RAA Increasing Weight

[coljones]

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 suspect that they have confused the similarity and differences between L2 and L4.  A current L4 is an L2 with additional Amateur built inspection authorities.  I think the RAA letter needs a fact check against the Tech Manual.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

 Personally i think 544kg should be the maximum.

 

 

Why?

 

 

[Fred]

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

Been there done that until the constitution change, I refused to nominate or have any part of what IMO was a very backward step handing effectively full control to 4 individuals - an Australia wide organisation with effectively NO regional input, it was never going to represent member’s views.   But hey, 800 people gave them their proxy votes so I accept I must be the one out of step, so instead of beating my head against a brick wall I am just watching the predictable outcomes. (I was the RAA regional representative on the RACPAC committee also but resigned from that after the change as I refused to be a regional representative for an organisation that doesn’t believe in regional representation.  Remember the voting by post code repetitive comments from Canberra -  enough said)

 

 

[Blacksheep]

Why?

Because with more weight comes more regulation. I would prefer to see RAA in the light aircraft/ultralight side of flying. We already have a great choice of aircraft at that weight. CASA has a PPL for people that would like to fly heavier aircraft. I am concerned that as our weight limits go up so will our costs and regulations.

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Via pprune, this is one blokes take on RAAus:

 

"P.S. The rumor of CASA allegedly proposing to free light aircraft from the rules by consigning them to the tender ministrations of RAAOz, if true, is the most vicious proposal I have heard for a long time. It is akin to a cornered serial killer with a cellar full of captives proposing to release one of his victims in return for being allowed to kill the rest."

 

The man surely has a way with words.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I suspect that they have confused the similarity and differences between L2 and L4.  A current L4 is an L2 with additional Amateur built inspection authorities.  I think the RAA letter needs a fact check against the Tech Manual.

You would think that's the CASA roadblock, restrict the number of aircraft flying by restricting the numbers of mechanics allowed to work on them...

 

 

[slb]

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

and two seats only?

 

 

[Kenchhidu]

and two seats only?

For now... 

 

 

[slb]

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

That is the time to have your say, although I guess ex-GA may have a bigger say without realising the difference in cost would ultimately affect them too.

 

 

[Yenn]

If you read the first 3 paragraphs, you will see that this is the usual spin. RAAus are acting as if this is a done deal and it is going to happen tomorrow.

 

Knowing CASA it will be at least two years before anything is put on paper and then God alone knows how long before it comes into legislation.

 

In the meantime I am still thinking about transferring the Corby to GA Experimental. The only thing stopping me at the moment is that I cannot find an AP nearer than the Gold Coast to sign off on it.  The transfer would save me annual membership and rego costs.

 

 

[slb]

The only thing stopping me at the moment is that I cannot find an AP nearer than the Gold Coast to sign off on it

Is there a list of suitably qualified LAMES anywhere?

 

 

[slb]

I suspect that they have confused the similarity and differences between L2 and L4.  A current L4 is an L2 with additional Amateur built inspection authorities.  I think the RAA letter needs a fact check against the Tech Manual.

The RAA website states under L2/L4 Maintainers

 

Members who are a CASA LAME (or equivalent acceptable to RAAus) may apply for a Level 4 Amateur Built Inspector (ABI) Authorisation. the applicant for a L4 Authorisation must hold a Level 2 Maintenance Authorisation prior to making the application, or co-incident with it.

 

Maintenance Authority Renewal

 

L2 privileges are valid for two years and are subject to renewal. In order to renew these privileges an L2 must conduct at least two annual inspections within two years.

 

A LAME is issued with a perpetual L2, subject to continued validity of the LAME Licence. No L2 renewal is required.

 

So it seems they may have to be RAA members and L2s before they can apply for a L4 (if I am reading it correctly) but they don't need to renew every 2 years. I guess they could become RAA if they want to pick up extra work in their spare time, and cover their costs with an increase in their fees. Would they also need to take out specific L2 insurance, or will their LAME insurance cover RAA aircraft. I guess it depends on who the LAME works for. If they work for a commercial entity they wouldn't be covered for work outside of their paid hours, would they?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

He needs an CASA Approved Person to issue the Experimental Airworthiness Certificate not a LAME.

 

Last time I asked CASA for a list of CASA approved parachute riggers they told me they couldn't tell me because of privacy laws. Clearly CASA are trying to make it impossible to aviate legally because not having legislative backing or indeed conflicting with other Australian laws hasn't stopped them in the past or present.

 

This whole RAAus thing with weight increases/controlled airspace access  is utter nonsense. CASA needs only to change a couple of regulations or CAOs to ease certain requirements for aircraft below a certain weight under certain conditions and the whole issue goes away

 

 

[winsor68]

We need a US style Part 103 under but outside of ALL of this.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Try this site address and look for 21.195A delegates

 

 https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/standard-page/airworthiness-delegate-search

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

We need a US style Part 105 under but outside of ALL of this

FAR Part 105 is about Parachute operations but am I missing the point?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

I thought the US ultralight reg was FAR 103. It seems to work but is probably a little restrictive although you need no form of licence or training. Here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_103-7.pdf

 

Alternatives to this would be 95.10 but without limits on kits, factory built, homebuilt etc or the UK deregulated class where the gross weight is limited to 300 Kg and the wing loading to 35 kg/sq m. The UK requires pilot training which perhaps isn't a terrible thing.

 

Those who want to fly 95.10 type aircraft need to push for this. NO you do not need a separate organisation or any formal organisation beyond one that lobbies for reasonable rules as above.

 

Those who wish to fly two seaters more in line with GA aircraft would be better off to push for more reasonable GA rules for aircraft below a certain weight and circumstance. No need for RAAus or GFA beyond  education and encouragement.

 

At present CASA has managed to effectively tax ultralights and gliders by requiring membership of an organisation which collects fees and memberships and may be re-imbursed by CASA for carrying out CASA functions (anyone know for sure whether RAAus and GFA get CASA funding currently? Or is this a secret?).

 

The above arrangement could possibly be construed as a conspiracy to circumvent the law and extend CASA's reach where it has no authority.

 

 

[frank marriott]

[jetjr]

Group G are the heavier types, will remain LAME or now can be L4 maintained.

 

Current aircraft will continue as currently, self or L2 for training

 

Distributed FAQ to members via email few days ago

 

Few interesting points is the inference that Group G, by the fact they don't just say "training" MAY be used for hire or reward

 

Also that current experimental can maybe move to group G with increased MTOW and stall speed, these could maybe be self maintained yet.

 

Wont know anything until CASA releases their plan, could vary from rumours and what RAA expect.

 

 

[kasper]

Group G are the heavier types, will remain LAME or now can be L4 maintained.Current aircraft will continue as currently, self or L2 for training

Distributed FAQ to members via email few days ago

 

Few interesting points is the inference that Group G, by the fact they don't just say "training" MAY be used for hire or reward

 

Also that current experimental can maybe move to group G with increased MTOW and stall speed, these could maybe be self maintained yet.

 

Wont know anything until CASA releases their plan, could vary from rumours and what RAA expect.

A new group. New training requirements. New maintenance requirements. No L2 maintenance only LAME (you can’t upgrade from L2 to L4 without being a LAME). No reference to stall speed.

Basically no link to the current or history of RAAus. It GA plain and simple.

 

And ANYONE who wants to claim that RAAus over the past two years has not leveled ALL aircraft and pilots UP to the highest level is living in a different reality.

 

Those seeing a similar reality to me are probably really worried that the origins and ability to operate the older style aircraft will be gone very soon under the current RAAus.

 

Really not a happy camper here.

 

 

[NT5224]

Personally I support this initiative and hope it materialises soon enough for me to get my Rebel certified RAA again ( at 760kg ) once my Lycoming 0320 is installed. Otherwise I’ll have to go VH experimental.

 

If regulation and maintenance requirements for aircraft under 600kg will remain unchanged and new restrictions and regs only effect the new G category, I can’t see why folks are complaining.

 

Of course nobody wants to see membership and aircraft reg fees rise across the organisation, and it wouldn’t be fair to do so. So as a potential G category owner, I would expect to pay higher reg fees than my neighbour with his rag and tube machine. Who knows? A ‘high end’ G category may end up subsidising other parts of the organisation and so bring fees down for existing members. I would happily absorb a higher membership/reg cost if it gave me the freedom to safely fly my aircraft the way I want to, within its design parameters.

 

Alan

 

 

[facthunter]

Keeping LAME's in work was never OUR aim. More than anything else that statement shows where we are going. Don't kid yourself .. THIS is the NEW GA.

 

750 (originally 762) KG's was proposed by CASA obviously to cover the C 152 and the Piper tomahawk. Going to 1500 AUW is not ultra light or homebuilt for the average person. Going from yourself plus ONE "aware" person on board is a lot different from taking 3 pax up plus you into the sky in terms of responsibility and liability.. Do we do away with the 45 knots stall too? There was a good reason for these limitations. Don't kid yourself the expenses will be kept isolated from the "older" type of member. who believes in" simple, safe and affordable flying. The then minority will become the "Nuisance" factor standing in the way of progress. The active section newer group will get all the attention . It's where the action is perceived to be always.. Junior staff will have to be forced into looking after the rest.. We will need a new AUF. in fact to progress that group. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Does anyone know which aircraft models will be able to register at a higher weight up to 750kg? I guess Jabiru 230 but are there others that are built to a higher design load and could benefit? I know that existing registered aircraft will probably be stuck where they are, but which models if bought new could come with a manufacturers certificate for more than 600kg?

 

 

[facthunter]

I can't see it only being limited to existing models. It's not generally good to increase weights or stretch an existing design. You will inevitably use up ANY excess strength and performance in the current model and just beef up the absolutely necessary structures the minimum amount you have to.. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

take bloody look at the work raaus bloody LAME L4 done on my aircraft and the FAILED to do any thing about it I don't trust raaus and their crap and corruption so I CUT my AIRCRAFT in half rather than sell it neil