Presidents Report from this months Sports Pilot

[shags_j]

So did anyone read the whole presidents report from the magazine (February 2015).

 

The rant against CASA "competing" with us goes for a page and a half (nearly). Now I read the first half and was ready to give up, I didn't agree with the premise of the article. But if you push through to the end the outcome is what some of us want.

 

Outcome is they will push for higher weight limit and access to CTA. Two things that many of us have been pushing for for a while.

 

If only he had of started with that premise, he might not have lost a lot of readers in the process ;)

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Generally don't get the mag for a couple more weeks here, will give it a read though.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Would like to see the higher weight (1500kg) which would allow us to fly many types. I wonder what the outcome re aircraft registration might be? E.g. Could an old Auster or similar be registered RAAus and then maintained by a L1/L2? If not then a Pilot Certificate holder would be Flying a CASA registered aircraft. I think it will be a long time before we see a higher weight.

 

Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

Especially if you want 1500Kgs which is about right for a 4 seater. Once you carry more than one INFORMED passenger it is a whole new world of more regs and cost. Originally it was single seats but you had to train yourself, or train in GA. The first 2 seat trainers came out about 1986? IF we had only single seaters we could get much less interference because you are not affecting others as much. . I'm not advocating going back to that just using it as an example. The original CASA recommendation was for 762 Kgs which just happens to co-incide with a C-152. (Then they got a new CEO) Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

.....and the CEO went to the Wide Bay airshow.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

more RAA pipe dreams

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The only way i see 1500kg working is if RAA and SAAA did it together and it took on the experimental type aircraft from GA (i.e. RVs etc). Personally I'd rather the focus be on increasing the 600kg limit to something more in line with what our current (not all) aircraft could actually fly under. 750kg-800kg seems like a good number, limited to 2 pax

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

800kg would fit the bill for a lot more 2 seat aircraft including SAAA type homebuilts

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

But keep the stall speed down at 45kts though.

 

 

[frank marriott]

But keep the stall speed down at 45kts though.

What is the advantage of wanting to limit the stall speed?

 

 

[facthunter]

Less critical landing areas and less energy to damage things if outlanding. At the other end of the spectrum you have things like a Lancair that needs long sealed runways and people have problems with. Nev

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The criteria for RAA is 45knots or less stall speed. Nev is correct the slower you return to terra firma the less energy will be released....in a bingle

 

 

[frank marriott]

Nev

 

I appreciate the advantages of lower stalling speeds but the point I was asking re Marks post was why pose a "statuary limit" of 45. I have no problem with it as such but an increase in weight as proposed will effect stall speed without other mods for those aircraft already on the limit.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Why would CASA suddenly want granddad strapped into a plane with 400ltrs of avgas without a proper medical?

 

 

[robinsm]

I like 45kts, hell...I cruise at 55 and stall at 28. If I tried to fly something with a stall speed of 45kts, I might get a speed wobble up to keep flying...lol

 

 

[kgwilson]

I think that all single engine piston powered aircraft under 1500kgs should be governed by the same rules. Most of the top end Ra-Aus aircraft have better performance than the current Cessnas, Pipers etc. 2 additional passengers shouldn't make any difference other than in a crash 4 people may die & not just 2. The PPL/RPL/RA-Aus certificate should become one licence with appropriate endorsements. So long as the aircraft has the required equipment (transponder, Nav lights etc) & the pilot appropriate endorsements VFR night flying & CTA should be allowed.

 

What I think CASA may be trying to do is to get the the RAA top end in with GA & then those pilots must possess a PPL or RPL.

 

The Australian RPL is nothing like what the RPLs are in the US, NZ, Canada or UK who have had this licence category for 7 or more years & was originally simply a way for ageing pilots to keep flying (with certain restrictions like only 1 passenger & no night VFR) after they were unable to maintain a class 2 medical & a signoff by their GP that they were medically fit to drive a car was the only requirement.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The difference between 4 people or 2 is requiring a Medical, if RAA were to go down this route you can be sure that Medicals will become a requirement and even if only for carrying more then 1 pax it would be an addition cost on administrating.

 

If you want to go fly a 1500kg machine with 3 pax then go and get your RPL it isn't that hard, maybe 2-5 hrs "cross training". If you can't get the medical, then ask yourself do you really think you should be responsible for 3 lives and over a tonne of weight?

 

 

[kgwilson]

I already have a PPL. My opinion is that stated above, just thinking outside the square. You are quoting conditions from existing rules which if my hypothetical process was adopted would be different.

 

 

[johnm]

stay at 600 kg's and dodge all the red tape I say

 

with each increment increase in weight, red tape will surely increase

 

if people insist on it (why not you'd say ......... if you fly heavier metal) < than 600 can be the ultralight class - > than 600 can be the heavylight class

 

but then you have 2 classes ........... more red tape

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I didn't mean you in particular, i agree with some of your outside the square ideas if all the rules were up to be changed.

 

I agree combining the RPC and RPL makes sense, if we can get CASA to do away with the Aviation Medical requirement and have a simple medical "wavier" like we do with RA-AUS (with the same restrictions without the Class 2 Medical that we have today).

 

RA-AUS and SAAA combined to administer aircraft registration for the experimental/amateur built aircraft as well as Light Sport Aircraft (factory and kit) and CASA were left with all "commercial" operations.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

the last set of updates brought the RAA more into line with the current LSA/Sports Pilot licensing.

 

 

[kgwilson]

You have to remove the blinkers. There were numerous submissions made to the ASSR (Forsyth Report) that argued that CASA should adopt and adapt the NZ CAA rules. These produced a heavy rebuff from the then director John McCormick who rubbished the idea on the basis that the legislation was different and terminology was sometimes different. So what, this is what adapt means. Either fit it in with legislation (or modify the legislation) and change the terminology. Simple.

 

If the idea had prospered what I have suggested would become a possibility.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No problems going to 4 seat/1500 kg, just increase the training to GA standard for PPL, external testing, GA PPL medical etc.

 

That would improve the standard over where it is now for the lighter end.

 

Then introduce a lower level for the genuine rag and tube section.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Franks point about the stall speed is to do with aircraft like his and mine.... A J230 at current MTOW (legislative, not design) complies with the current stall speed requirements...at the aircraft rated MTOW (design, not legislated) I think stall speed is 48kts......

 

I would like to think, that if we can grow the MTOW that the stall speed doesn't mean I still cant use the additional weight..... using the 1.3 multiplier means safe approach speed is about 5kts higher at the actual MTOW design limit...... I know the line has to be drawn somewhere....but interestingly I don't think CASA alternate to the RAAus certificate has any such stall speed limitations......so I guess that need for safety only applies to some types of pilots....

 

Andy

 

P.S personal opinion not a board position

 

 

[Camel]

The Presidents report is well written and recognizes the problems that are real, I have been told that some RAA and GA schools have seen increase in people wanting an RPL and decreasing seeking just a PC. In the past many GA PPL pilots have come to RAA for the advantage of simpler medical and self maintenance on aircraft. In my opinion a lot of GA pilots who convert to RAA have a lot of trouble getting use to light aircraft and for some reason appear to me to be involved in more misconduct (regard weather, altitude, VCA etc) and accidents than others, has anyone else noticed this ? Could it be overconfidence ? I hope RAA PC members who convert to RPL don't make any bad statistics.

 

I do hold a PPL but I was trike and ultralight first, had my share of character building conditions in GA and ultralights.