Replacement poll on RAA weight and CTA

[Kyle Communications]

First time doing a poll...still havent worked it out properly yet but this hopefully is better than the first attempt. Ian hopefully will remove the first one I did.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Just to be a pain I think you need to either do it as three seperate polls or allow multiple answers:wave:

 

 

[SDQDI]

Or 4 or however many issues there is.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I dont know how to organise 3 separate questions..didnt seem to be anything there that allows that in making the poll. Anyway it has the questions that people have been asking and you only need to tick the ones that apply as you want them. The results so far seem encouraging that most want a weight increase to 750 and stall to remain 45K The CTA is about half and half....this at least gives us an idea of what others are thinking or wishing for.

 

 

[coljones]

Just to be a pain I think you need to either do it as three seperate polls or allow multiple answers:wave:

You can have up to 10 answers with this one. Castrating mosquitoes Kyle but perhaps one answer that is a don't care for POB is up to the max for the plane and within the MTOW envelope. Cheers

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Col if you want more than 2 POB then you need a full GA licence. Do you want to make GA dissappear and morph into RAA...that isnt the objective for those of us in RAA

 

 

[Geoff13]

Col if you want more than 2 POB then you need a full GA licence. Do you want to make GA dissappear and morph into RAA...that isnt the objective for those of us in RAA

Actually an RPL with class 2 medical allows you to carry more than 2 POB.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

700kgs plus/minus is fine by me, 600 is a joke but 45 knot stall speed should be retained for safety and puts that part of the safety on the onus of the designer. If you want to carry more, well you will have to do it slower, and I think that's fair.

 

For those who keep mentioning lower weight, well nothing is stopping you from flying at those weights, there is no minimum weight, but there is certainly big people who want to fly distances.

 

 

[Geoff13]

An increase in weight without a suitable increase in stall speed with restrict a couple of the RAA planes that could be advantaged by the weight increase.

 

A J230 stalls at 45knots @ 600kgs. It could under new rules allowing 750kgs go to 700kgs (manufacturers limit). It would however no longer meet the 45 knots stall requirement at that weight.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Why if we increase the MTOW to 750kg can't the stall speed be increased a little as well, maybe 50kts..I think it would be logical to go with the weight increase.

 

David

 

 

[coljones]

Col if you want more than 2 POB then you need a full GA licence. Do you want to make GA dissappear and morph into RAA...that isnt the objective for those of us in RAA

But if you are going to run a survey you have to cover all the options - there may be some out there who might like to fly 4POB (+200 kg plonk). To be fair you need to allow people to offer that option so that when CASA responds to the requests RAA has a fair view of what the members will wear and can seek the opinion of the members. To reject any options that might trouble a restricted number of members is anti-democratic. Apart from the 2POB limitation your survey is balanced.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

It needs a wing refit Geoff.....:) you cant just drop 700kg into a savannah either....The aircraft must be designed for the weight limit. There will no doubt quite a few aircraft that get dropped out of the bill too just as the example you just put up....but at 600kg a J230 is probably about right and lets face it its only just barely at the 45kts then anyway if your lucky..the wings are way too short for 700kg hence the higher stall speed which bought the aircraft also up into the SAAA and GA area so that wouldnt change. There will be a lot to look at I am sure but there seems to be 2 camps on this topic. The RAA camp who want no real extra stuff except bigger safer aircraft. Then you have the GA camp who want to get out of CASA and GA and all the associated costs and turn RAA into a slightly substandard GA...thats what I see in all this discussion. The poll results tell a lot so far

 

 

[bexrbetter]

An increase in weight without a suitable increase in stall speed with restrict a couple of the RAA planes that could be advantaged by the weight increase.A J230 stalls at 45knots @ 600kgs. It could under new rules allowing 750kgs go to 700kgs (manufacturers limit). It would however no longer meet the 45 knots stall requirement at that weight.

 

Why if we increase the MTOW to 750kg can't the stall speed be increased a little as well, maybe 50kts..I think it would be logical to go with the weight increase.David

Because the 45 knot speed deals with kinetics and your ability to survive crashes, not because you or your planes are quite capable of landing at 50.

 

 

[Birdseye]

Seems my three answers are also the most popular, what a clever chap I must be :-)

 

 

[Geoff13]

It needs a wing refit Geoff.....:) you cant just drop 700kg into a savannah either....The aircraft must be designed for the weight limit. There will no doubt quite a few aircraft that get dropped out of the bill too just as the example you just put up....but at 600kg a J230 is probably about right and lets face it its only just barely at the 45kts then anyway if your lucky..the wings are way too short for 700kg hence the higher stall speed which bought the aircraft also up into the SAAA and GA area so that wouldnt change. There will be a lot to look at I am sure but there seems to be 2 camps on this topic. The RAA camp who want no real extra stuff except bigger safer aircraft. Then you have the GA camp who want to get out of CASA and GA and all the associated costs and turn RAA into a slightly substandard GA...thats what I see in all this discussion. The poll results tell a lot so far

In fact the J230 as is gets 700kg under GA reg. It has been designed for 700kg it is only RAA that restrict it to 600kgs.

 

And I agree at 600kgs the J230 just barely fits the criteria.

 

The 45 knot stall speed will also prevent a lot of the other older aircraft that keep getting brought up as possible RAA if we go to 750 or 1500 kgs as well.

 

Bex I understand the reasoning for the stall speed just wonder if it may be time to revisit it whilst looking into everything else.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The poll is OK, But not many aircraft designer/manufacturer's tell the wing-loading on their glossies' so why the emphasis on The one aspect the stops an already approved aircraft from being registered on it's designated 95-10.

 

the OK IF it passes it's final inspection!, After all if a 95-10xxx looses more aircraft than new ones added there's a chance of it being used for Non-flying museum/static display's only.

 

Perhaps that's the intention of the new RAA ruling body !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Keith W]

Leave it alone if you want to carry more weight or passengers get an RPL, or next thing you know Raa will be over regulated, people seem to want all the benefits of RAA but without rules etc of GA.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I think 750 would bring a lot of safety improvements .... including ability to carry safer fuel loads for longer legs.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

My physics is pretty rudimentary at best BUT if you are voting for an increase in MTOW are you not ,in effect, voting for higher stall?

 

Yeh! Yeh! I know you could be flying a Lysander or a Pilatus Porter or some such STOL aircraft on steroids, but in the real world of "itsyy bitsy teeny weenie" aeroplanes what are we talking about? albatross like motor gliders!

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Well a slightly bigger roomier aircraft that is built a bit stronger and can carry more fuel...along with that comes a bigger wing which takes up part of the weight and also a bit more strength in that wing is now required due to its bigger size...we are talking 150kg !!!! above what we already have so I am pretty sure these extra mods done to accomodate a 45knot max stall is quite easy...Look at a RV9...it can come in at the that stall speed...it does have a bit bigger wing than a normal RV.

 

I can pass the Ausroads medical no problem but I can not pass the CASA bastardized RPL medical so RPL is out..I am pretty sure there would be a hell of a lot of people like me out there flying RAA now who would love a bit more room and fuel and baggage and still be nice and safe in the knowledge the aircraft is strong enough. Also we have no desire to land in CTA with all the associated ASCIC crap and landing fees and parking fees etc etc...the overwhelming majority of all RAA flying is done well outside CTA and it should stay that way

 

 

[DrZoos]

Kyle I would love to go into CTA, not necessarily to land, but probably 80% of the time to take a more direct and safer route. Flying past Coffs and Newcastle without using CTA is far more challenging and dangerous than straight thru. And I imagine that's the case in many parts of Australia... I couldnt care less if they banned us from Kingsford Smith, Avalon Tullamarine, Brisbane, but they ought to consider letting us use others as a priority simply for safety...

 

 

[frank marriott]

Kyle I would love to go into CTA, not necessarily to land, but probably 80% of the time to take a more direct and safer route. Flying past Coffs and Newcastle without using CTA is far more challenging and dangerous than straight thru. And I imagine that's the case in many parts of Australia... I couldnt care less if they banned us from Kingsford Smith, Avalon Tullamarine, Brisbane, but they ought to consider letting us use others as a priority simply for safety...

You can now if your aircraft complies with 95.55 - only need a RLP. Even if RAA gets CTA approval it will still require CTR/CTA endorsement AND I would suspect the same medical certification as the RPL. I would expect 95.55 restrictions on aircraft would not change either).

 

So similar extra training as getting a RPL and a time delay in getting qualified RAA instructors (obviously excluding those that are already GA/RAA instructors - who can already cover the situation with a RPL).

 

Also watch what "Our?" organisation is doing with (instrument) certification for CTA because they "think it is a good idea" (quote) - Even though seamless operations in CTA have existed for over 10years (licence being only an issue prior to the RPL).

 

So nothing much changes even when/if RAA obtaines CTA approval other then further requirements issued by some ill advised RAA individuals.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Also we have no desire to land in CTA with all the associated ASCIC crap and landing fees and parking fees etc etc...the overwhelming majority of all RAA flying is done well outside CTA and it should stay that way

Hi Kyle - I agree 110% with the ASIC crap comment

 

DISAGREE with

 

• "majority of RAA flying ...is outside CTA "
   
   
  

 

 

The only reason RAA opps are outside CTA is because we are not supposed to go there. The few that do are either exercising PPL & 24 Rego privileges or doing so illegally.

 

I have little interest in landing at our major airports but I would like to be able to TRANSITION through their air space from time to time. Save me a heap of time/fuel on a long nave and more importantly allows for safer tracks to be selected avoiding dangerous terrain.

 

RAA aircraft flying out of airfields close to our major cities are significantly (negatively) impacted by their proximity to CTA.

 

What logical reason is there for RAA aircraft , suitably equipped and flown by qualified (CTA) pilots, not to fly in CTA - I believe the gliding and parachuti fraternity do so and they don't usually carry transponders

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Skippy

 

You hit the nail on the head..."suitably equipped" transponder and all certified avionics. This then adds how much to the cost of the RAA aircraft also the maint cost of certifying the avionics. I bed to differ about the amount of traffic. Count up how many RAA aircraft operate and are hangared on airfields that are in a non CTA area. I am pretty sure you will find its about 15 to 1 ratio. Just that ratio alone is a reason of why most will not use CTA.

 

I agree about the transitioning that would be handy but to do so you currently would need certified hardware according to the CASA rules as well as a factory built aircraft. I do know that CASA are trying to get non certified transponders approved for all RAA operations..thats a good thing as I believe we should all have transponders so we can see where we all are and ATC can see where we all are but the current crop are just way to expensive as you need a certified transponder AND a certified GPS to go with it. The stumbling block is not CASA its Airservices. CASA bought the proposal but are finding it hard to get agreement.

 

So I would be happy to be able to transition CTA if possible as well but I know the technical stumbling blocks currently in the way. If those can be sorted with this new proposal then certainly I would be happy to fit the gear into my 19 rego aircraft and be allowed with the PROPER training to transition CTA areas this would be a good thing but really this is a separate matter to any weight limit increase.

 

 

[coljones]

SkippyYou hit the nail on the head..."suitably equipped" transponder and all certified avionics. This then adds how much to the cost of the RAA aircraft also the maint cost of certifying the avionics. I bed to differ about the amount of traffic.

you don't need transponders or certified avionics in Class D, you must have a radio. If you have them you must use them. The current impediments to RAA aircraft is the need to have an RPC and an RPL with CTA endo.

 

Count up how many RAA aircraft operate and are hangared on airfields that are in a non CTA area. I am pretty sure you will find its about 15 to 1 ratio. Just that ratio alone is a reason of why most will not use CTA.

There are few RAA Planes located at D Space airports because of the current restrictions. Just because there are no boys enrolled in girls schools doesn't mean that boys don't want to go to the girls school next door. If RAA planes could enter and transit controlled airspace you would find that there would be more prepared to camp at controlled dromes. FX Tamworth, Coffs Harbour, Bankstown and Camden.

 

I agree about the transitioning that would be handy but to do so you currently would need certified hardware according to the CASA rules as well as a factory built aircraft. I do know that CASA are trying to get non certified transponders approved for all RAA operations..thats a good thing as I believe we should all have transponders so we can see where we all are and ATC can see where we all are but the current crop are just way to expensive as you need a certified transponder AND a certified GPS to go with it. The stumbling block is not CASA its Airservices. CASA bought the proposal but are finding it hard to get agreement.

you do need a transponder and radio to enter E space (I don't know if it needs to be certified or ADSB out). There is an emerging proposal for the Sydney Basin to have E Space at 1200' west of YBSK and down to 700' near Prospect. This will mean that all planes transiting the Basin North/South will need a radio and a transponder. 19 built can fly controlled airspace but there may be an issue with non-certified aircraft over buildup areas similar to that which obtained when Jabiru engines were banned

 

So I would be happy to be able to transition CTA if possible as well but I know the technical stumbling blocks currently in the way. If those can be sorted with this new proposal then certainly I would be happy to fit the gear into my 19 rego aircraft and be allowed with the PROPER training to transition CTA areas this would be a good thing but really this is a separate matter to any weight limit increase.