Weight restricted MTOW

[JabiruJoe]

They supervise our rules as contained in the Ops & Tech manuals and audit our effectiveness and, where they perceive it necessary, require correction of any non-conformances.

I suspect you are correct in the assertion but not the practice. Perhaps they don't perceive negligence as a reason for correction?

 

 

[jetjr]

Unfortunately your whole problem is them correcting a mistake made previously.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Really, the first step is for CASA to put forward a sound and balanced safety case that justifies any restriction that they place on our flying freedoms. In allowing RAAus pilots exemptions from certain regulations, CASA is expressing its faith in the capability of RAAus to administer effectively. I doubt that they care too much whether it is done efficiently because they are not footing the bill for the administration. They supervise our rules as contained in the Ops & Tech manuals and audit our effectiveness and, where they perceive it necessary, require correction of any non-conformances. As we all know, RAAus went through a very dark patch a couple of years ago but is doing much better now. Not perfect but, in my view, sustainable and improving.

You've put your finger on their problem.

They allow private pilots to fly for recreation without an AOC, and they could have followed the same path and allowed what is now the RAA group to do the same while being managed under their rules, but that would have meant a much higher cost, and above that, the most risky end of the scale with the potential for plenty of liability payouts.

 

They also had the option of cutting loose and allowing the group to self-administrate while complying with certain rules while flying in their airspace.

 

But they didn't do that, they made some exceptions, but meddled in it with what you are calling restrictions to your freedoms, and in doing that, they re-assumed a lot of the liabilities while at the same time causing confusion and resentment amoun the recreational group.

 

What you have to be careful of though is not to lose sight of the fact that you will be named as co-defendant, or primary defendant in negligence claims if you don't put a foundation under what you are calling their faith.

 

While one or two big claims against RAA might have made this all clear, fortunately several bullets have been dodged.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I suspect you are correct in the assertion but not the practice. Perhaps they don't perceive negligence as a reason for correction?

You'd have to ask CASA their view on that for an authoritative answer. I would expect that RAAus would tell you that CASA are not happy with any kind of error that they discover and will bring it to the attention of RAAus and require rectification.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Hope you are right there Don. So far, my experience is not showing that. HOWEVER, I have made contact with the CEO and he has asked for some paperwork and is looking into it (the original thread post, #1). Hope you are right there Don.

This philosophical understanding is relatively new to RAAus (and probably to CASA) but, in my understanding, it is 100% correct.

Despite what some may think, the only reason for RAAus to exist is to allow its members to aviate, safely, with the lowest regulation and lowest cost feasible.

 

Recall also that AUF/RAAus was started by a small band of amateur flyers. There were huge advances achieved by the early team taking us from a handful of people teaching themselves to fly single-seater aircraft with short life engines at up to 300 feet in back paddocks to 10,000 pilots and 3,500 aircraft having relatively reliable 4 stroke engines and 10,000 ft and all of Class G airspace to play with. The big push over the last 3 years has been to lift the capability of the management and the Board. There has been a lot achieved but there is still plenty of room for improvement. Our present CEO and Tech Manager are in my assessment the best we've ever had in those roles - if anyone can sort through your issues they can.

 

All the improvement has come from active (i.e. not passive or even apathetic) ordinary members wanting RAAus to be better at the things for which it is responsible. Unfortunately, there are still some legacy issues hanging over from the "bad old days". It is awful that some members are still disadvantaged by mistakes in the past.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . they could have . . . allowed what is now the RAA group to do the same while being managed under their rules . . .

Part 103, if it ever sees the light of day, removes exemptions and sets the rules for recreational aviation within the CAOs and CASRs.

 

. . . but that would have meant a much higher cost, and above that, the most risky end of the scale with the potential for plenty of liability payouts.

RAAus spends perhaps $1.5 million p.a. on doing work which would otherwise fall to CASA's expense. They compensate RAAus for this to the tune of around $110,000 p.a. If CASA had to do the work with their high cost structure it could cost them something approaching $10 million p.a. I think I can see why the accountants at CASA love RAAus.

I don't accept that RAAus is the "most risky end of the scale".

 

I could be wrong but I don't believe our safety record is worse than GA.

 

. . . What you have to be careful of though is not to lose sight of the fact that you will be named as co-defendant, or primary defendant in negligence claims if you don't put a foundation under what you are calling their faith. While one or two big claims against RAA might have made this all clear, fortunately several bullets have been dodged.

By "you" I hope you mean RAAus Inc.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't accept that RAAus is the "most risky end of the scale".

The latest ATSB report seems to be confirming that description vs RPT. I would be looking closely at that report and starting to move pro-actively right now.

 

By "you" I hope you mean RAAus Inc.

Put your eyeballs back in - yes.

 

 

[Oscar]

This argument seems to be going around in circles. kasper, in post #4, correctly and concisely identified the basic problem: that the TC accepted by CASA as in force due to the reciprocal arrangements we have with EASA through the ICAO agreement limits that aircraft to the MTOW specified on the TC.

 

RAA certainly SHOULD not have allowed a higher MTOW than that specified on the TC (and the Australian version POH stated weight is irrelevant and might quite possibly be actually fraudulent, in that it is NOT a correct statement of the MTOW recorded on the TC under which it was imported as a factory-built aircraft). However, I am no legal expert and that statement could be quite incorrect - but again, I refer you to the disparities in the Pilot Manuals issued by two different distributors of this aircraft, links to which appear in Post #15. I reiterate, that both of these documents quote the same TC: one must be incorrect.

 

The TC was issued by the relevant Czech authority - which is consistent with the ICAO specification for the 'country of manufacture' as being the certificating Authority. The convulations within the EEC regarding 'group' rights vs. the rights of individual countries to modify regulations makes sorting out just who has responsibility for what incredibly arcane, but the ICAO parameters are clear. The TC is issued by the accepted Authority of the Country of Manufacture; there is no wriggle-room to take on board differences in operational limitations imposed by different countries within the EASA umbrella as applicable outside that country.

 

Or: in very simplistic terms: there is no ability to 'pick and choose' the 'operational' limits applied by different EASA countries. It is the TC that is the defining document. If ( for example) Romania decided to allow this aircraft to operate at unlimited MTOW - it makes absolutely NO difference to the acceptable MTOW in the TC. This is not a fanciful example: the FAA has provided a dispensation for the Icon seaplane to operate at above the ASTM MTOW limit while being registered as an LSA aircraft - but that has no validity outside the jurisdiction of the FAA. UNLESS CASA provides a complementary dispensation, you will not be able to register an Icon as an LSA in Australia - and nor would anybody within the aegis of the EASA be able to do so if EASA does not similarly issue such a dispensation.

 

If one were to legally challenge RAA for 'negligence' in the case of the original MTOW acceptance at 520 kgs, there is a prima facie case that RAA has indeed failed to comprehend the facts of the situation. However, if it were me undertaking this action, I'd be looking very hard at what documentation was supplied to RAA in support of the 520 kgs limit, to make very, very sure that the target of the action was properly in focus.

 

If there were ever a case for charging RAA with 'negligence' for accepting distributor documentation without adequate questioning, it would be for the acceptance of the Pacific Ibis under any guise, when it had NO certification status under any reciprocal ICAO country. There was simply NO path for acceptance of a factory-build aircraft that was not certified by an ICAO 'Authority'.

 

By comparison, the MTOW issues for the Allegro are a matter of fine distinction. While that is again of no comfort to JabiruJoe, it may be to his advantage to research the situation and - if deciding to take legal action against RAA - further consider whether that action should extend to (or 'join') other parties.

 

 

[Oscar]

The latest ATSB report seems to be confirming that description vs RPT. I would be looking closely at that report and starting to move pro-actively right now.Put your eyeballs back in - yes.

Recreational/Sport Aviation isn't as safe as RPT? Who could have imagined that might happen?

 

Back on Planet Earth and in this reality, those who fly in Recreational/Sport aircraft, understand that there is a likely disparity between the safety offered by aircraft costing no more than the mid-$150k range which they can maintain themselves (to a degree, anyway) and RPT aircraft costing 10 + times that, maintained by professionals. It's called 'acceptance of risk'.

 

Perhaps, if your loosen your belt, Turbs, you will be able to assume a position that will allow you to get a more realistic view of the world. I'm no great optimist, but miracles do happen..

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I'm aware that the manufacturer has done "in-house" testing and are confident that the Sling should pass proper (i.e. independent") certification for VLA. That isn't the same as actually having VLA certification and a type certificate for 700kg.

John,

I received a response from the Airplane Factory. They have approx 70 Sling 2 (not LSA) aircraft ZU (our VH) registered with MTOW 700kg in South Africa with many in flying schools (factory built).

 

They are in the process of getting VLA reg for EASA countries at, of course, 700kg.

 

Point being that I think there is enough evidence around to say that the Sling (2 seater) can fly safely at 700 kg MTOW with a stall below 45 KCAS. What happens in Australia in future will be interesting to say the least.

 

Just for fun, I ran some W&B calcs at 700kg with 150L fuel (full tanks) 160kg (pilot + pax) and 35kg baggage (max allowed). The resultant C of G:

 

min = 1.635 calc = 1.779 (Just a tad towards rearwards) max = 1.808

 

Can't imagine I'd ever have even 20kg of baggage which would move the CofG slightly towards the centre (1.763) if you add the 15kg saving back onto the pilots.

 

Don

 

 

[turboplanner]

Recreational/Sport Aviation isn't as safe as RPT? Who could have imagined that might happen?Back on Planet Earth and in this reality, those who fly in Recreational/Sport aircraft, understand that there is a likely disparity between the safety offered by aircraft costing no more than the mid-$150k range which they can maintain themselves (to a degree, anyway) and RPT aircraft costing 10 + times that, maintained by professionals. It's called 'acceptance of risk'.

Perhaps, if your loosen your belt, Turbs, you will be able to assume a position that will allow you to get a more realistic view of the world. I'm no great optimist, but miracles do happen..

It's amazing, how two people can be having a broad conversation where words are not critical, but nevertheless reasonably compliant with the first, second, and third lines of your post, and yet bring a reaction not unlike a cat that's just had its posterior doused in petrol.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

RAA certainly SHOULD not have allowed a higher MTOW than that specified on the TC (and the POH stated weight is irrelevant and might quite possibly be actually fraudulent, in that it is NOT a correct statement of the MTOW recorded on the TC under which it was imported as a factory-built aircraft). However, I am no legal expert and that statement could be quite incorrect - but again, I refer you to the disparities in the Pilot Manuals issued by two different distributors of this aircraft, links to which appear in Post #15. I reiterate, that both of these documents quote the same TC: one must be incorrect.

Thanks Oscar, if it gets to the litigation stage that will be a point to examine, however I trust sense will be seen and responsibility accepted and errors corrected. If MARAP is the way to go then MARAP it should be, but quickly, not the snails pace it has been proceeding at. The Czech certification authority's certificate (I have a copy) says ...."all strength and flying tests for the Allegro 2000, for MTOW 520kg has been completed... (and a certificate is issued)".

 

It could be possible that the aircraft might then have another smaller MTOW applied somewhere, but if yet another different place wanted to do the 520kg MTOW then all the testing/design work has been done for 520kg by the certifying authority. This would mean that if the country the plane is registered in had a limit of 450kg MTOW then that would be the limit. If the country of registration had 510kg or 520kg then that would be the limit because up to 520kg MTOW is covered in the original certification document. All a bit of a moot point though.

 

The purpose of my comment is to correct the bit about incorrect PoH details as the acccepted one by RA-Aus. It is not the POH figure, the figure came from the certificate issued by the Czech certifying authority. RA-Aus did not authorise a HIGHER weight than that certified, they merely authorised the plane to operate at the "up to a maximum 520kg" figure it was built to, test flown to, and certified to, by the country of origin's certifying authority.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

This argument seems to be going around in circles. kasper, in post #4, correctly and concisely identified the basic problem: that the TC accepted by CASA as in force due to the reciprocal arrangements we have with EASA through the ICAO agreement limits that aircraft to the MTOW specified on the TC.

Round and around..MTOW on TC was 520kg. That's TC, not POH, not exceeding TC limit. TC was 520kg.

 

 

[Oscar]

JabJoe: this is NOT meant to be in any way combative - you are in an invidious position and you ought to receive justice. I am trying to help you to narrow your target to areas where there is a reasonable chance of ROI, should you try legal remedies.

 

The Czech Authority COULD NOT have certificated that aircraft at above 450 kgs MTOW. Please look at: http://en.laacr.cz/about-laa.htm IF your aircraft is TC'd under: Type Certificate LAA Czech Republic No.05/2000 from October 17.2000., then it CANNOT be TC'd - by them - at above 450 kgs. They simply don't have authority to issue TC's for in excess of 450 kgs MTOW - that is clear. What was the TC issued for your aircraft ( and what authority issued it?) If it's NOT issued by the Czech LAA, then you have a rolled-gold case against RAA, I think - provided that the TC Authority meets the requirements of 'country of origin.' .

 

That is in no way a statement of the ACTUAL capability of the aircraft: it is ONLY a statement of the validity of a TC issued by the Czech LAA. I'd be perfectly happy to step into an Allegro 2000 and take off at 520 kgs.

 

HOWEVER: IF RAA was provided with documentation that purported to validate an MTOW in excess of that permitted by the Certification Authority of the country of manufacture, then there is quite possibly malfeasance on the part of the provider of that information if that party was in a 'trusted' or 'responsible' position. Where RAA's negligence may lie, is in accepting such documentation without 'due diligence'.

 

Do you have a reference to the actual TC applicable to your aircraft? That could clear up a whole lot of this at one stroke!.

 

 

[Oscar]

It's amazing, how two people can be having a broad conversation where words are not critical, but nevertheless reasonably compliant with the first, second, and third lines of your post, and yet bring a reaction not unlike a cat that's just had its posterior doused in petrol.

A very piquant observation, Turbs. I really do need to moderate my responses in the knowledge that I do not tolerate fools lightly.

 

Will try to do better.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No second prizes, sorry.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

No problem Oscar, I didn't mean to imply combat, I'm just very thankful for your comments and those of everyone else too. It is a situation I am in that I am looking for advice to slove and extricate myself.

 

So, the TC, according to RA-Aus document is #UL-05/2000 issued by "The LAA. CR", it goes on to say"1. Allegro 2000 aircraft are restricted to a maximum Take Off Weight of 520kg", "2. This acceptance is based on the approval form(sic) the LAA. CR that the Allegro, strength, and flight tests have been completed, and a certificate issued" all dated 24 Sept 2004.

 

The LAA. CR document is signed by a Vaclav Chvala, Chief Engineer, LAA. CR

 

 

[Oscar]

JabiruJoe: did that document actually provide a citation to the 'certificate issued'? Seriously - before starting the meter running with a legal beagle - get a copy of that 'certificate' DIRECTLY from the Czech LAA. RAA has sometimes been provided with fraudulent documentation.

 

 

[Geoff13]

A very piquant observation, Turbs. I really do need to moderate my responses in the knowledge that I do not tolerate fools lightly.Will try to do better.

 

No second prizes, sorry.

You two guys should get a room.

 

 

[coljones]

Snip...snip...snipJust for fun, I ran some W&B calcs at 700kg with 150L fuel (full tanks) 160kg (pilot + pax) and 35kg baggage (max allowed). The resultant C of G:

 

min = 1.635 calc = 1.779 (Just a tad towards rearwards) max = 1.808

 

Can't imagine I'd ever have even 20kg of baggage which would move the CofG slightly towards the centre (1.763) if you add the 15kg saving back onto the pilots.

 

Don

More than 20kg of baggage? Bottles of plonk from the trip to Coonawarra?

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I received a response from the Airplane Factory. They have approx 70 Sling 2 (not LSA) aircraft ZU (our VH) registered with MTOW 700kg in South Africa with many in flying schools (factory built).

They are in the process of getting VLA reg for EASA countries at, of course, 700kg.

 

Point being that I think there is enough evidence around to say that the Sling (2 seater) can fly safely at 700 kg MTOW with a stall below 45 KCAS. What happens in Australia in future will be interesting to say the least.

All Sling's in South Africa would be ZU registered as they don't have a separate register for Microlights (aka recreational aircraft). I guess they operate at 700kg under an arrangement with CAA in a similar way to FAA & Icon as mentioned earlier.

 

I don't think you need to go as far as South Africa for evidence of them operating > 600kg MTOW but evidence isn't what is required to do so legally. Hopefully the factory VLA certification can be retrospective so you can have your 8 hour endurance ;-)

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[jetjr]

The system in South Africa is interesting, they have many J430 flying with 4 people and 750 kg too

 

They are built locally and i guess manufacturer makes the claim.

 

 

[facthunter]

Anyone who can put up with the current situation has plenty of endurance. Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

All Sling's in South Africa would be ZU registered as they don't have a separate register for Microlights (aka recreational aircraft). I guess they operate at 700kg under an arrangement with CAA in a similar way to FAA & Icon as mentioned earlier.

Do you mean that they have satisfied RSA authorities that the aircraft is safe at 700kg?

 

I don't think you need to go as far as South Africa for evidence of them operating > 600kg MTOW but evidence isn't what is required to do so legally. Hopefully the factory VLA certification can be retrospective so you can have your 8 hour endurance ;-)

They were originally designed and built for 700+kg for RSA. They then chased LSA in the USA as that was the easy (and cheap!) way to get them onto the market in the USA.

 

Pretty sure I'd not want VLA if it comes with LAME maintenance. I cope OK now with 600kg MTOW. Solo I can take the full 150L and 15kg baggage and with my wife on board I can still take 5 hrs fuel (4hr + 1hr res). Just means I have to top up before the return trip.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Do you mean that they have satisfied RSA authorities that the aircraft is safe at 700kg?

You would like to think that was the case but I really have no idea - sorry !

 

Pretty sure I'd not want VLA if it comes with LAME maintenance.

I don't believe that VLA certification would necessarily require LAME maintenance.

 

AFAIK an aircraft with VLA certification could be registered by RAAus right now provided it met the appropriate parts of 95.55(though it would of course be limited to 600kg even if the type certificate permitted a higher MTOW).

 

For example if the TAF had a VLA type certificate for your Sling, you could have registered it with RAAus as an ultralight with 600kg MTOW rather than an LSA.

 

Such an aircraft would be maintained under the existing RAAus Tech manual regulations would it not ?

 

Cheers

 

John