RAA MTOW increase?

[storchy neil]

sorry don I feel that to have increase in mtow is not going to work until the good governance off raa in up to the standard that is required for the implantation off any new procedures neil

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Don, is the upgrade of Head Office systems including a 30+ percent fee increase in any way a preparation for an influx of new members with the introduction of increased weight limits. I would hope not, as I don't believe that the majority of current members would be in favour of this move. I sincerely believe that members would want fees to be the way they were and to hell with adding GA to our membership. If we can't operate successfully with 8500 members then more members is not the answer - it will only complicate matters even further. It would seem that RAA management do not want to engage with the membership on issues they know are unpopular and with no board members to consult with the members have no voice at board level to represent them. Seems to me that recent events have been carefully orchestrated to force change within RAA with no opposition. A bloodless coup no less.

 

 

[Riley]

Don, is the upgrade of Head Office systems including a 30+ percent fee increase in any way a preparation for an influx of new members with the introduction of increased weight limits. I would hope not, as I don't believe that the majority of current members would be in favour of this move. I sincerely believe that members would want fees to be the way they were and to hell with adding GA to our membership. If we can't operate successfully with 8500 members then more members is not the answer - it will only complicate matters even further. It would seem that RAA management do not want to engage with the membership on issues they know are unpopular and with no board members to consult with the members have no voice at board level to represent them. Seems to me that recent events have been carefully orchestrated to force change within RAA with no opposition. A bloodless coup no less.

I'm in Bill's camp on this. Seems we're being steered rather than led. Riley

 

 

[Downunder]

I'll agree with the last two posts and repeat what I've said before.

 

There has been efficency programs to reduce costs. Online mag, computerised accounts, etc.

 

Now membership fees are going up. How does that work?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

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.

 

.

I can build a sub 600kg plane quite easily but the cost goes up exponentially to the weight reduction, especially when it comes to the engine.

 

I struggle to build a sub 600kg plane for production with very low costs and why I am in favour of about 650kgs that could include a water cooled, auto based engine with enough fuel/baggage to go somewhere.

 

The alternate is to have MTOW less Pax, say 450kgs, as it is now is probably discrimination in law.

 

 

[kasper]

clippedThe alternate is to have MTOW less Pax, say 450kgs, as it is now is probably discrimination in law.

MTOW means just that Maximum Take Off Weight.

And with an empty weight as you suggest without an MTOW your ability to undertake stress/strength analysis and testing is impossible without also stating what the maximum allowables and locations are for your additional masses eg seat limits, fuel loads and luggage compartment masses ... because without these you are unable to design or test to MTOW and your W&B is a bit tricky to say the least.

 

MTOW is a long accepted and workable measure ... and if you have a requirement that empty + "x"kg per seat plus "y"kg fuel (full or stated for seating) + "z" kg for luggage must be less than MTOW legal then its not a big thing and as a designer you design for MTOW and state your x, y and z kgs

 

 

[frank marriott]

Don, is the upgrade of Head Office systems including a 30+ percent fee increase in any way a preparation for an influx of new members with the introduction of increased weight limits. I would hope not, as I don't believe that the majority of current members would be in favour of this move. I sincerely believe that members would want fees to be the way they were and to hell with adding GA to our membership. If we can't operate successfully with 8500 members then more members is not the answer - it will only complicate matters even further. It would seem that RAA management do not want to engage with the membership on issues they know are unpopular and with no board members to consult with the members have no voice at board level to represent them. Seems to me that recent events have been carefully orchestrated to force change within RAA with no opposition. A bloodless coup no less.

I think many are just realising the result of the recent change (even though it is still to come into force) and regretting they didn't vote for their individual opinion. By the number who approach me (people who I have had no previous contact with) then the possibility of 2013 revisited is a possibility. Only time will tell and maybe they will just accept the change and complain around the airfields - the bottom line is the change was supported by a large majority of those who bothered to vote (roughly 1000 out of 8000) so they can just accept it or make an effort to change it - I think the former will occur, at least in the short term.

 

Personally I am over it and will watch what happens in the next year/s - members choise.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

MTOW means just that, Maximum Take Off Weight

Wow, all these years I thought Pilots were all talking about the Music Theater Of Wagga.

 

You are making something complicated that's not.

 

 

[kasper]

Wow, all these years I thought Pilots were all talking about the Music Theater Of Wagga.You are making something complicated that's not.

As we are in the middle of an election campaign ... will all due respect your original post mixing MTOW with a mass excluding the people was the post making something simple complex.

 

 

[ave8rr]

Personally I am over it and will watch what happens in the next year/s - members choise.

Hardly the sort of statement I would expect from a current board member.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Hardly the sort of statement I would expect from a current board member.

Temporary only, would not have stood if I thought the change would have been passed.

 

 

[storchy neil]

yes frank I see your point bloody waste off bloody time you did your best mate to what a pity more time was not available

 

I just hope it works out because I will be on there arse with that old phrase itys neil

 

 

[ave8rr]

Any news from RAAus Exec at the recent meet the members forums re the MTOW increase application to CASA?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Any day now........

 

 

[Riley]

Any day now........

 

 

[Roundsounds]

My comment was very much tongue in cheek.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Will a Lancair get in ? I hope so.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

any day? surely you mean year

 

 

[SSCBD]

We have machines now available to fly at 700kg from overseas but are limited to RAA rules in Australia to 600kg. They could also be four seats.

 

My concern again is that the guys for example flying two seat drifters and say even single seat thruster types. Are these guys going to be forced to pay the same or have increases just because we are getting bigger faster heaver machines to 700kg. It also allows a lot of GA aircraft in, dose it not. It makes the one size fit all on training unworkable and a joke as well. Some CFI's and instructors don't have experience at this level also. Can or worms.

 

I keep saying we need to be specific in separate types, levels with costs in RAA.

 

Might be looking at the new two seat gyros coming in - big in Europe, they look cool and can fly and land easily in real nasty weather, control airspace with rating is ok, and the operating costs are low compared to RAA factory built I am told. Landing in a paddock style road in say 30 to 50 ft has some nice advantage out the back blocks. They tell me (have never flown one yet) much , much, much easier to fly and land than a LSA in crosswind.

 

Cruise is 80 to 100 knots. Oh and 10 hours ish conversion from RAA cert to gyro.

 

 

[coljones]

We have machines now available to fly at 700kg from overseas but are limited to RAA rules in Australia to 600kg. They could also be four seats.My concern again is that the guys for example flying two seat drifters and say even single seat thruster types. Are these guys going to be forced to pay the same or have increases just because we are getting bigger faster heaver machines to 700kg. It also allows a lot of GA aircraft in, dose it not. It makes the one size fit all on training unworkable and a joke as well. Some CFI's and instructors don't have experience at this level also. Can or worms.

I keep saying we need to be specific in separate types, levels with costs in RAA.

 

Might be looking at the new two seat gyros coming in - big in Europe, they look cool and can fly and land easily in real nasty weather, control airspace with rating is ok, and the operating costs are low compared to RAA factory built I am told. Landing in a paddock style road in say 30 to 50 ft has some nice advantage out the back blocks. They tell me (have never flown one yet) much , much, much easier to fly and land than a LSA in crosswind.

 

Cruise is 80 to 100 knots. Oh and 10 hours ish conversion from RAA cert to gyro.

You presume that the costs to RAA vary by complexity and weight of aircraft. Would you care to lay out your theory of the cost faced by RAA in registering each aircraft type?

 

 

[scre80]

RA Aus provided an update on a facebook live session around 3 weeks ago. You can see the video on the below link and they talk about it at the 16:55 part. Some other good stuff in there (CTA is just before MTOW) so worth watching the lot.

 

For the increases weight, there will be a new Category G, with different requirements.

 

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Any day now........

Next Wednesday week ......

 

 

[DWF]

29th Feb?