Aviat News

[djpacro]

Just saw this new forum (thanks Ian) and couldn't resist kicking it off!

 

 

[BLA82]

Hi all,

 

I am new to RA-AUS and still trying to learn all the rules. I was wondering under current regulations and or the new weight limit that is being proposed will either the Decathalon or a pitts be able to be RA-AUS registered.

 

 

[nong]

Sorry old son. We have a blanket 45 knot landing configuration 1G stall speed limit and a good thing it is too. The safety issue with high wing loadings and high stall speeds is that the chances of injury or death in a forced landing with dead engine increase radically as landing speeds increase. So the Pitts (all models) is out. As for the Champ, the 7ECA and 7GCAA are goers. I reckon the 8KCAB might scrape it but they might ask you to remove the rear seat because unless you are both very light and carry very little fuel it wont meet the proposed 760KG limit.

 

An RAAus registered aerobatic Champ sounds pretty good to me.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Except that you can't do aerobatics in an RAAus registered aircraft. You can't even practise spin recovery. So if you find yourself in a spin, your only option is to gently remind the aircraft that what it's doing is against the rules and hope it's the obedient type.

 

That's why spin practise was the first thing I did when I flew a Pitts a few weeks ago. Just to make sure I could remember how to recover.

 

 

[BLA82]

DOH!!!!

 

Except that you can't do aerobatics in an RAAus registered aircraft. You can't even practise spin recovery. So if you find yourself in a spin, your only option is to gently remind the aircraft that what it's doing is against the rules and hope it's the obedient type.That's why spin practise was the first thing I did when I flew a Pitts a few weeks ago. Just to make sure I could remember how to recover.

It's a shame about the whole no aerobatic's in a RA-AUS registered aircraft. I can understand them not wanting to have a whole lot of people trying to do aeros in a basic trainer but if an aircraft is capable what is the reasoning behind it not being aloud??? Can anyone shed any light on the rules for me

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Aerobatics would require further training that at the moment the RAA are not caplable of providing. It would also require a greater amount and knowledge of maintance on the aircraft - far greater than almost owners have. Last of all Aero's are alot harder on the body than normal flying and therefore would require a medical.

 

So in my view it at the moment is well outside the scope of the RAA.

 

Adam.

 

 

[BLA82]

Aerobatics would require further training that at the moment the RAA are not caplable of providing. It would also require a greater amount and knowledge of maintance on the aircraft - far greater than almost owners have. Last of all Aero's are alot harder on the body than normal flying and therefore would require a medical. So in my view it at the moment is well outside the scope of the RAA.

Adam.

Well a possible scenario for looking at is that should an aero capable aircraft be RA-AUS registered it could be registered under a catorgory that can be regulated in the areas of maint and also maybe a sylabus of aerobatics can be looked into even if experienced GA instructors might be able to train ra-aus pilots.

 

I know it is out of the usual but if the weight limit is increased there will be alot of highly capable aircraft be elligable.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Yes I agree that could be done... but then what is the point of having GA? There has to be some cut off. At some point we must remeber we are or used to be ultralights and we are meant to fly simple aircraft thats why we have simplified regulations. If we keep moving to bigger and faster and more complex we are going to end up just like GA with all its problems.

 

 

[BLA82]

Yes I agree that could be done... but then what is the point of having GA? There has to be some cut off. At some point we must remeber we are or used to be ultralights and we are meant to fly simple aircraft thats why we have simplified regulations. If we keep moving to bigger and faster and more complex we are going to end up just like GA with all its problems.

I agree 90% Adam,

 

But there is no need to be in GA just to extend our options. You can race in the privatier class of the v8 supercars but not end up in the group A. It would be great to be able to expand our experience yet still remain a for fun organisation. RA-AUS is great becuse we all don't need to spend thousands apon thousands of dollars to go through the GA system only to one day dream of being able to afford to "fit in" where is in RA-AUS we can all learn from each other and be apart of a group of like minded people. Also if the new weight limit comes in we could possibly be flying identical aircraft the only difference will be the rego numbers.

 

So that being the case the only thing missing is licencing and training.

 

Just a thought

 

 

[nong]

OK OK For all you later joiners and BLA82 here is the history. Our rule set was assembled when the machinery in use typically had some of the following features....poor roll control or no ailerons....wing warping in lieu of.....single surface wing that would change aerofoil section under negative 'G'....inadequate structural strength.....VNE not far above 1'G' stall speed combined with little penetration due to light weight and high drag. Anyway, you get the idea...the machinery wasn't up to aerobatics. Therefore the ban on aeros was sensible.

 

If 760 KG comes in, this will mean that a range of aerobatic trainers will be able to be RAAus registered.

 

When the new Part 103 rules are drafted and receive the parlimentary nod, our Ops Manager will then simply add a set of aerobatics rules (of his own making) to our Ops Manual. That is how it will happen.

 

Sorry Adam, I disagree that we do not have aerobatic knowledge within our instructor and pilot base. I know there is plenty.

 

As for medical standards Adam, we have a medical standard and it is perfectly adequate.....or do you expect pilots to be tested to 12'G' in a human centrifuge or something...!

 

Many pilots regard sport flying as a few aeros followed by a few beers....great sport. It's a shame that this core element of sport flying has hitherto been denied to those so interested but as explained, there were good reasons.

 

Times have changed and I for one will welcome the introduction of aeros.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

I have to slightly disagree with you nong (but thats what these forums are for to discuss things like this!) Maintaining a Rotax or Jab engine that sits in cruise for most of its life v's a full aerobatic engine that is worked from Idle to Max Continouse power every 10 secounds with inverted flight/lack of oil pressure and the like requires alot more care and knowledge than most L1's have and alot of L2's. Aerobatic aircraft are like sports cars - For every hour you fly you spend and hour on the ground working on them. I've had a bit to do with Pitts and a few other types and they are pure bread machines that required alot of work and knowledge.

 

The medical side of things - Well yes we have medical standards.... well we sign that we are fit. If we take this view point why do we have police? We have rules, we all know them so why do we need someone checking up on us? Aerobatics even mild rolls and loops put a whole new perpective in on what the body is feeling. Being fit enough to hold a drivers licence in my view is not good enough to fly aerobatics with pax on board.

 

 

[djpacro]

In the discussion paper for the mass increase to 760 kg, RA-Aus states no concern with maintenance of types like the Cessna 150. I'd be very surprised if any LAME considered that a Cessna 150 Aerobat was more challenging than a straight one.

 

We're not discussing Pitts etc in this context.

 

Even if RA-Aus based that comment on no aerobatic ops in RAA they must've considered a 10,000 hr Aerobat being transferred over. All that history is just as important, if not more important, than what the aeroplane does today.

 

I'm with nong.

 

The USA allows aerobatics with their LSA rules inc similar medical requirements.

 

We certainly have the knowledge and instructors.

 

My current view is that if RA-Aus does not allow aerobatics with the mass increase then I'd oppose the RA-Aus proposal.

 

 

[vk3auu]

Seems to me that if you want to do aeros etc. etc then you might as well go GA and be done with it. What used to be a simple ops manual is looking like getting more complicated by the hour and will drive up the cost of administration for all of us.

 

I believe in the KISS principle.

 

David

 

 

[BLA82]

Seems to me that if you want to do aeros etc. etc then you might as well go GA and be done with it.

David

As I have said in other posts in another thread, why should a member who wants to expand their experience have to change organisation, we don't want to be in GA and thats why we are here.

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

I think I'll start a new thread on Aero's in RAA aircraft to open it up to a few more people.

 

Adam.