rhysmcc Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Andy, the stall speed requirement isn't placed on the RPL, nor is it placed on the RPC. It's a requirement on the aircraft to be registered under the CAO's, like you mention a line has to be drawn somewhere. What are we trying to achieve, to bring the RPC inline with the RPL (then why not just move completely to a RPL)? or are we trying to increase the range of aircraft that could be registered under RA-AUS? If indeed we want to increase the aircraft then we must have better systems/maintenance requirements (and be prepared to pay for them) Out of interest, the EASA have a Very Light Aircraft (VLA) category, which is MTOW 750kg and 45kt stall - sounds like a good next step for RA-AUS 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 You can't guarantee that going to more pax won't require the more strict medical. There's NO LOGIC to expecting that and you could not put up a logical argument to demand it.. If you don't watch out you will kill the RAAus medical. The RPL medical got stuffed up because of the airspace you could fly into required a base level of certainty above the CAR based concept.. Re the stall speed,, Its with flap, So not too hard to get to if you really mean to. There is not such a good argument to not raise the AUW. WE have done these sums before and CASA offered 762. That was their idea. ORIGINALLY. More weight allows increases of engine choices, allows more strength to undercarriages and bigger people to fly. Calcs Min build weight 330 Kgs 2 pax 200 fuel 130 litres about 90. baggage tie downs 25 kg = 650 approx. The build weight is a minimum if you have a jab or rotax and non exotic materials like a tube steel fuselage and wooden spar metal ribs with fabric cover. If you go to motors like a chev corvair, Lycomimg 235 Cont 0-200 EA 81 subaru , UL etc it will be a bit heavier, and run a decent set of Cleveland brakes and stronger seat mounts and seat belt restraints and a bit more airframe strength for safety. add another 80. There's no point in having aircraft that can't carry two people legally with full fuel Most homebuilt planes are heavier than the factory ones and we are going to need electrical power to run the mandated ADSB transponders etc adequately. 750 kgs OTA is on the money . Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 mandated ADSB? I don't think we'll be flying IFR anytime soon to be mandated for ADSB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 We are confusing RAAus with GA here. RPL is a GA licence realistically. It takes away from "cheap aviation" that RAAus can provide. This is why RAA should stay quite reduced in weight and pax to keep it separate from RPL/GA. I mean lets face it RPL is a minimal GA licence. Most aussies are around 90 to 110kg. Nev is correct in what he stated and that is where we need to keep RAAus. Larger choice of engines and airframes but MTOW limited to 750 or so KG will then bring all those GA defectors back to RAAus the cheaper flying and less "crap" regulations you need to deal with and flying WILL still be fun without big brother CASA sticking their nose into our business any more than necessary Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Why would an adsb( or better) not be useful in VFR? No harm in looking a bit further into the future than we normally do. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I'm sure they would be, but you said mandated ADSB. It's only mandated for aircraft that operate IFR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As soon as the current equipment primary radars get to end of life I can see Australia limiting primary radar to the major capital city airports and mandating ADSB fopr everything else.......of course once they know every moment you fly a user based cost recovery system will be applied and surprise surprise more $$$ required of you Mr Recreational flyer cause the big boys at the RPT end of town sure cant be expected to pay for the system that supports all of us (even if very little/none to our end of the spectrum) Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Primary radars are only really used at the major aerodromes, outside that "secondary" radars (which rely wholly on transponders) provide the radar coverage. Over the last few years a lot of these have been replaced or refurbished so end of life is way off. Radar/ADSB is only required for controlled airspace, you'd need to be close to ground stations or have a decent amount of altitude to get picked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdseye Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Although only having recently entered the ultralight fold, what has become evident to me is that many promote the ultralight as being a cheap path to GA. If it is seen as a category to merely 'pass through' then it doesn't bode well for the future. The President's article perhaps rightly points out the potential conflict between RAA certification and the RPL. However, I certainly gained the impression that the original AUF was established to promote the operation of very light aircraft in a recreational environment, not to provide a lower grade of PPL or a path to obtaining one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Primary radars are only really used at the major aerodromes, outside that "secondary" radars (which rely wholly on transponders) provide the radar coverage. Over the last few years a lot of these have been replaced or refurbished so end of life is way off. Radar/ADSB is only required for controlled airspace, you'd need to be close to ground stations or have a decent amount of altitude to get picked up. Up my way there is a dirty big primary radar near Ebor close to Armidale (but a long way from any major airports) that covers east coast from maybe just north of Williamtown to maybe goldcoast/Bne (yes at height, especially as you get further range wise from the head) cant see that one ever being replaced/refurbished again because compared to ADSB the return on investment just isn't there especially when the investment for primary radar is all Gov and for ADSB the majority of the investment is by the users....... Main Airports and RAAF Bases excepted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 They originally said the Radars that are at the main airports would be phased out. If that is done, how is security covered?. ADSB is only working when turned on. If you decide to be invisible it's easily done. It won't be the final technology anyhow Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Franks point about the stall speed is to do with aircraft like his and mine.... A J230 at current MTOW (legislative, not design) complies with the current stall speed requirements...at the aircraft rated MTOW (design, not legislated) I think stall speed is 48kts......I would like to think, that if we can grow the MTOW that the stall speed doesn't mean I still cant use the additional weight..... using the 1.3 multiplier means safe approach speed is about 5kts higher at the actual MTOW design limit...... I know the line has to be drawn somewhere....but interestingly I don't think CASA alternate to the RAAus certificate has any such stall speed limitations......so I guess that need for safety only applies to some types of pilots.... Andy P.S personal opinion not a board position The stall speed applies to RAA Planes (Regulations and Tech manual). The regulations and Ops manual constrains the PC holder to only flying RAA planes (unless they have a non RAA licence as well). Rather than the pilot "the need for safety only applies for some types" of planes wrt stall speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Primary isn't getting phased out. It's required in terminal areas for the reduced separation, as you point out ADSB just wouldn't cut it. But neither radar or ADSB is required unless you need the service (controlled airspace). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I thought there was already an organisation that looked after all the stuff heavier than 600kg. Its called CASA. I also believe there is an organisation that looks after less than 600kg called RAA Aus. Why do we need cross polination and duplicate organisations. If we really need another organisation then maybe its time for an organisation that handles purely recreational pilots flying light aircraft that dont want to fly at night, need to carry only one other passenger or dont want to fly into main airports and compete with 747's and 737's. I wonder if they will also help those that just want to fly for fun without all the Bulldust. (sorry I couldn't resist.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdseye Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I thought there was already an organisation that looked after all the stuff heavier than 600kg. Its called CASA. I also believe there is an organisation that looks after less than 600kg called RAA Aus. Why do we need cross polination and duplicate organisations. If we really need another organisation then maybe its time for an organisation that handles purely recreational pilots flying light aircraft that dont want to fly at night, need to carry only one other passenger or dont want to fly into main airports and compete with 747's and 737's. I wonder if they will also help those that just want to fly for fun without all the Bulldust. (sorry I couldn't resist.) You should not resist, especially when boring thuds seek to divert from the original purpose of the thread post. This forum is overrun with small minded nerds with axes to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 The stall speed limit does reduce the energy involved in colliding with a fence, tree or terra firma. But it increases the likelihood of a landing accident, runway excursion or ground handling incident in strong or gusty winds. It requires more skill from the pilot in these situations than a C172 or PA28. I suspect another 5 knots on the stall speed limit would enhance safety overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 As soon as the current equipment primary radars get to end of life I can see Australia limiting primary radar to the major capital city airports and mandating ADSB fopr everything else.......of course once they know every moment you fly a user based cost recovery system will be applied and surprise surprise more $$$ required of you Mr Recreational flyer cause the big boys at the RPT end of town sure cant be expected to pay for the system that supports all of us (even if very little/none to our end of the spectrum)Andy A decade ago they told us the old radars were based on 386 processors and some regional sets were being cannibalised to keep the city ones running. They said that Air Services had costed upgrading the radar system and found it would be far cheaper to give us all a transponder. Then silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 ... More weight allows increases of engine choices, allows more strength to undercarriages and bigger people to fly... Nev All true Nev, but people are missing the point. The weight limits we have worked with for decades have spawned a whole new generation of engines, designs and materials. Limiting weight has led to progress. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 With very much an increase in costs. The "progress" is in lightweight complex expensive motors and exotic (and dangerous to work with) materials. The latest version of the CT is over 200K. If we did more building, the cost would be 1/8th of that. Proven materials offer no hidden risks. Most want/can afford a simple robust reliable design with good flying characteristics, easy to inspect and keep safe. Isn't that more in keeping with the stated aims of the RAAus? Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 It's still possible to build an inexpensive, reliable, fast two seat tourer- and keep well under the current weight limit. Jodel D-18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 OK Somebody might like to do a Pietenpol or similar which may not be. or use tube steel in the fuselage, and have the type of brakes I mentioned. . Pmc Yes they are more difficult in windy conditions than GA planes as you quote. Low wing loading planes are very responsive to gusts. Plenty of Slepchev Strorches have bent expensively in gusts. Dimensionally small (short wingspan and short coupled wing to tail distance) and slow planes are often quite demanding in gusts, but with a 45 Kt stall and a bit of headwind you would be a bit unlucky to have a fatal. on a demanding outlanding. In an ideal world I would like to remove many limits but when you are trying to negotiate concessions and an eye to risk aversion and low cost, a stall speed limit does serve a purpose. You can achieve that speed even without flaps in most cases Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 There are thousands of current raa aircraft able to safely carry more weight if stall was raised 5 kts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 You are referring to the six cyl Jabs I expect. Look,that may well be the case and if there are examples like that perhaps you might make an exemption but "the thin edge of the wedge" theory_ is alive and well. Surely some VG's and a larger flap would easily do it or a few lbs weight reduction from the full limit. Are the Airframes really IDENTICAL? With the lower weights your strength margins are higher. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Yes the airframes are identical, infact with larger wing attachment bolts RSA is running them to 760kg Some older types may need gear leg upgrades Many Aus ones have these bolts already as they are used to repair loose originals. Point Im making is not that this should happen to suit one aircraft or another, just that it doesnt require a major re engineer or increase in stall to open up many aircraft to higher weights and hopefully safer equipment levels as you have outlined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shags_j Posted February 15, 2015 Author Share Posted February 15, 2015 Wow this thread went AWOL quick. Looks like another why should we/shouldn't we increase MTOW for RAAUS. I find it interesting in that: 1. The presidents position is clear. We are 'competing' with CASA now (re RPL) so lets go for the higher MTOW, CTA access etc. 2. A lot of people on here are saying that we don't want the higher MTOW 3. A lot of people on here are saying that we want the higher MTOW 4. Noone seems concerned that the president is treating this like a business that is in competition. Do we really need to compete with RPL? Higher MTOW etc. would be great for me but not in competition with CASA but in conjunction with them. The RPL obviously is geared towards different people with different expectations (CTA, higher MTOW primarily) Surely for aviators, having more option in our licensing allows us greater freedom to choose what is best for us. 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