Simonflyer Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Whether we like it or not RA AUS still is an U/L based organisation...So if we really want to go out and fly heavy beasts we can..In VH aircraft..I think the separation is really good Because the more RA becomes like GA the more costs will rise and the less "recreational" it will become.I want flying to stay within the price bracket of as many people as possible. I personally will be happy if RA keeps on cutting its own path quite seperately from GA because thats what i actually like about it..Its not GA.. Please dont hate me too much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walter Buschor Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Does it really matter if we don't get this increase? Many have said it before but I would like to say it again that it may not be of any benefit to RAA exept for the 150/152/ Tomohawk / Skipper owners. Whilst I have no problem in principle with the increase it would allow very old airframes into RAA that where designed to be LAME maintained. They are not your average Ultralight we're used to and do require some specialist knowledge to maintain them properly. I doubt that this would be the case since the owner would do most if not all of the work under RAA rules - and to save money. We all know what CASA is like and I cannot see why - if these planes are with RAA - they might not in the future make it a requirement that all our planes are LAME checked / maintained since we would have planes within our ranks that where designed that way ie:150/152 etc. any comments ? safe flying the grey Nomad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG3 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Well said Simonflyer. By all means lighten some GA rules to make it easier for those aircraft within that system, but please don't load down RAAus with all the compexity that would come with them. The golden rule of flying ultralights - keep it light, keep it simple. That's why we now have such light and simple rules. JG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Does anyone get the feeling that RA-Aus might know about the background to this? Anyone suspect a deal was done? Let's not get into conspiracy theories and all that :big_grin: When the CEO of CASA addressed the board and then through the subsequent Q&A time it was very clear in tone, in body language and in words used...he just simply has far too much on his plate at the moment to consider a weight change for RAAus and the processes (and work load involved) that will need to be involved to make it happen. He explained that he needs to complete all the other work that needs to be done by CASA in other areas of aviation first. He also stated in the same context that he hopes to get clear of all this by April next year. One this he also mentioned was that he had received some "initial" objections to it from a couple of RAAus/GA flying schools. Now what happens after April next year...your guess would be as good as mine but I hope this helps to clear the air, for the time being anyway, on any conspiracy theories or "dead in the water" type statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastmeg2 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Perhaps the "April next year" line is a subtle hint that if next years Natfly can go without the flying displays seen at this years event he may reconsider his current approach to RAAus requests for changes . . . going from :baldy: to :peepwall:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 NatFly this year had nothing to do with it however it is always a point and great for bringing it up that we must keep that in mind as RAAus pilots - doesn't Lee always say what we do today as aviators paves the way for our freedoms of tomorrow...or something like that :big_grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Is it not about time the members and admin of RAA had a win:question: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I am flying and have my little beast. I consider that a win in anyone's language. I did not have to fork out a mortgage to get a "licence" and can fly for the cost of a second car, Another win. I can maintain my aircraft and not pay a fortune to a LAME every 100 hrs, I've won again win. Works for me!!!!!!! Just my 0.2c worth Maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 For me, it is beyond individual issues like these; there is a greater problem. My way of solving it? Very simplistic here, but it captures the spirit of my ideas. Basically, change VH-experimental: Allow most 2 seater piston single aircraft, including factory built, to be registered VH-experimental, which allows owner maintenance Allow VH-exp a/c to remain owner maintained even if sold by the original home builder Require PPL for the above For me, PPL is not the issue. Gaining and keeping one is not that much more expensive, especially starting from RAA. Annual medicals for the over 40s are over the top, that should be scaled back for cost reasons. But the main thing this would save is maintenance, which is by far the biggest saving that RA-Aus makes for owners. You could take your J230 and use it all the way up to 700KG because the stall speed limit would go away also! You could buy a brand new DA-20 and maintain it yourself. You might even be able to buy that old C152 and make it experimental. It simply makes no sense that I can buy a SportStar, 24-register it, maintain it myself and fly it into CTA with a PPL. But register the same aircraft VH and you can do all the same things, except maintain it. That is madness. Same for learning VH in a SportStar at RVAC, but then needing another 5 hours training before you can fly an RA-Aus registered one. With the above changes, recreational flyers that want more would go PPL and VH-exp for only a small cost increase (and without the requirement to build their own aircraft) and RA-Aus only deals with ultralights but with more limitations on the operations than VH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Re J230 600kg limit, this is for RA or GA in Factory built, has to be owner built to qualify for 700kg MTOW under GA. The 544kg limit for these is not enough, to keep them this light means flying with small amounts of fuel or leaving possibly safety gear out - crazy stuff considering the AC can handle it fine with just a small increase in stall speed. J200/400 has 45kts stall @ 544kg, 48kts @ 700kg I agree regarding the PPL experimental changes, but doesnt the RAA changes facilitate the same end result? Altering medical requirements for GA would be a tough road. Re the self maintenence issue, arent we going to have the same issues with old AC and maintenence soon? Some RA AC are getting older too, and it could be argued not as robust as GA types originally, so wont we have similar issues as C150's in the oncoming years? Might not be a strong arguement "that our AC are OK under self maintain 'cause they are newer". Im not a real fan of bringing these into RA as many will end up there BECAUSE of the reduced maint requirements - exactly the ones we dont need. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I agree regarding the PPL experimental changes, but doesnt the RAA changes facilitate the same end result? No, because these aircraft would then still be lobbed in with the same organisation that manages powered chutes! (i.e.: the people that don't care about PLBs, CTA and MTOW increases and such) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Same for learning VH in a SportStar at RVAC, but then needing another 5 hours training before you can fly an RA-Aus registered one. If you have GFPT, there is no RAAus requirement for 5 hours training in this scenario - just whatever the CFI deems necessary. The 5 hours minimum is only for low-performance ultralights. Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Not sure when you last looked at comparative costs for Pilot Cert Vs PPL but by my reckoning it costs 3 times as much to get to PPL. There are several threads on this site from people converting RA-Aus (with PAX and XC) to PPL. For most it is sitting the PPL test and about 5 to 10 flying hours. So around $2500 on top of your RA-Aus license is about it. And we're (well I am) just not interested in flying into busy airports, flying in other than in VMC nor going on to a career in aviation. Which is exactly why my proposal makes sense, you can stay with RA-Aus and enjoy the flying you do now. You just wont get to do it in an aircraft that weighs more than 600kg, or in CTA. Choice is good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I would like to see a head-count here. What percentage of the membership wants /needs 760kg, and what percentage is happy with 600kg ?. I'll start off with I'm happy with 600kg and it's simplicity. Ian could this be the next weekly forum question, or have we done it already ?......................................................................................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 That's not a bad question Maj. Ian and I were just discussing what this week's question would be. I would settle for 600kg, but where do you get 600kg from? That's for LSA only, and it is quite restrictive in other ways. Most of us are limited to 544kg. I can get by pretty well because mine weighs only 267kg empty, so I have 277kg payload - usually enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I would have liked 760kg if I went to the Aircraft Kits new one, but since I have an LSA limited to 600kg, and buying an amphibian with MTOW of 600kg (although allowed 650kg LSA, or 614kg 95.55) it is no real concern to me. HOWEVER being able to carry 260-280kg payload is. That to me is the important point to allow legal flight for two over Australia. My LSAs legal payload is less than I want; my amphibian is 280kg (at600kg MTOW)...just what I wanted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest basscheffers Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I can personally see a real good use for a >600KG two seater so you get full fuel, two real people and enough baggage for a good, long, comfortable camping trip. I don't see a need to get C152s on our roster as they offer less capability than our current aircraft; they are simply heavier. However, I doubt there will be many manufacturers lining up to create such an aircraft as the big market is the US, which is limited to 600KG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hey Im having trouble keeping up here, whatever it is now--554kg ???.......................... Just for historys' sake...when the yanks created the first FAR 103 (1x page document by the way) they took the heavest UL of the day, and that was the allowable max weight !. It was Craig Cattos' Goldwing which weighed in at ...254lbs. You were allowed another 25Kgs on top of that if you fitted a ballistic parachute !, so you could go 300 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 But at 650kg Jab 230 will not stay under 45 knot stall speed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Easy, put another foot or two of wing on it and slow it down a bit............FJOn............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEON Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Stand corrected on 230D...@600kg stall 45kt clean, 40kt with flaps. My error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi All, just my 10 dollars worth, i would like a slight increase, not may be not to 750 etc. But maybe to 650 kgs, as i weigh approx 95 kgs. With a/c like the Brumby etc (130 ltrs of fuel). With me, a similar size passenger, full fuel, and some baggage, i would like to have a bit of leeway, before reaching the Mtow. Which at the moment i would quite easily reach/exceeded. Australias a big country, as they say the only time you have to much fuel is when your on fire. To a/c would obviously have to be designed for the weigh and still be able to fit into stall speed requirements. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cloudsuck Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hot off the press. 319108152_CAO_95_early_implementation_of_Part_103_sport_rec_forum_posting_september_2009.pdf 319108152_CAO_95_early_implementation_of_Part_103_sport_rec_forum_posting_september_2009.pdf 319108152_CAO_95_early_implementation_of_Part_103_sport_rec_forum_posting_september_2009.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 hey Major wasn't the first 103 ultralights had to be able to demonstrate the ability to be foot launched regardless if they were fitted with wheels. i remember seeing a photo in 'glider rider' where 5 people picked up a weedhopper and ran it off a hill into 15kt winds. slight loop hole as the reg did not state how many feet could be used. ANO95:10 was also a one page document as well. i think it should come back to wing loading not stall speed to set the acceptance standard. more fairer and less neeed on design of flaps and other lift/drag devices and pilot skills to obtain more honest landing speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crezzi Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hot off the press. This document says that PLB will be required more than 25nm from takeoff. I thought that it was going to be 50 as per CAR252 ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now