Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

As far as sids goes maybe there could be other solutions.

 

Maybe Non sids compliant aircraft could be limited to non populated areas and limited to no more than 2 pob. maybe it could be feasible to have a brs retrofitted to non compliant aircraft, at least you would think that would have a more sure cost rather than the totally unpredictable sids costs.

 

I have no real knowledge of these things but maybe a few owners would accept changing their aircraft to an 'experimental' (whether with RAA or not) if it meant they didn't have to mothball their aircraft due to lack of funds or whatnot?

 

 

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

Top Posters In This Topic

As far as sids goes maybe there could be other solutions.Maybe Non sids compliant aircraft could be limited to non populated areas and limited to no more than 2 pob. maybe it could be feasible to have a brs retrofitted to non compliant aircraft, at least you would think that would have a more sure cost rather than the totally unpredictable sids costs.

 

I have no real knowledge of these things but maybe a few owners would accept changing their aircraft to an 'experimental' (whether with RAA or not) if it meant they didn't have to mothball their aircraft due to lack of funds or whatnot?

Isn't SIDS a manufacturers requirement, if so then there should be no way around it without manufacturers approval surely.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

The costs are made up in staff hrs spent, fees, legal issues, drafting etc. The cost I would suggest is tens of thousands if not more.

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't SIDS a manufacturers requirement, if so then there should be no way around it without manufacturers approval surely.

100% correct, basically my understanding of the process with sids is Cessna recommended the inspections for the aircraft, and casa issued an airworthiness directive making them mandatory. With the exception of the extensions applied for private ops, no SIDS means you are no longer in compliance with the aircraft certificate of airworthiness, and hence no longer airworthy. This would still apply if the aircraft was on the RAA register.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
100% correct, basically my understanding of the process with sids is Cessna recommended the inspections for the aircraft, and casa issued an airworthiness directive making them mandatory. With the exception of the extensions applied for private ops, no SIDS means you are no longer in compliance with the aircraft certificate of airworthiness, and hence no longer airworthy. This would still apply if the aircraft was on the RAA register.

The cessna inspections are recommended but not mandatory elsewhere in the world. In the USA there is no AD requiring them and it is left to owners and A&P(LAME in FAA world) to decide to what extent you need to follow them. If you have a pristine single owner aircraft that lives in a hangar 500ks from the ocean you can ignore them if you chose to.

 

CASA decided that there was no wiggle room and that therefore they would be a mandatory requirement at great expense to some owners.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether the SIDS program is reasonable or not would be a totally new and protracted thread. In Australia they are subject to an AD, and as such mandatory whether RA or casa registered

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether the SIDS program is reasonable or not would be a totally new and protracted thread. In Australia they are subject to an AD, and as such mandatory whether RA or casa registered

How many RAAus aircraft have CASA issued ADs for?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many RAAus aircraft have CASA issued ADs for?

As far as I know AD's are applicable to GA aircraft only. Service bulletins are issued for RAA's fleet. CASA does not issue Aircraft Directives for RAAus registered aircraft.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know AD's are applicable to GA aircraft only. Service bulletins are issued for RAA's fleet. CASA does not issue Aircraft Directives for RAAus registered aircraft.

No. Casa issues airworthiness directives for all aircraft operating in Australia. They apply whether RA, GA, glider, whatever. RA has to operate under casa regulations with the only difference being those listed under the exemption instrument. For example, RA AUS aircraft still have to comply with the control cable replacement AD.

 

 

  • Agree 4
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.

I think this is a very naive view point. CASA has shown no inclination to anything other than retain control over everything. They retain control (and empire build which is the main goal of all beuracrats). CASA are laying all the foundations to take over recreational flying (and to set up an empire and command more money from the government.

 

They never had control over the ultra-light fraternity but are gradually increasing the allowable complexity of who and what flies and at some point will say - "You are guys are flying complex modern aircraft of the same nature (speed, size, weight and capability) as GA so where you once were able to claim that separate simple types, flying under 5000 ft, outside of everyone else's sphere of influence once meant you could "fly under the radar, , now you are mixing with the rest of the aviation - so you will be under our control".

 

They have made the SAAA rules and restrictions more and more difficult - and have done exactly as you suggest - turn the SAAA into a big brother clone. The same is likely to go on with RAAus - you can do more, but you have to control yourselves ---(using our rules and by turning your own leaders in to CASA deloegates who will work for CASA not the members). The guise of self control is actually to give you the same restrictions but make you do it to yourselves and its much harder for members to complain against themselves.

 

Its the old story of "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it!"

 

CASA has not budged an inch on - SAAA taking the reins of GA registered experimental private operations. Not an inch on AOPA getting more control of GA, steadfastly dug its heels in on medical changes for the Class 2 medical.

 

They (I suspect on purpose ) changed the name of the Restricted Private Pilot licence to the GFPT to confuse people and then to completely confuse everyone changed it to the Recreational Pilots Licence ( which has confused everyone as to what is Recreational Certificate and Recreational licence.) Confuse everyone and they stay divided and remain under control.

 

They further muddied everything by introducing the GP certified (Drivers Licence equivalent) medical to which you allude but which you have also got confused with the RPL - which is a pilot licence and which can be flown with any class of medical (1, 2 or Drivers licence type.) (And a PPL can ALSO be flown with ANY type of medical - Drivers Licence type, Class 2 or Class 1. ) Although there are internal restrictions such as numbers of passengers etc

 

That's how confusing they made it. Even pilots have no idea what the different types are.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know AD's are applicable to GA aircraft only. Service bulletins are issued for RAA's fleet. CASA does not issue Aircraft Directives for RAAus registered aircraft.

If CASA send out an AD its absolute it must be complied with. Manufacturers often send ou Service Bulletins and if in the wording of the bulletin is says the action is compulsory then it carries the same legal weight as an AD.

 

If CASA also send out an AD and it covers the type of aircraft or engine then that AD applies to all aircraft no matter what category they are registered in. The stainless steel control cable AD as already mentioned is a good example.

 

It just happens that CASA don't often do that but rely on the Service Bulletin sent out by the manufacturer. But they have done some in the past ( some concerning Jabiru that I recall)

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
If CASA send out an AD its absolute it must be complied with. Manufacturers often send ou Service Bulletins and if in the wording of the bulletin is says the action is compulsory then it carries the same legal weight as an AD.If CASA also send out an AD and it covers the type of aircraft or engine then that AD applies to all aircraft no matter what category they are registered in. The stainless steel control cable AD as already mentioned is a good example.

It just happens that CASA don't often do that but rely on the Service Bulletin sent out by the manufacturer. But they have done some in the past ( some concerning Jabiru that I recall)

I seem to recall a number of years ago it was quoted in Sport Pilot (or its predecessor) by a noted maintainer in the day that CASA did not issue AD's for RAA aircraft but relied on manufacturers issueing Service Bulletins, perhaps I misread what I read. I believe the Jabiru restrictions were issued through an "Instrument" not an AD.

Cheers.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, CASA can ( and does) issue A.D.'s that must be complied with by all aircraft. Often "Before Next Flight." Of course if a manufacturer no longer exists how could it issue "Service Bulletins" I can think of 3 that concerned me and my aircraft. All issued by CASA....

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How have CASA made the SAAA rules more difficult?

 

They have relaxed the requirements for home building, In the good old days you had to have workshops approved and make test pieces before you could start building.

 

When did SAAA try to take over the running of light aircraft? I know they may have thought about it, but to my recollection they have never proposed a take over.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
How have CASA made the SAAA rules more difficult?They have relaxed the requirements for home building, In the good old days you had to have workshops approved and make test pieces before you could start building.

When did SAAA try to take over the running of light aircraft? I know they may have thought about it, but to my recollection they have never proposed a take over.

you are thinking about ABA aircraft. Experimrntal class initially was quite liberal with building and further maintenance. ( in 2007 when i started mine there was no requirement for any of the approvals or test pieces you mention. ( and never had for experimental class ) since then there have been requirements additional stuff added. there was a requirement confirmed for a part 135 maintenance certification on the place where you were building to jack all wheels off the ground at the same time. there is now a limitation requiring the builder to have a maintenance procedures course to do the final inspection prior to c of a being given and ongoing maintenance and now you can only do ongoing work in those parts which you actually built ( no matter what percentage you built) and now you must have a Weight and balance qualification to do a w & b on your aircraft.

 

the Saaa has on multiple occasions had proposals within its ranks and at various levels within the national council to embark on becoming the controlling entity for ( discussions and proposal levels only) everything from just experimental class to raa and VH experimental to private and light Ga. just as RAAUS has done. ( I am a chapter president and technical councilor and have personally been involved in discussions with members and hierarchy but these proposals have not really gone anywhere. in significant part due to the constant difficulties and walls put up by CASA.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaba-who, are you saying that if you have built an aircraft from a kit (Vans for example) that if you didnt assemble the engine then you cant do an annual inspection and issue a maint release without the assistance of a LAME to sign off the engine side of the inspection?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaba-who, are you saying that if you have built an aircraft from a kit (Vans for example) that if you didnt assemble the engine then you cant do an annual inspection and issue a maint release without the assistance of a LAME to sign off the engine side of the inspection?

Mmm this is the vexed question which we ask ourselves and don't dare ask CASA. the old rule of "its better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission" . The exact wording from CASA IA 15/16 ( the instrument that gives experimental builders the right to maintain their aircraft) says " fabricated and assembled". there has been much debate as to whether taking an engine out of a box and dropping into the frame and connecting up the control cables and sensor probes constitutes "fabricating and assembling". there are multiple other paragraphs that discuss levels of training and skills required and these may or may not be covered when building an aircraft. to be clear of the most restrictive rules you need to satisfy the Authorised Person that you built more than 50% and that construction of the engine is not part of the 100% otherwise none of us would reach 50%.

 

you have to remember that there is quite a lot of an annual inspection that is allowed to be done by a pilot even in a certified aircraft under schedule 8. changing oil, filters, inspecting airframe etc. there are obviously some bits that aren't, and some that appear to be open to interpretation. of course the individual bits still need to be signed out at the end. these are not always signed out by the person who did the actual work.

 

so at present we all do it, but a very officious CASA person could, if the desire were there, interpret some of that instrument in a very different and restrictive way.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is a very naive view point. CASA has shown no inclination to anything other than retain control over everything. They retain control (and empire build which is the main goal of all beuracrats). CASA are laying all the foundations to take over recreational flying (and to set up an empire and command more money from the government.

I think it is an alternative point of view rather than naive. The problem is CASA as you point out. Their big brother bureaucracy and culture is widely acknowledged (around thew world as well) and a succession of new directors, suggestions, requests, and submissions for improvement and change from within the aviation sector and even the government (Forsyth Report) have failed to make any real inroads. CASA seems quite happy to watch the decline of GA clearly reported by AOPA. IMHO it begins with a complete overhaul of legislation as has happened elsewhere in the world but the politicians are so busy trying to keep their jobs anything related to aviation is not important if it doesn't get them re-elected.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the complete overhaul of legislation that CASA has been doing for years that has caused all the problems. It would be better to go back to the seventies or better still adopt the FAA model. CASA has been re writing for years and all we get is more words with less meaning.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the complete overhaul of legislation that CASA has been doing for years that has caused all the problems. It would be better to go back to the seventies or better still adopt the FAA model. CASA has been re writing for years and all we get is more words with less meaning.

They are still trying to fix up the disastrous results of the conversion to Part 61 from last year. But CASA doesn't learn. They will not adopt FAA rules. They consistently feel that "our situation is different" and feel they have to start everything from scratch to suit Oz requirements.

 

A fine sentiment if you get it right. But so far they have neither got it right, nor get it done on time, nor have been able to fix it when they get it wrong.

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
They are still trying to fix up the disastrous results of the conversion to Part 61 from last year. But CASA doesn't learn. They will not adopt FAA rules. They consistently feel that "our situation is different" and feel they have to start everything from scratch to suit Oz requirements. A fine sentiment if you get it right. But so far they have neither got it right, nor get it done on time, nor have been able to fix it when they get it wrong.

We are still battling with Part 61 - 3 years after introduction. Nearly 600 pages of it - plus another 500 pages of telling us how-to-suck eggs in the Manual of Standards. Kiwis did it in 90 odd pages and the FAA took 110 pages if I'm correct. CASA is just part of the 'Canberra culture' of omnipotence, that we all distrust so intensely. What irks me so much is that we, as a nation, spend squillions on unproven, exorbitantly priced military hardware: then send our ADF over to the US to learn how to operate it. But, we can't follow the undeniable world leader in civil aviation, (the FAA): nooo, the air is different here! Grrrrr!

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
We are still battling with Part 61 - 3 years after introduction. Nearly 600 pages of it - plus another 500 pages of telling us how-to-suck eggs in the Manual of Standards. Kiwis did it in 90 odd pages and the FAA took 110 pages if I'm correct. CASA is just part of the 'Canberra culture' of omnipotence, that we all distrust so intensely. What irks me so much is that we, as a nation, spend squillions on unproven, exorbitantly priced military hardware: then send our ADF over to the US to learn how to operate it. But, we can't follow the undeniable world leader in civil aviation, (the FAA): nooo, the air is different here! Grrrrr!

Oh good. It wasn't just my personal incompetence when I tried to parse such a lengthy document.

 

I don't understand fundamental differences between the USA approach and here. Are we somehow safer (the S in CASA) with such unparsable rules.

 

(Also, the interrelationships between the CAR and CASR still confuses me.)

 

 

  • 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...