Suggested change in MTOW limits

[robinsm]

Just throwing it out there, why not reduce the MTOW of aircraft registered with Raa Aus to 490kg, remove LSA and Float increases. Anything requiring these extras go to CASA. That way Controlled airspace, RPL, etc cease to become devisive and the organisation can return to being a RECREATIONAL flying organisation. If you want all the bells and whistles of GA without the cost, then tough luck. Horses for courses.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well you are virtually going to single seat with those weights unless you build light, and our undercarriages are too frail as well as other parts, trying to be legal at the moment. The PAX aren't getting any lighter, either. Extra weight means more frame strength in most cases and less need to use high power for weight motors. You could use the UL Lycoming and Continental engines and conventional airframe construction/materials. Nev

 

 

[robinsm]

I have a 2 seater, solid as, 490kg MTOW. Long cross country miles and paddock landings. On your reasoning, we should all have 172's with 582 motors. Remember, these are Ultralights, not medium lights or heavy lights. My undercarriage is spring and shock absorber designed for rough landings. I can carry 2 x 90kg people including fuel. Next problem?

 

 

[pylon500]

Many have suggested this, and I half agree, but your point fell over when you mentioned two 90kg pilots.

 

This means I'm limited to 80kg passenger/students.

 

I was happy enough with 544kg when we had it.

 

We also needed to tie in with a stall speed, thereby giving us the low inertia thing we are were supposed to hold to...

 

Bring on RPL, then all the old GA pilots can go back to their Cessnas, and leave us to fly recreationally.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

I have a 2 seater, solid as, 490kg MTOW. Long cross country miles and paddock landings. On your reasoning, we should all have 172's with 582 motors. Remember, these are Ultralights, not medium lights or heavy lights. My undercarriage is spring and shock absorber designed for rough landings. I can carry 2 x 90kg people including fuel. Next problem?

Well as long as it suits your definition of recreational we should be sweet. On your reasoning, we should each have our own association so that we can make sure the rules suit us.

For the record I have converted to GA and don't disagree with the premise of what you are saying, but unfortunately when there are thousands of members, all of whom are flying recreationally, whose to say your version of recreation is correct and theirs isn't?

 

 

[facthunter]

You had better run your maths in front of me Robinsm ,I have many times run figures on this matter and can't achieve what you say is possible. What is the cruise speed and fuel consumption rate of your X Air. I've done a fair bit of crosscountry . You need tie downs etc and I presume you carry water and some clothes .

 

C-172's with 582 motors ??? pretty funny conclusion to suggest I'm advocating that.

 

Pylon 500. The RPL is useless for older people. It's been adequately discussed here. I'm not interested in flying Cessna's unless its a 210 ,182 and I've got somewhere to go.. I'm probably a rec pilot at heart, as much as anyone here, though ozzie beats me by a mile as the real McCoy. Nev

 

 

[ayavner]

Going 150 miles away for a burger is recreation no matter whether you do it in a plane, a car, caravan or bike...

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Going 300 miles each way for a weekend with a passenger is just as recreational.

 

 

[ayavner]

exactly... so is the spirit of our movement in the definition of "recreation" or the makeup and capabilities/limitations of our aircraft?

 

 

[nong]

Great idea Robinsm! Unlimited weight is the way to go, whilst retaining the 45 kt stall speed restriction to try and protect us from ourselves.

 

Types that might normally be on the CASA register should be allowable at reduced weights. This could be formula based so that testing would not be needed and so that applicants could do their own sums to determine eligibility. The formula would be published in the Tech Manual.

 

That said, it is time to protect operators of what we used to call ultralights.

 

What about a Low Performance Pilot Cert. option?

 

A pass in Human Factors would not be required unless one was wishing to obtain a High Performance endorsement.

 

We could have a 600 kg max AUW restriction. Pilots would be restricted to off aerodrome or aerodromes marked as UNCR.

 

The upgrade process would be straight forward. For example, if one wanted to operate at a REG, CERT or MIL aerodrome, it would be a matter of passing the Radio exam and working with an instructor to reach the practical standard required.

 

Could registration fees be totally waived for 95.10 aircraft?

 

Could registration itself be abolished for 95.10?

 

Pilot/membership fee would remain the same, for many reasons.

 

 

[robinsm]

You had better run your maths in front of me Robinsm ,I have many times run figures on this matter and can't achieve what you say is possible. What is the cruise speed and fuel consumption rate of your X Air. I've done a fair bit of crosscountry . You need tie downs etc and I presume you carry water and some clothes .C-172's with 582 motors ??? pretty funny conclusion to suggest I'm advocating that.

Pylon 500. The RPL is useless for older people. It's been adequately discussed here. I'm not interested in flying Cessna's unless its a 210 ,182 and I've got somewhere to go.. I'm probably a rec pilot at heart, as much as anyone here, though ozzie beats me by a mile as the real McCoy. Nev

OK, aircraft empty weight, 236kg, fuel 65kg.(85lts @ .72kg/ltr) Tie downs (ropes and short star pickets..2kg) On ,my own that leaves 187kg for me and my gear. (tent, sleeping bag, water, 20lts jerry can full of fuel etc. Where is the problem. 55kts, 20lts hr. Done cross countries all over NSW from YGLB. (Broken Hill, Camerton Corner, Armidale, etc.) Might take a bit longer but a lot more fun and the scenery is fantastic (this is recreational not bulk transport we are talking about.) That help??

 

 

[facthunter]

You are restricting everyone to do it as you do by wanting the weight lower. The problem is your low G/S. with any sort of headwind you just don't go. Your range isn't far and your fuel cost per mile is high as you have more oil as well.

 

Also not everyone these days wants a two stroke They are becoming rarer all the time even though they have a good power to weight ratio. Getting the fuel to remote places is difficult. You can't carry jerry cans in the plane, though approved plastic ones don't weigh a lot. I'm sure you have a lot of fun but don't propose changes that would compromise a lot of other people, and put them out of contention.. I have never advocated anything that would adversely affect anyone's costs or freedoms. . If someone wants to stay basic they should get it for less. I try to turn people off Night VMC and only transit controlled airspace. Flying in it is for higher cruising altitudes and a lot of CTA is over real unfriendly country, and you pay for the service, (and you should). Recreational flying is a non profit simplified form of flying hopefully with a low cost approach and a good safety culture. It's the people more than the type or weight of the plane Keeping the max weight low would force many of us who want 2 people capability to go to expensive high performance structures of carbon fibre. Building your own in RAAus is almost non existent, so a plane can cost around 200K for a new CT. Who has that kind of money.? Nev

 

 

[KRviator]

Just throwing it out there, why not reduce the MTOW of aircraft registered with Raa Aus to 490kg, remove LSA and Float increases. Anything requiring these extras go to CASA. That way Controlled airspace, RPL, etc cease to become devisive and the organisation can return to being a RECREATIONAL flying organisation. If you want all the bells and whistles of GA without the cost, then tough luck. Horses for courses.

By your methodology, we should be allowed to do aerobatics in our aircraft. Recreational isn't just puttering around the countywide at 55kts. Recreational is having fun.

 

I have a 2 seater, solid as, 490kg MTOW. Long cross country miles and paddock landings. On your reasoning, we should all have 172's with 582 motors. Remember, these are Ultralights, not medium lights or heavy lights. My undercarriage is spring and shock absorber designed for rough landings. I can carry 2 x 90kg people including fuel. Next problem?

I wouldn't call a 4 hour endurance at 55 kts "long cross country miles". With a 4 hour endurance you've gone as far as I have in 80 minutes. Or I have gone as far in 4 hours as you have in a day and a halfs flying in the X-air. And I have had just as much fun as you have, at a lower operating cost and have given myself more time to have fun at my destination.Recreation isn't all about gross weight limits, or how far you can fly, nor how fast. And everyone's version will be different. Personally I don't see the RPL as divisive at all, and have never heard it called that either until you did. You seem to forget that CAsA is the reason so many people want to fly RAAus, myself included. However, RAAus has taken your mentality in my case and illegally refused to register my plane, so I don't have a choice BUT to go to CAsA. I'd rather have a case of gastro than deal with them, but that's another discussion...

 

 

[nickduncs84]

OK, aircraft empty weight, 236kg, fuel 65kg.(85lts @ .72kg/ltr) Tie downs (ropes and short star pickets..2kg) On ,my own that leaves 187kg for me and my gear. (tent, sleeping bag, water, 20lts jerry can full of fuel etc. Where is the problem. 55kts, 20lts hr. Done cross countries all over NSW from YGLB. (Broken Hill, Camerton Corner, Armidale, etc.) Might take a bit longer but a lot more fun and the scenery is fantastic (this is recreational not bulk transport we are talking about.) That help??

55 kts @ 20l/h?! 20 litres per hundred km to carry a 190kg payload! Makes our mooney seem like a prius!

 

 

[robinsm]

Nev, I posted to put the other side of the argument. With pilots wanting all of the GA privileges for a rec price and training, the need for a base level organisation/branch is becoming more urgent. I built my aircraft from a kit, I carry a 20ltr jerry can on the front passenger seat when doing cross country flights, and have the means to pump that into my main tanks while in flight for extra length. I have a range of 4 hrs on my main tanks which gives me plenty of range for long cross country flight.s. As I said, one to Cameron corner, 14 hrs out, 12 hrs back via Griffith, Ivanhoe, Broken hill and Packsaddle as refuelling points. I was headed for Birdsville but the winds and the price of fuel out there was against me. I dont fly in weather that is uncomfortable as I do this for fun, not as a means of getting from A to B no matter what. The only restriction in distance is refuelling points and weather as in any other flight. So it takes a little longer so be it. The speed of the aircraft in no way limits the cross countries I can do. I have a flight plan to do Perth from Goulburn in the aircraft and it is doable.

 

I have 2 people capacity, The aircraft, with instruments and new motor cost me $27000 in the air (and that includes the cost of the pilots cert training). It doesnt have to cost a fortune. Raa Aus were very helpful when I built it and the rego process was smooth as. I have been flying it for 8 years now and have only slowed down this year because of other non flying related issues.

 

 

[facthunter]

I can tell you are enjoying it. I've been in groups that have varying aircraft performances, and seen how they cope. I also know how difficult it is to train in Gazelle and stay legal weight wise and that applies to a lot of aircraft used for training. Overloading any plane seriously reduces margins od structural safety.

 

The Whitney Boomerang had the makings of a very competent trainer the likes of which we haven't had since Chipmunks later CT-4's and less so with the Citabria/Decathlons but still there. I don't believe most other types used for training did it well and in the RAAus we have none that are capable.

 

Thanks for responding. Have a good Christmas. The hordes are arriving and I must go. Nev

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Nev, I posted to put the other side of the argument. With pilots wanting all of the GA privileges for a rec price and training, the need for a base level organisation/branch is becoming more urgent. I built my aircraft from a kit, I carry a 20ltr jerry can on the front passenger seat when doing cross country flights, and have the means to pump that into my main tanks while in flight for extra length. I have a range of 4 hrs on my main tanks which gives me plenty of range for long cross country flight.s. As I said, one to Cameron corner, 14 hrs out, 12 hrs back via Griffith, Ivanhoe, Broken hill and Packsaddle as refuelling points. I was headed for Birdsville but the winds and the price of fuel out there was against me. I dont fly in weather that is uncomfortable as I do this for fun, not as a means of getting from A to B no matter what. The only restriction in distance is refuelling points and weather as in any other flight. So it takes a little longer so be it. The speed of the aircraft in no way limits the cross countries I can do. I have a flight plan to do Perth from Goulburn in the aircraft and it is doable. I can fly over Kosciusko, so height is not a problem either.I have 2 people capacity, The aircraft, with instruments and new motor cost me $27000 in the air (and that includes the cost of the pilots cert training). It doesnt have to cost a fortune.

Yep, I have to say this is why I think Ra Aus has a place. To be able to get into the sky in an affordable way is what it's all about. That being said, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere and I think that the current rules make sense. It's a good balance of reduced training requirements (because no cta, etc), affordability and a decent range of aircraft that appeal to a wide range of recreational flyers. If you want to fly at night, fly faster, do aerobatics, fly more complex aircraft, etc etc then you can step up to GA.

 

 

[ben87r]

I reckon flying at 600kn would be fun, that now recreational flying for me?? Would have liked to have a crack at the shuttle too.

 

 

[coljones]

Great idea Robinsm! Unlimited weight is the way to go, whilst retaining the 45 kt stall speed restriction to try and protect us from ourselves.Types that might normally be on the CASA register should be allowable at reduced weights. This could be formula based so that testing would not be needed and so that applicants could do their own sums to determine eligibility. The formula would be published in the Tech Manual.

That said, it is time to protect operators of what we used to call ultralights.

 

What about a Low Performance Pilot Cert. option?

 

A pass in Human Factors would not be required unless one was wishing to obtain a High Performance endorsement.

 

We could have a 600 kg max AUW restriction. Pilots would be restricted to off aerodrome or aerodromes marked as UNCR.

 

The upgrade process would be straight forward. For example, if one wanted to operate at a REG, CERT or MIL aerodrome, it would be a matter of passing the Radio exam and working with an instructor to reach the practical standard required.

 

Could registration fees be totally waived for 95.10 aircraft?

 

Could registration itself be abolished for 95.10?

 

Pilot/membership fee would remain the same, for many reasons.

And the reason for other aircraft types subsidising 95.10 is?

 

 

[robinsm]

And the reason for other aircraft types subsidising 95.10 is?

and the reason for 95.10 to subsidise other aircraft is?

 

 

[68volksy]

Right behind you robinsm! Just look at the vast array of different arguments going on in this forum about why CASA should do this and why CASA should do that... Go back to the basics (and do it well) and suddenly CASA's interest in what's happening would pretty much disappear overnight.

 

Take all that energy (and money) currently being wasted arguing and pushing for bigger and better and put it behind a board and staff focused on the simple, light basics and blow me down if you wouldn't have one heck of an efficient and enthusiastic organisation!

 

 

[yampy]

Seems to work OK in the UK with their 450Kg MTOW limits for a 2 seater .. Perhaps they are a little slimmer over there , although a diet of Pork Pies and warm beer is hardly conductive to weight loss is it !! ..

 

Yampy

 

 

[SDQDI]

If you think CASA will ignore you once you got rid of the "heavies" you are dreaming.

 

We shouldn't be thinking how light subsidises heavy or vice versa we are all in this together and dividing more would, IMO, ruin RAA.

 

 

[Yenn]

The name of the organisation is recreational flying. As far as I am concerned it should cover all recreational pilots and their planes. Why shouldn't a Mooney owner fly under RAAus, if he is only doing recreational flying. If we don't want faster, heavier recreational planes why did we change the name from Ultralight to Recreational.

 

Why is the RPL useless for older pilots? I have no problems with it.

 

Why do operators of ultralights need protection?

 

I cannot see why CASA could not let any aircraft be RAAus registered and flown so long as it was purely recreational. But who would want to convert a GA rego plane to RAAus and then have to be a member of RAAus and also pay an annual fee for rego?

 

What it all boils down to is the medical. A lot of older pilots want to fly, but their health is not up to it, so they want to fly their heavy metal with a drivers licence, and RPL lets them do that.

 

 

[nong]

A