RV 3 and RV4 on Rec Aus registry

[Bernie Knight]

I guess the discussion can be from both directions. ..

 

You place the RV4 on the RAA registry then it can be flown by anyone that has the RAA pilots certificate?

 

But you are from the other point restricted in the aerobatic area - for me I just use the Skybolt for that?

 

I think there is a very good insurance coverage under the RAA banner. But that needs to be read closely to see what RAA provides that exceeds general GA insurance that covers damage, repair, liability etc etc.

 

The Rv3 appears ok to go on the RAA registry in it's current configuration and the RV 4 with its rear seat capability removed

 

Interesting

 

 

[pylon500]

RAAus RV4;

 

Only single seat,

 

No aero's,

 

Self maintain,

 

$210 membership,

 

$110 rego (subject review)

 

No controlled airspace (UNLESS PPL'ed)

 

GA rego'ed;

 

Two seat,

 

Aerobatic,

 

LAME maintained (unless SAAA trained) possibly $850~$1500 100hourly/annual,

 

No rego fees (yet),

 

No license fees (yet)

 

Go anywhere..

 

What have I missed....?

 

 

[Allan CH650CH750]

Pylon500

 

I think you have summed it up well

 

RAAus may not allow maintenance if you are not the RV4 builder

 

There appear lots of new rules in the new tech manual

 

It maybe a watch this space

 

Cheers

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . Opens up the option to place many aircraft on the RAA Rec Aus register being aware that aerobatics is not permissible. . . .

If you can do aeros on an RPL you will be able to do aeros on a Rec Pilot Cert . . . in the not too distant future (with training and endo in an appropriate aircraft.)

If you heard the interview with the CASA Chair Geoff Boyd after the last Tamworth meeting he was keen to see GA and RA move closer. Good for all.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Pylon,

 

Pretty close but not quite.

 

Aircraft on the RAAus register do not require LAME and much of the GA regs. A 750kg MTOW aircraft on the RAAus register will come under RAAus rules not GA rules.

 

There are aircraft on the RAAus reg now that have modern fuel injected engines, glass cockpits, turbo charging, inflight variable pitch props, capable of speeds of 160 knots (e.g. pipistrel Virus) auto pilot, ballistic parachutes and even retracts - enough to make some GA aircraft look pre war. And all that with <45 KIAS stall.

 

Plan is to increase eventually from 600kg MTOW to 1,500 kg MTOW for RAAus Pilot Cert holders. Similarly, the MTOW for RAAus aircraft will be increased to 1,500 kg and thereby equating with the RPL

 

The increases will be phased in with 750 kg initially and the full 1,500 kg when suitable arrangements are in place to manage the types and volumes of aircraft and pilots.

 

A CTA endo will be available to RAAus Pilots who do the training and have a suitably equipped aircraft.

 

I've never had any interest in aeros so won't comment further on that.

 

So, in time there might be an RV or two register RAAus.

 

Ave8rr - that answer your question?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

All those LSAs stuck at the 600Kg limit just lost a bunch of buyers and resale value. There will be some unhappy chappies when they find out how much this change is going to affect them.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Don, thanks for post and idea of what MIGHT happen along the lines you have mentioned.

 

If the weights do increase to 1500kg then I am sure CASA will want changes made to the current RAAus maintenance requirements.

 

 

[pylon500]

1500kg is a lot of aeroplane for a two seater?

 

Or are we going to let the real warbirds into RAAus now?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Over time, I see not-for-reward (NFR) aviation and commercial aviation (CA) as being the two classes of aviation. RA an GA in the NFR class will merge. Class 2 meds fo NFR will be replaced with a sensible Drivers Licence medical as is happening in the USA and UK.

 

CA will be administered directly by CASA and NFR by one or more self-administering recreational aviation organisation. RAAus is currently the largest and has now become the most capable.

 

I think that the alphabet of bodies GFA, HGFA, PPC, SAAA, etc., will continue as clubs/advocacy groups or chapters under a larger administrative umbrella.

 

Once you might have reasonably said that that will never happen as it makes too much sense. However, if Boyd and Skidmore get there way it just might.

 

Addendum:

 

There will be endorsements or type recognition to cover things like Aeros, IFR, >1 pax, multi-engine, etc. with max MTOW up to 5,700 kg.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

All those LSAs stuck at the 600Kg limit just lost a bunch of buyers and resale value. There will be some unhappy chappies when they find out how much this change is going to affect them.

And now, from the dark side of the moon, some good news from FT:

There'll be some cheap LSAs for anyone happy to fly inexpensively.

 

On the other hand, tragically, Sling LSA, J230, etc., may be reclassified VLA by their manufacturers and fly up to their design MTOW. Those poor duffers will just have to put up with the higher fuel bills as they fly longer and more safely with big fuel reserves in their full tanks.

 

Every cloud has a lead lining . . .

 

 

[fly_tornado]

seems like you are missing the point here Don, your primary problem that needs fixing is cost not functionality. this might help a handful of existing members but its not going to pay the bills.

 

 

[dlegg]

Over time, I see not-for-reward (NFR) aviation and commercial aviation (CA) as being the two classes of aviation. RA an GA in the NFR class will merge. Class 2 meds fo NFR will be replaced with a sensible Drivers Licence medical as is happening in the USA and UK.CA will be administered directly by CASA and NFR by one or more self-administering recreational aviation organisation. RAAus is currently the largest and has now become the most capable.

 

I think that the alphabet of bodies GFA, HGFA, PPC, SAAA, etc., will continue as clubs/advocacy groups or chapters under a larger administrative umbrella.

 

Once you might have reasonably said that that will never happen as it makes too much sense. However, if Boyd and Skidmore get there way it just might.

 

Addendum:

 

There will be endorsements or type recognition to cover things like Aeros, IFR, >1 pax, multi-engine, etc. with max MTOW up to 5,700 kg.

That is the most sensible scenario for Australian aviation I have seen, ever.

 

However, sensible and aviation are light years apart in Australia.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its bad in a way, for example, CASA decide to bring in a stupid rule like with criminalizing fuel reserves and then this forces the RAA to act as a buffer absorbing the costs and associated paperwork and it takes longer for CASA to realise that they are making thing worse.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Surely FT, you can see the downside to this?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

As my mum used to say, if an angel was flying up to heaven someone (FT?) would mistake it for crow and shoot it.

 

 

[aro]

Plan is to increase eventually from 600kg MTOW to 1,500 kg MTOW for RAAus Pilot Cert holders. Similarly, the MTOW for RAAus aircraft will be increased to 1,500 kg and thereby equating with the RPL

And I have $100 that says that if this happens, medical requirements for RAA will be aligned with the RPL, which means that all those who currently can't get a class 2 will be forced out.

 

(I am aware of many pilots with a class 2 that don't qualify for a DL medical, but I am not aware of any conditions that disqualify you from a class 2 where you could still get a drivers license medical. A DAME might know more.)

 

 

[ave8rr]

And I have $100 that says that if this happens, medical requirements for RAA will be aligned with the RPL, which means that all those who currently can't get a class 2 will be forced out.(I am aware of many pilots with a class 2 that don't qualify for a DL medical, but I am not aware of any conditions that disqualify you from a class 2 where you could still get a drivers license medical. A DAME might know more.)

And another $100 that those owners of aircraft operating at weights above 600kg will be visiting a LAME.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Surely FT, you can see the downside to this?

Imagine being in a J230 at MTOW 750Kgs in the middle of summer when it drops an exhaust valve:sad angel:

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Imagine being in a J230 at MTOW 750Kgs in the middle of summer when it drops an exhaust valve:sad angel:

Another ray of sunshine . . .

 

 

[DonRamsay]

And another $100 that those owners of aircraft operating at weights above 600kg will be visiting a LAME.

What a couple of pessimists

Haven't you heard that CASA is under new management?

 

The U.K. is about to go to a genuine drivers licence std for PPL and below and the same idea has been approved through the US Congress. The whole world is recognising that with one pax, day VFR holding a car licence is enough. That has been the real success story of Sport Aviation.

 

If an aircraft is on the RAAus register it is subject to the RAAus Tech Manual. Any time anyone tries to type the word LAME into the manual a big fist comes from behind the screen and punches the keyboard operator. If I don't need a LAME to service my EFI Rotax why would anyone need a LANE for a simple carb, air cooled engine?

 

Don

 

 

[pylon500]

While this is all thread drift, I would still like to reiterate my view that 600kg is plenty for what we are generally doing, and remember that the Europeans have to do the same for only 450kg.

 

We use the 'recreational' moniker, just to hide the word ultralight from the insurance companies.

 

Going beyond 600kg is stepping on what SAAA exists for.

 

Failing that, if CASA is going to step away from private flying, and let it self govern, how about we get some real dispensations towards a 'recreational' world of flying and allow all the fun things we want like aerobatics, night VMC, private crop dusting, 'Not for profit' flying (cost recovered flying like beach shark patrols, at cost social joy flights, etc).

 

And more so in the experimental/amateur field like, multi engine, turbine engine, light weight helicopters, lifting platforms etc.

 

I was going to say electric powered aircraft, but I feel these will become mainstream much sooner than people think !

 

Meanwhile, my mate with the RV4 is still thinking about moving on to something else.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Another ray of sunshine . . .

Your core problem is rising costs and declining membership, you need to address those issues before planning glorious expansions comrade

 

 

[Yenn]

Maybe increased weight, would increase the membership and help the bottom line.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I don't think so. The global standard for LSA is 600KG so these new aircraft are going to be ex-GA ones. I just can't see how they are going to reduce costs for the membership. As far as attracting new members from GA, they will already be making the move.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

While this is all thread drift

Not really as it is closely related to considerations for people thinking of purchasing aircraft with an MTOW below 750 kg in the short term.

 

I would still like to reiterate my view that 600kg is plenty for what we are generally doing, and remember that the Europeans have to do the same for only 450kg.

Sorry, but I must strongly disagree. MTOW is the wrong parameter to overly restrict. It targets only two things - structural strength and fuel carrying capacity. It is nearly as silly as the FAA's crazy rule that somehow 120 KIAS at 5,000 ft is safe and 130 KIAS at 5,000 ft is unsafe. Who could tell the difference between those two speeds without an instrument to give them the answer?

Targeting Stall is sensible but only in the landing configuration. Again the FAA went nuts and specified "clean" - who lands clean except those that have no flaps? 2 POB is a genuine risk minimiser and other things like multi engines, jets, etc help to keep sport piloting low complexity.

 

Have a look at the strength versus size of some RV's to your lightly built Euro LSAs. Which makes for safer flying?

 

Anyone who can build a structurally strong aircraft capable of seating two people and staying in the air for 3 hours with adequate fuel reserve under 450kg is yet to be born.

 

The Euro VLA standard is very similar to the LSA standard but with an MTOW of 750 kg. VLA allows strong aircraft that can do the things LSA's do but with a decent engine and good fuel capacity. And they can do it with the same 45 knot stall requirement.

 

. . . Going beyond 600kg is stepping on what SAAA exists for.

And how's that working out? Now that RAAus has their act together, many SAAA flyers would be better off in a stable RAAus and bringing the SAAA building skill into RAAus would strengthen that aspect of RAAus.

 

. . . if CASA is going to step away from private flying, and let it self govern, how about we get some real dispensations towards a 'recreational' world of flying and allow all the fun things we want like aerobatics, night VMC, private crop dusting, 'Not for profit' flying (cost recovered flying like beach shark patrols, at cost social joy flights, etc).And more so in the experimental/amateur field like, multi engine, turbine engine, light weight helicopters, lifting platforms etc.

Night aerobatics in VMC is not my idea of "recreational"

 

. . . but I'm just one person - each to his own.

 

I was going to say electric powered aircraft, but I feel these will become mainstream much sooner than people think!

I agree. Quiet aircraft don't attract so many complaints and cheap fuel (electricity) is every aviator's dream come true.