Should CASA ask RAAus about this registration?
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
The owner must have been a bloody minded idiot to do what he did. Maybe he can't get a casa medical, in which case he should have sold it or never started it.
Moving forward from where he is now he would be better of by doing raa a favor and taking it off their register and getting a hold of an AP to go through the process of VH registration, paint it and trim it and do it properly.
All it is worth in it's current form is about $50k and a heap of read faces for raa and anyone associated with it.
I also believe CASA have taken an interest in it arriving at Cowra with 2 POB and long range fuel
Moving forward from where he is now he would be better of by doing raa a favor and taking it off their register and getting a hold of an AP to go through the process of VH registration, paint it and trim it and do it properly.
All it is worth in it's current form is about $50k and a heap of read faces for raa and anyone associated with it.
I also believe CASA have taken an interest in it arriving at Cowra with 2 POB and long range fuel
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not telling- big brother is watching
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft has been removed from the Ra-Aus register...
Apparently was signed onto the Ra-Aus register with the second seat removed, no battery etc etc. Was seen flying with the seat back in... and... it seems that Ra-Aus has made some small changes to the rego criteria to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again... Mk26 Supermarine Spitfires are off the register too.
Apparently.
Apparently was signed onto the Ra-Aus register with the second seat removed, no battery etc etc. Was seen flying with the seat back in... and... it seems that Ra-Aus has made some small changes to the rego criteria to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again... Mk26 Supermarine Spitfires are off the register too.
Apparently.
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
Congratulations RAAus 
I am glad to hear this. I have repeatedly said that RAA is great for it intended purpose but people wanting to forever increase the boundary stretching will only harm the good work done in the past.
Those spitfires empty weight numbers were over 544kg from memory and they do not handle like a Tecnam or a jabiru.
I do believe this is a good outcome for all concerned provided it's all true.
I am glad to hear this. I have repeatedly said that RAA is great for it intended purpose but people wanting to forever increase the boundary stretching will only harm the good work done in the past.
Those spitfires empty weight numbers were over 544kg from memory and they do not handle like a Tecnam or a jabiru.
I do believe this is a good outcome for all concerned provided it's all true.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several years back when Middo was running the show, those aircraft would have never made it on there in the first place. There is a clear formulae (or at least there was) that determined if an aircraft would "fit" the 2-seater rule. Quite obviously nobody of recent time followed this rule. We had a situation back then with an aircraft where with full fuel the passenger would have had to be <50kg and it was rejected. The resolution at the time was to change the prop (to a lighter) , or reduce the weight of the aircraft somehow by only a couple of KG's and then it was good to go.
Agreed, good to see some sense returning, all that those registrations do is tell CASA that RAA cannot be trusted to run their own show. As always though, there is an over-reaction when correcting these things; I see they are intending to prevent anyone from ripping a seat out of a 2 seater and registering it as a single. Pity, something like an RV-4 is a good candidate for this and isn't the most comfortable 2 seater anyway. Rather sort out the bloke who flies 2 up in a 19 reg instead of being all heavy handed and "one size fits all" about it.
Similarly in the example quoted by VH-XXX above, I'm not sure that it is any different ie. trading fuel for weight, to normal C172, PA 28-140 ops. For example my other half doesn't clear 50kg by more than a whisker, so what if I had to leave 10l of fuel behind (out of more than 100 in some cases) to be able to take her along?
Similarly in the example quoted by VH-XXX above, I'm not sure that it is any different ie. trading fuel for weight, to normal C172, PA 28-140 ops. For example my other half doesn't clear 50kg by more than a whisker, so what if I had to leave 10l of fuel behind (out of more than 100 in some cases) to be able to take her along?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The formulae was based on the BEW and in essence was used to determine if you were going to break the rules. Chances are and history has shown if there is a limit to pax weight, that the pilot will end up adding baggage and a heavier passenger. I guess trading off a third or fourth passenger for fuel in a Warrior or similar is a different scenario versus 2 pob. I'll have to drag it up. I see the RV is advertised as "RA" rego, so I wonder if the aircraft is now in limbo, rego wise. Either way it is a positive start to some reform and maybe they have been listening to comments on here which are often reflective of the wider population.
On a complete side note, has anyone seen the new Carbon Cubs that are benig brought in from Canada? 180HP Lycoming, 600kg's LSA, RA-Aus/GA rego, climb at 2,500fpm, takeoff in 20 metres, cruise up to 90'ish knots. Would be a nice toy but I don't think I could afford to feed its' fuel habbit for the speed it's doing.
On a complete side note, has anyone seen the new Carbon Cubs that are benig brought in from Canada? 180HP Lycoming, 600kg's LSA, RA-Aus/GA rego, climb at 2,500fpm, takeoff in 20 metres, cruise up to 90'ish knots. Would be a nice toy but I don't think I could afford to feed its' fuel habbit for the speed it's doing.
Very droll.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a complete side note, has anyone seen the new Carbon Cubs that are benig brought in from Canada? 180HP Lycoming, 600kg's LSA, RA-Aus/GA rego, climb at 2,500fpm, takeoff in 20 metres, cruise up to 90'ish knots.
190 KG usable. "as low as 20lph". So: two standard 80 KG people (no bags) plus two hours of fuel will fill it up.
Yup, can't imagine this one being flow overweight on the RA-Aus register!
And as they don't certify it at a higher weight for GA (unlike the Big Jabs) you'd be breaking CASA's rules as well.
I reckon it'd be an awesome aircraft I'd love to own - if they made a 700 KG version of it...
Very much the same problem with the O-200 equipped Sports Cub.
I reckon the most usable Cub clone has to be a Rotax powered Savage Cub.
PS: Goodbye and good riddance to the RV7 and Mk.26.
Yup, official, and 10,000ft. Congratulations to RAA for all the hard work!
Still go with SAAA to start with to get the higher weight limit MTOW is 650kg, but 600kg and RAA registration is acceptable if I lost my medical as I probably wouldn't want a passenger under those circumstances anyway.
Still go with SAAA to start with to get the higher weight limit MTOW is 650kg, but 600kg and RAA registration is acceptable if I lost my medical as I probably wouldn't want a passenger under those circumstances anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit rich isn't it??
They just don't belong in RA-Aus.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Around
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That aircraft would be in big trouble with 2 POB had they arrived at Temora this week for NATFLY. CASA are there in force, checking the majority of aircraft. If you are going to fly overweight you will need to tell them a different (closer) departure point so that it looks like you weren't over weight when you took off.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Around
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said that, I would never condone breaking the rules in any way, period. I was merely guiding the reader to some handy information that they may choose to utilise at their discretion. Life is full of too many opportunists to make suggestions like that, out there to bring you down at the first available opportunity when you step out of line.
Either way this thread should be removed or locked as it serves no useful purpose any more. You all got what you wanted and the aircraft has been struck of the register. Happy?
Either way this thread should be removed or locked as it serves no useful purpose any more. You all got what you wanted and the aircraft has been struck of the register. Happy?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to fly overweight you will need to tell them a different (closer) departure point so that it looks like you weren't over weight when you took off.
In fact it may involve a couple of posts....
Somehow I agree with you on one thing... this thread will have a limited life now.
Last edited by baron_beeza; 20th Apr 2011 at 09:54. Reason: clarification of agreement