Jump to content

Is RAA getting 760kg MTOW?


Recommended Posts

Goodaye all

 

Spent the morning trolling the net about RAA and 760kg and my head is about to explode.

So, is RAA getting 760kg MTOW in the near future?

 

Just a simple yes or no would be good.

 

regards Bruce

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's a balance between  reduced privileges and concessions against ICAO rules that should be proportional and realistic.. To work properly U/L ops should never be a back door to GA or wish to take

It happens even when only one in the cockpit,  always listen to that little voice.  

Since the CASA ORIGINALLY were the ones to propose 762 Kgs this would have to qualify as a FIASCO after more than 20 years of confusion and resulting in people losing money and HOPE.. If they can't ha

Posted Images

When it happens, wonder what caveats it’s going to have?  I am sure some unreasonable requirements will be dreamed up so people can justify their jobs 😞

Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that 760 is up for another consultation in the new year according to CASA.
 

So I spoke to RAAus 2 weeks ago about it and it was also confirmed to me that at 760 kg, a LAME will be the only one that can work on my Colt.

CASA will not budge on that requirement even after Part 149 comes through.

 

The Tech team suggested that I could go the LSA route with a max empty build of 413kg to fly at 600 kg, and I can conduct the maintenance myself.

 

I have started the rebuild and will/should be able to comply with the 413 rule. I will still get a LAME to sign off on my rebuild just in case I can’t make the weight and so will have to stay on the VH register.

 

So far have put have put it back to the basic option by making it day VFR by removing all of the lights. All the extra instruments (vacuum) and right tank will come out this week.

 

I have researched light weight alternator, starter, batteries (choice of. odyssey or earth x as both have STCs) and will get them in the new year. 

 

I have contacted Oratex and will apply for the STC for the Colt.

 

Projected weight is 405kg..........so far.....

 

Ken

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Kyle Communications said:

I think it will be along the SAAA rules for maint etc for home builders and mostly the same as normal GA for the factory builts

 

I have to say, what’s the point for factory builts IF it’s close to GA?  IF that’s the case I wonder what the medical requirements will be?  Might as well consider its de facto GA, with most of the governing rules?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the hold up is due to the fact that RAA's Part 149 is held  up in the works after over 12 months. What could be so hard? Afterall they (CASA) have only been working on Part 149 since at least 1998 so should know what needs to be in an exposition OR they could look over the ditch to see how its done.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the CASA ORIGINALLY were the ones to propose 762 Kgs this would have to qualify as a FIASCO after more than 20 years of confusion and resulting in people losing money and HOPE.. If they can't handle this what  can they handle?  The extra weight doesn't just affect old(er) stuff. It affects the direction and potential of stuff to emerge and will reduce the need to fly overweight to carry 2 people unless you go exotic materials which do require extra skills to diagnose damage and repair correctly..Nev

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

It took CASA 10 years to come up with the RPL which ended up being something entirely different from the RPL in the UK, USA, Canada & NZ where it took 3 months. Now there is a genuine historical answer to the speed at which CASA moves. Glacial indeed. The question is Why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Public servants have been known to use "consultation" as a mechanism to avoid change. CASA's approach to consultation is variable depending upon the target audience and CASA's real desire for change. For example, the way that they have responded to the demands of the big players in the drone industry (Google, Amazon etc) has been frighteningly quick (on their time scale).

So if Dr Smart Aleck and his cronies can do it for Bill Gates, Bezos and co. in whole new arena of aviation regulation, why can't they shift the goal posts in a long standing, known quantity sector like recreational aviation? I suspect there are no chances for high paying post retirement jobs in recreational aviation or international kudos as "innovators". 

Recreational aviation is not alone when it comes to this self absorbed regulator. Just look at the way they messed up on Parts 61, 66 and 91.

Quote

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim McDowall said:

Public servants have been known to use "consultation" as a mechanism to avoid change. CASA's approach to consultation is variable depending upon the target audience and CASA's real desire for change. For example, the way that they have responded to the demands of the big players in the drone industry (Google, Amazon etc) has been frighteningly quick (on their time scale).

So if Dr Smart Aleck and his cronies can do it for Bill Gates, Bezos and co. in whole new arena of aviation regulation, why can't they shift the goal posts in a long standing, known quantity sector like recreational aviation? I suspect there are no chances for high paying post retirement jobs in recreational aviation or international kudos as "innovators". 

Recreational aviation is not alone when it comes to this self absorbed regulator. Just look at the way they messed up on Parts 61, 66 and 91.

 

"Public servants have been known to use "consultation" as a mechanism to avoid change." -  AND a raft of other delaying tactics.

 

"I suspect there are no chances for high paying post retirement jobs in recreational aviation or international kudos as "innovators".  - as a general rule innovation and innovators are not tolerated in the ranks of the Public Service.

 

"Recreational aviation is not alone when it comes to this self absorbed regulator" - not self absorbed so much, as so risk averse, no one wants to make any sort of move, as this attract attention, which may impact negatively on ones career - common to all bureaucracies not just Gov.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

"Public servants have been known to use "consultation" as a mechanism to avoid change." -  AND a raft of other delaying tactics.

 

"I suspect there are no chances for high paying post retirement jobs in recreational aviation or international kudos as "innovators".  - as a general rule innovation and innovators are not tolerated in the ranks of the Public Service.

 

"Recreational aviation is not alone when it comes to this self absorbed regulator" - not self absorbed so much, as so risk averse, no one wants to make any sort of move, as this attract attention, 43which may impact negatively on ones career - common to all bureaucracies not just Gov.

Interesting how the meaning of the words down the generations change.

A few decades ago you might go flying wit someone because he was a pilot with good airmanship and be told not to fly with another because he "took risks" amd "would get it one day", but now we are talking about "risk-averse" being a sin.

 

When you've been through a few cases after accidents, you quickly realise there are no accidents where the injured party's lawyers say "Since he'd never done that before, we won't be making a claim your Honour."

 

So put yourself in Dr Smart Aleck's shoes: He has a set of regulations for 750 kg where the aircraft is designed and manufactured to a high standard of airworthiness, he trains the pilot to be able to fly anywhere in Australia, and he sets a medical standard and appoints specific medical practitioners to examine pilots.

 

Then some people come along and say: "We want to build our own aircraft madeout of a piece of pipe, some wires and cloth, a plastic chair amd a lawnmower engine like they do in the US."

This coincides with a move by Governments to get rid of people suing them "because they have deep pockets" whenever something goes wrong. They can't get rid of the whole GA system because that would be politically damaging, but these were only little things for recreation only, no business involvement, Dr Smart could give them what they wanted and shift Public Liability at the same time by following the lead of sporting industries and give them exemption from some government prescriptive rules, subject to them self-administering [lawyer-speak for assuming all risks themselves], subject to some conditions [reverse rules] two of them being staying under 300 feet and in a paddock.

 

The activity became a huge success and down the track he could widen access to airspace at a reasonable low risk to himself. With virtually no administrative costs the group had got what they wanted, and started building bigger and faster machines, and some manufacturers and distributors joined the group.

 

Dr Smart had managed to keep Recreational and GA groups apart in a reasonably logical manner but then at the bigger end of the market someone said "I'm too fat; when I get in with my mate and we load full fuel and camping gear, we're over weight.

 

At the bottom end of GA some pilots, failing the medical requirements said "Stuff this, they only have to get a driver's licence standard medical in RA and they're just about flying the same aircaft to the same places we are, why do we have to get a Class 2.

 

So Dr Smart took on some additional liability risk and lets some of them fly under some conditions, which was logical from a liability perspective, but blurred the situation for many people.

 

Then some people found some overseas product which fitted into the 750 kg class, which was not allowed in RA, even if you took a seat out and pretended it was only a 1 passenger aircraft.

 

Dr Smart now had to consider that if he let the RA Group operate the same aircraft as the GA Group, he might have a lot more liability than the taxpayers were comfortable with, and he would then have to decide where the Class 2 medical cut off in GA and whether the top end of RA should have a medical standard the same as GA, which means Class 2 if you want to do anything meaningful.

 

I'd be risk-averse too in those circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kgwilson said:

It took CASA 10 years to come up with the RPL which ended up being something entirely different from the RPL in the UK, USA, Canada & NZ where it took 3 months. Now there is a genuine historical answer to the speed at which CASA moves. Glacial indeed. The question is Why?

KGW

In 1998 CASA announced a reform of the licensing system with promised legislation in 2001. The reforms CASA suggested included many elements of the RPL. It wasn't until 2014 that Part 61 became operational. Part 61 was touted as a milestone. I had another view.

 

I wouldn't only be pointing a finger at the public servants as mentioned above, they are answerable to the CASA Board and ultimately the politicians. Of course, the only thing the politicians react to is the bad media and getting back 'in' at the next election so reform is not necessarily a high priority. Reform may even may even result in bad media so conservatism reigns. Then you have the systemic issues. If you're a public servant out of industry or, heaven forbid, a former CEO from RAA now in CASA, and have a pragmatic view of how to administer recreation aviation, unless you adhere to the conservative culture wrought by the politicians then you are let go. Even if someone wanted to interpret the rules in a pragmatic way they'll end up with a 'please explain'. If they don't, there is always the performance audit administered by ANAO. Performance audits review regulatory adherence. ANAO findings that can be traced to an individual have consequences.

 

So what can we do? Well, we could convince the public to convince the politicians to direct CASA to reform the rules. Then again the public are only concerned about travelling in an airline and getting from point a to point b safely. Stories about accidents, beaten up by the media, undermine confidence in the industry. Recreation flying has their fair share of accidents. Another reason for CASA to be conservative and reform at a 'glacial' pace.

 

Some cynical thoughts.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a balance between  reduced privileges and concessions against ICAO rules that should be proportional and realistic.. To work properly U/L ops should never be a back door to GA or wish to take it over as "the NEW GA." IF you want the privileges GA has, do the proper course of study  and qualify.. It's that simple. We have been all over the place since we got ambitious.  AUWeight is a minor problem if handled sensibly.. You have ONE passenger maximum "with knowledge of what they are getting into" and a slowish stall speed that should ensure engine out survival and you avoid populous areas you can't glide from.  In Australia we have now had over 20 years of  confusion, lost hope and stagnation.. There's no reserve of U/L knowledge in CASA and outright hostility existed with McCormack.sp? Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Interesting how the meaning of the words down the generations change.

A few decades ago you might go flying wit someone because he was a pilot with good airmanship and be told not to fly with another because he "took risks" amd "would get it one day", but now we are talking about "risk-averse" being a sin.

 

..................................................................................................................................................................

 

I'd be risk-averse too in those circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turbo - the phrase "risk averse" is contextual (as I am sure you know).

 

In aviation or any activity inherently dangerous, it pays to be risk adverse.

In bureaucracies, it also pays to be risk averse, as these highly political institutions, tend to reward anyone with the temerity to suggest a novel idea/approach or god-for-bid, make a decision (collective/consensus ones are safe) being labeled a rebel - a stunted career or early " voluntary" redundancy being the outcome . The most successful bureaucrats, have never so much as had a hair out of line, let alone made an independent decision or voiced a personal opinion.

Where the risk averse pilot will be esteemed, the impact of risk averse/fence sitting bureaucrats on society, is stultifying

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 408059 said:

KGW

In 1998 CASA announced a reform of the licensing system with promised legislation in 2001. The reforms CASA suggested included many elements of the RPL. It wasn't until 2014 that Part 61 became operational. Part 61 was touted as a milestone. I had another view.

 

I wouldn't only be pointing a finger at the public servants as mentioned above, they are answerable to the CASA Board and ultimately the politicians. Of course, the only thing the politicians react to is the bad media and getting back 'in' at the next election so reform is not necessarily a high priority. Reform may even may even result in bad media so conservatism reigns. Then you have the systemic issues. If you're a public servant out of industry or, heaven forbid, a former CEO from RAA now in CASA, and have a pragmatic view of how to administer recreation aviation, unless you adhere to the conservative culture wrought by the politicians then you are let go. Even if someone wanted to interpret the rules in a pragmatic way they'll end up with a 'please explain'. If they don't, there is always the performance audit administered by ANAO. Performance audits review regulatory adherence. ANAO findings that can be traced to an individual have consequences.

 

So what can we do? Well, we could convince the public to convince the politicians to direct CASA to reform the rules. Then again the public are only concerned about travelling in an airline and getting from point a to point b safely. Stories about accidents, beaten up by the media, undermine confidence in the industry. Recreation flying has their fair share of accidents. Another reason for CASA to be conservative and reform at a 'glacial' pace.

 

Some cynical thoughts.

 

 

My reference to CASA includes everyone from the Minister down. I have only experience with one other civil aviation body & that is the NZCAA. As President of the NZ Hang Gliding Association in the late 70s & early 80s I had an excellent rapport with those tasked to look after our interests. We were given privileges beyond our initial expectations and the rapport was maintained well after the time I moved on and the experience was similar once I became involved with powered flight.

 

I found the hostility by many pilots towards CASA when I began flying in Australia quite disconcerting. After hearing plenty of war stories (probably suitably embellished) I began to understand it better. In saying that I have since had a number of dealings with CASA, mainly in the training/ consultative areas and found those on the ground to be understanding and courteous and they always respond to questions etc. New directors seemingly are unable to effect change and the source of the reluctance to move probably lies within the hugely complex legislative process, something I have found in all parts of life in Australia

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

My reference to CASA includes everyone from the Minister down. I have only experience with one other civil aviation body & that is the NZCAA. As President of the NZ Hang Gliding Association in the late 70s & early 80s I had an excellent rapport with those tasked to look after our interests. We were given privileges beyond our initial expectations and the rapport was maintained well after the time I moved on and the experience was similar once I became involved with powered flight.

 

I found the hostility by many pilots towards CASA when I began flying in Australia quite disconcerting. After hearing plenty of war stories (probably suitably embellished) I began to understand it better. In saying that I have since had a number of dealings with CASA, mainly in the training/ consultative areas and found those on the ground to be understanding and courteous and they always respond to questions etc. New directors seemingly are unable to effect change and the source of the reluctance to move probably lies within the hugely complex legislative process, something I have found in all parts of life in Australia

So, should we all just quietly cop the rough leaf pineapple to our rear most facing orifice?   
The RAA has many members and maybe it’s time they politely put the pressure on the hierarchy to try resolve  the 760 MTOW situation.  Whilst many members probably don’t need it, whats  to stop them from helping those who do?

We have some 13,000 members and IF we all band together to seek the answers......

Some  people have kits to build, waiting in the wings 🙂 to take advantage of the increased weight?

i mean, it’s been going on for years.......how hard is this?  Either fight the battle, or give up and go home 😞

I thought Aviators were tougher to NOT give up.........

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackc - dont know who the deep thinker/observer of human nature was but he/she observed something along this sentiment: 

 

Aspiring rulers should note -  the poor will revolt, as they have nothing left to loose. The rich will appose you or force you to do what they want, as they have the resources to do so. The middle class will do nothing but maintain the status quo and pay taxes, as they fear loosing their "position"/ income. Ergo maintain a large tax paying the middle class  and you will ensure the on going enslavement of the populous.

 

It may have come to your attention, that Australia is an overwhelmingly middle class society and despite our much vaunted disrespect for authority, amongst the most law abiding, non confrontational, dont rock the boat, she'll be right mate, societies on earth.

 

We do not politely or otherwise "put the pressure on the hierarchy" continually accept with little complaint, the inefficiencies, sometimes criminal often immoral shenanigans, from our leaders (whom we willingly bank roll).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes JackC.

Also get that "wing loading"  removed from the 95-10 caturgury .

There Was 17 on tha build list, and I have been given a set of plans from another " Not going to build ".

That Could have been the 18th aircraft on the 95-10 rego !.

spacesailor

 

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...