CASA says no to 95:55 weight increase for RA-Aus.

[Frank Arouet]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project CS 06/01 (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:PWA::pc=PC_93122)

More "industry consultation". More regulatory Review. More time wasted.

CASA fiddles while GA burns.

[paulg]

Why say 'haha' Aeropelican? Do you have a vested interest in this issue? I believe most RA Aus members are happy to embrace new technologies available to them at an affordable cost. Maybe some would want to put old VH registered airframes on RA Aus register if they could, but I cannot see how they would benefit much from a register switch alone.

[Horatio Leafblower]

About the only advantage I can see is the... sorry, would have been the opportunity for GA owners and GA schools to cut costs by internalising their maintenance of C150s.

All academic now of course :} :ok:

[Torres]

CASA needs to undertake a broad and proper consultative process through this project.

The Regulatory Review process has so far taken twenty one years. What is a few more years or decades........? :ugh:

Positive and proactive decision making is obviously old fashioned and not politically correct.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

However, it is expected that the increase in the MTOW for RAAus operations may be controversial for other sectors of the aviation community and CASA needs to undertake a broad and proper consultative process through this project.

A demarcation dispute? Whodathunkit?:hmm:

[Sunfish]

Why do I get the feeling that at some stage CASA is going to be overtaken by events?

[Frank Arouet]

may be controversial for other sectors of the aviation community

And what sector would that be? LAME's and Flying schools are the only ones I can think of with interests that may be under threat. But even these seem not greatly threatening.

But CASA know what they think they are doing don't they?

GFA don't have a weight limit that I know of.


The most immediate relative of RA-Aus is private GA, and the way things are going in that sector there won't be anybody left to "consult" with.

[spacesage]

RA-AUS already has a strong, growing healthy member base.

GA is no longer suffering the drain of pilots and resources to the over hiring airlines.

I am currently training in GA having been a qualified RA pilot. I have access to some great instructors, well maintained aircraft at a club where it is difficult to get a booking becauser of demand.

The weight increase will lead to some older GA types bring allowed onto the RA register, and then some faster more powerful types being allowed onto the RA register.

IMHO, from where I stand I dont see a huge problem.

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

Raaus are lobbying along with another party pushing to have raaus hours loggable towards the ATPL (and it is looking promising), whereas at the moment only 750 raaus hours can count.

We are taking over.

[Frank Arouet]

IMHO, from where I stand I dont see a huge problem.

Neither do most people. However CASA are a different breed of fish.

There is talk of an ambiguity in the press release and some are taking the "wishful thinking" option. I hope they are right.:(

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

A forum owner who is on the board of RAaus says that it will all come through in april next year and he knows his stuff because he posted it on the forum. Pretty soon we will be flying around your unwanted C150's in controlled airspace on an RAaus ticket at half the cost of your licence. I have been reading a poll on night vfr and many recreational pilots want this which is a good thing as recreational aicraft are statistically as safe as flying a GA aircraft, if not safer.

[paulg]

It would be great to have a discussion without taking sides. Spacesage is indicating that there could be benefits all around. Certainly I can't see any new problems being created by an increased MTOW limit for RA Aus aircraft as was proposed. If anyone can see problems, maybe we could talk about them here. You never know we might find solutions which would benefit all. CASA don't want to consult at all apparently. But we can.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The real benefit of the weight increase has nothing to do with re-registering old and busted GA trainers!

[triton140]

A forum owner who is on the board of RAaus says that it will all come through in april next year and he knows his stuff because he posted it on the forum.

Not quite - he said the new CASA CEO had said he had too much on his plate to even think about it before at least April - ie that it might come back for consideration sometime after April (if CASA's backlog is cleared by then!).

I assume that the project might then be restarted and run for another 3 years or so like its predecessor :ugh:.

Seems to me this is just procrastination on CASA's part - they even say they can't see a problem, and ICAO doesn't have a problem. Unfortunately, decisionmaking doesn't seem to be one of the strong points of the CEO, looks like he's one to defer things hoping they'll go away.

At least with the other changes he knocked back, those who want CTA etc can just go get a PPL as many are doing. This one has broader implications for recreational aviation, whether RAAus or PPL.

[paulg]

Ozbusdriver I am thinking there may be benefits for both RA Aus pilots and current GA pilots. Cost savings for existing recreational GA pilots and faster more versatile aircraft for RA Aus pilots. Can you think of other benefits? BTW I am a mere RA Aus basic trainee, but I am interested in learning about these issues, and hopefully exploring possible changes for the benefit of all pilots both GA and RA.

[Frank Arouet]

The real benefit of the weight increase has nothing to do with re-registering old and busted GA trainers!

I am personally of the opinion, that the average weight of the Australian person far exceeds that which is the prescribed nominal weight. This plus an evolutionary trend in design and utility is the safety case RA-Aus probably use to justify a bigger "fudge factor".

Not many C150's with a swept tail qualify as a RA-Aus single seater except with a 40 kg pilot and 10 kg of fuel. (Last 150 I flew was 1107 lbs empty).

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Paulg, it is rather simple. Go and do a W&B on any training RAA aircraft. Add two average build occupants @160kg for the two. Four hours of fuel@60kg and add that to the basic weight of a J230 (then look at the AUW of a VH- J430 for comparison) and see how much is left for baggage. Methinks you will be either gutting your occupant or reducing fuel to less than an hour.

I have yet to find a suitable aircraft in RAA that is safe and legal to fly any distance two up with even average bods and no baggage.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Raaus are lobbying along with another party pushing to have raaus hours loggable towards the ATPL (and it is looking promising), whereas at the moment only 750 raaus hours can count.

Yeah yeah yeah.

We'll have a CTA endorsement... oh wait.. no we won't.

We'll have a weight increase... oh wait.. no we won't.

We'll take over the world... oh wait... :rolleyes:

[training wheels]

Raaus are lobbying along with another party pushing to have raaus hours loggable towards the ATPL (and it is looking promising), whereas at the moment only 750 raaus hours can count.

What relevance does recreational flying have towards airline transport operations? That's what I'd be asking if I was the licensing authority of any country. And if this lobbying is successful, would the Aussie ATPL then be less highly regarded than other ICAO ATPL licenses?

[Frank Arouet]

Raaus are lobbying along with another party.

OK, I'll bite. What other party?

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

It was bought up at the regional airline conferance up north recently, I thought you might be across that Frank. I assume airlines like rex who struggle to get pilots would welcome more candidates cuming through the ranks.

[crezzi]

I think the ATPL issue is that there's an anomaly in the minimum requirement of 750 hours needing to be in a "registered" or "recognised" aeroplane. In some overseas countries (Eg UK, NZ) ultralights / microlights are on the national register so are considered as recognised aircraft and the hours count.

So 750 hours in a Kiwi ultralight + 750 RAAus hours would meet the requirement but 1500 hours in RAAus wouldn't.

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

with standards of raaus flying equal to that of GA there is no logical reason why you cant fly around in an raaus aircraft working up hours towards an atpl, it is no different to flying around on a PPL working towards your atpl 1500 hours.

[Mach E Avelli]

A good way to exclude old corrosion-riddled GA aeroplanes from the 750 kg rule would be to make it valid only for aircraft designed or first flown after a certain date (say 1990?). Existing RA aircraft designs exempted or 'grandfathered' somehow.
Going to 750 kg will allow more robust designs, and that can only be good for RA safety. These aircraft will still have a stall speed limit of 45 knots, so we are not about to see any space-shuttle stuff ripping around frightening the horses.
A lot of existing RA aircraft are really lightly constructed, so it will be interesting to see how well they stand up over a 20 year life-span.

[Frank Arouet]

no logical reason why you cant fly around in an raaus aircraft working up hours towards an atpl,

I am probably wrong, but I thought CPL had to be done in a 120 Kt aeroplane with CSU and Retractable. Are there CSU retractable RA-Aus aeroplanes?

It was bought up at the regional airline conferance up north recently

That must have slipped past my extremely busy social calendar. I was probably just cuming through the ranks to the literacy test.

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

Im gonna get me commercial when this comes thru and fly an airliner. I asked my cfi and he said i can just do the test in something like a Piper Warrior with a Constant Speed prop as long as it does 120 knots. The Tecnam I fly has lots of instruments to do all this but no AH at the moment.

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

this place isn't very friendly like elsewhere if you are referring to me as a troll. My instructor siad there are some jobs where you need only a cpl to fly jets. i will ask him on the weekend.

[j3pipercub]

wind-up alert

[D-J]

either a wind up or someone's severly 'damaged' :ugh: :suspect:

[paulg]

Ozbusdriver wrote

Paulg, it is rather simple. Go and do a W&B on any training RAA aircraft. Add two average build occupants @160kg for the two. Four hours of fuel@60kg and add that to the basic weight of a J230 (then look at the AUW of a VH- J430 for comparison) and see how much is left for baggage. Methinks you will be either gutting your occupant or reducing fuel to less than an hour.

I have yet to find a suitable aircraft in RAA that is safe and legal to fly any distance two up with even average bods and no baggage.

Thanks for explaining Ozbusdriver. You are correct about 450kg MTOW aircraft. However what about factory built LSA aircraft, with MTOW of 600kg, and empty weight of about 300kg? An example is A22 Foxbat LS. There are probably others too.
Paul.

[Ultralights]

Are there CSU retractable RA-Aus aeroplanes?
yes there are. and will cruise at over 120 Kts.

[Joker 10]

Actually you only need a PPL to fly jet aircraft, it all depends on the owner of the aircraft, purpose for flight, insurer, and number of PAX.

[gupta]

Actually, Joker, a jet aircraft can be flown on an RAAus certificate if the aircraft in question meets the RAAus requirements - IIRC Quentin Campbell was working on a 95.10 turbojet in the late 90's

[Recflyingdotcomdotau]

i have done more research and spoken to me instructor last night. He knows a guy who flies little jets from melbourne with a commercial licence. he said something about how because they dont do it on a regular basis that he doesnt need an airliners license. They take political people to parlament in Canberra and stuff like that.

Apparently you cant register a jet as an ultralight in Australia.

[Frank Arouet]

And what has that to do with CASA says no to 95:55 weight increase for RA-Aus

Except perhaps to prolong a meandering and meaningless mischief by someone posing as a literacy failure to give an impression generalising the RA-Aus.

EDIT to add: I understand the CASA Project Manager, Andrew Ward, has confirmed the 750 weight increase has been denied and it would appear an incrimental increase is under way with 600 Kg now the new limit, 650 Kg for seaplanes.

[flighty puss]

"Pilot 1: You know what, I wanna fly my Jab allover the country, in IMC, at night and with 20 people in the back...." Onemore.

But what about wanting to fly with a mate "all over Australia", around IMC, dropping into friends and contacts with a viable strip, and with enough weight allowance to carry a change of the necessaries and/or a fuel top-up.

[VH-XXX]

it would appear an incrimental increase is under way with 600 Kg now the new limit

That would be great news for something that I am currently working on. Any timeframes on is this simply more of a "next step" in the process?