What if you controlled policy for a day, what would improve your safety most?

[DrZoos]

So its pretty clear some of us don't want Fluro vest photo parties. But what do we think CASAor RAA could do that would actually make an immediate and real difference to our safety. .....what are the big ticket items that could immediately improve safety in our sport if you had the big stick or magic wand.

 

Clearly casa and raa will have thier own thinking based on data or agendas...but what is our collective thoughts pointing towards...

 

It would be great if those responding could number and prioritize a list of your top 3 in orded. We have a great number of people here and surely if we put our collective heads together we can come up with a hotlist of what we think are top 3 policy priorities that could improve our safety.

 

For me it is

 

1. safer RAA routes up and down the east coast and near the ranges

 

2. Access to cta especially near mountains eg coffs tamworth etc...

 

3. Increase in mtow

 

It would be great if rather than morphing into an argument about the necesity or reality of policies or change we could jsut come up with a hot list of the topics that those who do believe policy could make a difference and where.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

let CASA control all the aviation safety issues and limit the RAA to other functions

 

 

[facthunter]

Where do you get your brainwaves from ft? Nev

 

 

[JEM]

If CASA handled all the safety issues, then what would Airservices and ATSB do?

 

 

[kgwilson]

None of those things change anything to an individuals safety mindset. Yes CTA transit, MTOW increase etc are good ideas and will make making decisions of go or no go easier but it is the mind set of the individual who decides to fly around CTA when conditions are marginal rather than stay at home or go somewhere else that is the cause of the problem not the restriction itself. Have a read of the Presidents report "Awkward Conversations" in this months Sportpilot. This hits the nail on the head imho.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

So its pretty clear some of us don't want Fluro vest photo parties. But what do we think CASAor RAA could do that would actually make an immediate and real difference to our safety. .....what are the big ticket items that could immediately improve safety in our sport if you had the big stick or magic wand.Clearly casa and raa will have thier own thinking based on data or agendas...but what is our collective thoughts pointing towards...

It would be great if those responding could number and prioritize a list of your top 3 in orded. We have a great number of people here and surely if we put our collective heads together we can come up with a hotlist of what we think are top 3 policy priorities that could improve our safety.

 

For me it is

 

1. safer RAA routes up and down the east coast and near the ranges

 

2. Access to cta especially near mountains eg coffs tamworth etc...

 

3. Increase in mtow

 

It would be great if rather than morphing into an argument about the necesity or reality of policies or change we could jsut come up with a hot list of the topics that those who do believe policy could make a difference and where.

I don't think any of these 3 would increase safety at all. I don't see people currently experiencing safety issues for lack of these, so how could they increase safety? All they would do is to encourage people to fly when they wouldn't otherwise, because of inclement weather, and that's likely to decrease safety rather than increase it.

 

Also - considering that aviation is a user-pays activity, you can be certain that access to CTA would come with an increase in costs one way or another. I don't see why the majority of RAAus members, who would never use CTA anyway, should share the cost with the few who appear to want to use their recreational aircraft as commuters. So, should you hypothetically be given access to CTA with a Rec pilot certificate, how much would you be prepared to pay for each use of it? I can't imagine there would be much change out of $60 per incursion, if only on the basis of discouraging excess traffic. Would you be happy to pay that?

 

I don't personally think people with a pilot certificate will ever get access to CTA, and nor will aircraft without certificated powerplants. The closest might be people flying an LSA with a certificated powerplant, and who also hold a licence rather than a certificate.

 

And, on your third point, how would an increase in MTOW increase safety?

 

To be able to increase safety we have to look at what's actually killing people. Statistically it's lack of sufficient training in the stall/spin situation, poor decision-making in terms of inadvertently flying into IMC, and hooning around low-level. So my three points to increase safety would be -

 

1. Mandatory spin training for all pilots, with refreshers at every BFR.

 

2. RAAus produce an entertaining one day training course about weather-related issues and how they affect pilots, with videos and real-life stories from those who have stuffed up and lived to tell the tale, and take it on a national-wide tour with compulsory attendance by all pilots. I know it sounds a bit harsh but I know a lot of flyers who have very little understanding of how weather works.

 

3. Crack down on hooning and increase the penalties. Every time someone hits a powerline or tree or aerobats into the deck it seriously affects our public profile and is potentially another nail in the recflying coffin.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

I would take it a bit further and say, lets make it part of the training to take students into IMC conditions with an approved instructor and aircraft of course just to show pilots why it is so dangerous to do so, I always thing knowledge and training is always better than none at all.

 

David

 

 

[Oscar]

It would be useful to look at the statistical evidence of where the most serious problems leading to accidents lie.

 

I believe it is fairly evident that the stall/spin event at low altitude ( base or final turn) is a major contributor to fatalities. I would be seriously interested to see a comparison of the occurrence of stall/spin accidents for RAA and GFA operation - because in GFA, incipient-spin reaction competence is pretty much an 'every-flight' occurrence, and full-spin recovery training is mandated. Glider pilots do a 'glide-approach' at the end of EVERY flight, so they have to manage flying the aircraft to the point of touchdown without entering a stall/spin situation. If you watch a typical glider-field operation for a full day, you will see endless repetition of base/final turns properly executed without the constant juggling of power one sees at most RAA fields.

 

I suspect that next after stall/spin in the circuit, comes CFIT in adverse weather, where the PIC has made one - or more likely, a series - of cascading bad judgements about continuing the flight in deteriorating conditions. I will admit to having deliberately flown up into the base of the cloud in a thermal in order to get a couple of hundred feet of extra height - but that was at 7,200 AGL and with VNE-limiting airbrakes at my disposal. All too easy, to lock my hand and feet onto the climb circle 'setting' and ignore any vertigo by focusing on the compass for the right time to roll out on heading.

 

However, some years later, sitting in the RHS beside a Qantas 737 Captain, climbing out in total IMC (ceiling 501 feet approximately) from Tullamarine in a Cherokee 6, when he said to me: "OK, if the engine's just stopped, where do we go?" bought it home in incredible detail, that I had no real situational appreciation after about two minutes in IMC conditions. Perhaps it's a lesson all VFR-only pilots need to have - much the same as 'unusual attitude recovery'...

 

As for an increase in MTOW, the secondary safety benefits are palpable. A stronger airframe (suitably designed) will provide far greater safety in the case of a crash - e.g. the inclusion of impact-absorbing seats, five-point harnesses, effective overturn structures etc. However, as with all regulations, JUST an increase in MTOW as a crude measure will invite the sort of hornswoggling as we see in the Sting aircraft, where it appears that leather seats surplant proper harness point attachments as a design consideration. A better measure would be wing loading, which has very direct results on performance but does not preclude the use of a better structure.

 

 

[DrZoos]

An increase in MTOW could increase safety for many reasons..

 

1. Under engineering to keep usable weights acceptable to customers- Take a look under the surface of most modern two seaters built in the last 5 years and the first thing you will notice is foam wing ribs, tiny timber framing, ultra tiny bolts that on GA aircraft are generally twice the thicknesses and diameters... My former CFI & almost qualified LAME pointed this out to me when i was at their aircraft maintenance facility, showing me the differences in sizes of bolts etc on the 152 v my aircraft...since then I have observed this many times over on a variety of aircraft..

 

2. Taking less fuel than is optimal - I have taken many trips in the last two years and there have been several times when I would have found carrying an extra 10-20L of fuel would have allowed me a safer route , but due to MTOW i had to fly more direct than preferred, which in my area generally involves more mountains or tiger country than if I had an extra 20L I would definitely take the longer route.

 

3. Swapping safety equipment for fuel / luggage - often when bumping off MTOW and planning a route for an overnight trip or multi day trip that has some long stints people will be forced to choose fuel or equipment. eg if heading to Narromine and taking a tent, mat , sleeping bag for 2 PAx.. many may encounter areas that have long stints without a guaranteed airport.. eg just recently when SCO was completely submerged in cloud and thus a major diversions was taken to the north this wasnt an issue luckily as I had plenty of fuel on board, but reaching scone and turning back for some on that day may have been problematic...Im sure another 10-20L of fuel would have made Narromine a safer trip this year for those crossing the ranges and there where many.

 

In reference to people's decision making of going or not going...above by kgwilson... often its not the decision to go or not go...from my experience recently the weather forecasts have looked great , I have reached destinations easily, but in the day or few days your there the weather deteriorates without being on the forecasts and its getting home that for me is more often the problem... I know what the answer is here and I agree with it "not dieing to get home etc blah blah" But the reality is for many who are not retired, or have kids etc getting home does carry some cost/responsibility issues and you would have to be very naive to think it doesnt force at least a reasonable number of pilots into tougher and more risky decisions than leaving home in the first place... my argument here is that this is when the use of CTA v non CTA can make a real difference... and yes on some occasions, I would happily pay to be granted access thru CTA... probably not $60 but perhaps $10-$20 ... especially if it meant the difference between getting home or turning back... This weather deterioration is severely exacerbated and amplified for those that need to cross the ranges... and due to Newcastle CTA RA and Coffs CTA...often this is the case for people in this area.

 

To Camel - before you jump in and tell me to get a PPL RPL and class 2 medical ( and suggest i cant) i have had a break thru there and it most likely will be granted despite 14 months of rejection for no apparent reason other than a bad choice of meds by a doctor 5 years ago). So my reasons for raising this and following up on it are not entirely selfish...I have plenty of pilots I fly and share a beer with who express these exact same concerns, however they are in the category where they dont want to chase medicals (due to age) , but they still feel they are often placed in much higher risks than necessary due to the Newcastle Tamworth and Coffs CTA...

 

As i said above...often its not leaving thats the issue its coming home.. we just happen to be on the coast with high mountains to the west, CTA to the North, South and West... on a clear day CTA is never an issue, but for basically 250+ days a year its not clear near the ranges due to cloud formations from coastal breezes..

 

If our situation here is so unique then perhaps we should be asking CASA for a special look at Tamworth and Coffs CTA... We get a LOT of travelling pilots come thru Port Macquarie including RAAus pilots and they must face the same issues where ever they are heading..

 

I would also like to say the amount of GA pilots who laugh when I say I cant take extra fuel etc due to MTOW is significant...their response is generally that they breach MTOW regularly and that everyone does... I have no idea if this is true, but I dont, and I would prefer to be increasing MTOW legitimately via legislative change than taking a punt on if and how much is supposedly safe.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There are aircraft that use springs etc to help balance the rudder, with the no-pedal Ercoupe an extreme example. The stall/spin could be addressed to some extent this way and perhaps a more high tech version incorporated in an auto pilot. The auto pilot again is the best insurance against CFIT, there was an excellent example recently in another post by Don Ramsay. A panic button that flies you out of trouble, or at least takes the pressure off while you think things through.

 

And I agree with an increase in MTOW for the reasons expressed by Oscar and DrZ.

 

 

[facthunter]

The flying in non VMC is really a difficult one, and the best thing is not to intentionally do it unless equipped with the right instruments in absolute reliable condition and a good electrical system and you have to be recent (experience) and legal. Most of OUR aircraft will never be so equipped, as we are talking about TSO'd instruments that are serviced as legally required and an electrical system far beyond what most have. The training to instrument proficiency Private IF Rating is considerable, but manageable and far preferable to a night VMC as a SAFE way of getting around or getting home if there is some need to do so. If you have a deadline to get home, drive or fly RPT. Don't put yourself under pressure to go when the weather isn't good enough. Basic Human Factors there, but happens often still. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

The obvious killers are flying into cloud, or losing control too low to recover while scud running, and in the GA sphere there are alot of crashes on final when an engine as failed.Both GA and recreational have a surfeit of crashes caused by low flying.

 

Training in approaches without power would benefit the GA problem. The problem of going into cloud or even darkness will only be solved by good training and changing the mindset of poor decision makers. Low flying is another problem needing a change of mindset.

 

I think some instrument flying training may help to stop people thinking they can do it without training. I remember when I did some instrument training the instructor had me flying around, doing turns, climbs and descents. After a few minutes of this I just got brain overload and lost it. She flipped up my foggles and the horizon was at 45 degrees and in the top half of the screen. Typical spiral dive and ever since then I have known I am not current and just think when someone tells me they can fly in cloud with only a whisky compass, that they are idiots.

 

 

[Litespeed]

For me I am all for a increase in Mtow for safety reasons not for the luxury of putting more stuff onboard.

 

A good example to me is the Hummelbird which could be built as a much stronger airframe if it was allowed a bit more weight and still have reasonable fuel capacity. I know this is a concern of Spacesailor and also mine.

 

So for example allow it to be 315kg instead of 300kg Mtow might make a considerable safety difference if it meant beefing up the structure in the cabin, mass balancing control surfaces, better fuel tank and seat design etc.

 

Naturally these changes would still need to be gone over by a engineer and approved but it makes sense to have a stronger airframe if the weight penalty is accounted for.

 

Having the ability to actually have two 80kg adults, a small of amount of luggage and full fuel would do wonders for some aircraft as well. fuel on the ground is useless as we all know.

 

I am certainly for compulsory spin training as well. I think we can all learn quite a bit from the glider community.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yeah sort out the weight and entry transit lanes through CTA areas.

 

Most important FAR103.Take some of the workload off RAAus

 

Slap CASA around the head for an hour or two.

 

There is no cure for stopping stoopids from going IFR with out the training so better make it mandatory for GPS linked autopilots.

 

 

[SDQDI]

A higher MTOW would benefit me (the hornet with VH on the side is 690kg).

 

CTA wouldn't benefit me unless it was for 19 registered as well, I wouldn't mind having (paying for!) an extra inspection to allow my 19 registered into controlled airspace if it was up to scratch.

 

BUT those two things wouldn't increase my safety as much as further training IMHO. I think the spin training is a great idea but we would have to develope a relationship with a group like GFA who has spinnable aircraft as I don't think our aircraft have those capabilities. At the very least I definately think ALL our instructors should be made to do spin training! It is scary to hear of instructors who are scared of doing stalls and I'm glad I haven't met one yet. Also I would like to see us do a stall in a turn for our BFR, after all how much good does it do us to do straight ahead stalls when the majority of fatalities come from stalling in a turn!

 

Also I would like to see more low level training being encouraged, I've said before that I have started my ll endo and was amazed at just how sloppy my techniques became when at lower altitude. Time and money are always a problem but I don't see why ll training is discouraged unless you have a 'genuine need'. IMHO we do ll flight twice for every flight and the skills which we could learn could make a lot of difference if/when we find ourselves with an engine out or caught out by bad weather or bad decisions ect.

 

Surely a common sense approach would be to look at major accident causes and then continue to slightly modify our BFRs to cover those exact causes.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Agree with SDQDI. Perhaps if all instructors could do some serious stall/spin training to get comfortable so they can pass on the stall part of it with no fear and confidence. I still get guys on a BFR who have never seen the consequences of stalling out of balance. Stalling in a turn is a non event if you are in balance. Other than that, a gradual change in culture to be more cautions and safety conscious. The cowboys amongst us should be made to feel that change is in their best interest.

 

 

[kasper]

For me I am all for a increase in Mtow for safety reasons not for the luxury of putting more stuff onboard.A good example to me is the Hummelbird which could be built as a much stronger airframe if it was allowed a bit more weight and still have reasonable fuel capacity. I know this is a concern of Spacesailor and also mine.

 

So for example allow it to be 315kg instead of 300kg Mtow might make a considerable safety difference if it meant beefing up the structure in the cabin, mass balancing control surfaces, better fuel tank and seat design etc.

 

Naturally these changes would still need to be gone over by a engineer and approved but it makes sense to have a stronger airframe if the weight penalty is accounted for.

 

Having the ability to actually have two 80kg adults, a small of amount of luggage and full fuel would do wonders for some aircraft as well. fuel on the ground is useless as we all know.

 

I am certainly for compulsory spin training as well. I think we can all learn quite a bit from the glider community.

What is wrong with moving the Hummel out of 95.10 where there is 300kg without parachute but 335kg with and move it into experimental where the single seater limit is not 300kg but speed limited at MTOW ... and 45knts stall is supposedly well within hummelbird at 42mph at current design weight?

 

And whats with the ever increasing weight demands on the experimentals? when there was an empty weight limit on 95.10 yes there was a safety, a genuine safety reason to reassess the regulations.

 

I keep coming back to the concept of ULTRALIGHTS being low momentum low energy aircraft ... the physics of this makes no distinction between 300kg where 115kg is the aircraft or 300kg where 150kg is the aircraft BUT 544kg going at 45knts is already a shed load of energy to manage and IF your personal desire is to have 150knts and 3 hours of fuel with two largish people you really are not in the market for a low momentum low energy aircraft but a recreational aircraft that in my opinion that deserves an RPL/PPL and all that entails.

 

So I will be the heretic - what single policy will increase demonstrable safety in RAA aircraft (as measured by deaths) - REDUCE the weight limit of experimental and LSA within RAA coverage and lower the overall performance ...

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

Guys I'm going to comment with my Instrument Rating Examiners hat on, "don't get yourself into a situation where you may go IMC even for a short time," even if you have all that sky view stuff fitted to your a/c you will kill yourself, it's only a matter of time, no one mentions icing conditions eg OAT on the ground or TAT in the air of 10 degrees or less, I know most RAA a/c have no pitot heating, once IMC what then, what's the MSA or GRID MORA that you are going to decent to to get VMC again? if you loss situational awareness what then, are you in a position that you can declare a MAYDAY in a radar environment & get radar vectors to cloud break etc, if in a non radar environment you're ####ed, it's only a matter of time before you smear yourself & pax into the ground, at least spend your money on a BRS rather than having all these displays & thinking your capable & qualified to us them.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

1. Establish an incident database so the common causes, aircraft type, pilot profile etc can be determined.

 

2. Create educational material targeting the common topics determined from the incident data base. The material would be in the form of on-line video and fact sheets.

 

3. Make the common causes of incidents discussion points during flight reviews.

 

 

[eightyknots]

What is wrong with moving the Hummel out of 95.10 where there is 300kg without parachute but 335kg with and move it into experimental where the single seater limit is not 300kg but speed limited at MTOW ... and 45knts stall is supposedly well within hummelbird at 42mph at current design weight?And whats with the ever increasing weight demands on the experimentals? when there was an empty weight limit on 95.10 yes there was a safety, a genuine safety reason to reassess the regulations.

 

I keep coming back to the concept of ULTRALIGHTS being low momentum low energy aircraft ... the physics of this makes no distinction between 300kg where 115kg is the aircraft or 300kg where 150kg is the aircraft BUT 544kg going at 45knts is already a shed load of energy to manage and IF your personal desire is to have 150knts and 3 hours of fuel with two largish people you really are not in the market for a low momentum low energy aircraft but a recreational aircraft that in my opinion that deserves an RPL/PPL and all that entails.

 

So I will be the heretic - what single policy will increase demonstrable safety in RAA aircraft (as measured by deaths) - REDUCE the weight limit of experimental and LSA within RAA coverage and lower the overall performance ...

The current limit of 600 kg is already quite a bit more than the previous 544 kg limit and considerably more than the 450 kg limit found in most of Europe. I agree that physics dictates that any increase above this will mean that any crash will lead to a bigger mess. I can also imagine that if we wish to increase the weight above 600 kg, CASA will want a greater involvement. Let's keep the sub-600kg weight firmly in RA-Aus control.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Those who imagine spin training is a panacea should remember the US and Canadian experience. The US abolished spins for private in around 1947. The Canadians kept the requirement until the early 21st Century. Then they abolished it because it wasn't making any difference to the spin in rate for private pilots except that they WERE losing the odd student and instructor while practicing spins, so they said in all conscience they couldn't keep the requirement.

 

The GFA spin requirement at annual checks hasn't been rigidly enforced and this hasn't been a problem. Many experienced glider pilots look upon spinning as a hazardous, unnecessary thing (a modern glider is generally fairly reluctant to spin, the wings are heavy and it doesn't happen all that quickly. Simply moving the stick forward will prevent the spin. The hazard is that it breaks into a spiral, you don't recognise it immediately and then take spin recovery action, which has been known to cause structural failure). The GFA will now enforce this requirement which should see a few more people seen off out of gliding and will likely kill some more students and instructors. Total lack of appreciation of what "risk management" means.

 

The simple thing to improve safety is make it MUCH harder to get and keep an instructor rating. 250 hours minimum to begin training as instructor and 50 hours a year instructing plus say 20 hours as PIC. This would hopefully lead to fewer people, who imagine they are flight instructors, imposing their incompetence on innocents.

 

Yes you might actually have to pay the fewer instructors but as has been said "what you get for free is worth what you pay for it".

 

 

[Oscar]

Mike, I would agree that 'developed spin' recovery training is inappropriate for RAA-class aircraft - and is probably inappropriate for all GA aircraft also unless consciously engaging in aerobatics. However - I would qualify that with reference to the particular aircraft involved and its individual characteristics in the circumstances of an unbalanced turning stall. What is benign in a Jabiru is anything BUT benign in, say, a Lancair 3X series, which drops a wing more than 70 degrees instantly in an unbalanced turn stall condition (according to the CASA Chief Test Pilot of the time, Keith Engelsman, I believe).

 

As a glider pilot of some renown, you will know the 'stick and seat-of-the-pants' feeling when in a thermal and the inside wing starts to drop, and I will put $10 on the bar that you kick rudder and ease the stick forward simultaneously as a purely experienced reaction without even registering it as a conscious 'recovery' action.

 

In fact, the 'experienced reaction' syndrome is completely NOT unique to flying. Amongst other activities I have personally engaged in, motor car racing, Rallye driving, motorcycle riding and racing yachting, all share exactly that same man-machine interface situation where control inputs are derived from sensory reception of the external conditions. In all of those cases, it is a sensory reaction rather than anything reported by instrumentation, that triggers the appropriate response. For car racing / rallye driving, the reaction is for the accelerator foot pressure and the steering wheel hand input pressure, balancing both to keep the vehicle on trajectory at the extreme limits of adhesion; for motorcycles, it is body position, handlebar pressure and throttle easing/increasing. For racing yachts, it is tiller pressure, mainsail and foresail/s sheeting, hull dynamics at heel angles and inertia calculation.

 

There is completely inadequate height available for full-spin recovery from a botched turn on base or final. What is needed in training, I believe, is competence in negating the onset of incipient spin in the lowest-possible loss of height. For want of a better description, I would call it 'immediate reaction to the onset of an incipient spin', plus consequent adjustment of the circuit to ensure arrival over the threshold at the best height and speed for a safe landing.

 

I believe that adequate training for all pilots in mitigating the effects of an incipient spin is of very high value. That requires experience, however, because it is primarily triggered by sensory reaction. The quicker the reaction, the less height lost and the greater the opportunity to turn a compromised approach into a successful landing.

 

We do not need spin-approved aircraft to teach the sensory reaction to an incipient spin -although exposure to a full, developed spin would be a high-value experience. It seems to me that the standard 'stall' training is practically useless; a balanced stall in modern aircraft executed through gradual increase of AoA in a balanced condition is complete fatuous in terms of the actuarial risk of a crash. Who, realistically, pulls the nose way up above the horizon in the circuit? Who does it when cruising? What is the statistical incidence of straight stalls resulting in impact with the ground?

 

I believe we need to look at the training syllabus with regard to what actually causes crashes. Train to prevent crashes - don't train for the purpose of 'rote learning' of situations that in real life simply happen only in the most extreme of circumstances.

 

 

[Nobody]

I think that the discussion above is a good one. MTOW and CTA will have little impact of safety. Improved training and a change in attitude a much greater influence on teh outcome.

 

Training of the general pilot population* should be about recognizing the onset to a stall/spin and correcting before it develops rather than the focus on the recovery after. With practice you can actually fly an aircraft very close to stalling in quite gusty conditions with relative safety. The controls of the aircraft give feedback that allow for accurate control of the aircraft. You can quite happily fly a 172 around for long periods of time with the stall horn sounding. I know because my instructor made me do it.

 

One point that is occasionally missed in the discussion of base to final turns and stalls is the different optional position. The lower an aircraft is to the ground the greater the ground takes up of the pilots view, coupled with the face that a turn made close to the ground may make the wing appear to move rearward with reference to a point on the ground. These combine to make a pilot want to pull back on the stick and apply too much rudder.

 

To counteract this and as a way of building confident control of the Aircraft the US PPL syllabus has "ground reference maneuvers". The turns around a point exercise is described here on page 6-8. It isnt part of the Australian PPL syllabus nor as far as I know the RA-Aus one either.

 

*Training of instructors, test pilots and aerobatic pilots should of course have a greater focus on recovery techniques rather than avoidance as they are most likely to experience a situation where the aircraft departs controlled flight.

 

 

[facthunter]

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

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

Who pulls the nose up to totally unrealistic pitch attitudes, mmmmm Asiana B777 crash of a TOTALLY serviceable a/c in San Francisco & Turkish airlines B737 after a radio altimeter failure on approach i.e. a very minor fault if you apply basic airmanship, resulting in a hull losses & fatalities. To put it into RAA perspective it would be like flying an approach speed of 25 knots in the Foxbat rather than the normal 50-55knots.