The fun is gone for me

[rankamateur]

So are 19 regos going to be exempt from the L2 inspection regime, or are we wishful thinking here?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So are 19 regos going to be exempt from the L2 inspection regime, or are we wishful thinking here?

I don't know for an RAA aircraft, but I would doubt 19 regos would be exempt. The RAA maintenance "system" has been very loose; I expect it's being tightened-up a bit. Is it such a problem to have an L2 look at the thing? Really? Even LAMEs have to get a duplicate inspection on anything that affects the control system.

For an experimental glider under GFA, the same periodic inspection rules apply as for a certificated glider; and a GFA glider inspector has to sign and issue a Maintenance Release, much the same as a LAME. GFA ADs for things like tow release units, safety harness etc apply to ALL gliders.

 

 

[M61A1]

I think you mean pontoons and that clearly applies to water landing aircraft. It doesn't give you the liberty to just add 50 kgs. The airframe also has to designed to carry the extra 50 kgs in its structural loading. You just cannot increase the MTOW without consideration to G loadings. Look at the debacle caused by the illegally increased weight of the European LSAs.

So, assuming he is talking about floats, how do they justify allowing a 50kg mtow increase? If it's safe to carry the floats then surely it's safe to carry 50 kg more without floats.

 

 

[djpacro]

CAO 95.55 has statements like:

 

(iii) that has a maximum take-off weight not exceeding:

(A) in the case of an aeroplane not equipped to land on water —

 

600 kg; or

 

(B) in the case of an aeroplane equipped to land on water —

 

650 kg;

So a concession with floats to provide for a similar payload as the landplane it seems.I've done a floatplane per FAR 23 http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/scratchbuilder/far23_app_A.htm

 

where I had a higher gross weight for the floatplane so saved some effort per these paragraphs:

 

(b) For a seaplane version of a landplane, the landplane wing loadings may be used to determine the limit maneuvering control surface loadings (in accordance with B23.11 and figure 1 of Appendix B) if--.......

(3) The maximum weight of the seaplane does not exceed the maximum weight of the landplane by more than 10 percent;

I still had to demonstrate that the wing was strong enough for the higher gross weight. Plus the performance and handling requirements of FAR 23 still applied.

[M61A1]

CAO 95.55 has statements like:So a concession with floats to provide for a similar payload as the landplane it seems.

I've done a floatplane per FAR 23 http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/scratchbuilder/far23_app_A.htm

 

where I had a higher gross weight for the floatplane so saved some effort per these paragraphs:

 

I still had to demonstrate that the wing was strong enough for the higher gross weight. Plus the performance and handling requirements of FAR 23 still applied.

So, essentially, it's perfectly safe, just not legal. I think was the original point

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So, essentially, it's perfectly safe, just not legal. I think was the original point

Are you not confusing the MTOW with the category weight limit? Some aircraft categories have an allowance for floats; but that does NOT normally mean you can exceed the certificated MTOW for which the aircraft structure was proven.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So, assuming he is talking about floats, how do they justify allowing a 50kg mtow increase? If it's safe to carry the floats then surely it's safe to carry 50 kg more without floats.

The design loading would have to be capable of carrying the additional 50kg regardless. In other words the whole design loading would have to include the floats.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The design loading would have to be capable of carrying the additional 50kg regardless. In other words the whole design loading would have to include the floats.

Yep.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I thought floats were generally providing some lift. So they would increase drag, but would not be a dead weight on the aircraft structure or add much to the wing loading.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I thought floats were generally providing some lift. So they would increase drag, but would not be a dead weight on the aircraft structure or add much to the wing loading.

Simple maths pmc. Pull 4g with that extra 50kg and you add 200kg to the wing loading.

 

 

[M61A1]

Are you not confusing the MTOW with the category weight limit? Some aircraft categories have an allowance for floats; but that does NOT normally mean you can exceed the certificated MTOW for which the aircraft structure was proven.

No, not confused, I understand that there can be a difference, between design MTOW and what the category may allow. The original post was questioning, why a particular design was was allowed a certain weight, but then was still safe 50 kg over if fitted with floats. Just a legality.

 

 

[Powerin]

I suspect that the tightening of the rules (and more ramp checks) has little to do with RAA getting "greedy" or the advent of "wannabe GA" and a lot to do with the likes of the various revelations in the Old Bar accident report. The list of questionable things in everything from pilot training to aircraft certification was rather long. Even if they weren't directly the cause of that accident, some of them were an accident waiting to happen. If I was a CASA person my eyebrows would have been well and truly raised.

 

Overhearing various stories at Natfly which went from how many unregistered aircraft and unlicensed pilots are flying around, to the inevitable grumbling about ramp checks, I think it's no wonder CASA are starting to rattle our cage. Take the accident at nearby Lake Hume where an unlicensed pilot flies an unregistered ultralight into controlled airspace, buzzes boats and then crashes. If that's the level of intelligence that's sharing the air with us then I, for one, don't mind there being a few more ramp checks.

 

 

[M61A1]

I suspect that the tightening of the rules (and more ramp checks) has little to do with RAA getting "greedy" or the advent of "wannabe GA" and a lot to do with the likes of the various revelations in the Old Bar accident report. The list of questionable things in everything from pilot training to aircraft certification was rather long. Even if they weren't directly the cause of that accident, some of them were an accident waiting to happen. If I was a CASA person my eyebrows would have been well and truly raised.Overhearing various stories at Natfly which went from how many unregistered aircraft and unlicensed pilots are flying around, to the inevitable grumbling about ramp checks, I think it's no wonder CASA are starting to rattle our cage. Take the accident at nearby Lake Hume where an unlicensed pilot flies an unregistered ultralight into controlled airspace, buzzes boats and then crashes. If that's the level of intelligence that's sharing the air with us then I, for one, don't mind there being a few more ramp checks.

With the perceived state of affairs, I'm not surprised that people are electing to fly unlicensed and unregistered (I'm not one), I'm not defending it, but, what do they expect when simple processes are made more difficult than they need to be. Ridiculously, they think that tightening the rules, will somehow make those who ignore them suddenly start to follow the rules. One fool, unlicensed, unregistered, doing illegal and stupid things, breaking all the rules. The response, make more rules.

 

 

[winsor68]

I suspect that the tightening of the rules (and more ramp checks) has little to do with RAA getting "greedy" or the advent of "wannabe GA" and a lot to do with the likes of the various revelations in the Old Bar accident report. The list of questionable things in everything from pilot training to aircraft certification was rather long. Even if they weren't directly the cause of that accident, some of them were an accident waiting to happen. If I was a CASA person my eyebrows would have been well and truly raised.Overhearing various stories at Natfly which went from how many unregistered aircraft and unlicensed pilots are flying around, to the inevitable grumbling about ramp checks, I think it's no wonder CASA are starting to rattle our cage. Take the accident at nearby Lake Hume where an unlicensed pilot flies an unregistered ultralight into controlled airspace, buzzes boats and then crashes. If that's the level of intelligence that's sharing the air with us then I, for one, don't mind there being a few more ramp checks.

The Old Bar accident had "wanna be" GA written all over it...

 

 

[turboplanner]

GA? for an 8.2 Nm flight?

 

 

[Powerin]

With the perceived state of affairs, I'm not surprised that people are electing to fly unlicensed and unregistered (I'm not one), I'm not defending it, but, what do they expect when simple processes are made more difficult than they need to be. Ridiculously, they think that tightening the rules, will somehow make those who ignore them suddenly start to follow the rules. One fool, unlicensed, unregistered, doing illegal and stupid things, breaking all the rules. The response, make more rules.

Yep. I agree. It's the way of the world at the moment. So surely part of the solution is to keep our heads down, makes a reasonable attempt to follow the existing rules and not draw attention to ourselves.

We live in a age where the general public already regards aviation with some fear and trepidation, the media sensationalises every aviation incident, and everyone has a movie camera in their pocket which can spread even the smallest aviation incident around the world in seconds. As much as we might think so, a government regulator does not make new rules just for the fun of making our lives difficult (usually). It will be in response to deaths or perceived risk. Small aviation is treading on thin ice. Let's not jump up and down too much.

 

 

[Powerin]

The Old Bar accident had "wanna be" GA written all over it...

Nope...it just happened to involve an aircraft that you consider to be a wannabe. Do you really think the result would have been any different if a badly constructed Drifter had hit the ferris wheel? Indeed, the public and media outcry would probably have been a lot worse if a rag and tube had hit it. I suspect that the general public perception of an average rag and tube would be of a death trap waiting to happen. You and I know that's far from the truth, but unfortunately perception is what we have to deal with, not reality.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

We all complain about being regulated, or living in 'nanny states' etc. however, we continually prove that we need regulation and big brother watching because we behave like imbeciles otherwise. We cannot handle booz, road rules, drugs and a million other things. Imagine if there was no CASA or RAAus. Good God, pilots would be killing themselves and others through their own stupidity, ignorance and crap attitudes. (I use the term 'we' at the beginning of my rant, those of us who do the right thing please feel excluded)

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Harking back to the post that kicked off this thread...

 

For me the fun has just begun. After years of building, testing, modifying and retesting, my aircraft is performing very close to my ideal. I can fly interstate in the silky smooth air above the clouds, land in a paddock, camp under the wing and get together with like-minded people. I can do most of my own maintenance and it costs less than keeping my bike on the road.

 

Yesterday I discovered another motorcycle parallel: while cruising hands-free, I can steer it with slight movements of body weight.

 

 

[turboplanner]

They are the golden minutes OK. The other is looking down when you are driving the car and realising you're steering the car in a direct line when there's a heavy crosswind instead of letting it wander.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

Quote..................We all complain about being regulated, or living in 'nanny states' etc. however, we continually prove that we need regulation and big brother watching because we behave like imbeciles otherwise. We cannot handle booz, road rules, drugs and a million other things. Imagine if there was no CASA or RAAus. Good God, pilots would be killing themselves and others through their own stupidity, ignorance and crap attitudes.

 

This is, of course true, Until all the total Fufwits have done away with themselves and we can all go on with our own business in peace....You just cant take the idiot of of some people, you certainly cannot regulate it. No matter however many rules you make and enforce by fines. Some people just don't care, and if they don't care you cannot touch them....You can only fine people that have money. Those that have none you cannot reach...................................... CASA and RAA should get it through their thick regulating heads that a percentage of pilots will do stupid, drunk or drugged things and kill themselves and anybody stupid enough to get in with them. You CANNOT stop it....If a pilot listens to good teaching and good advice, GREAT, He will live on to be a good pilot, IF he is a dickhead he will do whatever he wants and maybe kill himself as a consequence. Good luck with that. Who are you to to tell him what he must or must not do. Look after your own skills......The nutter will kill himself whatever you say....

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

As dickheads kill themselves off, others will replace them. And a lot of dickheads truly believe they are not doing anything wrong. It is a difficult situation but I think that most of us enjoy the flying and aviation life style so much that the crap can (usually) be tolerated.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

It's called "evolution in action" . . . . In nature, the penalty for stupidity is - death. No argument, no reprieve, no excuses - just sudden death. Human society disguises that sufficiently for idiots to survive long enough to become a nuisance. Their eventual demise should not rebound excessively on those who are more sensible - but we've yet to learn how to achieve a proper balance in that regard.

 

In regard to the various arguments about over-regulation, insofar as that applies to aircraft design - my experience has always been that the aircraft design standards are written in blood - they represent the accumulated wisdom of a great many deaths. So I see them as not just something you have to comply with in order to get e piece of paper; but very convenient bottled wisdom. It's especially informative to dig into the Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) document that accompanies FAR Part 23 - because it goes into the reasons behind every change there has ever been to Part 23. Once you understand the history and reasoning behind each requirement, you can assess its relevance to your situation. The same principle applies to airmanship, in my view - but it's more difficult to find the reasons behind the rules (though it's often obvious).

 

I find it very useful to write out a draft compliance statement for every aircraft modification I do; tedious, yes - but it draws to your attention the issues that need to be considered. Even after doing this for a living for damn near fifty years, I'm still picking up things. When you stop learning, it's time to quit.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

They are the golden minutes OK. The other is looking down when you are driving the car and realising you're steering the car in a direct line when there's a heavy crosswind instead of letting it wander.

Yep; that was one of the noticable things about Peugeots, from the 203 onwards; their steering was tight enough that you could do that and take pleasure in leaving dead straight wheel tracks on a wet road. Very few cars will do that themselves. The first one I found that would, was a Citroen CX. That's a car that doesn't even notice the blast from a B-double at 200 Kmh closing speed.

 

 

[djpacro]

Optimistic?

where do you think I was optimistic? The bit about "... to provide for a similar payload as the landplane" I guess? Agreed.