Weight restricted MTOW

[jetjr]

Yes CASA can do pretty much whatever they like. End of story. You can attempt to argue with them but likely they will claim safety issue and thats it. They dont care about you or your aircraft and money spent.

 

CASA can direct whatever they like but wont raise your MTOW. Your asking RAA to do something they simply cant do.

 

As far as discussions before with RAA, cant say how it was planned to rectify the issue before MARAP as there was no process other than to plead to CASA.

 

You would have to, depending on aircraft, get involved engineering support from qualified persons - who almost dont exist anymore Im told - and submit this all with documentation, as Kasper outlined. Get CASA approval for changes to certification. This is then only good for that one aircraft. There isnt a clear path and no guarantee of success. Id be surprised if it was worth it as it will cost plenty.

 

MARAP process development has been coming for some years as a way to sort out problems bit like yours. Itself only came into being last year I think and there has been some processed and good results.

 

The whole point of MARAP is using RAA tech division to run this modification process for you. They also are subsidizing engineering works as data is usable by others and have some level of approval through Darren.

 

My understanding was that it enabled RAA tech to put together proposed changes, with packaged information to streamline process within CASA.

 

Ultimately it will end up back in CASA's lap to approve or not.

 

Your are in a bad position but it comes back to unsuitable information being submitted and accepted by RAA and then CASA in the first instance, the original presenter got away with it, now sadly your caught without manufacturer to help.

 

 

[kasper]

I know how the classifications are set out I was merely pointing out the ludicrous differences between countries as it is the same airframe etc.

BUt either you accept that its country by country or you accept that there should be 1 supranational definition ... and given you are sitting in the UK where the BMAA have been defending the UK against EASA definition because they are MUCH more restrictive than your own I would be careful what you wish for.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

I've been told I can write to CASA and ask for an explanation as to why this first situation (i.e. approval at 520kg) transpired.

 

Assuming an honest answer is then received, I then go and contact the Minister who has 28 days to look into it and respond.

 

If on the other hand I don't get either an honest answer or just do not get a reply, I do the same thing.

 

At the very least it will highlight and then hopefully encourage something be done to rectify the situation a government body did that may have been illegal.

 

Anyone with experience out there know of this angle?

 

 

[kasper]

I've been told I can write to CASA and ask for an explanation as to why this first situation (i.e. approval at 520kg) transpired.Assuming an honest answer is then received, I then go and contact the Minister who has 28 days to look into it and respond.

If on the other hand I don't get either an honest answer or just do not get a reply, I do the same thing.

 

At the very least it will highlight and then hopefully encourage something be done to rectify the situation a government body did that may have been illegal.

 

Anyone with experience out there know of this angle?

FYI - the 28 days response from the minister is actually drafted in the department/authority ... CASA will be drafting it so do not expect much.

 

I did this response to public queries for the ISC back in the early 90's for the Treasurers office - its very frustrating writing pap answers or avoidance fluff when really you want to say to the poor mug Australian ... you asked the wrong question which I am not allowed to answer so here is a waffle and piss take answer to meet the politically drawn line.

 

This is the area where local members/non-ministers are actually more useful - they either write it themselves or their political/operational staff write the letters ... and they are much lower tow the line responses.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

That is helpful thanks Casper. Put that in the sequence of steps I think.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Just as another possible point to apply pressure....advice on the benefits/detriments of compiling the story, complete with the possible negligence of a government body, and submitting it to something like 7.30 Report or similar..

 

 

[kasper]

That is helpful thanks Casper. Put that in the sequence of steps I think.

Oh you still have to write to CASA first ... or the letter from the Minister is a complete fob off along the lines of "please contact the department/authority" - in your letter to the minister you have to reference the departmental/authority letter to short circuit the loop ... but you still get a fairly weak answer most of the time.

And yes, for those of who have worked in government departments and authorities we can confirm that to fair extent 'Yes Minister' was a training film ... had it in Canberra and London in both the Australian and UK governments over the years. I am happily out of that now.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Okay, thanks for the heads up on that. By the way I am sending you a pm shortly.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What has come to the surface in this thread, which might or might not be correct is:

 

(a) The RAA Tech Manager has been judged to have made a "reasonable" decision, but it has been argued that he would have rejected the weight if he'd gone to the extreme of a forensic decision.

 

(b) The aim of the exercise is to find the Tech Manager/RAA/CASA negligent, and following from that force the negligent party/ies to get your aircraft registered even though it would currently be illegal.

 

Good luck with that; I'd suggest, like others that you contact the RAA CEO.

 

 

[kasper]

What has come to the surface in this thread, which might or might not be correct is:(a) The RAA Tech Manager has been judged to have made a "reasonable" decision, but it has been argued that he would have rejected the weight if he'd gone to the extreme of a forensic decision.

 

(b) The aim of the exercise is to find the Tech Manager/RAA/CASA negligent, and following from that force the negligent party/ies to get your aircraft registered even though it would currently be illegal.

 

Good luck with that; I'd suggest, like others that you contact the RAA CEO.

On (a) I would argue it's not extreme forensic decision to identify that the legal limit = home country legal limit due to recognition pathway - the issue of was it RAA Tech without reference to CASA technical/legal is seperate but its hardly forensic to ask the correct question

 

 

[Roundsounds]

By the sounds of it you're flogging a dead horse expecting a MTOW increase. Have you approached the relevant consumer affairs department regarding the importer selling you an article which is not capable of doing what it was sold to do?

 

Maybe offload this aircraft and get one that will do the job you need it to do?

 

 

[Nobody]

This was posted on another aviation forum and gives some insight into the extent of the problems with RAAUS registrations.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-10136.pdf

 

 

[rankamateur]

Have you approached the relevant consumer affairs department regarding the importer selling you an article which is not capable of doing what it was sold to do?

Last time I talked to the NSW mob about something with wheels on it, they were not at all interested because the value was greater than $20,000.

 

 

[jetjr]

Yep, over $40k or sold to a company means largely consumer rights dont apply

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Just for the sake of clarity, I purchased the aircraft second hand which is why I had the time to do the due diligence bit. The fact that I actually aaked the relevant authority what was the correct MTOW, and they replied with 520kg, is what made me buy it, and is now stuck in my craw.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Just for the sake of clarity, I purchased the aircraft second hand which is why I had the time to do the due diligence bit. The fact that I actually aaked the relevant authority what was the correct MTOW, and they replied with 520kg, is what made me buy it, and is now stuck in my craw.

I agree, it does sound really unjust. Surely, someone responsible for the mess should sort it out. I hope you'll get the missing kilograms back soon JJ!

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Thanks for your support Eightyknots, I hope not only I get them back but all the aircraft effected by the situation. Not at all "a fair and just"(Darryl Kerrigan's words ) situation. We talk about an Australian ethos and a fair go, it's time for exactly that....a fair go.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's "a fair go for all", and it's worthwhile bearing in mind when you raise your heads above the wall, that many people in grass roots flying have paid out for the few who wanted to get into the more exotic classes, gone thourgh the failed audits saga and so on, and they need a fair go also, and they need the people who want to get out in no man's land to pay their own way.

 

 

[Downunder]

So, anyone can "knock up" their own plan or kit built aircraft.

 

Dodgy as heck or whatever (and I've see them, Bunnings bolts and all), yet a factory built aircraft (that we're all told are safer) that has an official document stating it is safe to 520KG but the registering authority won't accept it now, after initially granting that weight.

 

That stinks. Really stinks.

 

 

[facthunter]

Welcome to Aviation as it is practiced in Australia. Remember "We're not happy till you're not happy" . Logic? That time expired, long ago. Nev

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

I hope this is not going to turn into an us and them argument. I thought RA-Aus represented those that didn't fly, for whatever reason, GA. If that's not the case it may be time for a review (again) of the direction RA-Aus is on. BUT...that's not what this thread is about.

 

 

[Downunder]

RAA represents CASA.....

 

 

[jetjr]

Your pushing it towards us and them by talking of class action.

 

Its other members money your looking for even if simly to defend the claim.

 

RAA cannot reinstate your MTOW. Its not up to them.

 

If your considering battering the walls of CASA, just buy a new aircraft, will be cheaper and with some chance of success.

 

There are thousands of RAA owners suffering big losses right now due to CASA action.

 

Your problem revolves around the fact that the manufacturer has gone. If they were, proper documentation may be available.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Your pushing it towards us and them by talking of class action.Its other members money your looking for even if simly to defend the claim.

RAA cannot reinstate your MTOW. Its not up to them.

 

If your considering battering the walls of CASA, just buy a new aircraft, will be cheaper and with some chance of success.

 

There are thousands of RAA owners suffering big losses right now due to CASA

 

The first sentence relevent to defence is the issue, because of the members organisation being the body that is obviously negligent. Responsibility should be accepted. This is a case of defending the indefencible. Yeah, I know, dreaming that it would be so moral I know!

 

Secondly, are you saying it's okay for me to cop the loss but not the body that was responsible for it? And thirdly, if you are refering to The Jab issue, that is a little different in that a specific point of clarification was not asked of CASA or RA-Aus, and the answer given, that was a pivotal point in the decision making process.

 

And before someone starts jumping up and down I make it clear that I believe the Jab issue was handled much the same way my issue was handled. Heavy handed and not in a way that was helpful in solving the problem with the least possible inconvenience or speed. Come to think of it, the resolution attitude of the authorities seems to be similar....stonewall them because they are weak and disorganised and the body that represents them relies on us (CASA) to survive.

 

On the documentation issue, even RA-Aus have admittd they have all the documentation that CASA asked for when the original (2005-6) registration process for 520kg was in motion. That was one heck of a lot of documents from various people and bodies which included W&B, engineering, flight test results etc. The documents supplied corresponded with what was needed and hence the approval was given. The problem is that RA-AUS did NOT have the authority, from CASA or anybody, to issue the approval. In other words it was done fraudulently, illegaly, by the Tech Manager under RA-Aus's mantel as a delegate of CASA. It was allowed to continue for about 7 years. Lack of oversight by both CASA and RA-Aus? Negligent in the performance of their duty? Illegal even? I think so and just need to find out the best way to have a mutually acceptable resolution. Maybe it will happen fairly quickly with MARAP (once it is addressed) or maybe it will happen some other way. Time will tell.

[JabiruJoe]

RAA represents CASA.....

One of my points exactly.