JabiruJoe

Thanks for your support Eightyknots, I hope not only I get them back but all the aircraft effected by the situation. Not at all "a fair and just"(Darryl Kerrigan's words ) situation. We talk about an Australian ethos and a fair go, it's time for exactly that....a fair go.

Just for the sake of clarity, I purchased the aircraft second hand which is why I had the time to do the due diligence bit. The fact that I actually aaked the relevant authority what was the correct MTOW, and they replied with 520kg, is what made me buy it, and is now stuck in my craw.

Okay, thanks for the heads up on that. By the way I am sending you a pm shortly.

Just as another possible point to apply pressure....advice on the benefits/detriments of compiling the story, complete with the possible negligence of a government body, and submitting it to something like 7.30 Report or similar..

That is helpful thanks Casper. Put that in the sequence of steps I think.

I've been told I can write to CASA and ask for an explanation as to why this first situation (i.e. approval at 520kg) transpired. Assuming an honest answer is then received, I then go and contact the Minister who has 28 days to look into it and respond. If on the other hand I don't get either an honest answer or just do not get a reply, I do the same thing. At the very least it will highlight and then hopefully encourage something be done to rectify the situation a government body did that may have been illegal. Anyone with experience out there know of this angle?

To get back to the thread and try to garner some input on the MTOW issue rather than have an emotive discussion on the circumstances surrounding two poor souls deaths.......... If the "M" in MARAP means "modification", that does not exclusively mean a physical mod necessarily. The adjustment of the MTOW is a modification under the guidlines is it not? When I submitted my MARAP papers, the process said it might take 12 months on some cases. As I had previously been advised as per the first post, I did make contact with RA-Aus after a few months and asked how it was going. When told it had not even been started and would not be started for quite a while, I let the person know of my displeasure to which, on numerous times, I was stonewalled with the comment "you were advised it could take 12 months". Well, guess what, its well over 12 months (over two years in total in fact) that the MTOW limit has been applied and MARAP has not changed a thing. That is two years of an aircraft that cannot do the job for which it was purchased (post #1) I imagine there will be blame shifting when I do make contact, will there be any acceptance of responsibility for their actions I wonder. If CASA can make directives as it desires and without explanation as has been suggested in this forum earlier on, and they are just as culpable as RA-Aus due to their lack of oversight, then why can't they direct an interim increase until MARAP solves the problem? Is it true that CASA can make such a directive? Is it a realistic expectation of the MARAP to think it can rectify the situaton within a reasonable time?

Does anyone know the precise steps involved in a completed MARAP process to increase the MTOW? Not the application process, the approval process. I have made the question to RA-Aus but the reply has been less than detailed.

I managed a satisfactory 13 page download too thanks Oscar. Much appreciated.

I understand and respect that Kasper, it's great information and hope you continue to contribute.

Aint that the truth!!!

Thanks for your input (#23) too Andy. I was planning a phone call to the CEO after absorbing all the info I hoped to get on the forum. I fully understand the cost benefit bit and my aim is not financial, rather a usable aeroplane bought after asking pertinent queations of RA-Aus. The main critera was met at the MTOW advised and registered at which now seems to have been done illegaly by that very body. How come I am now penalised after doing the due diligence on the very subject. Should the situation that is affecting others by their actions not be rectified? Should they not be responsible for their actions. Rectification to the previous MTOW that they advised was the correct one, is in my mind an obligation. I have a very expensive single seater. Or is it an anchor?

Thanks kasper...nope, I do not want any form of compensation other than a return to the MTOW of 520kg.

Oh, that's a bundle of good news Kasper!!! Does that therefore mean the Certificate of Compliance to operate at 520kg, issued by RA-Aus, under delegation from CASA is illegal? Did they CASA/RA-Aus, commit an illegal act? If the answer is "yes" because they did not have the authority to do so, then are they not negligent? The negligence has resulted in loss to many. They need to fix it.

Yes Oscar, you are correct in saying they have different figures but it is explained in the Confirming Certificate where it states the standards "meet or exceed". The factory data indicates it is designed and flown to the 520kg. Here in Oz we need to comply with the country of origins certifications BUT we can have a higher MTOW provided a whole pile of requirements are met. The data RA-Aus have been provided complies with all those requirements to permit a higher MTOW. One of the requirements is an independent (not manufacturer) statement that the standards are met and it is none other than the Czech LAA that have provided this statement saying it complies wih the UL-05/2000 standard. And then we get back to Australia's acceptance of the standard, or perhaps .........

Thanks for jogging my tired old brain Oscar, you are correct, that is who I have heard of. Appreciate the link too and will go there. Hi jetr, hope you can help. The aircraft is a factory built and has done, according to the factory supplied paperwork, proving and testing to the 520kg. The Czech, German and other regulatory bodies have approved the higher weight and their standards are recognised by most aviation bodies(UL-05/2000 Czech, 61174-DaeC Germany, FIN/U003 CAA Finland,. 72-11006-2 CAA Denmark). Based on what I have, Australia is one of those bodies that recognise the standard listed. If they (RA-AUS) have seen the documents that do prove its safe, complies and is designed to the higher weight as per those standards, what is their problem? I see the problem as one of negligence by CASA and RA-Aus in performance of their duties which has, or possibly can, cause consequential loss to a number of people. Always remembering that loss does not need to be always financial, it can be a loss of amenity. I still see the tempory fix as a return to the previous MTOW until its sorted. To answer your question as to who the action would be against, I don't know. Hence the need to find someone who has had experience in aviation law so that guidance can be obtained. At this stage, without any legal advice being so far provided, I would guess it would be joint RA-Aus and CASA as both seem to have failed in their duties of oversight with the resultant problem. I only surmise this, I have no idea but do want to find out what the options are. It may turn out there are others responsible or it may turn out no one is. It may also turn out a lot less harrowing with an interim upgrade permitted until the MARAP process can run its course. Thanks for your comments I want all views and advice I can get on this.

Thank you all who have responded with thought to my first post. I look forward to reading and gleaning more information in preparation. Kasper, one of the documents IS from the Czech LAA specifying 520kg, it should therefore have been accepted by RA-Aus/CASA at that weight in your opinion? Clive, you probably don't remember but I spoke to you at the time I was purchasing and we spoke of the varying figures for MTOW. Yours was for sale at the time. I'll figure out how to do a pm and get back to you. Oscar, Spencer Ferrier I have heard of. Do they come recommended for this sort of thing, if so would you know the contact person? RA-Aus monitor (and I know you are there), why does it have to get to this stage, why not do an interim return to MTOWs that existed before the audit, until it is sorted? That would be sensible and create a lot of goodwill. If any one knows of anybody affected by this issue could you please direct them to this thread so they can have the opportunity to comment. Thanks again all.

I own an aircraft that was issued (around 2005-6) a Certificate of Compliance by Ra-Aus to operate at 520kg. Before purchasing the aircraft I contacted RA-Aus to confirm the registered MTOW as I had read reviews that mentioned 450kg, 520kg, 544kg and 600kg. The paperwork received back showed 520kg. As this figure was needed for the purpose for which I was going to use the aircraft (2 people and required endurance with reserves to do a min of 3 hrs) I went ahead and purchased the aircraft. Two years ago, when rego renewal was due I was kindly advised by RA-Aus that I could no longer operate at 520kg. The MTOW was now restricted to 450kg! That effectively meant I owned an aircraft that was useless for the purpose for which it was purchased. On enquiry why the restriction I was advised by the tech manager that it was due to Australia having to comply with the country of certifications MTOW. By the way, the POH says the aircraft has MTOW of 520kg, the design data says it has been designed to 520kg and other data says that 520kg is the go. The aircraft actually has 600kg in the USA I believe. Here is the kicker,....the original Certificate of Compliance, issued by RA-Aus, signed by the then tech manager seems to have been (according to the current tech manager) issued WITHOUT AUTHORITY. So here we have a situation where RA-Aus has its stamp all over the letterhead pages, the tech manager has his signature all over the relevant spots on the pages of compliance but neither was ever authorised to issue the certificate. I did my due diligence before I purchased the aircraft because it had to be suitable for a specific purpose and relied to a large extent on the MTOW advised by RA-Aus. Who is responsible for this stuff up and financial loss in resale value due to the aircraft being restricted to a single seater instead of two places? It would seem CASA were negligent in not providing sufficient oversight to its delegate, Ra-Aus and RA-Aus did not provide sufficient oversight to its staff, the tech manager, and finally, the tech manager signed off on an illegal Certificate of Compliance. I have been trying to be reasonable with RA-Aus over the past 2 years and have been told variously : it is being worked on and won't be long, it will be ready before Natfly 2014, it will be done by Octobr 2014, I've just come from a meeting with CASA and they have approved a return verbally, the MARAP process will get it done within 12 months, you were no 3 in returned completed MARAP requests and it will be done after the Bolly Props, etc,etc,etc. Now, despite messages left on mobile numbers and e-mails to both the tech manager and assistant tech manager to PLEASE return my calls and e-mails there is a deathly silence. So much for better communication with members by RA-Aus! By the way, I did suggest early on to the tech managr that an interim return to 520kg whilst the mess was sorted would be a fair thing for all concerned. After all, the aircraft type (of which there are a few) had been flying in Australia for over 6 years without incident. This idea was pooh poohed. Compromise and acceptance of responsibility is obviously an issue. I understand that a fair number, of different brand aircraft, that were made in Europe are subject to this same restriction. My question is how many? I don't know how his site works with regard to private messages but would appreciate any help anyone can give as well as a rough indication of numbers of aircraft affected. I'm curreñtly trying to ascertain who the best person for legal advice on aviation regulations and culpability is with a view to further action. Any suggestions from anyone?

Hi, I hope this helps you along with Steves comments. I've owned a 2000 for a couple of years and am completely happy with it. The following are a few points for your consideration, starting at pre flight: 1. Pre flight is generally easy but the access to the oil filler is a bit awkward and if you drop the cap you may have to take off the top cowl to retrieve it - if it doesn't fall out the bottom onto the dirt! Inspection of the top surface of the elevator needs a step ladder. All other parts are easy to do. The spats need to be removed periodically to check the brake linings. Easy to do with just 5 small bolts securing them. 2. Start up & warm up. Straight forward but you will need to customise your start up proceedure as the fuel cock/mag/ign switch/fuel pump controls seem placed to deliberately muck up a flowing proceedure. Warm up is straight forward at 2000 rpm for about a minute then 2500 til 50 degrees of oil temp reached. This can take quite a while during winter but is usually accomplished during a warm up/taxi of about 10min in summer. Have never had an issue with overheating and have operated mine in some hot conditions. 3. Take off with one stage of flap, a pilot and 55ltrs gives a breathtaking performance due to the need to keep the speed down below 60knts (flap extension speed). Rate of climb is about 1400'/min continuous and an eye to the temp gauge needed. A flapless take off still gives better than average performance and the added speed is good if something unexpected happens (like the noise stopping). A little higher speed gives a slightly longer time to react. 4. Cruise is at 5200rpm and 100kts and 18ltrs/hr on the knocker. However I generally cruise at 5000/95/16ltr for a little less stress. With two average size people, 7kg luggage and 55ltrs an excellent range is achieved. This will have you landing before the bum gets numb. Coffee and a stretch good too. The aircraft requires flying, as do most RA aircraft but it can be elevator trimmed. I have found that correctly trimmed it can be a hands off if needed to make a note on the flight pad and right handed. If you are left handed - lucky you. The comfort is quite good even though the seats are not excessively padded. I have had a couple of bolster cushions made up with high density foam from Clark Rubber @ about $30 for the rubber & $80 for the upholstry trimmer. Use them most of the time and although I am 180cm can still just fit without my head touching the internal metal cage. The seats are adjustable over a large area and I have mine as low as possible and a fair way back. All controls are easy to access except the carby heat which needs just a tad of stretch and removal of the hand from the stick to do so. Mine is fitted with an X-Com 360 radio capable of dual watch - great little unit. Visibility is incredible to the front and sides with the expected restriction to the rear and rear quarters. The screen extends rearward over the pilots head and is helpful on occassions when turning etc. 5. On the control side of things, the roll is a bit heavy whilst the pitch is a bit sensitive. You get used to it fairly readily though and after a bit does not present any issues. You have to fly the aircraft when turning and rudder is required every time. Once again, this is fairly normal for this generation of aircraft. 6. Landing with one stage of flap needs to be carried out not above 60knts and can result, in windy conditions, with a bit of twitchiness around 50knts - just need to be alert to it and prepared to fly the aircraft. I operate in a sometimes busy airport with plenty of runway and so, to keep up with teh GA aircraft, do most of the approach at 70knts, flapless. Gives a lot more responsive control but more ground float and roll. If you wish to do a two stage of flap landing it may be best to let anything else in the circuit know as you will be very slow and almost vertical. The huge flaps act like the proverbial barn door. The ground roll is very short though. 7. Being composite fuselage and metalwing is a great combination. The internal construction with a metal cockpit subframe a terrific safety feature. 8. Mine is a 100hp unit but I believe there are some with 80hp also - I'd say go the 100. 9. The standard aircraft is quite well equipped with instruments, mine having: altimeter, tacho, fuel pressure, slip (not T & B), vert indicator, tacho, oil pressure, oil temp, cyl head temp, hr meter and carby heat. One complaint is that the hr meter is on when the ign is on. Mine has wing tanks & as such cranks hrs up when using the pump to fill them from the mains - yes, a bit different in that you have to fill the mains, them pump up from the mains to the wing and when the wings are full top up the mains. Uplift transfer rate is about 2 ltrs /min I think - the internal diameter of the fuel line is something like 3mm so fairly restricting. Each wing tank takes 20ltrs. 10. By the way, stall with nil flap is around 43 and full flap 37knts. 11. Great little aeroplane, good for cruising around the local area and for cross country trips alike. the reliability of a Rotax. 12. Insurance easy to get. 13, Parts fairly easy to get but may be a bit slow and need to ask more than once if getting locally in Oz. 14. Don't see them on the second hand market all that often, a good one should be around $60-$70k with less than 500hrs. Cheers, Joe

Go Mike:spot on:

"You can forget about ever getting a consent for a new airport in NSW. I think the whole aviation community may have to mount a campaign to save Warnervale in the next 12 months." dave, do we need to wait til next year? Don't we have an election comming up? Is it a safe seat? Do we know who the potential candidates are and are they in anyway sympathetic to aerodromes ( medivacs, emergencies, community use etc)? Can an initial campaigne be established on this site to at least get some indication of the support base that exists in the aviation community - afterall, if this group can't support the idea what chance is there elsewhere?

Ian, Does it apply sto all aircraft or is it specific to he CT which, I understand has a 600kg BEW design factor. I believe in the passengers peace of mind and the use when all else fails e.g. pilot incapacitation an structural failure.

Soooo good, thanks for sharing those magnificent photos with the rest of us - you lucky buggar.