights. No mention then off it coming with LAME maint .as a part of the package . Because of the age and variable condition of the aircraft it was inferred a full 'Cof A" standard inspection would apply at time of transfer Since then we have had the somewhat controversial SIDS inspections on some Cessna  aircraft..

  It's pretty clear your management have done some sort of trade off to lubricate a deal.

   I personally consider owner maintenance (option) essential to the essence of the  U/L movement,  We used to reprint a very comprehensive Approved manual of repair  and construction techniques  from a FAA source and compliance with that is required.. That approach is far preferable to trying to educate and "ticket" certain people and assume they will go and do "everything" right out in the field.  Nev

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not quite sure how you get “lubricated a deal” out of AOPA’s “Not happening”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same way RAAus has said "We'll never divulge your details" and only 18 months later, in the printed copy - but not the edited online copy - is an article saying "Oh, we've inked a deal with some random mob to sell out your details to feather our nest" and when called out on it, "but but but, trust us...."

  • Like 1
  • Agree 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.


×
×
  • Create New...