Jump to content

CASA Consultation Paper (760 kg) Published.


Recommended Posts

Remember when the RAA and the M&M brothers came out with all this cta access and weight increase twaddle?

Promoted and bashed it about for 6 months and it was always so "close" to bring approved....lol.

Not peep these days....

 

Now left and ignored to die a slow death..

 

 

Edited by Downunder
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If CASA people are working from home the only weight increase is likely to be theirs!

CASA proposed 762Kgs  way back then. NO I'm not being niggly but there's a significance in this selection of a weight limit. Middo might have realised what a can of worms it was for the AUF/ RAAus At

The ground is quite wet, it just looks dry because no weeds have been allowed to grow, timely spraying.   The tractor is a 1996 model so current value only about 50k aud, only 6400 hours with no ov

Posted Images

CASA offered the AUF this weight increase back in the 1990's.  The Board replied, in essence, "No - we're too busy", and the opportunity was missed.  Perhaps we should be blaming Uncle Eugene, Middo et al.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply from CASA today..

 

” I have nothing further that I can advise you at this time in relation to timing.

 

I can say that the project is certainly continuing to progress amongst the many other regulatory projects currently under way”

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

CASA proposed 762Kgs  way back then. NO I'm not being niggly but there's a significance in this selection of a weight limit. Middo might have realised what a can of worms it was for the AUF/ RAAus At least he knew what we stood for.

 The latest management openly coined the term, The "NEW" GA Something the OLD GA won't have a bar of under the 2 M's style.

  The CAA got a NEW CEO with no love whatsoever for homebuilts and such crude concepts that could be made from non certified materials.

  The weight thing has already lost us the maintenance concessions for owners and  time grinds on with little action. Clearly RAAus can't be the back door to GA. That's never going to be a goer, but for heavens sake lets get somewhere. The 600 kgs was a borrowed limit with lot's of extra restrictions and is a stop gap as well. A sensible weight limit is a safety issue. Build planes that carry US, fuel and the other things we might be expected to carry  and are strong enough to do so WITHOUT losing the  "privilege of designing , building, operating and servicing" our type(s) of craft with 2 people on board. IF you want more GO GA. Your choice. Nev

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, facthunter said:

CASA proposed 762Kgs  way back then. NO I'm not being niggly but there's a significance in this selection of a weight limit. Middo might have realised what a can of worms it was for the AUF/ RAAus At least he knew what we stood for.

 The latest management openly coined the term, The "NEW" GA Something the OLD GA won't have a bar of under the 2 M's style.

  The CAA got a NEW CEO with no love whatsoever for homebuilts and such crude concepts that could be made from non certified materials.

  The weight thing has already lost us the maintenance concessions for owners and  time grinds on with little action. Clearly RAAus can't be the back door to GA. That's never going to be a goer, but for heavens sake lets get somewhere. The 600 kgs was a borrowed limit with lot's of extra restrictions and is a stop gap as well. A sensible weight limit is a safety issue. Build planes that carry US, fuel and the other things we might be expected to carry  and are strong enough to do so WITHOUT losing the  "privilege of designing , building, operating and servicing" our type(s) of craft with 2 people on board. IF you want more GO GA. Your choice. Nev

Good summary FH; As the title says this was a Consultation Paper, and Comments closed on September 28, 2019, so there's not much point in coming up with comments now.

From the 10,000 RAA members there were 408 responses.

To put it in perspective, CASA had pointed out that (at the point where we were given certain exemptions from GA regulation the MTOW was 450 kg, and they had allowed an increase to 600 kg which was the International LSA limit.

760 kg was going to represent a 68% increase on the MTOW which allowed CASA to make a case for a substantial difference from GA.

760 was also going to create a substantial mud layer between RA flying and aircraft and GA flying and aircraft in terms of build, maintenance, pilot licence and flying regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Spacesailor ,

it’s coz I have both types and only want to operate under one system. As my Jab is 19 reg it can only stay in RAoz, but my Colt can switch.

spent quite some time on email and phone to Jared and Darren just before Christmas and 760 is the number one push for RAoz in the new year.

I am working thru a rebuild of the Colt at the moment delaying the final weight I will pursue as late as I can (413kg if aiming for LSA). So will save about 15-18k if we have 760 by the time my final decision is made.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I was saddened by the SAAA submission to the senate review. It could best be summarised as; "Misery loves company". They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, walrus said:

I was saddened by the SAAA submission to the senate review. It could best be summarised as; "Misery loves company". They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

I was mystified by the SAAA’s submission, and by their website. They seem to pretend that people only build aircraft to go on the VH register. 
 

The SAAA’s submission made their position very clear, but did not explain what it was based on. Engineering? Past accidents? Jealousy? Snobbery? 

Edited by APenNameAndThatA
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, walrus said:

They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

Gliders are VH registered and to fly/own a glider you need to be a member of the GFA and submit yourself to their "ministrations" which have seen the gliding movement shrink to the point where in a few years time demographics will see its functional demise.

Instead of getting annual aircraft registration fees, the GFA has a system of annual "Form 2" inspections which requires you to purchase a "Form 2" document pack from them.

RAAus derives considerable income from annual registration fees.

Inclusion on the Australian Aircraft Register denotes nothing other than the aircraft is registered. Remember registration is dealt with by Part 47 of CASR and RAAus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's.

Many other jurisdictions register recreational aircraft and sometimes signify them by using numbers instead of letters eg VH-4321. 

If RAAus aircraft are on the Register they (RAAus) will need to replace the income generated from registration fees.

 

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...