CASA Consultation Paper (760 kg) Published.

[Downunder]

Remember when the RAA and the M&M brothers came out with all this cta access and weight increase twaddle?

Promoted and bashed it about for 6 months and it was always so "close" to bring approved....lol.

Not peep these days....

 

Now left and ignored to die a slow death..

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Downunder

[jackc]

Old military saying, ‘hurry up and.......wait’ 

 

[turboplanner]

You actually did get your replies, but chose to ignore them.

[FlyingVizsla]

CASA offered the AUF this weight increase back in the 1990's.  The Board replied, in essence, "No - we're too busy", and the opportunity was missed.  Perhaps we should be blaming Uncle Eugene, Middo et al.

[SGM]

Reply from CASA today..

 

” I have nothing further that I can advise you at this time in relation to timing.

 

I can say that the project is certainly continuing to progress amongst the many other regulatory projects currently under way”

[Jim McDowall]

Given that it took 30 years to bring CASR 149 to fruition don't hold your breath.

[facthunter]

CASA proposed 762Kgs  way back then. NO I'm not being niggly but there's a significance in this selection of a weight limit. Middo might have realised what a can of worms it was for the AUF/ RAAus At least he knew what we stood for.

 The latest management openly coined the term, The "NEW" GA Something the OLD GA won't have a bar of under the 2 M's style.

  The CAA got a NEW CEO with no love whatsoever for homebuilts and such crude concepts that could be made from non certified materials.

  The weight thing has already lost us the maintenance concessions for owners and  time grinds on with little action. Clearly RAAus can't be the back door to GA. That's never going to be a goer, but for heavens sake lets get somewhere. The 600 kgs was a borrowed limit with lot's of extra restrictions and is a stop gap as well. A sensible weight limit is a safety issue. Build planes that carry US, fuel and the other things we might be expected to carry  and are strong enough to do so WITHOUT losing the  "privilege of designing , building, operating and servicing" our type(s) of craft with 2 people on board. IF you want more GO GA. Your choice. Nev

[turboplanner]

17 hours ago, facthunter said:

CASA proposed 762Kgs  way back then. NO I'm not being niggly but there's a significance in this selection of a weight limit. Middo might have realised what a can of worms it was for the AUF/ RAAus At least he knew what we stood for.

 The latest management openly coined the term, The "NEW" GA Something the OLD GA won't have a bar of under the 2 M's style.

  The CAA got a NEW CEO with no love whatsoever for homebuilts and such crude concepts that could be made from non certified materials.

  The weight thing has already lost us the maintenance concessions for owners and  time grinds on with little action. Clearly RAAus can't be the back door to GA. That's never going to be a goer, but for heavens sake lets get somewhere. The 600 kgs was a borrowed limit with lot's of extra restrictions and is a stop gap as well. A sensible weight limit is a safety issue. Build planes that carry US, fuel and the other things we might be expected to carry  and are strong enough to do so WITHOUT losing the  "privilege of designing , building, operating and servicing" our type(s) of craft with 2 people on board. IF you want more GO GA. Your choice. Nev

Good summary FH; As the title says this was a Consultation Paper, and Comments closed on September 28, 2019, so there's not much point in coming up with comments now.

From the 10,000 RAA members there were 408 responses.

To put it in perspective, CASA had pointed out that (at the point where we were given certain exemptions from GA regulation the MTOW was 450 kg, and they had allowed an increase to 600 kg which was the International LSA limit.

760 kg was going to represent a 68% increase on the MTOW which allowed CASA to make a case for a substantial difference from GA.

760 was also going to create a substantial mud layer between RA flying and aircraft and GA flying and aircraft in terms of build, maintenance, pilot licence and flying regulations.

[4wire]

Does anyone have any info on how this is travelling inside CASA?

 

[Kyle Communications]

Nah...all is quiet on the western front at the moment

 

[Roundsounds]

I doubt you will see a MTOW increase or any changes to the CTA limitations anytime in the next 10 years. 

[spacesailor]

If you Need that weight increase !, why not register as VH.

spacesailor

[Kenlsa]

Spacesailor ,

it’s coz I have both types and only want to operate under one system. As my Jab is 19 reg it can only stay in RAoz, but my Colt can switch.

spent quite some time on email and phone to Jared and Darren just before Christmas and 760 is the number one push for RAoz in the new year.

I am working thru a rebuild of the Colt at the moment delaying the final weight I will pursue as late as I can (413kg if aiming for LSA). So will save about 15-18k if we have 760 by the time my final decision is made.

Ken

[walrus]

I was saddened by the SAAA submission to the senate review. It could best be summarised as; "Misery loves company". They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

[APenNameAndThatA]

13 hours ago, walrus said:

I was saddened by the SAAA submission to the senate review. It could best be summarised as; "Misery loves company". They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

I was mystified by the SAAA’s submission, and by their website. They seem to pretend that people only build aircraft to go on the VH register. 
 

The SAAA’s submission made their position very clear, but did not explain what it was based on. Engineering? Past accidents? Jealousy? Snobbery? 

Edited February 22, 2021 by APenNameAndThatA

[Jim McDowall]

14 hours ago, walrus said:

They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

Gliders are VH registered and to fly/own a glider you need to be a member of the GFA and submit yourself to their "ministrations" which have seen the gliding movement shrink to the point where in a few years time demographics will see its functional demise.

Instead of getting annual aircraft registration fees, the GFA has a system of annual "Form 2" inspections which requires you to purchase a "Form 2" document pack from them.

RAAus derives considerable income from annual registration fees.

Inclusion on the Australian Aircraft Register denotes nothing other than the aircraft is registered. Remember registration is dealt with by Part 47 of CASR and RAAus aircraft are exempt from the CASR's.

Many other jurisdictions register recreational aircraft and sometimes signify them by using numbers instead of letters eg VH-4321. 

If RAAus aircraft are on the Register they (RAAus) will need to replace the income generated from registration fees.

 

[Thruster88]

On 24/04/2020 at 2:06 PM, Thruster88 said:

 

This sounds like code for "not this year". I guess timely production is not such a consideration if one still gets paid even if there is no production. In farming no production equals no pay so we tend to do things in a very timely way. You will all be relieved to know that farmers are continuing to work normally in the covid-19 climate and food will be available. Planting some bread and cooking oil.

Another year, another crop planted. Wonder what is happening with the wieght wait.

[Bruce Tuncks]

While I agree that gliding has a serious demographic problem, I don't see what the GFA management can do about it. In recent years, they seem to have been trying hard to get gliding growing again.

What they are up against is the fact that gliding is no longer the cheapest way to fly, gosh it costs more than $100 for an"experience flight" in a glider while it is about half that in a Jabiru. And this does not even consider models and virtual reality flight simulators, both of which didn't exist years ago.

I got into powered planes when the Ventus 2 self-launcher I was considering had it's sales tax exceed the sum of the Jabiru kit plus a hangar kit... Yes it was awhile ago but the ventus went over $150,000 and the sales tax was 26% or $39,000.  The Jabiru kit was $34800 and the hangar kit was $4000.

( In those days there was sales tax on gliders and none on powered planes)

[jackc]

On 22/05/2021 at 2:06 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

While I agree that gliding has a serious demographic problem, I don't see what the GFA management can do about it. In recent years, they seem to have been trying hard to get gliding growing again.

What they are up against is the fact that gliding is no longer the cheapest way to fly, gosh it costs more than $100 for an"experience flight" in a glider while it is about half that in a Jabiru. And this does not even consider models and virtual reality flight simulators, both of which didn't exist years ago.

I got into powered planes when the Ventus 2 self-launcher I was considering had it's sales tax exceed the sum of the Jabiru kit plus a hangar kit... Yes it was awhile ago but the ventus went over $150,000 and the sales tax was 26% or $39,000.  The Jabiru kit was $34800 and the hangar kit was $4000.

( In those days there was sales tax on gliders and none on powered planes)

I think that Aviation is going to suffer the same problem for RAAus sector, with Flying School hourly training rates just over $300 per hour.

We need a ‘Foundation Aviation’ sector to get people into Aviation at a lower cost and less regulations.  Simplistic aircraft that are easy to fly and maintain.

It requires a return to AUF days and I doubt RAAus would accommodate that, needs a complete new organisation. 

Flak jacket ON 🙂

[spacesailor]

Or, just low powered aircraft, including the new electric powered aircraft.

Isn,t part 103 ( american  ) a low engine powered type.

Can it also include powered parachutes,  powered hangliders but what about the smallest, flying-wing-suits.

spacesailor

[jackc]

A future electric contender……..

 

https://www.aeromarine-lsa.com/zigolo/

 

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Or, just low powered aircraft, including the new electric powered aircraft.

Isn,t part 103 ( american  ) a low engine powered type.

Can it also include powered parachutes,  powered hangliders but what about the smallest, flying-wing-suits.

spacesailor

I'd recommend talking to one of the CASA SAO people; there are also organisations who look after the categories you mention, some with a lot of members. I wouldn't think they are anywhere near $300/hour.

[spacesailor]

Tried to Google " SAO/CASA SAO " without any results!.

"Your search yielded no results. Please return to your initial SAO search." from CASA site.

SO what is SAO ?.

spacesailor

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

Tried to Google " SAO/CASA SAO " without any results!.

"Your search yielded no results. Please return to your initial SAO search." from CASA site.

SO what is SAO ?.

spacesailor

CASA Self Administering Organisations

[spacesailor]

Thanks for that. there was Nothing on the CASA search for SAO.

It shows How Bad the Bureaucracy is when a search on their own site can,t find the information needed.

( Any chance of finding the ' definition of flying ' ).

spacesailor