CASA Consultation Paper (760 kg) Published.

[Thruster88]

Email from RAAus today. As a recreational flyer of both types of aircraft I hope they get behind the reforms and don't try to protect their turf.

 

From the CEO

Dear members,

CASA has today announced that work is underway on the development of a self-declared medical for pilots. [See here]. Whilst there is little detail at this stage, CASA notes that this system would likely reflect the self-declared system used by Recreational Aviation Australia. This is a tremendous acknowledgement that the system enjoyed by RAAus and our members over many years, is safe and practical – and we welcome this. Whilst this is the case, it is disappointing that CASA has not yet consulted with RAAus, particularly given our experience in this domain. I have, of course, made this known to CASA and I look forward to this being remedied in the immediate future.

Importantly for RAAus members, we expect that this development acknowledges that the privileges enjoyed by pilots within the CASA system under this new medical regime will carry over to our own, self-administered system, such as 1500kg MTOW, amongst others – should they apply. This is no different to today where CASA recognise a Recreational Pilot Certificate (RPC) as the equivalent standard for issuing a Part 61 Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL), upon completion of a check flight.

We look forward to working this through with CASA in the new year during the development of the Part 103 Manual of Standards (MOS), which has been delayed by CASA until 2022.

With regards to the flight operations regulation changes taking place next Thursday, CASA have advised that they will be publishing revised versions of the 95-Series CAO’s to function in alignment with the CASR Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules from 2 December. We don’t expect these to be published until shortly before their commencement. Be it the case, we’re told that, despite some of the updated CAOs being visually different from the current versions, including changes being made to some terminology and definitions along with updates to the wording around general and flight conditions to align with the new flight operational regulations, the changes can be taken to be machinery in nature, with no changes being made to the operational requirements as a result. Of course, included will be ability for RAAus to seek approval to operate aircraft up to 760kg MTOW.

Finally, I would like to thank the RAAus team for the countless hours of hard work they’ve dedicated to working through these new regulations to ensure our members don’t have to! It can be tough going but you’ve all stood up and demonstrated your value – thank you!

Enjoy your weekend!

Cheers,

Matt.

[Flightrite]

Everyone has got this in their email this arvo as well as a CAsA briefing that are RA/CAsA affiliated. 
things are changing....slooooowly!

Edited November 26, 2021 by Flightrite

[RFguy]

J230D should go to ~ 680kg and still meet the 45 kts stall

 

so all the J230s with 2 pax and full fuel and 40kg of bags can fly legit... 

 

[RossK]

Factory Built J230's are LSA though aren't they - so can't increase the MTOW unless Jabiru do the paperwork to recertify them.

 

[facthunter]

I'm curious as to why you think they would meet 45 kts stall at 680 AUW.  Nev

[kgwilson]

The 230 fits within the specs of a LSA but I don't think they have LSA certification. As far as I know mods are virtually impossible once an aircraft is LSA certified.

[facthunter]

LSA is American origin but I reckon was always expected to grow heavier with time and acceptance. Nev

[RFguy]

42kts stall full flaps at 600kg

that wing doesnt have any bad behaviour so I would expect the stall speed to increase directly against the airspeed

. stall speed prop sqrt(weight) (airspeed does work squared)
(45kts / 42kts ) ^ 2 = 1.147. so weight goes from 600 to 688.775kg
 

[facthunter]

I don't think I would like to be at 42 knots and all up and forward. C of G whatever the figure they claim . I've always felt it was optimistic. Nev

[RFguy]

Well.,.....it checks out (full forward CG and full weight ) when you measure it and compare the CAS chart for airspeed and do two way runs looking at GPS ground-speed....

That's how I know that no flaps is about 56-58 kts and you want to spit out takeoff flaps before you start turning tight in a circuit close to the ground....

In my Ep landing, I descend at ~ 70 kts (around best glide) , then when I am ready for the last big sweeping turn onto final , before that large chance turn, the  TO flaps go out to push stall down to ~ 46-47 so I dont stall spin it while juggling best glide etc and also juggling the rather variable turn  onto the landing zone. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by RFguy

[jackc]

Looks like lates VFRG for Dec 2 not yet 

available on CASA website?

Edited December 2, 2021 by jackc
spelling

[Garfly]

Yes, I think that's right, Jack.  For example, The online VFRG, as of 10 mins ago, seems to cite the old rule regarding Cruising levels.

(That is '5,000' or higher' as opposed to the new 3,000') 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Garfly

[Bruce Tuncks]

I just don't understand their motives...  they are clearly trying to kill me, but why?

They have a track record of killing people by causing them to fly into the ground, now we find that the rest of us are to be restricted to flying under 3000 ft!

3000ft is less than the start height for gliders in the bad old days...  it is VERY low.  The first thermal on track to get you up and going was the most important thermal of the day.

Kingsford Smith said that the only time you have too much altitude is when you are on fire.  Every foot above 3000 ft is useful. It gives you time and distance in the event of an engine failure. AND there are tens of thousands of soaring birds in that airspace..

How come this was put in? What history is there of midairs over 3000 ft enroute?

I do have to admire their rat cunning though....  the layman is afraid of falling, so it appears to him that lower=safer.

Now I am faced with an awful choice... fly dangerously low or fly illegally.

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I just don't understand their motives...  they are clearly trying to kill me, but why?

They have a track record of killing people by causing them to fly into the ground, now we find that the rest of us are to be restricted to flying under 3000 ft!

3000ft is less than the start height for gliders in the bad old days...  it is VERY low.  The first thermal on track to get you up and going was the most important thermal of the day.

Kingsford Smith said that the only time you have too much altitude is when you are on fire.  Every foot above 3000 ft is useful. It gives you time and distance in the event of an engine failure. AND there are tens of thousands of soaring birds in that airspace..

How come this was put in? What history is there of midairs over 3000 ft enroute?

I do have to admire their rat cunning though....  the layman is afraid of falling, so it appears to him that lower=safer.

Now I am faced with an awful choice... fly dangerously low or fly illegally.

You're not faced with an awful choice; you're part of an organisation that obtained permission to fly without the costly training and expensive equiment on GA aircraft. To do that you had to stay away from airfields and stay below 300 feet. That's the AUF/RAA history, so you're way ahead today.

 

Sometimes what you learn in gliding is complimentary, other times it doesn't fit but clearly stick in your brain as an impediment. In a glider you have a wonderful glide ration, but you can never apply power to climb if the weather doesn't co operate. You don't have that issue with a powered aircraft so the equivalent of the glider minimum you quote would be the minimum 500 feet in a powered aircraft which offers plenty of height to organise a landing, but you will be sinking at a faster rate.

 

When your flying in GA airspace which RAA does these days you can face GA pilots training under the hood for IFR practice, people stuck on theoretical GPS routes and all sorts of odd things. When you get a fatal crash at a lonely airport like Mangalore that should send a message that separation rules are there to protect you and the people who fly near you.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, you conveniently forgot about the thousands of birds which use that low airspace.

[turboplanner]

22 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Turbs, you conveniently forgot about the thousands of birds which use that low airspace.

Well I'll conveniently say that millions of birds use that same airspace, and I use that airspace.

[jackc]

Bruce, your last word ‘illegally’  says to be unsafe?  Well maybe that’s the way it will have to be.  The 3 things needed for safe flight are Fuel, Airspeed and Altitude……compromise any one and you are at adverse risk?

[kgwilson]

Cruising levels have always been around and many charts show them starting at 1500 feet. Whether the rule is 3000 +500 or 5000 +500 doesn't bother me. If I'm going West I fly at 6500 or 8500 depending on the weather or at any level if it is unsafe at the prescribed levels. For example I encountered a layer of stratus at 8500 with cloud below obscuring the hills which were 3 - 5000 so I went to 10,500 to stay in clear air and remain safe. (I'd already called ahead and established it was SKC where I was going.

[Flightrite]

The cruising levels are not mandatory, WX could see you unable to comply with the lunatics in charge rules! I use common sense and that’s not part of CASA’s makeup!

[RFguy]

Remember the old get-out  " Due to operational constraints" 🙂

 

However, you'd be pretty nuts to fly down the GPS track between two airports at the wrong hemi heading.... 🙂

 

Lots of times flying between cowra-parkes, cowra-young, cowra-temora etc I see aircraft flying underneath  my nose in the opposite direction (at the other altitude).

 

Good reason to fly 1nm  or so  east or west of the GPS track (which I do)
 

Edited December 2, 2021 by RFguy

[jackc]

On 02/12/2021 at 11:03 AM, Garfly said:

Yes, I think that's right, Jack.  For example, The online VFRG, as of 10 mins ago, seems to cite the old rule regarding Cruising levels.

(That is '5,000' or higher' as opposed to the new 3,000') 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VFRG V7 is out, over500 pages of it 😞. I have an idea? RAAus go through it and bulk edit out of it all the blurb not relevant to RPC and RPL holders.

Create a version only for RPC/RPL holders?  The more complexity a document has, the more mistakes can be made in interpretation of it.

After all, it’s al about safety, safety and more safety…….

Edited December 3, 2021 by jackc
reformat

[Bruce Tuncks]

My problem is that while flying illegally ( that is, higher than the three thousand lousy feet ) the risk is NOT that I may have a midair with a stupid "flying under the hood" pilot. The probability of this is less than one in a hundred million. 

Here's what I am scared of... I come home to find a bunch of lawyers, protected by police with guns drawn,  to find that I am being sued and eventually evicted, so me and the missus will suffer from exposure.

That is why I would prefer to fly legally. It is more dangerous, but then being evicted is dangerous too.

If you need more details of the probability calculation, let me know.

[jackc]

Bruce, what would you be evicted for?  Anyway IF you went over height a bit, how would that be proven if you don’t electronically log your flight, only radar might get you? But you won’t be anywhere near one of those.  Going to be interesting what is said about all this in the next few months…..

[Thruster88]

Just to be clear, no pilots regardless of "race" are being restricted to 3000 feet. Hemispherical ops now start at 3000 WHERE POSSIBLE, it is still up to the PIC to fly at the safest level for their operations in regards terrain and weather.  

[Flightrite]

Correct it is NOT mandatory! The goons couldn’t prove their bullshit rule/s anyway!

Edited December 3, 2021 by Flightrite