RAA MTOW increase?

[David Isaac]

I don't believe an aero endorsement is available with RPL. You need a PPL minimum

 

 

[DonRamsay]

If my prediction comes true there will be no GA v RA and your training and resultant flying skill will determine what you can do in the air. That's as it should be.

 

Don

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I don't believe an aero endorsement is available with RPL. You need a PPL minimum

Not correct, you can add an aero endorsement to your RPL, you do need the class 2 medical though.

 

 

[djpacro]

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

doesn't take much searching on youtube to see who on the dark side have been doing aerobatics

I don't believe an aero endorsement is available with RPL. You need a PPL minimum

nope, RPL is all that is required (under the old rules a GFPT could get an aerobatic endorsement too).

 

Don't need more than 600kg.If you can't build a decent plane under that weight, you shouldn't be building planes...

quite a few aerobatic airplanes less than 600 kg, some two-seaters.I'd keep my next Pitts (the LSA variant of course) on the USA register and fly it here on my USA pilot certificate.

 

 

[David Isaac]

.......nope, RPL is all that is required (under the old rules a GFPT could get an aerobatic endorsement too).

Well there ya go. That will require a few ops manual changes.

 

 

[djpacro]

Well there ya go. That will require a few ops manual changes.

I'd suggest starting with USA's Part 61 rules on the subject.

[David Isaac]

BUT ... Do you need a class 2 med. for aerobatics? If so it isn't the standard RPL is it, because you do NOT need a class 2 med. for a RPL. I was originally told you could NOT do aerobatics on an RPL at a CASA seminar.

 

 

[djpacro]

Yep, need a class 2 medical.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Yep, need a class 2 medical.

Thanks DJP, that explains the answer I originally received.

 

 

[robinsm]

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).

There are less and less public funded aviation facilities available these days, the councils of this country have discovered a fund called airports and seem to be flogging them off to all and sundry. Sort of brings it back into the "right" and not "priviledge catagory?

 

 

[ave8rr]

Well there ya go. That will require a few ops manual changes.

And LAME maintenance if what I was told by a CASA Sport Aviation person a while back. Similar rules to SAAA with respect to maintenance. Regardless what Don may be saying the Ops and Tech manuals have to be approved by CASA.

 

 

[Admin]

And LAME maintenance if what I was told by a CASA Sport Aviation person a while back. Similar rules to SAAA with respect to maintenance. Regardless what Don may be saying the Ops and Tech manuals have to be approved by CASA.

I am told that the Manuals HAVE been approved and were approved a long time ago so if this is true then RAAus is again not being upfront and honest to the membership

 

 

[kasper]

I am told that the Manuals HAVE been approved and were approved a long time ago so if this is true then RAAus is again not being upfront and honest to the membership

Note - this is not an anti RAAus post

The situation as I understand it from the CEO and Tech Manager is that is that a draft gets written within Tech, discussed with CASA and then when complete sent off to CASA for approval ... note it has not been accepted and adopted by the board of RAAus at this stage ... so when it comes back it is effectively a final draft for RAAus board approval with the knowledge that it has been pre-approved by CASA so IF the board accept it as THE Tech manual it can become effective from a date agreed and stated by RAAus Board and not operative from some future undetermined date set by when CASA approve it.

 

I understand the current Tech Manual redraft had been through the CASA approval stage by April this year and the board meeting on the weekend over which the GM has held discussed it for approval as final and to make it so ... as was made clear in the Magazine ... but

 

and I hope it is a big but

 

the two pager summary in the Mag on the changes in the new Tech Manual were quite surprising eg 4 inspections required with summary reports to RAAus during construction etc and I am imagining (hoping) that the board at that meeting said a few Hang on a minute - this is starting to look like old school ANO101.28 homebuilt and mini GA ...

 

If that happened and the board required changes to the Tech Manual then it has to get drafted and go back through CASA before coming back to the board for approval and becoming the new Tech Manual.

 

According to the info. to members from RAAus we are to expect the new Tech Manual this month ... and that is the best part of 3 weeks still to run so I am hopeful that we will see something ... and I am particularly interested to see the documentation around grandfathering because I have put RAAus on notice to put up or shut up on my aircraft registration ... and since then nothing new has arrived in the post and my aircraft through the member portal still lists as full registration.

 

Roll on the Tech Manual ... and let the fun begin when we see exactly what is and is not in there

 

 

[Admin]

Kasper, rightly so but why would the RAAus put a draft through to CASA that had not been approved by the board in the first place especially as it costs us members money every time they submit a draft for CASA to approve it. Are they just submitting whatever is on a piece of paper, pay CASA to approve that and then say let's get the board to approve it or make changes and then resubmit to CASA and pay even more money again...I don't think so but if they did then that would be complete mismanagement. For memory CASA charges round $350 per hour to review a manual

 

I would suggest that the board approved the submission and CASA approved that submission some time ago

 

 

[kasper]

Well yes, I suspect you are right about the board having either in whole or as a committee reviewed and 'accepted' the draft before it went to CASA ... and I give the board the benefit of the doubt that issues that might have arisen from members after the summary was published (or the changes made to regn display when I pointed out the failure to actually draft a tech manual that covered all the airframes) were not the first time they actually thought about what was being presented by Tech Manager ... and I accept what I have been told that when the draft came back from CASA with review clearance it was not already approved but still had to go through board formal approval prior to having operational impact.

 

For example - I do not believe that the board are telling me lies on the process and when things become 'the Tech Manual' requirements.

 

In addition I now accept that when they said in a letter in April 2015 that a change has been agreed and signed off by CASA and that I can comply with the requirements by either doing A or B it was my error to take that as meaning that an actual change had actually been agreed and actually made operational.

 

I accept that I was wrong in reading the letter. And on that basis that it was not a change that was operational I await with great anticipation the documented and published grandfather requirements on registration display because my aircraft is registered and became registered at a date when there was absolutely no requirement to display registration and it is quite nicely sitting in the shed with not a reg number to be seen other than on the RAAus regn card displayed as required.

 

 

[kasper]

Oh and the June board meeting did pass the Tech Manual 7.1 according to the recorded motions on the RAAus website so I suppose 4 inspections etc are just around the corner:

 

 

And it will be announced some time soon.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Kasper

 

That was the ops manual NOT the tech manual.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think the CASA take the "Authority" bit a little seriously. It's the way they evolved and it makes life easy for them to operate that way. They are not accountable for what they do except on the odd occasion someone takes them to task which is close to impossible for the "ordinary " individual. Remember we operate under the system of absolute liability.

 

Avmed even used to list people who didn't agree with their determinations as psychological Unstable. ( Nice thing to have on your record).

 

The word privilege(s) is used in the legislation. Rights? You would be surprised how few (IF ANY) we have . The matter does need addressing as it's fundamental to our (or any) society.

 

McCormick freaked out with our style of aviation from the outset. I hope people discuss this with him around the traps in the future. It would not be unreasonable to do that. Contrast this with Dick Smith who has flown some pretty basic flying machines and has no preconceptions of his flying ability.. IF we are going to parallel the (original) concept of the RPA which was introduced to satisfy different aims to those who want to fly simple and cheap aircraft safely. there IS a conflict of interest and costs will go up. In these circumstances I hope whatever type of organisation we morph into that USER PAYS is kept in mind. AT this point do WE have much SAY in what is happening?. It is reasonable and necessary that we should. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

KasperThat was the ops manual NOT the tech manual.

oops - correct and my bad - got excited when I saw an approval and posted too soon and in error.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Given the tech manager has a GA LAME and SAAA background and has attended the EAA Airventure at Oshkosh representing RAAus, I wouldn't be surprised to see RAAus become a GA/SAAA lookalike.

 

 

[pylon500]

Given the tech manager has a GA LAME and SAAA background and has attended the EAA Airventure at Oshkosh representing RAAus, I wouldn't be surprised to see RAAus become a GA/SAAA lookalike.

Seems to be the way most want it to go, they just can't see that if you want GA, you'll get GA, and everything that goes with it!

Remember, GA is dying, try to remember WHY !!!

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Seems to be the way most want it to go, they just can't see that if you want GA, you'll get GA, and everything that goes with it!Remember, GA is dying, try to remember WHY !!!

Totally agree! I'm a long term GA pilot, instructor, ATO and am now enjoying the freedom offered by RAAus. It would be a shame to lose the essence of what was established by the AUF.

 

GA is terminal.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I can understand the worry of Raa getting more regs BUT I don't see why that needs to be the case. I have said numerous times that I would like more priviledges but not if it comes with a reduction of freedoms.

 

Yes I agree that GA is going downhill but how much better would the lower (non commercial) end of GA be if they had our freedoms? I like to look at it all optimistically, in this day and age with technology making it a lot easier for us to have an effective voice I think it is very possible to wind back the requirements of GA to free it up so it can grow. You only have to look at the yanks and poms to see that it looks like regs have hit a peak and they are starting to 'sensibilise' so I think optimism is feasible.

 

Maybe I am off with the fairies but I think more freedoms/options with no extra requirements is a good thing. Ensuring our freedoms aren't removed in the process is extremely important and of course we need to ensure grass roots flying still survives but don't be scared of getting more priviledges, be cautious and wary and careful but if it won't change our current freedoms in any way then I say go for it.

 

 

[pylon500]

While I totally agree with your sentiments, as in we all want more for less, but the truth is, with our English inspired bureaucracy, it's a case of the victim being 'hung, dead and buried' before they realise "Sorry M'Lord, we seem to have got the wrong one".

 

The funny part about the American 'improvement' to aid dying GA, was LSA, which we blindly got on the bandwagon and followed, even though those that actually read through it and said "hang on a minute, have you seen all the bits that go with it?", while being fully aware that we actually lead the world in ultralight regulations (or lack of them) at the time, and we managed to step backwards about twenty years to take on LSA.

 

We had unlimited speed, retractable, variable prop, auto pilot at least ten years ago, we were following Europe with 450kg, but were looking at 480kg for manufactured and allowing 540kg for homebuilts, with our typical whingeing and complaining, we would have eventually got to 600kg with our own regs.

 

People would still be complaining that we need still more weight, but with the above freedoms, they wouldn't be as many.

 

 

[facthunter]

We got into strife expanding too quickly. Grow the organisation at any cost was the theme.

 

GA is dying. The reason is it's not like US. It's mainly expensive to own stuff from the USA. Not used much (risky) or worn out (risky) Designing rules around that will be costly and a distraction for getting on with what we should be using, Innovative cheap practical simple recreational planes. A larger % of them should be suitable for owner build to keep the cost down and the education level up.

 

Any plane that costs say $500,000, or more NEW, has maintenance costs on the same scale/proportion. CASA want rid of it, sure. That's NO reason why we should have it anymore than take over a neighbour's sick cat. Especially as THEY have shown NO inclination to indemnify or support RAAus appropriately in the immediate past. IF we are talked/forced into administering a new batch of OLD multi passenger planes that are only remotely connected to what we want, It's a disaster, believe me, if we take on that responsibility without suitable offsets and guaranteed assistance. I doubt the current owners of such aircraft would WANT RAAus to be their new master for what might be called "snob" reasons. so I can't see any upside whatever. I'm very deliberately allied with the concepts of AUF and RAAus, and don't want a return to GA type regs. I've made it very clear I believe in a weight increase for structural reasons and owner build advantages. I've plenty of IF time and know that recency is fundamental to it, and a pretty high level of knowledge (training) and a proper aircraft as relates to electrical systems, some deicing(pitot's) etc again not a cost that should be imposed on the general member who will never wish to do it except transit zones and some aerodrome access, like what we used to have at SYDNEY (KS) VFR. Where are we headed? To go into more than 2 occupants is a big jump in LIABILITY. Nev