How long until RAA get a weight increase approved?

[NT5224]

Hi folks.

 

Just wondering if any ‘insiders’ on here can offer insight into how long the process to get an MTOW increase to 750 kg will likely take?

 

Now I know many will roll their eyes and say ‘they’ve been trying for years’, and I understand the pocess needs to go out to wider industry consultation: But I’ve got a very specific decision to make about aircraft registration and so would appreciate any informed feedback. Will we likely see the first RAA registrations at 750kg in six months, in one year, or three years?

 

Appreciate your thoughts

 

Alan

 

 

[spacesailor]

Six months after they abandon the anti-safety "wing-loading" bureaucratic rule.

 

I can beat that rule, but it would make a great aircraft SSHHIITT !.

 

From 6G+6G- ,max speed 140 mph, @ 61 mpg US.

 

TO

 

2G+1G- ,with a max speed of 60 knots, & fuel consumption like a two-stroke. Wing area 131 sq feet

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

The mail I have is that dont expect it until at least 2 to 3 years...BUT what has been said so far though is nothing but suggestions and talk...absolutely nothing in stone except that if it does for to 760kg the caveat will be the aircraft must be designed for that weight. You can NOT put a aircraft that has a published design weight for say 820kg into the category it will not be allowed

 

 

[BusaKaine]

The mail I have is that dont expect it until at least 2 to 3 years...BUT what has been said so far though is nothing but suggestions and talk...absolutely nothing in stone except that if it does for to 760kg the caveat will be the aircraft must be designed for that weight. You can NOT put a aircraft that has a published design weight for say 820kg into the category it will not be allowed

That seems strange, given that at the moment, certain aircraft that are able to be registered with 700kg or more are also able to be RAA rego for 600kg....

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

This is very true....it wont be for much longer. I am led to believe legacy aircraft like this MAY still be allowed that are doing this now but new ones its a big NO....again though nothing set in stone at all at this time.....I was told this by a guy in CASA in canberra

 

 

[Thruster88]

Alan you could have the lycoming half way to TBO before the weight increase is approved, who knows?

 

 

[Blueadventures]

That seems strange, given that at the moment, certain aircraft that are able to be registered with 700kg or more are also able to be RAA rego for 600kg....

I don't think you are able to register that way any more. Eg how C150 were rego years ago. Cheers

 

 

[ave8rr]

I guess there will be no more RV4 etc registered RAAus as they have a MTOW of around 680kg.

 

If RAAus get the higher weight then they will make it in but will require LAME maint unless built by the owner.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

I guess there will be no more RV4 etc registered RAAus as they have a MTOW of around 680kg.If RAAus get the higher weight then they will make it in but will require LAME maint unless built by the owner.

My understanding is any aircraft registered with greater than 600 kg MTOW that finish up with RAA will be LAME maintained and that also fits into the bit that LAME work is not reduced.

 

 

[frank marriott]

My understanding is any aircraft registered with greater than 600 kg MTOW that finish up with RAA will be LAME maintained and that also fits into the bit that LAME work is not reduced.

With the current “leadership” of RAA you can expect LAME maintenance AND PPL medical.

 

Remember

 

1. The RAA published statement “will ensure work for LAMEs”

 

2. Monk votes AGAINST RPL medical reform.

 

Don’t be confused with political style press releases, look at what is happening & being proposed by “our” representatives.

 

It is way passed time that members realise and accept where our organisation is heading & and at a fast rate!

 

 

[Jaba-who]

As all have said above don’t make any short term plans based on the noise put out by CASA.

 

Particularly not while CASAs proposed rules actively discriminate against GA pilots on the medical front.

 

CASA seems intransigent about buckling on the medical stuff for GA (and has never suggested that maintenance will ever change beyond Schedule 8 maintenance for GA ) - so I suspect that this facet is going to slow down everything for RAAus because a win on weight will have to be accompanied by a lose on the maintenance and medicals. AOPA has already used the discrimination and the forcement of GA pilots into a private organisation as legal argument.

 

 

[facthunter]

RAAus was never going to achieve the RAAus IS the "New GA" concept without a BIG fight. It's now happened. The opposition to that proposition is well founded, justified and predictable. Many of US don't like the NEW direction and philosophy and WE have no option to fly any other way. We only get the details after the deal has been done. Cheap Safe affordable flying, A fading dream. CTA access was to be first THEN a weight increase.. I can't see the logic of that sequence at all. It was self imposed for whatever reason and appeared as a statement of intent from RAAus management. If I build a Pietenpol why should it need a LAME to service it ? Perhaps it doesn't but who knows ? A heavier plane can still be simple to check and maintain.. LAME's can still be available for anything they wish to do if they offer a service on equal terms to any L4.. Some members may want their U/L's serviced by a LAME but it shouldn't be compulsory . Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

US are progressing down a similar path, basic med, more weight (a lot more weight), removal of speed restrictions and even more seats

 

I doubt medicals and LAMES are in the plan for existing RAA aircraft but may well be for heavier and CTA....with some good reasons.

 

 

[frank marriott]

U

 

I doubt medicals and LAMES are in the plan for existing RAA aircraft but may well be for heavier and CTA....with some good reasons.

We have had CTA for over 10 years via CAO 95.55 for RAA aircraft just not with RPC only.

 

Stage one of LAME maintenance started with the latest Tech Manual for CTA and guess what NOT from CASA & NOT from the board but from M.Monk & D.Banfield - the minutes of the board debate shows this although I would guess access would be a problem (I naturally kept a personal copy but not at libity to publish)

 

 

[jetjr]

News to me Frank and no doubt many others, Want aware any RAA aircraft required LAME maintenance for normal ops with RAA pilot.

 

Historically CTA being only available to LSA or factory built aircraft would have required L2 anyway Id have thought

 

You have always needed medical for CTA

 

 

[Jaba-who]

UWe have had CTA for over 10 years via CAO 95.55 for RAA aircraft just not with RPC only.

 

Stage one of LAME maintenance started with the latest Tech Manual for CTA and guess what NOT from CASA & NOT from the board but from M.Monk & D.Banfield - the minutes of the board debate shows this although I would guess access would be a problem (I naturally kept a personal copy but not at libity to publish)

I think you’re using a bit of over generalisation there.

“RAAus” does not have CTA access.

 

The quoted CAO regs say RAAus has access but only if it fulfills further rules as outlined in section 7.3 and when you go there it says - (paraphrased)

 

An RAAus pilot (who also a GA licence )has CTA access by virtue of their GA licence.

 

IF they happen to be in an RAAus aircraft that’s equipped to the same standard as a GA aircraft.

 

There are also a very small number of instruments to allow some training organisations to train RAAus in class D but they are for specific named organisations and only if they continue to be owned by the named person and only using the named aircraft with the nominated rego.

 

None of the access is available to just any regular RAAus pilot.

 

 

[SSCBD]

I had way back when, in the AUF, a CASA - " open dispensation, with no limits, any time no notice (got the point) " into controlled airspace and land as wanted. Even went head to head with the airlines a lot, no problems - had a few stunned FO's I spoke to on radio. CASA never EVER had a problem with me or with it, whatsoever (back then).

 

ATC was great, they even came flying with me at a few places.

 

I did and still have a GA license as well - but I was flying a Lightwing two stroke with AUF rego and only had radio very basic panel and paper maps then. None of the other stuff you require now.

 

So the "precedent has been around for many, many years". Seems the AUF NOW RAA have forgotten is was legal and was done without problem.

 

This CTA stuff is a load of bull and excuses FROM RAA AND CASA - if you get training and pass it to PPL standard and use a four stroke Rotax and maintained by L2 whats the problem - However - I must admit, I was always waiting for a engine shut down with the two strokes - and I would not like to play in say, Sydney or Melb these days, however anywhere else is fine in my humble opinion.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I had way back when, in the AUF, a CASA - " open dispensation, with no limits, any time no notice (got the point) " into controlled airspace and land as wanted. Even went head to head with the airlines a lot, no problems - had a few stunned FO's I spoke to on radio. CASA never EVER had a problem with me or with it, whatsoever (back then).ATC was great, they even came flying with me at a few places.

 

I did and still have a GA license as well - but I was flying a Lightwing two stroke with AUF rego and only had radio very basic panel and paper maps then. None of the other stuff you require now.

 

So the "precedent has been around for many, many years". Seems the AUF NOW RAA have forgotten is was legal and was done without problem.

 

This CTA stuff is a load of bull and excuses FROM RAA AND CASA - if you get training and pass it to PPL standard and use a four stroke Rotax and maintained by L2 whats the problem - However - I must admit, I was always waiting for a engine shut down with the two strokes - and I would not like to play in say, Sydney or Melb these days, however anywhere else is fine in my humble opinion.

There’s a big difference between you getting away with something and no one else picking it up, and something being legal. If it was legal there will be documentation. Without that it’s just a dream.

 

 

[frank marriott]

News to me Frank and no doubt many others, Want aware any RAA aircraft required LAME maintenance for normal ops with RAA pilot.Historically CTA being only available to LSA or factory built aircraft would have required L2 anyway Id have thought

You have always needed medical for CTA

Wrong!!

 

1. CAO 99.55 does not quote LSA - some restrictions on aircraft and engines but not limited to LSA - have a read.

 

2. Requiring L2. - absolutely wrong even to this day ( only instrument certification : previously only needed transponder certification by qualified person for class C : instrument certification by L1 as per the previous Tech Manual in two sections (a) for OCTA and (b) for CTA : one each 12 months and the other 2 yearly - bastardised to some extent by the current manual insisted on by Monk.

 

3. As stated the pilot restriction was and still is RPL or higher not RPC only. As stated the restriction is currently on licence not Registration of aircraft - I have been legally operating my RAA registered aircraft, L1 maintained, in class C for ten years.

 

 

[frank marriott]

There are also a very small number of instruments to allow some training organisations to train RAAus in class D

Out of date - RAA training in class C also in RAA registered aircraft (I believe with a medical) but certainly without a CASA licence.

 

 

[frank marriott]

IF they happen to be in an RAAus aircraft that’s equipped to the same standard as a GA aircraft

Remember minimum instrument requirements for VFR flight VH or otherwise (either in or out of CTA) - ASI, ALT, Compass and watch.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Out of date - RAA training in class C also in RAA registered aircraft (I believe with a medical) but certainly without a CASA licence.

We’ve discussed this before ( or maybe was on another forum) and I have not only looked up the rules but also read the instruments. They are available on the Internet.

 

There is the allowability for RAAus training organisations to function in class C or D under an instrument of authority. But as of about three months ago as I best recall are no current instruments allowing anyone to function in class C. The last I found was a Townsville establishment who had gone inactive.

 

Anyone is allowed to apply and be considered but with no certainty of being allowed.

 

There are about 6 or 8 instruments allowing operations in class D. As I recall all in Adelaide and Perth but could be wrong. I assume they are grandfathered from when they were GAAP airfields.

 

But all are strictly for a specific aircraft ( rego and aircraft make and model are specified in the instrument) and owned and operated by a specific person also specified in the instrument. And all were strictly related to student pilots training in them. Once the pilot got qualified they were no longer allowed to use the aircraft in the class D airspace.

 

There was a proposal to change the rules to allow those RAAUs pilots having qualified in that aircraft and airspace to then hire the aircraft from the organisation and operate in that airspace. I don’t know if that’s happened yet.

 

There was not and never was any proposal to allow any other RAAus pilots or aircraft to enter the same CTA. Nor to allow those pilots to travel to any other CTA and fly in that airspace.

 

There is a requirement for that pilot to extend their medical to a GA medical to retain that ability to fly as a hirer.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Remember minimum instrument requirements for VFR flight VH or otherwise (either in or out of CTA) - ASI, ALT, Compass and watch.

Irrelevant to this argument. The requirement in question here is radio and transponder.

 

 

[frank marriott]

The last I found was a Townsville establishment who had gone inactive.

The local organisation (and their current students) will be surprised to hear that they are classified as inactive.

 

 

[frank marriott]

There was not and never was any proposal to allow any other RAAus pilots or aircraft to enter the same CTA

“or aircraft” is the only disagreement. I never suggested RPC holders have open CTA access. Several have done the RPL upgrade solely for unrestricted CTA access in their complying RAA registered aircraft.

 

So to remove any misunderstanding

 

a) aircraft (compliant with 95.55) YES

 

b) RPC holders (without a CASA licence) NO