So what's the big announcement on Friday

[jetjr]

Post 150

 

Looks like the awareness campaign worked

 

 

[M61A1]

We are all getting carried away with the high- viz vest thing. It is designed to be simply a symbol of a new safety initiative. I don't believe for one moment that they expect you, or me to actually wear them in flight. October is safety month....the orange vest is a continuance of the Orange theme which I'm sure you have already noticed that RAA has adopted. It's called corporate high viz in other circles, and is proving very successful for us.

I agree that there may to much carry on about hi-viz vests. That said, bureaucracy seems to honestly believe that the hi-viz is a symbol of safety, where as us bottom-feeders see the hi-viz as a symbol of bureaucracy.

 

 

[M61A1]

I support transit of control but I don't support access as if you want it a RPL or PPL will provide this. Extra weight is something that will go on forever and there will be a price, older Jabiru LSA55 have a MTOW of 420 I think and that was where the weight were much lower, they gave us 544kg and 5000 feet, they gave us 10000 and 600 kg, a lot of Ultralights and LSA cannot meet 600 let alone higher, in fact your aircraft may not even carry 600kg according to specs on web. So the weight increase is no help to you. I have a 230 Jabiru and is capable well over 600kg, the observance of weight is important and mine is basic to reduce weight. All the bells and whistles take up weight, if you want all the gadgets, extra weight, CTA and plenty of seats buy a GA plane like I did before and find out what it really costs. RAA is affordable flying, basic and sometimes seat of your pants and that is what may save your backside, the ability to feel the Aeroplane and feel the weather.The J230 was not available when I bought a C172 and I loved my plane. The J230 is a compromise, I would love to have my C172 back but not affordable. I maintain my GA Licence by BFR and Class 2 medical and maintain a RAA instructor rating by PE flight reviews. From your own statements you have trouble getting a medical and many GA pilots came to RAA because they lost their medicals and that is fine, CASA could force all to hold medicals and that is not what members want, they want affordable flying without the strict medical.

I also will not take overweight people flying and I make no apology as these are LIGHT aircraft and not meant to carry HEAVY people. I need to lose weight too as I'm reducing my fuel and luggage capability. Weight is a big safety issue and it starts with crew weight and BEW.

 

A Car drivers Licence is a privilege not a right ! A pilot licence is a luxury and will take some work to keep it, I have never regretted a penny spent on training. If you can't get a medical you should be so grateful that RAA exist to allow people to fly. Many RAA members hold GA licences and understand the issues.

 

Express your opinion by all means but respect others too ! When you became a member of RAA you agreed not to bring RAA into disrepute ! That is in the ops manual ! I found your BS comment a little off and part of the problem as I know the safety programs is well intended. When you loose a friend by a simple mistake it hurts.

 

Pioneer 300 Kite, is this your aircraft spec ?

 

Engine power: 100 Hp

 

DIMENSIONS

 

Wing span 7,55 m

 

Wing area 10 mq

 

Length 6,25 m

 

Cabin width 1,05 m

 

WEIGHTS

 

Empty weight 315 Kg

 

Max weight (VLA) 560 Kg

 

LOADS

 

In flight load factor +3,8/-1,9 g @ 560 Kg

 

Tank capacity 80 l

 

Baggage volume 300 l

 

Max baggage load 20 Kg

I can only assume that Zoos is not talking specifically about his aircraft or types currently in Raa service. The idea is to be able to build in durability and crashworthiness into a structure, rather than sacrificing those things to meet a weight restriction. There are a lot of fancy lightweight things currently out there which meet the current requirements but are what I would call "flimsy".

 

 

[Downunder]

I agree that there may to much carry on about hi-viz vests. That said, bureaucracy seems to honestly believe that the hi-viz is a symbol of safety, where as us bottom-feeders see the hi-viz as a symbol of bureaucracy.

A different perspective I guess.

 

Those paying members at the bottom looking up thinking "what am I getting for my money?", and those employed at the top looking down thinking "this is what you need"........

 

 

[Litespeed]

I can only assume that Zoos is not talking specifically about his aircraft or types currently in Raa service. The idea is to be able to build in durability and crashworthiness into a structure, rather than sacrificing those things to meet a weight restriction. There are a lot of fancy lightweight things currently out there which meet the current requirements but are what I would call "flimsy".

Exactly- I want more weight for safety, not for more speed or gizmos or to crate around heavy stuff or extra heavy people.

 

We should be able to build so that the aircraft is a s safe as possible given technology available to us.

 

Building to a safety standard is very different to building for a weight limit.

 

We only have to look at some aircraft that are very flimsy just to meet the limit.

 

I would rather build a with a very strong cockpit area and strong airframe with balanced controls, and accept the higher G loads in a crash knowing I had a cockpit, tank and seat that will be far safer than something flimsy but light that will crumple around my body.

 

We should be designing and building for safety not a weight limit.

 

We are currently building in many areas like Colin Chapman did his race cars- as light as possible to the detriment of safety. Many drivers died because Colin whorshipped the light weight genie too much. Chassis (generally suspension and attachments) collapsed before even hitting stuff and if a accident happened survival was always a afterthought.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

A different perspective I guess.Those paying members at the bottom looking up thinking "what am I getting for my money?", and those employed at the top looking down thinking "this is what you need"........

At the top...at the bottom....... it probably wasn't what you meant but in RAAus all that separates top from bottom is the effort to put up your hand and participate.......at the top all you've got is the exact same as the bottom with a fair bit more grief.........

I personally don't believe for one moment that hi viz vests are the sole output of RAAus/CASA wrt to safety in our segment......Sure the announcement was probably a bit overhyped....... but I look forward to real and important steps forward....in my view as managers you can only manage what you measure, and only when there have been sufficient measurements to be statistically relevant...I believe the measurements have started and the new back office systems coming on line will help tremendously with that....but we still need to get enough statistically relevant results to support the case for change.....

 

Employing someone and throwing them at this problem cant produce results instantaneously but its a fact that you must have someone focusing on the problem if you want change to occur.....

 

I personally am happy with the broad progress being made.......the snap fix that anyone might jump to is to pile on more regulations....the board sensibly are resisting those who might want that and are proactively moving before someone else jumps feet first into the silence

 

 

[robinsm]

Exactly- I want more weight for safety, not for more speed or gizmos or to crate around heavy stuff or extra heavy people.We should be able to build so that the aircraft is a s safe as possible given technology available to us.

Building to a safety standard is very different to building for a weight limit.

 

We only have to look at some aircraft that are very flimsy just to meet the limit.

 

I would rather build a with a very strong cockpit area and strong airframe with balanced controls, and accept the higher G loads in a crash knowing I had a cockpit, tank and seat that will be far safer than something flimsy but light that will crumple around my body.

 

We should be designing and building for safety not a weight limit.

 

We are currently building in many areas like Colin Chapman did his race cars- as light as possible to the detriment of safety. Many drivers died because Colin whorshipped the light weight genie too much. Chassis (generally suspension and attachments) collapsed before even hitting stuff and if a accident happened survival was always a afterthought.

Are the aircraft we fly not called Ultralights. You want to fly heavier, go GA for goodness sake. People want to remember why this organisation was formed in the first place, not winge and moan wanting a pseudo GA organisation. This in recreational aviation, we fly Ultralights (or microlights in NZ). You want to fly in controlled airspace, be heavier that 600kg, carry more than 2 peoplle all up, then go to the mob that does that. WE ARE ULTRALIGHT FLYERS. Deal with it.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Are the aircraft we fly not called Ultralights. You want to fly heavier, go GA for goodness sake. People want to remember why this organisation was formed in the first place, not winge and moan wanting a pseudo GA organisation. This in recreational aviation, we fly Ultralights (or microlights in NZ). You want to fly in controlled airspace, be heavier that 600kg, carry more than 2 peoplle all up, then go to the mob that does that. WE ARE ULTRALIGHT FLYERS. Deal with it.

Where did I say I wanted to use CTA?

 

Where did I say I wanted more than two on board?

 

My comments regarded allowance for a stronger and thus safer aircraft, Not a Pseudo GA.

 

I am not whingeing, I thought this was a discussion on safety?

 

The above are my comments on what might improve safety, or do you just want to accept the current situation and slam any suggestion that may have merit?

 

If we have to wear a flame suit to comment on safety or not comment at all- we are not going to improve.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

 

The top and bottom of life.

 

 

[Litespeed]

AS per the comment by Facthunter in related thread-

 

"80K,That is a statement from you. No more than that. CASA suggested the 762 kgs limit where 700 probably will cover it. It allows a build of adequate strength from non exotic materials for 2 people and the fuel and tie downs etc they would normally expect to operate with. More adequate strength means less crashes better brakes and more choice of engines etc. Extra weight doesn't mean higher speeds It's not in any way connected, unless you add weight to an existing design without increasing wing area or lift devices. A Pietenpol is heavier, slower, easier to fly and probably more safe than most things we fly. E = MV2 so speed is the most important and as far as the occupants are concerned the major factor affecting the extent of THEIR injuries at the time something goes wrong. We don't do a lot of building these days. Perhaps we will do more in the future. The major cost in any plane is an expensive specialised engine and the labour component of the build. Nev"

 

Very well said Nev.

 

Good to see some of us actually understand that extra weight can mean a safer aircraft.

 

Not blinkered by some old notion of rag and tube only.

 

 

[Litespeed]

If CASA thought that 762 kg's is a good idea, then I for one will happily give them the credit they deserve.

 

We can not stand still, whilst the globe keeps turning.

 

 

[dazza 38]

IMO 100 Hp is just about maxed out at 600 kgs. If aircraft get too much heavier than that, bigger engines will be needed. (Engines like the 3300 Jab).

 

 

[facthunter]

Or a higher torque low revver like a Ford T or A with a big prop. I mention this not to recommend THAT particular engine, but just to indicate it's been done. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

That extra weight could also mean a lot of different suitable engine choices.

 

I look at a Carbon cub and scream at the price, but the same engine could be great in RAA with not having to go mega light and expensive on everything else. Hence more affordable as Nev says.

 

There are lots of great engines out there if only the weight allowed.

 

 

[Nobody]

The difficulty is that as soon as the weight limit is increased someone uses it to put a bigger engine in and gets more speed. They then think that the weight limit should be increased again...

 

It has happened at 450kg 544kg and now 600kg. If the limit is increased to 700kg and then 750kg will people then be asking for 800kg?

 

 

[DrZoos]

The cessna might have survived if MTOW was increased , bringing a great engine and manufacturer into LSA RAAus

 

I dont want extra weight for overweight passengers or more gadgets...

 

1. I want extra MTOS so that I dont have to constantly choose between equipment or fuel...I actually have a fairly generous allowance and most aircraft I fly with have significant less fuel on board than I do...

 

2. I want it is so that aircraft can have M6 bolts instead of m4 or m8 instead of m6 , thicker wing spars, thicker frame, more timber ribs instead of foam and possibly some better engine choices that could both potentially increase safety and lower costs. A sturdier nose wheel and a lot more passenger protection.

 

3. One day even a CO2 chute might be possible instead of having to choose between a chute or fuel/luggage.

 

This argument we should all fly rag and tube and be happy with 400kg is not very realistic of the modern fleet in RAAus. Perhaps 20 years ago that was relevant but it certainly is not today. One would assume Natfly was reasonably representative of the fleet and if it was the vast majority where 2 POB with a tent, mat, sleeping bag, an pair of jocks...

 

I dont profess to have done the calcs on increased passenger protection v increased inertia, with actual accident speeds and mass, but I have studied university level physics and would suggest it is at least worth very serious discussion and further investigation, rather than simply clinging to the past and saying its more dangerous to fly heavier aircraft. I accept that aircraft A with more weigh on board is less safe, but if aircraft B is has extra safety features that negate the increased inertia effect, such as occupant safety or airbags, roll cages etc, this is at least worth investigating rather then just assuming its more dangerous.

 

I think some make a very legitimate point that some aircraft would potentially be more dangerous with increased MTOW, and I am not suggesting those aircraft be increased. But in cases where an aircraft is safely flown in another country, or under another authority at a higher MTOW surely its worth investigating and discussing, especially if it means they might carry more fuel or fly safer routes . And for newly manufactured and built aircraft where an increase in MTOW can improve safety such as the inclusion of a chute etc...surely that's worth discussion and consideration.

 

At the end of the day, I think the most important thing is not that we agree on any of this, but we at least have open minds and discuss it.

 

 

[Litespeed]

As Nev has stated we are not looking at more weight to gain speed.

 

We need to justify why more weight could be a good idea.

 

The main reasons to me are-

 

- ability to have a stronger airframe

 

-ability to have better crash structures

 

- better safer seat designs

 

-safer tank designs and better fuel range to allow the safe way home rather than what we need to do to get home before fuel exhaustion

 

- having weight balanced control surfaces etc.

 

- the ability to homebuild without needing the most expensive materials and technology.

 

- the ability to add airbags even and all the sensors needed (this has been discussed at HBA forum).

 

-landing gear that can take up bigger G loads before it is transmitted to the cockpit.

 

- be able to use a greater range of engines that are aircraft suitable and have a good record. A bigger engine does not always mean more speed- look at the carbon cub for example, lots of power but not much speed.

 

Basically to be able to design properly for safety rather than to a low weight limit. As has been stated this does not have to mean getting more speed or higher stall speeds, but a aircraft that is far more survivable if its all goes wrong.

 

The above does add weight but would never justify needing say 800kgs or even anything close to that.

 

Think of your modern car- yes it weighs more than before even after you take away the luxury crap. But the survivability is vastly improved in any given crash- even though more weight means more inertia.

 

 

[Aldo]

I would rather build a with a very strong cockpit area and strong airframe with balanced controls, and accept the higher G loads in a crash knowing I had a cockpit, tank and seat that will be far safer than something flimsy but light that will crumple around my body.

Just buy a Jabiru they have already done this and is Australian made. I have one and it is streets ahead of any of its competitors.

 

Aldo

 

 

[Litespeed]

Oh and the whole been allowed more weight because we have a chute?

 

It was quoted say for a single seater 300kg or 335kg with chute- that makes often no sense. So I can't have extra weight to improve the ability to survive a crash but can have a heap more if I have a hanky to pop out.

 

And yes Aldo the Jabawocky is a great and strong aircraft but we should not have to all have one just because we want a strong structure. I want to homebuild in metal.

 

 

[DrZoos]

One other point worth considering as well is the average pilot and pax now who is 50 years old is approximate 5-10cm taller and 10-20kg heavier than 20 years ago simply due to lifestyle factors in a post war era. In ten years they will be another 5-10 cm taller and 10-20kg heavier..

 

If your taller or lighter than the majority of people your childrens age your either very lucky or statistically a freak.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The difficulty is that as soon as the weight limit is increased someone uses it to put a bigger engine in and gets more speed. They then think that the weight limit should be increased again...It has happened at 450kg 544kg and now 600kg. If the limit is increased to 700kg and then 750kg will people then be asking for 800kg?

only if we ask for 700 and not RPL equivalency which is 1500Kg's

 

The real trick is that as a generalisation owners who aren't qualified should not imho, maintain a 1500kg plane, by virtue that at 1500kgs its not likely to be simple or easy to maintain.....at what point would we move from owner maintenance to appropriate L2 or > or LAME maintenance

 

 

[Aldo]

Lightspeed

 

I'm certainly not suggesting that you forget your dream of building you own aircraft by my following comment and I hope you get to achieve your dream.

 

As I said if you want to fly the best available now aircraft, fly a J 230, composite low maintenance costs, 600kg (certified to 700 factory build and currently VH) the only limiting factor at the moment is the Jab engine (CASA limiting) I have 900 hrs on my engine and yes the maintenance costs are higher but probably only $20/hr. I would love to have 700kg MTOW but even at 600 I'm able to go full fuel (140 litres) my wife and myself (140 kg) baggage (31kg) BEW 339kg. 4+ hours is far too long for me without a pit stop but the extra 100kg would allow more luggage and at 2 miles a minute you can go a long way in a short time.

 

Just depends if you want to fly now or at some time in the future.

 

Aldo

 

 

[eightyknots]

Try flying in a fluro shirt, the reflection on any of the instruments makes it all but impossible to read anything especialy when the sun is on the shirt as it is in a lot of low wings

Ooooh noooo: back to the drawing board!

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Higher weight == higher stall speed (all other factors kept the same) == higher chance of stalling on the turn final == less safety due to stall/spin.

 

You have no evidence that a higher weight would improve safety.

 

 

[Litespeed]

If you took the time to read what I and Nev said this can be accounted for with lift devices or a larger wing area. And the stall speed remains the same.

 

Additionally a aircraft even with a slightly higher stall due to weight and "all other factors the same" but with a considerably stronger cockpit and safer design can be far more survivable than something which is flimsy and a slightly lower stall.

 

We already do this when we allow a weight increase with a parachute- same aircraft, more weight and thus higher stall speed.

 

And if it has floats then the weight difference allowed is substantial- but the wing area is the same, leading to much higher stall speeds.

 

Those kilos allowed for when we have either a chute or floats all add weight and thus inertia but no increase in safety at landing circuit heights.

 

So by your logic then they should not be allowed a weight increase either. No chute will help when coming in to land-you are already too low.

 

I am not advocating for anything higher then the already existing 45knts stall speed, in fact would suggest that any aircraft designed for safety would obviously aim to have a low stall speed.

 

Please look and read before your leap