New Limits and Endorsements

[loneflyer]

Why do we need 760Kgs? This just means a bunch of 50 / 60 year old aircraft that had previously been maintained by qualified LAMEs will now come down into recreational aviation and be maintained by the owner / pilot. Soon we will have aircraft falling out of the sky and CASA will step in and life will become more difficult.

 

We are rapidly becoming GA!! Why do we need Controlled Airspace? Why do we need anything more than we have now??

 

This is getting out of control. Soon we will all be hanging up our headsets and putting our planes on e-Bay as we will be legislated, documented and controlled out of existence. It will stop being fun if we don't put the brakes on NOW!!

 

Loneflyer

 

 

[geoffreywh]

absolutely

 

 

[The Wolf]

I think what is happening is there is demand for a class inbetween GA and RA. RA hasn't really kept up with aircraft advancement. Alot of the rules and regs in RA are based around the assumption that the plane is an experimental or kit plane, that is slow, rough and held together with wire and tape. It seems the there is a demand for GA endorsments and entitlements, with the cheaper LSA available And then the option of moving to a bigger plane. For some, RA may just be a stepping stone to bigger things. A way of seeing if you truly want to fly, or if you are just young and want some acheivements to your name. I think if RA embrace this side of flying, then they will have more members, more income, and more sway on CASA. At the moment, converting to GA (from my experience) seems a little "adhoc"

 

We are rapidly becoming GA!! Why do we need Controlled Airspace? Why do we need anything more than we have now??

This is getting out of control. Soon we will all be hanging up our headsets and putting our planes on e-Bay as we will be legislated, documented and controlled out of existence. It will stop being fun if we don't put the brakes on NOW!!

I'm sure that was said by some when the 100ft limit was removed, or the other legislation that people perceive makes us GA. People always oppose change

 

 

[Spin]

Human nature is such that there will always be someone pushing for the next step, it is probably what makes us such a successful species.

 

That said though, in this case I think the answer is to create a clear path to PPL for those who want to enjoy the privileges of larger aircraft, more passengers etc. GA will benefit and at the end of the day we all do, I think. To me 600kg is in tune with what the US is doing with its LSA's - the biggest market after all and probably a big driver in the expansion of recreational aviation worldwide. To stretch the current exemption any further is to put ever greater pressure on the grassroots of our sport, there are almost inevitably going to be further restrictions if we become indistinguishable from GA.

 

Just to contradict myself, one change I can see a case for, is a CTA endorsement, it would mean a big plus for safety and convenience for many areas.

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree with the assumption older GA Ac coming into RA is not a good thing

 

Maybe the reason we have safety where it is, is because our fleet is generally newer

 

and easier to maintain

 

760kg doesnt make sense to me much, the number has been chosen to meet particular aircraft mentioned above although keeping max stall at 45 keeps plenty out too.

 

CTA is different, actually doesnt make sense why not, same AC, same pilot with more training and a medical. This strikes to the heart of the "GA training and pilots are better than RA irrespective" issue.

 

Other side of the coin is that these changes and "closeness" to GA is happening like it or not. Being brought on by both sides. That cant be slowed either.

 

Also the move to more regulation is coming and always has been. We have to be in a position to pre empt and self regulate ahead of CASA or whoever, so they have nothing to add. That way we stay in control of the rules and not have them forced upon us. We also have to gain something for each increase in regulation.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

Why do we need 760Kgs? This just means a bunch of 50 / 60 year old aircraft

You mean like a newly purchased Jabiru 230 that's artificially limited to 544kg for no good reason?

 

 

[shags_j]

Not this thread again....

 

 

[shags_j]

BTW, just out of interest. The only reason I am progressing to my PPL is to make use of controlled airspace. I have to drive for an hour to get to an "RA" airstrip.

 

If i was to ask a concession, it would be CTA.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I think it is reasonable to allow RAA aircraft into controlled airspace, subject to the limitations that are imposed on other traffic.

 

600 KG's is also a reasonable upper limit for LSA aircraft, it allows you to have most options and still a respectable 'useful load'. I certainly see no reason to allow C-150's, Tomahawks, etc, onto the RAA register.

 

As far as increasing complexity goes, RAA aircraft are already governed by the same 'rules of the air' as GA, the only differences lay in certification, maintenance and licencing!

 

 

[facthunter]

Comment.

 

There is more to this than crook 150's and tomahawks. There are lots of aircraft like the Brumby, which is built strong but with the 0-200D/ Lyc 0-233, is too heavy. Why deny yourselves these aircraft and others like them and the ability to build your own with a steel tube and wood or Aluminium construction? The sums for a two-seater with fuel and baggage come out at well over 600 Kgs every time. Do you want to do trips where you are overloading your aircraft, just to carry enough fuel? The 0-200 would use about 20 litres an hour ( much less on long range cruise) and the Lycomong 0-233 about 25 litres, (less for LR).This is not much (if anything) more than a 6 cyl Jab. The trend has been obvious since the beginning and weight has nothing to do with complexity, in fact you can build a simpler stronger aircraft cheaper, just by allowing it to be built heavier, with decent brakes and undercarriage. as far as flying it goes there is no real difference and if there is, it would probably be easier. The Cessna skycatcher has obviously been designed with a weight increase in the pipeline. I am sure the imaginative and capable local industries will be quick to find models to fill the opportunity if it is there.

 

The Whitney Boomerang, probably the best trainer available anywhere is still over 750 kgs and it is Australian made, and strong. Think big(ger).It well happen eventually. Why drag it out? The extra safety is there. Nev

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

Why do we need 760Kgs? This just means a bunch of 50 / 60 year old aircraft that had previously been maintained by qualified LAMEs will now come down into recreational aviation and be maintained by the owner / pilot. Soon we will have aircraft falling out of the sky and CASA will step in and life will become more difficult.We are rapidly becoming GA!! Why do we need Controlled Airspace? Why do we need anything more than we have now??

 

This is getting out of control. Soon we will all be hanging up our headsets and putting our planes on e-Bay as we will be legislated, documented and controlled out of existence. It will stop being fun if we don't put the brakes on NOW!!

 

Loneflyer

Here we go again .... Sigh!

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Perhaps you could allow heavier aircraft, but exempt others based on their certification.

 

 

[HEON]

I know it has all been said before!

 

What interested me was what I think was a 150 at Watts Bridge last weekend with RAA rego...looked very well presented.

 

 

[HEON]

Facthunter has hit the nail on the head.

 

I accept we are limited to two seats (which I think should never change) I believe that the DESIGNED MTOW is not as important as the LEGAL PAYLOAD. You need around 270kg to take two average Australians (not rugby forwards!), a few bits, and enough fuel to get somewhere especially as the number of POL points are reducing.

 

A 600, 700, or even 800kg MTOW aircraft with a suitable payload capacity HAS to be MUCH safer than a overloaded 544kg (or whatever) aircraft that probably would not meet the 45kt stall requirement, and reduces the G limits of the design.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

I don't know where 760 kg comes from, but I do know where 750 kg comes from ----- CASR Part 21 for a Primary Cat. aircraft that can be certified by industry ----- and we have had that rule on the books years before the US LSA ---- we have had it since mid 1998.

 

Note that the JAR/VLA max. gross is also 750kg. Primary Cat. can go to 1225 kg (1539 for a seaplane). Our Part 21 also has an "Intermediate" cat, which is not limited to single engine.

 

The weight limit history is interesting. When I first got involved in the detail, the AUF weight limit was 488kg, and I think (but don't know) that it had even been a lesser weight at some time.

 

We increased the weight (during the period of the PAP/CASA Review, 1996 to 1999) for the same reason the Canadians increased their weights for ultralight ----- because Australian and Canadians, particularly two at a time --- weigh somewhat more than starving Biafrans ---- which meant that many aircraft owners were probably operating over authorized weights.

 

Thus 544 kg. And now we have the LSA weights, but only for LSAs.

 

We also put in the present stall speeds ( v JAA/EASA VLA) because we viewed 37 kt JAR/VLA stall as too slow, making the gust response, and hence handling, a problem during approach and takeoff. This cause a huge reaction from the "slower must be safer" low momentum enthusiasts, but there are not too many Jabs flipped on their back in a gust.

 

As to poorly maintained aircraft, because they are not LAME maintained, the most pristine aircraft I see a Amateur Built Experimentals ----- and if the guy can build the aeroplane ---- what makes you thing the maintenance will be deficient.

 

Likewise, in the Canadian owner maintained category (for production aircraft), the aircraft I see are invariably beautifully presented, compared to A&P maintained school hacks. Likewise the LAA (ne. PFA) aircraft in the UK.

 

There is absolutely no reason why a Cessna 150 or similar would not be maintained to an entirely satisfactory standard by an owner ----- and my experience tells me that owners that don't feel personally confident of their own abilities will always recruit those who have the skills to do just as good a job on a C-150 as on any other small aeroplane.

 

After all, small aircraft are hardly rocket science ---- and the average aircraft enthusiast owner is definitely not stooopid.

 

Regards,

 

PS: Anybody thinking about a C150/152 or any strutted Cessna, look very carefully for corrosion in the multi-layer main spar between the root and the strut attach point --- including paying for ultrasound and X-ray, with the tanks out.

 

 

[Spin]

I know it has all been said before!What interested me was what I think was a 150 at Watts Bridge last weekend with RAA rego...looked very well presented.

Saw that one, along with an old Piper Colt as well, also looking very smart.

 

I am not going to stoop to the level of dismissing the opposing argument as fantasy, however the examples above, along with the RV7 previously advertised make me wonder where a 750kg limit would get stretched to. There was a Skybolt advertised at Watts Bridge, 815kg gross and the owner was offering to re-register as an RA aircraft?

 

Interesting comment about the payload being important. I can well recall doing the sums when I was training toward my PPL and finding that my then slim self and a large instructor were over weight with full fuel in a 150. When I came around to RA, my 20kg larger self and an equally well fed instructor slipped in below gross on a Tecnam LSA, with fuel for a long cross country. I think you'll find messrs Jabiru, Tecnam, CZAW, Aeroprakt et al are perfectly capable of making good, safe, compliant aircraft at 600 gross - oh and they're a dammed sight more fun to fly than a C150 anyway.

 

So as has been said before - there is a higher weight limit available for the asking, its called a PPL.

 

Back to the important stuff, Peter, when are you getting your amphibian - at least that way I'd know who you are?

 

 

[djpacro]

Bill, do you have any information on the status of Part 61, in particular the new Recreational Pilot Licence per the NPRM? I recall this being a high priority at a session I sat in with Mr Byron some time ago.

 

 

[Spin]

Merely tweaking the odd tail that got left lying around, David.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've also compared the price of a second hand 150 with that of an early Jabiru and thought about "what if". Even an imported RV could fit.

 

In my ideal world, I'd be able to buy a used J400/430, have the choice to do some maintenance myself AND load wife, 9yo son and 2 small dogs - all without the hassle of revalidating my PPL. Perfectly achievable under 760kg or even 700, but I can already hear the howls from the naysayers. Perfectly understandable, that's not what RA is about (is it?), although I am not sure how much of the contrary argument doesn't reflect the demographics of RA? Most here seem to have gotten their kids off their hands - I'm blessed with a son nearly as mad about aircraft as I am and a wife who if less enthusiastic, actively supports our vice and doesn't want to stay at home. My maths just isn't good enough for 3 into 2! (seats)

 

 

[HEON]

Should know who I am in late July Spin! Or red/brown/gold Fisher Mk1 912...

 

 

[Spin]

Sounds good Heon, are you going to Monto as well?

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

DJP,

 

Not doing well, I have no idea of a realistic timetable, and little confidence that the finished "legal draft" will look anything like the NPRM or lay draft.

 

Regards,

 

 

[HEON]

Yep, at this stage

 

 

[jetjr]

The 760kg was chosen to suit some particular aircraft someone had in mind.

 

The extra weight is hard to use and remain below stall speed. Very few can run @ 700kg+ and stall below 45. Both these need to be reviwed, may be no point in raising just one

 

There are of course some great 150's etc around and they would be be no problem. Issue is there are many more?? which are in pretty poor shape, long in hours. These are very cheap as owners cant justify operating costs of repair/maintennce bills. This second group would be attractive to push into RA where they can avoid scrutiny and these pending repairs.

 

Some of these are very old and this raises problems in any aircraft. RA will have to address it in time, that machines failure rate increases with age.

 

The reason these types are still there taking pounding from students is the intensive maintenence program they work under. We are talking removing them from this regime

 

Keep in mind as RAA grows there are possibly less entusiasts and homebuilders and more pilots and we are relying on them being responsible enough to have proper services done rather than do it themselves. Parts are much more expensive and will get more so over time.

 

Im sure it can be managed but it does need some plans for how to make sure the inspections and critical service items are carried out

 

 

[facthunter]

750-760 Kgs

 

The 760 Kgs was suggested by CASA I believe as the 152 and the tomahawk came in at that weight. and it was only a small increase over the nominal 750..

 

This has some relevance to myself as I was in the process of doing the paperwork to put the Citabria I owned at the time onto the RAAus register.

 

No aircraft was ever going to get onto the RAAus register by the back door and ALL AN's AD's and full log book records and maintenance records were required.. IF some people are looking for maintenance problems into the future they are unlikely to come from aircraft such as mine was.

 

I have had plenty of occasions to look at Pipers and cessna's that have corrosion issues. This being the area where most of your problems are likely to come from and have seen the extensive rebuilds that are necessary to keep them safe. They can be extensive and expensive and would be picked up by any competant LAME. They are more related to the environment that they operate in and being near a salt environment without hangarage, can be much more important that that total time in service, or number of landings. The issue is mostly one of economics rather than whether it can be repaired. Some will be beyond economic repair.

 

I have never heard of a C-150/152 having a structural failure and I have been in one that should have.

 

Some of the lighter built aircraft that are almost new now will be scrap well before the older aircraft need be. As well as heavier construction there is a wealth of "in the field" operational experience with the older aircraft, so the system knows where to look for the problems.

 

Anyhow don't lump all these aircraft together, because it doesn't do justice to the good ones. Would RAAus like to have all its pilots judged by the worst examples. nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Guys, i also heard through the Grape Vine, a while back that the 760 kgs, was for the 152/Tomahawk, as Nev has already mentioned.Cant remember who told me though.