Pseudo GA

[bull]

What is the basis and quantum of these extra costs you are talking about? Why will having plastics and CTA cost more? Pilots with a GA Licence and CTA endo can currently fly CTA in an RAA plane, why do you think that CTA endos for RAA pilots will cost RAA rather than the pilot

Ask don how much of members funds have been spent on lobbying for these changes to cta and mtow Col and how these costs have been passed onto members through fee increases and loss of our magazine.

 

 

[bull]

Hey Don,,,if you had looked at my avatar you would see I ALSO fly 3 axis aircraft ,or don't you class our raggy things as aircraft????

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Part 149 has been coming for nearly 20 years and still no sign of it happening with in the next 12 months. However, it has the potential to make regulation simpler and easier to know. Eliminate the exceptions and give us a firm basis for recreational aviation. Somehow, I think I might have hung up my spurs before Part 149 hits the deck.

The Part 149 NPRM closes Friday - 30 plus pages of more regulation is coming!

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

This new organisation is going to be "more GA" than RAA. Until they disclose more I can only go on what they say on their Facebook page. The intention appears to be the lower end of GA, <1,500 or 7,500kg including helicopters with vague references to ultralights. I doubt they can register anything that CASA or RAA have declined to register.There is a niche market for the minimum aircraft category (mostly 95-10) and their pilots to re-form the old AUF and approach CASA for approval. There's about 200 95-10's left on the RAA register (that figure is out of date). I would suggest the easiest, cheapest way to do this is to not offer training (just recognise the RAA certificate and BFR), little technical (only accept aircraft already accepted on the RAA register), no magazine and all correspondence by electronic means (voting, info, payment), no pilot insurance and staffed by volunteers. The Ops manual can then limit usage to what they want to be restricted to - height, distance, etc.

95.55, 95.10 and others are exempt from the CASR's and thus not required to be registered. In fact they are not Australian aircraft as defined by the regs. The agreement between CASA and RA-Aus desrves a more critical examination than RA-Aus's legal advisors gave it - or was no advice obtained?

 

 

[storchy neil]

Jim your talking about deed of agreement I take Neil

 

 

[kaz3g]

95.55, 95.10 and others are exempt from the CASR's and thus not required to be registered....?

Good luck with that, Jim.

 

Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2015

 

Kaz

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Good luck with that, Jim.Civil Aviation Order 95.55 (Exemption from the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 — certain ultralight aeroplanes) Instrument 2015

 

Kaz

Under CAO 95.55 aircraft are required to be registered with RA-Aus. This is different to the requirement in the agreement which talks about RA-Aus maintaining "that portion of the register of Australian aircraft;". As RA-Aus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's (see part 200) then Part 47 does not apply and thus they are not eligible to be included on "the register of Australian aircraft" - a formal term.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Jim your talking about deed of agreement I take Neil

Correct

 

 

[ave8rr]

Is it correct that if 95.55 is cancelled and now covered by 101.55 then those aircraft that were limited in MTOW by the cancelled order can go to a higher weight (600kg) if the design allows. e.g CA22 Skyfox that is limited to 450kg can go to the design weight of 520kg? GR912 lightwings may also fall into this category....

 

 

[poteroo]

As the current RAA does not support a regional representative, I resigned as I fail to see how one can realistic be a RAA regional representative for an organisation that is against regional representation - most people know it can not work without it, but that is the facts.

I agree. Whilst we may have fewer aircraft and pilots in the wild West, we're now facing nil 'local' representation on the new Board. Given that the CEO and President made quite a hash of their visit in early 2016: RAAus have some fences to mend, and bridges to rebuild, with their western members.

 

happy days,

 

 

[storchy neil]

Hey poteroo them there fences that you talk about do they come with gates cause some blokes over here have horses that don't drink and don't pee and stay on corse cause they go back to the stables probely use bridges too bit wet Neil

 

 

[kasper]

Is it correct that if 95.55 is cancelled and now covered by 101.55 then those aircraft that were limited in MTOW by the cancelled order can go to a higher weight (600kg) if the design allows. e.g CA22 Skyfox that is limited to 450kg can go to the design weight of 520kg? GR912 lightwings may also fall into this category....

No.

95.55 is the operational standard, 101.55 is the design standard - they work together.

 

If you fall under 1.1 or 1.2 of 101.55 then you have 450kg or up to 480kg MTOW as a design and you then come in to 95.55 under 1.2(b) or © of that CAO ... but you still must meet the requirements of 101.55 1.1 or 1.2

 

so

 

The fact that under 95.55 1.1 you see mention of 45knots stall does mean your certified stall require of 40-42knts from 101.55 does not apply - equally the higher MTOW under other paragraphs of 95.55 do not extend to your 101.55 airframe ...

 

 

[ave8rr]

No.95.55 is the operational standard, 101.55 is the design standard - they work together.

 

If you fall under 1.1 or 1.2 of 101.55 then you have 450kg or up to 480kg MTOW as a design and you then come in to 95.55 under 1.2(b) or © of that CAO ... but you still must meet the requirements of 101.55 1.1 or 1.2

 

so

 

The fact that under 95.55 1.1 you see mention of 45knots stall does mean your certified stall require of 40-42knts from 101.55 does not apply - equally the higher MTOW under other paragraphs of 95.55 do not extend to your 101.55 airframe ...

Thanks Kasper.....would have been nice if they followed the NZ rules....class 1 single seat, class 2 two seat. MTOW up to 600kg for both limited only by design with max stall speed of 45kts in the landing configuration etc.

We could of had one nice and simple exemption....But......that would be too easy

 

 

[kasper]

Thanks Kasper.....would have been nice if they followed the NZ rules....class 1 single seat, class 2 two seat. MTOW up to 600kg for both limited only by design with max stall speed of 45kts in the landing configuration etc.We could of had one nice and simple exemption....But......that would be too easy

But that is all entirely possible * with CASA if they chose to do it.

* note I have been dealing with CASA (and predecessors) for 30 years and whilst I have not seen a lot of progressive engagement from them I live in hope. The only really progressive they did was the 19 reg homebuilts created in 1998 with far fewer strings that anyone at that time thought possible ... but RAAus is working to remedy that

 

 

[facthunter]

While it may be easy to argue we want the best and that should over rule the states geographical claims it 's easy for people a long way away from Canberra to feel left out of the process. Canberra has often had the "isolated and out of touch" & "4 generations of public service families attitudes" thrown at it. some of that "out of touch" could be hard to argue with. Not having a rep from your state would add to it. Are your leaders really in tune with the "Essence " of the movement or does it now have a momentum of it's own in another direction? I'm inclined to think it's the latter at present, and need convincing otherwise.. SIZE isn't everything. RAAus is DIFFERENT. It can't be GA and have GA rules superimposed on it. Too many years of effort have occurred for this to be the end game. Progress YES. Not assimulation. Back to the past is not the future. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Under CAO 95.55 aircraft are required to be registered with RA-Aus. This is different to the requirement in the agreement which talks about RA-Aus maintaining "that portion of the register of Australian aircraft;". As RA-Aus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's (see part 200) then Part 47 does not apply and thus they are not eligible to be included on "the register of Australian aircraft" - a formal term.

Yes, it is a different requirement Jim but the CAO makes it very clear that:

 

The aircraft must be registered

 

The pilot must hold a valid pilot certificate, and

 

The aircraft must be operated in accordance with the technical manual and the operations manual

 

You are splitting hairs here because it still has to be "registered" (the words of the CAO, not mine) and they are still "aircraft" and they are still in Australia on a register, just not "Australian aircraft" on the VH register because of an Act that predates this stuff.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Yes, it is a different requirement Jim but the CAO makes it very clear that:The aircraft must be registered

 

The pilot must hold a valid pilot certificate, and

 

The aircraft must be operated in accordance with the technical manual and the operations manual

 

You are splitting hairs here because it still has to be "registered" (the words of the CAO, not mine) and they are still "aircraft" and they are still in Australia on a register, just not "Australian aircraft" on the VH register because of an Act that predates this stuff.

 

Kaz

The point is that it is Ra-Aus's register no one elses

 

 

[facthunter]

Have you all just received the CASA Part 149 consultation extended to the 28th, for comments? Might be worth a read. I notice it is on another thread. 1700 today approx.. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

The point is that it is Ra-Aus's register no one elses

It would have saved a lot of energy if you had stated that at the beginning instead of putting forward your view that RA aircraft aren't registered.

 

BUT, that Register is made legitimate by the CAO's as is the pilot certificate. Unfortunately, the CAO's as currently written are specific to RAAus rather than being generic.

 

Not a big thing to change, just another job for the drafting team at CASA and a few more dollars added to the hundreds of millions spent already.

 

Kaz

 

 

[DonRamsay]

But Don if you should want to fly into ctaetc,WHYshould the majority of raa members who DO NOT want to fly into cta be penalised by default ,as in fee increases etc so raa can fight casa to give a small percentage of members who, apparently have the means to get their instruments etc at great cost ready to be able to do so,,,,,why is it not a better way to have a USER pays system ie,increase those fees for cta access very signifigantly to cover the cost of lobbying to do so ,and see if it is really financially viable. Now if that occurred I can hear the screaming already from you few that want that access.

Bull, Specifically what costs will be imposed on you if I wanted to train for and sit for an endorsement to fly CTA? Allow me suges that the answer is "sweet fanny adams". The only theoretical expense for RAAus is the work being done by Jill and the Board in obtaining CTA approval for RAAus. The Board are not paid and the Ops Manager is on a salary. You won't be required to do the training nor sit the exam and when I do, I will have to pay for it - "user pays".

 

And I can tell you that Mark Skidmore was quite surprised to find out that we were not allowed to have a CTA endo.

 

If its good enough for sport pilots in NZ, UK and USA - why not in Australia?

 

Don

 

p.s. The NRMA started out doing roadside repairs and morphed into an insurance giant, travel agent and so much more. Nothing in this world stands still without being overgrown with moss.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Have you all just received the CASA Part 149 consultation extended to the 28th, for comments? Might be worth a read. I notice it is on another thread. 1700 today approx.. Nev

RAAus has been planning for Part 149 longer than I have been involved. At the AGM last weekend, the President said that everything RAAus does including form of incorporation, Constitution, Ops and Tech Manuals, Safety System development have been done so as to satisfy Part 149 from day 1. I would speculate that RAAus is more ready for Part 149 than any other SAAO.

My personal bet is that Part 149 does not see daylight before the 20th anniversary of it being first mooted.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don, do you really mean that your NRMA example is a valid pattern for US? Do we morph into GA and eventually space travel? We don't WANT to be another GA or airline. SIMPLE hence affordable basic flying. IF we wanted that other stuff we could be there by just electing to do it. (and forking out the extra money in training, electrical system and instrument standards. Everything TSO'd and extra inspections). That would then become the cutting edges of the show and get all the attention from the aces.. Some extra compliance would inevitably flow onto the rest, on the basis WE have to do it why shouldn't you? so a NEW U/L movement would start, as a reaction. Sound familiar? Nev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Don, do you really mean that your NRMA example is a valid pattern for US? Do we morph into GA and eventually space travel? We don't WANT to be another GA or airline. SIMPLE hence affordable basic flying. IF we wanted that other stuff we could be there by just electing to do it. (and forking out the extra money in training, electrical system and instrument standards. Everything TSO'd and extra inspections). That would then become the cutting edges of the show and get all the attention from the aces.. Some extra compliance would inevitably flow onto the rest, on the basis WE have to do it why shouldn't you? so a NEW U/L movement would start. Sound familiar? Nev

Nev, the NRMA example was intended to say that things change and that what members wanted in 1926 may be different to what the great bulk of the membership wants in the 21st Century.

As I've written many times I don't accept the RA Vs GA delineation. I only see recreational aviation and commercial aviation. The size of you aircraft should not matter that much (within reason). GA aircraft flown for fun are recreational aviation just the same as rag and tube flown for recreation. A Trike flown by a commercial pilot for reward (e.g. joy flights) can be regulated by CASA for all I care as I will never fly for reward. As such my sole aviation interest is recreational aviation.

 

The Garmin G3X touchscreen in my aircraft is both reliable and accurate but not TSO'd. BUt, it has been accepted for recreational aviation. Why should a slightly heavier, smaller cockpit, C150 have to have TSO'd equipment if it is being used only for recreational aviation. I reckon my equipment is superior to some of the old crap in Cessnas and Pipers, etc.

 

That recreational aviation is a lower risk to the general public than commercial aviation is a well established fact. It is the basis of the lighter regulation of LSA and that has been proven over more than 10 years to be a great success and not a mistake. Why shouldn't a C172, flown for fun (not reward) be subject to the same style of regulation as other aircraft flown for recreation?

 

The trend across the world is now a reduction in regulation for light aircraft - e.g. medicals for Class III in USA, LSA, RPL, etc. To see easing of restrictions on RA as somehow going to cause harsher regulation is an argument that I cannot accept when the trend is for heavier than LSA to have reducing regulation.

 

 

[jetjr]

Are the smaller aircraft flyers and owners sure their end of the RAA spectrum is cheaper to run and manage per aircraft or pilot than say LSA?

 

Maybe purely based upon numbers, theres more money coming into RAA from those wanting to fly bigger and quicker aircraft than that coming in from R&T crew.

 

RAA is perhaps simply catering for the average member and providing services they want.

 

If by some chance this is correct then the smaller guys should be a bit careful about branching out. It would become user pays for sure then with sad results.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don unfortunately I don't agree with the way you are going with this. Just because you have been into Tamworth (not a particularly simple thing don't get the idea that is all there is in flying in CTA.)You cant expect to mix it with the expensive stuff and not be required to upgrade in many ways. you won't be VFR always either and you have to cruise where you are cleared. Give amended ETA's, know radio fail procedures and much more A lot of CTA is over rough country, you will need adsb shortly. Its a different world. All WE ned is transit rights and procedures across /through airspace and into specific aerodromes which would be better done with "special VFR" procedures. Like Victor one. Nev