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

Yes well I have just filled it out and put my views to it all....It can only be a good thing I believe especially seeing they have acknowledged you will be able to maintain your own homebuilt aircraft

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at this from an insurance actuary perspective, we're talking risk of damage divided by cost multiplied by risk exposure in numbers. A Cherokee 140 or C150 with 2 up (maintained under commercial RAA standards), is the same worst case outcome as a J230. As I see it the benefit of weight increase is less customers for AvMed, for those older pilots that want to keep flying their beloved old tinnies. Also more practical rules covering max weight for the Slings, Bristalls and others in that class. Anyone who crosses over with the iron engines would still be better served by maintaining the LAME program on their engines and airframes. Especially considering the age of the aircraft. Sooner CASA/RAA can bring in 750KG's the better. As for the higher weights, still makes sense with the appropriate conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frankus1aust said:

If you look at this from an insurance actuary perspective, we're talking risk of damage divided by cost multiplied by risk exposure in numbers. A Cherokee 140 or C150 with 2 up (maintained under commercial RAA standards), is the same worst case outcome as a J230. As I see it the benefit of weight increase is less customers for AvMed, for those older pilots that want to keep flying their beloved old tinnies. Also more practical rules covering max weight for the Slings, Bristalls and others in that class. Anyone who crosses over with the iron engines would still be better served by maintaining the LAME program on their engines and airframes. Especially considering the age of the aircraft. Sooner CASA/RAA can bring in 750KG's the better. As for the higher weights, still makes sense with the appropriate conditions.

The maintenance  on the 600-760 class will not change, if requires a LAME now it will under Raa also.

The safe and easy to fly cherrokee will not be included due weight and stall speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

The maintenance  on the 600-760 class will not change, if requires a LAME now it will under Raa also.

The safe and easy to fly cherrokee will not be included due weight and stall speed.

And that's the problem. I have an RV-9A, registered RAAus. I'm swapping it to VH-, but as I built it, I can maintain it.

 

If I sell it to someone else, they will need a LAME to maintain it if they keep it VH-, but if they bring it back to RAAus, they won't. The system is broken. At least I made a comment on this peculiarity, but whether they recognise it and then close it, or simply 'meh' it off, remains to be seen.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that the stall speed is not being increased at the same time as the max weight?

Are there any aircraft that will satisfy this requirement?  A Lancair will not, but maybe a Cessna will.

Seems to me like a clayton's deregulation...  the deregulation you have when you are not having a deregulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Is it true that the stall speed is not being increased at the same time as the max weight?

Are there any aircraft that will satisfy this requirement?  A Lancair will not, but maybe a Cessna will.

Seems to me like a clayton's deregulation...  the deregulation you have when you are not having a deregulation.

I have never really seen any loosening of any regulation by CASA which didn’t come with some strings attached which negated much of the lauded change. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Is it true that the stall speed is not being increased at the same time as the max weight?

Are there any aircraft that will satisfy this requirement?  A Lancair will not, but maybe a Cessna will.

Seems to me like a clayton's deregulation...  the deregulation you have when you are not having a deregulation.

The premise for discussion is for a change to the MTOW limitations that currently apply to 3-axis aeroplanes. It would potentially amend the relevant regulations to permit 3-axis aeroplanes up to a maximum weight of 760 kg, regardless of whether the aircraft is equipped to land on water or not and to be included as aircraft that could be administered by an ASAO. Other limitations such as maximum stall speed would not be changed by this proposal.

 

Edited by ave8rr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ave8rr said:

Other limitations such as maximum stall speed would not be changed by this proposal.

But there is nothing to stop submissions proposing for example that type certificated aircraft upto 760kg have a maximum stall speed as permitted by the standard (eg CAR 3 or FAR23 = 61kts) under which the type certificate was issued. My guess is that everyone focused on the MTOW until some bright spark in CASA did a little analysis of the potential aircraft that could be moved from VH to RAAus if the current CAO 95.55 was the applicable yardstick and guess what, the numbers are so small that there would be no measurable safety risk (which seems to be CASA's only determinant).

After all, RPC holders are only a flight review away from flying these types anyway so what is the point of limiting stall speeds?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 These "restrictions" give us the basis and argument, for maintaining out extra dispensations. Engine out landing speeds have a big bearing on off field survivability. V squared law for energy. Nev

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Engine out landing speeds have a big bearing on off field survivability. V squared law for energy.

And so does the structural compromises associated with lightweight design. Is there any evidence for reduced survivability in the 600-760kg class? How much does pilot skill affect engine out outcomes (eg does glider experience assist?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim. I've been trying for years to get heavier weights for two seaters. There are quite a few instances of structural failure particularly with nosewheels and some with more dangerous parts than that.. Europe has gone with the expensive lightweight exotic materials path, and muffed  expensive motors. Not in any way a cheap option.It's easy to get slow landings . The Auster range has always had it even with the flapless Archer  ex Taylorcraft types.

   The strength of the  Cockpit area affects survivability. Any compression there is a risk and the inverted crash has extra risks that should be considered in matters of safety on the getting out of it aspect.

   It's hard to build a two seater with an empty weight below 330 Kgs so just add the normal fuel and pax and extras one would normally carry and your AUW comes out well over 544 always. Weight is a blunt instrument and has arrived where we are by a complex path not always based on commonsense or addressing a need, but a simple  "situation" of more or less what WE will give you.   Don't forget CASA offered 762 Kgs then went somewhere else in the universe under new (and really BAD ) management  Years ago...Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There are quite a few instances of structural failure particularly with nosewheels

Agreed, for example, RV6 seem to have a bad track record on nose wheel failure.

My point is that it is easy to get fixated on a particular target (in this case 760kg) without examining ALL of the ramifications of achieving that goal. In particular, because of the "silo" nature of aviation administration, an open minded, rational examination of the illogical outcomes. Take the case of GFA, their max weight is 850kg (without an engine) and their pilot training cannot be compared to RAAus for thoroughness. An RPC can be converted to an RPL with only a flight review that can be conducted in a VH reg Jabiru and the new RPL can then go an fly a heavy tinny.

If was was running CASA (fat chance of that) I would introduce 1500kg max, optional owner maintenance as per Canadian system, declaration medicals but limit to pilot+one passenger, VH reg for all aircraft and pay RAAus to administer training open to all comers (ie no requirement for membership). Maintenance administration would remain with CASA as for existing VH regime.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Savannah nosewheel setup is dodgy as well. All to try to keep the weight down to a ridiculous level. it is the most common repair for any savannah. RPC to RPL is not just a flight review its 5 hrs min also under hood time regardless of the aircraft type and not to mention a different medical requirement.

up to 760 kg will allow aircraft to now be made a bit heavier and actually get a bit more strength into them

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/08/2019 at 3:18 PM, spacesailor said:

What about "survivability"

for the poor pilot.

spacesailor

Somehow I don't think that there are too many "💲poor" Pilots :spot on:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The longer you are around aeroplanes the shorter of money you become.

   I think 762 KGs would be enough with consideration for  things like  the originally Ford T engined  parasol design Pietenpol. Heavy slow and simple. and safe. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DenisPC9 said:

Somehow I don't think that there are too many "💲poor" Pilots :spot on:

That's a popular misconception that most of the public have.......Got a plane, therefore you must be rich.

The reality is that many of us do it a a very tight budget compared to what Joe average might spend fishing , jetskiing or 4 wheel driving. Even just drinking and smoking for that matter.

  • Like 5
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right Mick. Its actually not that expensive to own and fly a RAA style aircraft infact it is cheaper in a yearly cost than a fishing boat or jetski given the same sort of hours used. The purchase price for most is only about the cost a reasonably good vehicle some cost the price of a BMW or Sahara but most are not that cost. The biggest cost is hangarage. If you have your own strip and shed its extremely cheap to own a recreational aircraft. I flew RC model turbines for many years and it is not uncommon for the model itself to be worth anywhere from 10 to 30K and one slip on the fingers at 300kph or a radio failure and your left with a very expensive uninsurable mushroom cloud of burning JetA with nothing recoverable. Its horses for courses

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's a popular misconception that most of the public have.......Got a plane, therefore you must be rich.

The reality is that many of us do it a a very tight budget compared to what Joe average might spend fishing , jetskiing or 4 wheel driving. Even just drinking and smoking for that matter.

Recently I did some research into the number of VH aircraft registered to ACT operators divided into  Canberra population compared to the Parkes, Forbes, Cowra council area and I would have missed some that have  a village address. Guess what, us poor country people have a far higher (4X)  rate of aircaft ownership than Canberra.

 

Would be interesting to do the same for RAA aircraft if the info was available 😀.

   

Edited by Thruster88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The J200/400 type need just a 3 kt increase in stall to go to 700kg, say another 2 to get to max airframe 760kts

Likely an unmeasurable difference

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you have a figure you stick to it. No ifs or buts.  If you aren't happy with the principle by all means talk about it. . No "I'm only a little bit over so please make an exception" situations .  Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jim McDowall said:

And so does the structural compromises associated with lightweight design. Is there any evidence for reduced survivability in the 600-760kg class? How much does pilot skill affect engine out outcomes (eg does glider experience assist?)

There have been a few photos of extreme nose-down crashes in open paddocks following engine failure. I reckon that the pilot has panicked and done a stall/spin when faced with the strange sound of silence from the engine.

So I reckon glider experience does assist. So would turning the engine off at altitude, but I understand the reasons for prohibiting this.

Personally, I don't know of anybody with glider experience who has mishandled an engine-out situation.

There have been a couple of airliners overseas which also demonstrate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Frequent practice in all sorts of situations is probably needed. Perhaps the prop being stopped might freak out some . Being familiar with how you plane glides power removed (or perhaps it imitates a brick) has to be appreciated. An engine failure where you don't know the altitude of the unfamiliar terrain below you  is a lot different from practicing in a familiar circuit  or training area, situation, like one tends to do.. People tend to pull the stick back when they panic and the ground is close. It's the last thing you really want to do..Nev

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No stall increase, not many 4 place conversions, no owner maint unless experimental

1250 might be eligible although many of these wont be????

As Jaba and Bruce indicated, a claytons change. 

 

CASA has identified 1250 aeroplanes that would fit into the new category that are currently on the Australian Civil Register, but points out that many may be disqualified due to the stall speed limits. One such is the Piper PA-22 Tomahawk, which has an MTOW of 757 kg, but stalls with full flap at 47 KIAS.

The DP also proposes that the very few aircraft with four seats that come under the new MTOW limit could not be modified to fit the new classification by removing two of the seats


Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-releases-mtow-discussion-paper#KFy41xmOYJ1I2oFA.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there are almost no aircraft that will meet the 45kt stall limit. The old Victa AT-115 for example stalls at 46 kt.

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...