Suggested change in MTOW limits

[Phil Perry]

It appears that the rather pleasant Sportstar type is now approved for use in the UK at 600 Kgs, with the Eurostar still available at 450 Kgs MAUW. However, since 450 Kgs is the maximum which can be flown legally on a "Microlight" PPL, ( NPPL M ) it is not too difficult to upgrade by adding 20 hours training in a G.A. type, Plus all the G.A. ground examinations, to achieve NPPL ' A' - SEP ( Single Engine Piston ) with the maximum weight allowance increased to 2,500 Kgs. ( Allowing the holder to fly some [ non-complex ] Cessna and Piper singles plus anything else within that weight band. . . if he/she can afford it )

 

Whether this will be burgerised about somewhat with the introduction of the EASA European PPL regulation framework, remains to be seen.

 

The medical requirement for the NPPL Scheme requires a self declaration of medical fitness countersigned by your GP or a medical practitioner wha has access to your medical records.

 

Anyway,. . .I'm saving my pension money for a new Sportstar,. . . . they're only 99,990 Euros for the basic model ! ! ( This morning the Euro was quoted as slipping down to £0.78 . . . what that equates to in AUD I dunno. . . . )

 

Phil

 

 

[Riley]

It appears that the rather pleasant Sportstar type is now approved for use in the UK at 600 Kgs, with the Eurostar still available at 450 Kgs MAUW. However, since 450 Kgs is the maximum which can be flown legally on a "Microlight" PPL, ( NPPL M ) it is not too difficult to upgrade by adding 20 hours training in a G.A. type, Plus all the G.A. ground examinations, to achieve NPPL ' A' - SEP ( Single Engine Piston ) with the maximum weight allowance increased to 2,500 Kgs. ( Allowing the holder to fly some [ non-complex ] Cessna and Piper singles plus anything else within that weight band. . . if he/she can afford it )Whether this will be burgerised about somewhat with the introduction of the EASA European PPL regulation framework, remains to be seen.

 

The medical requirement for the NPPL Scheme requires a self declaration of medical fitness countersigned by your GP or a medical practitioner wha has access to your medical records.

 

Anyway,. . .I'm saving my pension money for a new Sportstar,. . . . they're only 99,990 Euros for the basic model ! ! ( This morning the Euro was quoted as slipping down to £0.78 . . . what that equates to in AUD I dunno. . . . )

 

Phil

Phil, seems to me you may need a bit of pension supplementation. Let me know your banking details and I'll have my Nigerian colleague transfer in some Sportstar buying power. The things I do for my friends! Good luck and all the very best for 2015. cheers

 

 

[David Isaac]

Can I have two engines in tandem & two contrarotating props. Engines to be indipendent each with its own fuel tank.spacesailor

Yes, you can have as many as you want as long as you build the aircraft to CAO 95-10. This is the ultimate experimental category ... BUT ... the challenge is ... do it for a max AUW of 300kgs ...

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Our AUF Rag and Tube has morphed into RAAUS pseudo GA with rules and regulations to match you need to be a barrister to wade through it all.

When it was rag and tube, you were still bound by those same rules...

 

 

[David Isaac]

When it was rag and tube, you were still bound by those same rules...

Not quite HH.

When I first flew the early Ultralights, the AUF did not exist. There was no operations manual and no Pilot Certificate, I flew as PPL holder, but even that wasn't a requirement. The only real rules we had were contained within ANO 95-10 which still exists today with changed rules as CAO 95-10.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Not quite HH.When I first flew the early Ultralights, the AUF did not exist. There was no operations manual and no Pilot Certificate, I flew as PPL holder, but even that wasn't a requirement. The only real rules we had were contained within ANO 95-10 which still exists today with changed rules as CAO 95-10.

I am well aware of 95.10, but rules of the air still apply to everyone, always have always will do. The only rules that you are exempt from are those outlined in 95.10.

95.10 sets out what you can and can't do in that type of aircraft, all an ops manual does is makes it easier for people to comply with those rules (plain English), the rules really aren't that complicated or hard to comply with!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Phil, seems to me you may need a bit of pension supplementation. Let me know your banking details and I'll have my Nigerian colleague transfer in some Sportstar buying power. The things I do for my friends! Good luck and all the very best for 2015. cheers

Thanks Riley,. . . . I'll take that under advisement. . . . . . . A flying friend of mine ( 62 Y/O ) disappeared mysteriously a few weeks prior to the Christmas holiday period, . . .and I've just been informed that he's working in the middle East, Abu Dhabi . . . he is a supervising steel erector and usually worked down the smoke ( Londinium ) for quite good money, travelling back to the midlands on weekends. he is now ( apparently ) earning over twelve grand per week working with his Son. . . . .doing exactly the same job, but in the sand and sunshine for the Ayrabs,. . . and it's all tax free too. . . . gee, . . .wish I'd learned steel erecting when I waz a lad. . . . . wouldn't need a bloody pension ! ! !

 

 

[ayavner]

I'd be leery of answering any job ad asking for an "Erections Supervisor"

 

 

[kasper]

Lazair had a climb rate of 150fpm so couple grand will do me. I used to just climb to the first thermal then shut down to save fuel and get a better climb rate usually.

Well you did well to get 150fpm. Heading off on 18 at the Oaks I was still flying around trees miles into the training area ... those circuits were fun, getting up to downwind height took 20 minutes and everyone hated getting stuck behind it ... or more accurately going past it.

But it might have been more suited to a pilot of much lower weight than me ... that or I needed another two chainsaws on the wing ;-)

 

But a fun machine to be sure.

 

 

[kasper]

Can I have two engines in tandem & two contrarotating props. Engines to be indipendent each with its own fuel tank.spacesailor

Yes ... but it has to be 95.10 as they are the only ones currently allowed multi engine or jet ... hmmmm single seat jet flying wing ... I know the US$40k price for the engien system is steep but just think of the brownie points turning up in that and taxi over the JetA bowser ;-)

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I'd be leery of answering any job ad asking for an "Erections Supervisor"

For Twelve grand a week mate,. . . .I dunno that I'd be that fussy. . . . . !

 

 

[RickH]

However, RAAus has taken your mentality in my case and illegally refused to register my plane,

How do you arrive at this conclusion. I assume your aircraft does not meet the criteria for rego and therefore for RAA to grant rego would be illegal.I also agree with the principal of keeping the weight restrictions although 540kg has been with us for some time and I do not see any reason to change this limit. I may be out of touch with this one though as I believe there were moves afoot to raise the limit to 625kg and even higher but have not confirmed if this was done.

 

As I see it the line has to be drawn somewhere or perhaps Mr Travolta might start claiming that he flies his 747 for recreational purposes.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

CASA recently (with Part 61) decided up to 1500KG would be classed as recreational. Increasing the MTOW allows for heavier aircraft with increased safety and structural support. The 45kt stall speed limit should limit any "extreme performance" machines and provide the difference between Recreational and General Aircraft.

 

 

[kasper]

CASA recently (with Part 61) decided up to 1500KG would be classed as recreational. Increasing the MTOW allows for heavier aircraft with increased safety and structural support. The 45kt stall speed limit should limit any "extreme performance" machines and provide the difference between Recreational and General Aircraft.

Here is where the stress sits - recreational flying vs aircraft and pilots under what was the AUF now Raa.

CASA in part 61 MAY be looking and accepting that recreational flyers using larger aircraft than traditionally called ultralights or even LSA

 

BUT the balliwick of the Raa are those aircraft not within the 'standard' certification regime and basically operated in OZ under exemptions managed by CAOs.

 

And from my point of view 1.5t of stuff flying around at 45kts is a very large difference from 450kg of stuff flying around at 45kts let alone the odd 95.10 stuff at 300kg at generally much lower stall ... and it was the essential low energy low number of people at risk (pilot + one) that was the rationale for allowing the non-certified non-pilots licence opes through the CAOs and I don;t like to put at risk increased CASA attention given our demonstrated lack of control over the past 4 years.

 

One way around this COULD be for the CASA to sort out their mess with the RPL (then people will not have as much incentive to wedge tehir flying into RAA) OR they could just say that ANY aircraft udner 1500kg operated for private purpose (not commercial) can be flown on an RAA certificate ... then you get members into RAA (and CASA gets delegated oversight through our OPs Manual and system) and RAA gets aircraft regn only through the CAO for those parts of Rec flying that fit the definition.

 

I'd really like the RAA to stop and take stock of what we have, run that properly and demonstrate to CASA we are compentent and can be left alone well before we try growing into more areas of the GA space.

 

 

[KRviator]

How do you arrive at this conclusion. I assume your aircraft does not meet the criteria for rego and therefore for RAA to grant rego would be illegal.

It was done to death on another thread, but I can demonstrably prove my RV-9 does, and will continue to do so, comply with the requiments of CAO95.55. Anyone is welcome to provide their own scales and weigh it themselves. 950Lbs BEW leaving 370Lbs payload, ample for my purposes.The Tech Manager has arbitrarily decreed he won't register my RV even though it meets the rules. What would you call it?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

What is the MTOW in the POH?

 

Does it meet the 45kt stall rule?

 

 

[kasper]

What is the MTOW in the POH?Does it meet the 45kt stall rule?

1. Its a home built - the POH is individual to the aircraft in question and can legitimately be limited by the builder to a MTOW less than the strucutral limit of the aircraft if registered in another category

2. the RV9 per the designer has a stated stall speed of 44mph at a higher gross weight that would be allowable under RAA regn so stall is not the issue.

 

The issue on the builder in this case (given there is another RV9 on the RAA register) appears to be an issue with Tech on disposable load between BEW and max allowable MTOW in RAA regn - this issue has been hashed on another thread and not much here will change that but the direct questions you put are not definative in answering the issue - same as ANY 95.10 design where MTOW in the registration category is declared by the builder and tested against 30KG/m^2 not anything the designer may have thought of.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Seems fair to expect an aircraft be able to carry the pilot and some fuel, guess they are worried that it will be operated outside the MTOW.

 

 

[KRviator]

Nothing wrong with my payload. 370Lbs is more than enough for a solo flight and 4.5 hr endurance with VFR reserves, at 180mph. Or a 2 hour local junket with one of my kids.

 

And that's exactly what they're worried about. But what about the Europa XS' on the register? Or J200's? Or Retired Racer's RV-9? They all have the ability to be operated over their legal MTOW, but they're registered RAAus.

 

 

[kasper]

Seems fair to expect an aircraft be able to carry the pilot and some fuel, guess they are worried that it will be operated outside the MTOW.

And thats exactly the issue for all RAA aircraft - structures and volume capacity may allow loading beyond the limit of the regn category it sits within - applies equally to 95.10, I have a nice little single trike I am registering 95.10 with a wing that I have structually tested to BCARS static loads for a suspended mass of 415kg ... and flown on a 912 powered two seater in another country - and that would be a 465kg take off weight ... I will operate at 300 MTOW but I know that strucutrally I could put that wing on my 2 seat trike base and power around with the 100hp engine at 100mph cruise or add paniers and extra fuel to take it over 300 with structural safety.

NB to the RAA tech chap reading this - I will not operate outside 300kg, ;-)

 

 

[Yenn]

I recall somewhere seeing the criteria for RAAus rego. It had to carry the pilot at std weight plus passenger also std weight plus fuel for a specified time of flight. I can't recall where I found that info, but it must have been RAAus info. The RV9 with 370lbs available above empty weight is 168kg. I think better im metric. Pilot at say 70 plus passenger at 70kg leaves only 28kg for fuel, or 40 litres. That isn't going to take you far with 118hp. I can see why RAAus are not bending over backwards to allow you to register it. Wasn't it registering planes like this that caused CASA to lower the boom on registrations.

 

Now if you had a PPL or RPL and it was GA registered, you could fly it with no RAAus membership or annual rego fees.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Yen, you pretty close to the mark with your figures. RAAus say you need approx 200kg payload to be able to register RAA.

 

2 x 90kg persons plus 1.5 hours fuel. 1.5 hours fuel for an O320 is approx 45ltrs (32.4kg) a little less for a Lyc O235 which is installed in retired racers RV9A.

 

Mike.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

isn't there also a C150 with a seat removed on the register?

 

 

[David Isaac]

isn't there also a C150 with a seat removed on the register?

Yes, BUT that will never happen again.

 

 

[KRviator]

I would encourage people to read, and understand, CAO95.55. The often-quoted payload limitation does not apply to amateur-built aircraft, only aircraft manufacturered by an entity approved by a national airworthiness authority satisfactory to CAsA.