slartibartfast Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Good idea Ian (Yenn). Let's have a show of hands. Er - perhaps a vote would be easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 three zero - that about decides it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Well I don't have a problem with it but I honestly don't understand why we need it. We fly ULTRALIGHTS if you want heavier planes why not get a PPL. It would be good to see some of the old cubs, etc but lets keep the old trash out. I think the weight increase should be alowed on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Student Pilot Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Better off either all supporting or all against, for the good of the movement we should be unified, there has been too much agitation and complaining loudly. It appears (General consensis, not this pole) that there is a big majority in favour. The press will soon jump on some fellow who complains loudly against it because of a percieved or real danger. Can see the headlines now "Jimbob jones, a respected and expirenced ultralight/light plane/aerocraft pilot claims aircraft will be colliding with Jumbo's". Jimbob might get his 15 minutes of fame but a severe blow would be dealt to recreational aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keeffe Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Look I don't really have an issue with the weight change. Although I have said I wouldn't like the increase, I really don't care as long as my cost of choosing to fly a low inertia machine stay the same. I just look at it faster heavier more risk, more risk more cost, etc etc. Also supply and demand is a big thing, more popular the more things cost. It's the democratic capitalist way. So as long as my costs stay the same, so if heavier machines come in and costs do go up those flyer's of heavier machines wear the extra cost, if the cost was to rise. Otherwise good show old boy. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest High Plains Drifter Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 ...claims aircraft will be colliding with Jumbo's... A different issue. This poll is "Do you support the RAAus weight change to 760kg?" :thumb_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Protecting basic flying Hi All I am all for the wieght increase to 760Kg. Anything that makes the RAAus larger and stronger is OK with me. Although I agree with what Keeffe has to say and feel that flyers of slower lighter aircraft (95-10 mainly, including a few others) should be excempt of some of the rules and costs I can see happening to accommodate faster heavier aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gofastclint Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I don't like it all coming down to just weight. I will relate this to motorcycles, in NSW you used to be limited to a 250 on your L plates, this was a totally stupid when you had RGV 250s that were total death traps for 1st time riders. So savage were these bikes that of all the bikes purchased by people on their L plates that in its 1st year 100 of bikes were written off and of those 80% were fatal. Over 10 years later the LAMS (learner approved motorcycle scheme) was introduced, it was based on a power to weight ratio and on how easy it was to ride for learners. So you could ride something like a 660 single that was far more learner friendly. All you need to do is look on the net at the list to see if your bike is approved, if its not you can seek to get it approved, easy! Our RA is so much smaller than the motorcycle industry and people who fly in general know alot more about their machines than say a motorcycle rider knows about bikes. We also have so many officials and engineers working in aviation that it seems silly to base this on anything but case by case. What if a 1 ton aircraft is so easy to fly with great STOL qualities. Well with this weight law we are stuffed. Wouldn't it be great to find a GA registred aircraft, book someone who is qualified to fly it and make the judgemet on weather this plane is suitable to be put on the "RA-OK" List. This is our recreation, lets trade stupid numbers that only LIMIT for practical decisions made by aircraft engineers and RA-AUS officials. RA officials are obviously capable of this and I know they are not lazy as they are here based on passion. So lets get rid of communist/robot to the number ways and make RA as Unique and down to the individual as possible. I think the only people who will complain about the individualism idea don't belong in an aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Good post, good lateral thinking Clint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Agreement. I have never agreed with a simple weight limit as it doesn't make real sense, however, what is ideal and what is attainable are two different things, at any given point in time. What we essentially need is to have available cheap, simple, easy to construct and service/repair, types, that fly well, and are safe and fun to fly. At this stage we are ahead of the world, as far as I can tell, with no compromise to safety. In fact the safety aspect should be enhanced by permitting stronger cheaper designs. Currently the best performers weight/ payload are of exotic materials (read costly) or a little fragile in some areas Also we do not want to lose what we already have, and where our origins are, and must preserve the BASIC types as a concept and a reality, for those who want to be involved at that level, (and I infer no heirarchical considerations whatever). In the concept of USER PAYS if you want more training/office input YOU pay for it, and don't dump extra costs on those who don't use those facilities. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I agree with Fact Hunter, if others want more rights than they should be the ones paying for it. Clint to compare the LAMS system to the weight increase is like comparing diamonds to road base. The Lams scheme was a Power to weight system therefore the only real thing it stoped was as you said 2 stroke missiles being ridden by kids. To say that a 1 ton plane with great STOL that is easy to fly is no different is just ridiculous. Why not invent a 10 ton plane that stalls at 45knts and fly it under ra-aus. Where does it stop!!!!!. I have to admit when this first came up I was in agreement with it but now after really looking into it there is no big gains. If people are wining that the Jabiru is certified above what RA-AUS will let them fly it to GET OVER IT. Go do your GA conversion and fly under their banner. We enjoy what we have and as mentioned before we are ahead of the rest of the world. If people want to fly big planes get a big license and for us who just enjoy the ideals of flying ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT won't be hit with over regulation:wasnt me: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 760 Kgs BLA 82 I am FOR the 760. and in the context of GFC's comments that a weight increase could be ABOVE 760, I agree with him, but we are not likely to get it. The 760 was offered as a figure which was workable, and I believe that consideration would be given to "near misses", ones that almost fit. I don't feel threatened by this outcome. The pushing of the weight boundaries in itself has no inherent problems, in fact it fixes some, and I agree with GFC. that they are arbitrary. We have grown in fits and starts, but that is quite understandable when you realise the situation that we started from. Regarding paying for the higher cost of the hoped for extensions to our freedoms , those who avail themselves of them should shoulder the cost. It's a question of fairness, but I believe that can happen WITHIN the RAAus. I don't see that the weight increase will cause any increase in cost to the existing members at all. It will just make more aircraft possibilities available. Nev.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't see that the weight increase will cause any increase in cost to the existing members at all. It will just make more aircraft possibilities available. Nev.. Well Nev lets hope your right Nev but I don't believe you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Reason? perhaps you might give some reason for your belief? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Ok here it is, How is RA AUS going to regulate more aircraft, organise Higher Insurance Cover, Re write the training sylabus, and then on top of that keep a watchfull eye on maintence issues without the membership costs and for anyone thinking the above won't happen don't be fooled. RA-AUS rejected the plan to still have ex GA aircraft maintained by LAME's so there will be more costs just for the technical advisors portfolio, than you have the insurance cover that we are lucky to have, the cost of that will go up for that aswell. That is just the tip of the ice berg and don't think RA AUS will bear the cost without passing it on. Even just to organise a register as they propose to have all GA aircraft checked before they are re-registered will be at a price. RA-AUS is there to make money aswell. So I re-iterate my belief if people want bigger planes that get a GA conversion and if it does end up being an RA-AUS controll than it should be user pays=bigger plane bigger rego etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keeffe Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Exactly my concern BLA we should start up the AUF. ULA's only lol. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 if it does end up being an RA-AUS controll than it should be user pays=bigger plane bigger rego etc Well that's a do-able thing...I don't think there would be anyone who would reject paying a bit more if you want the extra weight range, would there? and those that want to stay at 544kg can continue paying what ever the original cost. So if your flying a Drifter with a MTOW of the 544kg or what ever it is, you pay what ever the cost, if you fly a c150 in the new 760kg weight range you pay the 760kg rate...that way people have a choice of either staying in the old weight range or moving to the new weight level...And that way all will be happy paying there own fees for your own type of aircraft whether it be 544kg or 760kg... Ps. I myself don't have anything against the new weight change...Just think of the J230's ability now...only 2 seats but you can fill it up to it's "REAL" MTOW...;) Just my thoughts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Ps. I myself don't have anything against the new weight change...Just think of the J230's ability now...only 2 seats but you can fill it up to it's "REAL" MTOW...;) Sorry, but you can't! It's still limited to 600kg's because at 600kg's is stalls at the maximum of 45 knots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Sorry, but you can't!It's still limited to 600kg's because at 600kg's is stalls at the maximum of 45 knots! Yes I suppose that's not real possible is it... Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcamp Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I doubt that a/c registered at 544/600/whatever will suddenly be OK for 700/760 regardless. Maybe 19- with some paperwork which would be pretty carefully looked at but doubtful. New build 19- could be done with appropriate stall speed, eg J250. For new 24- LSA factory certification to ASTM is only to 600. This leaves VLA for 2 seat or FAR23. Fair investment for a gamble in todays economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keeffe Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Everyone is making their own assumptions as to what would happen. Maybe some direct word from our governing body telling us what will actually happen if a weight increase was implemented. Can guess all day but surely they would have an idea of their plans. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Maybe some direct word from our governing body telling us what will actually happen if a weight increase was implemented. Mike Yes that's a good idea....find out what the Rules and Reg's are that they will be putting out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 There is nothing to stop RAAus from changing the rego costs. We already have a 2 tier system, with different costs for single and 2 seaters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I only have one real concern. There are a hell of a lot of 'old' cessna's and pipers getting around out there.. Cheap to buy because of there age, but expensive to maintain.. why are they expensive??..because they are so old that the engineers have a huge list of things that need to be checked evry 100 hours, every year more things are added to this list by the manufacturers.. Now, if you buy a 40 year old cessna are you going to be as thurough as the lame??.. if you can maintain it yourself, are you going to do all the inspections he would have done?? honestly?? So, worst case could be we get a heap of old tin cans flying around with numbers on the side and after a few years they start clapping hands.. But... imagine what the current builders and designers could start putting out with 760 kil's to work with.. now thats exiteing....:thumb_up: cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Vagueness. How many is a "hell of a lot". Merv? Once an aeroplane is in regular service and being "cared " for, you are in a different ball park, to where aeroplanes are hardly used and left out in the open, with the owners really not knowing what to do with a diminishing asset. Some of these aircraft would need a lot of money spent on them, or might be close to being beyond economical repair, in the normal repair situation. These are a problem whether they are in a VH or numbers environment, but the problem is for the owner to solve. I have all the requirements for application from Steve Bell, and they must be complied with. Believe me, they are comprehensive. Be assured that the airworthiness of the aircraft is well covered at the point of transfer.. ALL costs of complying are met by the applicant, (as it should be). These conditions are far more stringent than for transfer of existing RAAus types, so I have to ask "why the beat-up?"(by some). To those who advocate a return to the "purist types" and a go it alone mentality, that would surely be a recipe for disaster, for them particularly, as they would be too small a group to manage themselves properly, and would leave themselves vulnerable to a campaign by the media or any other group with a vested interest in their destruction. Recreational aviation is changing and the WHOLE movement should stick together. I am constantly disappointed by the territorial infighting that goes on with the various groups of aviation, and the blinkered view taken of the other person's patch. We need to mature a bit and see the big picture for the long haul, not just today. There has never been a time when more freedoms are becoming available to us, so why not appreciate them? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now