Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

SSCBD

 

As far as the 750kg goes for RAA I am told it is for 2 people only and the aircraft specs still have to fall inside the 45knot stall speed....that will limit a stack of aircraft but what it does mean is we can now fly slightly larger aircraft with more comfort and also they will be somewhat stronger which is a failing at the moment where the current 600kg limit does affect how the aircraft must be constructed. Personally I couldnt give 2 stuffs about the 1500kg push...also led to believe max of 2 people as well and I have no interest in night ratings or CTA and I would suspect that 95% of those who want these increases couldnt care less about them either

 

Mark

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to see them get the "wing-loading" dumped, If the aircraft meets all the other spec, and was legal before, why not get it (and fifteen others) back on the home-built 95-10 register.

 

Also a safe aircraft!

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SSCBDAs far as the 750kg goes for RAA I am told it is for 2 people only and the aircraft specs still have to fall inside the 45knot stall speed....that will limit a stack of aircraft but what it does mean is we can now fly slightly larger aircraft with more comfort and also they will be somewhat stronger which is a failing at the moment where the current 600kg limit does affect how the aircraft must be constructed. Personally I couldnt give 2 stuffs about the 1500kg push...also led to believe max of 2 people as well and I have no interest in night ratings or CTA and I would suspect that 95% of those who want these increases couldnt care less about them either

 

Mark

Mark - while I always agree for stronger it seems we have reached a point of 750kg which is a whole new ball park.

So looking at RAA we have single seat rag wing, then two seat rag wing, then light wing types were all classed really as ultralights - now we have the 600 kg beasts, carbon fibre or full metal factory built types - now to 750kg which means you can stick a 160 hp engine in the dam thing and still have heaps of weight to use up.

 

The mind boggles what could be built with this weight and yes if the stall speed is 45kts you can --- (and I got laughed at for say this) --- fowler flaps, of which a few types are now playing with in the 600kg class(have a look at the swiss Risen as per my logo here (yes top of the range but still at 554kg and had the official speed record of 160 kts from memory. Then also ad leading edge slot which will get them well under the 45 kts stall speed IF needed. (I flew a Robinson STOL decked out king air many years ago, and the bits they put on that were amazing to slow it down and reduce landing roll and we were using one way strips not legal here). They also have kits for single engine Cessna's off the shelf and don't forget people in RAA now are playing with wing vortices strips.

 

What I am saying is that the 45kts stall speed can be got around if you really want to.

 

The machines from Europe are really, cutting edge carbon fibre, and they are still limited in weight, cant wait to see what will be put on the market or modified to this new weight limit. We may even get a few jets...... maybe.

 

What I really would like is a to see a night rating come in with this weight limit as well. But also keep our rag wing heritage.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SSCBD

 

Quote "and we were using one way strips not legal here)". How can that be, when the Bagerys creek airport, is one runway, one way, over to the west?.

 

Small jets under &50kg, the BD 5 was in Australia a few years back (Tori Mac VH-POK ) : Quentin Campbell VH-JRQ .

 

As for the old 95-10 brigade, another HBird was bent at "Serpentine WA. Hopefully Norm will be OK, but now there's so few HB's on the register the media are calling them "rare".

 

spacesailorcrash01.jpg.308e2ec9e5bba10ce1acbe8f2963cc5a.jpg

 

 

  • More 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do id love CTA and a higher mtow and I relaise that will infuriate a few, but, night rating probably not due to the cost of instruments annual calibration and also I like to see were and emergency landing could take place. Our aircraft are fantastic, but no good enough to back your life on an engine out at night in my opinion.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSCBD the issue is you are trying to get RAA into a GA with GA privilages. That is NOT what most of us want. If we took a poll I am sure I would be correct in the results. Most want a stronger built aircraft with a bit more room for pax and baggage and fuel for range. This currently would require a substantial increase in weight just for the extras let alone the structure to support it. Then there is the performance specs of the aircraft. To handle the extra weight and keep the same specs then most likely a big bigger wing also the larger fuselage all adds weight. Show me how many RAA aircraft operate out of CTA airfields compared to the operations outside CTA airfields. Night rating is just crazy talk..just the instrumentation calibration as Dr Zoos has suggested is just getting out of the cheap flying...now I am not talking about the cost or purchase of the aircraft I am talking about the running costs. This is where RAA shines the far lower cost from medical to mechanical and maintenance..... The 750kg push is wholely designed to have the same rules we have now just better safer aircraft. It seems to me that the other issues are all being driven by GA or EX-GA pilots ..I rest my case and have my guns ready 095_cops.gif.448479f256bea28624eb539f739279b9.gif

 

Mark

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it matter what we want. RAAus is now a company, run by directors, with certain aims as per the much discussed paperwork a few months ago. Our wishes are secondary to the wishes of the directors.

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality, GA aircraft are more expensive to maintain than the normal RAA fare. RAA would get a few on the register but the maintenance would need to be on the same lines as GA. So it is not a real saving or a cheap way to fly. It does however, give an option for many aircraft on Aviation Advertiser that are for sale for "Medical Issues" and keep older GA pilots in the air. Instituted sensibly it would be a benefit. However I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to arrive.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SSCBD the issue is you are trying to get RAA into a GA with GA privilages. That is NOT what most of us want. If we took a poll I am sure I would be correct in the results. Most want a stronger built aircraft with a bit more room for pax and baggage and fuel for range. This currently would require a substantial increase in weight just for the extras let alone the structure to support it. Then there is the performance specs of the aircraft. To handle the extra weight and keep the same specs then most likely a big bigger wing also the larger fuselage all adds weight. Show me how many RAA aircraft operate out of CTA airfields compared to the operations outside CTA airfields. Night rating is just crazy talk..just the instrumentation calibration as Dr Zoos has suggested is just getting out of the cheap flying...now I am not talking about the cost or purchase of the aircraft I am talking about the running costs. This is where RAA shines the far lower cost from medical to mechanical and maintenance..... The 750kg push is wholely designed to have the same rules we have now just better safer aircraft. It seems to me that the other issues are all being driven by GA or EX-GA pilots ..I rest my case and have my guns ready 095_cops.gif.448479f256bea28624eb539f739279b9.gifMark

Most RAA pilot's got their certificates in RAA Land which is well away from controlled drones because that was usually the only place to get RAA training.

The conversion from GAAP (weekend controlled) to 7 day Class D drones with ridiculous access rules drove a lot of RAA pilot's at places like Camden away. The imposition of the restrictions on Jabirus made the situation even worse.

 

Outside the metropolitan areas there are very few controlled drones. In the metropolitan areas there are very few uncontrolled dromes.

 

It makes sense to seek CTA access as there is a large proportion of our membership who would be able to immediately benefit (even though they will get screwed over by the major airport owners - but they are owned by the super funds anyway).

 

The board doesn't get paid so the cost to the members of RAA seeking CTA is 3/5 of 5/8 of bugger all.

 

 

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

I would certainly like to see the MTOW increased from the present 600Kg. Coming from a GA background, I believe trying to build, 2 seat, 100HP aircraft within the 600Kg weight limit requires a bit too much of a compromise on the structural strength.

 

A MTOW of 750Kg would just allow 2 seat aircraft to be built a little more solid (PA38 Tomahawk 757Kg, C152 757Kg). ( So they would be too heavy unless it was increased to 760Kg).

 

Id be happy with 1000Kg or 1500Kg, Just keep it as maximum 2 seats.

 

There's some nice RV aircraft that may fit the class then.

 

I've flown LSA with stall speeds around 28KTS, and unfortunately they require slowing up too much to land or risk floating too much. This makes them more of a handful in anything, but very light winds, and very susceptible to lessor wind gusts. (a 10Kt wind gust is more noticeable at 30Kts IAS than 60Kts IAS).

 

Personally they are harder to fly than many of the Cessna's or Pipers I've flown.

 

Certainly agree on RAAus not getting too Bureaucratic. Ive lived in a couple of different countries, one of them best described as a Dictatorship, but they have no where near the Rules and Regulations of here. It seems every new Bureaucrat thinks they need to introduce 10 new laws to justfy their salary, but no one evers revokes the old regulations.

 

RAAus, don't follow this path. Think of the future, or you wont have any members too control.

 

IMHO.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
look at all the cool warbirds that fit under 1500kg, most of these can be picked up for around the same cost of a top of the line JabiruTrue but to fly them you need a 1,500 KG gold bar collection. Somehow the camo paint job on the Jabbawocki doesn't quite do it.

 

1024px-T-34C-1.jpg

 

1280px-Pilatus_P3-05.jpg

 

Nanchang_CJ-6A_Airplane_over_California_Coastline_N4183E_20110219.jpg

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SSCBD the issue is you are trying to get RAA into a GA with GA privilages. That is NOT what most of us want. If we took a poll I am sure I would be correct in the results. Mark

I won't argue with you because I simply do not know, however I think if a poll was taken then the results could surprise many.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we could have some very nice RV's then included on the RAAus register....I will have one of those please...

David

David..Other than the RV12, the Only other RV model that has a stall speed less than 45kts is the RV9/9A.

That is why a number of members on here have built this model and currently flying to a MTOW of 600kgs.

 

My RV9A is GA registered and I wont hold my breath for a weight increase any time soon.

 

I think with any weight increase will see some strict maintenance requirements.

 

Mike

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
David..Other than the RV12, the Only other RV model that has a stall speed less than 45kts is the RV9/9A.That is why a number of members on here have built this model and currently flying to a MTOW of 600kgs.

My RV9A is GA registered and I wont hold my breath for a weight increase any time soon.

 

I think with any weight increase will see some strict maintenance requirements.

 

Mike

Yep I think you're right there. They will be a price to pay with extra conditions which I wouldn't want to trickle down to existing RAAus. Be careful what some of you wish for.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote="billwoodmason, post: 603214, member:

 

RAA is already the right arm of CASA. You only have to compare the manuals, some parts are 'word for word' with each other. Bet there is a clause somewhere saying we can't sack our directors. Still, we are our own 'worst enemies' cos most of us sit on our apathetic asterik's bitchin' & complainin' instead of formin' lobby groups to get what RAA was originally formed for, or have we forgotten?.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
David..Other than the RV12, the Only other RV model that has a stall speed less than 45kts is the RV9/9A.That is why a number of members on here have built this model and currently flying to a MTOW of 600kgs.

My RV9A is GA registered and I wont hold my breath for a weight increase any time soon.

 

I think with any weight increase will see some strict maintenance requirements.

 

Mike

That is unless they lift the stall speed a little as well? Who knows what we will get, if anything, it has taken forever and still going...

David

 

 

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.

Minority view. RA Aus has to make decisions to suit the majority of members. It can't always keep everyone happy. Members want higher weight limits and access to CTA. Also think about getting younger pilots into ra Aus to replace the older ones leaving. Most of the younger pilots want faster, more modern aircraft. If RA Aus are able to negotiate these changes it helps to secure the long term health of the organisation. Personally I am very happy with the RA Aus administration over the past couple of years and know that many others are too. Of course they are aware that they can't be all things to all people

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Weight increase has been talked about a long time and the reality the Australian Ultralight Federation is now Recreational Aviation Australia and that covers a lot more than just very light aircraft ! SAAA and AOPA will work with and take notice of RAA with their strong membership, RAA has a lot more members than AOPA and SAAA combined I think, I could be wrong !

 

Casa has a sport aviation department headed and staffed by mostly ex RAA people !

 

Join the dots and it's not hard to see where it's heading !

 

CASA are law and rule makers to try keep things safe and not good managers in my opinion !

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think moving to a higher MTOW than for argument sake of 750kg will certainly help the older GA pilots to keep flying once their health turns bad and they can't get a class 2 medical..so what do you think CASA would do then to maintain safety? I would suggest that having a current driving licence would go out the door and a some sort of medical would be required to fly RAAus....so the people that are advocating going for more than around the 750kg should be careful for what they wish for...it may be the start of outing all the old GA and RAAus pilots out of flying for good...

 

I also agree with Nick that we must look forward to the day when these older pilots retire, we need to keep out sport fresh and interesting and affordable for young people otherwise our sport will wither and die...a bit like GA....

 

David

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A more complicated medical would require more staff, that's a permanent change and because it will apply to all members not just those flying around in 750kg class planes, an increase in fees to members. A single staff member is going to add $10-15 onto each member's yearly fee assuming that they don't incur any extra expenses (ie there is space within the existing office) .

 

So two staff will cost each member $20-30 a year at a minimum for xxx new pilots and planes joining the organization, most of which will probably retire in the next 5 years as their health deteriorates.

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually now I give this some more thought, 2 staff aren't doing a few hundred medicals every year they would probably need to do all 9000members, so maybe 4-5 staff could end up in the $80-150 range assuming they can all fit in the existing office.

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but feel there is already a process in place to get access to CTA for RA AUS pilots, and that is by getting the RPL with appropriate endorsements. That way the cost is spread to only the members that actually want the privileges and those who don't want/need to access CTA don't have to pay the cost for it.

 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that the existing RAA medical is going to cut it for guys that want CTA access anyway, so I really don't think the RPL is that much more of an imposition

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
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

As long as the corrosion doesn't affect the structure in RAA

 

 

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...