Jump to content

So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.


Recommended Posts

After watching a video clip posted on one of the forums here which I cannot find with RAA saying about the weight increases.

 

The 1500 kg aircraft also will be under a separate group called G whatever that is.

 

So that kind of opens up a can of worms.

 

The 750 kg caught me off guard having heard for years it was 700 kg, this opens up some interesting scenarios, which brings quite a few GA aircraft into the fold.

 

It also opens up a lot of four seat aircraft that could fit, off the top my head jabs, sling 4, the new Ventura just as an example.

 

The 1500 kg max takeoff weight under this new group G category with no other information was available on the video. It seems to haul in and divorces GA aircraft from CASA into RAA and releases Casa from any management of such. Gives RAA a huge amount of new registration fees and all GA pilots become RAA pilots which is another huge input of funds and members into RAA.

 

Forgetting the expansion and infrastructure requirement of RAA would have to do to handle this, dose it also mean the GA flying schools fold in to RAA. With my train of thought it will also allow night flying and IFR flying under RAA G category. The large majority of existing RAA flying schools are not set up for any of this, including instructors and CFI’s many have no idea of night flying. Will RAA be issuing a full GA type PPL syllabus to the RAA flying schools.

 

Back to the 750 KG max takeoff weight, this opens up some interesting possibilities as well, some questions automatically come to mind, will certain types be able to go night flying, there’s no real reason why we can’t night fly now except for a few instruments and training for those that want to. But again a lot of CFI’s and instructors aren’t rated for this unless they are GA rated.

 

With 750 kg can we take TWO pax as well that certain aircraft fit into with this weight? Also with 750 kg we can have true twin engine aircraft. I could co on but you get the idea what could be built or bought.

 

Do you think that RAA, could put out some sort of proposal to the members of what the intentions are vaguely how it would all work and how this would be incorporated into the RAA Heritage of ultralight flying. As I have not heard of any written proposal put out to the members of their future or am I under a rock.

 

Anyone have any further information on this?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Before you get too excited about 750kg, what will the stall speed limitation be?

 

This could mean not as many aircraft fit as you first thought.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think CASA would be pleased to pass the recreational sector of GA to RAA. RAA has had the 750kg & access to controlled airspace issue bubbling along with CASA for some considerable time now.

 

All that is required is that existing GA licences and privileges stay the same and a new RA class created with a completely different set of rules to existing RA classes. It is just the administrative function that RAA would have to take on so the funding that is provided now to CASA for this purpose would (should) be given to RAA. For GA pilots to be charged an annual membership fee is a cost that they do not have now so there'd need to be some tradeoff somewhere but they would get public liability insurance they don't have now. Getting rid of the class 2 medical for GA pilots (daytime only) is one of these. They have done this in the UK recently as it was proven having the medical had not shown to have had any safety benefits over the past 50 years.

 

CASA totally stuffed up the RPL with a medical as difficult or possibly more so than Class 2 & took 10 years longer to get it implemented than NZ, UK, Canada & USA when the original intention implemented elsewhere was to allow ageing GA pilots to continue to fly their own aircraft with a few restrictions.

 

Many of the old/original AUF rag & tube brigade will be horrified at the prospect of this happening but as an ex GA pilot I don't have a problem with it so long as RAA don't turn into another big brother CASA that we already have.

 

It seems simple to me but then I spent 40 years flying in NZ where the relationship between the aviation industry, private pilots and CAA was quite conciliatory & reasonably uncomplicated & not adversarial & horribly complex as it is here.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought during the video he said only 2 seats. As far as I know you don't automatically get an increase to the MTOW. I know my Jab 230 can take more but I guess it will have to be re-certified and I guess I will need an endorsement as well. Would be nice to take full fuel and a passenger, especially some heavier passengers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you get too excited about 750kg, what will the stall speed limitation be?This could mean not as many aircraft fit as you first thought.

Fowler flaps will get around that

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not going to help alot of existing aircraft.............

We don't have 750kg at moment, however not a hard mod to make or built in from new.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

GA pilots won't lose their licence. Licences are perpetual, unless the courts take them away. You need a current medical and bi annual to fly, but you can have licence without them.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if casa will ever let RAA issue something like a PPL, RPL directly as such, at best they might make it like the RPL is right now where it's recognised from your pilot certificate. As for things like night, multi engine etc I don't imagine casa giving that to RAA, they are all activities with significantly more risk involved and I imagine casa will want to maintain direct control over that. Also I suspect the vast majority of RAA members don't want that, as it really gets a long way from the basic principles of what RAA was formed for.

 

 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian0079

 

quote "as it really gets a long way from the basic principles of what RAA was formed for".

 

RAA is loong-long gone for a lot of us, just a cheaper GA club.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this fit in with the mantra of "minimum regulation, maximum fun". The aptly named "Canberra Club" are leading RAA down a path to oblivion. If these weight increases come to pass we loose the major "point of difference" we currently have with the GA brigade. RAA will become another CASA. They already are mimicking CASA with their confrontational bull at a gate attitude to change. What have we become? We are powerless to intervene as we have no regional representation and with a 6 man board no hope of any resistance or hope of change to policy. There is no wonder that RAA cannot run a flyin on their own anymore, they are on the nose and everyone can smell it. We are being made to jump through hoops that no one else in aviation has to ie Human Factors, Level 1 maintainers course, weight and balance and what about Jabiru restrictions (which they should have fought tooth and nail against) but assisted CASA. I could stomach 750kg MTOW but why do we need a fleet of 60 plus year old spam cans on our register?. All of these things only benefit someone trying to empire build and enhance their CV. Linke will keep making changes, then leave for a bigger pay packet an leave RAA members to pay for his whims.

 

We have 8500 members and 3500 aircraft on our register, the income from this should be enough to run RAA. If not then we are outreaching our capabilities and should rein in our spending on unnecessary initiatives which we seem to have to comply with regularly just to please our masters.

 

We no longer have a body which can keep CASA at bay but cowtow to their every wish - ex RAA employees who have sold out to (working for) CASA are slowly but surely screwing us to the wall, every week they have a lunch meeting with RAA staff to canvas their tyranny and we stupidly go along get shafted - WTF!.

 

I say pull back on the BS and support the mantra under which we were initially known and successful with.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if casa will ever let RAA issue something like a PPL, RPL directly as such, at best they might make it like the RPL is right now where it's recognised from your pilot certificate. As for things like night, multi engine etc I don't imagine casa giving that to RAA, they are all activities with significantly more risk involved and I imagine casa will want to maintain direct control over that. Also I suspect the vast majority of RAA members don't want that, as it really gets a long way from the basic principles of what RAA was formed for.

Ok I agree with that - BUT why 1500 kg MTOW that RAA wants to control?

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well personally I reckon good on them for having a go.

 

And to say that we can do nothing to stop them because we don't have regional representation is ridiculous, what the lack of regional reps means is that we can each use any or all of the reps without being limited to the one from our area. And on top of that it is still a member organisation so anyone can put forward changes through the correct channels and if enough members agree things happen.

 

If these changes mean someone with an older ga plane can have access to cheaper flying isn't that a good thing? I hear a lot of moaning about ga flyers having it in for RAA and looking down on RAA pilots but I think in reality more RAA pilots look at ga pilots as rich snobs and don't really consider the fact that maybe they are no different to us, maybe they would love to be able to do more of their own maintenance on the family 182.

 

Now obviously I am not saying that we should change anything for the rag and tube people, I think rag and tube will always have a place and should always be looked after to maintain cheap basic flying without needless regulation but what I am saying is why not allow more rec flyers and more planes to enjoy the same or similar benefits. Surely the more recreational pilots there are in the same mob the more weight our voice carries which could/should benefit us all.

 

 

  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
is an RAA registered 172 or 208 going to need to be SIDS compliant? that could be a game changer for the RAA

If you believe what was said at Lethbridge by the Tech manager and CEO all ex GA aircraft will have to be SIDS compliant before being accepted onto RAA register. Can you imagine how much time, effort and cost to us will have to go into the extra workload administering these aircraft. I believe part of the reason for the computer system upgrade was for these s--t heaps. If GA pilots want to join RAA let them fly RAA aircraft or don't bother.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you believe what was said at Lethbridge by the Tech manager and CEO all ex GA aircraft will have to be SIDS compliant before being accepted onto RAA register. Can you imagine how much time, effort and cost to us will have to go into the extra workload administering these aircraft. I believe part of the reason for the computer system upgrade was for these s--t heaps. If GA pilots want to join RAA let them fly RAA aircraft or don't bother.

The vast majority of work is done by the manufacturer/builder/maintainer/LAME. I don't wish to diminish the work done by the Techmann and staff but their role is to act as the smart gatekeeper to the paperwork done by those not on the RAA payroll. 2 or 3 people managing 3500 planes is a very efficient operation.

I can't see RAA getting into IFR/NightVFR as this largely for commercial pilot's and the profit margins would be thin or negative for RAA schools and instructors unless they were doing a hell of a lot of CPL training as well. Rag and tube is not being impacted by a lack of support from RAA but because there are lots of good cheap plastics out there that get people into the air faster and further. There is still a big role for rag 'n tube, however, but a lot of people don't have the time or skills for this type of aircraft.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SIDS is an airworthiness directive, and as such must be complied with for the aircraft to remain airworthy and in compliance with its certificate of airworthiness. The only possible difference with the aircraft being on the RAA register would be that if you had suitable skills and an L1 maintainer certificate then you would be able to do the inspection program yourself, instead of paying a LAME.

 

As for an aircraft like a C208 it would be too heavy to operate even with the 1500kg, and I strongly doubt casa will ever let someone operate a turbine aircraft under the RAA system. I suspect the reason RAA has asked to get approval up to 1500kg is so the pilot certificate is truly equivalent to the RPL. As a good guide, 1500kg will let you fly something along the lines of a C182.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think 750kg and only 2 seats is more than enough, it would allow LSA factory builders to make their aircraft a bit stronger and allow existing LSA's to have a bit more leeway as far as passengers and baggage etc, some are already very close to the 600kg when loaded up with crew, bags and fuel.

 

The new generation of LSA's would be stronger and have more load capacity and in the end be safer, so that's a good thing, so as I have said I think 750kg is more than enough. I think we could have some very nice RV's then included on the RAAus register....I will have one of those please...

 

David

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have 750kg at moment, however not a hard mod to make or built in from new.

This discussion on 750kg.. 760kg has been mentioned regularly quite some time now. 760kg will get a couple of extras.

KP.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...