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

RAAus bid to increase MTOW weight allowance

Recommended Posts

 It doesn't represent a can of worms either but probably worth more unopened. There are no silly questions. It's only silly if you don't bother to ask the important ones.

   Confusion and Aviation are a bad mix.. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2019 at 4:17 PM, pmccarthy said:

Turbs lists in post 12 reasons why members want the higher limit. He seems to present these in a derogatory way, but to me they are all perfectly valid aspirations for members to have. He ends with” pushed by one of these agendas” - well yes, and why not?

A couple of reasons not to are potential safety issues caused by people with insufficient training and or insufficient aircraft specifications.

This can be resolved by mandating CTA training and testing of pilots to the same standard as PPL, and bringing aircraft specificatiions up to the same TSO and specification level as GA.

Similarly, the health risk can be resolved by rerquiring a Class 2 medical for RA pilots.

The upsides of that is a benefit for a tiny percentage of RA pilots and a huge cost increase for the thousands who are happy with they have, along with removing the unhealthy pilots from the pilot register, and committing othere to the high cost DAME system.

That's the big picture.

The biggest risk is that even if you do a slightly less than 100% of this, like leaving out the medical, or approving some aircraft but not having a way of proving they qualify in real life at ATC level (refer to the people who don't pay landing fees) you are then discriminating against the fully qualified GA Pilots and aircraft, and lowering the safety standard in the CTA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 IF some have to do it the CONVENTIONAL way,  can you really allow a back door short cut to operate in parallel? IF it's good enough it has to be good enough for all.          In any case the CTA specs are to an international standard substantially and no one is going to stick their neck out very far, for really nothing in it for them with the liabilities involved .. Special entry VFR for certain localities and transit procedures (lanes)  are all you want.. A lot of CTA is over really crook terrain you wouldn't want to fly over if you are safety consciuos either. Nev.

  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some overweight RA pilot/owners who want to carry a passenger plus fuel, in some cases full fuel. Yes, that seems reasonable to me. Why wouldn’t they want that? How is that harming anyone. As an overweight person who has flown Bass Strait three times, why wouldn’t I want to take full fuel?

 

There are some GA pilots who want to move to RA because they can no longer pass a Class 2 medical. Yes, that could be me at any renewal. I am on the annual review. What is wrong with that. I have also been a pilot member since AUF days.

 

There are some people who want to fly Quasi GA aircraft cross-country, so bigger engines, bigger aircraft within the RA MTOW, and they would like to add more structural strength. People are already flying long cross countries in machines that are more technologically advanced than most GA planes. Some more structural strength would improve safety.

 

There are some with older GA aircraft who want to get out of paying a LAME to maintain the aircraft. UK and Canada have shown this is OK. No adverse safety issues. I would not do that myself.

Edited by pmccarthy
  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some overweight RA pilot/owners who want to carry a passenger plus fuel, in some cases full fuel. Yes,

that seems reasonable to me. Why wouldn’t they want that? How is that harming anyone. As an overweight person who has flown Bass Strait three times, why wouldn’t I want to take full fuel?

I'm surprised that you, flying a PA28 would not be aware that virtually all single engine airctraft are weight limited so everyone has that problem, but if a Cherokee Six owner complained that he couldn't carry six pax, full baggage and full fuel, pax overweight or not and he applied to CASA for a permit to increase the maximum gross mass to the same asw a twin, he would be seen as a laughing stock.

 

In column 1 of this chart of a typical Cherokee 6 - 300 with three couples - males at 90 kg, females at 80 kg, the aircraft would be 137 overloaded, so same problem as a Jabiru.

 

Lets say the planned trip requires full fuel

Column 2 shows 1 solution - leave out the centre 2 pax

There will usually be other solutions if six pax are essential, like cutting back on some baggage, cutting back on some fuel and having some pax lighter, but for this exercise we're making it simple.

 

The Gross weights in this column would be suitable to do the same trip across Bass Strait you were referring to (I hope you weren't suggeting you were going across with 4 pax, full fuel and full baggage).

 

Column 3 has much heavier pax, and comes in 227 kg overloaded, so you don't fly in that configuration.

 

Column 4 shows you can fly those people on a short trip with 44% fuel and no bags.

 

That's what every pilot in GA is doing, or is supposed to be doing. If the task is too big for a Warrior, he goes up to a heavier aircraft.

If the required load is too great a Recretional Pilot needs to go up into GA.

 

There are some GA pilots who want to move to RA because they can no longer pass a Class 2 medical.

Yes, that could be me at any renewal. I am on the annual review. What is wrong with that. I have also been a pilot member since AUF days.

There's nothing wrong with that, but they are going to be p!ssed off beyond all recognition if, just as they get there, a small minority manages to talk CASA into 760 kg MTOW, and CASA add the safety compensation of requiring a Class 2 medical.

 

There are some people who want to fly Quasi GA aircraft cross-country, so bigger engines, bigger aircraft within the RA MTOW, and they would like to add more structural strength.

People are already flying long cross countries in machines that are more technologically advanced than most GA planes. Some more structural strength would improve safety.

We'll leave aside the more technologically advanced claim becaise that irrelevant because those aircraft meet the current specifications - they don't need an increase to 760 kg. The relevant point was that some people, based on their own opinions as non-engineers, want to add more structural strength.

 

There are some with older GA aircraft who want to get out of paying a LAME to maintain the aircraft.

UK and Canada have shown this is OK. No adverse safety issues. I would not do that myself.

It's interesting that you would match yourself against a LAME, but I was simply making a point that some people want to do that.

If you think a little more objectively, that could result in (a) a cave-in of income streams for LAMES causing an industry collapse, and an aftermath. or

(b) a CASA decision to go ahead, but required LAME maintenance on 760 kg aircraft, weakening the financial model for that weight aircraft.

 

 

 

WDCherokee6300.JPG
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This can be resolved by mandating CTA training and testing of pilots to the same standard as PPL, and bringing aircraft specificatiions up to the same TSO and specification level as GA.

Similarly, the health risk can be resolved by rerquiring a Class 2 medical for RA pilots."

 

Quicker , all those wanting that weight increase is to put them ALL in VH category'

CTA get VH & PPL Licence, Not a RAA certificate.

I can't fly with a aeroModelers,  radio control certificate.

spacesailor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew Bass Strait in a 550 kg LSA. With my wife and legal fuel. With 760kg I could have done it much more safely. How can anyone object?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

"This can be resolved by mandating CTA training and testing of pilots to the same standard as PPL, and bringing aircraft specificatiions up to the same TSO and specification level as GA.

Similarly, the health risk can be resolved by rerquiring a Class 2 medical for RA pilots."

 

Quicker , all those wanting that weight increase is to put them ALL in VH category'

CTA get VH & PPL Licence, Not a RAA certificate.

I can't fly with a aeroModelers,  radio control certificate.

spacesailor

Well I am glad that you are that cashed up then...a lot of us are NOT  90% of RAA pilots have no desire to fly into CTA for normal ops..why would you want to anyway 3k plus for the cheapest radio 3 times more expensive for instruments in the aircraft..stupid prices for transponders and maint..not to mention all the excess over the yop crap paperwork...who in their right mind wants to land at Brisbane airport...landing fees are hundreds of doollars

 

 

 

Edited by Kyle Communications
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I'll leave aside the more technologically advanced claim becaise that irrelevant because those aircraft meet the current specifications - they don't need an increase to 760 kg. The relevant point was that some people, based on their own opinions as non-engineers, want to add more structural strength.

 

 

Personally I think that just 650kgs is needed, not 760, but an increase none the less over the current 600..

 

 

 

My roll cage will add almost 10 kgs by the time it's completely done, some other weight increases due to  seriously cutting both costs and ease of construction, are you suggesting the status quo of expensive planes, as well as this, are acceptable?

 

2130721125_flipped1.thumb.jpg.5d413d6693fa201ee5d53a6bf30bf6ad.jpg

458747254_flipped2.thumb.jpg.a6f13dc9eebe768bd9580a231a507f2b.jpg

 

I want to build safer, cheaper aircraft, it requires a tad more weight if fat blokes, which, speaking of status quo, there is a lot of about now, want to be included.

 

Plane manufacturers and the Governing bodies simply haven't been realistic about people getting larger, both in body mass and height. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bexrbetter said:

 

Personally I think that just 650kgs is needed, not 760, but an increase none the less over the current 600..

 

 

 

My roll cage will add almost 10 kgs by the time it's completely done, some other weight increases due to  seriously cutting both costs and ease of construction, are you suggesting the status quo of expensive planes, as well as this, are acceptable?

 

2130721125_flipped1.thumb.jpg.5d413d6693fa201ee5d53a6bf30bf6ad.jpg

458747254_flipped2.thumb.jpg.a6f13dc9eebe768bd9580a231a507f2b.jpg

 

I want to build safer, cheaper aircraft, it requires a tad more weight if fat blokes, which, speaking of status quo, there is a lot of about now, want to be included.

 

Plane manufacturers and the Governing bodies simply haven't been realistic about people getting larger, both in body mass and height. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand where you're going with structure. The issue is going that little further that enters GA specification levels and opens up Pandora's box in relation to training, operations, maintenance, double standards, discrimination, safety standards, health standards etc.  At 650 kg you might have an argument, and should submit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of RA aircraft manufacturer tested to 700kg flying restricted to 600kg now, mainly by stall speed

A 2 kt increase in stall and 100kg MTOW would allow 2 pax and full fuel

 

No comparison to Cherokee 6 which is operated at max manufacturer MTOW presently.

Share this post


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

 

Personally I think that just 650kgs is needed, not 760, but an increase none the less over the current 600..

 

 

 

My roll cage will add almost 10 kgs by the time it's completely done, some other weight increases due to  seriously cutting both costs and ease of construction, are you suggesting the status quo of expensive planes, as well as this, are acceptable?

 

2130721125_flipped1.thumb.jpg.5d413d6693fa201ee5d53a6bf30bf6ad.jpg

458747254_flipped2.thumb.jpg.a6f13dc9eebe768bd9580a231a507f2b.jpg

 

I want to build safer, cheaper aircraft, it requires a tad more weight if fat blokes, which, speaking of status quo, there is a lot of about now, want to be included.

 

Plane manufacturers and the Governing bodies simply haven't been realistic about people getting larger, both in body mass and height. 

I'm confused ... often ... JBR is an RV-14A.  So a MTOW of about 930kgs.  Not sure how an increase to 650kgs or 750kgs would have any impact on the safety of this model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see no reason at all why RAA aircraft cannot fly into CTR so long as they are trained in CTR and their aircraft has a transponder. The NZ RA has a CTR endorsement so why can't RA-AUS? RA aircraft have been flying in CTR in NZ for at least 20 years with no more issues than with GA aircraft. Weight increase is irrelevant to this. There is only one thing stopping it happen, CASA. What is the perceived problem? The benefits are safer skies for all & isn't this what CASA is supposed to be about

Share this post


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

I'm confused ... often ... JBR is an RV-14A.  So a MTOW of about 930kgs.  Not sure how an increase to 650kgs or 750kgs would have any impact on the safety of this model?

 

The cabins on those examples, and many more, have collapsed.

 

Merely pointing out the need for a rollbar, quite hard to do with the current LSA weight limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to be able to carry a life raft over water. Not legally possible for most people at existing weight limits. Or a couple of folding bikes in a J230 with two POB.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I can see no reason at all why RAA aircraft cannot fly into CTR so long as they are trained in CTR and their aircraft has a transponder. The NZ RA has a CTR endorsement so why can't RA-AUS? RA aircraft have been flying in CTR in NZ for at least 20 years with no more issues than with GA aircraft. Weight increase is irrelevant to this. There is only one thing stopping it happen, CASA. What is the perceived problem? The benefits are safer skies for all & isn't this what CASA is supposed to be about

They can???

Pilot needs PPL (inc current medical and CTA endorsement),

Aircraft needs transponder and approval which RAA can issue

Share this post


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

I have. Never once even had my email acknowledged as received.

 

DON'T THEY KNOW WHO I AM!!??

Maybe they know you only too well; and are sitting there saying "How can we get out of THIS one?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

They can???

Pilot needs PPL (inc current medical and CTA endorsement),

Aircraft needs transponder and approval which RAA can issue

Why does a pilot need a PPL? Why does a pilot need a medical? These are just BS excuses. A CTR endorsement & transponder is in reality the only difference. Works fine elsewhere in the world but for some reason it can't possibly work here.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say I own a J230 and want to carry additional weight. The aeroplane is safe to do it, it is the same as a J430 without the rear seats. There are three possibilities:

Don't carry it, it is illegal

carry it, you will never get caught

Lobby for a higher weight limit.

 

which is the best option?

Share this post


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

Say I own a J230 and want to carry additional weight. The aeroplane is safe to do it, it is the same as a J430 without the rear seats. There are three possibilities:

Don't carry it, it is illegal

carry it, you will never get caught

Lobby for a higher weight limit.

 

which is the best option?

 

D: Pour yourself a Whiskey?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bexrbetter said:

 

😧 Pour yourself a Whiskey?

E: A warm milk before bed time should stop those dreams.

  • Like 2

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...