Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Proposed 1500kg RA AUS aircraft weight increase

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Proposed 1500kg RA AUS aircraft weight increase

Reply

Old 14th Jun 2018, 19:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 7
Proposed 1500kg RA AUS aircraft weight increase

What do you guys think, a good or bad thing? Personally, I think its a good thing. It will allow many private owners to maintain their pride and joy themselves. Look at the Canadian system, there isn't C172s/C182s etc falling out of the sky.

Last edited by Cessna 200; 15th Jun 2018 at 08:19.
Cessna 200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 20:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,648
Haven't seen it yet, is there a link for it?

Is it still 2 pob?
Squawk7700 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 22:53
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 63
There ya go: Australian Flying
girl with a stick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2018, 23:45
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 23
I am sure that many of the operators of aircraft with the 600 KG MTOW would breath a sigh of relief if the MTOW was increased to just 700 KG its a fine balancing act between PAX weight and fuel on board. Seeing that many of these aircraft are already approved at 700 KG MTOW by the manufacturers. Its a no brainer from a safety point of view. This should also apply to the same aircraft registered VH for all the same reasons.
As for the 1500 KG I leave that to others to comment some of those aircraft captured in this proposal require a bit more knowledge and skill to be safely maintained.
just a dumb pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 05:27
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 213
Good work Aust Flying:
Line 1 - weight increase confirmed.
Line 2 - weight increase is imminent.
Line 3 - DOH!!!
thunderbird five is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 07:25
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,788
Can they do controlled airspace, populated areas and CS props?
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 07:37
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 96
No promise of self maintenance.
Training of hire aircraft remain L4 servicing
LSA cannot increase MTOW unless they can change to experimental then loose training ability
Jetjr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 08:14
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Can they do controlled airspace, populated areas and CS props?
1. Controlled airspace currently only if they also have a current RPL, PPL, CPL.
2. Populated area, yes if in factory aircraft.
3. RAAus have been able to have CS props for many years
Cloudee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 08:27
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 7
Nice constructive comments so far but does anyone have an opinion whether its a good thing or not? I guess we will have to wait for CASAs NPRM for more details before people have an opinion.
Cessna 200 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 08:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Albany, West Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 456
It's an ambit claim: unless RAAus propose to 'takeover' all 'recreational' aviation up to 1500kgs, and also the pilot licencing up to RPL, but that is probably a bridge too far.
Popular opinion is that 760kg would be useful, as it would cover more of the lower weight GA types, and would allow some upwards progression of MTOW for many modern types currently sitting at 600 in RAAus, but which can be registered in VH- at 700kg.
I couldn't comment on the 'good' or 'bad' of it as it all depends on how CASA will decide to administer the lower weight sector of aviation. Who would be prepared to make that call?

happy days,
poteroo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 08:55
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by thunderbird five View Post
Good work Aust Flying:
Line 1 - weight increase confirmed.
Line 2 - weight increase is imminent.
Line 3 - DOH!!!
Line one: The article confirms that the leak, reported a week earlier, is indeed true: that RAAus will see a weight increase
Line two: The article states that the weight increase, confirmed by the leak, is imminent
Line three: Why am I back on PPRuNe, debating semantics, when I swore off four years ago?
Line four: Doh!!!
girl with a stick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 09:11
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,648
I'm not seeing anything about extra passengers. If no extra's, it will be great for RV owners but a little restrictive for 172's etc. A bit like the RPL with drivers licence medical. An SR20 model may fit but not a 22 unless I'm mistaken. Any progress that helps pilots is good news.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jun 2018, 11:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Perth
Posts: 15
From a pilot medical perspective, it's great news.

From a maintenance perspective, I'm not so convinced. RAAus aircraft have a rather dubious history. L2's are often not very well trained. Some have a very poor grasp of what is required from a legal minimum. Many of the manufactures requirements are not adhered to.. Logbooks are not filled out or if they are you will find "service carried out". No mention of lifed components or service bulletins. Most owners are just as ignorant of what is required to keep them safe. Leave the maintenance up to professionals
RooDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jun 2018, 13:41
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
My primary concern with moving a 601kg+ aircraft to RAA is "what happens if CASA decides it's a bad idea and restricts them to 600kg again?"

How hard is it to move a PA28 or C172 back to the VH register when it's been on RA, especially when a thousand other owners are trying to do the same thing simultaneously? If it's been maintained by someone other than a LAME, will CASA insist on a complete strip-down and rebuild by a LAME before it can be VH-registered again? That might sound insane, but I wouldn't rule it out when the goal is "safety at all costs".

I wouldn't move a plane over to RA register unless I already owned the plane but could no longer meet the CASA medical standard. In that case, the risk would be worthwhile. In any other case, I'd stick with sub-600kg for RAA and stick with VH registration for anything else.
Slatye is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jun 2018, 23:27
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
The problem isn't RAAus or weight increases etc.
The problem is the lunacy of having parallel general aviation systems when we all fly in the same country in the same airspace because CASA puts ridiculous regulation, medical, paperwork and hence costs on normal GA, particularly the low end. If the CASA system was rational and minimally confined to real safety issues there would be no need for RAAus, GFA etc and all participants would be in ONE mainstream aviation which has a long and rich history with a huge store of expensively learned lessons and corporate knowledge.
Which leads to RooDog's comment about maintenance: by having a totalitarian and draconian system nobody puts any more in a logbook than the absolute minimum. This makes logbooks somewhat useless and negates the reason for having them. RAAus and GFA have gone the same way.
Again, take a look at the Canadian owner maintenance system which has been in place for more than 15 years. In 2013 the FAA looked at it and concluded that there were no more accidents that could be attributed to this and that the aircraft fleet under this regime was in as good or even better condition on average than those maintained under the traditional system. The experiment has been done. Any knowledge training of what needs to be done can be written and published where it is available to everyone who needs it. There is no need for compulsory, expensive, in person "Maintenance Procedures" courses such as the cash cow run by the SAAA (who cannot even keep proper track of their own funds anyway). I have no objection to voluntary education courses run by such bodies. If they get out of the regulation business they may indeed by able to do this better.
The law and its administration should be done by the body to which Parliament gave the job - CASA, not little incompetent bunches of hopeless amateurs who cannot even run their own organisations properly.
Eyrie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jun 2018, 23:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 77
I for one would be very interested in knowing just how many pilots who choose to fly VH- aircraft settle for just an RPL and not PPL/CPL. To me this 'license' is utter nonsense and has been introduced to squeeze the wallets of prospective pilots on their way to PPL/CPL. Nobody in the GA community seems to take it seriously anyway, least of whom flight schools themselves who teach at RPL level but won't let you hire their aircraft with that license alone. Now if RAAus is upgraded to 1500 kg, it'll just turn the RPL into a drunken farce.

I'd suggest: cut your losses, salvage whatever esteem is left by scrapping the RPL and at the same time increase the RAAus MTOW to give overweight recreational pilots a slim chance to fly with full tanks.
Okihara is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2018, 00:22
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 281
This proposal is just a diversion tactic to split the gathering opposition to CASA. RAAus, thinking that they have had a win, will want the CASA status quo to remain. They might even thank CASA for their cooperation and support in a press release. They will be much less vocal in supporting the reform initiatives being pushed by AOPA, to the detriment of everyone. CASA will be able to use this support to deflect the gaze of the politicians.

A few years down the track, once the heat has died away, nothing will change. The new rules will go through endless industry consultation, legal rewriting and the revolving door of CASA staff changes and will bear no resemblance to that proposed in the first post of this thread. It will probably be done as an exemption with an expiry data and significant limitations and restrictions...
no_one is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2018, 02:31
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lost in the space-time continuum
Posts: 417
Originally Posted by Eyrie View Post
The problem isn't RAAus or weight increases etc.
The problem is the lunacy of having parallel general aviation systems when we all fly in the same country in the same airspace because CASA puts ridiculous regulation, medical, paperwork and hence costs on normal GA, particularly the low end. If the CASA system was rational and minimally confined to real safety issues there would be no need for RAAus, GFA etc and all participants would be in ONE mainstream aviation which has a long and rich history with a huge store of expensively learned lessons and corporate knowledge.
Which leads to RooDog's comment about maintenance: by having a totalitarian and draconian system nobody puts any more in a logbook than the absolute minimum. This makes logbooks somewhat useless and negates the reason for having them. RAAus and GFA have gone the same way.
Again, take a look at the Canadian owner maintenance system which has been in place for more than 15 years. In 2013 the FAA looked at it and concluded that there were no more accidents that could be attributed to this and that the aircraft fleet under this regime was in as good or even better condition on average than those maintained under the traditional system. The experiment has been done. Any knowledge training of what needs to be done can be written and published where it is available to everyone who needs it. There is no need for compulsory, expensive, in person "Maintenance Procedures" courses such as the cash cow run by the SAAA (who cannot even keep proper track of their own funds anyway). I have no objection to voluntary education courses run by such bodies. If they get out of the regulation business they may indeed by able to do this better.
The law and its administration should be done by the body to which Parliament gave the job - CASA, not little incompetent bunches of hopeless amateurs who cannot even run their own organisations properly.
........ +1.
gassed budgie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2018, 06:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,310
Here we go again. People lets just follow the world leaders in aviation [FAA] and submit to those regs. Why some think it can't be done and others are still living in the past I don't know.

An industry divided is yet again fair game for the politicians and the regulator!
TBM-Legend is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2018, 22:30
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Perth
Posts: 15
RPL

Originally Posted by Okihara View Post
I for one would be very interested in knowing just how many pilots who choose to fly VH- aircraft settle for just an RPL and not PPL/CPL. To me this 'license' is utter nonsense and has been introduced to squeeze the wallets of prospective pilots on their way to PPL/CPL. Nobody in the GA community seems to take it seriously anyway, least of whom flight schools themselves who teach at RPL level but won't let you hire their aircraft with that license alone. Now if RAAus is upgraded to 1500 kg, it'll just turn the RPL into a drunken farce.

I'd suggest: cut your losses, salvage whatever esteem is left by scrapping the RPL and at the same time increase the RAAus MTOW to give overweight recreational pilots a slim chance to fly with full tanks.
I disagree. The RPL is a step forward. It offers much more freedom than the old GFPT. I have 2 friends that fly regularly using an RPL. Neither of them would be able to fly using a GFPT, as there is no resident instructor on the airstrip.
RooDog is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service