weight of ra aircraft

[hendonguy]

when i first started training to obtain my certificate , there was talk around the hangers that ra looked at lifting the weight to allow ra pilots to fly 152 etc ,

 

i understand they recently lifted the limit but not up to the 152 will they ever ? or are aircraft like this so old ra would be worried without serviceing by a lame they may have a heap more accidents , they are still only a 2 seater ,price quite reasonable and from what i have been told not that much different from some ra planes to handle

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hi Hedonguy,

 

There was a push to take RAA aircraft to 750 kg which would have allowed C150/152, Tomohawks, Citabrias, RVs etc on the RAA register. It didn't happen and CASA nailed the RAA MTOW at 600 Kgs.

 

CASA through the lobbying efforts of the SAAA are apparently about to release a new License category called RPL (Recreational Pilot License I believe). This is a down grade of a PPL which allows a lower medical standard to that of a drivers license, but a medical must be physically passed. It allows all privileges of the PPL up to a 1500Kg aircraft with up to 4 POB, but not CTA and no night VFR.

 

Many believe this new category will effectively pin RAA at 600kgs and RA Aus may lose several members to the RPL category.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Just a note with Davids post, a few RV's can already be put onto RAA register (not that youd want to when theyre aerobatic too...)

yeah but to do so generally requires some compromises like not painting the aircraft, only fitting the drivers seat, no spats etc, all based at just squeezing into a weight restriction. I pressume that fuel load is compromised as well so that only short hops are achievable for X country.

 

To me the upcoming RPL looks like a much better fit for these aircraft.

 

That all said, the fact that you can make them (well some of them) fit RAA is also a good thing.

 

Andy

 

 

[dazza 38]

yeah but to do so generally requires some compromises like not painting the aircraft, only fitting the drivers seat, no spats etc, all based at just squeezing into a weight restriction. I pressume that fuel load is compromised as well so that only short hops are achievable for X country.To me the upcoming RPL looks like a much better fit for these aircraft.

 

That all said, the fact that you can make them (well some of them) fit RAA is also a good thing.

 

Andy

Im with you Andy, the RPL looks realy good.

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon it will be more of a flood than a trickle... leaving us to get back to flying Ultralights...?

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think you are potentially right there Don,

 

Many of the plastic fantastic are VH registrable and any PPL who loses his Class 2 medical but can maintain the RPL medical standard may choose the plastic fantastic route or he may just be happy flying his old Cessna, Piper, Mooney, Beechcraft, Bellanca, RV, Auster etc etc. If this is the case we could lose substantial RA Aus membership.

 

There really has been a substantial disconnect in the medical standard difference between a Class 2 and Drivers license standard; this has compounded the illogical arguments used to justify flying 600Kgs with no class 2, and over 600Kgs requiring a Class 2. The weight limitation has been more of an arbitrary figure rather than one based on any real statistical or scientific reasoning especially considering the Class 2 medical standards are based on military exclusion criteria, NOT appropriate medical fitness standards.

 

If we do have a membership decline, then perhaps the real 'minimum' aircraft that I prefer to call them might get a new lease of life.

 

EDIT 16/01: To make my point clearer

 

 

[shags_j]

Many believe this new category will effectively pin RAA at 600kgs and RA Aus may lose several members to the RPL category.

This excites me a bit. I am actually very keen on this however I will still probably maintain my RAAus Cert so I can rent the usual aircraft I fly.

 

TBH this change will probably keep the old school RAAUs COmplainers happy (you know the old grassroots vs the new HP aircraft debate). I don't think this is such a bad thing.

 

 

[facthunter]

David regarding the new lease of life I can't see it. If anyone wants to fly these planes, there is nothing stopping them now, that will change, with any sort of hiving off a so called GA group with such and such non-true believer ideas.

 

A few years back they became uninsurable in the "school" environment. They then were not around to do the training in, the same as tailwheeel planes are a bit hard to come by in RAAus, and no-one wants to put them on line because they get bent.

 

The "majority" tend to buy a plane rather than construct it. They seem to be able to find the money (sometimes in a group ownership scheme) and GO flying while they can, usually in a Jabiru.

 

The outrageous prang rate of the early days is evident in John Brandons statistics. The horses of the day were for the "courses" (circumstances) of the day and the conditions imposed by the authorities were more to kill the activities off than support them.

 

Back to the future is a pipe dream. Those who want to and really love them should get on with it, Because they STILL CAN. But I dare say if the "kill" rate goes to where it used to be, anticipate a bit of attention ( whether you want it or not), and if your numbers are down and you are an isolated small group by it's own behaviour and desire then who will grieve?. This is not what I want to see, but I see it as a very real possibility. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Good analysis Nev, hard to argue against your points.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I reckon it will be more of a flood than a trickle... leaving us to get back to flying Ultralights...?

Cant see it myself, in my last post I said that RPL will be a good fit for aircraft that cant currently fit, or perhaps can only barely be made to fit into RAA. For thoset aircraft that are in, and comfortable within RAA, what benefit in leaving? There was the already mentioned lifetime registration vs 12 months at a time in RAA but then there's maintenance which is likely more than enough to offset that??? Im not speaking definitively, just cant see that there really is that much of a driver to change over...

 

So take me in my Plastic J230...Why would I change? what are the benefits? I could fit the extra seats in the back (turn it into a J430) and legally fly at 700kg MTOW......but other than that? What am I missing?

 

Andy

 

 

[winsor68]

I am not so sure it will come down to choice...

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think the main disadvantage for RAA is that the influx of GA into RAA once they cannot hold a Class 2 will cease. GA pilots will still be able to remain GA (provided they still pass the drivers medical which must be sat and cannot be accepted on a declaration). In the past they had to go RAA if they wanted to remain flying.

 

Don't underestimate the value of the increased weight; it is a significant advantage.

 

 

[winsor68]

A lot of those pilots will still want to buy Lsa aircraft... Its not like it will take away from anyone's privileges... Sounds like a great idea to me.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

.......Don't underestimate the value of the increased weight; it is a significant advantage.

David

 

Yeah thats true, but like everything in aviation nothings for nothing. At the airfireld I fly out of I reckon the effective 750ft available would be marginal in a J230 with J's original brakes at 700Kgs for some cross wind situations where it may be prudent to come in carrying a few extra knots.... I'd want some upgraded stopping ability beyond the "go cart " brakes as someone else described them to me.....But thats a specific location not the general rules...and no matter what the general rules we always have to fly to the specific location limits dont we.

 

Andy

 

 

[David Isaac]

.......But that's a specific location not the general rules...and no matter what the general rules we always have to fly to the specific location limits don't we.

Yep, which is directly linked to the performance of the aircraft you are operating. Js are certainly not what you would call short field aircraft and at 700 Kgs a J430 would need a lot of runway, hardly a true 4 seater, just as a C172 is not a true 4 seater because you cannot carry full fuel and 4 bums.My reference to higher weights was really referring to the higher weights of GA aircraft that the RPL will provide access to and that is a significant advantage, hell even my historic old Auster at 906Kg MTOW only needs 137 metres to lift off, add another 300 to clear a 50' obstacle; but that is a seriously practical old aircraft and it is designed for paddocks, not bitumen ... the penalty being a 91 knot cruise or 106 knots if you want to throttle bash at the cost of fuel.

 

The difference being I can travel two up and a hell of lot of luggage and full fuel; something that the RAA weight limits prevent you from doing legally.