RA-Aus Increased Weight Limit & Flying In CTR.

[Acrosport II]

What's the latest on these two.

I found a thread about increasing the MTOW for LSA up to 750Kg (or 760Kg), but that was 2008.
Are they still working on it?. How's it going?

And a thread on LSA in CTA (without the 'All Important' Class 2 Medical).
Are they still trying to get CASA to approve LSA in CTR without a Class 2 medical.

Cheers

[LeadSled]

Acrosport II,
You could always give RAOz a ring in Canberra and ask.
Tootle pip!!

[actus reus]

Acrosport II,

As Lead says, RAAus should be able to tell you. I did have some passing contact with the 600kg to 650kg discussions some years ago before I had to go off to other things.

From memory, there were some issues around the fact that at 650kg, you captured all the Cessna 150/152s and the early build C172s.

One of the problems then becomes, who is responsible for the on going Airworthiness aspects, e.g, issuing ADs etc? What happens if under RAAus someone decides to re-engine a 150 with an automotive engine with respect to an airframe that was certified but no longer is?

Similar to the issue of a non certified transponder giving a position to AsA. Can the controller rely on the accuracy of the readout if the gear in the aircraft was fitted by a non LAME to an unknown tech standard?

I am not putting a position on these things I am merely recalling some of the technical papers that were floating around in the time period of which you speak.

[Squawk7700]

I asked this question of the hierarchy only several days ago.

CTA is definitely being actively pursued and it's training that's the sticking point. The framework is in place for this endorsement, however it still needs CASA sign-off.

As for weigh increase, I'd tell you if I could remember their answer :-(

In all honesty calling the office to find out won't give an accurate answer as nobody really knows the timeline as there are too many pieces to the puzzle.

[LeadSled]

The framework is in place for this endorsement, however it still needs CASA sign-off.

Folks,
As it has been, and as it does, for what I would guess is about 10 years, maybe longer, long before Middo retired.

The CASA iron ring doesn't want it, so nothing happens.

The 750kg. number came from the CASR Part 21, the upper limit for an aircraft in the Primary category, despite a lot of talk, I don't remember any formal proposal, just talk.

As we know, RAOz (ne. AUF) weights have increased over the years, 488kg to 544kg, and now weights to cover LSA.

Tootle pip!!

[Acrosport II]

actus reus
Acrosport II,

As Lead says, RAAus should be able to tell you. I did have some passing contact with the 600kg to 650kg discussions some years ago before I had to go off to other things.

From memory, there were some issues around the fact that at 650kg, you captured all the Cessna 150/152s and the early build C172s.

One of the problems then becomes, who is responsible for the on going Airworthiness aspects, e.g, issuing ADs etc? What happens if under RAAus someone decides to re-engine a 150 with an automotive engine with respect to an airframe that was certified but no longer is?

Similar to the issue of a non certified transponder giving a position to AsA. Can the controller rely on the accuracy of the readout if the gear in the aircraft was fitted by a non LAME to an unknown tech standard?

I am not putting a position on these things I am merely recalling some of the technical papers that were floating around in the time period of which you speak.


Thanks actus.
I assume you mean MTOW increase to 750Kg (not 650Kg). That would incompass the C150 724Kg, but not the C152 or PA38 etc 757Kg. I also read 760Kg mentioned, which would include the C152 and PA38.


Squawk7700
I asked this question of the hierarchy only several days ago.

CTA is definitely being actively pursued and it's training that's the sticking point. The framework is in place for this endorsement, however it still needs CASA sign-off.

As for weigh increase, I'd tell you if I could remember their answer :-(

In all honesty calling the office to find out won't give an accurate answer as nobody really knows the timeline as there are too many pieces to the puzzle.


That's good news. I hope it comes in sooner rather than later.

[outlandishoutlanding]

Why do you want it?

1. you don't want to get a medical
2. you can't get a medical
3. you don't want to pay a CPL for training, preferring to pay $25/hr to a PPL for training.

actus reus, the current RAAus CTA entry requires a factory built certified or LSA aircraft. however, that doesn't solve the shoddily installed transponder issue.

[spinex]

Strangely enough, there are quite a few numbers aircraft quite happily using controlled airports and traversing controlled airspace - apparently without causing a noticeable amount of mayhem and destruction. I've been in to Archerfield, Sunshine Coast and Cooly in one without causing any concern on the part of atc. You'll find that they have transponders installed and calibrated / maintained by the same organisation that looks after the ratty old 150 tied down next door.

As I understand it, after the McCormick regime issued a "nein, nyet" order on the weight increase to 760kg, which was allegedly an almost done deal at the time, it has been revived under the new order and discussions are ongoing. When - no-one knows but will probably eventually come.

CTAF, as others have said, the mechanism is in place and only needs some tweaks and a sign off, again when is an open question but the consensus is it will come. Part of the problem is the dogs breakfast that was made of the RPL - which was initially sold as a simple step sideways from the RA Aus certificate, but with more privileges available following suitable training, including CTA.

My utterly outrageous suggestion is that private ops in any aircraft of up to 1,500kg mauw, with 4 seats or fewer should be on the RA-Aus model; Day VFR, self certify medical, incremental privileges with training and sign off by instructor eg. 1) solo 25nm radius, 2) pax (x3 cannot see the justification for killing them one at a time only), 3) Nav ie. ex controlled airspace and finally, 4) including Controlled airspace. Point being that RA Aus pilots are not suffering in flight incapacitation at a measurably higher rate than medically certified GA pilots, are probably flying more hours and cross the continent at will already. As far as aircraft go, if you must, insist that those which venture into controlled airspace are maintained as per GA ie by the appropriate L2 maintainer or per the SAAA's system. Those who wish to stay out bush, carry on as before. Bugger, coffee's cold again - that is too sensible ever to fly with this mob.

[Squawk7700]

actus reus, the current RAAus CTA entry requires a factory built certified or LSA aircraft. however, that doesn't solve the shoddily installed transponder issue.

CTA in RA-Aus privileges can be given to an amateur built aircraft with a certified engine.

[roundsounds]

There are gliding operations at Camden, a ClassD airport, flown by pilots holding a GFA issued pilot certificate, self certified medical and no formal CTR endorsement or training (ie no different to RAAus). Same applies to privately operated balloons. The only difference is the way the 95.XX Exemption was written, no safety case or statistics used.
This precedent should be taken up and used to gain approval to operate from Camden and perhaps other Class D airports.
The restriction is based on early 95.10 aircraft which are not really compatible with GA op's. If the existing laws are safety based, they are saying it is safer to operate an RAAus aircraft without ATC involvement - Camden, Albury, Coffs etc have no restrictions on RAAus Op's when the tower is shut and it's ok to mix with RPT, the limitations only apply when the tower is active! Where's the logic in that?

[Old Akro]

My utterly outrageous suggestion is that private ops in any aircraft of up to 1,500kg mauw, with 4 seats or fewer should be on the RA-Aus model

My outrageous suggestion is to fix the CASA system so a PPL can fly simple aircraft with the same simplicity as RAus, and disband to 2 tier system completely.

Seriously, what other form of transport or private recreation is so heavily regulated.

You can kill as many or more people on a boat, car, minibus, horse carriage, light truck, and many more things that don't have 1/10th the regulation of aviation.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Raise your sights!!!

Have a look at what has passed the US Senate, and is now in the Reps, hopefully to be passed real soon.

Don't pick me up on minor errors, but for private operations under 6000 lbs. AUW, single or multi engine, VFR or IFR, day or night, the FAA Third Class medical (same as our 2nd Class) is to be abolished, in favour of the National Drivers License Standard, which is pretty much the same as our equivalent.

Put another way, the RAOz medical standard for ALL private operations up to 6000lbs. And we want the rest of FAA Part 61, not CASR Part 61.

Then add the Canadian Owner Maintenance provisions (that have proven safe for around 20 years), and you would get a real revival in GA.

Tootle pip!!

[Acrosport II]

spinex
Strangely enough, there are quite a few numbers aircraft quite happily using controlled airports and traversing controlled airspace - apparently without causing a noticeable amount of mayhem and destruction. I've been in to Archerfield, Sunshine Coast and Cooly in one without causing any concern on the part of atc. You'll find that they have transponders installed and calibrated / maintained by the same organisation that looks after the ratty old 150 tied down next door.

As I understand it, after the McCormick regime issued a "nein, nyet" order on the weight increase to 760kg, which was allegedly an almost done deal at the time, it has been revived under the new order and discussions are ongoing. When - no-one knows but will probably eventually come.

CTAF, as others have said, the mechanism is in place and only needs some tweaks and a sign off, again when is an open question but the consensus is it will come. Part of the problem is the dogs breakfast that was made of the RPL - which was initially sold as a simple step sideways from the RA Aus certificate, but with more privileges available following suitable training, including CTA.

My utterly outrageous suggestion is that private ops in any aircraft of up to 1,500kg mauw, with 4 seats or fewer should be on the RA-Aus model; Day VFR, self certify medical, incremental privileges with training and sign off by instructor eg. 1) solo 25nm radius, 2) pax (x3 cannot see the justification for killing them one at a time only), 3) Nav ie. ex controlled airspace and finally, 4) including Controlled airspace. Point being that RA Aus pilots are not suffering in flight incapacitation at a measurably higher rate than medically certified GA pilots, are probably flying more hours and cross the continent at will already. As far as aircraft go, if you must, insist that those which venture into controlled airspace are maintained as per GA ie by the appropriate L2 maintainer or per the SAAA's system. Those who wish to stay out bush, carry on as before. Bugger, coffee's cold again - that is too sensible ever to fly with this mob.



I would agree. Although I would have thought you would never get approval to carry more than one PAX.
Then you read maybe the US is about to approve the below.


LeadSled
Folks,

Raise your sights!!!

Have a look at what has passed the US Senate, and is now in the Reps, hopefully to be passed real soon.

Don't pick me up on minor errors, but for private operations under 6000 lbs. AUW, single or multi engine, VFR or IFR, day or night, the FAA Third Class medical (same as our 2nd Class) is to be abolished, in favour of the National Drivers License Standard, which is pretty much the same as our equivalent.

Put another way, the RAOz medical standard for ALL private operations up to 6000lbs. And we want the rest of FAA Part 61, not CASR Part 61.

Then add the Canadian Owner Maintenance provisions (that have proven safe for around 20 years), and you would get a real revival in GA.

Tootle pip!!


Although I would really like the CTA without a Class 2 to be introduced, I would much prefer the 760Kg (or 800Kg or higher) to be introduced, even if it still was restricted to one PAX.


Although I am enjoying flying these LSA. I long for something a little sturdier / heavier like the PA38, C152, RV6, RV7 etc. The PA38 was 757Kg. That's all that was needed to build a solid little two seater, with plenty of cabin space, Toe brakes. Can handle a bit of Turbulence and X-wind. Yet still have only carry PAX, and a 112HP engine.
Personally I find them easier to fly (or at least the same), than some of these LSA. So if the 600Kg restriction is there because it is easier to fly because it is 160Kg lighter, you could argue it should be increased to 800Kg and let the manufacturers build them a bit more solidly.


This is not to take away from RA-Aus. In fact RA-Aus should be expanded to slightly heavier 2 seat A/C. IMHO.

[LeadSled]

Then you read maybe the US is about to approve the below.As I said, raise your sights, think big!!
There is no "maybe" and "approve" about it, it is legislation that has cleared the Senate, all House of Reps. Committee processes and awaits an assured final house vote.
It is "the law", not some bureaucrat "approving" some kind of "concession" or "privilege".
Indeed, the whole exercise is a salutary lesson in how effective properly organised political lobbying can be, something that is apparently beyond us here in Australia, where slagging off anybody who tries is the modus operandi.
Tootle pip!!

[outlandishoutlanding]

LeadSled,

perhaps not the drivers license standard (see Barry Hempel etc - do you think he would have ever self-declared unfit?) but the UK NPPL standard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Private_Pilot_Licence#Medical_requirements

As an aside, the cost of my Class II every 4 years is less than the cost of my RAAus membership; so it costs less for me to be an occasional GA pilot than to be an occasional RA pilot.

Acrosport,

Why do you not get an RPL / medical? Why are you attached to the RAAus system?

[spinex]

Sometimes I forget that we're in Aus - and then someone goes about diluting a perfectly good idea, re-inventing the wheel, adding in more cottonwool and my bubble is burst. The FAA scenario sketched by Leadsled is a great fit for our situation - some minor tweaks would be required to accommodate pre-existing rights under the RA Aus exemption, but nothing very complex.

Both the RA-Aus experience and the US studies have shown that there is no measurable advantage to setting medical standards akin to those demanded of astronauts and fighter pilots. To my mind Hempel illustrates the point precisely - he was able to slip through the supposedly impenetrable net of Aus medical standards, despite their knowledge of his serious head injury. To my knowledge no-one is suggesting that someone with that medical history, nor that of a recent cardiac surgery should be granted a medical, without a little further investigation - these often disqualify people from driving. On the other hand we all have that mate who somehow ended up on CASA's medical radar by incorrectly answering a question years ago and now has to jump through whatever hoops they dream up each time he renews his medical. In my mate's case the DAME is quite prepared to sign off, however the system rejects it and off he goes on the expensive and frustrating merry-go-round again - meanwhile there is nothing to stop him from jumping into an RA Aus aircraft and crisscrossing the continent - provided he stays clear of controlled airspace. (he can quite validly self certify because there is nothing about his medical history that would preclude him from driving a car - or truck/bus for that matter). Indeed the conclusion each time he goes through the charade is - "fit to fly"

I'd suggest that the smug attitude of; "just go get a class2" is one problematic medical away from a switch to the attitude I hold.

[outlandishoutlanding]

Having told people not to drive, and having them ignore me, I don't perceive self-declaration to be an adequate solution - if only because very few people actually know what a self-declaration entails, and what is in the drivers license standard.

Hence I am advocating a non-DAME, non-CASA GP clearance system that is not the RAMPC standard, nor is it non-medically-qualified people self-declaring about things that they know nothing about.

[LeadSled]

Hence I am advocating a non-DAME, non-CASA GP clearance system that is not the RAMPC standard, nor is it non-medically-qualified people self-declaring about things that they know nothing about.

Outlandish,
The short question is why?

Why propose restrictions that have no basis in fact, when the volumes of studies make it quire clear, there is absolutely no factual basis for setting the PPL medical standard above the national drivers license standard.

Indeed, the largest study I have ever looked at, done by the FAA quite a few years ago for the original FAA RPL, effectively failed to show any relationship between regular FAA medicals, at any level, and for any license, from the ATR down, and air safety outcomes.

In short, medical standards that started life as military selection standards, and unrelated to the minimum standard to safely operate an aircraft, became defacto license "standards".

Pilots at all levels self-certify every day they go flying.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Hempel did NOT meet the AU national drivers license standard.

[outlandishoutlanding]

That's unclear. The drivers license standard is 6 months after a blackout, or 12 months after more than two separated by 24 hours, whereas the commercial standard is 5 years.

For seizures, it's 12 months; it's not known from the coronial inquest whether he had any seizures in the 12 months prior to the fatal crash.

If your health isn't good enough to drive a taxi, why should you be taking pax?

[Acrosport II]

outlandishoutlanding (http://www.pprune.org/members/449037-outlandishoutlanding)

As an aside, the cost of my Class II every 4 years is less than the cost of my RAAus membership; so it costs less for me to be an occasional GA pilot than to be an occasional RA pilot.

Acrosport,

Why do you not get an RPL / medical? Why are you attached to the RAAus system?

You are obviously under 40. Over 40 and Class 2 are every two years.

spinex (http://www.pprune.org/members/214496-spinex)
Sometimes I forget that we're in Aus - and then someone goes about diluting a perfectly good idea, re-inventing the wheel, adding in more cottonwool and my bubble is burst. The FAA scenario sketched by Leadsled is a great fit for our situation - some minor tweaks would be required to accommodate pre-existing rights under the RA Aus exemption, but nothing very complex.

Both the RA-Aus experience and the US studies have shown that there is no measurable advantage to setting medical standards akin to those demanded of astronauts and fighter pilots. To my mind Hempel illustrates the point precisely - he was able to slip through the supposedly impenetrable net of Aus medical standards, despite their knowledge of his serious head injury. To my knowledge no-one is suggesting that someone with that medical history, nor that of a recent cardiac surgery should be granted a medical, without a little further investigation - these often disqualify people from driving. On the other hand we all have that mate who somehow ended up on CASA's medical radar by incorrectly answering a question years ago and now has to jump through whatever hoops they dream up each time he renews his medical. In my mate's case the DAME is quite prepared to sign off, however the system rejects it and off he goes on the expensive and frustrating merry-go-round again - meanwhile there is nothing to stop him from jumping into an RA Aus aircraft and crisscrossing the continent - provided he stays clear of controlled airspace. (he can quite validly self certify because there is nothing about his medical history that would preclude him from driving a car - or truck/bus for that matter). Indeed the conclusion each time he goes through the charade is - "fit to fly"

I'd suggest that the smug attitude of; "just go get a class2" is one problematic medical away from a switch to the attitude I hold

Agreed!

I'm not flying GA at the moment. Too expensive. I don't have my own GA plane. If that changes, ill look at getting a Class 2 medical.
But I'm certainly not going to put myself through the cost and hassle of a Class 2 just to fly a LSA through controlled airspace.

That said,

Apparently there's a nice little trip up the coast. But you'd have to leave very early to avoid CTA before the Tower opens. On the trip back you'd be forced inland with all its summer turbulence and build ups. Rather than the safer option of following the coast down, and calling up to get a clearance through their CTR. All because you legally need a medical to fly through their zone.

Where's the logic?.

[outlandishoutlanding]

Even at every 2 years, 2 years of RAAus membership costs more than a class 2 medical (for me).

The RAAus system is broken. We should have Canadian style owner maintenance, UK style driver license medicals, and aircraft which are all registered on the single register instead of having to "belong" to an organisation to have a back door mechanism to fly.

At least with medical costs, and LAME costs, I know where the money is going to. my $200-something a year disappears into an RAAus black hole of lobbying, screwing up CASA audits, empire-building (CTA and increased MTOW, etc) - if I am renting a factory build LSA, which is LAME maintained, what is the advantage of RAAus? if I own one, and could have owner maintenance canada-style, what is the advantage of RAAus?

[Squawk7700]

Aircraft owners should rejoice at the insurance offered by the RA-Aus. That level of liability is worth for me around $800 p/a in GA terms so paying your annual RA-Aus membership is getting you significant value in that area. Even add in your 2 seater RA-Aus P/A registration fee and you're still ahead.

A factory built RA-Aus aircraft with a PPL at the controls with class 2 medical is a cost-effective option.

[outlandishoutlanding]

That just means that non-owners in RA-Aus are cross subsidising the owners. So why do we want to extend this model to the rest of GA then?

[KRviator]

Part and parcel of living in Australia these days. Everything is subsidised and cross-subsidised. Roads are provided by the taxpayer, for the benefit of private trucking companies.


Boat ramps are provided by the local council for the (free) use of weekend warriors. Closer to home, VOR's are paid for by the (IFR) traffic that uses them but freely available to VFR traffic.

[Acrosport II]

LeadSled
As I said, raise your sights, think big!!
There is no "maybe" and "approve" about it, it is legislation that has cleared the Senate, all House of Reps. Committee processes and awaits an assured final house vote.
It is "the law", not some bureaucrat "approving" some kind of "concession" or "privilege".
Indeed, the whole exercise is a salutary lesson in how effective properly organised political lobbying can be, something that is apparently beyond us here in Australia, where slagging off anybody who tries is the modus operandi.
Tootle pip!!


I would certainly like Australia to follow suit (in entirety).

GA is just too expensive in Australia under the present regs & requirements. I simply cannot justify the expenditure required to be involved in it (I hope that may change in the future).
So the more 'Privileges' we get, eg: flying in controlled airspace without a medical, flying slightly heavier small aircraft (160Kg, 200Kg heavier), the better.

[Acrosport II]

outlandishoutlanding (http://www.pprune.org/members/449037-outlandishoutlanding)
That just means that non-owners in RA-Aus are cross subsidising the owners. So why do we want to extend this model to the rest of GA then?

Can you explain.

Was that comment in reply to this
Aircraft owners should rejoice at the insurance offered by the RA-Aus. That level of liability is worth for me around $800 p/a in GA terms so paying your annual RA-Aus membership is getting you significant value in that area. Even add in your 2 seater RA-Aus P/A registration fee and you're still ahead.

A factory built RA-Aus aircraft with a PPL at the controls with class 2 medical is a cost-effective option.

[Squawk7700]

Yes, the subsidizing comment is in relation to the insurance comment. The theory is that if you DON'T own an aircraft as an RA-Aus member you are subsidizing those that do, however this is an incorrect understanding because the insurance for liability goes with the pilot regardless of the aircraft they they fly in (ra-aus registered of course) as long as they are endorsed for it and legal.

[outlandishoutlanding]

The insurance costs about $115/yr/aircraft (400k split amongst 3500 RAAus registered aircraft).

so
1. if you're paying $800 on the open market for it, you're potentially getting ripped off
2. having the insurance attached to the pilot vs the aircraft doesn't really matter
3. aircraft rego fee income roughly matched the insurance outlay

My real question is:

other than 95.10 and other original homebuilts, what are the advantages of RA-Aus in the 'GA-lite' category (LSAs and up to 760kg if extended to there)

1. owner maintenance (or non-LAME maintenance, anyhow)
2. training organisations experienced in training for these airframes (and also less expensive because of no need for AOCs etc)
3. self-declared fitness for people who can't or don't want to get medicals

If you buy two LSAs, and register one VH and one 24, where does the difference in expense come from? If you maintain them to the same standard, is there a difference in running costs?

One set of rules, please, instead of trying to claim special privileges, especially since RA-Aus has a terrible history of being an administrator and rule-creator/enforcer. (see the various coronial inquests and their criticisms.)