What happened with the MTOW change for RAAus

[bexrbetter]

. The RAAus team are travelling around the country to keep CfIs L2s and members informed

i dream of a time in the future when they can use the telephone system to transport written messages and maybe even pictures to others.

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

i dream of a time in the future when they can use the telephone system to transport written messages and maybe even pictures to others.

 Ha, then along came the NBN and made sure that'll never happen..

 

 

[shafs64]

Yes i saw the story about the guy driving a file across brisbane quicker then NBN could sent it.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

shafs, if you can pass the Ausroads heavy vehicle standard and answer the CASA questions you can get a Basic med. However if you can do that you could get a Class 2.

 

If for any reason you have been denied a Class 2 in the past you'll need to see a DAME and as the medical standard has not changed you won't get Basic Med or Class 2. Basic med is similar to old RPL medical but with the slight relaxation of number of people in the aircraft. Not really a concern for most people.

 

 

[shafs64]

Well i am a HC fuel tanker driver with DG ticket that requires a medical. you would think that would be enough. About two years ago i wanted to fly out of the airport closest to where i lived so i needed a class 2 went and did the medical was up front. and all i got was heaps of questions for you know who and told i would need to provide all these follow up tests. and didn't think it was worth it at the time.  

 

 

[Jaba-who]

This is going to happen

Ausroads heavy vehicle standard

 

5 pax day VFR

Well maybe,  maybe not. 

In the first two public releases CASA made,  they emphatically stated the medical would be based on the Ausroads commercial licence BUT would also have additional limitations that they felt were appropriate to aviation. 

 

You are probably aware that that there is already a private drivers licence medical (the RAMPC) which is based on the private drivers licence BUT with additional limitations felt appropriate to aviation. The RAMPC was hailed as the saviour of private pilots who could not pass the class 2 medical. We all know what that achieved!  Nothing. 

 

Basically the extra limitations have made it so that if you can't hold a standard class 2 you really can't get a RAMPC either. 

 

That is where the problem  lies with the Basic Class 2.

 

CASA has gone quiet on the extra limitations. This is a typical bureaucratic manipulation. You mention the factors that will render something unworkable right at the beginning but play it down.

 

Then you stop mentioning it so that the stakeholders don't complain or protest them. Then while the background is quiet you make the laws and even ask for input ( usually by asking for input by a very-soon-to-arrive date so no one has a chance to put in submissions. - but they can say they consulted widely. ) 

 

Then they publish them. 

 

Any complaints then will be met with "Sorry you are too late now. We told you right from the start these limitations would be in place and no one objected!"

 

And they will trot out those initial press releases to support their position. 

 

The only time you can believe CASA is going to do something is when it's done and finished and you can actually read the rules in black and white. 

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

AFAIK the RAMPC is based on the Heavy vehicle standard, not the private vehicle standard.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

RampC is a crock of do do...its got nothing to do with the heavy vehicle or private vehicle medical test. The extra addons that CASA put to that test make it actually harder to pass than a Class 2...if you wanted then to get a class 2 you probably could if you wanted to spend the 10K in tests required and  the time to do it all. If its good enough to be able to drive 60 plus tonne of BDouble at 100kph surely its good enough to fly a aircraft not weighing more than 1500kg and 2 POB????????...What a typical KlusterF*&k session by CASA ....No common sense in any govt dept I am sure

 

 

[shafs64]

JC why do we even bother!

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

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

The second greatest threat to Australian aviators is people who excuse the useless, toadying organisations.

 

 

[facthunter]

WHEN and IF they do it well I will be one of the first to genuinely praise them. When they have had some change of the Guard I always hope fervently there will be some improvements, and it just doesn't happen.. I'm NOT satisfied with their performance often and I don't apologise for pointing that out. I'm NOT alone as any enquiry has always come forward with recommendations that are ignored...I think many are scared to criticize the Authority. It is NOT beyond  being held accountable for the way it does things, and should be more responsive to Pilot concerns and a sense of fairness. in dealings being upheld. I don't blame the individuals . It's the culture and the legislation behind the culture that needs attention.. The public only worry about the big stuff and that's all CASA care about also but "they" are essentially SELF regulating. TRUST that if you will, so we get little attention from those who sit in Offices , and run things past Lawyers and no on else. Less people in there are high experience people in  industry and airtime unless they fly in the services and they don't ever work on their own planes . .Nev

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

I'm not talking about CASA, I'm talking about what should be member organisations (RAAus, GFA etc) doing CASA's dirty work for it and in many cases going beyond what CASA requires of private pilots.

 

These organisations should be a shield against CASA but sell out the interests of their members for a tummy rub.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Sometimes the organisation will be more punitive than CASA possibly would have been to make sure they keep CASA off  "their" back. Some airlines behave this way hoping to gain brownie Points with the CASA, or hoping they (CASA) won't come snooping around and find something else to pick on.. I've mentioned this aspect quite a frequently as I've seen specific examples of it many times over the years. The WAY things are with RAAus and the CASA you could not expect automatically to be supported by the RAAus as they have to consider their working relationship with CASA when they do things. This is not a satisfactory situation structurally especially with Laws of strict Liability and a punitive fines and points loss system in operation.

 

     AOPA is the ONLY organization who you could  trust and expect,  would work in your interests. I have to declare, due to financial constraints and the fact I'm losing all hope of improvement, I've reluctantly discontinued my membership of that organization, but for those of you who may have a future in Australian Aviation , and want change, I would suggest you join. Nev

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

It isn't just if you are accused of doing something wrong and even if you are, let them charge and convict you in court. That is the proper procedure in Australia, instead of little kangaroo courts.

 

I'm referring to the rules promulgated by these organisations which are in many cases more restrictive than CASA rules. Look at RAAus homebuilding  vs CASA Part 21. Look at GFA ANNUAL checks  rather than bi-annual and they insist on full spins (crazy amount of risk exposure for no gain - nobody has demonstrated that this prevents any accidents), just to name 2.

 

You may also like to think of the implications of a GFA president who after 2 years in the job resigns to immediately accept a job on the CASA Board.

 

 

[Icarus]

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

 

 

I Asked Mr Stiff about this on the ph about a year or more ago .

 

The enquiry from me was " If I was to build a j430 and wanted 760kg could I get a letter stating the aircraft is rated for that MTOW"

 

"This letter would be to show the inspector at experimental certification time  that the designer approves of the MTOW:."

 

His answer was "yes, no problem with that"

 

Remebering an experimental aircraft can have the MTOW set by the builder. The letter would be to set the inspectors mind at ease that the aircraft is safe at the MTOW.

 

Rod told me the aircraft was designed for 760kg with a 1.5x safety factor. He set 700kg for Australia to leave 10% safety margin for the overloading pilots ! [ If I remember correctly]

 

Once the aircraft is certified for a MTOW I reckon it would take a mountain of paperwork to Get CASA to increase it. Needs to be done at initial ceritfication I would think.

 

This conversation was had after I saw the MTOW of the South African Jabs and sent an email to them asking if there was any mods th get the 760kg. They then sent my enquiry to jabiru Australia, whom then Rang me.

 

Hope this helps any future builders.

 

 

[Super Cub]

I Asked Mr Stiff about this on the ph about a year or more ago .

The enquiry from me was " If I was to build a j430 and wanted 760kg could I get a letter stating the aircraft is rated for that MTOW"

 

"This letter would be to show the inspector at experimental certification time  that the designer approves of the MTOW:."

 

His answer was "yes, no problem with that"

 

Remebering an experimental aircraft can have the MTOW set by the builder. The letter would be to set the inspectors mind at ease that the aircraft is safe at the MTOW.

 

Rod told me the aircraft was designed for 760kg with a 1.5x safety factor. He set 700kg for Australia to leave 10% safety margin for the overloading pilots ! [ If I remember correctly]

 

Once the aircraft is certified for a MTOW I reckon it would take a mountain of paperwork to Get CASA to increase it. Needs to be done at initial ceritfication I would think.

 

This conversation was had after I saw the MTOW of the South African Jabs and sent an email to them asking if there was any mods th get the 760kg. They then sent my enquiry to jabiru Australia, whom then Rang me.

 

Hope this helps any future builders.

Interesting, so obviously they don't overload the aircraft in South Africa so are allowed 760kg MTOW, but only 700kg in Aus. (Cant trust those Aussie pilots).

 

I wasn't sure at what weight the aircraft was initially tested at.

 

I'm not sure of the certification criteria, but if the designed MTOW is 760kg, and it a 1.5X safety factor, Id guess they structurally tested the aircraft at 1140kg (eg Wings, landing gear). or perhaps they do not go through such testing being LSA?

 

 

[Icarus]

Im assuming he was erring on the side of caution. How many pilots would dare to ask the overweight female passenger what she weighs!!!!  I would think even though pilots should not exceed MTOW it does happen.

 

If  760kg MTOW  is exceeded then you are into the 1.5x safety factor.  at 700kg MTOW overload you obviously are still well outside 1.5 x factor.  So no sneaking over in SA. or in experimental class here when you have C of A at 760 kg

 

The south Africans love their Jabbies. If you go to AV com to the jabiru section you will find the love.

 

If you go to Jabiru website and you tube you will see videos of structural testing.

 

I have heard they do get off the ground at 800kg

 

edit .  sorry about the lines! showed up after posting!!??

 

 

[Super Cub]

Thanks for the info on Jabiru testing. I hadn't seen that.

 

The wing stress tests were 2000kg for each wing. More than I thought it would be tested at.

 

Not sure what weight the gear drop tests were carried out at.

 

 

[Kenchhidu]

Has anyone seen the leaked email they're talking about in this article from Australian Flying? 

 

Weight Increase for Ra-Aus? 

 

 

[Thruster88]

Has anyone seen the leaked email they're talking about in this article from Australian Flying? Weight Increase for Ra-Aus? 

So what advantage would a current Cessna 150,152 owner  get going to RAA ?

 

 

[Jaba-who]

So what advantage would a current Cessna 150,152 owner  get going to RAA ?

The general working benefit is said to be that a person who owns a 152 etc and loses their GA medical currently may say “ “I’m too old to learn to fly a new aircraft and I can’t get a medical. Bugger it, I’ll hang up my headset and take up lawn bowls”. Another pilot who is lost to aviation. 

But if they could convert to RAAus with its lower medical requirements they may keep on flying for a while or even years. 

 

 

[Fred]

Without owner maintenance they are kidding themselves but with the current Raa approach it was expected as has been previously discussed.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

More regulatory complexity. Pity there was no medical reform as the Brits did it. Then,  without owner maintenance, you wouldn't need to join RAAus,  just continue on your RPL and no need for the division of RAAus maintenance into under 600 Kg and up to 760 Kg.

 

CASA really are a bunch of piously sanctimonious fools. A Cessna 150, technology wise, makes an FJ Holden look like a veritable riot of modern technology. You can maintain the latter yourself and put many more people at risk than you would in a Cessna 150.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

AFAIK the RAMPC is based on the Heavy vehicle standard, not the private vehicle standard.

Nope private motor vehicle licence. 

Cut and paste below from the casa page for doctors to advise in requirements:

 

“The Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate is based on a modified unconditional driver’s licence medical certificate for a private motor vehicle.”

 

 

[Fred]

modified

Not a big word BUT.