Major LSA Ceases Sales and Production...

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I haven't used those VLA rules (been ages since I used BCAR Sect S so forgotten it all) but a quick look indicates that the flight envelope specs are very similar to FAR 23, in fact the diagram is a direct copy fom FAR 23. Seems to be the same gust velocities. No Vb, same as FAR 23.

Essentially, yes - but the load transfer to the rear spar means the margin for gusts is diminishing faster than normal with increasing speed - and all the numbers are small, to start with

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Work smarter.... it's possible. You don't need to be paid less to produce the same if you can be paid the same to produce more... just takes management savvy.

"Management...savvy"... no, sorry, I don't understand that phrase. If they had savvy beyond their own career earnings, why would they have management qualifications?

I note that I have met people in management roles with savvy, but not with any management qualifications beyond experience. Three of them, from memory...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The board of QANTAS might be a good example. Presumably they will lead by example and shed massive numbers of management jobs, and the board will surely take massive pay cuts to match their performance.

 

 

[mnewbery]

Joyce's predecessor got paid ten times as much. So you could say he took the pay cut up front

 

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/22/how-geoff-dixons-millions-grounded-qantas/

 

Caveat: I am so totally not a QANTAS or Joyce 'fanboi'

 

 

[Oscar]

The FAA has just announced some revised standards for LSA aircraft: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-27/html/2014-04321.htm and - because the ASTM is a bloody for-profit-making body (like SAA), we can't find out what these will be without paying for them! Since they are copyright, I wonder if RAA can even reproduce them for general distribution..

 

The growing problems for second-tier carriers in Australia (Rex etc.) combined with the Qantas mess is probably going to shake down to fewer services to regional centres. That may well have implications down the line, including the possibility that more small regional airfields will be seen as redundant land by Councils and be sold off.. Light aviation will, I think, become the only form of 'fast' (ish) transport from smaller regional centres for things like emergency medivac and supply. We have in the RAA many quite competent aircraft capable of taking up some of the slack in terms of certain types of service to regional communities if we were to look to having a bit more of a 'professional' strand to the types of operation we can do (and no, that doesn't mean a diminshing of purely 'recreational' flying opportunity, just moving the goal posts a bit further out to allow us to undertake certain types of activities consistent with aircraft capability and pilot/operator competence).

 

If we are to be able to 'take up a bit of slack', we need a decent range of decent aircraft. The C162 was just not the right equation for that, but at the same time aircraft at the top-end of LSA-class competence won't get cheaper. I wonder what the sort of median price is acceptable for new aircraft that can do a bit of useful work during the week and still be fun on the weekends?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

RAA= recreational, not commercial. We've had enough problems nudging into GA territory. Why go looking for trouble?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Without going anywhere near aircraft & maintenance standards you would need a CPL (class 1 medical) for starters.

 

Trying to change that would be a complete waste of anybody's time.

 

There is already a standard for CHTR/AWK and I can't see that being lowered under any circumstances.

 

For suitable aircraft price I would suggest it would be plus $300,000.

 

 

[Oscar]

OK, I believe it's not so much a case of nudging into GA territory as developing a 'social profile' in which we are seen as being of some value to the community - and therefore having a level of community support for our activities including gaining community support to NOT lose local regional airfields. The GA fleet is slowly dying by attrition of the older aircraft, and I'm not sure that there's anything much under $200k new (other than a J430, perhaps) on the market to replace them. If our aircraft (well, some of them) can start to fill a small gap in the level of services to regional areas, I think we'll all accrue a bit of kudos in the minds of the local community and therefore gain their support. That can't, surely, harm the cause of every recreational pilot/operator in terms of having access to reasonable facilities etc.?

 

 

[Oscar]

Without going anywhere near aircraft & maintenance standards you would need a CPL (class 1 medical) for starters.Trying to change that would be a complete waste of anybody's time.

There is already a standard for CHTR/AWK and I can't see that being lowered under any circumstances.

 

For suitable aircraft price I would suggest it would be plus $300,000.

Frank, I wouldn't suggest we'd want to even contemplate going near the CHTR/AWK stuff - but some clarification and ability to, for instance, use our aircraft in the area of providing personal services ( e.g. diesel mechanic flying out to fix up the small-town generator, just for example) with assurance that we aren't going to run afoul of CASA, would be a good start.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

OK, I believe it's not so much a case of nudging into GA territory as developing a 'social profile' in which we are seen as being of some value to the community - and therefore having a level of community support for our activities including gaining community support to NOT lose local regional airfields. The GA fleet is slowly dying by attrition of the older aircraft, and I'm not sure that there's anything much under $200k new (other than a J430, perhaps) on the market to replace them. If our aircraft (well, some of them) can start to fill a small gap in the level of services to regional areas, I think we'll all accrue a bit of kudos in the minds of the local community and therefore gain their support. That can't, surely, harm the cause of every recreational pilot/operator in terms of having access to reasonable facilities etc.?

I agree with you sentiments, Oscar. It would do our movement good to achieve even some of what you suggest, but these changes would need to be led by someone with the wisdom of Solomon, the tact of a diplomat, the energy and enthusiasm of a teenager and hide as thick as a hippo. Do we have anyone with those attributes?

 

 

[Oscar]

Jeez, - does it HAVE to be the one person? I can think of a few who have at least ONE of those characteristics But yes, it wouldn't be easy, and would have to start, I think, with an agreed strategy by the Board and a negotiated acceptance by CASA that things need to be examined on the basis of 1) safety and 2) achieving some sort of useful purpose. If CASA simply hides behind the 'don't cause us any liability grief' stance, then it just wouldn't happen, and there's no point in going into a fight you can't win. Perhaps with a new head of CASA plus the generation of some decent understanding of the role RAA could play in regional communities at Ministerial level, there's ground for optimism. I don't want that to distract from RAA getting its existing problems solved and be operating smoothly, but I do think it's an idea worth canvassing with both the Members and the Minister to see if there is even a whiff of 'in principle' common ground.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Jeez, - does it HAVE to be the one person? I can think of a few who have at least ONE of those characteristics But yes, it wouldn't be easy, and would have to start, I think, with an agreed strategy by the Board and a negotiated acceptance by CASA that things need to be examined on the basis of 1) safety and 2) achieving some sort of useful purpose. If CASA simply hides behind the 'don't cause us any liability grief' stance, then it just wouldn't happen, and there's no point in going into a fight you can't win. Perhaps with a new head of CASA plus the generation of some decent understanding of the role RAA could play in regional communities at Ministerial level, there's ground for optimism. I don't want that to distract from RAA getting its existing problems solved and be operating smoothly, but I do think it's an idea worth canvassing with both the Members and the Minister to see if there is even a whiff of 'in principle' common ground.

What about the "Angel Flight" mob? I don't see why RAAus couldn't participate...

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

What about the "Angel Flight" mob? I don't see why RAAus couldn't participate...

I suspect most Angel Flight missions have more than 1 passenger

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Oscar]

Worth a read and consideration: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/can-lsas-go-commercial.114302/

 

 

[frank marriott]

"the other hand, if you’re taking a tourist for a sightseeing ride along the beach, the LSA piloted by a commercial rated pilot is the better choice. "

 

......so you register it VH , LAME maintained, commercial pilot, commercial insurance, AOC.............

 

Even if it was permitted by law the cost of operation would be prohibitive for 1 pax???????????

 

With these days of everyone wanting to take legal action for everything they can and not accept any responsibility for their own actions I couldn't see the idea going any further then dream time. Certainly nowhere near RAA regulations.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

See http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/caveat-emptor.67826/

 

 

[Oscar]

"the other hand, if you’re taking a tourist for a sightseeing ride along the beach, the LSA piloted by a commercial rated pilot is the better choice. "......so you register it VH , LAME maintained, commercial pilot, commercial insurance, AOC.............

 

Even if it was permitted by law the cost of operation would be prohibitive for 1 pax???????????

 

With these days of everyone wanting to take legal action for everything they can and not accept any responsibility for their own actions I couldn't see the idea going any further then dream time. Certainly nowhere near RAA regulations.

Frank, the point of the article was that regulations can be changed. Changing standards for aircraft is a whole different barrel of herrings.

 

You're probably correct that carrying passengers for hire or reward is a step too far, but surely there's a half-way house between being allowed to do NOTHING with even the whiff of a 'commercial' interest to it and a sensible compromise based on the lowest common denominator of the capability of the aircraft and the capability of the pilot? What's the safety difference between a Stock and Station agent with his briefcase and laptop doing his rounds in a Landcruiser or a J230, by way of comparison? Or someone doing the rounds of small country towns collecting Path. specimens and delivering them to a distant Laboratory in a Tecnam or a Toyota Echo?

 

Now, if you accept the capability of the 'higher-end' LSA-type aircraft to do some tasks, then that would provide a mechanism for CPL pilots to get their hours up.

 

I agree, if one stays inside the current 'box' of regulations, there is no room for LSA-type aircraft. But if one were to step back and look at the potential, the operational 'problems' and seek a path through those that was not constrained by the 'regulations' as they currently stand, I think a channel could be mapped out to expand the role of LSA-class aircraft with little more than minor tweaks to the aforesaid regulations. The more sophisticated LSA-type aircraft are a generation or more advanced from what we had say 10 - 15 years ago, but are constrained by regulations that haven't advanced in a very long time.

 

Some see such a suggestion as being inimical to the ethos of recreational aviation. I disagree; revision of the regulations should in no way force people to use /operate their aircraft in other than recreational ways. However, we have LSA-type aircraft that cost $100 - $125k or so new that are equally as capable of certain types of operation in some airspace as GA class aircraft that cost at least twice that or considerably more. Why should we not look to broadening the possibilities of use of our aircraft?

 

There is a very apposite example of what I am talking about here. Yachts. One can buy a modern yacht or motorboat and simply use it for pleasure. Or, with some additional gear to meet the requisite standards, also put it out for hire as a charter vessel - crewed or uncrewed. Provided it has been built to a recognised standard, with the requisite additional gear one can have it used for commercial purposes for 90%+ of its life, if one wishes, and use it personally for recreation the rest of the time. Almost the whole of the Barrier Reef hire fleet is comprised of such individually-owned vessels, managed by a hire operator. I don't see why suitable LSA-type aircraft cannot operate at least part-time for commercial purposes (limited by reasonable risk considerations).

 

Seriously, Frank - you own a prime example of a 'suitable' LSA-type aircraft for such consideration. I'll bet that - if you just turn Nelson's eye to the regulations for a moment - you can see suitable commercial operations that your aircraft could very competently handle.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Oscar

 

I am only looking at the rules as they stand. I understand where you are coming from but I can't see anything along the lines that you refer to even seeing daylight. Maybe I've spent too long dealing with CASA to allow my imagination to go that far.

 

If you consider an aircraft that is registered/maintained/insured etc for charter (and operating under an AOC) can't go anywhere near commercial ops with a PPL let alone going anywhere near an aircraft without a CofA and/or RAA certificate pilot.

 

The arguments about the definition of private flying have been a matter of argument longer the I have been associated with the industry (35 yrs), so I'll leave it as I can't see it even being considered. It may well just my closed mind on the matter. As you say things can change, just my imagination doesn't go that far.

 

 

[Oscar]

Frank - I'm sure that anybody who has had to deal with CASA would share your scepticism, based on long and wearing experience.... but things can change (eventually) if there's a will for change. That absolutely doesn't have to mean (and nor should it) that recreational flying has to be dragged to a place it doesn't want or need to go, but it seems to me that we have aircraft nowadays that are very capable of performing creditably in a wider range of roles; I see the sort of change I am espousing as a meeting point between what those aircraft can do and what regulations can be adjusted to allow those who choose to have a somewhat wider role in the overall picture of aviation.

 

However, it would take caution and a considerable application of both good sense and good will to make any such changes. Nothing is impossible until it's proven impossible!