Jump to content

760kg upgrade and CASA consultation


Recommended Posts

Just an aside from a none (tears) flyer. 

 

Sydney is 30-40 mile .And Badgerys will be the same (?). 

 

SO

 

Do they touch, And will it encroach onto RAAF Richmond.

 

And will that combined CTA, cover the whole of the Sydney basin ?

 

Bankstown, Camden.& the Oaks.  All to close.

 

spacesailor

 

Those of us likely to be impacted, wait with nervous anticipation, to see how it will all be handed down.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is the connection with weight and stall-speed... A heavier plane with a higher stall speed is more dangerous in the event of an engine failure,

 

 

 

I disagree with the statement, as first is obviously has to do with wing loading/area/flaps etc

 

A Cessna 172 at almost 4 times the weight, stalls at a lower speed than a Rutan VaruEzy.

 

No one is arguing that overall lighter is better, but, secondly, I contend very strongly that I can build a far safer aircraft, i.e. crash structure, with the addition of a little weight, 650 to 700 would be great.

 

I have always maintained that 600 is too light for LSA for a couple of 'Large Gentlemen', fuel and baggage, especially in Yankland.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Electric Why aren't we already around that? That's an easy one and a quantum jump in safety too.  Nev

 

 

 

It's a simple case of range, and then where are you going to charge it?

 

You won't get one hour out of the current balance of weight and power, and by one hour I mean from the shed back to the shed with a little safety margin, so 40 to 45 mins actually in the air.

 

Add more battery, and the extra power to lift it etches into the range expotentially, double the battery weight and likely you will go the same distance as with half.  

 

Charging then will be some 12 to 14 hours from a typical 240V outlet in a hanger/shed, it's not like a car where you drive to an established charger and charge in 40 to 60 minutes. Though if you have 380V 3 phase available, you can knock that down to 3 or 4 hours with what's called a "Wall Charger". I charge my Tesla in 9 to 10 hours on my wall charger, but that's 70 KWh battery pack, light plane would be 20 to 25 KWh

 

So, you're going to fly for 40 mins, come back and put it on charge for 12 to 14 hours, hope you're close to home, because your'e not going to leave it there on charge and come back next week for a flight, you will come back the next day just to take it off charge.

 

It's do'able, just messy and inconveniant.

 

However, a motor glider is a real possibility .......

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I disagree with the statement, as first is obviously has to do with wing loading/area/flaps etc

 

A Cessna 172 at almost 4 times the weight, stalls at a lower speed than a Rutan VaruEzy.

 

No one is arguing that overall lighter is better, but, secondly, I contend very strongly that I can build a far safer aircraft, i.e. crash structure, with the addition of a little weight, 650 to 700 would be great.

 

I have always maintained that 600 is too light for LSA for a couple of 'Large Gentlemen', fuel and baggage, especially in Yankland.

 

I agree that Bruce T's statement is a little simplistic but he is correct in that the lower the stall speed the more chance the occupant(s) will survive.

 

Your observation that having a "crash structure" will also help in survivability is also true but in my mind is secondary to the stall speed.

 

The impact of rapid/sudden deceleration on the body's organs/brain is probably more traumatic than say broken limbs - it is possible for a person to walk away from a crash and die shortly after due to brain & other organ hemorrhage.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Purchased a Colt in need of a rebuild so I am hanging out for the 760kg. I hope it comes through before I make it airworthy or I will have to go RPL and that will put me under 2 systems. Working on my Jab will be OK but not on my simpler Colt. Hmmm,m Ken

 

Go to SAAA and get the Jab register VH.  Do your self maintenance training and you will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that Bruce T's statement is a little simplistic but he is correct in that the lower the stall speed the more chance the occupant(s) will survive.

 

 

 

That is utterly reliant on the structure around you that you're crashing in, but anyway, I answered Bruce's post, with a comparitive example, that seem to contend that a heavier plane automatically meant higher stall speeds, that is not true. It is true that there are compromises, a heavier plane with more wing area to maintain stall speed will likely be slower and use more fuel.

 

All I want is to see an increase in weight so as to add load plates in corners, and a roll bar, and a few other items that would make construction cheaper.

 

How many more pilots and pax are going to die, paraplegic, head injuries, be trapped in low wings with fuel dripping around them etc because they wont put a 5kg roll bar in..

 

flipped.JPG.4395c0927acb804d0826e550ed182001.JPG

 

 

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

 

That is utterly reliant on the structure around you that you're crashing in, but anyway, I answered Bruce's post, with a comparitive example, that seem to contend that a heavier plane automatically meant higher stall speeds, that is not true. It is true that there are compromises, a heavier plane with more wing area to maintain stall speed will likely be slower and use more fuel.

 

All I want is to see an increase in weight so as to add load plates in corners, and a roll bar, and a few other items that would make construction cheaper.

 

How many more pilots and pax are going to die, paraplegic, head injuries, be trapped in low wings with fuel dripping around them etc because they wont put a 5kg roll bar in..

 

All true and features like roll over protection can be designed in as part of the fuselage  - little or no weight penalty BUT you ask any trauma surgeon - rapid acceleration/deceleration of body organs is a killer.  If this can be avoided by having a super low stall speed the occupants already have good chance of surviving, to fly another day . It's the simple physics that eludes those drivers who like to stick close to the centre line/in the right lane courting a head on.

 

[ATTACH]41710[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
All true and features like roll over protection can be designed in as part of the fuselage  - little or no weight penalty BUT you ask any trauma surgeon - rapid acceleration/deceleration of body organs is a killer.  If this can be avoided by having a super low stall speed the occupants already have good chance of surviving, to fly another day . It's the simple physics that eludes those drivers who like to stick close to the centre line/in the right lane courting a head on.

 

 

 

I have at no point in time suggested anywhere or supported an increase in stall speed, I am absolutely for a standardised stall speed regardless of weight, so I'm not sure what your platform is about there ....

 

.. and no, you can not include serious crash protection without increases in weight.

 

Other than some tube steel high wings, most planes I have looked over are going to kill you in any reasonable incident, and plenty of evidence of it. the issue is their desperation to make a reasonable offering of payload in a tightly restricted weight class. Your unltimate safety comes in around 10th place, if considered at all.

 

600kgs is fine in Europe, I even had a short ass, 55kg Dutchman tell me that there was no need for more, even less was fine, and yet just yesterday,  I had a 110 kg American, exactly twice the weight of the Dutchman, telling me the LSA weight is out of his reach as an viable option.

 

And of course what hasn't been mentioned is that the extra weight allows for far cheaper, and proven, auto conversion engines such as Viking and Aeromomentum. ... and that is a biggy in reducing the costs

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have at no point in time suggested anywhere or supported an increase in stall speed, Wow! is that what you read into my largely supportive statement

 

I am absolutely for a standardised stall speed regardless of weight, so I'm not sure what your platform is about there .... What's all this "standardised" stuff I merely pointed out that when you stop from a slow speed you are less likely to suffer trauma - simple physics!

 

.. and no, you can not include serious crash protection without increases in weight. I would like to make reference to bovine excrement but will forgo the utterance - good design can do a lot without significant weight penalty - check out the auto industry.

 

Other than some tube steel high wings, most planes I have looked over are going to kill you in any reasonable incident, and plenty of evidence of it. the issue is their desperation to make a reasonable offering of payload in a tightly restricted weight class. Your ultimate safety comes in around 10th place, if considered at all. No idea what you mean.

 

600kgs is fine in Europe, I even had a short ass, 55kg Dutchman tell me that there was no need for more, even less was fine, and yet just yesterday,  I had a 110 kg American, exactly twice the weight of the Dutchman, telling me the LSA weight is out of his reach as an viable option. Designers of most things, will set the parameters to meet the most common weight/hight  of a given population - over time and with market changes this may have to be adjusted - ie if you want to sell to some Pacific iIland populations you may have to consider much larger weights and body size

 

And of course what hasn't been mentioned is that the extra weight allows for far cheaper, and proven, auto conversion engines such as Viking and Aeromomentum. ... and that is a biggy in reducing the costs.

 

Not against weight increase - no benefit to for me and I would suggest most RAA pilots - would prefer an entry to  controlled airspace endorsement - something I can use

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe those people who have financial  interest in that weight increase, are the ones pushing that agenda.

 

How many aircraft are restricted by other than weight, is it just the 95-10 aircraft that is not wanting an increase in it's weight.

 

spacesailor 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly there are some who will benefit - I suspect RAA admin may have the most to gain.

 

Some GA pilots (particularly the older health concerne crowd) may find RAA an attractive alternative but with the availability of RPL this may not eventuate to any great degree.

 

There are also some small aircraft manufacturers , particularly those that have a 4 seat variant (cant use for PAX but additional "cargo" ), or are struggling to have a meaningful carrying capacity that will be enthusiastic lobbyists for the weight gain.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe those people who have financial  interest in that weight increase, are the ones pushing that agenda.

 

Maybe, but so what, are you against the market having cheaper, safer aircraft for others to choose from, even if you are happy with your choice?

 

If you want to fly an expensive aircraft that you can't travel with your 'large'ish' Mate, some baggage and fuel for a reasonble distance trip, no one is stopping anyone. No one is looking to ban the aircraft you already have. I can't understand why some of you are against it when it doesn't affect you at all, you're happy with the choices you have, that's awesome, enjoy, this change won't impact you.

 

Most Americans I speak to agree that 600kg LSA are not suitable for them, and theres a reason that the next size up are the biggest sellers/most used there.

 

I will be meeting 4 Americans of note in the light aircraft industry/EAA later in the week for a few days, and this is on the table for discussion, and I note that a couple of them are 'large'ish' gentlemen ..

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
All I want is to see an increase in weight so as to add load plates in corners, and a roll bar, and a few other items that would make construction cheaper.

 

How many more pilots and pax are going to die, paraplegic, head injuries, be trapped in low wings with fuel dripping around them etc because they wont put a 5kg roll bar in..

 

[ATTACH]41710[/ATTACH]

 

The problem with the strength argument is designers don't use the extra weight to add strength, they use extra weight to go faster and carry more.

 

The AUF/RAA went from 450kg to 500kg to 600kg. 150kg would add a lot of strength, but I bet most of it has been used for extra speed (thinner wings, no struts etc. mean the structure must be heavier for the same strength) and more payload.

 

That pic looks like a RV-7 which is approximately 815kg. If you're saying it too needs more weight, how much do you want?

 

Would you rather crash a 600kg Jabiru or a 815kg RV-7? I would certainly choose to crash in my 544kg aircraft with its steel tube cockpit rather than the 815kg RV-7. The RV-7 has many advantages over my aircraft, I don't think a more crashworthy structure is one of them.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Not against weight increase - no benefit to for me and I would suggest most RAA pilots - would prefer an entry to  controlled airspace endorsement - something I can use"

 

If you so need Controlled Airspace Access, you have --- RPL -- As if I read correctly the RAA variant will be Exactly the same requirements ..or Harder.. same medical.. same Aircraft requirements..

 

Then the those who don't wish it won't have to live with the penalties that will be imposed on the rest of us

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those differences in weight are immaterial in a crash. More weight can mean more safety around the cockpit capsule. there seems to be an objection, not related to safety, but to the politics of envy for people who can build or buy at the higher weight.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SO Sorry. to refute your text.

 

",no one is stopping anyone. No one is looking to ban the aircraft you already have."

 

BUT

 

They DID,

 

Before " February 2004,AUF changed its name to Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)."

 

And the HummelBird was struck from the register of 95-10.

 

I only know of One that registered in the new category,10-19. Thats out of 15 on the builders list.

 

RAA took the money, issued a registration certificate & number, then said NO.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read it - people are not against the weight increase (nothing to do with overly large Yanks either) its more that they have other priorities that they feel should be higher on the "to do list".

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a rational world nobody would be designing aircraft to an arbitrary, legislated, weight limit or stall speed.

 

BTW the 61 knot stall speed limit is based on experience of numerous forced landings as a result of WW2, I believe. There is a knee in the curve of risk of death vs stall speed right at 61 knots. Hence the Part 23 61 knot max stall. It is perfectly rational, unlike a lot of regulation.

 

I don't believe glider experience has much to do with powered aircraft forced landings. Gliders are MUCH easier. (based on 62 real, personal, land in paddocks events in gliders. Numerous more on other aerodromes/airstrips).

 

If you want to survive a powered aircraft engine failure, practice in a powered aircraft.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SO Sorry. to refute your text.

 

",no one is stopping anyone. No one is looking to ban the aircraft you already have."

 

BUT

 

They DID,

 

Before " February 2004,AUF changed its name to Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus)."

 

And the HummelBird was struck from the register of 95-10.

 

I only know of One that registered in the new category,10-19. Thats out of 15 on the builders list.

 

RAA took the money, issued a registration certificate & number, then said NO.

 

spacesailor

 

The Hummel Bird has not met the requirements of 95.10 since way before 2004.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you so need Controlled Airspace Access, you have --- RPL -- As if I read correctly the RAA variant will be Exactly the same requirements ..or Harder.. same medical.. same Aircraft requirements..

 

Then the those who don't wish it won't have to live with the penalties that will be imposed on the rest of us

 

What penalties will be imposed on those not wishing to have a controlled airspace endorsement ??

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
What penalties will be imposed on those not wishing to have a controlled airspace endorsement ??

 

It looks to me as if CASA are not inclined to bundle CTA access with a higher MTOW, which makes sense.

 

The rapid uptake of suitable existing "non GA" aircraft operating within CTA, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney are generating a track record, so CASA will be accumulating compelling evidence as to their safety level. They could use this as a decision basis.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks to me as if CASA are not inclined to bundle CTA access with a higher MTOW, which makes sense.

 

The rapid uptake of suitable existing "non GA" aircraft operating within CTA, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney are generating a track record, so CASA will be accumulating compelling evidence as to their safety level. They could use this as a decision basis.

 

Yeah! but Arron25 said there would be penalties (I assume financial) for the privilege of entering CTA  - so again what penalties may result????

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be billed for the ATC services YOU use. Why would it be free?  IF you do something wrong and send a jet around, (or worse) you might have to sell your house. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah! but Arron25 said there would be penalties (I assume financial) for the privilege of entering CTA  - so again what penalties may result????

 

Arron will have his own list but once you allow a crossover of product a safety authority cannot allow double standards without exposing itself to financial risk, and other unwanted trends.

 

For example if you allow both Lame ane L2 maintenance on the same model aircraft, not only are at risk if an L2 maintained aircraft kills someone, but you will be draining the LAME pool as they get out of the business, and that will cause the Charter industry to collapse.

 

For the package the self-declared medical isn’t enough. How would you feel about a class 2 and at any one time how would you know who has what medical. One of the costs, even without a change in aircraft specs is that the talk has uncovered the need for all to go to Class 2 anyway? That would be a devastating cost.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly there are some who will benefit - I suspect RAA admin may have the most to gain.

 

Some GA pilots (particularly the older health concerne crowd) may find RAA an attractive alternative but with the availability of RPL this may not eventuate to any great degree.

 

There are also some small aircraft manufacturers , particularly those that have a 4 seat variant (cant use for PAX but additional "cargo" ), or are struggling to have a meaningful carrying capacity that will be enthusiastic lobbyists for the weight gain.

 

Not exactly. The GA pilots  is THE reason CASA even initially entered into the argument. 

The GA pilots already have their licences and there is no requirement to drop down to an RPL if you already have a PPL or CPL it’s just the medical that is the issue for them. 

RPL still requires as a minimum a basic Class 2 medical and even that is way above the medical level of a self certification private drivers licence.  The general drift of pretty much most GA pilots with medical issues is to go to a basic class 2 if they can and then pretty soon they progress out of that range and still end up looking at RAAus. They might gain a year or so but the inexorable path is to failed class 2 of whatever type. Often it’s not just the inability but the cost involved that causes the move to RAAus. 

The highly valid argument was that GA pilots with a “near-but-not-quite” weighted aircraft currently have to transition to another aircraft  if they move to RAAus due to medical issues. 

Over the last few years CASA have had a number of high profile pushes involving travelling seminars and tens of thousands of $ in costs relating to transition training and the risks of transitioning especially in GA / private flying.  

 

 

On the back of this they got pushed into the corner of publicly accepting that forcing a transition to new aircraft by older / less medically fit pilots was actually worse for safety then allowing them to keep their old Cessna or piper. 

It was on this basis that the requests from RAAus were given any attention. The push from RAAus would probably have had  no effect without it. 

 

 

Not sure which 4 seat aircraft you’ve got in mind. But given our very small part in the world markets I don’t really think we carry much potential for making profits for them. so if they are watching I don’t think it will be with much interest. Particularly since most of the new European aircraft are way expensive. 

 

 

  • 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...