Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?
Why is a 4 seater, only 2 of which you can use, different from a 2 seater, only 1 of which you can use. I must admit I am struggling with that a bit.
Maybe then, the concept of what consitutes an RAA arcraft and what constitutes GA needs to change. Maybe weight should not be considered at all, maybe some other perameter should be used, say, stall speed or indeed the number of seats fitted. Or maybe a combination of several things, maybe JABBA is right after all and CASA should review this end of the aviation spectrum.
Maybe then, the concept of what consitutes an RAA arcraft and what constitutes GA needs to change. Maybe weight should not be considered at all, maybe some other perameter should be used, say, stall speed or indeed the number of seats fitted. Or maybe a combination of several things, maybe JABBA is right after all and CASA should review this end of the aviation spectrum.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Perhaps........ Arnold....... Perhaps!
See a 4 seat jabiru can be used as 2 A+2k, but the Rv7 in question can not really be used in any sensible form even with 1A let alone 1A + 1K...... or only for a local scenic.
besides this is about RAA registered a/c which IS NOT a 4 seater category anyway.
My point with the whole thread was is this really a good idea specially for RAA.
I have been told second hand now even the RAAus think not...........and it may not happen again!
I reckon at the endo of the day some bugger is going to lose some $$$ over it, but more the point are pthers going to be silly in following?
Horses for courses they say!
J
See a 4 seat jabiru can be used as 2 A+2k, but the Rv7 in question can not really be used in any sensible form even with 1A let alone 1A + 1K...... or only for a local scenic.
besides this is about RAA registered a/c which IS NOT a 4 seater category anyway.
My point with the whole thread was is this really a good idea specially for RAA.
I have been told second hand now even the RAAus think not...........and it may not happen again!
I reckon at the endo of the day some bugger is going to lose some $$$ over it, but more the point are pthers going to be silly in following?
Horses for courses they say!
J
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the RV is for sale.
If it is genuinely only a single seater, ecologically built to save masses of weight, why does it have dual brakes and two fuel guages fitted?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck
If it is genuinely only a single seater, ecologically built to save masses of weight, why does it have dual brakes and two fuel guages fitted?
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, at about 90L ea or 65kg each side?
So if it was built with weight saving all round in mind, supposedly, why does it have two fuel tanks instead of one, and if it is a built and registered as a single seat to save all this weight, supposedly, why does it have dual brakes? And why did it have two seats in it when I saw it in my travels?
So if it was built with weight saving all round in mind, supposedly, why does it have two fuel tanks instead of one, and if it is a built and registered as a single seat to save all this weight, supposedly, why does it have dual brakes? And why did it have two seats in it when I saw it in my travels?
Not that it makes a lot of difference I'll admit but, the tanks are 78 litres and they are part of the wing structure and cant be left off (this aircraft was also a quick build kit). There are duel rudder pedals, not duel brakes because the design of the Van's rudder pedal system means you get duel pedals even if you dont want them. When you say it had 2 seats in it, are you saying it had 2 sets of cushions, because I have not seen it in that configuration and as you would know the seat bottom is the structure of the aircraft and cant be removed and the seat back is essentially a piece of formed aluminium that is hinged to the floor and can be removed literally in 10 seconds.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba........ I know this thread was started a long time ago, however came across a guy today who within the last 6 months was taken as a passenger in this particular aircraft. He said it goes like a rocket, had the two of them and had full tanks. He made comment that owner had just flown from Mildura to Mangalore and was commenting on the long range with full tanks.
Your predictions on the illegal use of this aircraft were indeed correct!
Your predictions on the illegal use of this aircraft were indeed correct!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The back of the hangar
Posts: 147
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft has been advertised for sale for over a year now. I wonder about it's current condition. I flew my RV6 for about a year unpainted, and when I finally got it into the paint shop, there were areas of surface corrosion that had to be repaired, adding to the cost of the paint job. I expect this RV7 will be developing similar problems unless it's being polished regularly.
I also wonder about the inclusion of a g-meter - are aeros legal in an RAAus machine? An interesting little extra in an aircraft being built so very light!
I also wonder about the inclusion of a g-meter - are aeros legal in an RAAus machine? An interesting little extra in an aircraft being built so very light!
RAAUS Registered RV7 on News Today!
It would appear the discorse on whether this aircraft should operate under RAAAus is moote. Showed on the news as being written off near Jacobswell today after an inflight engine failure. Pilot and all peoples on the ground without injury according to the report.
Yip, RV-12, newly completed aircraft, all went quiet at about 800' agl. Visible damage is undercarriage a bit rearranged, one scraped wing tip and a good size dent in the opposite leading edge. I very much doubt that it will be a write off.
RAA CAN go back to GA Exp
VH-XXX wrote earlier that the aircraft "had no hope of going back to GA Experimental."
Wrong. The ONLY relevant criteria for gaining a GA Experimental certificate is that the major portion of the aircraft was built for education or recreation - not necessarily by the person wanting the certificate issued.
So if the aircraft log book contains the builder's statement to the above effect or if the new owner can obtain such a statement then CASA MUST issue an experimental certificate for the aircraft.
But more importantly why is this thread generating such heat? RAA and GA are not enemies; members of both communities fly similar aircraft for similar reasons and both enjoy what they do. CASA might have you believe RAA aircraft operate to lesser safety standards but when they tried to prove it using accident statistics they came a huge cropper that made front page of the Canberra Times.
Both camps from time to time fly aircraft overweight - it has always been thus. Why try and pin blame to RAA? Especially in this case where overweight might breach regulations but not safety considerations!
Wrong. The ONLY relevant criteria for gaining a GA Experimental certificate is that the major portion of the aircraft was built for education or recreation - not necessarily by the person wanting the certificate issued.
So if the aircraft log book contains the builder's statement to the above effect or if the new owner can obtain such a statement then CASA MUST issue an experimental certificate for the aircraft.
But more importantly why is this thread generating such heat? RAA and GA are not enemies; members of both communities fly similar aircraft for similar reasons and both enjoy what they do. CASA might have you believe RAA aircraft operate to lesser safety standards but when they tried to prove it using accident statistics they came a huge cropper that made front page of the Canberra Times.
Both camps from time to time fly aircraft overweight - it has always been thus. Why try and pin blame to RAA? Especially in this case where overweight might breach regulations but not safety considerations!
Interesting take on it Advance, what would be required to get an aircraft onto the VH experimental register - similar situation to a homebuilt imported from overseas? Must say my admittedly uneducated take on it was that this was going to be a massive headache to achieve.
As far as the main question goes, I'm in two minds, whilst RA Aus haven't done themselves any favours by registering something which almost certainly wouldn't withstand scrutiny, in the greater scheme of things why shouldn't an RV 7 be operated as a recreational aircraft? It is less demanding to fly than many of the aircraft that are and quite possibly easier to maintain as well, at any rate plenty of them are owner maintained and don't seem to be falling out of the sky.
As far as the main question goes, I'm in two minds, whilst RA Aus haven't done themselves any favours by registering something which almost certainly wouldn't withstand scrutiny, in the greater scheme of things why shouldn't an RV 7 be operated as a recreational aircraft? It is less demanding to fly than many of the aircraft that are and quite possibly easier to maintain as well, at any rate plenty of them are owner maintained and don't seem to be falling out of the sky.