MTOW that mythical number

[robinsm]

If the conatiner is found to be empty when the aircraft lands, and the pilot states he was carrying it for a friend so that friend could fill it for his own aircraft at the destination, then the jerrycan becomes a standard plastic container? When I transport fuel to the airport in a motor fuel approved container and refuell my aircraft on the airside of the gates, am I using an illegal container to carry aviation usage fuel? (even though it is mogas? Am I legally allowed to refuel the aircraft from this container, and if so, is it then deemed to be a legal container so I can carry it in the aircraft (there is no firewall or barrier between me and the fuel tanks in the aircraft..they are exposed behind the seats and I can reach them if I turn around, so what is the definition of a "cockpit" and "fuel tanks isolated from the passenger area?".)

 

 

[Happyflyer]

If the conatiner is found to be empty when the aircraft lands, and the pilot states he was carrying it for a friend so that friend could fill it for his own aircraft at the destination, then the jerrycan becomes a standard plastic container? When I transport fuel to the airport in a motor fuel approved container and refuell my aircraft on the airside of the gates, am I using an illegal container to carry aviation usage fuel? (even though it is mogas? Am I legally allowed to refuel the aircraft from this container, and if so, is it then deemed to be a legal container so I can carry it in the aircraft (there is no firewall or barrier between me and the fuel tanks in the aircraft..they are exposed behind the seats and I can reach them if I turn around, so what is the definition of a "cockpit" and "fuel tanks isolated from the passenger area?".)

Keep it simple mate. If it's totally empty you are carrying harmless plastic, no need to invent complex stories. If you carry spare fuel, cover it, don't advertise it, don't write about it, don't post it online. If you see someone with a hi vis vest and clipboard approaching - full power -go around.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Unfortunately CASA know how to legislate and regulate but don't know how to aviate and seems the RAAus is following that path.

 

After all the BS from RAAus over the last 18 months or so we should by now all know the MTOW of our aircraft and the placarding of such.

 

So with all the regulation and legislation anyone want to try and convince me that this isn't GA in sheep's clothing.

 

To our friend that started off this thread i recommend that when you find an aircraft that interests you that you should contact the techie with the rego number and ask them for relevant details from the data file. that's what he is there for.

 

 

[Camel]

Ok another question. How many people out there have read all the regs with regard to their pilot Certificate and airplane. And the obvious follow up question. How many people have understood everything they have regarding their responsibilities.I will go first. I have certainly not yet read everything. The reason is because I am finding so much of it difficult to understand and so require lots of re reading and research to comprehend.

I get a little disturbed by your remarks as it infers RAA do not understand anything, your RAA pilot certificate allows you to fly a plane up to 600kg MTOW and 2 POB, day VFR and no aerobatics, and remain in class G airspace, very simple now everything else can be found here, this makes it easy, enjoy. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/vfr/vfrg-whole.pdf.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I

 

I get a little disturbed by your remarks as it infers RAA do not understand anything, your RAA pilot certificate allows you to fly a plane up to 600kg MTOW and 2 POB, day VFR and no aerobatics, and remain in class G airspace, very simple now everything else can be found here, this makes it easy, enjoy. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/vfr/vfrg-whole.pdf.

There are many grey areas in the regulations and ops manual. It's not as simple as you make out.

 

 

[Camel]

IThere are many grey areas in the regulations and ops manual. It's not as simple as you make out.

Can you please give an example ?

 

RAA operate to a few exemptions, they are pretty much what I mentioned other than the medical,

 

If you want to go over 600kg, fly at night, aerobatics and fly control airspace then you will need a CASA licence.

 

Raa obey all air laws, there is one I know of that is different and that is aircraft separation distance.

 

If you read the visual flight guide, you will find it easy to understand, if you knew the contents of the booklet you would pass the PPL exam no worries.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Here is the definitive answer regarding jerry cans, the key points are bolded...

 

92.175 Goods carried by private operators

 

Subparts 92.B and 92.C do not apply to the carriage of dangerous goods by an aircraft operated by an operator engaged in private (non‑commercial) operations if:

 

(a) the aircraft is operating in Australian territory and:

 

(i) is unpressurised; and

 

(ii) has an approved passenger seat configuration of less than 10 seats; and

 

(b) the goods:

 

(i) are in a proper condition for carriage by air; and

 

(ii) are identified by class in accordance with the Technical Instructions; and

 

(iii) are permitted by the Technical Instructions to be carried on a passenger or cargo aircraft; and

 

(iv) are stowed and secured on the aircraft to prevent movement and damage, and segregated in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Instructions if they are likely to react dangerously with one another; and

 

© the pilot‑in‑command of the aircraft ensures that every person on board the aircraft knows, before boarding the aircraft, that the dangerous goods are on board.

 

Note: This regulation creates a defence to the offences created by subsections 23(2) and (2A) of the Act. A defendant charged with either of those offences bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters set out in this regulation—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Ok, I've read the definitive answer. I still don't know if I can carry a Jerry of fuel in the back of my aircraft.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

OK where do we find jerry cans in the Technical Instructions?

 

 

[KRviator]

OK where do we find jerry cans in the Technical Instructions?

You don't. From memory, the technical instructions detail what items are acceptable for carriage by air, in what quantities, if they're restricted to cargo aircraft only and how they must be packed.The actual packaging must meet IATA standards and this is identified by a UN marking similar to the one shown above. Basically, no UN marking, not fit to contain DG airborne. Some jerrycans are available UN certified, for example these ones on Ebay.

 

If you're carrying fuel in a steel jerrycan that doesn't have a UN marking, you might be able to show compliance with 92.175 B(1) in that the fuel is in a proper condition for carriage, but that's dependant on the interpretation of the FOI you encounter. And your insurer if you come to grief... Good luck.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well clause (b) sub clause (iii) screws us all.

 

 

[KRviator]

Not at all. Fuel is permitted to be carried aboard both passenger and cargo aircraft, but you'd need to look at the Technical Instructions if you're planning on shipping something special. But Mogas & Avgas is fine.

 

 

[jetjr]

Just back to original topic for a sec,

 

Plenty of criticisim for those breaking rules and dangers of such, yet no comment on the often REAL limitation in respect to MTOW. Maximum stall speed for RAA 45 kts

 

This in many cases is what drives MTOW not aircrafts capability and maybe why some treat MTOW with less respect than they should due to the fact 544 or 600 are arbitrary limits imposed on the category

 

I do agree some dont even know what MTOW is and how it effects things which is scary.

 

In NO WAY condoning heavy operations and the rules we work under are there and must be followed.

 

However an example and im sure there are others.

 

extra 100 kg in say a Jabiru 2/4 series to 700 kg, raises stall just 5 kts

 

Aircraft is capable, they operate to 750kg, , the debate becomes that pilot isnt up to it.

 

How big a safety concern is this.......

 

 

[dazza 38]

The Sling 2 also is designed with a MTOW of 700 kg from memory. I dunno who came up the the 600 kg LSA rule but they came up around 100 kg too short. As for the 45 knot stall speed, that rule should be thrown out.

 

They should have worked the figures this way. Humans are getting bigger ( read fatter) it isn't hard to be 6 foot tall and 100 kg. We need rules and aircraft which can safely fit qty 2 full size adults ( lets say 220kg), 20 kg of luggage and a minimum of 100 liters of fuel ( 150 litres would be better) and the airframe built strong enough. I'm thinking a airframe around 350 kg empty with a 350 kg pay load.

 

 

[facthunter]

The runway length, density altitude, type of runway surface and slope, obstacles (near and far) affect your MTOW as well as the STRUCTURAL limit .The stall speed limit and one's ability to handle it, is an inferred limit we impose on ourselves but it limits the kinetic energy likely to be involved in a "controlled" arrival, so it makes some logical sense. In gusty conditions at max weight and higher density altitudes the ACTUAL speed you are travelling at, as you carry margins above stall depending on conditions, is higher, especially if there isn't much headwind component. If you are required to accept a downwind as in a one way strip the speed is much higher. Real speed is what will cause the damage if things go wrong.

 

The structural weight limit affects lots of things regarding structural life and reliability , as has been shown in some cropduster events.

 

Regarding extra weight requiring higher stall speeds it will if the wing is not altered in some way. Lift devices or area/span. Nev

 

 

[planesmaker]

The Sling 2 also is designed with a MTOW of 700 kg from memory. I dunno who came up the the 600 kg LSA rule but they came up around 100 kg too short. As for the 45 knot stall speed, that rule should be thrown out.They should have worked the figures this way. Humans are getting bigger ( read fatter) it isn't hard to be 6 foot tall and 100 kg. We need rules and aircraft which can safely fit qty 2 full size adults ( lets say 220kg), 20 kg of luggage and a minimum of 100 liters of fuel ( 150 litres would be better) and the airframe built strong enough. I'm thinking a airframe around 350 kg empty with a 350 kg pay load.

Dazza, we have those aircraft but they are called GA

My jab will take 355kg, better than a C172 cruises faster and climbs much much better for half the fuel. Tom

 

 

[facthunter]

My argument has always been you can BUILD a simple plane from cheap parts and materials effectively IF the current weight limits were more flexible. A Parasol or Pietenpol must surely be the type of slower 2 seaters that would be appropriate for Rec pilots (and builders). If you have the dough and wish to buy a carbon fibre outright, you get the performance under the current weight, but it isn't easy otherwise. I also like a frame with a bit of strength. Having to watch weight everywhere does cause compromises that might not be desirable. cost, strength , durability and complexity.. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

Dazza, we have those aircraft but they are called GAMy jab will take 355kg, better than a C172 cruises faster and climbs much much better for half the fuel. Tom

Yup, but I like a lot of folks have left GA due to the cost.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Not at all. Fuel is permitted to be carried aboard both passenger and cargo aircraft, but you'd need to look at the Technical Instructions if you're planning on shipping something special. But Mogas & Avgas is fine.

We have authoritative statements here in different posts that you can and you cannot carry fuel in the cabin in a can. I have read all of it and am none the wiser. Is there some way of finding out for sure?

 

 

[coljones]

And therein lies a further problem. Many of these airplanes when you look at all the photos simply don't have all the required stickers. I know that they must have been there once for rego but I don't know why they would be removed. As for BEW first question is always is it still for sale. If I get a yes with that then I go to Mtow please. If they cant answer that then there is no point going to the 3rd question which is BEW please. I ask those three before I even ask where it is located. Those three questions would cut out 90% of the aircraft that I looked at. At least 30% because they could not answer the questions and the remainder due to the weight being unworkable for my needs. Now the wife and I come in at 185 allowing for clothes say 200 for with the basic paperwork that we are required to carry and the obvious handbag. We are largeish but not particularly above the norm. Admittedly when I started that was not the case Their are not a lot of aircraft out there that can carry us and full fuel. It get even less when you start looking at anything other than LSA's. Like I said I have only found 3 in my preset price range that worked. And if you do the maths on most of, not all of, the LSA's, then you might be surprised. I go to airfields and look at people getting in and out of planes and just cringe some days. Remember after my research, I can quote the bew and mtow of a huge number of planes now and there fuel capacity. I have been doing this exercise on every plane I see for 6 months.

Have you found the MTOW of your new plane?

 

 

[Garfly]

For what it's worth, I notice that these red plastic jerry cans, commonly available from local servos, do indeed carry one of those un numbers.

 

 

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Have you found the MTOW of your new plane?

Geoff is flying it back today from Orange in NSW. Hope all goes well for him. I think the MTOW is 544kg for it

 

 

[rankamateur]

For what it's worth, I notice that these red plastic jerry cans, commonly available from local servos, do indeed carry one of those un numbers.

So do my 20L Grey plastic spray oil drums, but they still growl at you if you take them to a servo to fill them up.

 

 

[Bernie Knight]

It sometimes amazes me when Forum users respond using abbreviations such as CASA and RA etc thinking statutory authorities don't monitor these sites.

 

A simple search by that or any authority reveals who is talking about them.

 

The blatant disregard by some users 'Posting on site' does not reflect the profession group RA has as members.

 

I'm not having a go at anyone but just making an observation - do a pre flight check before "Posting"..

 

The a forum provides a great resource for me and I usually have my questions answered before I get to ask them..

 

 

[dazza 38]

It sometimes amazes me when Forum users respond using abbreviations such as CASA and RA etc thinking statutory authorities don't monitor these sites.A simple search by that or any authority reveals who is talking about them.

 

The blatant disregard by some users 'Posting on site' does not reflect the profession group RA has as members.

 

I'm not having a go at anyone but just making an observation - do a pre flight check before "Posting"..

 

The a forum provides a great resource for me and I usually have my questions answered before I get to ask them..

We dont mind these authorities reading what is posted. Hell, they may even learn something.

I am pleased that CASA reads stuff that is posted, it is a easy way for them to see what the general consensus is like out there. As a example, the Jab crystal saga.