RAAus bid to increase MTOW weight allowance

Gday all. Im sure this question may have been done to death. But Im new so Im gunna ask.

I read on an OZ flying sight recently, that RAAus is trying to get CASA to increase the MTOW allowance for RPC holders from 600kg to 750kg (think thats right), so as to allow them a larger range of aircraft and such.

Firstly, will this have any chance of happening in the near future?

Secondly. What do more experienced pilots think of this idea? Good? Bad? 

Thirdly. Do you think if this opens the gate to a bigger range of aircraft , like say the Cessna 150/152. Will it inevitably drive the price of such aircraft up, due to a larger market share?

Once again . Sorry if this has been covered before. But as a budding (boy at my age. I really stopped budding a long time ago) pilot. These are the questions that one thinks about.

Cheers

Craig

There is a lengthy thread about this. There are two camps. Some, like me, look forward to.more carrying capacity and structural strength for safety. Others believe it threatens their flying by driving up costs, though this has never been explained. They also want to keep ultralight flying cheap and cheerful and to keep GA type planes out.

It's a lot more complex than that with a lot more downsides affecting different people in different ways - better to find the thread and read right through it.

There are several threads on this topic, at least 2 of them within the last year. Just type in "RAA Weight increase" or something like that in the search box at the top right of the screen & click the magnifying glass.

OK. Seems to be quite a few threads on the topic. Some going back as far as 2006. Holi moli. Some things move slow.

OK. Seems to be quite a few threads on the topic. Some going back as far as 2006. Holi moli. Some things move slow.

 

Enjoy the read; any change is like watching the sea level rise; it might speed up soon or never happen:)  Cheers.

any change is like watching the sea level rise; it might speed up soon or never happen

 

Climate change denier!!!!

OK. Seems to be quite a few threads on the topic. Some going back as far as 2006. Holi moli. Some things move slow.

 

Back in 1993? (I'll have to check my magazines) CASA offered a weight increase to 750kg on a platter.  The AUF people replied "We're too busy ...." and it went on the back burner.  The offer now is 760kg which takes in the Cessna 150/152 range - old but cheap, it might get some back into recreational flying.

The original documented offer was 762 Kgs so the intent  then was clear. It would include the C 152 and piper Tomahawk.. AS far as I can recall,  change of CASA chief made the big policy reversal unilaterally. HE was clearly anti RAAUS from day one.  Nev

They hate private aviation, period.

They hate private aviation, period.

 

That would seem like a counter productive attitude. But then again Im sure theyre not the first orginisation to be so.

That would seem like a counter productive attitude. But then again Im sure theyre not the first orginisation to be so.

 

It's a LOT more complex than that.

Have a look and the previous threads and you'll pick it up.

Just a few of the issues are:

There are some overweight RA pilot/owners who want to carry a passenger plus fuel, in some cases full fuel.

There are some GA pilots who want to move to RA because they can no longer pass a Class 2 medical.

There are some people who want to fly Quasi GA aircraft cross-country, so begger engines, bigger aircraft within the RA MTOW, and they would like to add more structural strength.

There are some with older GA aircraft who want to get out of paying a LAME to maintain the aircraft.

In some cases the pilot/owner could simply buy hire a suitable 4 pax GA aircraft and fly long distance cross country with two up, full fuel and full baggage, but they are not capable of passing a Class 2 medical, or don't want to go through the expense of a PPL licence course and pay for LAME maintenance.

And so on; a mix of grass is greener over the fence.

Ultimately CASA have to sift through all of that but ensure there is no degradation of safety, so I've very convenient to blame them.

Usually when the discussion comes up it's being pushed by one of these agendas.

The issue was changing/reversing direction/policy without warning  AFTER starting a process.. They promoted the 762 Kgs  then  when a new CEO entered the scene  ex RAAF and ex Qantas and Cathay management he couldn't get his head around what RAAUS was about and was "unhelpful" to say the least. People building their own aircraft from uncertified parts/ materials NO WAY . That sort of thing was too far from the world he came from. Nev

The issue was changing/reversing direction/policy without warning  AFTER starting a process.. They promoted the 762 Kgs  then  when a new CEO entered the scene  ex RAAF and ex Qantas and Cathay management he couldn't get his head around what RAAUS was about and was "unhelpful" to say the least. People building their own aircraft from uncertified parts/ materials NO WAY . That sort of thing was too far from the world he came from. Nev

 

A couple of things;

1. That CEO has come and gone.

2. Whoever promoted 762 kg may not have understood the complex ramifications.

Back around 2008 I was told by an insider that CASA wanted us to take over all private GA.

These are the type of things you will hear in large companies, local government, anywhere there's a coffe machine and a willing audience.

As you know, CASA's SAAO officials for RA are switched on people, and while there are certainly various opinions expressed about them by some quarters, know how to throw a recreational aircraft around, know how to service them and know, quite intimately just about every rule flouting villain around.

To think these people are just sitting around quiet and relaxing while the DAS of the day yawns, gets out of bed and thinks "What can I do today; I know, I'll increase RA MTOW to 762 kg, or I have to fix what the last DAS did so I'll squash that 762 kg, is fanciful.

In fact the SAAO department isn't the only filter either. Once they decide on something there is a very capable legal team there, with your deep pockets waiting to strike out anything which would expose the government to additional risk.

Aren't we so lucky then to have the "legals" eventually having all the say on POLICY?. I would rather have people who are properly knowledgeable  and understanding of OUR  needs. Everyone knows this current CASA is only interested in self regulated Airlines and giving the rest a hard time. When they do the right thing, I will be among the first to come out and say so and give them credit. The whole structure of the ACT they work under is wrong for "small aviation".  More and more impediments  and rule changes only harm the "Show". Accidents still happen. Less people at any head office really know the ropes or what's going on "out there". Nev

It's a LOT more complex than that.

 

Have a look and the previous threads and you'll pick it up.

 

And so on; a mix of grass is greener over the fence.

 

Maximum stall speed and 2 Pax resolves most of that.

You want heavier, then it's going to be slower as you'll need more wing to meet the stall limit.

 

Maximum stall speed and 2 Pax resolves most of that.

 

You want heavier, then it's going to be slower as you'll need more wing to meet the stall limit.

 

The problem there is they want faster cruise speeds and greater range and more equipment i.e. they want GA class aircraft with RA rules and Ra medical.

The problem there is they want faster cruise speeds and greater range and more equipment i.e. they want GA class aircraft with RA rules and Ra medical.

 

Yeah, well bad luck, get a class 2 medical (whatever).

Want a weight increase for the benefit of the recreational majority, not a few others.

Aren't we so lucky then to have the "legals" eventually having all the say on POLICY?. I would rather have people who are properly knowledgeable  and understanding of OUR  needs. Everyone knows this current CASA is only interested in self regulated Airlines and giving the rest a hard time. When they do the right thing, I will be among the first to come out and say so and give them credit. The whole structure of the ACT they work under is wrong for "small aviation".  More and more impediments  and rule changes only harm the "Show". Accidents still happen. Less people at any head office really know the ropes or what's going on "out there". Nev

 

Every large company has its legals. They don't make policy, they just oversee the potential risk, and if it's too great the people go back and come up with a better solution.  Even the TV networks watch everything. I was with a News crew once, and we'd been standing around all day waiting for something to happen and I'd talked extensively with the News Reporter so she knew the fine details of the case and we'd been cracking jokes all day. When the something happened the camera started rolling and she walked towards me and asked "What are your thoughts right now?" I said "The Premier and Minister for Transport are a pair of axxxoles!" She laughed and said "I don't think Legal are going to let that one get through, so we did several different takes and one of them made the News.

I just explained before that the people who make the policies do have an understanding of our needs, and by the way of our bad habits. One of them was a very good RA instructor who trained other instructors - so the front troops aren't just chair warmers. 

People in head offices never really come to grips with the way things have to be done in the field. For the past 40 years I've seen national transport companies dump vertical integration for that very reason, and go for horizontal/State/Regional management centres, and that quickly collapses because the company becomes six little companies each going their own way and the economies of scale are lost, and there's an announcement one Friday that 350 have been fired and they're going back to vertical integration, then ten years later they go horizontal again. Very few manage to get it exactly right.

Just remember that Dr Clyde Fenton, who set up his flying doctor operation at Batchelor in the NT was saying exactly the same thing about DCA as you're saying today.

Faster means higher stall speeds and more complex design and flutter issues C/s, fairings and retract and carbon fibre exotic ='s COSTS. Euro designed planes for the rich and toy collectors around $200K.+. Most of them are not suitable for rough strips outlandings or self maintenance/ repair either.. Anything built /from overseas with our exchange rate is getting pretty expensive. U/L's should be cost effective and available to "Ordinary" people as they are for fun and recreation, not taking your full family on a holiday..

  Turbo , just because you SAY something, that's not explaining it., and just because YOU say it it's not necessarily more right than what anyone else says  When DCA was the show it had mostly PILOTs  working there having the say and there's NO comparison with todays organisation which doesn't pay enough to get the best even if they were around The sort of  broad on the job experience that was about is no more . Nev

The worst thing that has ever happened to Western democracies is allowing lawyers to have the major say in how they are run, and what the rules and regulations are.

Every.single.thing that happens today, is guided and driven by lawyers, and an abject fear of crushing litigation destroying peoples life work and assets.

Before the Magna Carta my family owned a village of 600 people. After heretical talk like that they might have sent you off to fight in the crusades for a few years, sold your daughters or put you on pig feeding for the summer.

And how many idiots were in that village, Turbo? Were they the ones they turned into lawyers?  (I was actually quite surprised to find the old English census records make provision for counting the village idiots!)

I can't talk too loudly, it appears that there was a reasonably recent ancestor (1700's) on my Fathers side of the family, who was a lawyer in Buckinghamshire. 

But then again, I have reason to be biased, my Grandfather was denied major property entitlements, when he was ripped off by crooked lawyers, who realised he couldn't read or write, due to a lack of schooling as a child (1840's).

He determined he would never again be ripped off by people with "intellectual skills", and ended up teaching himself to read and write, and finished up as an industrial chemist for a coal-tar manufacturing company.

Didn't he know coal is evil?

 

He determined he would never again be ripped off by people with "intellectual skills", and ended up teaching himself to read and write, and finished up as an industrial chemist for a coal-tar manufacturing company.

 

So that’s where the Academics come from.