Category G

[Kyle Communications]

Just been watching the Q&A for RAAUS on FB live. MTOW looks like CASA has shelved it..typical wankers...I think because they have the CTA involved as well in the proposals..and its all too hard for the dweeb brains in CASA. So RAAUS are looking at a new category called G aircraft over 600kg and stall greater than 45 knots.......well what about if the stall speed is under 45knots but not greater than 750kg?...where does it all end. I think this is a feeble attempt to do anything....the answer is thats called RPL ....WTF. Cant anyone make sensible rules any more

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just been watching the Q&A for RAAUS on FB live. MTOW looks like CASA has shelved it..typical wankers...I think because they have the CTA involved as well in the proposals..and its all too hard for the dweeb brains in CASA. So RAAUS are looking at a new category called G aircraft over 600kg and stall greater than 45 knots.......well what about if the stall speed is under 45knots but not greater than 750kg?...where does it all end. I think this is a feeble attempt to do anything....the answer is thats called RPL ....WTF. Cant anyone make sensible rules any more

Not surprising at all when you look at the complications with the two seater end of GA, and the safety level of RA in recent years.

As I understand it, this was a dream by a tiny few from RA, and didn't have the backing of a majority of members.

 

Calling CASA wankers seems a bit odd; who suggested this?

 

 

[Guy s]

That's a bugger as I've been living in hope for a 750 kg weight limit giving us greater scope in types of aircraft, diesel motors down the track maybe and some creature comforts like better seats,Brakes and possible aircon and not being so skinny on the luggage we can carry when travelling etc, not asking for much am I

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's a bugger as I've been living in hope for a 750 kg weight limit giving us greater scope in types of aircraft, diesel motors down the track maybe and some creature comforts like better seats,Brakes and possible aircon and not being so skinny on the luggage we can carry when travelling etc, not asking for much am I

That's the wish of us all, but a careful study of GA specifications shows you have to go up to four seater category to get pilot+1 pax + full luggage + full fuel, and it stays out of reach much further up the chain if you want two or three pax, and that's for light ones.

 

 

[Super Cub]

I have to say, that's not only very disappointing, but a rather pointless decision IMHO.

 

Having come from a GA background, I believe I am FAR more likely to have a takeoff or landing incident in a LSA than a slightly heavier GA aircraft (or a 900KG LSA for arguments sake).

 

Many modern LSA are built to fit in this arbitrary 600KG LSA Rule. To achieve the standard 2 Seat (Adults), 100HP, 4.5 hours fuel criteria, they have to be built by very light construction.

 

The 750KG (or pick a number, 1000kg) enables stronger gear, slightly thicker skins, more metal plates / bracing at joints, stronger spar. IE a stronger built aircraft design.

 

It appears most of the modern LSA (especially Factory Built) are 600KG MTOW, with stall speeds around 27-35KTs. This requires approaches around 40-55Kts to achieve your landing speed (around the 30KT-ish mark).

 

Not surprising a 15-20Kt gust on the typical summers flying day will have a lot more affect on that LSA on approach at 45Kts or about to touch down at 30Kts, than say a heavier aircraft approaching at 70kts and reducing to 45-60Kts for touchdown.

 

So my personal experience is, you are more likely to be involved in a takeoff or landing accident / incident in a 600KG LSA than a more solidly built 750KG (or 1000Kg LSA).

 

And before everyone says, they should go fly a GA plane then. I think many that have lost their medical, or that are required to jump through ridiculous hoops to renew their Class 2 will tell you why. Remember, in a couple of years time, perhaps it will be you that loses your Class 2, or requires 6 monthly medicals with specialists tests to keep it.

 

I've just been reading about some having to do expensive sleep apnoea? tests because they are considered at risk?, or was it because they had a neck size larger than 42. ???

 

Someone trying to create a regular income administering these pointless tests to give someone a Class 2 to fly their 2 seat, 800 Kg RV-XX.

 

In regard to the argument, you are more likely to survive a crash in a LSA because they have a stall speed of 45KTS or less, firstly, I'm sure there are plenty of 750KG aircraft out there with a stall speed of 45Kts or less, and I would also question whether you may have a better chance of surviving a crash in a more solidly built 900KG aircraft (particularly Cockpit) with a stall speed of 50KTs, rather than a very lightly built aircraft with a stall speed of 45KTs. (I don't have proof, just surmising based on some LSA accidents fatalities I've read).

 

Strangely though, The same people that cannot fly a 2 seat aircraft over 600KG, or those that have failed a Class 2 medical, can all drive on the open road a couple of meters off oncoming traffic in their 3500KG V8 4WD, with more likely casualties should they become suddenly incapacitated.

 

Many amateur pilots would still drive their cars on the road when feeling unwell, but would mostly likely decide not to fly that day.

 

I don't agree with their decision, or arguments against it. Stifling bureaucracy gone mad, yet again.

 

How the hell did PPLs manage to survive flying small 1-2 seater SE GA aircraft in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s without all this bureaucratic rubbish.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Dont we all Guy....ok at 750kg you can carry 100litres of fuel...75kg or there abouts then 2 reasonable size people of 100kg each and say 20kg of luggage so 300kg say for round numbers...well stone the crows our aircraft can now weight 400KG !!!!!!! thats 80kg heavier than mine now...me thinks for 80kg I can make my aircraft a little bigger for more room and a damn site stronger

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

hahah posted same time as me Supercub :)

 

 

[spacesailor]

Don't forget!

 

Two engines are safer than one,

 

So lets get the safety aspect into RAA as well as increased weight.

 

Well some times its safer.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Don't forget!Two engines are safer than one,

So lets get the safety aspect into RAA as well as increased weight.

 

Well some times its safer.

 

spacesailor[ATTACH]51944[/ATTACH]

Plenty would argue with that, Spacey. I wouldn't enjoy trying to keep control of a twin with all its power coming from one side. (What's that old saying: in the event of an engine failure the second engine will always get you to the scene of the crash.)

Perhaps you're advocating in-line twins like the Bugatti 100P. I was very impressed with the design, but after putting money into the replica I started doubting its stability. Tragic outcome.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Maybe they'll ask for a lot more money to rebuild the replica, fancy chucking in more $.

 

A learner's trike wheel (front) could have saved the day?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[SDQDI]

A learner's trike wheel (front) could have saved the day?.

I haven't read the final report but just going on the short informal version I don't think a nose wheel would have made any difference.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Well the first prang was a brake failure, the nose wheel would have helped steer it a little more.

 

To be honest I didn't see the final flight till now.

 

Historic replica airplane, the Bugatti 100p, crashes near Burns Flat, pilot and designer Scotty Wilson dies

 

My apologies.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The 750KG (or pick a number, 1000kg) enables stronger gear, slightly thicker skins, more metal plates / bracing at joints, stronger spar. IE a stronger built aircraft design.

Close to what I am doing. I believe 700 would be great, even 650 would make a considerable difference over 600.

 

Notice the people in that room, many of them would be either side of 100kgs.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Notice the people in that room, many of them would be either side of 100kgs.

Most of us are one side or the other, I have trouble being both.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have to say, that's not only very disappointing, but a rather pointless decision IMHO.Having come from a GA background, I believe I am FAR more likely to have a takeoff or landing incident in a LSA than a slightly heavier GA aircraft (or a 900KG LSA for arguments sake).

 

Many modern LSA are built to fit in this arbitrary 600KG LSA Rule. To achieve the standard 2 Seat (Adults), 100HP, 4.5 hours fuel criteria, they have to be built by very light construction.

 

The 750KG (or pick a number, 1000kg) enables stronger gear, slightly thicker skins, more metal plates / bracing at joints, stronger spar. IE a stronger built aircraft design.

 

It appears most of the modern LSA (especially Factory Built) are 600KG MTOW, with stall speeds around 27-35KTs. This requires approaches around 40-55Kts to achieve your landing speed (around the 30KT-ish mark).

 

Not surprising a 15-20Kt gust on the typical summers flying day will have a lot more affect on that LSA on approach at 45Kts or about to touch down at 30Kts, than say a heavier aircraft approaching at 70kts and reducing to 45-60Kts for touchdown.

 

So my personal experience is, you are more likely to be involved in a takeoff or landing accident / incident in a 600KG LSA than a more solidly built 750KG (or 1000Kg LSA).

 

And before everyone says, they should go fly a GA plane then. I think many that have lost their medical, or that are required to jump through ridiculous hoops to renew their Class 2 will tell you why. Remember, in a couple of years time, perhaps it will be you that loses your Class 2, or requires 6 monthly medicals with specialists tests to keep it.

 

I've just been reading about some having to do expensive sleep apnoea? tests because they are considered at risk?, or was it because they had a neck size larger than 42. ???

 

Someone trying to create a regular income administering these pointless tests to give someone a Class 2 to fly their 2 seat, 800 Kg RV-XX.

 

In regard to the argument, you are more likely to survive a crash in a LSA because they have a stall speed of 45KTS or less, firstly, I'm sure there are plenty of 750KG aircraft out there with a stall speed of 45Kts or less, and I would also question whether you may have a better chance of surviving a crash in a more solidly built 900KG aircraft (particularly Cockpit) with a stall speed of 50KTs, rather than a very lightly built aircraft with a stall speed of 45KTs. (I don't have proof, just surmising based on some LSA accidents fatalities I've read).

 

Strangely though, The same people that cannot fly a 2 seat aircraft over 600KG, or those that have failed a Class 2 medical, can all drive on the open road a couple of meters off oncoming traffic in their 3500KG V8 4WD, with more likely casualties should they become suddenly incapacitated.

 

Many amateur pilots would still drive their cars on the road when feeling unwell, but would mostly likely decide not to fly that day.

 

I don't agree with their decision, or arguments against it. Stifling bureaucracy gone mad, yet again.

 

How the hell did PPLs manage to survive flying small 1-2 seater SE GA aircraft in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s without all this bureaucratic rubbish.

The current "bureaucratic rubbish" you are referring to is several people on a mission to change the exemptions that CASA set for recreational operations above 300' and outside paddocks.

 

750 kg MASS PRODUCED aircraft operate happily today, with a higher safety record than the lightweights, within the CASA system, and without any bureaucratic angst. Most big flying clubs keep one of two for people who want a lower hourly rate to keep currency, or in the case of the C152 Aerobat, to play in the bottom end of basic aerobatics.

 

As an example, the C152 weighs 490 kg and has maximum TO and landing weights of 758 kg.

 

The Cessna landing weight is important, because it's a foolproof aircraft; you can forget your holiday home keys, remember just after you took off, and go round and land again. If you take a design up through the existing models, you may well have the extra excitement of having to flight plan your fuel burn for a safe landing, and that will be different for pax, and baggage weight.

 

As a couple of you have said, what looks like a good idea to build a slightly bigger aircraft, beefing up some components, hasn't taken into account that a bigger heavier aircraft will need additional strength just to get to where you are today, and you may not be able to make it stronger. It's also likely to need a more powerful engine just to get the same performance.

 

So now you are heading towards the $200,000 to $300,000 mark as the market gets going and people still want the higher level performance......but you are still only at the level of the old C152, with its thousands of hours of development design, which has given it decades of life.

 

And most club members leave the C152s at home when they want to go touring.

 

It would be well worth the excercise to look through the GA aircraft models on hire today. You'll find the models that were around 30 years ago have all gone because they were not economically viable.

 

With what's left, you'll see the steps up in cruise speed and weight carrying, and the incremental power increase that's required.

 

You'll see that even the six seaters, can only take five at full range or with full baggage - nothing different to what is in RA now.

 

You've already seen the substantial drop in numbers as the aircraft costs of today have moved beyond private ownership for many.

 

While there is a noticeable difference in takeoff and landings due to the lighter weight, this applies to the four seater market; a C152 is not a lot different to a Jab.

 

If the push is coming from GA pilots who are no longer medically fit enough to fly in GA, it might pay to take a look at the flying freedoms currently available in RA before trying to invent a GA wheel in your comfort zone.

 

The lurid stories tend to indicate that there is a group of people who should be hanging up their goggles, but who are determined to keep flying when in reality they are not fit enough.

 

The driving licence standard is open to abuse, and when you go through the fatality figures you'll see one here and there where the aircraft just fell out of the sky.

 

One of the changes I can see coming is a tightening of the medical standard away from self-reporting, and within the DIRD system, which covers Air/Road/Marine licensing, I can see it going to the same level as B Doubles, which is close to Class 2.

 

With the RAA CTA push, I can see an argument for a medical level of Class 2, and if you want to talk about bureaucracy, that's when RA could inherit the Class 2 medical for all operations.

 

The question is, do you feel lucky?

 

 

[kasper]

My only positive out of this is looking for a new group within RAAus which hopefully would attach to a new CAO leaving the current groups and CAOs alone.

 

My fear is that if they do this push through the current CAOs we will see greater restrictions as part of the deal that basically make a 35yo single seater that cruises at 45knts being operated so close to GA it makes no difference ... except to the lack of enjoyment that comes to this few of us left who are not from GA with failed medical but from paddock hopping flyers who find getting to a neighbours airfield for a bacon roll and tea IS the object of the flight

 

 

[SSCBD]

I would like to see more candid plan English, in depth reports on a monthly basis from our beloved RAA LEADERS OR, another name for it, monthly progress reports. Remember we pay for our leaders. And Not written in pollie speak.

 

Basic idea is.

 

I personally and logically see 3 to 4 categories to be used in the RAA.

 

1. Rag Wing OR machines under 550kg kg AND cruise under 80kts AND stay outside OCTA. LOW entry level RAA fees, with owner maintainer to be level one ish. And level 2 to inspect the aircraft every 12 months. Old auf exams and ground theory for these.

 

If you want more then.

 

2. Up to 600kg cruise above say 80 kts or 90 knots, kit or factory with Level two maintainer AND a real LAME check 12months. Pilots wanting control airspace clearance through major airports but not land, must do CTA endorsement. As same for towered secondary. Or keep away.

 

3. Anything that max cruises above 125kts and above and is usually RG as well, CTA endorsement (because that's why you bought the bloody Ferrari and you want to) and LAME airframe check every 12 months, pass a very high standard of flying ability.

 

4. 750 kg two seat with CTA endorsement (and say min 150 hours PIC before you can fly them by yourself ) GA ppl exams. No med 2 required just drivers license level 2 plus, AND a Lame inspection every 12 months.

 

5. Say 750kg RAA four seat category , full GA PPL required as you have more pax lives, and night vfr available . But that is my whish list!!. (like the sling four - jab 4 seat or the New ICP Ventura. No med 2.

 

Training standards to be lifted for number 2 and 3 and do some extra class times because they are mini GA.

 

The reason for a real LAME check is, the woefully shoddy stuff and repairs I have seen on some aircraft, including flying school aircraft with duct tape that hold covers on, as the screws had fallen out still being used, and people still training or hired out, and corrosion ? (Yes, Really).

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Sigh. Once again, simply change the CASA Class 2 medical to that in the US or the UK. Medical problem vanishes. Allow owner maintenance and sign out on under 600Kg gross aircraft. Better still use the Canadian owner maintenance system for all relatively simple private aircraft and get rid of the whole flawed concept of arbitrary gross weight limits which result in fragile, gust sensitive airframes of limited fatigue life and/or loading beyond limits to get some reasonable fuel and people + baggage options.

 

Then we can have one consistent licence with appropriate endorsements (controlled airspace etc) and make RAAus, GFA etc work to retain members instead of the obnoxious requirement to join some government sanctioned private body. I'd shed no tears if both simply disappeared.

 

How complicated do some of you want to make things? Neither the Brits nor the Americans (or Canadians) seem to be littering the countryside with crashed aircraft at any unusual rate.

 

 

[Riley]

SSCBD Ur post #18 seems a very logical approach towards resolving the ever-growing (but non-existant to most of we old AUF flyer/owners) delemna re the push for more... more... more... by our higher-paid help at Fyshwick. Whilst not excited about putting a LAME on the payroll once a year, I am in total agreement with your suggested classifications of categories 1 & 2 and in reality, cats 3 & 4 would never enter into my sphere of aviation activities. Your closing sentence is unfortunately, so very true and too often witnessed.

 

 

[kasper]

Sigh. Once again, simply change the CASA Class 2 medical to that in the US or the UK. Medical problem vanishes. Allow owner maintenance and sign out on under 600Kg gross aircraft. Better still use the Canadian owner maintenance system for all relatively simple private aircraft and get rid of the whole flawed concept of arbitrary gross weight limits which result in fragile, gust sensitive airframes of limited fatigue life and/or loading beyond limits to get some reasonable fuel and people + baggage options.Then we can have one consistent licence with appropriate endorsements (controlled airspace etc) and make RAAus, GFA etc work to retain members instead of the obnoxious requirement to join some government sanctioned private body. I'd shed no tears if both simply disappeared.

How complicated do some of you want to make things? Neither the Brits nor the Americans (or Canadians) seem to be littering the countryside with crashed aircraft at any unusual rate.

Except you've overlooked that in the uk you MUST be a member of either the LAA or BMAA to get your annual permit on your airframe ... pretty much a government sanctioned body you dislike in the RAAus

But I'll agree that the structure in the uk is a bit simpler but not without its challenges ... and I say that as a former director of the BMAA

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Except you've overlooked that in the uk you MUST be a member of either the LAA or BMAA to get your annual permit on your airframe .However, not so in USA or Canada where EAA is a completely private body with no state powers.

 

The UK/Australia situation are good examples of a nasty rulers/ruled corporate state culture more appropriate to banana republics and some unfortunate European countries during the 1920s and 1930s. It is what you get when you have a bunch of sheep who just want to be told what to do and "member bodies" more interested in their own revenue than the interests of their members.

 

If you are at the low end of RAAus you might want to push for the UK deregulated class of single seaters under 300Kg (you still need some kind of pilot qualification but otherwise anything goes) or US Part 103 ultralights which aren't even considered to be aircraft.

[kasper]

I'd avoid the non-aircraft route. We already have that with the Australian system when viewed from any other country - not having national reg is a pain if international flight is ever considered. Trust me I know having worked trough UK CAA to fly my Australian 95.10 in the uk.

The best operational option would in my opinion be a mix of pilot /aircraft requirements that addressed the original need for ultralights in oz AND addresses the reasons GA pilots are flowing into Raa.

 

My ideal

 

Pilots hold a national licence. It's rated as microlight/ultralight but is a licence. This is the uk system.

 

Pilots on national microlight or recreational licence have non-aviation medical requirements being equal to driving a car.

 

Aircraft

 

If it's factory built and sold complete then it's to an accepted standard and tested to it prior to sale.

 

Once it's sold then if it's not used for hire and reward then owner maintenance and it stays as it's designed and built. If it's modded then it's either factory or an accepted abdcreviewed mod. That's MARAP in oz.

 

if it's used for hire and reward then itvmaibtaibedcbyban approved person. If the RAAus level 2 is not appropriate then fix that system rather than throwing yourself into LAME

 

If it's not from a factory ready to fly (kit built or my imaginative use of paddle pop sticks) then its owner maintained and modded and no use for commercial other than owner flight training or flight review.

 

What weight limits you apply or operational limits add to the basic outline of aircraft and pilots.

 

I'd just say that it should be additive. You add what you want to the basics rather than requiring everyone to have the highest level regardless of operations. That's the old RAAus certificate stuff that's being rapidly killed off by ops and tech manual overrides applying to entire aircraft fleets or all pilots.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The reason for a real LAME check is,

To raise the cost of flying? To drive people away? Are planes currently falling out of the sky due to lack of LAME checks?

 

Can you imagine how often it would feel to an occasional Flyer that a yearly inspection comes around.

 

I take your point, I was horrified with 2 issues, electrical wiring and fuel, on a plane that I purchased that was flown to me, lucky was the words that came to my mind.

 

How about say 2 fellow RAA Members inspect your plane instead?

 

Anyway, I invited myself, and has been accepted, to write something to RAA before and for their meeting with CASA on Wednesday so keep the comments coming before I start writing tonight.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Getting a second check on a 100hrly/annual or a l2 is a waste of time as when someone is dangerous enough to shortcut etc the I am confident that they will also have a mate with the same attitude (including a L2)

 

Cannot legislate for fools without creating problems and cost for the majority who comply with the tech manual NOW.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

1. Rag Wing OR machines under 550kg kg