So RAA are looking to have 750 kg MTOW as well as 1500 kg MTOW increases from CASA.

[Icarus]

Back to the original topic.

 

Looks like back in 2009 CASA closed the 750kg project citing not safety concerns , but possible concerns from other sectors of aviation? WTF like who? ? They said more consultation needed.

 

Project CS 06/01 - Increase of the MTOW for Aircraft Operating Under CAO 95.55 Operations | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

Looks like a review was agreed upon after part 103 is introduced.

 

Which according to the timeline link below will be March 2018. However "Making" the regulation starts March 2017.

 

Regulatory timeline 2016 | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

 

[aplund]

Back to the original topic.Looks like back in 2009 CASA closed the 750kg project citing not safety concerns , but possible concerns from other sectors of aviation? WTF like who? ? They said more consultation needed.

Reading between the lines here, but presumably they mean GA operators who have invested a lot of capital, resources and time in expecting that they will be the only ones to train people and operate GA aircraft which are currently over the recreational limits. This would be particularly the case for 1500kg. Surely airlines don't care as they operate IFR and class A most of the time.

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

Should I stop holding my breath now?

 

CTA and MTOW

 

RAAus has received advice from CASA that progress towards CTA and MTOW will be managed in line with legislative reform in 2018. Whereas RAAus was hoping to progress CTA and MTOW prior to Part 149 being introduced, CASA has advised that this is not possible. We will keep members informed as we continue to work on these proposals.

 

 

[Hargraves]

Its difficult to work the empire out eh, whats wrong with 750kg and 1500kg ultralights.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Its difficult to work the empire out eh, whats wrong with 750kg and 1500kg ultralights.

There's another extensive thread on that.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Should I stop holding my breath now?CTA and MTOW

 

RAAus has received advice from CASA that progress towards CTA and MTOW will be managed in line with legislative reform in 2018. Whereas RAAus was hoping to progress CTA and MTOW prior to Part 149 being introduced, CASA has advised that this is not possible. We will keep members informed as we continue to work on these proposals.

Yep. No one can hold their breath till the end of time.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The problem is the CTA is difficult to organise and is very involved and from polls on here has proved not to be the major want from members. The weight increase is !!!! . But it keeps getting prostituted by the people that want 1500kg...go get a GA licence if you want to fly that sort of aircraft..then your CTA issues go away. I think the weight increase has been totally stuffed up by RAAA because they pushed it to 1500 and added the stupid CTA into it as well so it all becomes too hard for CASA

 

 

[Pominaus]

I'm pretty new to the debate and keep reading the threads, but hit a wall when trying to work out exactly why this is so in demand?

 

Is it just so people can keep flying their Cessna, Piper, Beech, etc on RAAus certs if they don't pass a casa medical?

 

Sorry I know it's been done to death, and I keep reading the same arguments in the different threads, but never seem to hit on exactly why it's so important to people to have it, just allusions to the medical. Sorry if it stirs the pot - genuine question!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mostly people trying to cheat on medicals, and just dragging the sport down

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The problem is several...but only made so by trying to eat the whole cake instead of just one piece.

 

The weight increase to 750kg is wanted by most to be able to fly slightly more comfortable and safer stronger aircraft in RAAA..which only requires a drivers medical. This is what MOST want from different polls that have been done

 

Then of course along comes RPL so now others want aircraft to 1500kg because they cant pass the class2 medical but can pass the CASA drivers medical

 

Then now these 1500kg guys want to have CTA as well as part of being in RAAA

 

RAAA in their "wisdom" decided to go for everything at once hoping to only get maybe part of it well thats turned to sh#t now because CASA says this is all way too hard.

 

Slowly slowly catch the monkey...they should have just gone 1 at a time..start at the bottom....go for 750kg then after that maybe try for 1500 then if not then try CTA but no its now all been stuffed up

 

If we did a poll again about what would you prefer to have right now?..you can only have 1 of them ..what is the most important...I would bet that the 750kg will be the biggest result without a doubt

 

If you want CTA go get a bloody RPL with endorsement or a GA licence...stop trying to stuff up the majority of guys here who want to just try to keep in simple but safer

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

You maybe able to tell I am a bit pissed with this

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

I'm with you, just want 750 to be able to carry Full tanks and 2 PoB who are not pint sized people. Hey maybe even strengthen the aircraft a bit for safety sake, why not. Not interested in CTA or 1500KG

 

 

[Nobody]

Pominaus,

 

It's all about money and power. About 15 or 20 years ago RAAus became a credible alternative to the small end of GA. The weight limit was increased to 600kg from 544 and this allowed companies like Jabiru to sell quite good little aircraft that were reasonably good cross country machines to pilots who couldn't pass an aviation medical. The pilots only needed to say they thought they were healthy enough to fly. CASA were happy enough with this as the aircraft were kept away from where they could harm anyone else(CTA and built up areas), were limited to 1 passenger and stalled slow enough that the there wouldn't be too many fatalities.

 

Effectively RAAus now has about 8,000 members, but during the same time period General Aviation lost about 8,000 pilots. While RAAus has attracted a few new people to aviation a significant portion of the membership are pilots who used to fly GA but can no longer because of the medical issues. These pilots are generally pretty old and within the next 5 or 10 years will probably hang up their headsets.

 

This means that the push for greater MTOW and CTA comes from two directions. The pilots who used to fly GA are upset that they are now no longer able to fly IFR, at night, In controlled airspace, with more than 1 passenger or aircraft greater than 600kg.

 

The other push comes from RAAus the organisation itself(as distinct from the membership). It needs to maintain (or grow) its membership to build the empire. The aging member population will mean that unless something is done, in 5 years there will be fewer members than there are today. By increasing the MTOW(to 1500kg) and CTA it can try to get the other 15,000 or so private pilots to be members and grow its empire further. This leads the perverse situation where RAAus, in their submission to CASA, argued that the RAMPS medial requirements should not be relaxed or amended. If pilots were able to fly without being screwed by Avmed they wouldn't need to be members of RAAus...

 

https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raaus-submission-casa-medical-certification-standards-discussion-paper-march-2017.pdf

 

 

[turboplanner]

The weight increase to 750kg is wanted by most to be able to fly slightly more comfortable and safer stronger aircraft in RAAA..which only requires a drivers medical. This is what MOST want from different polls that have been done

That question was answered on the last thread; what you are describing is a Cessna 152, almost exactly.

 

You CANNOT have a weight increase on something like a Savannah to provide a safer stronger aircraft WITHOUT having to make many components heavier, which means the end result is that you get no increase in PAX/Luggage/fuel (based on the existing design)

 

I know that's a gross oversimplification, and an engineer may well be able to design a product for 750 kg, but until that can be deomnstrated, If you want to carry more load, you do what people do throughout all aircraft categories - you go up one category, and that means to go to GA and that means you need the appropriate medical.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I wasnt talking about a weight increase for aircraft designed to their absolute limit now. You would be nuts to try to with a sav that was 450kg then 520 then 544 now 600...it has reached the end of its effive weight.

 

I am talking about Larger zenith or ICP ventura or Rans aircraft or even RV9 and those style than CAN get 45knots or under and 750kg MTOW. Even your grubby old old old 152 is fine....the aircraft have a bit more room...."maybe not the 152" and are a lot stronger. This is where we need to be going. Not upgrading designs that are maxed out now

 

There are lots of aircraft...even the old jabiru

 

 

[Nobody]

I wasnt talking about a weight increase for aircraft designed to their absolute limit now. You would be nuts to try to with a sav that was 450kg then 520 then 544 now 600...it has reached the end of its effive weight.I am talking about Larger zenith or ICP ventura or Rans aircraft or even RV9 and those style than CAN get 45knots or under and 750kg MTOW. Even your grubby old old old 152 is fine....the aircraft have a bit more room...."maybe not the 152" and are a lot stronger. This is where we need to be going. Not upgrading designs that are maxed out now

There are lots of aircraft...even the old jabiru

The MTOW for the 152 is heavier than 750kg.

 

 

[Keith Page]

While the debate goes on -- the 750kg should be 760kg. The 760kg will cover a few extras yes it is 10kg but that will cover those extras.

 

As for the crowd who want 1500kg and CTA, let them whistle Dixie. They have forgotten what RAAus is all about.

 

KP

 

 

[kasper]

The MTOW for the 152 is heavier than 750kg.

Yes. 757kg is more than 750 ... but I’d be less worried about losing 7kg of mtow if I could move to RAAus ...

 

 

[SDQDI]

The perfect solution would be

 

No medical required for ALL recreational flights up to 1500kgs

 

Heavy vehicle medical for ALL recreational flights 1500kg to 5700kg

 

Medicals required for ALL commercial passenger ops

 

Heavy vehicle medical for commercial ops under 5700kg

 

If those were the rules across the board RAA may suffer but it would do wonders for the industry.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

After watching the RAAus video of the QandA session following the AGM, it seems we can forget any MTOW increase or CTA privileges for a few more years.

 

The latest Board communique makes for interesting reading, telling us how well things are going with highlights like:

 

- lobbying CASA for better outcomes for sport aviation. CASA have put CTA/MTOW on the back burner, I wonder if the lobbying helped that situation?

 

- finances going well, including an interesting description of depreciation from an accounting perspective. Expecting a small cash surplus, I wonder if that was before the board graciously donated $30,000 of RAAus' funds to the 2017 Narromine AVA event?

 

- another round of strategic planning under way. I wonder what ever happened to the last strategic plan? It seemed to vanish as the target dates were adjusted, then not met.

 

 

[poteroo]

I think the weight increase has been totally stuffed up by RAAA because they pushed it to 1500 and added the stupid CTA into it as well so it all becomes too hard for CASA

Couldn't agree more. 1500kgs was always going to prove 'a bridge too far'. The horses have been frightened with this obvious ambit claim. 800kgs would have been smarter, insofar as allowing ex GA types into RAAus. It would have included all the C150/152 types with 757mtow, and the majority of VANS RV's, (my 9A is 795kgs mtow). It would however, create a uniquely Aussie category of aircraft......but, who's counting? We already have several CASA inspired unique Aussie rules.

 

Insofar as CTA is concerned - that's quite a different argument for CASA. It is really about safety, rather than convenience, and the argument should have strictly pursued that line. Learning CTA rules and doing an endorsement is well within the capabilities of an RPC, and aircraft can be brought up to 'CTA' standard by the application of $$$. Running with safety alone should have been an easy 'sell' to CASA, and I am amazed that RAAus couldn't achieve it.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Dont know what the MTOW for a 152 is...but its empty weight UP TO 750 kg then it would fit....same as that Jab .....they fly that can do 750 but only allowed to fly at 600......dont be picky. You know what I mean

 

COMMON SENSE where did it go???????? this past 10 or 15 years those 2 words have disappeared from the dictionary

 

 

[johnm]

I like post 113

 

is it an actual need from 3rd parties like insurers ............ etc

 

or as post 113 suggest - the RAA bodies need for more members. Isn't more and more cash flowing in (from new members) called a ponzi scheme (sarcasm ....................sorry)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Dont know what the MTOW for a 152 is...but its empty weight UP TO 750 kg then it would fit....same as that Jab .....they fly that can do 750 but only allowed to fly at 600......dont be picky. You know what I meanCOMMON SENSE where did it go???????? this past 10 or 15 years those 2 words have disappeared from the dictionary

In this case common sense has gone out the window to be replaced by sneaky deception which affects thousands of pilots abiding by the rules.

Refer Class G #15 - a C152 has a Maximum Take Off Weight of 758 (or 757 depending on the book), and weighs 490 kg - that's 268 kg left over for pilot, pax, fuel, baggage and fuel to usable fuel level.

 

GA Reg, RPL - tougher medical

 

Latest information from Aero kits Pty Ltd for a factory built Savannah: MTOW - 600 kg, Empty weight - about 300 kg - that's 300 kg for pilot, pax, fuel, baggage and fuel to usable fuel level.

 

RAA Reg, RPC

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I wrote a long email to RAA from a manufacturer's point of view and not a single word back to even acknowledge they received it.