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

1 hour ago, poteroo said:

 

Well, maybe.    VANS published info for 9/9A is for MTOW of 727 kgs up to 795 kgs - (registered mine as 795kg). For stalling speeds, VANS published numbers are 41.6 kts for 727 kgs, and 43.3 kts for 795 kgs - ( mine stalls at 43/44 KIAS... didn't work out CAS!).

Interesting that from https://cafe.foundation/v2/pdf_cafe_apr/rv-9a.pdf at 797 kg the stall speed is 42.7 KCAS.

Share this post


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

Doesn't GA want all the parts made for aviation "type approved",

If the builder of an aircraft makes their own piece, for their particular type of aircraft. It would be expensive to get that "type approval".

Hence we have to have ,

Exemptions.

spacesailor

Nope.  

CASA might.

 But “GA” is such a diverse group that you should not call anything by that epithet. 

Certified aircraft in GA need to have approved parts though they can be made by  and approved by a LAME with appropriate qualifications. 

 

But GA experimental/Amateur built ( which is more appropriate comparison whenever you mention or think RAAus vs “GA” ) can have parts made by the builder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ave8rr said:

Ken, are you saying that "M&M" were assuming there would be a removal of max stall speed with any weight increase?   Or they hadn't thought about the stall speed of 760kg MTOW aircraft? This could cause probs with some aircraft already on the RAAus Register.  Aircraft now limited to 600kg thus keeping stall speed around 45kts at that weight but will increase at the higher 760kg MTOW. The Colt is one along with the RV4 and probably others.

There has never been any suggestion an aircraft which is currently rated at eg 600kg can increase its MTOW to 760 kg. 

It has always been suggested by CASA that only aircraft that already are too heavy by virtue of their existent MTOW that fell between 600 kg and 760 kg could be registered “at their current weight”. 

 

If an aircraft is designed and built and certified etc etc at a set weight then the suggestion has always been that that’s it. Fixed at that weight. 

Just as they also stipulated that an aircraft that was over 600 or 760 kg could not be artificially lowered, by throwing out seats, lowering tank size etc etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might take a few years for builders to adjust to 760kg and 45kts but when they do some useful aircraft could result.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty designed and DERATED to 600kg to meet RAA regulations

to meet min stall, they are built for higher weight already

i discussed with MM, more than a year ago, that without increased stall the 760 wouldnt achieve much for members

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/08/2019 at 10:26 AM, KRviator said:

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.

KRviator,

 

The MTOW for a RV-9A is listed as 1600 to 1750lbs (727 to 795kg)

 

How did you register it in RAAus ???? when the MTOW is currently 600kg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amatuer built stall is declared by builder/owner. MTOW is also declared and if under kit manufacturer limit whats the problem?

Empty weight is pretty easy to check. Will need Weight cert by approved person

Does get review by tech dept and there are minimum usefull loads. Stories this has been abused in the past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Strictly speaking maximum take off weight is related to many factors some of which are external to the aircraft like density altitude and runway length etc. I would rather regard it as the stated max structural weight. Calibrated airspeed eliminates some of the grossly inaccurate airspeed readings one gets in some aircraft and perhaps "doctored " ambitious readings at both ends of the speed range. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blackhawk said:

KRviator,

 

The MTOW for a RV-9A is listed as 1600 to 1750lbs (727 to 795kg)

 

How did you register it in RAAus ???? when the MTOW is currently 600kg

Easily. Well, it was easy enough when I convinced RAAus that there were no grounds to refuse registration as the 'payload formula' listed in the CAO's didn't apply to amateur-built aircraft...

 

CAO 95.55 simply says the MTOW for that category is 600Kg, so with a 445Kg empty weight, I have 155Kg payload. That's enough for me + just-under-full tanks, or me + mini-me + half tanks. Though now the KRviatrix has seen the utility of having our own plane, it's time to port it over to VH- so I can take two adults.

  • Like 2
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/09/2019 at 3:55 PM, NT5224 said:

Ken

 

Are you saying your Colt is currently RAAus  registered with a stall speed over 45kts?  Ive seen a couple of Colts RAA registered, there was one for sale quite recently. Lovely aircraft, I'd be tempted to have one myself.

 

Is there any risk they'd take your Colt off the register? 

 

Alan

 

 

Interesting question (miserable weather this weekend so people get to put up with me online). It seems that the book figure is 47 KIAS? I can't find the conversion to CAS. My copy of the Owner's Handbook states that the stall speed is 57 mph = 50 kts - perhaps that is CAS?

 

I wonder if RAA knows - surely they have looked at it and determined whether it complies with the requirement for a Vso of 45 kts? Pretty simple to me - if it complies then OK and if it doesn't comply then cannot be registered RAA (I recall that we've seen this before).

 

Interesting that CAO 95.55 simply refers to a Vso of 45 kts without stating whether it is ASIR, IAS, CAS etc. The CAO refers to the CASR dictionary which has a simple definition of Vso without stating whether it is ASIR, IAS, CAS etc. That dictionary refers to the USA FARs section 1.2 which has the same definition also without stating whether it is ASIR, IAS, CAS etc. So, nowhere do the rules state that your Vso has to be CAS so I guess you get to choose yourself? Fit an ASI which has lots of error in the right direction and demonstrate it shows less than 45 at the stall.

Edited by djpacro
added a figure from Owner's Handbook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're over thinking it.

Speed is how fast you are travelling, not what the instruments say (just ask the police!)

A legal reference to speed must be CAS - or probably more accurately TAS at sea level in a standard atmosphere.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

51 minutes ago, djpacro said:

nowhere do the rules state that your Vso has to be CAS so I guess you get to choose yourself?

While CAO 95.55 does not make it directly clear, it does say that the stall speed must be not greater than 45 kts as determined by design standards or certification requirements. 

 CASA's AC 21-42 contains the Light Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Requirements, and Para 2.2.1 c. is clear that Vso is calculated using CAS.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAAus email to members on the CASA weight increase consultation and stall speed.

Quote

RAAus will address this point in a formal response to the consultation however we need to ensure members are aware of the RAAus position. As aircraft weight is increased, in many cases so too does the stall speed. In rebuttal to restricting the stall speed to 45 knots.

Unquote.

 

It will be interesting to see if CASA takes any notice of a formal response from RAAus as CASA have said the consultation is for a weight increase with no change to existing stall speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CASA did this on purpose. RAA obviously thought that they would raise the stall per weight but this way CASA can limit the number and type for 760kg.

 

I personally think its a good idea as it does keep a lot of the aircraft out of RAA that really should be staying in the GA area 

:cops:

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought, C,A,S,A. stood for Civil Aviation Safety Australia.

But it keeps proving, It's Just a Part (very small) of FAA.

AND

Not a bit about safety in that Bureaucracy.

So don't expect normality from them. What is Sensible to us, is just bureaucratic words to them, 

spacesailor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studies as long ago as the 1930s showed that, within the range we are talking about, higher landing speeds led to fewer landing accidents. So how wouldCASA be making us safer by restricting the stall speed?

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we in OZ fiddle around, in March 2020 EASA's Part ML will come into force allowing owner/pilot maintenance upto 2760kg. In the UK NPPL holders (similar requirements to RPC/RPL) can fly up to 2000 kg on a medical declaration.

Whilst touting compliance with ICAO requirements the CASA bureaucracy should remember that the rest of the world has moved on from trying to straightjacket the light end of GA and they are reading the same set of rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A slightly higher Stall/ landing speed does make landing easier as you cope with gusts better (more penetration). It's the OFF FIELD situation we are talking of with higher energy and striking things. (V squared Law). If you want to  continue to fit non certified motors and to  service your own planes, watch what you wish for in the "race to be the NEW GA." . Nev

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

watch what you wish for in the "race to be the NEW GA."

Obviously other regulators, with a larger base of evidence, have made the determination that these changes are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Faster landing speeds OFF field  where the surface and obstacles are not what you would normally choose are not as safe.

      A slower landing speed particularly when there's any kind of headwind and you land into it, IS very survivable. It's simple Physics. The biggest threat to what AUF and RAAus were about is trying to be a backdoor GA..  and consequently losing its original concept and purpose. CASA have never been very helpful to our section of aviation and the way they are defined  by law they don't have to do anything but say It's unsafe and  NO you can't have it.  Why make their job easier for them? They are also inconsistent, and renege on deals regardless of the financial consequences to Individuals who have actually been silly enough to believe what they committed to last (week, month, year,) means anything next week, especially if some new broom turns up at the top. Your NEW organisation is doing what suits IT. (Whatever that is), where extra numbers (Even if temporary) is  the chief measure of success.  Those who wish to design build and service their planes will  just have to cop it as they are the  forgotten minority. Don't forget THEY were the ones who did the hard work starting this show, and didn't ask for it to be hijacked and rebadged. Nev

Edited by facthunter

Share this post


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

The biggest threat to what AUF and RAAus were about is trying to be a backdoor GA..  and consequently losing its original concept and purpose.

I don't really agree with that. It really doesn't need to be that way. There's no good reason why all recreational flying (essentially all non AOC holders) can't enjoy the same standards rec flyers currently have ( amateur built, kit built, factory built and owner maintenance etc.)

The problem is that the regulators want to bring Rec flying up to GA regulation levels when the idea should be to bring private flying regulation down to RAA levels.

Those countries that have tried owner maintenance on GA have found just the opposite to that which you said before. They have found it generally lead to better maintained aircraft, not worse.

Done right, there's no real reason you can't operate and maintain a Piper or Cessna  ( RVs and other GA homebuilts too)  under the same regulations we have been flying and maintaining Drifters and Thrusters under.

They aren't any more complicated than that and the general consensus is that the heavier stuff is actually easier to fly.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very good reasons why owner-maintenance is better. The owner has more at stake and he doesn't have the same time pressure that a commercial operator has. And there is nothing to stop him asking for advice and help. In my experience, owners are if anything likely to be too cautious about their abilities.

 

But education is the key thing here, if you don't know anything about stresses, you may unknowingly overtighten a nut and bolt for example. If you don't know about materials, you may think a high-tensile bolt from Repco is a good substitute for an AN bolt. 

 

Nev's main point though can't be disputed. It has been said that the main safety feature of our aircraft is the low stall speed. If you keep flying the plane long enough to aim the fuse between the trees or rocks, you will survive a forced landing nearly every time.

There was an unfortunate glider pilot who got caught having to land in the dark in scrub. At exactly the right time, according to his luminous altimeter, the wings got ripped off and he walked away. I wouldn't like his chances in a Lancair.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" the "race to be the NEW GA." .

Except for the Old 95-10, We Can & would probably be better off under the experimental VH rules.

Without any weight or wingload rule. 

Just have to dismantle your aircraft to facilitate, endorsing Each step of construction .

More Bureaucracy, of course !.

spacesailor

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There hasn't been any suggestion from anyone that the weight increase will affect existing 600kg or less aircraft and owners in any way. I dont understand why there can be an objection from them.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

There hasn't been any suggestion from anyone that the weight increase will affect existing 600kg or less aircraft and owners in any way. I dont understand why there can be an objection from them.

As the operations have slid up the weight and performance scale, the aircraft and flyers which were the reason for the formation of the AUF, the self maintenance, and the simple, local, rules for the flyers have been eroded; some might say already on the way to decimation. I can understand why they would object.

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...