RAAus Future

[facthunter]

Maj It was CASA's idea to go to 762. Kgs which would specifically include the Tomahawk and the C-152. I've never seen an upper weight limit as sensible. ( within limits) We have poor undercarriages and nosewheels and cannot carry two pax , a bit of gear and fuel. A simple CUB clone would be easy to design and build and allow plenty of engine options. I do object to the word "selfish" as I don't feel it is appropriate and based on fact. It could be more of a perception.. The Carbon fibre plane is an overseas concept from Europe where there is plenty of money and they make a lot of what I might call"boutique" designs that cost the earth and no one would be able to repair them, and they are not rough strip compatible in the main. The main thing is they are neither affordable tough or simple. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Maj It was CASA's idea to go to 762. Kgs which would specifically include the Tomahawk and the C-152. I've never seen an upper weight limit as sensible. ( within limits) We have poor undercarriages and nosewheels and cannot carry two pax , a bit of gear and fuel. A simple CUB clone would be easy to design and build and allow plenty of engine options. I do object to the word "selfish" as I don't feel it is appropriate and based on fact. It could be more of a perception.. The Carbon fibre plane is an overseas concept from Europe where there is plenty of money and they make a lot of what I might call"boutique" designs that cost the earth and no one would be able to repair them, and they are not rough strip compatible in the main. The main thing is they are neither affordable tough or simple. Nev

Selfish Nev ?.....in as much as you and I both know, that there are only a couple of top end designs, who either need, or would greatly benefit from, a higher weight limit, and we know who they are. The Carbon Cub for instance is one of them, to be able to carry its full load with 2 pob legally. You would have to agree that the majority of other designs, and the pilots that fly them are quite happy to settle for the 600 or 650 KG limit as applicable on the majority of our UL type machines.

 

The Carbon Cub in the states where it originated, is operated as an N numbered experimental wiTh the pilot requiring a ppl to fly it.............Maj...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

To quote Middo in one of his magazine blurbs a few years back when he was talking about a gain for an increase in weight.

 

"And tomorrow the world." way it read sounded like he wanted every aircraft in Oz on the RAAus register.

 

 

[facthunter]

Maybe so Ozzie and I thought that was a silly idea. Maybe it was in jest or just a good line. The 700 or so Kgs gives the chance to get a solid cheaply constructed plane into the air with two people in it. Build it yourself.. We have done the sums many times here . A return to the basics of the 70's is a nostalgia trip. There is no guarantee there would be any tolerance for it by the powers that are there now and you would be a very small group, and vulnerable..

 

I believe the New CASA management were anti U/L's and I said so at the time. There were plenty of statements that indicated we were in for a rough time. I don't believe we had a really bad death rate (Though I would always want to improve it). There were certainly some silly acts in evidence, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. GA is not travelling any better as far as I can tell. I don't believe the CASA can claim a really good period of anything but confusion and not knowing what is coming next.. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

What is all this problem with MTOW whether it be 600 or 700kg or 1500 for the proposed RPL in December.

 

If the aircraft complies then register it and go flying. If it doesn't comply with the current regs then you have a problem no matter what MTOW you fit into.

 

The problem is some aircraft have been identified as not complying - the actual rules were already in place and being overlooked until identified.

 

 

[facthunter]

frank, Sticking to out current weight limit hampers the advancement into the future of the availability of a design we can build operate and fly SIMPLY. The Brumby is over the weight really and so would any solid two seat design be unless of exotic materials. People complain of the cost of aircraft. As a percentage the owner built sector in the RAAus is very low. Most just buy and fly. 600 kgs limit comes with a great deal of uncertainty as to the rules into the future. All this restriction is not necessary. It's just an arbitrary figure an has grown over time and so it should.. If you build a plane there is some good argument that YOU can service it. We need to think outside the square. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

Frank makes a valid point .... we broke the rules and registered certain aircraft in categories we should NOT have. If we had followed the rules (which we must do) and had proper systems in place (digital) we would not be discussing the registration debacle or the future of RA Aus in this manner. We are solely to blame for this. Its simple ... we fix the issues and the problems with CASA go away.

 

The weight discussion is a separate issue and I am in total agreement with Nev on the 700 Kg mark for reasons of strength and safety in the basic aircraft we fly, not as an excuse to put aircraft in our category that should NOT be.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I agree with an increase in weight limit and don't see a problem (actually an increase in safety) . I was referring to comments that seemed to suggest a lower limit and then all the perceived problems would go away. What one got away with in the 70s in all forms of activity, not only aviation, has changed and will not go back even for rag and tube - You can dream about what used to be but that is all it is, a dream.

 

 

[facthunter]

I can definitely feel for the view that things were good back then (but quite a few died) I agree with your words above Frank. I see it as a safety issue. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

yeah but devils advocate why choose 700 as the arbitrary number of the year.....why not 800 or 1 tonne....

 

I mean I fully understand why Frank is suggesting 700, both our J230's would then be operating at the designers MTOW not an arbitrary legislated lessor MTOW.

 

1/2MV^2 is working against us as we drive the number higher.......But if realistically today the 600Kg cover 2 smaller blokes local or 1 bloke plus camping gear for longer distances then don't be surprised when folks break the rules..... 2 blokes, fuel and camping gear is a lot more realistic provided that you don't exceed designed MTOW....cause that side of the curve is the domain of the test pilot and his trusty parachute only.

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

The maths are pretty simple. Basic plane 330 kgs 2 pax 180 fuel75. tiedowns and personal 25. = 610. these are probably a bit on the low side right through, but workable figures. If you have a bigger allowance you can put decent brakes seats Undercarriage and a bit more airframe and more choice of engine. 650-700Kg seems the range. If you fly overweight it's just a matter of time before a ramp check gets you, and you are invalidating the whole basis of your planes design and what is the point of living like that. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I don't see why we should be categorized by weight (within reason), but perhaps the divide should be homebuilt or factory certified. I agree that most of the issues are to do with management of the "high end", which are factory built, but it makes a lot of sense safetywise to be allowed to build a homebuilt that is adequately strong, not built down to a weight.

 

 

[frank marriott]

" I agree that most of the issues are to do with management of the "high end", which are factory built"

 

MA6

 

Even this is not correct in my experience, locally. If they comply with the SCoA, and haven't been modified without manufacturer approval [even the in flight adjustable props can be registered ELSA - I realise that this doesn't help if you want to use the aircraft in a flying school - but the manfacturers haven't complied with the regs - so this is not a fault of RAA]

 

We have had 4 [that I know of] local registeded LSA re-registered during the last couple of months with no delays - I can only speak from actual events that I know of and other then sending in photos in case they are not on file, it appears to be operating normally.

 

 

[old pilot]

Rod Birrells experience is valuable. I'm confident in his ability and motives. We do have a problem with where we will end up. I have felt this would be coming regardless of how and when.it came The signs were there years ago.. We need to keep cool and work our way through it. Nev

[M61A1]

" I agree that most of the issues are to do with management of the "high end", which are factory built"MA6

 

Even this is not correct in my experience, locally. If they comply with the SCoA, and haven't been modified without manufacturer approval [even the in flight adjustable props can be registered ELSA - I realise that this doesn't help if you want to use the aircraft in a flying school - but the manfacturers haven't complied with the regs - so this is not a fault of RAA]

 

We have had 4 [that I know of] local registeded LSA re-registered during the last couple of months with no delays - I can only speak from actual events that I know of and other then sending in photos in case they are not on file, it appears to be operating normally.

It's good thing then that things are improving. It was my understanding that LSA issues were the catalyst for recent issues. I think though that the RPL would be quite suited to those who have factory built aircraft, pay some to do their maintenance and want all the airspace privileges .

[old pilot]

Hi face hunter

 

I'm not sure how long you have been involved with the raa and auf I have with them since day one and quite a few years back rod birell our now gm tried to start a break away organisation against the then auf pane now they have him running the raa I personally would never trust him but that's just my opinion

 

Old pilot

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Hi face hunterI'm not sure how long you have been involved with the raa and auf I have with them since day one and quite a few years back rod birell our now gm tried to start a break away organisation against the then auf pane now they have him running the raa I personally would never trust him but that's just my opinion

Old pilot

He's actually the President OP, not the GM............Maj...

 

 

[old pilot]

Makes no difference

 

 

[storchy neil]

when the weight increase was first dangled in front of some it was booted as a good several were against it they stating that it would bring in more regs

 

I have a feeling the maj was against it maj correct me if I am wrong and I was to against the increase in weight for the same reason more bloody regs

 

I am lucky that I weight 68 kgs

 

on visiting some schools when some of the learners were close to 100 kgs or more my estimation

 

they needed a weight increase to accomadate these over weight persons

 

hey old pilot you would have been a round when group captain john baker wrote the auf manual according to him

 

the same group captain john baker claimed that my plane did not have a heavey landing take a look at the photos in storchy neil photos neil

 

 

[wesky]

G'day,

 

Sorry to go off track, but hoping I can get some direction.

 

Simply put, I'm training to fly an LSA with views to purchase for transport reasons. Am I better off putting flight training on hold within RAA, go to GA and look at RPL or just sit tight until the new year? Obviously I'll go on with the theory, but wondering if the practical is going to be a waste of $$$.

 

 

[Spriteah]

G'day,Sorry to go off track, but hoping I can get some direction.

Simply put, I'm training to fly an LSA with views to purchase for transport reasons. Am I better off putting flight training on hold within RAA, go to GA and look at RPL or just sit tight until the new year? Obviously I'll go on with the theory, but wondering if the practical is going to be a waste of $$$.

Hmmm. Purchase for transport reasons. As in commercial? I'd still go RAA. Then cross to ga when you need to. Should save you some money.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Tatlock.

 

 

[wesky]

Thanks. Private transport be

 

tween several places. It just seems like this whole RAA bizzo is all going to come crashing down and we'll have a graveyard full of planes and pilot certificates... Unless I'm reading into it wrong.

 

 

[M61A1]

Thanks. Private transport between several places. It just seems like this whole RAA bizzo is all going to come crashing down and we'll have a graveyard full of planes and pilot certificates... Unless I'm reading into it wrong.

What you're reading is a whole lot of speculation. I wouldn't be making any important decisions based on it's content.

 

 

[facthunter]

To those who would condemn Birrell on something that happened years ago which might have been divisive, I would say Who else is putting up their hand? Also if he can work with the good people who are still there as a team, he is doing a good job. He is not a fool and probably has a grasp of the difficulties we face as much as anyone. We are not the tiny organisation we were years ago, rightly or wrongly. The president's report he wrote is reveilling as to the seriousness of our position. It's crunch time. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

a few years back rod birell our now gm tried to start a break away organisation against the then auf

There are quite a few people who would like to see that happen.