CASA says no to 95:55 weight increase for RA-Aus.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA says no to 95:55 weight increase for RA-Aus.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project CS 06/01
More "industry consultation". More regulatory Review. More time wasted.
CASA fiddles while GA burns.
More "industry consultation". More regulatory Review. More time wasted.
CASA fiddles while GA burns.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
All academic now of course
CASA needs to undertake a broad and proper consultative process through this project.
Positive and proactive decision making is obviously old fashioned and not politically correct.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
may be controversial for other sectors of the aviation community
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.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 12th Oct 2009 at 23:32.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 49
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont see the issue.....
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YSHT
Age: 56
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
We are taking over.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, from where I stand I dont see a huge problem.
There is talk of an ambiguity in the press release and some are taking the "wishful thinking" option. I hope they are right.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: YSHT
Age: 56
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Recflyingdotcomdotau; 13th Oct 2009 at 05:52.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I assume that the project might then be restarted and run for another 3 years or so like its predecessor
.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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real benefit of the weight increase has nothing to do with re-registering old and busted GA trainers!
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).
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.
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.
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'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...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?