Jump to content

760kg upgrade and CASA consultation


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

m61A1

 

Yes very daunting.

 

So easy in training with an experienced instructor besides me, (A-22  FOXBAT )

 

BUT

 

New single seat aircraft, not knowing how much input to controls. I wouldn't be the first to porpoise a Hummel to a Bad landing.

 

Are the wheels in line with the rudder,? Fast taxi-ing will soon have your heart in your mouth, if the plane goes left under take-off speed , then right as soon as the nose-wheel looses grip,

 

I did ask the only experienced  HummelBird pilot if he would test-fly it, but he had others to checkout as well, so declined. It is a Big ask for anyone to take a risk in an unknown aircraft.

 

So a quick run on a closed road, & yes the wheels are Not aligned with the rudder. (great having someone that can close a road legally.)

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NEXT.

 

Paying Passengers !.

 

Why not.  They pay for fuel. & Feed.

 

The governments being cheated out of it's 10% GST.

 

They'll have to get onto this blatant rort of their GST .

 

More weight !.

 

More seats !.

 

More 10% gst

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Airventure 2019 ~ LSA Weight Limit Likely To Include Four-Seat Aircraft, Paul Bertorelli July 22, 2019 ~

 

http://avweb.acemlnb.com/lt.php?s=4bac45814476bb5e9a4cf11ae2f42a80&i=103A117A3A1846

 

Interesting but sadly irrelevant to Australia. 

 

CASA continues to stand its ground and maintain that planes fly in Australian skies under a different set of  laws of physics here and it doesn’t matter what happens anywhere else in the world “what CASA says goes” here  and they ain’t saying anything new about any thing recreational pilots would like. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting but sadly irrelevant to Australia. 

 

CASA continues to stand its ground and maintain that planes fly in Australian skies under a different set of  laws of physics here and it doesn’t matter what happens anywhere else in the world “what CASA says goes” here  and they ain’t saying anything new about any thing recreational pilots would like. 

 

What’s wrong with a PPL?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't fly RAAus aircraft on a PPL..  Nev

 

That’s correct; you have a medical standard and standard of training and standard of aircraft to ensure the accident rate doesn’t result in additional pax fatalities.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

" and standard of aircraft to ensure the accident rate doesn’t result in additional pax fatalities."

 

Yet they want aircraft so flimsy, they come apart when the tissue paper gets damp.

 

Wing load rule.

 

wing-loadRight.jpg.586ddae5a99f30ec2eb427a85cd4e5e6.jpg

 

Definitely complies with CASA's rule.

 

wing-loadRight.jpg.7714ecb09c616833e4f68d4bc88b9bdd.jpg

 

wing-loadRight.jpg.1a4279a41fb28bc56f18d0894c15cd8e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
What’s wrong with a PPL?

 

I’m using the term “recreational” in it’s broadest sense - meaning any pilot with any form of licence or certificate who is flying any form of aircraft but for enjoyment without commercial reward. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s correct; you have a medical standard and standard of training and standard of aircraft to ensure the accident rate doesn’t result in additional pax fatalities.

 

I doubt you can find any statistics to back up that statement. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m using the term “recreational” in it’s broadest sense - meaning any pilot with any form of licence or certificate who is flying any form of aircraft but for enjoyment without commercial reward. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your classification about flying for recreational purposes (enjoyment without commercial reward.

 

The problem is both CASA and RAA have said, after a lot of tentative statements, that increased weights are not going to happen.

 

So the present system gives a clear division between

 

1.   GA Pilots with a PPL authorising Single Engine not exceeding 5,700 kg  MTOW and no limit on passengers, with an RPL option for those with deteriorating medical standards or who don't want to fly the house to keep up Nav/cross country/CTA skills, with an appropriate reduction in passengers to lessen the risk, flying under full prescriptive rules and:

 

2.  Recreational Aviation Australia/HGFA coming out of the paddocks and flying by exception to some prescriptive rules and under self administration where the Organisation makes up its rules, other than those CASA rules not excepted (use of common airspace etc.), with a lower standard of design maintenance and construction,  staying away from CTA and carrying a maximum of two pax to offset the increased risk of the lower standards.

 

Under today's standards and based on the latest information that there will be no weight increase, your option, if you want to carry four or more, (and six pax aircraft offer the best flexibility of taking six pax and some luggage on short trips with part fuel, four pax and more luggage and longer trips or two pax and very long trip legs, and hire can be cheaper than a Jabiru per Nm if everyone pays), and the training costs are pretty much the same (I'm talking real costs for real people, not theoretical hours for the fastest learners.

 

Under those circumstances PPL is the way to go, and with the six place aircraft you get the bonus of things like HF Radio and other Nav equipment and often a faster cruise speed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt you can find any statistics to back up that statement. 

 

So far in Australia no one is building four seat, self-build or cheap kit build sytretched aircraft using the same basic motors, so no, you won't find four place accidents which are relevent to RA, however:

 

If you go through the statistics where all on board were killed, although not every one would have had foun on board, you can project an increase, and you can remove that increase, whatever it might be by not allowing  training to a lesser standard, nav skills to a lesser standard, and an aircraft to a lesser standard or put it terms of what I was saying, that it's the extra training, extra skills, higher standard of aircraft and higher standard of maintenance that earn the extra two seats.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I think the LSA was always a temporary category, with  an inherent expectation that it would get to higher weights in the USA where they seem to be much more focussed than we are on applying common sense to problems. There is nothing in it for CASA to expose them selves to change by allowing more privileges to "flyers" of "non earning"  aircraft, so why would they do it? Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Definitely no weight increase? If the USA goes ahead, that will mean progressively more and more designs will be useless in Australia.

 

US seems to be aiming at 2023 for the decision; so still to be confirmed over there.

 

 

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...