What happened with the MTOW change for RAAus

[Downunder]

 So for example I am looking at a Rans S21  its design weight is 820kg even though I would fly it at 760kg MTOW its will not be allowed.

Would it be hard for RANS to specify 760 Kg for Aussie kits?

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Possibly not as it is a registered design..the S20 raven is 1320lbs which is 600 kg

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Would it be hard for RANS to specify 760 Kg for Aussie kits?

I suspect it is more complicated than simply writing it in the pilot manual. 

Jabiru 430s are rated in Australia at 700 kg. But in other places (South Africa I think) they are rated for 760 kg. Exact same aircraft. 

 

I had heard that Jabiru would increase the weight with a letter or something  if you asked them. So I did. 

 

No such luck. Apparently they have not got the ability to just write a note and do it. Have to jump through hoops which I interpreted includes more testing and re-present all the data to  someone here in Oz. CASA I would guess and of course it all costs money. 

 

Niw id guess there’s less cost to go down in weight rather than up  but I doubt it would be free. 

 

So I would guess Rans or anyone else is unlikely to spend $ on doing something that probably won’t see any economic return. 

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The airlines are able to increase / decrease the MTOW in some of their aircraft types simply by changing a placard. This alters the charges by the airport operators, the airlines only need higher weights for long haul sectors and lighter ones for domestic ops. There’s a precedent worth investigating. 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Nope no precedent at all. 

 

Under pretty much every facet of aviation law, in every corner of CASAs world the airlines and everyone else  in aviation are in different universes. 

 

Airlines vs GA

 

Commercial vs non con commercial ops 

 

Class A vs Class B aircraft

 

Greater than 5400kg vs Less than 5400 kg. 

 

You could go on for ages about the divisions that in almost every facet of aviation legislation make the two function as if the other didn’t exist. 

 

 

[Super Cub]

I suspect it is more complicated than simply writing it in the pilot manual. Jabiru 430s are rated in Australia at 700 kg. But in other places (South Africa I think) they are rated for 760 kg. Exact same aircraft. 

 

I had heard that Jabiru would increase the weight with a letter or something  if you asked them. So I did. 

 

No such luck. Apparently they have not got the ability to just write a note and do it. Have to jump through hoops which I interpreted includes more testing and re-present all the data to  someone here in Oz. CASA I would guess and of course it all costs money. 

 

Niw id guess there’s less cost to go down in weight rather than up  but I doubt it would be free. 

 

So I would guess Rans or anyone else is unlikely to spend $ on doing something that probably won’t see any economic return. 

You would expect if the aircraft is approved to 760KG in another country, they would have already carried out all the required testing for 760kg certification.

 

Jabiru must have structurally tested the J430 at 760kg (or higher)? I wonder why casa didn't certify the J430 to 760kg (under VH) here in Australia.

 

 

[jetjr]

they aren't certified and only available in kit form other than LSA which is 600kg

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Can we conclude that this mass of minute changes/categories/maintenance requirements is a horse's rear end?

 

CASA is charged with regulating civil aviation in Australia. They should get on with it and not create numerous private fiefdoms which act as sub-contractors and policemen instead of the members' organisations they used to be.

 

There is no reason to act as policemen. If CASA is clueless about the rules required for gliders and ultralights, gyros etc they need to consult people familiar with operating them or simply adopt FAA operational rules (including independent instructors and LAMEs).

 

FAA in 2013 took a look at Canada's owner maintenance regime and concluded the aircraft were in at least as good condition as those maintained under the traditional system and sometimes better.

 

 

[ave8rr]

I am wondering if the down grading of MTOW from that certified is a ICAO requirement.

 

When NZ lifted the Ultralight MTOW to 600kg from 544kg a few years back I contacted the NZCAA about allowing a Jodel D11 into the Ultralight category and was told that as the D11 was certified to a higher weight (620?kg)That it could not be moved into the ultralight category and would have to remain experimental. Maybe CASA are now enforcing this and we will no longer see aircraft that are certified for a MTOW above 600kg being registered with RAAus.

 

 

[Downunder]

Surely downgrading a mtow and flying within that downgraded weight makes the aircraft safer?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

FAA policy is that aircraft certified at higher than 600kg gross cannot be LSA at 600 kg. Which leads to things like certain model Ercoupes being able to go to LSA and the same ones that were later allowed to go to higher weights and have the paper work to allow it cannot.

 

Particularly unfortunate in the case of the Bolkow 208C which has a gross of 601 kg. Nice little aircraft and somebody needs to make it as a kit or provide plans as a homebuilt.

 

Besides it can bare its fangs as a Biafran Baby (look it up). Note those rockets come in laser guided versions now. Paint it up as a low cost warbird.

 

 

[jetjr]

I think there is no way for an aircraft here to derate and become LSA either

 

LSA is a different type of approval held by manufacturer.

 

likely it could fit in another RAA catagory. Probably cant use for training

 

 

[zodiacpilot]

The CASA have been pleasing themselves for years(even back as far as 1969), my Taylor JT1 mono was built VH from the designers plans that 'test specified' it 7.5G+/4.5G-.   The CASA would NOT allow any more than 4.5G+/2.5G-  & 318Kg  MTOW  on the registration paperwork.  Prob not too relevant, just sayin'.

 

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Everyone needs to keep in mind that all this regulation is for two main aims:

 

1. Prevent aircraft from falling out of the sky onto the head/homes/workplaces of people who have nothing to do with aviation. This is fair enough as some of them probably think flying was an invention of the devil.

 

2. Protect the interests of other legitimate airspace users (pretty much anyone who aviates for whatever reason or would like to).

 

#1 is done by having a reasonable set of design aims for strength and handling qualities. "Certification" does not mean much as everyone will consult FAR 23 CS 22 etc for the type of flying machine. Nobody reasonable person is silly enough to ignore the lessons written in blood. Also required is some reasonable inspection/maintenance regime and a method for training competent, responsible pilots.

 

#2 requires a simple set of operational rules for behaviour when taking off and landing and en route procedures.

 

I cannot see that dividing private aviation into "private" and "recreational" serves any purpose. It is all private aviation for whatever reason we fly and we all fly in the same airspace and need to share it with commercial and military aviation. I also cannot see how having "ultralight" aircraft as "not Australian aircraft" serves any purpose along with useless, counterproductive arbitrary weight limits 450Kg, 544 kg, 600Kg yada, yada, yada and different pilot training and qualifications depending on aircraft weight. Also linking aircraft weight limit to the particular pilot quals when a Jab can be VH or RAAus and somehow you need to do 5 hours in a RAAus one and join RAAus to legally fly it. Simply ridiculous! In both cases the maintenance regime is acceptable to CASA but one is more onerous than the other even if both aircraft have the same gross weight. I guess if CASA didn't have double standards they would have none at all.

 

These weight limits result in either fairly fragile aircraft which will have short fatigue and useful lives due to lack of robustness caused by extreme weight saving measures or the widespread "overloading" of ultralight aircraft. 600Kg doesn't let you build a robust aircraft which can carry two normal people, a couple of bags and useful fuel. Even some VH Experimental homebuilts have problems. About 18 years ago I helped an RV6 builder with his test flight program and when I looked at the weights they were 505Kg  empty and 726kg  gross giving 221 Kg useful load. Fuel was 140 litres so take  101 Kg off and you have a nice single seat aircraft plus baggage and 3.75 hours fuel. If you ever see two large people get out of an RV6 chances are they took off overweight unless it has an O-320 and a wooden fixed pitch prop.

 

 

[djpacro]

 designers plans that 'test specified' it 7.5G+/4.5G-.   The CASA would NOT allow any more than 4.5G+/2.5G-  & 318Kg 

Loaded to that to that so divide by 1.5 to give the limit load factor? Who witnessed the tests, did they cover the critical load cases for that airframe??

The LAA does a very thorough job of it and their current data seems to be consistent with CASA back then https://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/055 TAYLOR JT-1 MONOPLANE.pdf

 

 

[shafs64]

Burt wouldn't there be a lot of X GA flyers here who have done there training on 150s and 152s that would like get back in those aircraft type. I am waiting for CASA to change the medical so i can fly GA again.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Shafs, if you believe CASA and AOPA, medical reform already happened. It has been announced and both seem quite proud. Unfortunately there has been NO effective reform at all of the Class 2. Juts a couple of small administrative changes on CASA's part which have no real effect on Class 2 medical applicants.

 

This medical non reform now puts Australia extremely far out of line with the UK and USA in this regard.

 

I suggest you give up on waiting and reconcile yourself to flying RAAus as AOPA's acceptance of the medical non reform means there will be no change for the next 20 years at least, if then.

 

The biggest threats to the freedom to aviate in Australia come from kow towing toadies like AOPA, GFA, RAAus etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

In all fairness, they are up against a particularly non obliging authority more and more lacking aviation qualified and minded people running it which protects itself as the primary aim of it's existence. It has no advantage  if it goes out on a limb for anybody so the EASY way is to stonewall. We actually LOOKED as though we were 'UP THERE' ahead of the world once. That's getting to be a while back now   Nev

 

 

[shafs64]

So what i read on the CASA site about the changes that come into effect mid 2018 are not going to happen now?

 

 

[Nobody]

About 18 years ago I helped an RV6 builder with his test flight program and when I looked at the weights they were 505Kg  empty and 726kg  gross giving 221 Kg useful load. Fuel was 140 litres so take  101 Kg off and you have a nice single seat aircraft plus baggage and 3.75 hours fuel. If you ever see two large people get out of an RV6 chances are they took off overweight unless it has an O-320 and a wooden fixed pitch prop.

The RV6 has a gross weight of 1650lbs=750kg. Most have an empty weight about 1050lbs=477kg with full paint, interior, CS prop and IO. Some will be heavier some lighter. That gives 272kg as the useful load so 2, 90kg guys could have nearly 4 hours of fuel. Not quite as bad as above.

 

 

[djpacro]

Most have an empty weight about 1050lbs=477kg

I flew in one RV-6A with an empty weight of 477 kg, very strange as the load data sheet was dated many years prior to the aeroplane being built so I'd believe there would be more around with an empty weight of 477 kg.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Shafs, have a careful look at the changes. There has been no meaningful reform but some re-arrangement of the deck chairs.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

djpacro, the one I helped with had paperwork which clearly stated it had 726 kg gross. It was a 6 (tailwheel) not a 6A(nosewheel - nose gear assembly is 11Kg)  which has a slightly higher gross. It had a nice but not too fancy paint job, not a whole lot of instrumentation, metal prop with CSU and an O-360. Docs said it weighed 505kg empty. It was one of the last built under 101.28

 

 

[Thruster88]

So what i read on the CASA site about the changes that come into effect mid 2018 are not going to happen now?

This is going to happen

 

Ausroads heavy vehicle standard

 

5 pax day VFR

 

 

[shafs64]

Yes thats the part i was talking about.