RAA MTOW increase?

[NT5224]

G'Day folks !

 

I have heard that RAA may have submitted a request to CASA to allow RAA registered aircraft types that are design and manufacturer certified for operation at above 600Kg to be registered at a higher MTOW. I have a couple of questions about this because so far I have only come across very general references to it.

 

First, if the request is successful, anybody know what the new RAA MTOW is likely to be, (i.e what is being requested by RAA) ?

 

Second, will the increase only apply to new aircraft coming onto the register that meet the criteria and specifications, or would there be a mechanism for revising the MTOW of aircraft already on the register, e.g by having a new weight and balance done?

 

Does anybody know anything or could direct me to more information?

 

Cheers

 

Alan

 

 

[Yenn]

What I understand is that RAAus will have it ready to submit to CASA by june 30th. For details you will have to talk to RAAus, unless someone on this forum and an RAAus rep cares to enlighten us. Maybe don Ramsay will know.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I was told it had already been submitted last year and everyone is waiting for CASA to answer. 750kg is what they hope to get but they have asked for more of course. It would only apply to existing aircraft that are spec to that weight but could only operate at 600kg due to the current rules. New aircraft of course would have to be designed for the higher spec otherwise they will remain at the 600kg or less whatever they were designed for

 

 

[Roundsounds]

There's zero chance of an increase in MTOW before the tech manual is sorted out. It's so far out of date and irrelevant to current aircraft types operated under RAAus.

 

 

[ave8rr]

From recent "E" news.

 

Board Meeting Outcomes

 

The board of RAAus met over the weekend of 14 and 15 May 2016. During the meeting the board discussed a range of topics. Below is a summary of these discussions.

 

CTA and increased MTOW application

 

The board endorsed the progress staff had made in preparing an application to access CTA and increase the maximum allowable take-off weight for aircraft administered by RAAus. A full application will be with CASA by 30 June 2016. Members will be kept up to date on progress.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

As far as CTA/CTR goes, gliders and hotair balloons already have access. RAAus should persue the line of equal access and not entertain the CASA requests for safety cases etc.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

RAAus will make a submission to CASA by 30 June for an increase in the MTOW of aircraft that Recreational Pilot Certificate holders can fly up to the same limit as Recreational Pilot Licence holders can fly. They are after all, according to CASA, "equivalent". That limit is 1,500 kg. The increase will be phased in over time to allow RAAus to get its house in order to handle the potential influx of heavier and some older aircraft.

 

So, initially the easy step up to 750kg. Lee Ungermann when he was CEO of RAAus authored an application to CASA to get the RAAus number up to iirc 760 kg. I am told it was very close to approval when McCormick stepped in and killed off everything.

 

There is another thread on here about this topic - something to do with RV3 and RV4 aircraft on the RAAus register. Do a search . . .

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I'd be very surprised if there's any change to MTOW or Airspace privileges within the next few years.

 

 

[kasper]

RAAus will make a submission to CASA by 30 June for an increase in the MTOW of aircraft that Recreational Pilot Certificate holders can fly up to the same limit as Recreational Pilot Licence holders can fly. They are after all, according to CASA, "equivalent". That limit is 1,500 kg. The increase will be phased in over time to allow RAAus to get its house in order to handle the potential influx of heavier and some older aircraft.So, initially the easy step up to 750kg. Lee Ungermann when he was CEO of RAAus authored an application to CASA to get the RAAus number up to iirc 760 kg. I am told it was very close to approval when McCormick stepped in and killed off everything.

 

There is another thread on here about this topic - something to do with RV3 and RV4 aircraft on the RAAus register. Do a search . . .

Don,

Of interest is it a request to allow heavier certified airframes into RAA or is it a general across the various RAA airframes a request for allowed increase to align with the RPL upper limit? eg will the staged increases also apply to homebuilt as well as factory?

 

 

[NT5224]

Thanks for the clear explanation Don!

 

But a couple of things I still don't get regarding RAAs intention to achieve flying priviledges equivalent with CASA's RPL.

 

Apart from MTOW, several other things are requirement for RA registration, including stall speeds and of course the 1 passenger limit. If RAA is seeking equivalence with aircraft flown on a RPL, and our MTOW rises significantly, how will that effect those other limitations on RAA registered aircraft? For example, can you envision RAA certified pilots flying with more than one passenger? If so, I'm now wondering how two parallel administrative frameworks advances the cause of recreational aviation? Perhaps the two pathways are intended to ultimately merge?

 

Or, regardless of MTOW, will RAA aircraft always be restricted in some respects compared GA registered (RPL) ?

 

Cheers

 

Alan

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don, Of interest is it a request to allow heavier certified airframes into RAA or is it a general across the various RAA airframes a request for allowed increase to align with the RPL upper limit? eg will the staged increases also apply to homebuilt as well as factory?

Short answer is yes, yes but . . . .

Going to 750 kg is not much of an issue. It will allow RA aircraft to be built stronger with cheaper materials and better fuel capacity.

 

It would not require a change to the 45 KIAS stall in the landing config. and we are still talking about 2 pob, day VFR, and owner maintenance. Adoption of a standard like the EASA CS-VLA will make it easier for many especially aircraft like J230 and Sling 2 if their manufacturer agree.

 

Moving to 1,500 kg MTOW is a whole different situation for everything including but not limited to stall speeds. More on that will come later from RAAus.

 

 

[kasper]

Short answer is yes, yes but . . . .Going to 750 kg is not much of an issue. It will allow RA aircraft to be built stronger with cheaper materials and better fuel capacity.

It would not require a change to the 45 KIAS stall in the landing config. and we are still talking about 2 pob, day VFR, and owner maintenance. Adoption of a standard like the EASA CS-VLA will make it easier for many especially aircraft like J230 and Sling 2 if their manufacturer agree.

 

Moving to 1,500 kg MTOW is a whole different situation for everything including but not limited to stall speeds. More on that will come later from RAAus.

Thanks Don, appreciate the information and agree wholeheartedly that moving from 2POB to anything greater is fundamentally more of a challenge for legislators/CASA to get their head around particularly if the stall speeds start going above 45knts

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . But a couple of things I still don't get regarding RAAs intention to achieve flying priviledges equivalent with CASA's RPL.

Now there's a word that gets my goat "privileges"!

 

In a free country, flying is a right not a privilege. That is a concept that is still not widely appreciated at CASA. They feel they are in the business of granting privileges and have absolute discretion in granting their privileges. In some ways it could be said that they are correct in that all power in Australia derives from sycophantic acceptance of a foreign-born, foreign-resident, pommy, hereditary, theocratic despot - "The Crown". The "Crown" is the reference for the grant of privileges, licences certain behaviours, and bestows certain honours and titles. Roll on the revolutions and the Republic of Australia!

 

Personally, I prefer to think of Australia from 1901 onwards as a free country of free men. We may still have an anarchistic, largely irrelevant back story but let's try and forget about that.

 

If you subscribe to ours being a free society, we are born free to do anything. Since 1901, our legislators have been beavering away restricting freedoms in the interests of the general good of peace, order and good government. One of our freedoms has incurred an incredible amount of restriction by legislation and the attendant orders and regulations - civil aviation.

 

Point is (you knew there was going to be one eventually, didn't you?) that when RAAus goes to CASA it does not beg on a bended knee for a privilege, it goes demanding the removal of an unreasonable restriction on our freedoms. We must all think that way or else we succumb to the CASA model of grant of privilege.

 

Apart from MTOW, several other things are requirement for RA registration, including stall speeds and of course the 1 passenger limit. If RAA is seeking equivalence with aircraft flown on a RPL, and our MTOW rises significantly, how will that effect those other limitations on RAA registered aircraft? For example, can you envision RAA certified pilots flying with more than one passenger? If so, I'm now wondering how two parallel administrative frameworks advances the cause of recreational aviation? Perhaps the two pathways are intended to ultimately merge? Or, regardless of MTOW, will RAA aircraft always be restricted in some respects compared GA registered (RPL) ?

Alan,

 

Up to 750kg, I can't see much changing as, e.g. the EASA CS-VLA standard is very like LSA but with one difference: 750 kg MTOW. I see that as a very sensible improvement on LSA because aircraft can be stronger, cheaper (no need for exotics like Carbon Fibre) and carry a respectable amount of fuel. Above 750 kg many things will need to be different to below 600 kg.

 

Perhaps the best way for me to answer this is to put my Nostradamus hat on.

 

I foresee a very different model arising over time from the current approach that dates back to day one of aviation. RA and non-commercial GA should be merged. The rump of GA left when you take away the commercial GA is a pain in the, well, rump to CASA and a pain that I think they would like to see somebody else take on. There may be some aspects like IFR that may remain totally CASA but just about everything else below 5,700 kg that does not involve commerce could be termed in ordinary English aviation for the purpose of recreation - i.e. "Recreational Aviation". What that will look like in time is anyone's guess. My guess is that there may be one or a couple of organisations like RAAus that compete for "membership". All aircraft below 5,700 kg would be administered by those two organisations. It could end up looking a bit like Holden Vs Ford for admin.

 

And then CASA could concentrate on the big stuff and the airlines and leave us to enjoy our recreation.

 

I would see all basic pilots trained to a common level with skill and aircraft types endorsements as extensions from the basic pilot qualification (whether it's called "licence" or "certificate").

 

This is neither too sensible to be likely nor pie-in-the-sky. There are some sound reasons why CASA and governments will head this way in future. In our lifetime? Maybe - depends how hard we push.

 

Don

 

 

[coljones]

Now there's a word that gets my goat "privileges"!In a free country, flying is a right not a privilege. That is a concept that is still not widely appreciated at CASA. They feel they are in the business of granting privileges and have absolute discretion in granting their privileges. In some ways it could be said that they are correct in that all power in Australia derives from sycophantic acceptance of a foreign-born, foreign-resident, pommy, hereditary, theocratic despot - "The Crown". The "Crown" is the reference for the grant of privileges, licences certain behaviours, and bestows certain honours and titles. Roll on the revolutions and the Republic of Australia!

 

Personally, I prefer to think of Australia from 1901 onwards as a free country of free men. We may still have an anarchistic, largely irrelevant back story but let's try and forget about that.

 

If you subscribe to ours being a free society, we are born free to do anything. Since 1901, our legislators have been beavering away restricting freedoms in the interests of the general good of peace, order and good government. One of our freedoms has incurred an incredible amount of restriction by legislation and the attendant orders and regulations - civil aviation.

 

Point is (you knew there was going to be one eventually, didn't you?) that when RAAus goes to CASA it does not beg on a bended knee for a privilege, it goes demanding the removal of an unreasonable restriction on our freedoms. We must all think that way or else we succumb to the CASA model of grant of privilege.

 

Alan,

 

Up to 750kg, I can't see much changing as, e.g. the EASA CS-VLA standard is very like LSA but with one difference: 750 kg MTOW. I see that as a very sensible improvement on LSA because aircraft can be stronger, cheaper (no need for exotics like Carbon Fibre) and carry a respectable amount of fuel. Above 750 kg many things will need to be different to below 600 kg.

 

Perhaps the best way for me to answer this is to put my Nostradamus hat on.

 

I foresee a very different model arising over time from the current approach that dates back to day one of aviation. RA and non-commercial GA should be merged. The rump of GA left when you take away the commercial GA is a pain in the, well, rump to CASA and a pain that I think they would like to see somebody else take on. There may be some aspects like IFR that may remain totally CASA but just about everything else below 5,700 kg that does not involve commerce could be termed in ordinary English aviation for the purpose of recreation - i.e. "Recreational Aviation". What that will look like in time is anyone's guess. My guess is that there may be one or a couple of organisations like RAAus that compete for "membership". All aircraft below 5,700 kg would be administered by those two organisations. It could end up looking a bit like Holden Vs Ford for admin.

 

And then CASA could concentrate on the big stuff and the airlines and leave us to enjoy our recreation.

 

I would see all basic pilots trained to a common level with skill and aircraft types endorsements as extensions from the basic pilot qualification (whether it's called "licence" or "certificate").

 

This is neither too sensible to be likely nor pie-in-the-sky. There are some sound reasons why CASA and governments will head this way in future. In our lifetime? Maybe - depends how hard we push.

 

Don

Like your optimism Don. Throughout history it has been the Dictatorship of the mafia of royalty, Dictatorship of dictators (pre-royalty), Dictatorship of religions or the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

In any case it seems that a Cessna 152 will get in with a stall speed of 43kts and a MTOW of 750kg (with a 7kg load restriction)

 

 

[Birdseye]

At least with the current commonwealth system there is no chance of us getting a president like Donald Trump.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Thanks Don, appreciate the information and agree wholeheartedly that moving from 2POB to anything greater is fundamentally more of a challenge for legislators/CASA to get their head around particularly if the stall speeds start going above 45knts

Not that much of a challenge really. All it takes is education, training and demonstrated competence rather than endless general rules and regulations.

 

 

[dsam]

Now there's a word that gets my goat "privileges"!Don

Good "rave" Don! I can identify and agree with your way of thinking on this.

However, one analogy for others observing a more regressive "privileges" approach is the driver's license. States issue a "license" to drivers. Public funds pay for roadways. States use this connection to assert driving as a "privilege". That's how the judiciary allows random breath tests to drivers on the roads. The judiciary could not permit random breath tests of pedestrians walking the footpath, for example. Nor could I be random breath tested driving on my own private land.

 

Presumably a pilot's "licence" confers the same concept of "privilege" of publicly funded aviation facilities. The RPC would be seen as a subset of that system.

 

I don't have to like that form of thinking, (preferring yours instead), but I think we'd need to convince the High Court of our way of thinking (possibly easier once we are a republic).

 

 

[David Isaac]

Now there's a word that gets my goat "privileges"!In a free country, flying is a right not a privilege. That is a concept that is still not widely appreciated at CASA. They feel they are in the business of granting privileges and have absolute discretion in granting their privileges. In some ways it could be said that they are correct in that all power in Australia derives from sycophantic acceptance of a foreign-born, foreign-resident, pommy, hereditary, theocratic despot - "The Crown". The "Crown" is the reference for the grant of privileges, licences certain behaviours, and bestows certain honours and titles. Roll on the revolutions and the Republic of Australia!

 

Personally, I prefer to think of Australia from 1901 onwards as a free country of free men. We may still have an anarchistic, largely irrelevant back story but let's try and forget about that.

 

If you subscribe to ours being a free society, we are born free to do anything. Since 1901, our legislators have been beavering away restricting freedoms in the interests of the general good of peace, order and good government. One of our freedoms has incurred an incredible amount of restriction by legislation and the attendant orders and regulations - civil aviation.

 

Point is (you knew there was going to be one eventually, didn't you?) that when RAAus goes to CASA it does not beg on a bended knee for a privilege, it goes demanding the removal of an unreasonable restriction on our freedoms. We must all think that way or else we succumb to the CASA model of grant of privilege.

 

Alan,

 

Up to 750kg, I can't see much changing as, e.g. the EASA CS-VLA standard is very like LSA but with one difference: 750 kg MTOW. I see that as a very sensible improvement on LSA because aircraft can be stronger, cheaper (no need for exotics like Carbon Fibre) and carry a respectable amount of fuel. Above 750 kg many things will need to be different to below 600 kg.

 

Perhaps the best way for me to answer this is to put my Nostradamus hat on.

 

I foresee a very different model arising over time from the current approach that dates back to day one of aviation. RA and non-commercial GA should be merged. The rump of GA left when you take away the commercial GA is a pain in the, well, rump to CASA and a pain that I think they would like to see somebody else take on. There may be some aspects like IFR that may remain totally CASA but just about everything else below 5,700 kg that does not involve commerce could be termed in ordinary English aviation for the purpose of recreation - i.e. "Recreational Aviation". What that will look like in time is anyone's guess. My guess is that there may be one or a couple of organisations like RAAus that compete for "membership". All aircraft below 5,700 kg would be administered by those two organisations. It could end up looking a bit like Holden Vs Ford for admin.

 

And then CASA could concentrate on the big stuff and the airlines and leave us to enjoy our recreation.

 

I would see all basic pilots trained to a common level with skill and aircraft types endorsements as extensions from the basic pilot qualification (whether it's called "licence" or "certificate").

 

This is neither too sensible to be likely nor pie-in-the-sky. There are some sound reasons why CASA and governments will head this way in future. In our lifetime? Maybe - depends how hard we push.

 

Don

God how I love it when you get on a rant, it makes my heart smile. LOL

 

 

[kasper]

Not that much of a challenge really. All it takes is education, training and demonstrated competence rather than endless general rules and regulations.

Love the optomism ... demonstrated competence is right up there with risk based regulation - great in theory but really thin on the ground under the CASA regime. Hope it comes off but not investing in building a heavier aircraft just yet ;-)

 

 

[DonRamsay]

God how I love it when you get on a rant, it makes my heart smile. LOL

Ranting, one of my favourite things to do.

 

 

[pylon500]

Don't need more than 600kg.

 

If you can't build a decent plane under that weight, you shouldn't be building planes.

 

If you want to fly heavier planes than 600kg, GA has been in existence for more than eighty years.

 

If you can't hold a GA medical, learn to put up with only one pax, and light weight, day VFR aircraft.

 

Don't go bringing your potential heart attacks, and clapped out 1950's airframes over to us, we don't want them, we don't need them, and we have better aeroplanes anyway!

 

Gee, that felt good, I'll get off my soap box now and let this calamity carry on to it's final destruction, after which, we'll have to look at re-creating the AUF again....

 

 

[DonRamsay]

In the short term, the most likely imports will be the SAAA, RVs etc. rather than clagged C150s.

 

I am very keen to convert my Sling to VLA (as it is registered in Europe) and get the option to fly up to its design MTOW. That will allow me to carry 2 pob with full tanks in an aircraft that is more strongly built than your average LSA. And it stalls at 39 KIAS @ 600kg and 44 KIAS at 700kg - what's wrong with that? There are advantages of putting another 50 kg of metal into an LSA. You should see the nose gear on a Sling - massive with a huge coil over shock construction.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So what happens to the RAA when a bunch of Christen Eagle II, Pitts S2Bs, Acro Sport 2 and Skybolts end up RAA registered?

 

 

[David Isaac]

So what happens to the RAA when a bunch of Christen Eagle II, Pitts S2Bs, Acro Sport 2 and Skybolts end up RAA registered?

They won't be able to aerobat them anymore so why would they come over to the dark side.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Well, if you can do aerobatics in a Pitts with an RPL you'll be able to do them with a RPC - that's fair isn't it? Obviously you'd need to have been trained and qualified to do aeros. As long as you're doing it for fun and not for reward because that would be commercial.

 

You can't do aeros with an RPC at the moment mostly because the aircraft below 600kg are not strong enough.