Weight restricted MTOW

[storchy neil]

when did casa approve 600 kgs mtow for raa told you so that you were opening a can of worms going to that 600 kgs mtow when 450 kgs mtow safety bull over weight pilots should have gone to ga.

 

blame ?

 

recreational flying is for us all don't bitch about what has happened fix the problem that started back about 2005 when you wanted 550 kgs no we had to be greedy and want more 600kgs now some brain ded idiot now wants 750 kgs bring all planes back to 450 kgs

 

when I bought my plane 450 kgs mtow in aust 475 kgs mtow in Italy I am happy at that but then I weigh 68 kg s neil

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation

 

;-)

 

John

 

 

[Kitplanes]

Hi guys, I am a manufacturer from South Africa. Do not confuse licensing with certification. Let me start with certification. In RSA part 21 and 24 of the Civil Aviation Regulation lays down the law for certified(part21) and non certified aircraft(part24). It can be very confusing because a non certified aircraft can also be certified as a production build aircraft under part 24. The Slings mentioned here are what we called Production Build Non type Certified Aircraft. Confusing I know but in essence it means that it is a previously classified Amateur build aircraft that went through a certification process under supervision of the SACAA under part 24. This allows these aircraft to be build as production build aircraft. They are certified in the sense that the aircraft complies with an international certification standard like FAR 23, CS VLA or AST F2245 for LSA. It also means that the manufacturing facility conforms to the regulatory requirements for certified aircraft with the EXEPTION that for aircraft under 750kg there is no need to have a design organization approval as is required for full y certified aircraft. It also allows you to you approved but not necessarily certified equipment like the Rotax engines, MGL avionics and uncertied props. This ruling was for 2 seat aircraft only but there is heavy discussions going on at the moment regarding the Jabiru 4 seater as well as the Sling 4 as the intent was not to be able to sell 4 seat aircraft as production build under part 24. The moment an aircraft is production build in SA it means that it has certain extra privileges which include training and commercial use. This is now creating a safety concern and I think that is what is being address. The only reason this part was brought in was to accommodate the LSA and VLA categories but some companies were trying to sell the 4 seat aircraft under the 2 seat rule.

 

As for licensing, we have the ICAO PPL license and higher and you can basically fly anything from 450kg up to 5700kg on the PPL. Then we have the National license that is administered by RAASA (Recreation Aviation Administration of South Africa). They manage the renewal of the yearly airworthiness of all part 24 aircraft as well as the Recreational Pilots license. The RPL include Microlights, LSA, TMG, Gliders, Gyro's etc etc.

 

The LSA license if for MTOW of 600kg, 2 seats, by day only. We can have retract, VP and the max level speed is 150kts. Stall speed of 45kts. If you want any other privilidges then you need to get yourself a PPL.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

I'm hopeful good things are starting to happen...it seems there are some amongst us that have encountered this exact problem and it has been rectified quite quickly and painlessly. Let's hope this is the case in this scenario. Let you know more when I know more.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Nothing to advise yet, other than paperwork is being assembled by various authorities and I will be updated by the CEO next Friday 18th March. Whilst some reports on predicted progress have a very optimistic time frame for resolution, others are vague enough to implant in my mind a significant delay. So first things first and I will wait for the phone call on Friday.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

So, its now April 4th and I will try with an update on progress, or, depending on your perception, lack of it.

 

A list of required documents was submitted by RAAus to the importer that were deemed necessary to comply with CASA's evidentiary(?) requirements for higher MTOW. Both RAAus and the importer advise that the list was supplied quickly AND completely. As I was informed that "as soon as we (RAAus) have the documents we simply review them, forward onto CASA the paperwork and the recommendation for a higher MTOW, then they approve it and it should not be very long before a return to 520kg is obtained", I assumed that was it. But no, now I am advised that there has been a check list of multiple XL spreadsheet lines that needs complying with. My question then, was if the 520kg was certified as being in the original design and flight tests, as done by the country of origins certifying authority, why the extra spreadsheet checks? This was not satisfactorily answered, rather a reply question something like was that certifying authority recognised by CASA? This is like the chocolate ads that have the blocks all lined up. There is obstruction after obstruction after obstruction. All after this same body, RAAus, authorised the weight in the first place after receiving all the paperwork, dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

 

Just on the CASA recognition, as I get it, the system in the Czech Republic is a bit like the system here........in the Czech Republic the government aviation body does not certify ultralights. It has delegated the LAA-Cz to do that. If the LAA-Cz certifies an aircraft the aviation body accepts it as having passed the designated requirements. The LAA-CZ is the ONLY ultralight certifying body in the republic and its outcomes are recognised and adopted by the Czech Republic's administering aviation body.

 

Before the original registration here in Australia could be done, the legality/validity, call it what you will, of the LAA-Cz had to be determined, and it was done on a government to government level. The end result was that Australia accepted the authority of the LAA-Cz to issue the 520kg certification.

 

Now, think about this....after all the hoops had been jumped through to get the aircraft registered, there would have been some kind of communication (hard copy or electronic) from CASA to RAAus saying "yep, go ahead and register this aircraft at 520kg". So, all RAAus has to do is produce that communication which will be in the original file on registration application for the aircraft. I was told last week "that the filing system was in good shape and nothing has been lost"........ so it should be quite easy to produce. On production of the file it could be seen that all the requirements for the higher MTOW have already been met, that is why RAAus issued the Compliance Certificate.

 

If past decisions can be verified on production of relevant files, why the runaround? If the effort is to hide a past wrong, diffuse negligence or even an illegal act then it will not work. Any of the above need to be rectified immediately. From the off forum support it is obvious that I am not alone in the determination to have this rectified immediately or have other channels initiated to do so. Responsibility for actions taken, good or bad, have to be owned. I shoot someone, I go to gaol, I save someone, they say thanks. This is no different.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Okay, I'm back again for a further update....

 

Since the above post I have beèn very busy running around. The information I now have is from people who SHOULD know, however has to be verified by people that DO know.

 

The situation seems to be that there is a case that has a better than average chance of proving, due to the documentary evidence available.

 

It is based on the following:-

 

● RAAus, as the CASA delegated authority, performed an act it (according to RAAus) was not authorised to do in permitting aircraft to fly at a higher than permitted MTOW.

 

● RAAus continued to permit this state to exist for a number of years.

 

● RAAus provided evidence that the higher MTOW was THE approved MTOW at the time of purchase.

 

● RAAus (via the Tech Manager) issued official approval documents to operate at the higher MTOW

 

The opinion is that as a result of the above, a case of negligence can be mounted jointly and severally against:-

 

● CASA by not providing sufficient regulatory oversight on the operations of RAAus (as its delegate) and allowing this situation to exist,

 

● RAAus by not providing sufficient oversight of the Technical Manager and allowing this situation to exist,

 

● RAAus by not having an effective method of storing information for future retrieval.

 

Resultant effects of the above could be:-

 

● Loss of amenity of the aircraft for its purpose that is demonstrable

 

● Personal financial loss that is demonstrable

 

● Personal anxiety

 

So, where to now? Tomorrow I hope to make contact with the CEO and will know how progress is going. At this stage I have the feeling that because I have been reasonable in our discussons they are considering it as non urgent and continually putting me off with stories of progress and how hard they are pursuing the issue. A week ago I was meant to have been e-mailed the check sheet that the Tech Manager had given the CEO. It has not arrived yet, so you can get a bit of a picture from that.

 

Also this past week I was phoned by an interested party who was insistent that two individuals with power in CASA had an axe to grind with RAAus. They somehow became aware of the filing fiasco of RAAus and decided that was a good place to start. Gossip, yes, but interesting that this situation is a result of lost data. Some of it is data on RAAus letterhead that even I have supplied to RAAus because they did not have it!

 

 

[Nobody]

The difficulty is that the outcome you want, ( a higher MTOW) may not be possible to achieve. If the aircraft hasn't been properly tested, documented, permitted in the country it was built then CASA and RAAus can't accept it. The fact that they made a mistake by letting it fly at a higher weight doesn't mean that once the have realized this they can continue to let it fly at the higher weight. The only outcome you are likely to get might be some money that represents the difference in value between a high and low MTOW. I.e. The difference between what you paid and what you could sell it for now because that really is the only real loss you can demonstrate.

 

Getting the lawyers involved might speed things up if what you are asking for is possible and simple. If you are asking the impossible then their only option is to fight back with lawyers.

 

 

[coljones]

The difficulty is that the outcome you want, ( a higher MTOW) may not be possible to achieve. If the aircraft hasn't been properly tested, documented, permitted in the country it was built then CASA and RAAus can't accept it. The fact that they made a mistake by letting it fly at a higher weight doesn't mean that once the have realized this they can continue to let it fly at the higher weight. The only outcome you are likely to get might be some money that represents the difference in value between a high and low MTOW. I.e. The difference between what you paid and what you could sell it for now because that really is the only real loss you can demonstrate.Getting the lawyers involved might speed things up if what you are asking for is possible and simple. If you are asking the impossible then their only option is to fight back with lawyers.

I would join to importer, distributor and seller into any action as they might also share any culpability for this situation.

 

 

[jetjr]

as Nobody said they maybe cannot grant what you want

 

Therefore the only recompense is money and that belongs to other members

 

Its a bad spot your in, however there may be no way out other than sell the aircraft and move on to something else.

 

Large sums are lost regularly dealing with aviation regulation changes and decisions

 

 

[eightyknots]

...and, as frequently happens in legal disputes, the only real winners are the lawyers.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

If the aircraft hasn't been properly tested, documented, permitted in the country it was built then CASA and RAAus can't accept it.

But it has on all fronts, and CASA accepts TCs of EASA member states. The Czech Republic is a member state too. Just another reason not previously mentioned for acceptance.

 

 

[djpacro]

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/raaus-to-seek-weight-increase-from-casa

[Guest Andys@coffs]

DJP as I understand it RAAus seeking alignment of RPL and RPC MTOW figures on the basis that RPL was introduced to be an equivalent path to RPC, but yet the equivalency was not apples vs apples...... In any event all this will do if approved is for aircraft where the current 600kg legislative limitation to MTOW is lower than the deigned MTOW then the allowed RAAus MTOW will likely lift to either designed MTOW or the new legislated max, whatever that might be....while it talks of 750Kg reality is that RPL is actually 1500Kgs MTOW....

 

For this specific case where the argument is not about the legislative limit but the realities of the designed MTOW it wont change anything and even if it comes in tomorrow (Nah....a few more weeks yet!) then the argument will likely still exist.

 

Andy

 

 

[eightyknots]

http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/raaus-to-seek-weight-increase-from-casa

"Be afraid; be very afraid"

 

There have already been a number of weight increases over the last two decades. The last one was from 544 to 600 kg, a little more a ten per cent increase. An increase from 600 kg to 750 represents a further 17 per cent increase. This is almost a 30% increase over 544 kg. By this time, the laws of physics determines that an incident is likely to lead to bigger injuries or more frequent loss of life. What is the real purpose of the RA-Aus asking for this? Is it some kind of Empire Building, a way to increase the numbers of aircraft on that register rather than the VH register?

 

Picture this: once the 750 kg limit has been approved, I think we'll have a flood of ex-VH aircraft joining the RA-Aus register. Most of these are from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s; some are from the 1970s and 1980s. Whichever way you look at it, they are old aircraft, pretty much close to the end of their useful lives. The current RA-Aus register would have very few aircraft of that vintage. Some of these older aircraft may fall out of the sky (God forbid!) and that will lead to undue attention on RA-Aus. This is likely to result in a media call to "do something" and demand "tighter restrictions on those ultralight Cessnas" or words to that effect. The final outcome may indeed mean that the aviation-ignorant legislators feel that they need to satisfy the media demands and actually impose a stricter regime on all recreational aeroplanes.

 

Is this worth it? What do the majority of RA-Aus members actually want?

 

 

[poteroo]

Picture this: once the 750 kg limit has been approved, I think we'll have a flood of ex-VH aircraft joining the RA-Aus register. Most of these are from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s; some are from the 1970s and 1980s. Whichever way you look at it, they are old aircraft, pretty much close to the end of their useful lives

Correct, and with SIDS for Cessnas already culling a lot of airframes out of the air, it's likely the remnants might become very expensive 'RAAus' aircraft. I have seen several Grumman and Piper aircraft which were also proclaimed 'dead' due to corrosion - these owners 'crystallised their losses' as the stockmarket saying goes.

 

Have to admit that it was a thought bubble of mine to buy up old C150's and slot them into an RAAus flying school under new weight rules. But after seeing just how expensive SIDS can be - no way Jose' In any case, it's old technology, and they often need a lot of expense to update avionics, engine parts,paint and upholstery.

 

It would be useful to have a higher MTOW for some types, but human nature being what it is - there will be no incentive to discipline oneself, and the ever upward demands will continue on weight. Storchy Neil was on the right track - pilots could help themselves a lot by slimming down several kilos.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

There seems to be a presumption that cant make the grade in GA land will equal welcome onboard in RAAus land........Why is that?

 

Given the location of these comments within this thread (Sorry for the Hijack) and given its serious relevance to this new thread direction ??? Im pretty sure RAAus is unlikely to pronounce something well and healthy where in GA land it was declared Dead, or would have been if presented to those that declare such things.........

 

In the RAAus "Audit" which created the CASA enforced rolling grounding (No that's not the same as Saying CASA's fault...It was RAAus's fault clear and simple!) and the issues this thread speaks to, CASA found a number of Ex GA aircraft that somehow had magically transformed into RAAus Aircraft and almost immediately excommunicated them post haste...... Its unlikely to be an area that CASA gloss over in subsequent Audits...and there will be subsequent Audits.....

 

Im not sure I see the issue arising.

 

 

[kasper]

But it has on all fronts, and CASA accepts TCs of EASA member states. The Czech Republic is a member state too. Just another reason not previously mentioned for acceptance.

But JabiruJoe the problem is not that the Czech Republic member stat of EASA - the issue is that the Czech Republic in its OWN regulation and registration of microlights that are recognized under EASA by CASA is limited to their definition of microlight .... that is 450kg or 472.5kg if fitted with a whole airframe recovery system ... just like the Australian manufacturers selling into markets that have different definitions you have to very careful what is possible - basic problem (and the one identified and 'corrected' by CASA on audit by reduction of MTOW to home country MTOW) is that the allowable recognized MTOW in Australia under the recognition pathway was lower than the same airframe sold into a non-EASA/non-Czech Replublic

 

 

[Oscar]

And the weight / stall speed limitations for EASA country recreational ( or Ultralight category) registration being what it was /is, is the reason why Jabiru had to develop the 'UL' spec. Jabiru from the Australian spec. machine despite the fact that Australia had reciprocal rights for T/C recognition - despite our more generous specification. Sod-all to do with the actual competencies of the aircraft going in either direction into /out of Australia in practical terms, a question of the 'box' of regulations into which the respective aircraft had to fit to gain registered status.

 

 

[jetjr]

Re raa weigh increase, if the min stall speed isnt changed, very little will change

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

I guess you all know by now, but for those that followed and contributed to the original thread of this post and aren't aware of it, all problems have been sorted and the aircraft effected were returned to the original 520kg MTOW some months ago. I gave brickbats where necessary and now the bouquets....thanks to those in RA Aus that saw a responsibility to correct an injustice. The evidence was pretty clear as to what had happened, and steps taken by RA Aus, Michael Coates, the manufacturer, foreign regulatory bodies and owners to provide necessary documentation brought about this resolution. This was a fairly onerous and drawn out exercise but the outcome is 100% satisfactory.

 

I would again like to thank those that gave and offered legal advice and pledged financial backing should push have come to shove. It didn't because more reasonable minds saw fit to work hard on resolving the problem.

 

Ra Aus might need some pushing but where an injustice has occured they will work hard to rectify it for members. This outcome is a reason to give it full support as one day it may be you that needs their help.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I guess you all know by now, but for those that followed and contributed to the original thread of this post and aren't aware of it, all problems have been sorted and the aircraft effected were returned to the original 520kg MTOW some months ago. I gave brickbats where necessary and now the bouquets....thanks to those in RA Aus that saw a responsibility to correct an injustice. The evidence was pretty clear as to what had happened, and steps taken by RA Aus, Michael Coates, the manufacturer, foreign regulatory bodies and owners to provide necessary documentation brought about this resolution. This was a fairly onerous and drawn out exercise but the outcome is 100% satisfactory.I would again like to thank those that gave and offered legal advice and pledged financial backing should push have come to shove. It didn't because more reasonable minds saw fit to work hard on resolving the problem.

Ra Aus might need some pushing but where an injustice has occured they will work hard to rectify it for members. This outcome is a reason to give it full support as one day it may be you that needs their help.

That's nice to hear: an member-based organisation working for its members!