What happened with the MTOW change for RAAus

[Mike Borgelt]

Do you have a link to that Coroner's report, kasper?

 

 

[kasper]

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Smith-and-Guthrie-Finding-Final.pdf

 

and other than the first recommendation which was RAAus to be funded adequately by casa to do the safety acts the last few years have been RAAus play book for change ... without consideration of whether they are valid in light of the difference between RAAus and GA ... so we are becoming self funded GA

 

 

[Downunder]

I wonder if this mtow increase is a way of simply getting compulsory lame maintenance into RAA?

 

Openning the door, so to speak..... and when questioned about it, the RAA management can can hold their hands up and say "It wasn't us, CASA made us do it"

 

Personally, I think the the RAA should walk away from the deal. Your own maintenance is one of the fundementals of the RAA.

 

At the very least, it should be put to a vote by the membership.......

 

 

[M61A1]

I have read this several times, also the Uzinski case and quite a few non-aviation ones. In the aviation related ones the coroners are always appalled that you are allowed to build and maintain an aircraft. In this case, yes, the engine stopped, but why should this be fatal, and why is that fatality anyone's fault but the pilot? I see the same in the Uzinski case. the finger is pointed at everyone but the main culprit, which is the owner/pilot. I would suggest that if you have bought an aircraft, been involved in it's maintenance and have the most basic of pilot skills, you will know if your aircraft is overweight or has CoG issues, yet somehow they conveniently avoid casting any blame on those actually responsible for their own demise. and try to blame the administrator (among others) because they didn't do everything they could to force them to comply. 

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Thanks, kasper.

 

Given that the pilot of a single engined aircraft has to be aware that the thing can turn into a not very good glider at any moment, the coroner failed to establish that the pilot was not up to carrying out a forced landing properly. Even if a little fast, while going uphill you will come to touch down a stop quickly. No need to force it on the ground.

 

The Rotax 912 series engines are all built on the same production line I'm told by the Australian agent. The only difference is paperwork between the UL and the certified engine. So the Coroner is wrong again. Frankly there ought to be a placard in every small aircraft and glider similar to the one in Experimental AB "Abandon hope all ye who enter" or something like that.

 

Surely having continuing vibration problems ought to be a clue something is wrong. A proper vibration survey usually done when a new type of prop is put on a known engine.

 

Experimental AB explicitly says the operator is solely responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. CASA explicitly takes no responsibility. This ought to be extended to all recreational one and two seat aircraft and gliders along with the warning placard. Having tech manuals that are effectively law and explicit in every detail is a bad idea. They should be recommendations only of known and established safe practices.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I have read this several times, also the Uzinski case and quite a few non-aviation ones. In the aviation related ones the coroners are always appalled that you are allowed to build and maintain an aircraft. In this case, yes, the engine stopped, but why should this be fatal, and why is that fatality anyone's fault but the pilot? I see the same in the Uzinski case. the finger is pointed at everyone but the main culprit, which is the owner/pilot. I would suggest that if you have bought an aircraft, been involved in it's maintenance and have the most basic of pilot skills, you will know if your aircraft is overweight or has CoG issues, yet somehow they conveniently avoid casting any blame on those actually responsible for their own demise. and try to blame the administrator (among others) because they didn't do everything they could to force them to comply. 

I’ve seen a number of coroners reports and they generally have no idea of the real

world that people live in and that life is a risk. And that people should have the right to take risk if they wanted to. 

 

I read about one where a GA experimental

 

helicopter was maintained by the owner and the tail rotor system had a failure. The coroner in that also  expressed amazement and concern that people were able to maintain their own aircraft and actually recommended that maintenance be only allowed by LAMEs and failing that, that tail rotor maintenance should only be by LAMEs. 

 

These guys are lawyers who tend to live in ivory towers, and see the world through eyes restricted by the world of the law. 

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

As Mike B says if CASA and everybody else who has a regulatory oar in the water (air?) all recreational aircraft should become "experimental" category aircraft thus relieving CASA of all liability (see CASR 200.003) and thus RAAus. If RAAus can currently issue ELSA certificates why should not every other aircraft on the RAAus register be "experimental"? (aside from the change in CAO95.55)

 

Back that up with US style owner maintenance of experimental aircraft and RAAus can become an advisory and advocacy bodies without the conflicts of interest inherent in the current regulatory arrangements.

 

 

[winsor68]

Like 150's with both seats in use rather than only one?☺

 

 

The above rules are to stop for example a C152 and a seat being taken out to make fit inside RAA rules

As if that would ever happen or be ignored by Ra-Aus????   You have to be shocked at the suggestion.  lol

 

 

[winsor68]

This is beginning to take on the mantra “Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it!”Anyone who thinks CASA will give RAA anything without extracting a pound of flesh is living in LaLa Land and we are now seeing the outcome. You might get a few kilos but it will almost certainly be at more expense than you gain. 

 

The same to be said for CTA access - if you ever get it, it will be at the cost of loss of freedom from medicals, loss of freedom to do self maintenance and at increased cost. 

 

There will be a lot of people in GA world sitting back saying “serves you right. You should have quit while you were ahead. “

The “Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it!” mantra came in to play years before there was even such an aircraft as a Jabiru 430.   Sorry to have to point this out.

 

 

[winsor68]

The “Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it!” mantra came in to play years before there was even such an aircraft as a Jabiru 430.   Sorry to have to point this out.

In fact I would put in at about the time that Jabiru was looking for a replacement for their KFM engine...Skyfox Aviation was producing beautiful classic Ultralights...Hughes Engineering was producing an amazing ultralight called the Lightwing...and there was still a good possibility of the continued viability of Drifter and Thruster factories in Australia.   Anyone who wanted to fly anything more should have nicked off over to GA where they belonged instead of asking for more and more and trying to steal the grey hair too old or too lazy to get a medical GA market.  My firm opinion.   And some people (newbies often) still have the cheek or ignorance to come on here and claim they want to learn to fly "Ultralights"!!!????    Get yourself a bloody RV if that is the way you want to fly!

 

 

[coljones]

In fact I would put in at about the time that Jabiru was looking for a replacement for their KFM engine...Skyfox Aviation was producing beautiful classic Ultralights...Hughes Engineering was producing an amazing ultralight called the Lightwing...and there was still a good possibility of the continued viability of Drifter and Thruster factories in Australia.   Anyone who wanted to fly anything more should have nicked off over to GA where they belonged instead of asking for more and more and trying to steal the grey hair too old or too lazy to get a medical GA market.  My firm opinion.   And some people (newbies often) still have the cheek or ignorance to come on here and claim they want to learn to fly "Ultralights"!!!????    Get yourself a bloody RV if that is the way you want to fly!

And equally we could say if the old tube and rag people wanted to fly they should have gone and got a licence and flown GA Experimental. Or later, if you want to fly over 300 feet or over the road, get a licence and fly GA Experimental...ad infinitum .. where do we stop?

 

 

[kasper]

How about stopping while there is a logical difference in the airframes and operation limits to justify any different regulation than alrwady exists in GA?

 

might be too late but unless you draw a line and defend it you are on a hiding to nothing when you’ve stepped over it and you are no linger seperate. 

 

 

[winsor68]

How about stopping while there is a logical difference in the airframes and operation limits to justify any different regulation than alrwady exists in GA?might be too late but unless you draw a line and defend it you are on a hiding to nothing when you’ve stepped over it and you are no linger seperate. 

Exactly.   

 

 

[winsor68]

And equally we could say if the old tube and rag people wanted to fly they should have gone and got a licence and flown GA Experimental. Or later, if you want to fly over 300 feet or over the road, get a licence and fly GA Experimental...ad infinitum .. where do we stop?

But they didn't...because GA was cost and regulation prohibitive.   So they created the AUF.   

 

 

[aro]

And equally we could say if the old tube and rag people wanted to fly they should have gone and got a licence and flown GA Experimental.

GA Experimental came along much later than the AUF.

 

 

[jetjr]

This idea that each type, colour, material aircraft needs its own self managing organisation will see the death of light flying. It is exactly what CASA wants as they can palm off responsibility and cost and each group will fight amongst themselves for coins it offers to run it all and wear the risk.

 

Without the bulk of new RAA pilots and aircraft funding the exercise, Id suggest costs for running AUF in todays safety environment would have sunk the few remaining rag n tube participants some years ago.

 

 

[spacesailor]

What is the LICENCE for a 95-10 registered aircraft, to allow over-populated area flight ?.

 

A Hummle bird with it's 1/2 VW engine flying over Sydney Without electric anything, were does it fit into GA category.

 

With its 700 klm range it could be a good, if a little cramped, tourer, up & down the East coast without a care in the world, because its VH now !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Roundsounds]

I feel it’s time to take up sailing or some other less regulated pastime. This whole mess will take a generation or two to resolve, that’s assuming it doesn’t kill off Sport aviation altogether in the mean time. 

 

 

[storchy neil]

for Christ sake wake up 500 kgs mtow  45 stall end off story I repeat 500 kgs mtow  45 stall

 

some have got their  ambitions and capsbilies a bit out off wack the bigger you go the more waky ideas that are getting aired

 

self maintain I don't think so  over 500 kgs  mtow 

 

cta you want to go there transponder radio will be required plus med 

 

you want the freedom to fly nothing is free as the costs are going up 

 

you wanted you wanted you are all getting jack xxxx for your money 

 

read the deed that raa wrote for casa  neil 

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

read the deed that raa wrote for casa 

And what deed would that be?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

What is the LICENCE for a 95-10 registered aircraft, to allow over-populated area flight ?.A Hummle bird with it's 1/2 VW engine flying over Sydney Without electric anything, were does it fit into GA category.

 

With its 700 klm range it could be a good, if a little cramped, tourer, up & down the East coast without a care in the world, because its VH now !.

 

spacesailor

There is nothing to stop anyone from building a Hummelbird as E-AB and VH registering it. Run the radio (and transponder if fitted) from a battery just as is done in gliders. You'll need an RPL or PPL though.

 

 

[Super Cub]

The bureaucrat's main job is to make sure them and their boss won't be successfully sued. I see that our main problem is lawyers and magistrates who allow claimants to blame someone else in order to get a payout and absolve themselves of personal responsibility.

Exactly right. 

 

Australia copied the USA on this. Just look at other more pro active countries that have legislation to prevent these ridiculous multi million dollar lawsuits.

 

The way to survive in Australia now, is do nothing, change nothing or you may be sued. (Sound familiar).

 

Piper and Cessna closed production for over a decade partly due to this stupidity. 

 

If a pilot crashed into a hill in (illegal) IMC, or forgot to switch fuel tanks and crashed. The families sued them for large sums of money and won, because Piper or Cessna didn't manufacture their aircraft idiot proof. People don't take responsibility for their actions or mistakes now. Its always someone else fault.

 

The cost of this litigation is still reflected in all new Cessna and Piper sales, and I expect has forced the cost of LSA to increase at the same time.

 

A new Ford Territory cost $45,000, plenty of technology, nice interior, large engine, gearbox, diff, a 2000kg car etc, a new 500kg LSA cost $200,000.

 

Some are very basic design, much like the old Cessnas and Pipers. Shaped aluminium parts riveted together, yet still cost $200,000.

 

Even considering large scale production, it shouldn't be four times as much. 

 

My sons school Fete asked for volunteers to set up a 3m x 3m gazebo, and sell / display something. If you volunteered, you were required to buy $20 million public liability insurance for the day. Ridiculous. 

 

Maybe partly the reason Australia doesn't manufacture or assemble much now days?

 

Time politicians changed the legislation to prevent these large lawsuits, simply for people, and lawyers to make large sums of money.

 

Unfortunately I don't see it happening, so bureaucrats wont be changing their attitude, and reducing regulations towards GA and LSA flying in Australia.

 

Rant Over. And yes I feel better.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

This idea that each type, colour, material aircraft needs its own self managing organisation will see the death of light flying. It is exactly what CASA wants as they can palm off responsibility and cost and each group will fight amongst themselves for coins it offers to run it all and wear the risk.Without the bulk of new RAA pilots and aircraft funding the exercise, Id suggest costs for running AUF in todays safety environment would have sunk the few remaining rag n tube participants some years ago.

Exactly. If GFA, RAAus etc were smart they would say to CASA that we're not doing your work for you any more. You have accepted certain standards, now YOU administer them.

There are advantages to all of PRIVATE aviation ( why the split of private and recreational? - it is our business WHY we fly, nobody else's.) being administered by one body with ONE consistent set of rulesand a clear chain of responsibility. This doesn't prevent slightly modified rules/airworthiness/maintenance/medical  for different weight/performance categories of aircraft. Among other advantages the various branches of aviation would be able to interact more without people being forced to "join" several different administrative bodies (something that should never happen in Australia. I know it happened in Germany ca. 1933 -1945 but that isn't an example we should want to emulate). Ultralight pilots could benefit by doing spin training in GA aircraft or gliders (got be a temporary member of GFA though so that GFA's instructors can let you TOUCH THE CONTROLS otherwise this is apparently unsafe), glider pilots could benefit by doing some initial flight training in hour long chunks in a powered aircraft either GA or ultralight and safety information can be easily made available to all participants. I have a suspicion that people are being killed by the divisions created and quite a few people may want to participate in more than branch but are put off by up front costs.

 

The bodies such as RAAus can then get on with being lobby groups, educational and promotional organisations. They might even combine into something like the United States EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) which has done a sterling job of government lobbying and safety promotion over the last 65 years and has various branches including Warbirds, aerobatics, IFR etc. I certainly don't see any great in fighting or jealousy of other groups inside the EAA.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Super Cub, there is a large difference between the USA and Australia when someone gets sued. In Australia  you sue and lose and you get to pay  the other party's costs. Not so much of the time in the USA. Even when ambulance chasing scumbags like Sleazoid and Grabbit say they will sue on a no win no fee basis you will find if you lose you must pay costs of the other party. If they don't offer this the first thing the they do is ask for $50,000 up front to get things going and they'll want more as required. This is a pretty powerful disincentive. The way for RAAus and GFA to avoid being sued is to not have assets or insurance up for grabs. No money here, nobody will sue. Unlikely anyway as court decisions in the last few years have gone against the plaintiffs in both gliding and powered aviation to the point that the GFA's BBL (Broad Based Liability) insurance premium went down as gliding was recognised as a dangerous sport (nobody is asking about the decades of official lies about it being safe). It sure is, as is RAAus flying and to a lesser extent, GA.

 

 

[Nobody]

Australia copied the USA on this. Just look at other more pro active countries that have legislation to prevent these ridiculous multi million dollar lawsuits.

Actually Australia didn't copy the USA on this, it made up its own home grown nanny state bul$hit.... When the lawsuits in USA killed off General Aviation they passed laws to make it harder to sue to revitalise the sector. Piper and Cessna still make small aircraft to this day. Generally in the USA there is much less fear of litigation and certainly little need for large amounts of insurance for everyday activities....