New Limits and Endorsements

[Guest basscheffers]

Anyone who thinks they can build a strong aircraft with a useful payload for two people including a practical fuel load and not exceed 600 Kgs MTOW is kidding themselves.

And yet there are plenty sub 600KG aircraft flying today with several thousand hours of being banged into rough strips by students without breaking. Will they make ten thousand hours? Time will tell, but being a third of the way or more there and still going strong should be a good indication.

It's more to do with the skills of the designers than the weight of materials. Some have proven themselves (Jabiru, SportStar) others have proven they can't hack it.

 

Engineering has moved on since the 1950s when these Cessnas were designed and just like modern bridges are not built with as much heavy materials as the Brooklyn or Golden Gate Bridge while still plenty strong (or stronger), you don't need an aircraft as heavy as a 152 to be reliable and useful.

 

Strength through smarter engineering, rather than weight of materials...

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

PS: I am not anti-over-600kgs, just pointing out you can make a good aircraft for 600KGs. And 760KG C152s offer no "safety equipment" advantage as they have less payload than most 544KG aircraft.

 

The reality of the situation is that with the exception of a few homebuilts and Jab 230 and maybe other light 4-seaters with seats removed, we are unlikely to see any >600kg factory aircraft as the business is the US, which still has the 600 limit.

 

I would like to believe the Skycatcher was designed for an increase as right now it's about as useless to me as a paperweight, but I am not holding my breath.

 

 

[Vorticity]

I am finding this quite interesting. So way back when a bunch of guys decided it would be awsome to strap a small engine on a glorified kite and go for short hops over the paddock.Someone else has already detailed the small logical steps that have lead to our current privalages. The stronger aircraft, no need to fly overloaded, raises the issue of expectation managment in my view. When did it become 'expected' ti be able to load up a recreational aircraft with 2 big guys, gear and enough fuel to fly from Brisbane to temora in one hop, at 8500ft?

 

So I think it is more about the missions our aircraft are to complete. If you are doing mainly local flights with the odd nav consisting of legs less than 3 hours than what is the problem with 600kg? The aircraft are proving to be plenty strong. I have been recently hiring a tecnam with 5000hrs and it looks new. Sorry, but as has already been said, if you want to climb to 9500ft in your RV, switch on the autopilot and fly massive stretches of the country in single legs than go do that. No one is stopping you and it doesn't require a heap of additional work to be added to an already overstretched RAAus staff.

 

For those who argue that increases are a fact of life, when will it stop? What is the logical step when people would finally be content? I suspect that the large majority of members engoyingvthe pleasures of their Jabiru/tecnam/drifter/Savannah are quite content, they don't want anything more and that is why RAAus never hears from the large masses.

 

 

[shags_j]

Lets get down to the crux of the matter. Am I correct in saying that our LSA type ultralights and RA in particular deals in, basically 1 or 2 seaters where CASA really doesn't want a bar of it (excluding of course high performance one seaters, warbirds etc).

 

If that's the case wouldn't making the weight limit a little higher so the two seaters are safer be more pertinant? Why are we putting a solid weight limit on it? Or am I being way too simplistic here?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Vorticity & Bass

 

A weight increase would inevitably be followed by complaints & protesting from the pilots of a whole range of aircraft that are either just over the new limit or that only scrape in with an anorexic crew, 1 hour fuel and no more than a credit card for baggage.

 

I suspect the argument's in justification of an increase to 1000/1500/2000kg would sound very familiar !

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

when will it stop? What is the logical step when people would finally be content?

My main reason for RA-Aus is owner maintenance; which save thousands every year. If CASA allowed owner maintenance of VH-registered aircraft in private operations and exempts private OCTA ops from a medical, then RA-Aus could go back to the real ultralights and those who fly 600kg planes could just deal with CASA. And fly larger aircraft, like 4 seaters.

But I am not holding my breath on that one!

 

 

[Spin]

Yeah Bass, no point in turning blue waiting for someone to apply some common sense to the situation. The Doug Nancarrow's of the world don't exactly help things either when they try and drive a wedge into the relationship between RA and GA. Too many little empires would probably be threatened by your approach.

 

 

[shags_j]

Someone said it: Why are we using MTOW as a guide? Maybe we need to think out of the box and change the regulatory guidelines to something else (size, # seats, speeds etc.)

 

 

[Tomo]

The grass will always be greener on the other side of the fence... that's just logic. So no one will ever be happy with what they have, and hope for more. You could look at that saying people are greedy, but you can also look at it as improving.

 

I myself haven't had a weight issue as yet, if that is the MTOW of the aircraft, then that's that. In RAA it seems that you hit the 'legal' weight limit, before the actual aircraft MTOW. In GA it's the MTOW of the aircraft that defines it. Not the legal limit as such.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ah hell wrong thread. i thought this was 'the never ending story' one

 

 

[facthunter]

Weight Issue

 

If you want to really find out about the weight issue ASK the instructors. They have ALL sizes of people trying to get into an aircraft and stay weight legal. Often you have to fly with very little fuel. Most australians are not starving, and it shows.

 

Re the adequacy of some components to take the punishment, I would suggest that most of you have not been near a maintenance facility that works on RAAus aircraft that are used for training. Nosewheel assemblies, brakes, rudder pedals and steering linkages need constant attention. I would not take a Jabiru into the air unless I had a good look at the rudder pedals first.

 

Re the life ot an airframe ...Who knows? The Jabiru seems pretty strong but what is it's airframe life? Fibre glass deteriorates with use, like any other material. Carbon fibre? Impossible to test the structure for damage even if it is only hangar rash. The Skyfox has a relatively short spar life. What inspections are carried out at what intervals on major structural components, generally. When is turbulence or a heavy landing severe enough to warrant a detailed inspection? How much of the airframe is able to be visibly checked during its life. What parts are subject to fatigue and what parts are subject to corrosion?

 

Sorry to bring this up but the reality is that your aircraft is only safe when inspected properly. The earlier types like thrusters and drifters can be more easily inspected because their structures are exposed to a great extent. Many aircrafts structural life remains a bit of a guess rather than a science. Nev

 

 

[pudestcon]

The earlier types like thrusters and drifters can be more easily inspected because their structures are exposed to a great extent. Many aircrafts structural life remains a bit of a guess rather than a science. Nev

That's one of the things I like about rag and tube Thrusters and Drifters Nev; they are largely 'component' aircraft where it is relatively easy to not only inspect, but also replace components as needed. I would hazard a guess there are Thrusters flying about with very little of the original components still in use save for the main boom/fuselage tube maybe.

 

Pud

 

 

[pudestcon]

....still original though...

As long as it's got the all important compliance/registration plate attached it is original as far as the authorities care;) - don't know about the authorities administering axes though:big_grin:

 

It's a pity body parts aren't interchangeable as easilyi_dunno

 

Pud

 

 

[facthunter]

Body Parts.

 

Let's face it . Most of us "mature" types are past economic repair, Pud. Nev

 

 

[pudestcon]

Let's face it . Most of us "mature" types are past economic repair, Pud. Nev

Better get back on topic eh Nev?

 

I'd be for a weight increase to 750kgs say and maybe CTA use but it is human nature to always push the envelope and that's why there is always agitation for 'more' whatever that might be.

 

Pud

 

 

[Relfy]

I spoke with two CASA reps in Bundy the other day who were there for the new airspace information seminars and I ran the weight and controlled airspace changes past them and they both said that it won't be happening as their boss was not in favour of it in any way shape or form.

 

It's hard to get the right story on these issues.

 

 

[facthunter]

A Little More.

 

I can't recall exactly where I got my information but it was written and not heresay. The inference was that it was not the intention to arbitrarily close the gate at exactly any limit, and if something was "just outside" it would be considered. That sounds reasonable but where did it all end up and why? I would surely like to know. Nev

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

So how long has this song and dance been going on for? Three years or so?

 

Ian it is time for the RAAus board to get a difinitive answer from the CASA CEO.

 

A yes or no. To much time and money has been wasted on this already. if it is a definative no then those who seek these increases and endorsments can take alternative routes to get them. PPL and the like. Pretty dissapointed at how both the RAAus and CASA have handeled this and dragged it on for so long.

 

Hop to it!!

 

 

[facthunter]

And....

 

And if it is NO perhaps the logic behind that might be explained to us. Is this sort of thing decided on facts and reason or just a Whim? Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

The definite answer is " maybe"

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

With an answer like that Yenn, you should try and land one of the 100 positions coming up shortly with CASA.

 

 

[nong]

Weight limits are an outdated concept. Once upon a time, PPL and CPL holders were limited to 12,500 lbs. This later became 5,700 kg. At the time these limits served a purpose. CASA has recognised that this purpose no longer exists, so neither do the limits.

 

I dare to think that so called 'recreational aviation' can be similarly set free. I must confess that I am perplexed that any of you would want ANY weight restriction.

 

Would it not be reasonable to go to UNLIMITED weight, whilst, for good safety and political reasons, retaining the two person limit and the 45 kt stall thing.

 

This would put a stop to the endless push for the next weight limit.

 

As I see it, it would, of course, continue to be OK to operate to an agreed reduced max AUW, as is often done now, if that was needed so as to meet the stall speed limit with any particular type.

 

The Antonov AN2 would probably be the biggest ultralight (!) under that scenario.

 

There is no reason that this type of machine ( being the probable extreme example ) could not be owner maintained. As with any owner maintenance on ANY aircraft, additional help and resources would be brought in as and when necessary.

 

So it's no problem then, Right?

 

 

[HEON]

Like that idea of no weight limit, two people and 45kt stall.

 

A Antonov AN2...I dont think I could afford the oil bill after seeing the one at Watts Bridge last weekend, but I know two ladies that would love to fly as a passenger in one...finally room for their bags and other essentials!!!!!

 

 

[facthunter]

Concept of weight limit.

 

Well expressed nong. It is a totally arbitrary concept and with our present limit (544 and even 600 ),acts to make the possible aircraft for us MORE unsafe than they could be. The skills required to operate the extra weights are of familiarity not difficulty. The reason we have the complicated rules that we operate to are because of the way we evolved. ie. in increments with no real rhyme or reason other than "that is all we can get at the moment, so be grateful for it". The Pietenpol with the Ford "A" motor is a perfect example of a safe easy to build and afFORD.(Couldn't resist that) Plane. What would the modern equivalent of that be?. 2 occupants and a fairly low stall speed gives us the reduced liability necessary to keep costs down. Isn't that one of our aims? Even the Skyfox was over 70,000 dollars NEW. What would that be in todays equivalent? Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

I agree with the guys above, no weight limit is the go. Still having 45kt stall limit will keep things in check.You wouldnt what to bend a a/c and have it weighted and they say mate your 2 kgs over, no insurance etc.Because you put to much fuel in.Keep it simple , how simple would it make it, alot i would imagine.Having said that, until old mate retires from the top job at CASA, i wouldnt be holding my breath for any changes.