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 if RAA can get the weight up to 750kg, farmer Joe will be able to continue to fly his beloved cessna 150 with the same basic med or class2, same LAME he has used for years after he pays RAA $400+ pa. The only upside I can see is if his son and daughter have RAA certs they can now fly said numbered plane but not their uncle's  C150 which is remaining VH-ABC.

Makes perfect sense.

 

I guess farmer Joe will also have to do a flight test in his new C150 to convert his PPL to a ................

 

Edited by Thruster88
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefit to numbers will be Farmer Joe can (probably) maintain it himself if it is only going to be used in PVT ops, vs paying a LAME to do so for him, so the RAAus fees of $4-500 might actually be a saving...

 

Quote

I know I seem to be a CASA basher and certainly at times I have and I dont pull back from any of what I have said. BUT there is at least one case where I must say I was surprised at the outcome. They put out for public discussion a determination for ADSB in all aircraft using NON TSO equipment. I put my 2 cents in to that discussion and I think from memory there were only 68 submissions. To my surprise they came back with the version that I wanted and agreed with. That was to have cheaper ADSB out equipment so it can be afforded by all aircraft. The stumbling block was Air Services from what I understand. I believe CASA have implimented this certainly in principle the problem is that no company as yet has provided this cheaper equipment.

 

So you never know I suppose it is just a matter of putting down in writing what you consider and then wait and see what comes out. I am hoping for a good outcome but we will see and it is all conjecture anyway at the moment so you have to be in it to win it so my 2 cents will be added to the discussion when it is opened

But they don't really have any other option - the Yanks allow uncertified ADS-B and even the Poms found the stuff from Dynon (GPS-2020) and Garmin (GPS-20A) outpoerformed the TSO'd stuff that was supplying position information for the certified crowd.

Edited by KRviator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have someone in mind for this but it isn't farmer Joe, not many left.

Maybe light GA training, but as indicated if its LAME maint and C2 medical whats the point?

 

Similar for CTA, if C2 medical remains required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, KRviator said:

The benefit to numbers will be Farmer Joe can (probably) maintain it himself if it is only going to be used in PVT ops, vs paying a LAME to do so for him, so the RAAus fees of $4-500 might actually be a saving...

 

RAA have said already that all above 600kg will have to be LAME maintained, probably because that is casa's position.

Can't have some c150 owner maint and the rest LAME maintained could we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don;t see why not? Buy an RAAus-registereable aircraft, transfer it from VH->RAAus and you can maintain it yourself right now.

 

Then again, I would like CAsA to follow the Canadian model whereby you can maintain your own GA aircraft, if you use it for PVT ops. Never happen though!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KRviator said:

Don;t see why not? Buy an RAAus-registereable aircraft, transfer it from VH->RAAus and you can maintain it yourself right now.

 

Then again, I would like CAsA to follow the Canadian model whereby you can maintain your own GA aircraft, if you use it for PVT ops. Never happen though!

There are obvious legal issues if, one minute an aircraft  used for PVT has to be maintained by a LAME for safety, and the next minute it doesn't,  unless there are changes which reduce the risk potential, as there are with your first example, where the RA aircraft already has a max 2 PAX, stays out of CTA, has 600 kg MTOW, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But will that significantly change if we get RAAus upto 760kg? From what I understand - and I'm always happy to be proven wrong and learn something - we will still have 2 seats, no CTA at present, no aeros, no night flying and no IMC. Just more payload for some existing aircraft and a few new ones on the register, I don't think we're going to see the likes of 172's et al, popping up with numbers on the side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

RAA have said already that all above 600kg will have to be LAME maintained, probably because that is casa's position.

Can't have some c150 owner maint and the rest LAME maintained could we?

ALL... factory built. Amateur/kit built above 600 can be owner maintained. 

Source.... RAA president to me, at a pnp a few months ago.....in public.

I also believed it was every aircraft over 600kg up until his statement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

RAA have said already that all above 600kg will have to be LAME maintained, probably because that is casa's position.

PLUS have stated it is “their” position.  Remember the ridiculous printed statement from Linke that they will contribute to the work for LAMES.   No self interest from Banfield of course.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasons RAA has the exemptions from std VH regulations, lower medical, self maintenance, is the reduction in risk some limitations provide,  lower weight, 2 pax, no night, no ifr etc etc

Not sure we can expect relaxation in limitations if (in CASA mind) the risk is raised

 

Why just factory built to go over 600kg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logic seems to be deserting us (what's new?) When CASA suggested 762 KGs way back, remember that! there was no welded on link to lame maintenance. If you built a Pietenpol ( what could be simpler) why should that need the services of a Lame? The superlight carbonfibre  expensive types built for Europe , they probably wouldn't want to work on at all. There's such a variation  of considerations each type should be addressed on it's own merits rather than weight alone. or would that be too complex for our simple minds.?  Nev.

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Logic seems to be deserting us (what's new?) When CASA suggested 762 KGs way back, remember that! there was no welded on link to lame maintenance. If you built a Pietenpol ( what could be simpler) why should that need the services of a Lame? The superlight carbonfibre  expensive types built for Europe , they probably wouldn't want to work on at all. There's such a variation  of considerations each type should be addressed on it's own merits rather than weight alone. or would that be too complex for our simple minds.?  Nev.

Which is a very good reason to stick with the low maintenance costs we've got, and let anyone who needs a heavier aircraft move over to PPL and GA aircraft.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jetjr said:

The reasons RAA has the exemptions from std VH regulations, lower medical, self maintenance, is the reduction in risk some limitations provide,  lower weight, 2 pax, no night, no ifr etc etc

Not sure we can expect relaxation in limitations if (in CASA mind) the risk is raised

 

Why just factory built to go over 600kg?

That’s not the indicated change. ( if it is to happen) 

Any aircraft can go over the 600 kg. 

Its just that certified aircraft in that range will still have to LAME maintained. 

Home built in that range will be as per current arrangement. 

 

But just remember CASAs mindset is that primary group they are aiming at is current GA owner pilots who own a GA aircraft who no longer can hold a medical will be able to re-register their own aircraft in RAAus and downgrade their licence and continue to fly the aircraft they have owned for ever and are used to. They will not have to transition to a new aircraft because stats show transitioning is most dangerous time for high hour pilots.  This was the argument pitched to CASA. 

 

Most will have been LAME maintained and continue as such. It it is likely at some point the aircraft will be returned to the GA register when the current owner quits flying and new owner wants a GA aircraft. So to stop poorly maintained aircraft going back into the VH pool they have to be LAME. Maintained. That was never going to happen with home builds so is not needed. 

 

The others who who start off new with new plastic fantastic or other modern go-fast machine were thought to be in minority and would be an acceptable trade off. 

Not 

4 hours ago, Downunder said:

ALL... factory built. Amateur/kit built above 600 can be owner maintained. 

Source.... RAA president to me, at a pnp a few months ago.....in public.

I also believed it was every aircraft over 600kg up until his statement.

sure their logic ever “held much water. “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Reply to # 113 ...Turbs,  I do not agree with that as one reason to BUILD a heavier two place plane is you can use steel tube and wood and not have to build structures that border on weak to stay under the weight limit if you don't use carbon fibre. titanium  and very thin Al sheet which is a rivet unfriendly material etc  Nev

Edited by facthunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2019 at 9:23 AM, turboplanner said:

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.

Are you going to recommend that the CFIs get kicked off the board as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, coljones said:

Are you going to recommend that the CFIs get kicked off the board as well?

What you were referring to was an allegation of wrongdoing.

There's nothing wrong with CFIs as Directors, provided they follow accepted meeting procedures and declare a conflict of interest  and move out of the room when an item comes up for discussion, just like a Council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this consultation open yet? Cant find it yet on the CASA site.. They (somebody,  RAAus?)  said end of the month. Two days left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that CASA had said it was going to be open from ?19th August - the date was not a certain it just sticks in my mind. 

But haven’t heard or seen anything.  

Maybe a delay or maybe was never a date cast in stone.

Or maybe like a lot of CASA releases was just a thought bubble that never went anywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/08/2019 at 5:35 PM, turboplanner said:

Which is a very good reason to stick with the low maintenance costs we've got, and let anyone who needs a heavier aircraft move over to PPL and GA aircraft.

 

Bit of a circular argument you have there......Don't want the light end of GA aircraft because they are too expensive to maintain. Only expensive to maintain because they are under GA.

A Piper Cherokee is about as complicated as  a Drifter BTW.

 The idea behind stall speeds and flight characteristics and limitations  reducing risk is sound, but the maintenance argument is a hollow one that makes no sense at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M61A1 said:

Bit of a circular argument you have there......Don't want the light end of GA aircraft because they are too expensive to maintain. Only expensive to maintain because they are under GA.

A Piper Cherokee is about as complicated as  a Drifter BTW.

 The idea behind stall speeds and flight characteristics and limitations  reducing risk is sound, but the maintenance argument is a hollow one that makes no sense at all.

In that case Drifters should be maintained by LAMEs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Weight per se and within  limits has no direct bearing on difficulty of maintenance/ More of it doesn't make it requiring of extra knowledge it's just more work to do. if you have more hinges pulleys cables etc It's the type of construction and materials used. This LAME thing has become political instead of  based on facts. If a plane crashes it's weight might have a bearing on what damage it might do but the biggest factor is the number of passengers you are allowed to carry. IF it's only yourself, the maximum leeway should be allowed from the normal rules.  INDIVIDUAL planes should be evaluated  and assessed. Not just a blanket weight applied. That's not really TOO HARD.   Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

In that case Drifters should be maintained by LAMEs

As I said before....Not much of an argument you have there.:roflmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

What about "survivability"

for the poor pilot.

spacesailor

The best  way to ensure your survival is to properly maintain it and don’t crash it .

  • 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.


×
×
  • Create New...