What happened with the MTOW change for RAAus

[pmccarthy]

I think the biggest reduction in safety has been the strict class 2 medical rules and other CASA nonsense that drive GA pilots to the RAA. They have to learn to fly with more precision in low-inertia aircraft that may be less crashworthy than a Piper or Cessna. There is nothing wrong with RAA type aircraft,  but they do have a placard to say they don’t meet GA standards. The person who has been tripping about in his Piper has to learn a new set of skills just at an age where it gets more difficult to learn. Suddenly you have stall spin on final turn, or a stall and wing drop when rounding out causes the mythical sudden gust of wind. Pilot and passenger injured or killed for what? How did CASA improve safety in these cases?

 

 

[facthunter]

The RAAus was under a cloud for ages with that incident. It wasn't even clear whether board members were likely to be liable. People were fearful of losing their houses if they were on the board. CASA walked away, giving no support although clearly we were in that predicament as a result of doing some part of their job for them (for  which we used to be Paid) and they were co joined in the action anyhow.. Another problem is  the liability of mixing it with ICAO compliant commercial and International RPT  aircraft. You fella's pushed for Controlled Airspace access and everything that GA get in some cases. This is now the consequence of that and is no more than I expected. IF you want what GA has , do it through that path. The original concept of UAF and RAAus has been  lost as your ambitious management wants to Empire Build, regarding itself as the New GA.  I have always believed that WON'T happen. There will be too much resistance to it and we have LOST a lot of the freedoms we HAD ONCE because we wished for too much. Don't shoot me .. I'm only the messenger. 

 

   PMC  I don't know whether the "conversion"from GA types to RAAus low inertia types is the problem. You are supposed to meet a standard for your original RAAus ticket. Some of these older guys have been regularly flying light twins on one engine  to keep their Command ME/IFR ticket and that's not an easy task.. Perhaps the "medical" did force them into U/L's which they don't like and are definitely more difficult to fly than a single Piper or Cessna. With pilots you will find a big variation in standard and in the older group there's more room for variability. Not all of them fly difficult planes, that are low inertia these days either. As a % they are less and less around. Any low wing loading aircraft is a challenge in gusty conditions, and all can be on a short  strip if you are    not in practice.   Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

I had a look at a few New aircraft and not one had their wingloading in their advertisements"Any low wing loading aircraft is a challenge in gusty conditions, and all can be on a short  strip if you are not in practice.   Nev "

 

So how do you Know that your buying the wrong plane.

 

spacesailor

[Downunder]

I think the biggest reduction in safety has been the strict class 2 medical rules and other CASA nonsense that drive GA pilots to the RAA. They have to learn to fly with more precision in low-inertia aircraft that may be less crashworthy than a Piper or Cessna. There is nothing wrong with RAA type aircraft,  but they do have a placard to say they don’t meet GA standards. The person who has been tripping about in his Piper has to learn a new set of skills just at an age where it gets more difficult to learn. Suddenly you have stall spin on final turn, or a stall and wing drop when rounding out causes the mythical sudden gust of wind. Pilot and passenger injured or killed for what? How did CASA improve safety in these cases?

Yes, you're on to it. I've seen the groups of old  GA pilots advocating cta in RAA.

Many of these are STILL flying GA, although some have migrated to to RAA already....

 

They know the time will come when they will fail their medical (or better still, jump ship before they fail) and are desperately searching for future alternatives.

 

If people think the age demographic is bad now, wait for the avalanche of old GA pilots flooding in when/if cta is approved.

 

Then wait for the accidents in controlled airspace from these "new" RAA members....

 

Raa managment saw the market for these GA pilots and the potential to boost membership, control and power but are effectively selling their soul for 30 pieces of silver.

 

 

[Yenn]

I agree that the old GA pilots could be short on ability to handle low inertia, low wing loading aircraft, but they have to demonstrate their abilities to gain an RAAus certificate.

 

I know as I came from GA to AUF and had to learn to fly Drifters, Skyfoxes and Lightwings. The current crop of ultralights are not any where near so different from GA as those.

 

I wonder how I wold cope with a Drifter, having never flown one. I am not going to jump into one and go fly without some good guidance.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

If you are stuck with 45 knot stall they are all the wrong plane. Higher wing loading aircraft are definitely easier to fly in gusty conditions. Limited weight classes are likely to be more fragile and less fatigue resistant than where the weight isn't restricted.

 

The whole ultralight thing is unfortunate. It started with a few people flying things like single seat Skycraft Scouts (a modern re-invention of the Santos Dumont Demoiselle) south west of Sydney, quite illegally. They were mainly a danger to themselves of course but the Regulator, for whatever reason, didn't prosecute or stop the activity and so there were numerous deaths and injuries with the 300 foot height limit and in many cases zero proper flight training, construction or maintenance. I knew people who died. The Regulator has blood on its hands and many deaths on its non existent conscience, all the while sanctimoniously bleating about "safety".

 

The alternative would have been to bring in US style Experimental which had been working well for over 20 years there and a simplified basic pilot licence with an upgrade path to a full PPL so that participants were properly exposed to the body of aviation knowledge that had been written in blood over more than 70 years.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

After flying GA for 48 years and AUF/RAA for 26 years I find RAA flying to be more challenging due to the low wing loading and less inherent stability. I love both. Did my RAA flight review on Sunday, good to go.

 

 

[jetjr]

No way will CASA give CTA access to RAA pilots without a medical.

 

Maybe one with a new name but it will amount to the same thing so old GA pilots will be disappointed.

 

With only LSA (or the few certificated models) permitted @ 600kg, not sure what great attraction there will be.

 

The increase in MTOW an other changes doesn't have to influence others in RAA, just like LSA etc doesn't effect the older types.

 

More charges etc to exercise the extra options. Even more GA pilots will stay there if RAA costs go up to cover them.

 

 

[SSCBD]

After flying GA for 48 years and AUF/RAA for 26 years I find RAA flying to be more challenging due to the low wing loading and less inherent stability. I love both. Did my RAA flight review on Sunday, good to go.

Hi - why did you do a RAA  flight review? You still are current in GA?

 

 

[storchy neil]

jim raaus have a deed off agreement  that states what raaus will do and that they report to CASA what

 

this deed is written by raaus every 12 months failure by raaus to administer in accordance with that agreement should raaus  fail to report  then  no more raaus 

 

raaus failed to notify CASA of the repair off my aircraft

 

the failure off raaus to administer good governance in a case that has been brought up here is why they raaus got in the sheet a few years ago 

 

sscbd please I know a virgin capt who flys jumbos he has to do a BFR to fly a raaus plane  please obtain a copy off the regulations for raaus and read them carefully  neil

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Hi - why did you do a RAA  flight review? You still are current in GA?

Still waiting on CASA Avmed to determine my fate. But really, the only difference is whether my wife and I can bring back a dozen bottles of red from an outing to a winery on a sunny Sunday. I don’t want or need CTA access, but appreciate a few extra kilos of payload. And incidentally, if there are tastings, my wife let’s me know how good the wine is.

 

 

[Fred]

CTA  for suitablely equipped RAA aircraft is already available by virtue os CAO 95.55 with a RPL.  Any CTA endorsement for a RPC would be the same as a RPL i.e. content and medical so nothing gained.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Spacey, in answer to your question  "How do you know if you have bought the wrong plane?" often the  hard way when the wind blows it where you don't want to go and you can't do much about it except to not fly when there's much wind, (as it was in the early days) . You can calculate the wing loading easy enough. (span {minus bit of the centre} x average chord gives area and divide the weight by it. People (almost) NEVER admit to having things wrong with the plane  they have just purchased.  Nev

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

No way will CASA give CTA access to RAA pilots without a medical. 

Don't glider pilots use CTA without a medical?

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Aircraft in Australia are classified according to ICAO Annex 7. As such VH registered self launching gliders are classified as “heavier-than-air power driven aeroplanes”. (They are incorrectly held in the Australian Aircraft Register as “motor gliders” for which there is no ICAO Annex 7 definition)

 

As VH reg aeroplanes weighing upto 850kg, they are flown under the GFA banner, and can be piloted by non-GA pilots without medicals and maintained outside the GA system, principally by owner/operators. They can fly in controlled airspace.

 

So why is there the fuss about increased weights, CTA and the like? Answer – Whilst CASA can keep everybody in their respective silos they can keep every organization “guarding their patch”.

 

In many other jurisdictions UL’s/ recreational aircraft are held on the same register as passenger airliners – no problem.

 

The Canadian owner maintenance experience is positive and in NZ under 600kg aircraft can be owner maintained without oversight and no-one in NZ is bitching about accident rates caused from maintenance issues.

 

And the rest of the world has worked out that aviation medicals for non-commercial pilots is a waste of time and money.

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes they do, and experimental VH are allowed in CTA too but not all RAA aircraft. Only LSA or cert models. RAA Experimental need special approval from CASA delegate and "unapproved" engines also not permitted.

 

This is the basis for RAA looking to harmonise these exceptions and weight limits.

 

Yes its a waste of money, bit like ASIC cards but theres an industry built around it and with it being so easy to argue "safety at any cost" its unlikely to shrink away quietly.

 

 

[M61A1]

So why is there the fuss about increased weights, CTA and the like?

Because RAAus has a history of adding a truckload of extra regulation in exchange for a so called "privilege".....

 

 

[jetjr]

like what?

 

 

[spacesailor]

"After flying GA for 48 years and AUF/RAA for 26 years I find RAA flying to be more challenging due to the low wing loading and less inherent stability."

How about Less push for higher weight, & push instead, the "Wing-loading" up a notch or two, a higher stall when landing has to be safer than wallowing in at forty mph. with any cross wind.

spacesailor

 

 

[ave8rr]

The Canadian owner maintenance experience is positive and in NZ under 600kg aircraft can be owner maintained without oversight and no-one in NZ is bitching about accident rates caused from maintenance issues.In NZ, unless there has been a recent change, owners can maintain their Ultralight aircraft. However, they need an annual maintenace release which is carried out by a Technical person from one of the "Two" organisations that govern the sport.

[Kenlsa]

This is an interesting discussion, but I am just wondering if you all made mention of your thoughts in the recent RAAus survey?

 

there was one question about 760kg from memory but we were able to comment further if you chose any of the "other" indicated choices.

 

"Other" allowed plenty of free text space, so I indicated that I was in favour of 760 (not 1500) with L1 maintenance and I am not interested in controlled airspace. I may want to move to a c150 etc and they are no more complicated than my Jab,

 

and some are even simpler. So I can't see why a L1 could not maintain it especially if staying out of Cta.

 

Ken

 

 

[ave8rr]

CTA  for suitablely equipped RAA aircraft is already available by virtue os CAO 95.55 with a RPL.  Any CTA endorsement for a RPC would be the same as a RPL i.e. content and medical so nothing gained.

I see RAAus have announced CTA access via CASA Instrument for those FTS operating in class C or D. Requires a medical etc and only signed off for each CTA pilot is trained for.

 

 

[M61A1]

like what?

The last Tech manual makes it pretty clear, things like: mod approvals for amatuer built, extra inspections, forms to advise of intention to build,  L1 maintenance training, more hours added to endorsement requirements.

There have been many add ons to the requirements in the last few years.

 

 

[jetjr]

Hardly a "truckload on new regulation"

 

Plenty will like the ability to modify cert and LSA aircraft - they previously couldn't - and keep them flying.

 

For others is only major modifications

 

10 min online quiz for L1? not that tough

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I see RAAus have announced CTA access via CASA Instrument for those FTS operating in class C or D. Requires a medical etc and only signed off for each CTA pilot is trained for.

Have you a link or reference. 

Was this an announcement they would like it on a wish list, pursue it, have got it or CASA have just said they’ll look at it ?