RAA Increasing Weight

[skippydiesel]

I guess some movement toward greater utility is better than none and no doubt RAA management will be pleased with the increased revenue from aircraft/owners fleeing from GA.

 

BUT!!!!!

 

I would like to see more action ob the entry to Controlled Airspace AND the removal of the need for ASIC  at minor airports around the nation -positive movement in these directions would be something to crow about.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The Update from RAA today says:-

 

RAAus is pleased to advise our members that we have made significant progress with CASA’s new General, Recreational & Sport Aviation Branch in recent weeks on the topic of increased weighted aircraft allowable onto the RAAus register.

 

Importantly, the weight increase will require an amendment to the Civil Aviation Orders which will require CASA to seek industry comment on those changes proposed. 

 

RAAus and CASA have agreed to advance a staged approach to increased weight. Stage one will see aircraft weighing 760kgs enter our register, while stage two will see aircraft up to 1500kgs enter our register.

 

RAAus has agreed with CASA on the framework to allow this process to be implemented prior to the introduction of Part 149. The framework has a range of steps that RAAus must undertake, each of those steps designed to ensure our safety record remains at its current high levels. The framework will see Part 149 ‘like’ outcomes in place, prior to the actual commencement of the regulation. This resolution is an excellent example of a mature, collaborative approach which has resulted in both RAAus and CASA achieving their respective outcomes and in particular, RAAus advocating the outcomes our members seek.

 

RAAus views a weight increase as a positive shot in the arm for aviation in Australia as it will generate economic opportunities for maintainers, create education pathways for people entering the maintenance profession and offer flight training schools greater flexibility with the aircraft they use for flight training and hiring. Owners of heavier aircraft will also have choice when registering an aircraft: they can continue with the VH system of registration or move their aircraft across to RAAus. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages and ultimately the decision will be with the aircraft owner.

 

RAAus offers a self-declared medical framework and public liability insurance coverage for pilots and aircraft on our register. We also offer advocacy, training and education opportunities as well as access to highly skilled and qualified staff.

 

One of the key talking points around this topic has been the maintenance protocols to be implemented. RAAus and CASA have agreed that any aircraft used for hire or reward as part of a flight training operation will be maintained by a level 4 maintainer. This has always been RAAus’ position. In essence a level 4 maintainer is LAME qualified. This process will ensure existing LAMEs livelihoods are maintained and even strengthened as more aircraft enter flight training under the RAAus banner.

 

For privately owned aircraft, RAAus and CASA are continuing to work on the final arrangements to be implemented and we expect to make further announcements shortly.

 

Chairman of RAAus Mick Monck said: “We take our role as a major player in General Aviation in Australia very seriously. In fact CASA reports that RAAus flying makes up 7% of all general and commercial flying activity in Australia. We are committed to strengthening the sector at large and creating pathways and opportunities for every aspect of General Aviation.

 

We have seen sustainable safety improvements as a result of our commitment to safety and evidence indicates our safety record is on a par with other forms of aviation. With regard to our accident rate, some headline figures are quite demonstrative of real improvements. In 2013 our rate of fatal accidents per 100,000 hours was 5. In 2014 this rate had reduced to 2.65. Today the rate runs at just over one fatality per 100,000 hours.

 

Heavier aircraft on the RAAus register will create positive economic opportunities for flight schools, hiring companies and maintainers. We look forward to continuing to work with CASA as we finalise plans for our weight increase in the second half of this year.”

 

 

[kasper]

Hmmmm

 

two seats used in training today = L2 maintenance.  

 

Two seats used in training under new weight = LAME maintenance 

 

why?

 

and WHY would it be RAAus states prefers position and state it will ensure LAME livelihood?

 

since when is the livelihood of a LAME the preferred position of RAAus management.?

 

abandon hope of an form of member focus ... really love to see the detail of what’s going to be required on design/maintenance of homebuilt a in the new weight group .... if they will exist.  

 

 

[Blacksheep]

Is there a way to run a poll on this site? I would be interested to see results of support for weight increase vs stay with what we have. Personally i think 544kg should be the maximum. If you want to fly heavier planes get a ppl its not exactly hard to do. 

 

 

[Blueadventures]

The Update from RAA today says:-

 

 

 

 

 

RAAus is pleased to advise our members that we have made significant progress with CASA’s new General, Recreational & Sport Aviation Branch in recent weeks on the topic of increased weighted aircraft allowable onto the RAAus register.

 

Importantly, the weight increase will require an amendment to the Civil Aviation Orders which will require CASA to seek industry comment on those changes proposed. 

 

RAAus and CASA have agreed to advance a staged approach to increased weight. Stage one will see aircraft weighing 760kgs enter our register, while stage two will see aircraft up to 1500kgs enter our register.

 

RAAus has agreed with CASA on the framework to allow this process to be implemented prior to the introduction of Part 149. The framework has a range of steps that RAAus must undertake, each of those steps designed to ensure our safety record remains at its current high levels. The framework will see Part 149 ‘like’ outcomes in place, prior to the actual commencement of the regulation. This resolution is an excellent example of a mature, collaborative approach which has resulted in both RAAus and CASA achieving their respective outcomes and in particular, RAAus advocating the outcomes our members seek.

 

RAAus views a weight increase as a positive shot in the arm for aviation in Australia as it will generate economic opportunities for maintainers, create education pathways for people entering the maintenance profession and offer flight training schools greater flexibility with the aircraft they use for flight training and hiring. Owners of heavier aircraft will also have choice when registering an aircraft: they can continue with the VH system of registration or move their aircraft across to RAAus. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages and ultimately the decision will be with the aircraft owner.

 

RAAus offers a self-declared medical framework and public liability insurance coverage for pilots and aircraft on our register. We also offer advocacy, training and education opportunities as well as access to highly skilled and qualified staff.

 

One of the key talking points around this topic has been the maintenance protocols to be implemented. RAAus and CASA have agreed that any aircraft used for hire or reward as part of a flight training operation will be maintained by a level 4 maintainer. This has always been RAAus’ position. In essence a level 4 maintainer is LAME qualified. This process will ensure existing LAMEs livelihoods are maintained and even strengthened as more aircraft enter flight training under the RAAus banner.

 

For privately owned aircraft, RAAus and CASA are continuing to work on the final arrangements to be implemented and we expect to make further announcements shortly.

 

Chairman of RAAus Mick Monck said: “We take our role as a major player in General Aviation in Australia very seriously. In fact CASA reports that RAAus flying makes up 7% of all general and commercial flying activity in Australia. We are committed to strengthening the sector at large and creating pathways and opportunities for every aspect of General Aviation.

 

We have seen sustainable safety improvements as a result of our commitment to safety and evidence indicates our safety record is on a par with other forms of aviation. With regard to our accident rate, some headline figures are quite demonstrative of real improvements. In 2013 our rate of fatal accidents per 100,000 hours was 5. In 2014 this rate had reduced to 2.65. Today the rate runs at just over one fatality per 100,000 hours.

 

Heavier aircraft on the RAAus register will create positive economic opportunities for flight schools, hiring companies and maintainers. We look forward to continuing to work with CASA as we finalise plans for our weight increase in the second half of this year.”

Training aircraft are at present able to be maintained by L2's so that is an incorrect statement.

I wonder how many less than 760kg GA aircraft fatalities have occurred during the period 2013 on and what effect would they have on RAA's stats (%) if included for those years.  Would be helpful for trend analysis into the future.

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Interesting to note that existing members weren’t mentioned only flight schools, hirers and maintainers. I wonder what percentage of our members actually support the two Mikes position on weight increases or amove to GA Mk. 2. All I can see is financial grief ahead for current RAA aircraft owners and flyers. Very disappointed in this take over of all recreational aircraft approach.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

I wonder if RAA admin costs will go up, whether CASA's contribution to the organisation's costs will increase (not guaranteed in last consultation papers), and thus the cost per member will remain the same or decrease (same costs - more members/registrations)? Watch the bureaucratic demands increase - via CASA's approval process of Ops and Tech manuals and consequently cost per member increase.

 

 

[Fred]

It was forecast -  from the time we let these clowns to have total control of what was previously a members organisation -  it has been all down hill.  No doubt the usual supporters of “GA mini”  will come out in support of this approach with LAME maintenance and class 2 medicals unrealistic and unsustainable fees  - it is time to get rid of this tripe.

 

There is no point in paying membership fees AND registration if maintenance & medical requirements are the same - just go GA and forget MINI GA.   

 

OR regain control of RAA.

 

 

[M61A1]

Is there a way to run a poll on this site? I would be interested to see results of support for weight increase vs stay with what we have. Personally i think 544kg should be the maximum. If you want to fly heavier planes get a ppl its not exactly hard to do. 

What I think is more relevant is why does more weight mean more rules? What is the difference really between a Cherokee and a Jabiru as far as maintenance is concerned? Limiting pax limits the amount of people you can kill or injure. Half of the RA fleet is more complex than most of the GA fleet. It's all rec flying.....so why different maintenance requirements?

Why not a 1500kg 95.10 or 95.55? Leave LAME maintenance to AOC holders.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Give a man an inch, and he makes himself a ruler !

 

This is not going to be good for RAA schools.

 

 

[KRviator]

Canada seems to have it right, with their owner-maintenance scheme for GA, though sadly the M20C and on and Beech Bonanza's aren't included...

 

 

[coljones]

Is there a way to run a poll on this site? I would be interested to see results of support for weight increase vs stay with what we have. Personally i think 544kg should be the maximum. If you want to fly heavier planes get a ppl its not exactly hard to do. 

We could go back to 300kg and stay inside the fence.

 

 

[coljones]

Interesting to note that existing members weren’t mentioned only flight schools, hirers and maintainers. I wonder what percentage of our members actually support the two Mikes position on weight increases or amove to GA Mk. 2. All I can see is financial grief ahead for current RAA aircraft owners and flyers. Very disappointed in this take over of all recreational aircraft approach.

And you put up the picture that shows this grief?

 

 

[coljones]

It was forecast -  from the time we let these clowns to have total control of what was previously a members organisation -  it has been all down hill.  No doubt the usual supporters of “GA mini”  will come out in support of this approach with LAME maintenance and class 2 medicals unrealistic and unsustainable fees  - it is time to get rid of this tripe.There is no point in paying membership fees AND registration if maintenance & medical requirements are the same - just go GA and forget MINI GA.   

 

OR regain control of RAA.

Fred, it was going down the tubes before incorporation.  We had lots of money and property but not much organisational and professional acumen. CASA and a large chunk of the membership were not impressed.

 

 

[NotSoSuperSonic]

The RAAus kill rates stated above are not really accurate indicators of the managements commitment to safety.  One of the hierarchy recently stated "Actions speak louder than words".  The actions and inactions of upper levels of this organisation have at times sounded warnings loud and clear, that caution should be taken before allowing them to be responsible for increased areas in aviation.  Cheers

 

 

[Ron5335]

I want to know how this new system will convert the number of LAME's out there who are not overjoyed by some of the aircraft in out fleet and who choose not to work on them.

 

So for a training school to continue it will have to run out and buy a new fleet around $150k each......... I can't see this happening.

 

So for a short time gain for current aircraft owners ,  without new membership, fees go up, and the death spiral begins.

 

 

[winsor68]

The fat lady has sung.

 

 

[winsor68]

We could go back to 300kg and stay inside the fence.

And just why is that so comical to so many pilots?    Sorry.  GA Pilots.

 

 

[Camel]

Correct me if I'm wrong ! Firstly it said aircraft over the 600 kg would have to be L4 maintained if used for hire or training, so most schools will not go there unless already a GA school so why bother going on RAA rego, no advantage in fact more expensive ! 

 

I only see people that want to bring their GA plane over for self maintenance and the big one I see is when some one builds a light GA plane in experimental catorgory and sells it the new owner can not maintain and he or she may choose to come to RAA so they can do owner maintenance ! Most LAME's don't like working on home builds and I don't blame them as it could be a problem ! 

 

 

[planesmaker]

Not many L4's around, so LAMEs are required for the heavy fleet in schools, they will most certainly be required to be "members", added revenue for RAAus  but added cost for aircraft operator. Hmmm me thinks they might as  well stay VH. 

 

 

[planesmaker]

Actually rereading RAAus letter it states any aircraft used for hire or reward will be L4  maintained   Surely we can assume that excludes current fleet or does it?

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

It was forecast -  from the time we let these clowns to have total control of what was previously a members organisation -  it has been all down hill.  No doubt the usual supporters of “GA mini”  will come out in support of this approach with LAME maintenance and class 2 medicals unrealistic and unsustainable fees  - it is time to get rid of this tripe.There is no point in paying membership fees AND registration if maintenance & medical requirements are the same - just go GA and forget MINI GA.   

 

OR regain control of RAA.

Time to step up Fred and make a difference, board nominations are now open.    

 

 

[billwoodmason]

And you put up the picture that shows this grief?

Coljones you must be blind if you haven't noticed an increase in the cost of registration fees, certificate fees, BFR's, maintenance requirements (eg Jabirus), and the Magazine to name a few. With the quoted increase in membership fees should be coming down not always spiralling up.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Not many L4's around, so LAMEs are required for the heavy fleet in schools, they will most certainly be required to be "members", added revenue for RAAus  but added cost for aircraft operator. Hmmm me thinks they might as  well stay VH. 

May work like the current permission approvals for LAME's inspecting RAA aircraft - don't need to be member of RAA.  Example condition reports that are done by LAME  (RAA form 013)  Cheers

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Actually rereading RAAus letter it states any aircraft used for hire or reward will be L4  maintained   Surely we can assume that excludes current fleet or does it?

 I expect that coming onto RAA register they will have to fly accordingly eg no aerobatic type flying - less that 60 degrees etc.