RAA MTOW increase?

[Yenn]

I am all for the MTOW increase. If we are to be a truly recreational flying organisation we should encompass all the non commercial flying.

 

GA seems to be dieing mainly because CASA has no remit to promote aviation, which the US FAA does have. The cost of flying GA is not much different from RAAus. If my Corny was GA registered I could fly it without membership or annual rego fees and being homebuilt I could maintain it exactly a I do my GA homebuilt.

 

The days of rag and tube open cockpit seem to be rapidly diappearing. at a gathering today there was one drifter arrived, but plenty of Jabiru, Savannah and other RAAus fully enclosed types and I would guess the RAAus / GA numbers were about 50:50, totalling maybe 40 in all. At Old Station the rag and tube, drifter, thruster types were even less in evidence. What the modern pilot seems to want is a plastic fantastic which I would guess would leave little change from $80,000

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Bring on the weight increase.. What's wrong with wanting a slightly stronger airframe, being able to take off wit full fuel and still be within weight and balance limits . Realistically we're not all built like jockeys , I'm certainly not. This is recreational it's supposed to be fun. Medically just look at the uk, us etc no need to reinvent the wheel. I don't see a weight increase causing more accidents etc, I'm also sick of the ga vs ra holier than thou bull.. Would be good to merge in some way in the recreational space.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

I think it will bring other aircraft into the fold, like the factory built RV12, I am not sure at 750kg if you can have a Lycoming engine installed and still keep it under the MTOW ( maybe these only come with a Rotax) and stall rules but as a factory built LSA it would give flying schools other options like and I am not sure about this but aerobatics, would they then be able to be taught by the schools with that aircraft and would they be allowed by RAAus?

 

David

 

 

[Blackhawk]

With the MTOW for 2 seat aircraft being increased to 700kg; does this mean there will be a similar increase in a single seat MTOW (to maybe 385 or 400kg) and if so would anyone know for sure what it could be??

 

 

[ave8rr]

With the MTOW for 2 seat aircraft being increased to 700kg; does this mean there will be a similar increase in a single seat MTOW (to maybe 385 or 400kg) and if so would anyone know for sure what it could be??

There are single seat aircraft already at 544kg MTOW. The RV3 for example.

Cheers Mike

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Hi Mike,

 

Is that in RAAus; I was always under the belief the MTOW for single seat aircraft was 300kg? and I can't find anything in the regs to say otherwise?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

#19 is 600kgs regardless of seats

 

 

[Kiwi303]

300Kg single seat is the Brit/Euro microlight standard, along with the 450Kg twin seat.

 

544Kg single and 600Kg two seat is the AU/NZ Microlight standard.

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Is that for Plans built or Scratch built aircraft??

 

 

[Kiwi303]

Is that for Plans built or Scratch built aircraft??

I'm confused about the AU regs. I've read some here and some there, but you have more types... 19 reg, 24 reg, VH reg.

 

We just have the VK reg.

 

All planes registered as microlights here are either Class 1 (single seat) or Class 2 (twin seat). 45Kn stall in the landing configuration, flaps up, flaps down, no flaps, all designers choice, just under 45 knt. Plans, Kit, Factory, doesn't matter, weight and maintenance regs are the same for all Microlights. What they are registered as (ML vs GA) determines the regs they operate under, Not HOW they are made.

 

NZ) https://www.caa.govt.nz/Advisory_Circulars/AC103_1.pdf

 

UK) www.bmaa.org/pwpcontrol.php?pwpID=3151

 

The NZ one: from AC 103-01

 

The definition of a microlight aircraft is found in Rule Part 1 and is repeated below:- Microlight aircraft means a basic low performance aircraft designed to carry not more than 2 persons which meets low momentum parameters that are acceptable to the Director:

 

The following specifications are considered as an acceptable means of compliance to meet the definition of a microlight aircraft:

 

any of the microlight specifications called up in the type design standards listed in Appendix 1of this AC.

 

or

 

a 1or 2 seat aircraft whose stall speed in the landing configuration at maximum gross weight does not exceed 45 Knots and whose maximum gross weight does not exceed:

 

For a 2 -place landplane 600 kg; or

 

For a 2 -place seaplane or amphibian 650 kg; or

 

For a single place landplane does not exceed 510 kg; or

 

For a single place seaplane or amphibian does not exceed 550 kg

 

However, sometimes the info given on the site does not always match, see:

 

"2. In the absence of certification to the above standards, an aircraft that meets the specifications below may still be defined as a Class 2 Microlight:

 

a. If 6 or more aircraft of the type been operated and the aircraft type has achieved a documented satisfactory airworthiness history of at least 150 hours of flight including at least 50 hours of flight on one aircraft; or

 

b. If the aircraft is a New Zealand designed prototype, a temporary flight permit has been issued for the aircraft and the aircraft has satisfactorily completed the required endurance test.

 

Ref. 103.207(a)

 

c. Performance and Weight Limitations

 

A one or two seat aircraft whose stall speed, in the landing configuration, at maximum gross weight does not exceed 45 knots, and having a maximum gross weight of:

 

•

 

544 kg for landplanes;

 

•

 

579 kg for a single-place seaplane or amphibian;

 

•

 

614 kg for a two-place seaplane or amphibian. "

 

As in https://www.caa.govt.nz/ga/sport_&_rec/guide_for_micro_importers.pdf

 

Hmm

 

It looks like the old 544Kg may have been lowered to 510 with a 2012 change of the 103 regs.

 

 

[Blackhawk]

Yes, when it comes to Regs here in Aus, the more confusing it is the better it is for the industry, lol

 

 

[kgwilson]

It has been said many times by me and others on this site. Regulations will continue to get more confusing and complex unless there is legislative reform and CASA is totally overhauled to become a CAA with principles that include support and promotion of the GA & RA sectors of Aviation.

 

CASA should take note of the UK CAA's top level principles which largely drove them to the decision that pilots should only require the same level of medical fitness they need to drive a car.

 

These are:-

 

• Only regulate directly when necessary and do so proportionately
   
   
  
• Deregulate where we can
   
   
  
• Delegate where appropriate
   
   
  
• Do not gold-plate, and quickly and efficiently remove gold-plating that already exists
   
   
  
• Help create a vibrant and dynamic GA sector in the UK.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

I think it will bring other aircraft into the fold, like the factory built RV12, I am not sure at 750kg if you can have a Lycoming engine installed and still keep it under the MTOW ( maybe these only come with a Rotax) and stall rules but as a factory built LSA it would give flying schools other options like and I am not sure about this but aerobatics, would they then be able to be taught by the schools with that aircraft and would they be allowed by RAAus?David

David, RV12's were designed for the LSA (600 kg MTOW) market. Vans Aircraft list the RV9/9a at 735 kg MTOW with the 115 hp Lycoming0-235 and it easily meets the RAA stall speed. Like the RV12 the RV9/9a is not a aerobatic.

 

Bob

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hi Mike,Is that in RAAus; I was always under the belief the MTOW for single seat aircraft was 300kg? and I can't find anything in the regs to say otherwise?

Blackhawk, the 300 Kg MTOW applies to CAO 95-10 single place ultralights and is still current.

 

 

[jeffd]

Well I for one reckon government bodies wouldnt be much different if we were a republic or not, one good thing about 750 kg would be increase or full load for fuel and more safety ie: brs if people wanted one, I would, of course one thing I havent read here although I havent read all the posts is. Cost of aircraft and homebuilt, no good getting a heavier aircraft if it puts it out of reach of people who cant afford it or build it. 2 pob still fine and vfr.Good to read all the opinions though keeps the refinement of ideas coming.

 

 

[jeffd]

PS have read all the posts now lol and see that costs were mentioned ,old planes are going out from what i see, old cessnas etc sids checks costs etc 80000 is to much for me ,im not interested in aerobatics others obviously may be ,but then that would be another set of rules surely and i got interested in raaus for lesser costs but theres no reason why we should have less safety in this day and age. plus it must be great to fly to meet other like minded people and help promote recreational flying because of the cheaper costs and fun of doing it. one thing for sure though be careful of asking for more because all powers that be will ask for more. theres no such thing as a free lunch

 

 

[pylon500]

So, from what I'm learning here, we need (initially) weight increases up to 750kg, so we can be sure that out two seat aircraft are strong enough to carry two of our typical 100kg pilots, but we want to fly for five hours each time, so we need to carry 150 litres of fuel.

 

When we go through and crunch the numbers, and take into account that (supposedly) our manufacturers can't be trusted to build a structure that can carry that weight, we also have to install a 25kg BRS system.

 

Naturally when we want to go out and do five hours worth of circuits, we should take some luggage with us as well as a survival pack.

 

We should also have a full IFR panel in case it gets cloudy, as well as epirbs, tie down kits, and maybe a small tool box.

 

Can't imagine why, because most of the people (that have the money and are pushing for these planes) wouldn't know one end of a screwdriver from the other!

 

OK so, so far we really need our ultralight recreational aircraft to have a weight category more like 1500kg!

 

Maybe we should also allow to fit a second engine to increase our reliability?

 

Not sure how that works with Jabiru engines, does that mean we should fit three of them, just to hedge the odds?

 

Or if you have a Jab, maybe the second engine should be a Rotax, just in case....

 

Oh, sorry, you wanted two Lycomings, well OK then, we all know Continentals will blow up on you..

 

Anybody remember how to start a Wheeler Pixie.....?

 

 

[facthunter]

Think you are exaggerating a LITTLE bit Pylon. There are a lot of different types of people in our movement. I personally would like to see building in NON EXOTIC proven cheap materials and any formula time and time again for two seats gives about 700 kgs.

 

Many don't have a lot of mechanical knowledge, It appears, so get someone who does to work for you. NOT easy.

 

It's supposed to be a basic plane. Follow the example of EAA, that has good control and few vices.

 

You don't want a flying Dog that bites, at every opportunity

 

More choices of engine. More weight allowed facilitates this.

 

Australia is a BIG Country. It needs big fuel loads to get there safely.

 

If people want exotics that is their choice and should be permitted but if people aren't building basic types much, then they aren't likely to build more complex ones either .

 

More than 2 pob would be the end of cheap flying under concessions.

 

Single place aircraft should be less restricted for the same reason.

 

IFR is not for us. or NVFR ( even worse froma safety viewpoint).

 

Transitting zones and special access, yes. Reason for IFR problem..... Instrumenting electrical systems, training, currency, testing. ALL far more of an issue than most realise.

 

WE are the only mob training 3 axis powered planes. In competition with the GA PPL system.

 

It's a big cost, a big country and a big liability. It already needs improvement in detail and emphasis, but generally satisfactory in concept. Expanding it's base would be a risk that the "basics" would take a second place to the more exotic side of things. This happens any where it's done. The "base" model is for the peasants. In our case the basic is the "ESSENCE"

 

More emphasis on practical knowledge of WEATHER. One big factor in many of our worst safety situations.

 

Just because the CASA want to divest itself of something doesn't mean we should rush to get involved with it. In fact we should be very wary. It could easily load us up with costs we can't bear. A smaller organisation working well is better than a large "empire" crumbling. Nev

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Facty,

 

You said it all in your last paragraph with "Just because CASA wants to divest itself of something doesn't mean we should rush to get involved with it. IN FACT WE SHOULD BE VERY WARY. It could easily load us up with costs we can't bear. A smaller organisation working well is better than a large empire crumbling."

 

There needs to be a quantum improvement in providing just basic services to existing loyal members before we contemplate taking on more categories (more sophisticated) of aircraft. I cannot see why there is a push from the CEO to add to our fleet with old aircraft up to 1500 kg. There needs to be more meaningful consultation with members over the issues of current change. In trying to appease CASA we are losing our way!!.

 

 

[storchy neil]

There needs to be more meaningful consultation with members over the issues of current change. In trying to appease CASA we are losing our way!!.

 

I will go along with that billwoodmason

 

when less than thousand vote out off nine thousand some don't care

 

It's supposed to be a basic plane. Follow the example of EAA, that has good control and few vices

 

I go along with that nev

 

makes training a simple task

 

You don't want a flying Dog that bites, at every opportunity well said nev

 

but they do have all the bells and wiseles and go faster than some brains

 

Any body remember how to start a Wheeler Pixie.....?ask one them blokes that wouldn't know right hand screw driver from left hand screw driver neil

 

 

[DonRamsay]

OK, can somebody explain to me why people here always think the worst has already happened and we just don't know about it yet because the Board is hiding it from us? What incredible pessimism!

 

FYI, the Tech Manual has not yet been finally approved by the Board but probably will be in the next few days. The current Board is totally opposed to more regulation for the sake of it and for anything that looks like making RAAus into GA light.

 

Discussions with CASA chiefs and even the Deputy Prime Minister have stressed the point that safety comes from knowledge and skills not regulation. Education and training impart knowledge and skills whereas endless, double-dutch regulations just distract a person from acquiring knowledge and skills that can save lives and from taking responsibility for their flying.

 

The persuasion of RAAus is less regulation not more. We are not there yet and while Ver 4 of the TechManual is a quantum leap ahead of its predecessor (V3) I would argue that 4.1 will be better and feature less detail regulation than V4.

 

The RAAP (like a CAAP but recreational) process was invented to allow Regulations to say what has to be achieved e.g. don't run out of fuel and crash, whereas, the RAAP will provide advice on ways you might achieve that objective. Essentially, how you achieve an objective should be up to you as PIC not written down in endless regulation legalese. In some situations you might decide that 1.5 hours reserve is required because of uncertain/changeable weather and alternate airports being considerable distance apart or the fog might last an hour longer than predicted. In other circumstances when there are lots of handy alternate airports and weather is clear, 30 minutes might be ample reserve fuel. A hard coded Regulation that says you must land with 45 mins in the tank is just plain stupid by comparison.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Incidentally, in Post #7 it was pointed out that the submission to CASA was to be by 30 June 2016.

 

Over the time V4 has been under development there has been considerable discussion with CASA on the contents. It is not a process whereby RAAus writes the Tech Manual and goes once to CASA for final approval. There is a level of iteration involved between the Tech Manager, L2/L4s, the CEO, the Board and CASA. This does not make Darren's job any easier but we end up with the best manual that can be produced by those who participate in the process. When making comments, please have some consideration for the monumental effort that has gone into V4 by Darren over the last couple of years.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Discussions with CASA chiefs and even the Deputy Prime Minister have stressed the point that safety comes from knowledge and skills not regulation. Education and training impart knowledge and skills whereas endless, double-dutch regulations just distract a person from acquiring knowledge and skills that can save lives and from taking responsibility for their flying.

Don, I couldn't agree more - education is the answer. Maybe I'm missing something, but I cannot recall seeing any educational material addressing specific safety issues being produced? The website says there will be online learning made available during 2016 and to "watch this space". The "Clear Mind, Clear Prop" booklet cited examples and raised lots of questions, but no solutions. There also seem to be many incidents citing "Human Factors" as the cause, however I'm not sure there's a clear understanding of the subject and a quick look at the RAAus syllabus supports this statement.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

RS, Both the Managers and the Board recognise Human Factors as the biggest contributing factor to unsafe acts. It is a much bigger factor than all other factors combined.

 

Very substantial RAAus resources are being directed to this area but I regret to say that it is early days yet.

 

All I can do is assure you that it is the prime direction for improving our regrettable safety record and ask that you join the conversation at RAAus by directly communicating your thoughts to the CEO and the Ops Manager. Any improvements or areas ripe for improvement that you can suggest will be appreciated and will contribute to improvements in that area.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's easy to allocate blame and use "Human Factors" as a replacement for the inappropriate "Pilot Error" term, when analysing events. IF an instrument like a 3 pointer altimeter is miss read is it a bad design or a blame the pilot deal? Cockpit Ergonomics people have for years pointed out the inadequacies of the common face altimeter, (errors in setting and reading) hence the plethora of gadgets like a GPWS to bark at you often when you can't do anything about it other than what you are doing already, anyhow.

 

One thing for sure .. IF you are already heavily loaded (stressed) you won't hear or take notice of warnings, and they can be a distraction especially if they are erroneous.

 

Are we going to "DO" the human factors thing again? IF it's the biggest "FACTOR" then why has doing it not made much difference? Here, we do not know as we have no "control" group who didn't do it, to determine the effectiveness of the courses, one group vs the other.

 

In a general sense, is it human factors or poor training? Hard to differentiate at times. Nev