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

32 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I can understand why they would object.

I personally don’t object to what they want to do, but to how they want to do it. It could be so simple, but they make it so difficult. 

Edited by M61A1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LSA was always a dogs breakfast and only used by many to get a small weight increase, but with so many downsides that were fully discussed at the time, will probably remain there complex and unsatisfactory.. I'm an ABSOLUTE owner "maintainer" person IF I haven't made that clear enough, I re affirm it now. I can't see how the RAAus can educate EVERYONE to do it and be responsible for  "certifying' them either.  That's a really big ask and if you don't/can't do it properly don't go there. Educate rather than just regulate is always better and people who don't have the skills and experience shouldn't do it  unless well supervised OR get someone who does know, to do the job and has the right equipment as we do in most things... Nev

Share this post


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

people who don't have the skills and experience shouldn't do it  unless well supervised OR get someone who does know, to do the job and has the right equipment

In my experience this is exactly what happens even if it isn't regulated.

Most people in aviation have an extremely strong self preservation instinct and if they are unsure, will seek knowledge, experience and/or assistance until they are satisfied that it shouldn't kill them.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen the very good and the very bad and in both the amateur and licenced fraternity, over a lot of years now. When it's your plane and your life you generally do your best, but today there are much less spannering and fitting and machining types about than was the case in another era. Stuff doesn't get rebuilt these days. (generally, it's throw away)  and who would make a new leg for a broken chair?  People who haven't already done a fair bit and have the basics with metal welding and forming, riveting, wood selecting and bending gluing or glass and fabric are unlikely to gain the requisite skills and build their first aeroplane at the same time. . It's arguable GA organisations could easily handle teaching the RAAus flying syllabus also.. Mixed ones are fine. Few fly things like Quicksilver MX these days. Who's current on 2 strokes? Electric Why aren't we already around that? That's an easy one and a quantum jump in safety too.  Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, M61A1 said:

In my experience this is exactly what happens even if it isn't regulated.

Most people in aviation have an extremely strong self preservation instinct and if they are unsure, will seek knowledge, experience and/or assistance until they are satisfied that it shouldn't kill them.

That has been my experience at work. We look after a number of RAA types and even some VH that could already have been RAA registered. On the VH-XXX side only a few owner's will come in and assist with their annual, I think this can make for a better pilot having a good understanding of the aircraft's system's. Preparation of the paper work that will pass audit is a time consuming process, the spanner turning is the easy bit.    

Share this post


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

People who haven't already done a fair bit and have the basics with metal welding and forming, riveting, wood selecting and bending gluing or glass and fabric are unlikely to gain the requisite skills and build their first aeroplane at the same time

The whole point of the home building experience is an educational one. This was the rationale for the movement in the US and I suspect most of the rest of the world. When I built my aircraft the hand skills I possessed were those I had accumulated building (and constantly rebuilding) balsa model aircraft or keeping equipment going on the farm. Hardly skills that prepared me for the aircraft build. Along the way I accumulated a lot of tools that made the job easier, several new (experienced builder) friends and a stack of new skills.

Frankly, I find the presumption that those of us who are not (because we have chosen other career paths) possessed of trade qualifications are somehow inept with our hands to be the height of occupational snobbery that is unfortunately reflected in RAAus's L2 assessment.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/09/2019 at 1:18 AM, pmccarthy said:

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?

It's not about making you safer, it's about limiting the risk to the people around you. You can make your own decisions and choose your own risks, but limited speed and limited weight limits the kinetic energy available to cause damage.

 

Back in the AUF days, exemptions were negotiated on the basis that the ultra-light weight of the aircraft meant that risk to others was insignificant. On that basis:

  • You can fly without a CASA license
  • You can do your own maintenance
  • You don't need an aviation medical
  • Aircraft don't need to be certified to the normal GA standards

as long as the weight and stall speed were below specified limits.

 

In the early AUF days the weight limit was 450kg. Then it was raised to 480kg. Then 544kg. Then 600kg. Now talk about 760kg, and campaigning for higher stall speed as well.

 

When do you get to the point where the ultralight exemptions become unjustifiable? Already exemptions are being wound back, e.g. stricter licensing, stricter maintenance, stricter medical requirements. The CASA RPL is an additional danger for the RAA - at some point the differences with the RPL will become unjustifiable and requirements are likely to be merged. Don't be surprised if e.g. suddenly you need a RPL medical and LAME maintenance in return for higher weight limits. And I doubt that there will be sub-categories based on weight operating under RAA.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Frankly, I find the presumption that those of us who are not (because we have chosen other career paths) possessed of trade qualifications are somehow inept with our hands to be the height of occupational snobbery that is unfortunately reflected in RAAus's L2 assessment.

I agree entirely with this as only being educated for Five years, Then off to the work-force. 

 

"  Posted   On 16/09/2019 at 1:18 AM, pmccarthy said:

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?

"It's not about making you safer, it's about limiting the risk to the people around you. You can make your own decisions and choose your own risks, but limited speed and limited weight limits the kinetic energy available to cause damage."

 

IF CASA wanted safety for the public, they wouldn't allow PROPELLERS on the front end of aircraft !.

 

"Back in the AUF days, exemptions were negotiated on the basis that the ultra-light weight of the aircraft meant that risk to others was insignificant. On that basis,

  • You can fly without a CASA license
  • You can do your own maintenance
  • You don't need an aviation medical
  • Aircraft don't need to be certified to the normal GA standards

as long as the weight and stall speed were below specified limits.

 

In the early AUF days the weight limit was 450kg. Then it was raised to 480kg. Then 544kg. Then 600kg. Now talk about 760kg, and campaigning for higher stall speed as well."

And they didn't have to comply with the WING LOAD Rule.

 

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How significant is the risk to others of recreational aircraft hitting them?

has anyone not involved ever been hurt?

would they have not been hurt if aircraft was 100kg heavier or traveliing 3kt faster?

 

Risk assessment appears often based on what someone or public thinks might happen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the aircraft that would migrate to RAA under the 760kg weight limit if stall speed was not 45kt were designed to FAR 23 or CAR3 in which case the structures were designed to the higher stall speeds.

Yes if you hit the ground you may be hurt, but if you have stalled the aircraft into the ground there is every likelihood that the impact speed will be higher than the stall speed.

The wing loading of a  Jabiru 160 is about 67kg/m2 which is higher than a Cherokee 140 and Cessna 172( 65kg/m2) and a Cessna 150 (50kg/m2) . Interestingly the recommended landing speeds are similar (63 - 65 kts). Surely this is a better determinant than stall speed.

The numbers still used in training of these types bear testimony to their ruggedness and safety performance.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

How significant is the risk to others of recreational aircraft hitting them?

has anyone not involved ever been hurt?

would they have not been hurt if aircraft was 100kg heavier or traveliing 3kt faster?

 

Risk assessment appears often based on what someone or public thinks might happen

when was the last time an RAA aircraft killed someone on the ground? its an abstract risk

Share this post


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

when was the last time an RAA aircraft killed someone on the ground? its an abstract risk

As we already know from previous discussions, there is no such thing as an acceptable kill rate, and there does not have to be a sample kill, just a reasonably forseeable risk of people on the ground being injured or killed, and even if you just stick to this site, over the years there have been lots of misses.

Share this post


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

there is no such thing as an acceptable kill rate,

I believe there is such a thing, it's just that our  we're too stupid (as a country) to understand how things really work.

The law of diminishing returns applies, and we have way overshot the point where the expense (both financial and freedoms) for the return is acceptable.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I believe there is such a thing, it's just that our  we're too stupid (as a country) to understand how things really work.

The law of diminishing returns applies, and we have way overshot the point where the expense (both financial and freedoms) for the return is acceptable.

Unfortunately for you there’s the reality which we don’t get a chance to change on a case by case basis.

 

Share this post


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

Unfortunately for you

Not just me Turbo. This whole country is slipping away while we chase rainbows.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, M61A1 said:

Not just me Turbo. This whole country is slipping away while we chase rainbows.

There are still small groups of people around the various industries who think like that, but the Governments are showing no signs of changing direction. What they are doing where people are winging it and not accepting self management is introducing a layer of safety regulation which make these people accountable, so you don't want to be getting caught up in that. A good example is what's about to hit the multi story building industry.

 

In this case reading back through the posts, there's a lot of speculation about 760 kg, but not much hard evidence in the form of a CASA announcement with the attached conditions such as LAME maintenance and Class 2 medical.

 

So you may have nothing to worry about anyway.

 

As far as the "missing" Part 103 MOS which several people have abused CASA for, what CASA have said is: "proposed regulations make provision for a Part 103 Manual of Standards which is intended to be introduced in 2020."    https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/cd-1910os/

 

The MOS will be subject to a separate public consultation.   

 

Some people on here are saying they have a problem with the legal wording, and with the order of discussion, and there always will be some people who struggle with that, but its common to have multiple people working on large documents, and it's common to have time commonality; for example these days freeways are built by separate contractors as section at a time rather than the old method of starting in one suburb

and continuing in the same direction until the next suburb is reached.

 

Leaving the MOS until last has the advantage that it can be written when all of the regulation parts have been set in concrete, so becomes a more logical document, rather than starting out as someone's thought bubble and having to be amended as each part of the regulation is changed, eventually becoming the dog's breakfast that people complain about.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Leaving the MOS until last has the advantage that it can be written when all of the regulation parts have been set in concrete,

Leaving the MOS until last is unacceptable and is akin to signing a blank document. The Part 103 document refers repeatedly  to the MOS, making it necessary to have both side by side to read and understand the document. It is impossible the make any kind of judgement on the Part 103 document without the MOS as it is meaningless without the MOS. 

 

It is woefully written and contradicts itself in places. This is not  a problem about legalese is about very poor authoring.

 

I'm not much worried about the 760 kg thing. It could be great, but based on CASAs release, it will be a big fancy box of nothing with a lot of fanfare.

 

I'm well aware that the govt shows no signs of changing direction. It concerns me greatly. I see what happens in the Socialist State of Victoria and know that  it is only a matter of time before the cancer spreads elsewhere. Much of it already has.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

Leaving the MOS until last is unacceptable and is akin to signing a blank document. The Part 103 document refers repeatedly  to the MOS, making it necessary to have both side by side to read and understand the document. It is impossible the make any kind of judgement on the Part 103 document without the MOS as it is meaningless without the MOS. [/quote]

No it's not; you just read the document as referring to "the MOS".    Over the following year, when the MOS is being developed, everyone knows which parts of the regulation it's to be developed for and will get the chance to see drafts, and comment to ensure it is appropriate for the new Part 103 material.

 

Quote

I'm well aware that the govt shows no signs of changing direction. It concerns me greatly. I see what happens in the Socialist State of Victoria and know that  it is only a matter of time before the cancer spreads elsewhere. Much of it already has.[/quote]

It's odd that you would say that, because South Australia and Queensland, are well ahead of us in updating standards.

 

 

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas Turbs, you are right about what the government will probably do and yet I lament the loss of freedoms that we face. There is a Benjamin Franklin quote about how those who trade essential freedoms for a bit of safety will finish with neither freedom or safety. The world has some spectacular examples of how true that is, but like most people, we are going to find out the hard way.

 

Share this post


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

Alas Turbs, you are right about what the government will probably do and yet I lament the loss of freedoms that we face. There is a Benjamin Franklin quote about how those who trade essential freedoms for a bit of safety will finish with neither freedom or safety. The world has some spectacular examples of how true that is, but like most people, we are going to find out the hard way.

 

What about the 10,000 people who are now free to build their own aircraft and fly it? Couldn’t do that in the prescriptive days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

", but its common to have multiple people working on large documents, "

Please change "People" to "Lawyers"

and thats accurate for CASA.

 

"What about the 10,000 people who are now free to build their own aircraft and fly it? Couldn’t do that in the prescriptive days."

I Beg to differ !.

In the OLD UFA, there were NO "wing Load" rule for any builder, Let alone 95 10.

No new Hummels to my knowledge ?.

The rule of the Bureaucrats.

spacesailor

 

Share this post


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

What about the 10,000 people who are now free to build their own aircraft and fly it? Couldn’t do that in the prescriptive days.

"Free" as long as you do it how we tell you......Not really "freedom", no-one in this country is really "free".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

"Free" as long as you do it how we tell you......Not really "freedom", no-one in this country is really "free".

What a load of whining. You really want to go back the prescriptgive days and have NONE???????????

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


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

", but its common to have multiple people working on large documents, "

Please change "People" to "Lawyers"

and thats accurate for CASA.

 

"What about the 10,000 people who are now free to build their own aircraft and fly it? Couldn’t do that in the prescriptive days."

I Beg to differ !.

In the OLD UFA, there were NO "wing Load" rule for any builder, Let alone 95 10.

No new Hummels to my knowledge ?.

The rule of the Bureaucrats.

spacesailor

 

I wasn't talking about lawyers, I was talking about many businesses today.

 

As I recall, Kasper provided the solution for the Hummel.

 

 

 

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...