Weight restricted MTOW

[gandalph]

JJ I have to take issue with your use of the term "fraudently" in accusation that "In other words it was done fraudulently, illegaly, (sic) by the Tech Manager......."

 

I quote from a Uni of Melbourne article: http://insights.unimelb.edu.au/vol12/07_Ferguson.html

 

"While there is no definition of fraud in the Australian criminal code the Australian Fraud and Corruption Control standard defines fraud as:

 

A dishonest activity causing actual potential financial loss to any person or entity ........ by employees or persons external to the entity whether or not deception is used at the time, immediately before or immediately following the activity. This also included the deliberate falsification, concealment, destruction or use of falsfied documentation used or intended for use for a normal business purposeor the improper use of information or position.

 

In essence, the key elements of a fraud include a

 

representation

 

about a

 

material point

 

which is

 

false

 

and

 

intentionally

 

 

so, which is

 

believed

 

and

 

acted upon

 

by the victim to the victim’s

 

damage

 

."

 

So it seems to me that the allegation of fraud could lie against the entity that originally provided you with the information which you then provided to the RAA (if you believe that the information contained deliberate falsifications.) It seems to pivot on the words deliberate and intentional.

 

You might want to get some legal advice before you decide at who you're aiming.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

So it seems to me that the allegation of fraud could lie against the entity that originally provided you with the information

Absolutely, thanks for that Gandalph. I have no idea on this and am happy to receive comments of guidance.

 

Just on the point of originality. I purchased the aircraft second hand, it was already registered at 520kg. So I did not provide any information to RA-Aus, they provided it to me. That would seem to make them the original supplier of information to me?

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Jetr and all others reading these threads, sorry for the entry #88 error in posting. The quote to jetr should have stopped at "big losses now due to CASA" but somehow ended looking like jetr wrote the rest as well. From " the first sentence to the end is my comment. Mr Admin, happy for you to clarify that if possible by splitting them into different coloured backgrounds for quote and comment.

 

 

[gandalph]

JJ,

 

If I decide to buy a second hand one tonne ute for my business and I take it to a mechanic who checks it over and he tells me that it is roadworthy; safe to drive and fit for purpose. I then take to the Road Traffic Authority and they check it and agree to register it. Some time later I get a letter from the RTA telling me that the information provided to them by the manufacturer of the ute was incorrect and that the ute cannot now be registered to carry originally specified load.

 

Do I have a claim for negligence against my mechanic or against the RTA?

 

Asmol,

 

RE your post #90. Can I now sue the Mechanic if he now works for the RTA and was the person who signed the letter from the RTA advising me of the change in rego status? Or should I pursue the importer or their agent?

 

 

[dlegg]

JJ,If I decide to buy a second hand one tonne ute for my business and I take it to a mechanic who checks it over and he tells me that it is roadworthy; safe to drive and fit for purpose. I then take to the Road Traffic Authority and they check it and agree to register it. Some time later I get a letter from the RTA telling me that the information provided to them by the manufacturer of the ute was incorrect and that the ute cannot now be registered to carry originally specified load.

Do I have a claim for negligence against my mechanic or against the RTA?

 

Asmol,

 

RE your post #90. Can I now sue the Mechanic if he now works for the RTA and was the person who signed the letter from the RTA advising me of the change in rego status? Or should I pursue the importer or their agent?

Classic

 

 

[SDQDI]

But it is much more complicated than that Gandalph.

 

You have the first bit right but after the 'some time later' you have simplified it too much and miss some vital things. Maybe it should read, Some time later i get a letter from the RTA telling me that the country wherein my ute was built only allow 750kgs of load in Utes and seeing as we have an 'agreement' with that country we are going to have to derate your ute to 750kgs even though the manufacturer has designed it to handle 1 tonne. Thank you for your time and suck it up princess.

 

Personally I think the situation is silly and I don't see an easy out for those affected. As much as I don't want to see Raa have to pay anyone out I think that the 'fair' thing to do would be to buy back those planes affected or pay a nominal sum to those affected that was say maybe half the purchase price of their plane. But as we all know, legal outcomes are not always fair to all and I think trying to get money out of casa is futile and trying to get money out of Raa would seem to be as hopeless. MARAP seems to be the only light in that tunnel.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Some time later I get a letter from the RTA telling me that the information provided to them by the manufacturer of the ute was incorrect and that the ute cannot now be registered to carry originally specified load.

Minor difference in the situation here.......nobody is saying the information given by the manufacturer is incorrect. The aircraft is sill designed, built and test flown along with all the other requirements to at least 520kg. Even CASA will acknowledge that. The information provided by the manufacturer IS correct still. It is NOT the information that is incorrect, it is that RA-AUS/CASA lacked their duty in diligence and permitted a situation to be approved (which seems to have been illegal) and remain in operation for a period of time, during which people relied on the regulatory authority to provide accurate, correct information. BUT, they did not and it has resulted in difficulty for more than just myself it seems. Again I ask, shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions?

 

A digression here that may help to explain my outlook.....it seems here in Australia I am responsible for what you do, you are responsible for what I do, but I am not responsible for what I do. I firmly believe I should be responsible for what I do, I also firmly believe that if you want to get drunk and dive off a bridge and break your neck that I am not responsible even though I may have built the bridge.

 

 

[gandalph]

But it is much more complicated than that Gandalph.

Agreed. It was a very broad analogy.

 

 

[gandalph]

Minor difference in the situation here.......nobody is saying the information given by the manufacturer is incorrect. The aircraft is sill designed, built and test flown along with all the other requirements to at least 520kg. Even CASA will acknowledge that. T

I understand that JJ but what was the manufacturer's certified MTOW?

I think Kasper summed it up very well in post #4 when he said:

 

Odd but understandable - if yours is the original Allegro 2000 with the tapered wings the testing was to the higher 521kg limit and was availabl;e in non-Czech countries at that level HOWEVER the Czech definition of microlight for their own purposes has a max of 450kg .. which means if yours came into Australia as a factory built under the Czech certification tests it SHOULD have been always limited to 450kg even though the airframe was tested to higher and in other countries it was sold with higher. The issues appears to be a combined whammy of Australia granting factory built acceptance for registration based on Czech certification at 450kg BUT the wrong data being supplied to RAA and accepted by RAA and CASA as to what the Czech limits were and originally signing off at 520kg.

The issue seems to hinge on whether the RAA acted on the information provided by the Australian importer/agent when RAA type acceptance was first sought, or whether the RAA was aware of the difference between the Manufacturers specified MTOW and MTOW information provided by the original applicant for RAA acceptance but chose to go with the information provided by the importer. Put simply: who provided the wrong information?

 

Rumours abound about previous Tech Managers being told by a now departed Board member to either take direction from said Board member on technical matters well outside his sphere of competence, or pack their bags. Apochryphal or not?

 

JJ, It might appear to you that I am being combative. Let me assure you that I'm not. You have been dealt a lousy hand and it stinks. I truly hope you can achieve some satisfactory resolution, but I also seriously doubt you will

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree with G,

 

Your in a crap position and I sympathise but be clear what you can realistically hope to achieve.

 

From RAA you claim "fraud", well the only recompense available is money.....members money. They cant provide much else.

 

If you plan to take on CASA ill warrant youll get nowhere and loose plenty of your own.

 

Also be aware maybe of you push too hard and they bring down an early negative finding, it will be near impossible to modify through MARAP or anything else.

 

You say the documents were adequate, well obviously not, CASA revoked approval which is a pretty big step. Documents outside certification which the shared acceptance is based, doesnt automatically become part of the cert. A builder or manufacturer can change these things but not a subsequent owner. Depends how it was imported but maybe importer is considered a subsequent owner too.

 

Youve got to build the case and back it with engineering. The importer didnt do this, he managed to get it past RAA, fly it and sell it on and your now caught.

 

As mentioned those running RAA at the time are now in charge of CASA SASAO so again be careful who you accuse of fraud.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Jab Joe, I've just read through 100 posts and concur with the suggestion to escalate your issue to the CEO Michael Linke.

 

Regards the tragic Sting accident at Goulburn, I have been privy to a great deal more information than has been revealed on this thead and all I can suggest is that you may as well move on because unless the matter is reopened in a legal process, you will never get to hear the full facts. Legal privilege and confidentiality agreements have sealed the matter. Speculation then really is a waste of everybody's time - however entertaining some may find it.

 

 

[JabiruJoe]

Yes, thanks Don. I have a big week this week but have made the note to try and call him tomorrow or Tuesday.

 

To all readers....I would greatly appreciate it if you know anyone with a European aircraft that may be weight limited, could you direct them to this forum and ask them to pm me. I would love to get an idea of just how many affected owners there are. If you can contact any FTFs that you are in contact with and do the same, with a joint effort we might get a bit of perspective on the scale of the problem.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I should mention that my Sling is limited to the LSA 600kg but can be registered in Europe under the VLA standard at 700 kg. Its engineering design with a moderate stall speed is more than that again. This model has been flown from Joburg across the South Atlantic to America starting with a take off weight of 1,100 kg.

 

The limit of 600 kg just means that I can't legally fill my tanks (150L total) and fly. I must sacrifice fuel reserves or duration. It also limits aircraft designers as to how much strength they can build into an LSA. The restriction based on MTOW makes no sense to me and never has. By all means limit the stall speed in the landing config, limit the POB to 2 I could even accept limiting engine HP but limiting weight just attacks strength and fuel capacity.

 

In the end you are limited to the legal not engineering limit.

 

RAAus is well advanced on an application to CASA to remove the illogical MTOW restrictions for RAAus pilots (not aircraft). You might remember that Lee Ungermann, while RAAus CEO put a case to CASA to lift RAAus pilots to 760 kg MTOW.

 

If CASA were to knock back our application for higher MTOW for RAAus pilots I would then become interested in some kind of co-operative action to get that decision reviewed. But, I would never get involved unless all usual channels had been explored first.

 

None of the above does anything for people whose aircraft MTOW has been unreasonably been fixed below its engineering capability especially if that higher limit is still below the RAAus pilot limit of 600 kg. That is a decision of CASA.

 

Problem originated with CASA doing us a favour by not making Australian importers of aircraft from overseas go through the type certificate process in Australia if it had already been through that process and been passed in a country acceptable to Australia. If I understand it correctly, if the original importation of the Allegro had been done on the basis of an Australian Type Cert, the 520 kg would have been available from day 1 and never changed. The way it was introduced to Australia, 450 kg is the only answer possible.

 

The MARAP process has been trialled at glacial speed through CASA and there have been just a small number put through and have been successful as has been reported by Tech Manager Darren. Once CASA get used to the process it should speed up considerably especially where a precedent approval exists.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don, the argument that you can't carry full passengers and full fuel (I assume you made a mistake about cutting back on the legal reserve) is not one you are likely to win, or even should win.

 

If you go through the GA line up of single engine aircraft you'll have to go a long way up the power range to find one that can achieve that. Even the Cherokee Six is really a Cherokee 5, or multiple fuel stops if you are on a long trip. That's one of the reasons why performance and operations is such an important subject in learning to fly.

 

Weight and G forces determine structural strength required; the problem is just plain engineering, except where artificially and non-engineering based weights are applied by people who don't know what they are doinging.

 

 

[jetjr]

Missed the point TP, those GA aircraft can carry up to their maximum design weight, many RAA are not allowed to do this and have to restrict fuel or pax to come under legal MTOW limit.

 

Stall speed is a poor tool for limit too as it isnt easy to determine and 1-2 kts can mean big weight increases possible all the while within aircrafts design weights

 

 

[Nobody]

Missed the point TP, those GA aircraft can carry up to their maximum design weight, many RAA are not allowed to do this and have to restrict fuel or pax to come under legal MTOW limit.Stall speed is a poor tool for limit too as it isnt easy to determine and 1-2 kts can mean big weight increases possible all the while within aircrafts design weights

Jetfr and Don, what would you propose as the limits for a RAAus aircraft? There has to be a limit somewhere.

600kg is so only an issue if the manufacturers design to a much higher limit and then try tons ll an aircraft in Australia or the USA without doing a redesign. For a start 150 l is a bit over the top for a rotax 912. That would have to be about 9 hours.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

or in Don's case with the 912is.......almost enough to go east coast to west coast (Nah not really!)with merely a large piddle pack......

 

But seriously I can think of life being made easier if it can be carried...there are plenty or airfields where transportation to a suitable source of 91mogas is problematic......what's wrong with having sufficient to get there and back and still meet your reserve requirements....

 

Andy

 

 

[jetjr]

Once you get regional there are fewer places with Avgas too. Getting somewhere 3 hrs away and back again I do a lot, having to divert to get fuel - when I have half empty tanks is a pain and could be argued compromises safety. Another airfield, often a busy one, circuit, landing, take off. Often ASIC too...

 

Aircraft can handle 700+ kg, yet limited to 600 or originally 544kg. Only hold up is 1-2kts stall speed.

 

Yes there has to be a limit and in reality its going to come down to selecting some existing aircraft and seeing what numbers fit.....which is where the 760kg came from Id say.

 

Lots of aircraft - Like the Allegro in question, the Sling, Lightning, RV and all the larger Jabirus are designed to handle much higher weights in GA registration. So are a fleet of older Cessnas.

 

 

[Nobody]

So why dont you register your aircraft with CASA in the primary catergory at the higher weight get an RPL and go for it?

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c07.pdf

 

 

[jetjr]

Need an RPL...... and no self maintenance

 

And not being the builder possibly cant raise MTOW anyway - VH reg dont have access to MARAP

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . what would you propose as the limits for a RAAus aircraft?

The point is that the limit is on the pilot not the aircraft. At the moment RAAus pilots (RPC) are limited to fly aircraft with a MTOW of 600kg or less. We also have a restriction of the MTOW of RAAus registered aircraft regardless of their CASA (or overseas equivalent) approved design MTOW.

 

There has to be a limit somewhere. . . .

Well, there is a not unreasonable limit already established - for the RPL - and it is 1,500 kg but the limit for the RPC (said by CASA to be the equivalent of the RPL) is still only 600kg. Again this limit applies to the pilot not the aircraft. RAAus is working with CASA at the moment to have the limit for RPC lifted to equate with that for the RPL. That will solve a great number of issues especially for stronger aircraft like the Sling and J230 as long as the respective manufacturer is prepared to certify at the design weight and revise the POH. There is already a Euro standard that these two aircraft could slot into (CS-VLA Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft:

 

• A single engine with spark or compression ignition (i.e. no jets).
   
   
  
• One or two seats.
   
   
  
• Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of not more than 750 kg.
   
   
  
• Stall speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of no more than 83 km/h (45 knots).
  Flown of course under day VFR
   
   
  

 

 

The difference in stall speeds for the Sling at 600kg (43kts) and 700 kgs (44kts). Hardly a safety issue.

 

. . . 600kg is so only an issue if the manufacturers design to a much higher limit and then try tons ll an aircraft in Australia or the USA without doing a redesign.

And what would that redesign entail? Reducing the strength of the aircraft - and how is that a good thing or an contribution to safer aircraft?

 

. . . For a start 150 l is a bit over the top for a rotax 912. That would have to be about 9 hours.

For the 912iS that is correct with a reserve of another hour. I've flown my Sling at 118 kts TAS (5,300 rpm) at 7,500 ft burning 13.6 L/hr. That puts Cairns, Alice Springs and Ceduna in reach if you have a RPC co-pilot and sufficient urine receptacles or a tube that vents to the atmosphere .

Australia is a big country and Africa (home base for Sling) is even bigger and further between reliable fuel supplies. It is great to be able to fly to most places and home again without having to worry about fuel or refuelling.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

So why dont you register your aircraft with CASA in the primary catergory at the higher weight get an RPL and go for it?https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c07.pdf

According to CASA, RPL = RPC. They are meant to be alternatives not a step up. RAAus is working with CASA to see that equivalence made a fact.

 

 

[djpacro]

According to CASA, RPL = RPC. They are meant to be alternatives not a step up. RAAus is working with CASA to see that equivalence made a fact.

Same medical requirements too, I hope.

[jetjr]

The difference in stall speeds for the Sling at 600kg (43kts) and 700 kgs (44kts). Hardly a safety issue.

Same thinking says difference between 45 and 48 isnt much either and that raises the MTOW of a large portion of the EXISTING RAA fleet

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Same medical requirements too, I hope.

The RPL medical was a sad joke and has no relationship to the intent of a "Drivers Licence" medical. A Class II would be easier for most than the RPL medical.

 

Point is though that if what you can do with an RPC is the same as currently allowed with an RPL why would you want an RPL if you already have an RPC?