Fred

CTA is already available for RAA registered aircraft (all be it with a CASA licence) by virtue of CAO 95.55.  I do fear this could be in jepody by incompetence of a couple of people who believe they know all.

Without referring to this specific incident, the run up is ideally done close to the holding point and without icing you should observe a drop in RPM with carby heat applied -  if you get an increase you are making ice.

From what I understand, CASA has offered the weight increase to RAA but the aircraft that are eligible must be lame maintained. Problem is some of those aircraft can be maintained by the owner/ builder now under VH rego, so this discrepancy is being looked at by RAA first.

Interesting to hear how you came up with this understanding.  The secret society style of management is at bit concerning.

Is it another case of “I have decided” so shut-up and cop it?

So it appears it is still a proposal BUT where does the LAME maintenance  proposal come from?   If you can’t work that out then I can’t help you, it is as plain as the nose on your face.

Commensence tells you 100 or 150 kg changes nothing in the maintenance procedure BUT this restriction is being put forward by what was once called to be “our” organisation -  no longer the case.

i.e. A L1 can maintain the same aircraft but a L2 is now deemed incompetent -  I wonder who would make such a ridiculous proposal - I’ll leave it there.

So are they still just talking about it or is it in effect/approved.   Big difference.  With all the talk from RAA in the last couple of years I would have expected a news bulletin to that effect if it was actually approved.  

LAME maintenance mandated for training is just another step towards GA restrictions, started with the latest Tech Manual pushed through without amendment by Linke even after board submissions.  Sorry times ahead with this autocratic management -  but it has been pointed out “many” times already.