Proposed CASR Part 103 is out and you should review it.

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Hi Guys

 

 

Forgive me if this is "old news", however a use of the search functionality didn’t show any previous forum posts relating to this.

 

 

As I understand it CASA has released a document seeking comments around its Proposed Part 103 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). (82pages in length)

 

 

The new103 would seem to me, after a quick glance so far, to replace 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55. Additionally all activities "managed" by RAA, HGFA, GFA and others (balloons, gyros etc) would be wholly or partially bound by the new 103.

 

 

For those that haven’t seen the document it is available from the RAA Notice board, or http://www.raa.asn.au/docs/ops/nprm0603os.pdf

 

 

Given that 99% of everyone Australian that visits this forum will be impacted I suggest that it would be worth reviewing. I suppose that the various bodies identified above will make a submission back to CASA, though what that submission is will ultimately depend on the members feed back to their respective bodies management. Your review is therefore quite important.

 

 

I note that the date for reviews is defined in the NPRM as being "not earlier than the 19th of February" so worst case, which I accept as being unlikely, their isn’t much time for you to review and comment if appropriate.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Andy

 

 

[Wilfred]

You are right It does not hurt to post it again

 

Most of the CASA related posts are put in the General Aviation forum and depending on what you search for you may not find what you are after as many are links only to the CASA site.

 

This was mentioned in the post yesterday "CASA briefing 2007" but as it is a link to CASA site your search would not have found it.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

There are a few interesting things of note. The first is that MTOW for the type of aircraft currently at 544kg would appear to go to 600kg. My first question is why don't they bite the bullet and harmonise with the JAR-VLA/CS-VLA standard of up to 750kg MTOW as most of our aircraft come from Europe and align with that standard?

 

A lot of the rest of the NPRM seems pretty good and it would appear to remove the prohibition on entry into controlled airspace. That is the requirements to have a PPL seem to have disappeared.

 

I'd be very interested in the comments of others.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Mike

 

I rang the CASA contact with regard to an explaination of MTOW. The reasons being that if we were to loook at a Jabiru J230 for example Jabiru provide 3 different MTOW figures in order to align to 3 different existing regulations. The largest of these (VH Experimental) is 700Kgs and as such I wanted to understand what CASA meant when 600Kgs is mentioned (specifically would the existance of the 700Kg MTOW, which I presume is Jabirus assesment of the airstructure limit, exclude a J230 from being registered under 103). The answer didnt fully satisy me, however as you would expect the intent was that 19 and 24 registered J230's would be able to fly under the new 103 and that current VH experimental J230's could also but would have their MTOW rated back to 600Kgs.

 

The interesting point that I got was that existing 19 registered J230's for which the current MTOW is 544 would not "Automatically" be entitled to the shift to 600kg's rather that Jabiru or RAA (or any other RAAO) would need to recertify/reclassify the current 544kg rated 19 series aircraft as capable of being rated at 600kg.

 

To me this seems counter intuative (where a higher MTOW is listed by the manufacturer) and I hope it will be subject to evolution of common sense.

 

Still time will tell

 

regards

 

Andy

 

 

[slartibartfast]

It does look good. It also seems to remove the 10,000 foot ceiling.

 

The proposal seems to say VFR is allowed up to FL200, and above that by approval or 'deemed IFR'.

 

Also, oxygen is not required until FL125, or even up to FL140 if you will be there less than 30 mins.

 

That's great for our neck of the woods, where the LSALT is 8000 to go west.

 

Or is the ceiling imposed by Controlled airspace? I haven't done any XC training yet.

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Andy,

 

that's interesting, and a bit concerning. As I see it the reasoning should go like this:

 

1. We need a distinction between legislated MTOW and design/test MTOW;
    
    
   
2. Aircraft should be allowed to fly up to the lesser of their design/test or legislated MTOW;
    
    
   
3. Where possible the MTOW in the legislation should align appropriately with major design legislation in our key manufacturing domains.
    
   

 

Such an approach means that:

 

1. We gain the benefits of aircraft MTOW that is mandated by other legislation;
    
    
   
2. No aircraft flies at a MTOW above its design/test MTOW;
    
    
   
3. Aircraft can slide up to a new legislated MTOW so long as they have appropriate design/test MTOW.
    
   

 

The current proposal may not adequately protect safety as you could foresee that an a/c could be given a higher MTOW than its design test MTOW. Similarly many European aircraft are designed to the JAR-VLA limit of 750kg and we still won't be able to harness the MTOW of those aircraft because of some abitrary limiting of MTOW to 600kg which seems to be aligned to LSA rules rather than the UL rules.

 

The upshot of that situation is what commonly happens now. Aircraft are being flown above their MTOW because two blokes (girls) and some sort of reasonable fuel load exceeds 544kg. The problem is do you know what the design limitations of your aircraft are? Probably not. If you knew that there was an absolute limit of 750kg because there are basically no a/c designed to limits above that in this class. And you knew that any a/c with a MTOW mandated below 750kg had that limit because it is the design/test limit of the aircraft. Then we would be getting to a position where people were dealing with the MTOW of their aircraft as a serious and necessary safety limitation.

 

Leaving aside issues of structural failure which happens when something is flown beyond its designed weight you also run into issues of stall speed increase and other performance issues etc. Do you know what the stall speed is of your aircraft at 600kg when the MTOW is 544kg? I bet you don't except by empirical work. the POH almost certainly doesn't tell you that. That's a problem and its why MTOW should be 750kg.

 

Just as an aside. I am not worried about current aircraft approved at a heavier weight in Australia being somehow limited or excluded. My understanding of the proposal is that the example Jabiru at 700kg will still be allowed to fly at 700kg, just not under this rule.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[IanR]

I must have missed that bit about the altitudes when reading it - bit of a worry if we have too many people of varying levels of fitness operating aircraft up there !!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Mike

 

I agree , with the one exception around MTOW's above designed MTOW's. Im not sure I follow you ,in that I understand at present RAA wont allow an aeroplane to have an MTOW of 544 if the manufacturer only rates to 450 for example. Although that said I believe the Sting (as one example) sold in Aust is rated by the local importer to be 544 when the manufacturers web site only identifies 450???? still the website may be identifying a local legislative limitation rather than an Airframe limitation, or its old info. ALternatively if an Aircraft was rated at 450kg with +5 -5g limitations then couldnt you simply increase the MTOW by derating (upwards or downwards) climb performace, all V ratings and G ratings? (Sting manufacturer web site http://www.tl-ultralight.cz/sting-ultralight-aircraft.php, Australian Importer web site http://www.mcp.com.au/sting/index.html)

 

I must say now having completed the reading of the proposal that there is much to like in the proposal. For example people around Coffs Harbour, and Tamworth will, subject to tower approval, be able to fly from those Airports (Class D Airspace) where historically they were unable unless the pilot had a GA PPL. If amateur built then the rule of no over built up areas applies, but from memory both of those Airports have unpopulated approaches that could be used.

 

That said I suppose the Airlines will also respond to the NPRM and I assume they wont want anyone else in Class D if they can avoid it. From their perspective all it does is increase their risk and or costs for no benefit to them.

 

regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Andy,

 

I think that we're in violent agreement. Please note that I am not speaking about the Sting here because I don't know the specifics. However I am aware of situations in Europe where a/c are designed and tested to JAR-VLA at 750kg. However they are only approved at the legal limit of 450kg in their jurisdiction of origin. This then creates a requirement to revisit that initial limitation which is a legislative not a design or test limitation. So for clarity I am never advocating approving a MTOW in excess of the design/test limits for the aircraft. But many European aircraft are only approved at some lesser proportion of their design/test MTOW due to their equivalent of our 544kg MTOW limitation.

 

As for altering the g limitations. I'm no expert on that. Prima facie that would seem correct but I'm not aware of the specific issues. What I do know is that one of the ways that the g limits are arrived at is by loading the airframe up with bags of cement until it breaks. I'm sure it's more sophisticated than that! But the bottom line is that if it takes 1800kg positive to break an a/c then it has an ultimate load at 600kg MTOW of +3g as I understand it. The working load would then be some proportion of that, because we are not seeking to break our aircraft rather to set safe limits. Interestingly it is often a process of a weak link - some item that fails when all else appears to be resolutely refusing to fail.

 

Perhaps the engineers on the site could comment on this issue of g loading and we may get some sense. Never could do physics or maths!!

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

. As I see it the reasoning should go like this:

1. We need a distinction between legislated MTOW and design/test MTOW;
    
    
   
2. Aircraft should be allowed to fly up to the lesser of their design/test or legislated MTOW;
    
    
   
3. Where possible the MTOW in the legislation should align appropriately with major design legislation in our key manufacturing domains. Mike
    
   

I have a different view.. the regulator should advise the politicians, should set the safety margins required, a design rule set that defines minimum structural strength, minimum allowable performance. things such as G rating, climb performance, Allowable speed. perhaps stalling speed required as a few examples.

 

and issue certificates of type to those designs that are proven.

 

The Designer, manufacturer & Builder has the responsibility to Prove the aircraft meets the design rules and specify limitations or loading where the design will meet the performance required.

 

The idea that one airframe has several different limits is just red tape.

 

a particular aircraft, has a safe limit. certainly there is room for discussion about how much margin/s should be required.

 

The exception being different load limits for different categories, eg Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, (night?).

 

As an example in a standard atmosphere conditions I'd like a minimum climb performance of 500ft/min.

 

The G limits directly relate to how strong the airframe, in particular the wings and spa/s need to be.

 

What do you think?

 

Regards,

 

AusDarren

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

AusDarren

 

In the preamble to the NPRM CASA clearly define a goal that in efect is "simple rules for simple aircraft", with the obvious intent that compliance to simple rules should be simple to achieve.

 

Much of the previous 95.XX series which the 103 rule will (might??) replace had significantly more aerostructural limitations which in the main have dissappeared. I suggest so that the simple approach is then true.

 

That said I do agree that:-

 

"The idea that one airframe has several different limits is just red tape". I suspect a fair portion of those limited to an artificially low MTOW probably exceed that MTOW from time to time, probably feeling none too guilty about it either.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

That is some read!

 

going to have to go thru it a few times over the long weekend. i have some mixed feelings over a few things. things look good for those who operate at the higher end but i still feel that every time there are changes i end up with more to comply with. i think i will be having some things to say to our friends in CASA. I'll post some thoughts when i return next week. ie the 70kg rule my lazair comes in at 73kg.

 

Not to keen on all the red bits.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

HI Ozzie,

 

as I wrote my ramblings I was strongly aware that my views stem from me being a part of a particular bit of Rec Aviation. For that reason I think it's really important that CASA get feedback from as many people as possible. If we all raise our own issues then there is some hope that they will get a comprehensive view of the wishes of Rec Aviators.

 

And here's me thinking that a LAZAIR was a full on 3 axis heavyweight!!

 

Best wishes

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest micgrace]

Hi all

 

Another "new" definition in part 103, low momentum ultralight this effectively replaces the 95.10 It also seems to change the requirements for this category. No doubt will find out more in due course.

 

Micgrace

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Heavyweight? just the opposite! add the novelty of two engines tho.

 

it can ridge soar and thermal along with a slowish cruise speed so it can be pretty versitile. even tho it is over 25 yrs old it is a perfect platform for testing out some 21st century ideas with powerplants. After 30yrs of flying and working on a lot of different types i still get the best feelings from low and slow types. So it annoys me to see that every time a new set of rulzs comes along that i at the lower end of the performance scale lose just a little bit more control over what i prefer to do. I started out with the original ano 95,10 and it has been a down hill slide eversince.

 

Now with the the low momentum ultralight section replacing cao9510 i am again in a section that deals with aircraft that have a stall speed higher than my cruise. the under 70kilo rule on rego exemption seems to be more for the trikes and powered paragliders and not 3 axis rigid wings. so no escape from regulation there. So classed as a LMUL it looks like maybe more expense, more regulation ect. Simple rules for simple aircraft. Needs more work. there are still quite a few aircraft that fit into the lower weight area and with the future price of oil and the ability to be able to fly lightweight aircraft on alturnative power it will be benificial to encorage the lighter weights with it's own l empty weight that is a bit more realistic than the current 70kgs that i was sure when i looked last at the hgfa website was 75klg. Try 100kgs and limited license and rego. toss in a few more restrictions like height and staying away from airfields ect and i'd be happy. I'm sure there are a few others who are in the same boat.

 

On the other end of the scale it looks like it will close the gap between GA and ultralights and this is good. I just hope the training sylibus moves along with it. It seems like a good proposal in this area. No doubt sooner or later i will be affected when i decide on a new project.

 

I here a few people talk about remembering our grass roots. time to speak up and save this area before it is swallowed up by the LMU catagory. It should be kept seperate.

 

later steve irwin is on

 

 

[leestanley]

I noticed that the RA-Aus website is imploring all members to complete the CASA on-line consultation response and to check the 'Yes - Accept without change' response.

 

With my limited knowledge and experience this is what I would be inclined to do. Do others with more knowledge concur?

 

Cheers,

 

Lee.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I have just been reading all of your posts. It took a while!

 

Couple of points and rumours.

 

- The Cross Country endorsement may soon become 10 hours minimum which is a little more realistic. The original 5 hours was designed more for Thrusters and the like. The 5 hours 'may' remain for the lower category aircraft.

 

- Aircraft Manufacturers set the MTOW for an aircraft. No matter which country it is in it will have a documented MTOW in the Pilot Operating Handbook which is usually what it can be loaded to for GA operations. Eg. J430 / J230 Jabiru 700kg's.

 

The ability for the pilot to fly the aircraft in his own country based on the privaleges of his / her licence / certificate affect the local MTOW and or STALL SPEED which is why it's 600 for LSA. Interestingly, the J200 can never be registered in LSA category at 600 kg's because it's wing is too short and the STALL speed will be over the 45 knot maximum.

 

You may find that it's not the weight limitation of the country that's causing the problem, but rather the stall speed at the higher weight.

 

There is no 10,000 limit in Australia. There is a limit for flight without oxygen over 10,000 for the pilot, but not the passengers as they can go higher. In fact for a PPL there is no height limit to speak of, unless it's something over 20k+ and I'm not sure of that. That is, with Oxygen you can fly your Pressurised Turbine Lancair IV at 25,500 if you want!

 

The US has a limit of 12,000ft for flight without oxygen and it would be good if we had that here, but that being said I know people who go blue around the lips at 13,500ft so care must be exercised.

 

In the case of the Sting, Star, Foxbat, SportStar, etc, etc, etc, the foreign websites tend to only state the MTOW for the design country, whereas the aircraft may have been approved via an STC for the export country. The Sting and many others have been approved at 544 for a long time. The FoxBat is an interesting one too as it's approved at 450 for factory built, but 544 for Kit.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Brent,

 

the circumstance with RAAus factory built imported aircraft is that they are approved at the lesser of 544kg or the MTOW approved for them by the NAA in their country of origin. This is the by default situation.

 

For Italy that approved weight is 450kg by legislation. Thus some of the aircraft we see at 450kg. Further evidence is required if they are to be approved at 544kg - thus the change we have seen in some aircraft from 450kg to 544kg.

 

As for the POH of imported RAAus aircraft most of them reflect the weights here.

 

The anomaly around 450kg for a factory built vs 544kg for a kit, arises directly from this situation as the rules are different.

 

This whole situation looks set to change with CASR Part 103 which I think is all to the good.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Great to see some comments on this. with only a few weeks to go on this i thought this thread would see more action.

 

Please, do not blindly tick the accept with no changes box without reading the proposed changes or just on the recommendation of the RAAus. This is a pretty intense change to the regs. think about how this will affect you not only now but in the future. consider a change in performance of either aircraft or ones self may be on the cards or world events. will this alllow aircraft to operate as designed and not flying below designed gross weight.. paying a lot of dollar and can only carry a sleeping bag. think the stall speeds a little high or to low. personally i see that 'simple rules for simple aircraft' needs a little more work.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I was interested in the RAAus suggestion to members that they should support the proposed CASR Part 103 as is.

 

I made a few enquiries - as you can see form my posts I think we should push for 750kg - but the message was very clear. "It's taken 10 years to get to this, if you ask for change then it needs to go back to consultation and back to the lawyers. Let's get this implemented because it has a lot of good in it and then let's look for modifications."

 

So that's why they are asking us to push for it to be implemented unchanged.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

CASR Part103

 

From where I sit, this is a pretty commendable document, which seems to fit the purpose intended. I would like to thank the persons involved in its production. ( I don't think I have ever read a NPRM that seemed so positive before, and it gives room for realistic development, and exceptions ) I'm impressed! N...

 

 

[johnprop]

CASR 103 - What's in a name

 

The document is titled NPRM Sport and Recreational Aviation Operations yet our aircraft are defined and termed "ultralights" in no less than eight places in the document.

 

In my view referring to our aircraft as ultralights is a step backwards. I understand the RAAus abandoned the term ultralight some time ago for insurance reasons.

 

Australia has a Free Trade Agreement with the USA which gives our aircraft manufacturers encouragement to export to the US.

 

However the US FAA specifies an "ultralight" as a single seat vehicle of less than 5 US gallons (19 L) fuel capacity, empty weight of less than 115 kg, a top speed of 55 knots, a maximum stall speed not exceeding 24 knots, and are only allowed to fly during daylight hours and over unpopulated areas.

 

Our aircraft as defined under CASR 103 are closer to the FAA definition of a Light – sport aircraft , or LSA, as an aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than 600 kg for aircraft designed to operate from land, 649kg for seaplanes etc.

 

It should be an easy step for CASA to refer to our aircraft in CASR 103 as Light Sport Aircraft rather than ultralights and that is what I will be telling CASA in my response to the NPRM. If we can't harmonise with the different definitions used in Europe, UK or Canada at least we should with the USA.

 

I am not an aircraft manufacturer or associated with one.

 

Regards

 

Clive

 

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Clive,

 

good point. Unfortunately we have both Light Sport Aircraft and "ultralights" in Part 103. So using the term LSA for both of them is probably not an option as the distinction between the two types is important. The LSA in Part 103 is closely harmonised with the US LSA rules. I do however agree with you about the term ultralight. How about "recreational aircraft"?

 

Also see my previous post above where RAA are basically saying "there's a great deal of good in this NPRM and we would rather that it's passed 'as is' than derailed with another round of consultation.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I will stick an opinion/question in here – although frankly I am fed up with the whole deal – it seems more to be about politics and personal control rather than enhancing aviation for the average Joe!

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I considered that the ANO/CAO 95 series were set up to treat specific and ‘unusual’ forms of aviation in terms an honorary body (such as GFA, ASRA, AUF etc) could administer simply and their members understand simply – and keep costs down at the same time!

 

 

What exactly was wrong with that, why did it have to change?

 

 

A lot of the posts above seem to be mainly concerned with ‘de facto’ GA types and the original ‘low end’ are again becoming an inconvenience that yet more legislative clauses have to be created to resolve – if that is in fact done.

 

 

So now we have those aircraft why not include them in the ‘low end’ of GA legislation and give RAAus control over them? Why take out the 95 series?

 

 

My prime concern is that a lot of hard initial fighting went on to get those original freedoms, we got them, Australia was a world leader in that form of thinking, and we got a successful movement rolling that people have now flocked to – but want to change into their own aviation image and our ‘masters’ have indeed been encouraging this despite what the bulk of that original movement wanted!

 

 

Why cannot we have both? Is it so bloody difficult?

 

 

What I have quacked about in the past so often is that I do not care how much ‘protection’ is built into 103! 95 sectors were virtually ‘owned’ by the various honorary groups. Putting them under one legislation umbrella takes them from us and gives them back to direct CASA control. The legislation can be changed in the future easily when all the fuss dies down and the bottom end can be ‘tidied up’ or made so complicated that simple people will not bother and honorary organizations do not have the resources to administer it! Any control we may have will just once again be ‘fighting them in the trenches’ but this time from the back foot and against the ropes!

 

 

You do not believe me? A few years ago CASA tried a swifty directly on 95-55. That was picked up promptly and Middleton took it to Parliament to get the changes quashed. That was our power then! Why was not Parliament used to retain 95 series? It is after all just common sense and appropriate to what we do (or may continue doing).

 

 

Without the 95 series of legislation we have only the wrangles that RAAus say we should now avoid by meekly ticking the box and giving it totally away!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I would have though then if your concerns were about who would administer the 95 series and the 103 series (CASA wresting control back etc) then the proposed rule making that you would be most interested in would be the upcoming 149 and not the 103. As I understand it the admin aspects arent really identified in the 95's but are discussed in the 103 where they are clarified as belong to RAAO's (this is a good thing No?) but will be the whole basis of the upcoming 149 (which, when available will be found here http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/07_nprm.asp).

 

My understanding of the distinctions (which may well be wrong) comes from the RAA web page here http://www.raa.asn.au/operations/regulations.html which clarifies to me how all the FAR components hang together. If Im right (and RAA are also correct) in my understanding of the proposed 103 I dont see that we loose any of the benefits that 95.10 and the other 95's bring. What bit do you percieve that we are loosing? I personally cant see anything that we loose, and a good bit that we gain. However until we see 149 we cant easily comment on the whole picture.

 

Andy