Jump to content
Kyle Communications

760kg upgrade and CASA consultation

Recommended Posts

How do you get "lubricated a deal" or "feathered your nest" out of negotiations on behalf of members? I am and will be grateful for whatever can be negotiated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

How do you get "lubricated a deal" or "feathered your nest" out of negotiations on behalf of members? I am and will be grateful for whatever can be negotiated.

 

You need to pay attention to the little snippets that drop from time to time and may or may not be true and therefore may or may not be a benefit or burden to members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAAus aircraft with a MTOW over 600 kg, and below 760 kg, to be categorised as 'Class G' which requires changes to the minimum hours that instructors require.  There are several other changes for instructors in here as well.   (Sport Pilot July p24)

 

The question that flows from this is - will there be changes to RPC training/hours as well, or will an RPC cover everything up to 760, and later, to 1500kg ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, facthunter said:

The history of this is that "originally" CASA proposed an increase to 762 Kgs which by a strange co-incidence happened to include the C-152 and Piper Tomahawk weights. No mention then off it coming with LAME maint .as a part of the package . 

I’ve seen a CASA release which as much as it was just waffle about likely principles involved said exactly that - that certified aircraft would still require LAME  maintenance. 

This was not any sort of of official edict ( as we know and the article is saying this has not been released and is now not actually on the agenda to be even discussed.)

 

Any  mention of “deals “ is obviously premature. It actually seems to me that releases by RAAus governance about the “progress” being made are probably optimistic overtures to placate the masses. 

Edited by Jaba-who

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

I’ve seen a CASA release which as much as it was just waffle about likely principles involved said exactly that - that certified aircraft would still require LAME  maintenance. 

This was not any sort of of official edict ( as we know and the article is saying this has not been released and is now not actually on the agenda to be even discussed.)

 

Any  mention of “deals “ is obviously premature. It actually seems to me that releases by RAAus governance about the “progress” being made are probably optimistic overtures to placate the masses. 

Agree, the couple of RAA presentations I have sat in on always said under 600kg maintained would be maintained as currently required  (eg owner, L2  etc.) and that the over 600 kg new class would be continue to be LAME  maintained; and qualified that with the message that LAME's were not to be disadvantaged with loss of work due to any granting of increased limits; that way there business is protected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

and qualified that with the message that LAME's were not to be disadvantaged with loss of work due to any granting of increased limits; that way there business is protected.

Clear statement of intent.  I didn’t know RAA had any function in ensuring work for LAMEs.  Questionable priorities!

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the intention is as stated if and when it happens is anything that is factory built or certified will have to be LAME done but anything homebuilt/experimental will be able to be owner maintained provided the course to do so has been done if not then it has to be done by a LAME. If this is true I dont have any issue with it as its pretty much what we have now anyway except the L1 maintainer course is a bit of a joke in real terms to do your own maint. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue.The RAA committee thinks that too ! .spacesailor"

So the way to get the Old AUF back WILL be for ALL the Rag, Tube, Scratch built, & none complying with,  RAA, THE NEW Cheap GA aviation !.

WILL be to register ALL, on the GA experimental register.

CASA WILL NOT LIKE THAT IDEA.

I will check out, or have someone  workout how to put the outcast's into VHE rego !, & have Hummels flying again.

spacesailor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There was  plenty of discussion about reversing the move if people subsequently wanted to and there were considered to be some difficulties so obviously owner maintenance was on the cards. If there was NO change no problem exists and there would be no issues going back to VH if required. I had all the paperwork done for my VH Citabria and when McCormack came in it all got shelved, so I have reason to recollect it clearly.. With the "NEW GA" thing who knows what deals are being done?  Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, frank marriott said:

Clear statement of intent.  I didn’t know RAA had any function in ensuring work for LAMEs.  Questionable priorities!

 

 

My understanding is that this was nothing to do with RAAus but a demand from the other aviation stakeholders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, facthunter said:

 There was  plenty of discussion about reversing the move if people subsequently wanted to and there were considered to be some difficulties so obviously owner maintenance was on the cards. If there was NO change no problem exists and there would be no issues going back to VH if required. I had all the paperwork done for my VH Citabria and when McCormack came in it all got shelved, so I have reason to recollect it clearly.. With the "NEW GA" thing who knows what deals are being done?  Nev

Sorry Nev but I think you are talking about  ancient history and is now probably irrelevant. 

 

The unintended consequence and one of the few GA factors that CASA has taken any notice of has been the revelation of severe future LAME shortage. 

This was  driven by the airline industry maintenance side, not RAAus, who will be very adversely affected by future lack of LAMEs. Basically LAMEs  get their apprenticeships through the GA LAME system). 

So when this was pointed out by those groups involved CASA has backed down. 

 

As for reversal back to VH - I’d stick my neck out and say “ not a hope!  “

It’s already a case that VH registered ex-certified experimentals are stuck as experimental and can’t go back. In the old days you could, and there were a number of  certifieds that were converted to experimental ( Cessnas with diesel engines, some rebuilds, even some warbirds before the limited category came out) and they were prohibited from going back to certified category. It’s basically  also a world wide phenomenon (in places that have similar experimental type systems. )

Given its over-conservative attitude on everything I’d suggest it’s unlikely CASA will stick its neck out on returning to potential paying passenger use something that has been maintained by a home handyman. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

"for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue.The RAA committee thinks that too ! .spacesailor"

So the way to get the Old AUF back WILL be for ALL the Rag, Tube, Scratch built, & none complying with,  RAA, THE NEW Cheap GA aviation !.

WILL be to register ALL, on the GA experimental register.

CASA WILL NOT LIKE THAT IDEA.

I will check out, or have someone  workout how to put the outcast's into VHE rego !, & have Hummels flying again.

spacesailor

 

 

I reckon the “old AUF” is gone, deaf and buried and that’s what CASA wants. 

 

Realistically we already know that recreational aviation is the province of old codgers who “remember the days when ....”

SAAA  have  tried to get young people involved and to fill the gaps of the depleting numbers etc.  with basically no success. I’ve been personally involved with this and we have seen no real influx. 

Australian kids ( sure there’s a very few exceptions but not enough to make a difference) don’t want to spend years building when they have endless other instantaneous entertainment. 

They don’t want rag and tube when they know that technology is way way way more advanced than that. 

And everyone is now so risk averse they won’t get into something that might actually hurt them. 

 

I think ink those who want the old rag and tube days have to just make the most of their own time to fly and give up pining for a return of the good ol’ days. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

I think the intention is as stated if and when it happens is anything that is factory built or certified will have to be LAME done but anything homebuilt/experimental will be able to be owner maintained provided the course to do so has been done if not then it has to be done by a LAME. If this is true I dont have any issue with it as its pretty much what we have now anyway except the L1 maintainer course is a bit of a joke in real terms to do your own maint. 

 

 

I attended a presentation a few weeks ago and asked that exact question to the president. His answer confirmed owner maintenance for the over 600kg class in amateur built. I can't recall if that included non hire/reward factory built or not. 

My previous impression was all aircraft over 600kg would be lame maintained. 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Downunder said:

I attended a presentation a few weeks ago and asked that exact question to the president. His answer confirmed owner maintenance for the over 600kg class in amateur built. I can't recall if that included non hire/reward factory built or not. 

My previous impression was all aircraft over 600kg would be lame maintained. 

What does this mean “Amateur build”? 

Do you mean “Experimental Amateur Build” ( AKA GA (VH amateur build) because that’s what exists now. 

Or

Do you mean RAAus “Amateur”  Build - Is this  an actual official term. I’m not sure that it is ( although I am happy to be proved wrong on this)   

 

If my recollection of official terms is correct I am not sure that he has given any new information but maybe used weasel words in the hope no one notices he is referring to something else to save face. 

 

But regardless,  until he can show actual written information from CASA it’s still just one blokes opinion. We know those are a dime a dozen and CASA edicts are only solid when they are written into law. 

 

I don’t know who’s who in the hierarchy and who you are referring to but if it’s one of the two Bozos who presented themselves so ineptly at the senate enquire I wouldn’t put much weight on the reply you mentioned.  My opinion was that were out of their league and hoped no one would notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaba-who said:

What does this mean “Amateur build”? 

Do you mean “Experimental Amateur Build” ( AKA GA (VH amateur build) because that’s what exists now. 

Or

Do you mean RAAus “Amateur”  Build - Is this  an actual official term. I’m not sure that it is ( although I am happy to be proved wrong on this)   

 

If my recollection of official terms is correct I am not sure that he has given any new information but maybe used weasel words in the hope no one notices he is referring to something else to save face. 

 

But regardless,  until he can show actual written information from CASA it’s still just one blokes opinion. We know those are a dime a dozen and CASA edicts are only solid when they are written into law. 

 

I don’t know who’s who in the hierarchy and who you are referring to but if it’s one of the two Bozos who presented themselves so ineptly at the senate enquire I wouldn’t put much weight on the reply you mentioned.  My opinion was that were out of their league and hoped no one would notice. 

Which Senate Inquiry are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read in Sport Pilot, anything over 600kg is going to require higher instructor training, which I read as being applicable also to maintenance. CFIs haven't heard a single word about this, so it comes somewhat as a surprise read.  Can't see that there won't be a LAME requirement for ex-certified aircraft, (but on the RAAus register), because of the treatment of instructing.  In any event, aircraft manufacturers will likely have to re-write their POHs for any higher weights, and this will probably involve flight testing of W & B - which will cost $$.  My guess is that they won't be rushing into it.

happy days,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Which Senate Inquiry are you talking about?

The one from a couple or several months ago. 

Have no idea what it’s formal title was.

Was publically available as a series of videos ( about 3 spanning several hours  IIR) with representations made by people from GA, ?airlines, AOPA, SAAA, the aforementioned two blokes from RAAus and maybe was some others. I forget exactly as they didn’t really concern me. 

 

Everyone else was quite polished and presented factual information. The RAAus guys flustered and obfuscated. ( and  misrepresented the facts ) 

 

Basically stated that all the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to RAAus because the aircraft in RAAus are ALL extremely simple and basic with no complex systems.  Which Has been later pointed out by just about everyone with any interest to be quite false  as many of the same aircraft are used in both GA and RAAus. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

The one from a couple or several months ago. 

Have no idea what it’s formal title was.

Was publically available as a series of videos ( about 3 spanning several hours  IIR) with representations made by people from GA, ?airlines, AOPA, SAAA, the aforementioned two blokes from RAAus and maybe was some others. I forget exactly as they didn’t really concern me. 

 

Everyone else was quite polished and presented factual information. The RAAus guys flustered and obfuscated. ( and  misrepresented the facts ) 

 

Basically stated that all the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to RAAus because the aircraft in RAAus are ALL extremely simple and basic with no complex systems.  Which Has been later pointed out by just about everyone with any interest to be quite false  as many of the same aircraft are used in both GA and RAAus. 

OK, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, poteroo said:

From what I read in Sport Pilot, anything over 600kg is going to require higher instructor training, which I read as being applicable also to maintenance. CFIs haven't heard a single word about this, so it comes somewhat as a surprise read.  Can't see that there won't be a LAME requirement for ex-certified aircraft, (but on the RAAus register), because of the treatment of instructing.  In any event, aircraft manufacturers will likely have to re-write their POHs for any higher weights, and this will probably involve flight testing of W & B - which will cost $$.  My guess is that they won't be rushing into it.

happy days,

Something that was said along the way was that the intent was no aircraft can be re-weighed or re-certified to meet any new weight. They would have to be within the weight category as they stood. 

The principle being that if you’d flown your old C152 for decades and converted to RAAus ( say for lost medical etc) that the a/c simply was changed as it stood to RAAus. This allowed people to fly what they were used to and not have to buy and/or convert to something else at unobtainable cost etc. 

 

Of course that was the first rush feel-good principle which seems to have been pushed into the background with the later noises about higher weights STILL requiring GA type medicals. 

 

There was a statement somewhere I read that the intent was you could not up-weight something previously certified at a lower weight nor to strip seats out of etc to down-weight an a/c to squeeze it into a lower weight category.  

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's that Senate enquiry things mentioned above. If you've never seen it, I urge you to watch all three.

Generally about the medical standards anomalies for <600 kg aircraft of RAAus or VH flavor, as a "level the playing field, umpire" debate.

https://aopa.com.au/senate-rrat-inquiry-into-dual-medical-standards/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

What does this mean “Amateur build”? 

Do you mean “Experimental Amateur Build” ( AKA GA (VH amateur build) because that’s what exists now. 

Or

Do you mean RAAus “Amateur”  Build - Is this  an actual official term. I’m not sure that it is ( although I am happy to be proved wrong on this)

As it will be a new class, I imagine ANY aircraft that fits the requirements can be registered.

ie, heavier than 600 kg RAA "amateur built" and lighter than xxx kg mtow currently built as VH exp.....

I take " amateur built" to mean anything that is not factory built? Plans built, kit built.....

Initally limited to 760 kg, then 1500 in the future. 

I'm a skeptic like you Jaba....just repeating what was said....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...