RAA weight increase but not LSA increase?

Hi folks,

Saw something interesting and hoping someone better informed than I can figure out the implications:

http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/new-mtow-to-have-no-impact-on-lsas

If this story is accurate RAA can deal with aircraft up to 760kg MTOW but LSAs are limited to 600kg, does that mean nothing actually changes, with an RAA pilot still being effectively limited to 600kg MTOW, as the only way to register a (for instance) sling 2 at 700kg MTOW would be to have it as VH, and therefore needing a CASA pilot?

Cheers,

Danny

LSA is limited to 600 kgs. That was always known. At one stage THAT was a way to upgrade the AUW. IF you went down that path but it always had a downside with Maintenance/ modifications builder support etc What % are LSA ? It's only them which are unchanged. One model Jabiru was called an LSA long before the USA introduced the classification and it's NOT an LSA under this concept.. Nev

My understanding is that aircraft that are designed and built as LSA have a design and certified mtow of 600kg.

if you build something with a higher mtow that is not built by a manufacturer as an LSA, then you can get the higher MTOW.

Is that correct?

I feel like that makes sense, but I am not understanding the whole picture - a sling 2 or a J230 can currently be flown at 600kg MTOW as an LSA, by an RAA pilot. After this change, can you register one with RAA-aus and fly it as an RAA pilot at 700kg (no CASA license, not VH registered)?

For the sake of discussion I am going to ignore any complications with increased stall speed etc.!

Hello Danny!

I totally get this, it’s not hard to understand. LSA is a form of international standard, agreed worldwide. RAA can’t change any aspect of that standard - including MTOW.

Back in the day when RAA was restricted to 560kg, the introduction of LSA meant aircraft produced to that standard and certified LSA could be a bit heavier than non LSA RAA register aircraft.

So having aircraft registered to different MTOW under RAA is nothing new

I guess my confusion is on two fronts - most importantly, what category and registration would a 760kg RAA aircraft fall into if not LSA?

Secondly, but less important, I am not 100% sure but I thought the australian definition of LSA varied from other countries anyway? Compared to the US we don't have a max speed restriction, for instance.

To be clear only those RAAus aircraft that meet the ASTM design requirements for LSA aircraft and built by manufacturers (or assembled from a LSA designed kit produced by an accredited manufacturer) who meet the requirements of the ASTM standard (with minor local differences because CASA cant help messing around with things like this) can be registered as LSA (or E-LSA in the case of a kitbuilt) aircraft. Most of the aircraft on the RAAus register are not constructed to the the LSA standard.

There is currently discussion of increasing the MTOW of LSA aircraft to 3600lbs. (see LSA Weight Limit Increasing To 3600 Pounds (Updated) )

What we need is more lawyers to sort out some more regulation on making it more complicated while adding another layer of paperwork to allow another class of weight with more regulation and more CASA oversight. Anybody remember when aviating was fun?

Every step of the way the U/L movement has been allowed incremental increases in things grudgingly and erratically rather than by some planned progression to a stable and more predictable state. If you grow in an undefined, haphazard way you can't expect a very logical or sensible outcome. We don't just want another GA. IT has to serve a different purpose. Would I suggest in concept, a simple cheap manner of flying sub GA aircraft to a practical level of safety.. If the "sub" bothers you, do you accept that GA is sub RPT in complexity cost and oversight. Nev

[quote="Student Pilot, post: 509300, member: Anybody remember when aviating was fun?

Yep! I do! Still is for me!!! Received my new Rego Certificate a couple of days ago and went flying yet again yesterday afternoon and probably will again, this, afternoon.

Anybody remember the K.I.S.S. principal?

Franco.

I reckon flying with RAAus is fun. It has provided a means to fly affordably for a long time. What the problem is, is that now we can fly RAAus planes we want to fly, bigger, faster and more capable planes. Time to move to GA and we can fly with multiple passengers, higher speeds, do aerobatics and IFR if we really want. Oh I forgot, we want to do it all without any extra expense or training.

I guess my confusion is on two fronts - most importantly, what category and registration would a 760kg RAA aircraft fall into if not LSA?

 

 

The answer is in the third paragraph of the link you supplied......

"The current proposal is for the establishment of a new operating classification within an ASAO's safety system

We don't just want another GA. IT has to serve a different purpose. Would I suggest in concept, a simple cheap manner of flying sub GA aircraft to a practical level of safety.. If the "sub" bothers you, do you accept that GA is sub RPT in complexity cost and oversight.

Just imagine we were smart enough to separate all private flying from commercial ops......Leave commercial and RPT regulated for the paying public and reduce the regs on private flying down to rec flying level.

Similar sort of regulation to road transport. Taking the wife and kids out in the Cessna is no different to using the Commodore or Landcruiser.

Not going to happen here I know, but there's no good reason it's not feasible.

Not going to happen here I know, but there's no good reason it's not feasible.

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I believe there is an 'intention' by our regulator to have all 'recreational' flying under a single roof. Training for CPL, and all current aerial work flying, and all charter flying, would become a new 'GA'. When you look at the bigger pic, it would not take very much change to merge the RPC and the RPL, which might require some changes to the theory exams, but really only a few differences to the flying syllabus. The differences between aircraft types could be via licence endorsements. Probably the most difficult part would be with the 'standardising' of instructors, but even that could be done by way of a common basic instructor course with add on endorsements for the type of instruction. I think we'll see changes in the near future.

happy days,

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I believe there is an 'intention' by our regulator to have all 'recreational' flying under a single roof. Training for CPL, and all current aerial work flying, and all charter flying, would become a new 'GA'. When you look at the bigger pic, it would not take very much change to merge the RPC and the RPL, which might require some changes to the theory exams, but really only a few differences to the flying syllabus. The differences between aircraft types could be via licence endorsements. Probably the most difficult part would be with the 'standardising' of instructors, but even that could be done by way of a common basic instructor course with add on endorsements for the type of instruction. I think we'll see changes in the near future.

happy days,

I would love to see it happen, but judging by the responses to the last "consultation", even if they can get past the irrational emotive blinkered viewpoints of those that believe the world would end, I can't see any of our regulators having the balls reduce requirements down to RA levels rather more likely to regulate RA up to GA then pat themselves on the back for it.

I hope you are right and that the changes are positive.

The answer is in the third paragraph of the link you supplied......

"The current proposal is for the establishment of a new operating classification within an ASAO's safety system

Ahah - OK, thank you. Not sure how I missed that!

I wouldn't be so certain about that. I believe there is an 'intention' by our regulator to have all 'recreational' flying under a single roof. Training for CPL, and all current aerial work flying, and all charter flying, would become a new 'GA'. When you look at the bigger pic, it would not take very much change to merge the RPC and the RPL, which might require some changes to the theory exams, but really only a few differences to the flying syllabus. The differences between aircraft types could be via licence endorsements. Probably the most difficult part would be with the 'standardising' of instructors, but even that could be done by way of a common basic instructor course with add on endorsements for the type of instruction. I think we'll see changes in the near future.

happy days,

Depends what near future you're talking about; I believe that was the plan around 2008, but if you go over the HGFA, RAA, GA PVT and even the bottom end of GA Commercial, it's more likely that stricter oversight will come in.

Well I did the MPC course with W&B in it last weekend.....god what a paperwork nightmare...its super exciting trawling through the CASA website and reading legistalion and all the crap that goes with the GA stuff....right up Turbos alley...not mine but it has to be done if you want to maintain your own built experimental aircraft. I am not saying it wasnt valuable but boy its a whole lot of extra work and there is so many different parts intertwined with other parts you must comply with...its no wonder the RAA side of things is better BUT as you say I can only see pretty much all of that coming across to RAA when the higher weight comes in

Kyle, as you say it is a load of extra work, but as far as I am concerned it has to be done if you want to get the advantages. When you look at it you will see that it all comes from what we learned the hard way in the past.

RAAus pilots may not like it but GA pilots were brought up with it and some can even see sense in it.

There just seems to be a overkill or everything and its all spread over so many different pieces of legislation...probably the way the lawyers like it...its certainly not for the average joe. As I said I did learn a lot of things but it really could be made far simpler...its like stuff tacked onto other stuff. I am covering my bases as if the 760kg isnt in by the time I finish the S21 then it will go into GA. I do think though that the same rules will apply to the higher weight aircraft if it does come into RAA so then I have it done. I see RAA are doing a maintainers course at Ycab next weekend...bit late I thought as I just got the email today late. I already have a L1 but I will do this one as well and see the difference in what they are doing now and of course I will be asking some prickly questions while there about the 760kg and what they think it will be but in the end I think it will be what CASA tells them it will be. I hope Jared will be there as I want to pin him on some stuff. I know at the last meeting RAA had at Ycab they did say they were now actively inspecting aircraft logbooks to make sure everyone is doing it correctly or if they are not doing it then why

Kyle. You say that if 760 kg isn't available when you finish the S21, so I assume you mean you will register it GA. If that is your intent you would be well off to be in SAAA and follow their methods to completion of the build. you would also be better off to do the SAAA Maintenance Procedures Course, which would make the RAAus course irellivent.

How are RAAus going to inspect log books? Will they require us to send them in or will they come to our homes to inspect. We certainly don't have to carry them n the plane with us.

Hi Mark at my bfr 2 weeks ago, the instructor viewed my pilot log book and my aircraft maintenance log in detail. No issues. This may be the 'active inspections'. Seems a good method so over 2 years the active pilot / aircraft owners will be looked at so that will provide some useful data.

Also see your new engi e is almost ready. If its any help feel free to fit into my Nynja and I'll give the engine a shakedown / runin for you? Cheers Mike

If you report an incident or you make any modification to your amateur built RA aircraft you have to scan the appropriate pages and send these to RA-Aus. The same applied when I completed the first 25 hours and certified the aircraft log. The problem lies with owner/builders who have failed to keep proper logs or say that they lost them etc. Then you get people who buy an aircraft off Ebay or Gumtree with no history & then those who build and fly without any registration at all.

I keep my logs up to date for every flight or change but forgot to tell Ra-Aus when I installed a new Bolly prop a year ago. I only found out when I got the latest Rego cert that still showed the old wooden prop. I filled in the form & sent a copy of the installation details of the new Bolly in my Aircraft Logbook & everyone was happy.

An old Cherokee 140 turned up at our airfield 5 years ago & hasn't got any further. The owner is trying to sell it but can't as it has no log books. A couple of LAMEs arrived to check it out & have the same problem. They can check it out but can't provide any certification without any documentation.

but forgot to tell Ra-Aus when I installed a new Bolly prop a year ago. I only found out when I got the latest Rego cert that still showed the old wooden prop.

Are you sure you forgot?.......When I rebuilt a Drifter a few years ago, I installed a Verner 80hp engine with a Sweetapple prop under an existing engineering order done by a CAR35 engineer. I included copies of everything, but when I got my rego in the mail they still had it listed as a 582 with a Brolga.

It worked in the long run, as I didn't leave the Verner in long.

I am hedging my bets Yenn...I have just done the MPC course last weekend so that is the main theme for the moment. I am also a L1 for RAA for my current Savannah. I have another Savannah I am rebuilding along the new tech manual rules so the L1 should just shift across. But I think for over 600kg there will be different rules for those aircraft like my S21. I am going to do this RAA maint course this weekend coming at Ycab where I will be asking some pertinent questions about it. So I will have all bases covered. The MPC course should overrule any RAA course I believe but then again RAA under the new Part 149 rules who knows what will pop up

Hi Mike..yes the new donk is looking very nice..my engine builder who is doing the job loves it as well...he wishes it was his :) .....I think Mabel maybe testing the new engine and Mabels old engine might be getting a do over as well. Just have to organise another big bore kit.