Annuals

[rhtrudder]

Talking with a lame mate today and he reckons we will be looking at compulsory annuals next, anyone think there is any truth in this.

 

 

[ruffasguts]

Talking with a lame mate today and he reckons we will be looking at compulsory annuals next, anyone think there is any truth in this.

Already is 100 hrs or 12 months which ever occurs first

Mick W

 

 

[rhtrudder]

As in private use raa owners can do their own, I think he was referring to GA type maintenance release annuals.

 

 

[Methusala]

And surely that is LAME.

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

And surely that is LAME.

Or an L2/L4 as recognised by RAAus.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

We have to fight against these creeping cost imposts or give up flying.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Only a matter of time, we are now mini GA now, with some of the coffee machines flying. We need to separate these and have two distinct RAA types eg, rag wing drifter, and light wing types. Then your Tecnam or carbon fibre types like sting etc. Operating limits as well for example OCTA and control airspace. Provides two distinct training standards and cost structure. like for example - AUF standard of rules training for rag and light wing. The say GA RPL and PPL standard for the Tecnam and up.

 

Sorry but that what we have come to especially with 700kg mtow weight limit coming. Then we can have Night flying.

 

Better to bite the bullet now to have two divisions operating then all having the costs added. PAY FOR WHAT YOU FLY it boils down to.

 

 

[kasper]

Only a matter of time, we are now mini GA now, with some of the coffee machines flying. We need to separate these and have two distinct RAA types eg, rag wing drifter, and light wing types. Then your Tecnam or carbon fibre types like sting etc. Operating limits as well for example OCTA and control airspace. Provides two distinct training standards and cost structure. like for example - AUF standard of rules training for rag and light wing. The say GA RPL and PPL standard for the Tecnam and up.Sorry but that what we have come to especially with 700kg mtow weight limit coming. Then we can have Night flying.

Better to bite the bullet now to have two divisions operating then all having the costs added. PAY FOR WHAT YOU FLY it boils down to.

If that's the future then we may as well give up and accept that we are just GA and will end up undifferentiated with the 'older' low end airframes effectively abandoned - its basic governmental divide and destroy tactics.

 

 

[SSCBD]

If that's the future then we may as well give up and accept that we are just GA and will end up undifferentiated with the 'older' low end airframes effectively abandoned - its basic governmental divide and destroy tactics.

YEP!

 

 

[Mick]

Only a matter of time, we are now mini GA now, with some of the coffee machines flying. We need to separate these and have two distinct RAA types eg, rag wing drifter, and light wing types. Then your Tecnam or carbon fibre types like sting etc. Operating limits as well for example OCTA and control airspace. Provides two distinct training standards and cost structure. like for example - AUF standard of rules training for rag and light wing. The say GA RPL and PPL standard for the Tecnam and up.Sorry but that what we have come to especially with 700kg mtow weight limit coming. Then we can have Night flying.

Better to bite the bullet now to have two divisions operating then all having the costs added. PAY FOR WHAT YOU FLY it boils down to.

Or maybe we could just accept that what we have is good enough. I don't agree withe constant push for more weight, controlled airspace etc. Where do we stop? It is inevitable that these extras will not come without inreases in regulation.

 

Yes I fly what some may call mini GA, but I am happy with what we have & don't see the need for more.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Or maybe we could just accept that what we have is good enough. I don't agree withe constant push for more weight, controlled airspace etc. Where do we stop? It is inevitable that these extras will not come without inreases in regulation.Yes I fly what some may call mini GA, but I am happy with what we have & don't see the need for more.

Mick where have you been, I already fly through control airspace in a RAA plane, we can file flight plans etc, we are already here. Yes I am GA trained as well. but RAA aircraft can, its just a pilot rating. Which I expect will become a requirement as more airspace it taken on the coastal side. And RAA instructors get more fees to train to this standard.

 

 

[frank marriott]

We have to fight against these creeping cost imposts or give up flying.

Exactly! The opposing input on some of the new ops and tech manual has been effectively removed by the new "mini" board as designed. It is now up to members to regain control or shut-up and cop what what a couple of people believe. Simply put - members choise!

 

 

[Mick]

Mick where have you been,

Where have I been? Living with Type 1 diabetes since my late teens. Never believing that CASA will acknowledge the advances in the management of this condition to the point of enabling me to fly GA.

 

For many years I did not think I would ever fly at all. I am thankful for what RAAus has allowed me to do, but fearful that this never ending drive for more by some will result in restrictions most of us do not want to see.

 

Good for you for having PPL, but don't assume that is an option for all RAAus pilots. Also don't bother reffering to the "Drivers License Medical" crap because CASA seem determind to make sure that is not a viable option.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Mick I was not having a shot at you - but understand that RAA now is not everyone's friend. They are on the road to GA standards for all and fun flying be dammed.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

Exactly! The opposing input on some of the new ops and tech manual has been effectively removed by the new "mini" board as designed. It is now up to members to regain control or shut-up and cop what what a couple of people believe. Simply put - members choise!

owner maintained planes is the biggest attraction to our type of flying , take that away and it will finish a lot of us off, most of the second hand raa planes I think would become worthless, if you could afford it might as well pick up a old 140 Cherokee for 40k and be stuck with 5k annuals

 

 

[Keith Page]

Have a read of the new Tech. Manual which was formulated in secret. See what is there. There will be a section where the annuals will fit nicely.

 

Why would a document be shrouded in so much secrecy, the members did not get to hear about it till it was signed off by CASA.

 

While on the reading phase scrutinise the Opps Manual see what is there.

 

KP

 

 

[M61A1]

Only a matter of time, we are now mini GA now, with some of the coffee machines flying. We need to separate these and have two distinct RAA types eg, rag wing drifter, and light wing types. Then your Tecnam or carbon fibre types like sting etc. Operating limits as well for example OCTA and control airspace. Provides two distinct training standards and cost structure. like for example - AUF standard of rules training for rag and light wing. The say GA RPL and PPL standard for the Tecnam and up.Sorry but that what we have come to especially with 700kg mtow weight limit coming. Then we can have Night flying.

Better to bite the bullet now to have two divisions operating then all having the costs added. PAY FOR WHAT YOU FLY it boils down to.

Why not make that distinction between homebuilt and factory built? Factory built : certified aircraft = certified maintenance. Home built: you built it, you can maintain it, Regardless of weight.I don't see why weight even has to enter the equation other than in relation to stall speed.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

Why not make that distinction between homebuilt and factory built? Factory built : certified aircraft = certified maintenance. Home built: you built it, you can maintain it, Regardless of weight.I don't see why weight even has to enter the equation other than in relation to stall speed.

what then happens to all the 19 rego planes that have been on sold , can the new owners do their own maintenance if not they are in the same boat as GA

 

 

[kasper]

what then happens to all the 19 rego planes that have been on sold , can the new owners do their own maintenance if not they are in the same boat as GA

19 reg is experimental. The owner is the design authority regardless of them building it or buying it. This was the starting point and all steps away from that by the RAAus elite GA here we come leadership is just confusing the original intent. ANY and ALL pilots getting into a 19 reg airframe should not expect factory certified airframe and handling performance.

If we just focused on that as the distinction let's start rolling back the ridiculous and incompatible to origin tech crap we have just had put through on 10. 19. And 32 reg experimental airframes.

 

 

[Yenn]

I do my own annuals for my GA plane. Experimental, owner built and I have done the SAAA course.

 

I am assuming this will cover my RAAus Corby which I also built. Have asked RAAus several times by email, but only get ignored.

 

If E&LAAA get up they are saying 2 yearly.

 

Mick. Have a look at CASA site, look up form 166 A,B and C.

 

It asks for pilot filling in questions and Dr. questions.

 

You will be asked if you have ever had diabetis and the Dr will be asked if there are any reasons you would not pass Ausroads diabetis questions. I would guess that you should be able to get a Recreational Licence from CASA.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I am assuming this will cover my RAAus Corby which I also built. Have asked RAAus several times by email, but only get ignored.If E&LAAA get up they

Yenn, I wouldn't assume anything myself, with the current approach.

 

The ELAAA approach I only read recently, and completely disagree with it (and a $220 fee) - I haven't had a chance yet, but will certainly raise the matter with Keith in due course.

 

 

[Frankus1aust]

Where have I been? Living with Type 1 diabetes since my late teens. Never believing that CASA will acknowledge the advances in the management of this condition to the point of enabling me to fly GA.For many years I did not think I would ever fly at all. I am thankful for what RAAus has allowed me to do, but fearful that this never ending drive for more by some will result in restrictions most of us do not want to see.

 

Good for you for having PPL, but don't assume that is an option for all RAAus pilots. Also don't bother reffering to the "Drivers License Medical" crap because CASA seem determind to make sure that is not a viable option.

With you on the type 1. I also have a PPL all be it burdened with more Avmed conditions and procedure that would fit on a family sized dunny roll. The RAA license could allow for heavier and more sophisticated aircraft/flying environments but to keep things RAA simple, aircraft could fall into a broader version of the existing classifications, and the pilots could have suitable endorsements. We already have airspace limitations on experimental and some other classes so this would not be hard to develop a little further. So far, CASA Avmed has been RAA's friend and sent us lots of members who normally wouldn't have come over. Once here, they like it. Re CASA and Avmed, if you don't fight, you lose. I have a heavy vehicle license and type 1 diabetes. Vic Roads have been really good to deal with on the licence and I wish CASA would take a lesson from Vic Roads on how to balance risk and results. When a government organisation is being surpassed by Vic Roads in common sense, that tells me we are being massively over governed by an organisation needing reform.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Frankm, I think the $220 fee is comparable to RAAus. It is a form of profit-making or at best a transfer from those who have ordinary planes to those who need lots of official time spent on them. To my mind it is a bit too much for what you get, but there is little choice.

 

Is there something else you don't like about the ELAAA maintenance proposals?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Bruce

 

I don't know enough about the setup to make any informed opinion at this stage. Once their approvals are through I will look in detail.

 

A "quick" read of some stuff indicated a fresh CoA every two years with a processing fee of $220. That approach I would not agree with - if maintained to appropriate standard this is over regulation.

 

Seems everybody wants to get into the OVER regulate state of mind?

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Any proposed changes to regulations should be safety based and risk assessed. I can hear the groans, but honestly the only way to beat the creep in regulations is to baffle the authors with their own red tape.

 

Step 1 - ask why the change is necessary? Not someone's pet thing or gut instinct, hard and verified statistics which are made available for review.

 

Step 2 - Identify affected parties and involve them in fixing the problem.

 

Step 3 - complete a proper hazard identification process, risk assess the hazards, develop mitigators for any significant hazards, then review them looking for hazards they may create.

 

Step 4 - plan the introduction of the changes - including training affected personnel and a post implementation review and refine/withdraw changes depending on the effectiveness.

 

This is very roughly the process required by a sound SMS. At best the work involved might make the rule changers think twice before putting pen to paper, worse case it might actually produce some good outcomes. Simply changing or introducing rules does not improve safety!

 

In other words, make them accountable and as a bonus bury them in their own BS.