What do you predict will change in recreational flying in the next few years?

[Doug Evans]

I agree with some of you sentiments but the AUF just evolved with grudgingly given small blessings, over time. Some of the restrictions were ridiculous. You could hardly say it was "designed". WE are still evolving. I wish we built more as that takes a lot of the expense out of it for some who can't justify over $100,000, for a plastic or composite that in some cases you can't work on or modify. Nev

Yes but most of today s craft are not ultralight they are LSA you would be lucky to see an ultralight these day at our flyin

 

 

[turboplanner]

We've had two or three quite big threads on supporting ultralights, and they go on for some time with people saying what should be done but when the comments start to run dry and it's time for people to say what they are going to do, the thread peters out.

 

We didn't establish on the last thread there is no impediment to the ultralight section, and there are affordable models available.

 

It seems to hinge on whether anyone wants to go out and fly one.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Well you only got to listen to what people are saying there need too be change but the people in position are leaning toward GA and it s pushing the drive way from fun and afordabity just my two bob worth I know I can't change the direction it's going so I just do my own thing but this is a forum to voice our options right or wrong.

 

Cheers Doug

 

 

[kasper]

If RAAus manage to get any weight increase then I am sure there will be a big change to the maintenance requirements. This will probably be some sought of independent inspection prior to Rego renewal.I believe that is what happens in NZ, UK etc.

I also believe there will be some changes to the medical requirements. Maybe a visit to a doctor for a general health check at Certificate renewal. There has been two or three accidents this past 12 months due to a "Medical" issue.

 

I am not saying I am for any of this but can see these becoming a Regulator (CASA or RAAus) requirement.

Hmmm. Lets consider how to respond to a regulator looking at these areas:

1. 600kg hurtling towards you at 45knts is still a shed load of energy to be dealt with in an emergency arrival ... if your thinking on allowing 750 or 850kg at 45knts is a tipping point for maintenance I ask do you think this is equally applicable to non-factory airframes at the higher weight ... or is the higher weight only available to factory built?

 

And if its energy that defines the airframe operations as recreational (lets abandon the cloak of ultralight at these weights) then we may as well then ask about a sliding calc of stall*mass to set energy ... a single seater 300kg can then have a much higher stall speed ... looks like the potential to create even more complexity in who can do what and introduce additional risk of non-compliance

 

2. Medicals again ... so I gather the reason for increased medical on increased mass is to do with the potential energy in a crash ... we are after all still talking about only 2 people on board and a stall limit of 45knts ... so to protect people on the ground (because people on board can accept the risk of flying, on the ground they have no choice) additional medicals are needed?? Who is going to do these? Aviation medicals have already been accepted as not necessary AND if you want a GP to give any form of declaration please go and talk to the UK where getting GPs to even give a declaration of meeting a driving standard has been a sh*t fight for years to get them to understand that just because it says 'pilot' on the form does not mean you are personally stating they are passing a 'pilots' medical ... do not underestimate the GP community and their ability to frustrate what should be a simple system.

 

 

[NT5224]

A fascinating thread with many insightful observations and suggestions.

 

As many here have already said, rising costs in housing, energy and change in the postwar (baby boom) culture of financed retirement may have big implications for future aircraft ownership and participation in recreational flying. Also the growing regulation of recreational flying and aircraft maintenance.

 

Some commentators here have alluded to a possible decline in flying clubs, -but what about the prospect of clubs being strengthened?

 

One thing I notice about younger folks today is they have an positive attitude to 'sharing', be it sharing music files, movies, information, couch surfing, car pooling and the like. I guess a few years back 'ownership' was seen as a yardstick of success ( eg home ownership, or that first car), but I wonder if those values are still as entrenched? I hear it is increasingly common for urban folks to rent cars when they need them, rather than own them and carry all annual costs. Sadly some of these changes are driven because it is getting costlier and more competitive to get homes, jobs etc...

 

So assuming that people still want to fly, I would imagine that syndicates and clubs would become important avenues for access to aircraft and flying. Many flying clubs already use Goboko online bookings, how long until somebody dreams up a flight/ aircraft sharing system similar to Uber or Rideshare? So ladies and gents, we should enjoy the privilege of owning our personal Jabirus, Thrusters, Drifters, Tecnams etc... I wonder if this may become harder for future generations, but on the plus side this change may strengthen some of the social and institutional aspects of recreational flying.

 

Just some thoughts

 

Cheers

 

Alan

 

 

[facthunter]

Everybody has the right to air their view and that is what we are doing.

 

I suggest most who went to LSA did it for the 600Kgs. You have to give up a lot to be LSA. Below that weight you certainly have trouble carrying two people and fuel and tie downs etc and stay under the AUW allowed. If you are single seat you have a much bigger choice of aircraft but most want the option of flying with someone else there and of course it's essential for training. Our upper weight limit is something that just "happened". The CASA offered 762 Kgs. THAT would enable numerous safe designs to evolve that could utilise cheaper motors and materials and a stronger airframe. That would give more opportunity for new members to build and fly and not break the bank, and no doubt produce welcome innovation.

 

Talking of kinetic energy and the consequences of mixing it with innocent humans below, only covers the situation when we are over a populous area. NO single engined plane will stay in the air engine out and many of them carry quite a few passengers, over populous areas. The passenger, in our situation, is the one most directly affected, and our liability is limited there by only having one and the one is consenting to the fact of accepting a "plane" not covered by the usual rules. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

The 600 kg LSA is an international standard with lesser certifications standards and costs than heavier types per FAR 23 - I can't see that changing apart from the move towards a FAR 23-lite in the USA.

 

Too many LSA manufacturers for all to be viable and too many trying to squeeze too much performance/payload out of the LSA limitations - if the limitations are increased the same people will try to squeeze even more from them rather than improve robustness.

 

CASA once had a policy of dual pathways - be good if they made that happen with identical requirements/privileges for both - I am not optimistic that they will pick up any of the sensible USA regs.

 

"What do you predict will change in recreational flying in the next few years?"

 

I predict that I will get sick of dealing with CASA and sell my airplane - the proceeds will easily fund my flying fix with visits to the USA.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

I manage too fly around. With two up with only 400 kg limited ok but it is tight was in the early days 550 kg but power too be changed things but we manage !

 

 

[Nightmare]

Well that's one comparison....Another is the cost of cigarettes. During a recent trip a small package of cigarettes was delivered to a Roadhouse owner while I was there; you could hold it in one hand. He ruefully looked at it and told me he had to pay $3,000.00 for it - about $6000.00 at retail - a staggering amount for such a small parcel.

Wow! $6000 is about what I'm paying all up for flight training for my RPC without endorsements. Glad I don't have a nicotine habit

 

[bexrbetter]

Everybody has the right to air their view and that is what we are doing.I suggest most who went to LSA did it for the 600Kgs. You have to give up a lot to be LSA. Below that weight you certainly have trouble carrying two people and fuel and tie downs etc and stay under the AUW allowed. If you are single seat you have a much bigger choice of aircraft but most want the option of flying with someone else there and of course it's essential for training. Our upper weight limit is something that just "happened". The CASA offered 762 Kgs. THAT would enable numerous safe designs to evolve that could utilise cheaper motors and materials and a stronger airframe. That would give more opportunity for new members to build and fly and not break the bank, and no doubt produce welcome innovation.

The winning post, give this man a cigar!

 

Warning:

 

• Smoking causes peripheral vascular disease
   
   
  
• Smoking causes emphysema
   
   
  
• Smoking causes mouth and throat cancer
   
   
  
• Smoking clogs your arteries
   
   
  
• Don't let children breathe your smoke
   
   
  
• Smoking – A leading cause of death
   
   
  
• Quitting will improve your health
   
   
  
• Smoking harms unborn babies
   
   
  
• Smoking causes blindness
   
   
  
• Smoking causes lung cancer
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Before the next RAAus elections we need to ask all the candidates their stated positions on owner maintenance and cost-saving measures in general. I would also like to know it their positions will be held firmly enough to not change when they are in office.

 

 

[turboplanner]

How would you ensure you hear what they are doing when the do get into office Bruce?

 

 

[RDavies]

With the proposed weight increases, what sort of current GA planes will this bring enable to be used in RAA? Are there many which just miss out on the 600kg limit but will squeeze into the 752kg limit?

 

I suppose we could end up seeing more use for the new Rotax 915 when it comes out.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Are there many which just miss out on the 600kg limit but will squeeze into the 752kg limit?

From my limited knowledge base, yes.

 

Take a 320 to 350 kg plane, add 2 "healthy" Australian men, fuel and baggage for a decent trip and you are well over 600kgs. 752 may not be needed but I think at least 650 would be helpful, 700 ideal.

 

 

[NT5224]

With the proposed weight increases, what sort of current GA planes will this bring enable to be used in RAA? Are there many which just miss out on the 600kg limit but will squeeze into the 752kg limit?I suppose we could end up seeing more use for the new Rotax 915 when it comes out.

Bexrbetter is right. Many of the current RA fleet come up against the MTOW when fully loaded and fuelled.

 

Some types on the RA register are manufacturer rated well above 600 MTOW. The Jab 430 is rated to about 700kg I believe, so the 230 could potentially be similar. My own Murphy Rebel is rated to 750 kg MTOW, although my RA registration limits me to take off at less than 600kg. So if RAA MTOW was revised upwards to 750 kg it would make flying my plane much easier and much safer.

 

Capping operations at 600 kg means that people may need to reduce the amount of fuel they carry on a cross country flight to comply with regs.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

FWIW, I noticed the HBA Forum recently had it's highest number of people visit there in Nov 2015.Started in 2003.

I think this is due to the EAA winding down a lot of their free online resources for home builders. They have closed "the Experimenter" and stopped Sport Aviation's free online access

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think you will be overwhelmed by stuff from GA. The SIDS on the Cessna's would still apply and there's a few might be lightened a bit. My hope is we can build more with more choice of engine like the Lyc )-235& 233. Nev

 

 

[scre80]

From my limited knowledge base, yes.Take a 320 to 350 kg plane, add 2 "healthy" Australian men, fuel and baggage for a decent trip and you are well over 600kgs. 752 may not be needed but I think at least 650 would be helpful, 700 ideal.

Totally agree.

As many have commented, where to you draw the line between RA Aus and GA. Hard one but I agree 650 to 700kg. It means in a j230 which can be taken away with full fuel.

 

So do we bring up controlled airspace endorsement then!! I think this is a good one, mainly for confident on how to speak to controllers when and if the need arises. It would also help for making some trips north to south quicker in Adelaide, as I am sure it will in other states.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Totally agree.As many have commented, where to you draw the line between RA Aus and GA. Hard one but I agree 650 to 700kg. It means in a j230 which can be taken away with full fuel.

The problem is that if they give us say 650-700 that could introduce a new range of aircraft n the 450-500 kg range empty weight that then need another 100 kgs allowance to ly with full fuel.

 

Where does it stop. Don't get me wrong I would love to see 700kgs but it could become a circular argument

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Problem give an inch and they try to take a mile ' be happy with what we have Other wise move too the next category of aviation class so not to destroy what we have now

 

Just my thoughts

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think it's a circular argument. Eventually having a really heavy plane to carry TWO doesn't make a lot of sense, generally but what's wrong with a Pietenpol type of aircraft? Safe and structurally sound and slow. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Eventually having a really heavy plane to carry TWO doesn't make a lot of sense,

Nobody here is talking about a "really heavy" plane.

 

 

[kasper]

And the circularity disappears IF you stop applying a single stall speed to ALL aircraft within our group and and move to a maximum energy at stall speed you get speed^2 x mass

 

So lets say 45kts at 600kg is the current max and we want to stay there for energy you end up with a max of 45 x 45 x 600 = 1,215,000

 

Then ANY aircraft with a stall speed in Knts^2 * MTOW in kg <=1,215,000 is registerable and able to fly as Rec aviation

 

You then get sliding scale of stall speed based on MTOW to maintain the energy you are flying around:

 

300kg is allowed 64kts stall (Woo Hoo !!!!)

 

450kg is allowed 52knts stall

 

600kg is allowed 45knts stall

 

750kg is allowed 40knts stall

 

This also gets rid of silly allowances for floats, parachutes etc that are currently used to manipulate overweight airframes into RAA or give greater payload to make them viable - leave it as MTOW and stall speed and everyone is working from a common starting point.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

300kg is allowed 64kts stall (Woo Hoo !!!!)

450kg is allowed 52knts stall

 

600kg is allowed 45knts stall

 

750kg is allowed 40knts stall

You body weight doesn't change and neither do the G forces, in fact the heavier plane will want to carry further, more kinetic energy, and not stop as quickly as the lighter one.

 

I do agree that the stall speed should not change (from 45 knots). That makes for a competitive market, better planes will be more expensive but lighter and faster, and vice versa - take your choice.

 

 

[Marty_d]

And the circularity disappears IF you stop applying a single stall speed to ALL aircraft within our group and and move to a maximum energy at stall speed you get speed^2 x massSo lets say 45kts at 600kg is the current max and we want to stay there for energy you end up with a max of 45 x 45 x 600 = 1,215,000

 

Then ANY aircraft with a stall speed in Knts^2 * MTOW in kg <=1,215,000 is registerable and able to fly as Rec aviation

 

You then get sliding scale of stall speed based on MTOW to maintain the energy you are flying around:

 

300kg is allowed 64kts stall (Woo Hoo !!!!)

 

450kg is allowed 52knts stall

 

600kg is allowed 45knts stall

 

750kg is allowed 40knts stall

 

This also gets rid of silly allowances for floats, parachutes etc that are currently used to manipulate overweight airframes into RAA or give greater payload to make them viable - leave it as MTOW and stall speed and everyone is working from a common starting point.

Seems eminently sensible and similar to the changes in motorbikes allowed for learners. When I was learning it was limited to 250cc - but you could get a 250cc pocket rocket that would do 200kph (if you were light enough!)

 

Now, in Tassie at least, the limit is based on power to weight - there may still be an engine size limit but I've seen 600cc bikes with L plates.