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: 9
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: 1,612
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: 46
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: 22
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: 210
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: 6,746
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: 95
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: 163
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: 9
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: 46
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: 1,612
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: 14
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: 64
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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service