RAA MTOW increase?

[Roundsounds]

ll 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.

Thanks Don, I have tried to contribute to the conversation and have helped develop material, but have been shut out/down.

The issues faced by RAAus are common to operators of similar type aircraft around the world. This organisation should be using the learnings and the training tools produced by NAAs rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. The FAA, CAA UK, NZ CAA and CASA have a wealth of well researched and developed training material I know RAAus could use if they sought permission. At the very least some links to a few could be placed on the website rather than the current "watch this space" statement that's been there since the new website was launched. I'm told CFIs are sent packs of info', this is of no use to private operators who only come into contact with FTFs every 2 years.

 

The hard bit of the training had been done - ie the audience/learners are highly motivated to learn, it's now up to RAAus to deliver the training materials!

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Nev, Some good sense in what you write here.

 

Seems to me there are two factors. First one is pilots taking risks they know are risks like flying in marginal VMC which at any moment could become IMC. Then there are pilots taking risks that they don't know they are taking which is more the base turn stall/spin.

 

One thing we are sure of is that there are things that our pilots just don't know will kill them and there are things they know might and still run the risk. Both would once be written off as "Pilot Error".

 

It horrifies me that, in the past I've made poor decisions like pushing the limits on my personal minima, usually prompted by "get there itis". I now have a siren that goes off in my brain when I realise I am not enjoying a particular flight. Usually, the only reason I don't enjoy a flight is because it is harder work than I'm comfortable with. In which case I remind myself that this is "Recreational Aviation" and if I'm not having fun, then I shouldn't be aviating.

 

"Doing" HF again is not the plan as recognising that it is our biggest risk and dwarfs the risks of aircraft construction and maintenance. It is the area where priority effort is to go into education and training - not regulation and passing tests.

 

I didn't think that much of HF when I did it as part of my Pilot Certificate. I didn't even agree with some of the official answers. But I do believe it is the one area where the investment of effort will pay off the biggest return.

 

Don

 

 

[frank marriott]

You can't legislate commen sence.

 

Training and demonstration of a pilot's limits has merit, but IMO more exams etc has little measurable outputs. In my observations over time unless "most" people are shown their actual limits it leads to a false belief that they are capable of handling situations that may not be the case in practise. Basic computer simulators a prime example.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

Will this mean if you are the second owner of a RV7 and not the builder you can do your own maintenance which would be a huge plus

 

 

[ave8rr]

Will this mean if you are the second owner of a RV7 and not the builder you can do your own maintenance which would be a huge plus

Don seems to think so as the aircraft will be maintained under the RAAus Maint Manual. The Maint Manual has to be approved by CASA and IF a weight increase is approved then I am sure there will be changes to maintenance requirements. Probably requirements similar to current SAAA rules. This was touched on while discussing another matter with CASA Sport Aviation Dept recently.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would hope it's an improvement on the current SAAA situation. More about paperwork than thorough mechanical awareness or knowledge. Qualification expires every two years. (at least in some instances like W & B) Perhaps the CASA would apply that to their people, to be consistent, if it's necessary. Nev

 

 

[rhtrudder]

I think under SAAA rules only the original builder can only do the maintenance , if sold it needs annuals done by a lame ,

 

 

[Nobody]

T

 

I think under SAAA rules only the original builder can only do the maintenance , if sold it needs annuals done by a lame ,

True, Unless the new owner has previously built a similar aircraft.

 

 

[kasper]

Will this mean if you are the second owner of a RV7 and not the builder you can do your own maintenance which would be a huge plus

It will be a wait and see in the new Tech manual on this one.

The current situation would mean second and subsequent can do own maintenance and make own modifications

 

However, there is a body of thought within the board of RAAus and the Tech Office that wants to remove this current ability and make the second and subsequent owners of all 19 reg aircraft unable to do their own maintenance and mod without L2 involvement.

 

So basically its a wait and see as to what comes out in the Tech Manual on exisiting 19 reg airframes and then look at what changes if any will apply to the MTOW increases on these and additional airframes

 

 

[jetjr]

Not true Kasper, you have pushed along this track before

 

No mention of maintenance, or minor mods but yes control or major modifications will need sign off by someone, maybe not necessarily an L2.

 

You need someone to second inspect control works now.

 

 

[facthunter]

The builder of a plane may know where everything is but not be suitable to repair it. It's a hard one this, because I've seen experts do lousy unsafe jobs in approved premises with all the tickets. Having anything checked by someone else is a pretty good principle. Don't work on your plane while anyone is talking to you, also. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Not true Kasper, you have pushed along this track beforeNo mention of maintenance, or minor mods but yes control or major modifications will need sign off by someone, maybe not necessarily an L2.

You need someone to second inspect control works now.

I would not characterize my posts as pushing this ... I am just posting based on statements made to me by 2 board members and the tech manager ... and I am just saying that this is an area where there is no clear outcome that would mean increase in MTOW = same operation as current.

I am pointing out that unless and until we SEE the next tech manual we cannot assume that what exists now will operate given the statements of the Tech Manager and a couple of board members as to how they wanted it to work ... and even then if the Tech manual at current MTOW allows it I would be interested in looking at what additional (if any) conditions come with the request for or grant of an increase in MTOW.

 

And as for the current "requirement" to have second inspection on 19 reg control works you state you might be unpleasantly surprised to find that it is NOT an actual current requirement of the Tech Manual ... 4.0 para 10 on critical maintenance on flight controls has a "should" not a "Shall" or "Must" ... its not a compulsory requirement despite anything the Tech Manager may think - legally the words are not mandating.

 

I am reasonably comfortable that the new tech manual will probably address this language usage issue to make it compulsory and I look forward to the necessary exemptions for airframes where disassembly of the primary control systems is an every day event ... like trikes ... or how a second set of eyes is supposed to provide any valid oversight where the design authority sits with the owner.

 

 

[jetjr]

"And as for the current "requirement" to have second inspection on 19 reg control works you state you might be unpleasantly surprised to find that it is NOT an actual current requirement of the Tech Manual ... 4.0 para 10 on critical maintenance on flight controls has a "should" not a "Shall" or "Must" ... its not a compulsory requirement despite anything the Tech Manager may think - legally the words are not mandating."

 

Why would I be unpleasantly surprised?

 

It would be be pretty dopey to ignore a sensible recommendation like this second inspection. Several SB and documents from manufacturers and RAA have clearly specified secondary inspections

 

Reckon some should spend efforts following best practice and recommendations rather than looking for exceptions and ways to avoid sensible proceedures.

 

There has never been a claim Ive heard that second owner maintenance of 19 aircraft be forced to L2 only. Major modifications only may require inspection.

 

 

[biggles]

Don't work on your plane while anyone is talking to you, also. Nev

 

Couldn't agree more ..... Bob

 

 

[Yenn]

No matter what the tech manual says. It is a CASA requirement that all control work has a second inspection. All aeroplanes have to be maintained to that standard, Just because RAAus ignore it doesn't mean that it can be ignored by the maintainer.

 

Personally I find it a pain in the usual place if I remove the rear control stick and have to have it inspected by a second person when I re attach it. I could get over that problem by using a pip pin in the attachment rather than a bolt and nut, but that just points up what a stupid idea it all is.

 

Even having the second inspection does not guarantee no mistakes, I remeber reading of crossed aileron controls causing an accident even when it was inspected twice.

 

 

[kasper]

No matter what the tech manual says. It is a CASA requirement that all control work has a second inspection. All aeroplanes have to be maintained to that standard, Just because RAAus ignore it doesn't mean that it can be ignored by the maintainer.Personally I find it a pain in the usual place if I remove the rear control stick and have to have it inspected by a second person when I re attach it. I could get over that problem by using a pip pin in the attachment rather than a bolt and nut, but that just points up what a stupid idea it all is.

Even having the second inspection does not guarantee no mistakes, I remeber reading of crossed aileron controls causing an accident even when it was inspected twice.

If its VH registered then the CASA dual inspections apply - it its RAAus registered or HGFA registered then the respective tech manuals apply and not the CASA requirements ... they are part of the exemptions.

And in saying this I am not trying to play word games to avoid safety related issues but to clarify what the requirements are.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

If its VH registered then the CASA dual inspections apply - it its RAAus registered or HGFA registered then the respective tech manuals apply and not the CASA requirements ... they are part of the exemptions.And in saying this I am not trying to play word games to avoid safety related issues but to clarify what the requirements are.

Refer raaus airworthiness notice 08082014

 

 

[Garfly]

Picking up the other theme of this thread - Human Factors and what to do about 'em - I'd offer the opinion that if over-confidence is the number one killer up there then maybe under-confidence comes in a close second. (Or maybe they're really two sides of the one coin.) By the latter I mean a kind of timidity at the controls - an under-developed sense of what an aircraft can - and cannot - do in flight; of what is safe and what is not. Obviously, some have more native talent for it than others but most of us can aspire to getting close if we invest enough stick-and-rudder time in the process. It's just a case of getting-it, not as theory but as sensation. Sure, it's physics but as a bird - not a nerd - knows it. The hours needed for that will, of course, be way beyond what's required to get a basic ticket. But it's possible to fly safely without quite having it yet if you stay within limits and fate bowls you no bouncers.

 

The word 'bold' gets a bad rap in HF talk because it's usually taken to refer (as in that old saying that never gets old) to the over-confidence thingy. But to reclaim the word for safety I'd say that boldness - of a kind - at the controls, is a factor much in need of developing. As very much a learner yet myself, I'm far from handing down any truths here. I'm really only trying to work out what it is that I, myself, need most to improve as a safe pilot. And for now, at least, I don't think over-confidence is my main worry. An example of timidity-based peril might be, say, holding off bank in a turn (out of unconscious caution) while neglecting (out of aeronautical senselessness) to hold-off equivalent rudder at the same time. You end up dangerously unbalanced in a turn not because you were trying to be a Top-Gun but from something closer to the opposite. There are many other examples: getting jumpy in the circuit because you're over-conscious of others behind you. That's not good for anyone. Better to let boldness be your friend. Nothing so scary up there as timidity on the rampage.

 

 

[Garfly]

Not that the Over-Confidence thingy isn't a thing too:

 

 

As far as HF educational materials go this analysis by Jason Schappert is well worth the half-hour it takes.

 

Jason's in-your-face lecture style takes a bit of getting used to but he's got the goods.

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree Garfly, many junior pilots tend to watch things happening, delay reactions considering options rather than doing something about it.(I know I was criticised for this when training too)

 

Never more relevant than in EFATO

 

 

[facthunter]

Good topic. You won't fly well if you are not confident of your ability. The assessment you make of yourself must be based on fact, not wishful thinking. Self assessment needs introspective honesty and also KNOWLEDGE of just what a plane will do in response to what YOU do with the controls, in various situations. ie. Varying airspeeds ,"G" (dynamic) loadings attitudes, power settings and configurations (flaps /gear)loading (weight and Cof G) and in wind gusts. A fair amount to cover there. WHO can say they are across it and current? WHO thinks it's been adequately covered during their training?

 

IF you aren't aware of what you don't know, your confidence will be misplaced. EVERYBODY likes to APPEAR confident. Don't let that take you to a place where you have deliberately got yourself into a situation you can't cope with. KNOW your and your planes limitations.

 

The overconfident person doesn't prepare, plan adequately , do checks, thinks rules only apply to lesser mortals and has cats eyes in clouds etc. It's not sissy to prepare and be thorough and cautious where it's prudent to be so. Cutting corners because you are in a hurry, leads to bad outcomes. Always has and always will. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

Refer raaus airworthiness notice 08082014

And point to the exact section in the Tech Manual as it stands today or on they date that was issued that actually gives the Tech Manager the authority to actually dictate this?

Not saying in many cases its a damn good idea BUT the Tech Managers powers are limited by the Tech Manual and that 'airworthiness notice' has as much enforcability as the my demanding to be recognized as the president of the world - exactly none.

 

I really DO hope that the actual powers of the Tech Manager are clarified and the difference between required and recommended made absolutely clear in the next Tech Manual because the dogs breakfast of a Tech Manual we have at the moment leaves pretty much everyone (incl. the Tech Manager) not knowing what is and isn't required and has the Tech Manager repeatedly making statements and issuing directions that are not supported by his powers.

 

And a direct example of impossibility and illogicality of the airworthiness notice - a 95.10 trike. The only primary flight control is the A-frame and in all cases when you take a soft wing weightshift out of its bag to assemble

 

1. the A-frame has to be assebled (usually 1 pin and ring or a pop pin and capture washer) and

 

2. the wing has to be attached to the trike with the hang/jesus bolt and

 

3. the trike mast has to be fixed after lift of wing - overcentre cams or bolt and ring

 

Now the airworthiness notice means that nobody can ever do any of this without second inspection and noting in the log book ... and that set of eyes has to hold L1 or above authority within RAAus ... how practical is that in actually flying your aircraft?

 

These practical operational issues are the things that I am really looking for as exemptions from blanket application of what is effectively GA control and documentation in a lite form to airframes that are not designed to be operated within that realm - may as well make trikes non-foldable if there is no exemption or recognition of operational practicalities or give up now and go back to GA

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I seem to remember that this thread was about an MTOW increase for RAAus pilots to (eventually) have the same limit for the RPL and RPC. Implicit in that is how heavier aircraft will be maintained. As always, the discussion has meandered a bit but usefully I think and with interest.

 

The simple fact is that the change of any regulation will always involve the execution of a full-on risk management exercise. The exercise will attempt to identify all risks that could eventuate with the change and the probability of such risks presenting as incidents and the measures that can be put in place to safely allow the change of regulation to be implemented.

 

RAAus is at a very advanced stage in this process and CASA has been kept involved in the development of the submission. Not sure if you can ever say "when" in this sort of change but I am prepared to speculate that it will happen and within a reasonable period of time. I may be overly optimistic but I would not be surprised if it was in place before the end of 2016.

 

 

[Downunder]

This was the theme last time Don. It was all going to happen.

 

Then we had a federal election....... like we are having now......."Déjà Vu" ?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

This was the theme last time Don. It was all going to happen.Then we had a federal election....... like we are having now......."Déjà Vu" ?

Not so much a Federal election as the appointment of a DAS who was, it seemed to me, quite openly hostile to Recreational Aviation.

The current DAS appeared to me very supportive of CTA and keen for SASAO to work with RAAus to ensure an acceptable proposal is made.

 

I have heard it said that Lib/Nats Coalition Governments are more supportive of GA/RA than ALP/Greens Coalitions but I wouldn't want to start that sort of a fire this close to a Federal election.

 

(I would actually :amazon:but will refrain in the hope of avoiding WWIII and a lot of thread drift )