Is RAA getting 760kg MTOW?

[Thruster88]

Given that the maintenance requirements are not changing for aircraft in the 600-760kg range it comes down to can one fly a cessna 150 without a medical. Pilot A with a RPC and membership in a private company will be able to while pilot B with a PPL can not. Justify that. I dont care what happens but it needs to be fair for everyone.  

[facthunter]

This argument has come up before with VH and RAA reg Jabirus. The RAAus thing is a "SYSTEM" with exemptions against certain regs and requirements. OK the medical issue is  still not where we'd like it but it's NOT just the plane. Thanks (NOT) to RAAus for the requirement to have LAME Maint. on the higher weights. Complexity and skill levels, Not JUST weight s should apply. Not the outcome WE might have hoped for. Nev

[Yenn]

The winners are those that build their plane. Build a plane of any weight and you can register it and fly it with a PPL . Do all your own maintenance. Why join RAAus if you have a PPL and reasonable health. I wonder how many of us in RAAus also hold a PPL.

[kgwilson]

I think there are a lot of ex GA pilots now flying RAA aircraft. For some it was the difficulty and cost of getting the class 2 medical. For others like me it was a choice because I was getting older and thought that one day I may not pass. I am still heathy and reasonably fit & not overweight & reckon I'd still pass but I have no need to. If CASA had followed the rest of the English speaking world with the RPL as it was implemented in those places being a way to allow ageing GA pilots to continue to fly on a self declaration, 1 passenger, no night or IFR flying I probably would still have a current PPL.

 

As it is I don't have the need to fly into CTR when there are so many interesting places to go & things to see where there isn't any. I built my plane, do all my own maintenance & have transited CTR on occasions by request and being given permission. The whole GA/RA variable exemptions stuff is ridiculous & full of anomalies. E.g. Flying in CTR is illegal at 1 minute to 5pm and legal at 5 pm, Gliders are on the VH register etc.

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I think there are a lot of ex GA pilots now flying RAA aircraft. For some it was the difficulty and cost of getting the class 2 medical. For others like me it was a choice because I was getting older and thought that one day I may not pass. I am still heathy and reasonably fit & not overweight & reckon I'd still pass but I have no need to. If CASA had followed the rest of the English speaking world with the RPL as it was implemented in those places being a way to allow ageing GA pilots to continue to fly on a self declaration, 1 passenger, no night or IFR flying I probably would still have a current PPL.

 

As it is I don't have the need to fly into CTR when there are so many interesting places to go & things to see where there isn't any. I built my plane, do all my own maintenance & have transited CTR on occasions by request and being given permission. The whole GA/RA variable exemptions stuff is ridiculous & full of anomalies. E.g. Flying in CTR is illegal at 1 minute to 5pm and legal at 5 pm, Gliders are on the VH register etc.

I like you, Kgwilspn am a refugee from GA. In my case the cost of GA became prohibitive. The contributing passengers, friends & relo's ,wanting sight seeing tours of Sydney Basin & over their home, dried up.

 

Fortune came my way with a friend who introduced me to RAA and I havent looked back.

 

I fly for pleasure, so the potential carrying capacity, noise, vibration and frankly, boring performance of GA (mainly small Cessna's) and much higher cost, is a something I have no desire to go back too. 

 

I could use my PPL to enter CTA but have never actually needed to - so am a true believer in RAA - Rock ON!!

[pmccarthy]

All good, but remember being overweight is not a choice. I would be RAA tomorrow if my wife and I, luggage and fuel, would fit 600kg MTOW.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

All good, but remember being overweight is not a choice. I would be RAA tomorrow if my wife and I, luggage and fuel, would fit 600kg MTOW.

Fair comment Pm - be thankful that your wife will fly with you - I for one, am not so blessed.

[M61A1]

16 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I for one, am not so blessed.

Are you sure about that?  Mine flies with me regularly, sometimes I wish she wouldn't.

[kgwilson]

Mine used to till I put this on the panel😁

 

[jackc]

Just now, kgwilson said:

Mine used to till I put this on the panel😁

 

One day....you may need that ‘co pilot’ to save your arse:-)

[facthunter]

Resource Management . USE whatever you have at your disposal. There's a time to shut up and a  time to speak up.. Nev

[jackc]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Resource Management . USE whatever you have at your disposal. There's a time to shut up and a  time to speak up.. Nev

And many crashes in the past because people were not game to speak up 😞

[facthunter]

Very much so with steep cockpit command hierarchial structures .Teneriffe  was a horrific example of it being ignored and there's plenty of others.  Nev

Edited December 25, 2020 by facthunter

[Thruster88]

It happens even when only one in the cockpit,  always listen to that little voice.  

[facthunter]

IF there's a Court case, how will what I'm thinking of doing, look? Has worked for a long time. to resist DUMB ideas. There will be occasions where you may have to break some rule to do the SAFEST thing which is HOW you must operate as the master of a vessel (PIC).  Be able to explain and if necessary, JUSTIFY your actions. Nev

[Mike Borgelt]

I'm sure anything CASA comes up with re 760Kg will be complex and full of essentially arbitrary requirements with no safety case made out for them.

Regarding RPL etc: How many are aware that in early 2003 CASA floated a discussion paper where most recreational pilots would be on a level regulatory playing field regardless of aircraft type with few restrictions. The proposed RPL would have a rating for aircraft class (GA, ultralight, glider, gyro etc) NO requirement to join any private body although those who wished to could operate in RAAus and GFA as they already did and NO medical requirement beyond the current RAAus one. It was explicitly stated that some may be uncomfortable with that but it also stated there was NO evidence that any more restrictive medical requirement would improve safety. Ratings for cross country, controlled airspace etc.

What happened?

Some months later, the RAAus Paul Middleton, GFA's Henk Meertens and Bob Hall arranged a meeting with the Minister , John Anderson and had the proposal killed.

I don't often sympathise with CASA people but the poor guys who wrote this RPL proposal must have been bashing their heads against the wall when this happened.

The only reason those 3 could have had was to protect their own revenue base while selfishly denying the freedoms to those who would like them. Nice huh?

[FlyBoy1960]

40 minutes ago, Mike Borgelt said:

Some months later, the RAAus Paul Middleton

From what I heard there are a lot of things that Paul did that one not in the interests of the Association.

 

All this came out after he resigned some two years later. At least now the RA-Aus seems to be more accountable with less deals done under the table

[spacesailor]

This explains that Big push for GA/ VH aeroplanes going into RA Australia.

That Big weight increase would have allowed, Mr Middleton to keep his VH rego.ed planes, & fly under RAA rules.

Now some RAA designed planes will go to VH experimental, just to P  off, the Bureaucrats, that tinkered with the rules that were in place for years.

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

To my knowledge Paul never had other than AUF/RAAus planes and promoted them . He once flew for Rex. So what?

     Being the "NEW GA", was all to do with the NEW lot of more expansionist business-like management. Stick to the facts. the CASA actually suggested the higher weight which conveniently included the C-150 and the Piper Tomahawk in the 762 Kgs figure, if I recall correctly. ALL went south after McCormick, who could not get his mind around  "ordinary" people building  their own planes at all, became CEO.  Nev

[Mike Borgelt]

I once threw out some correspondence where Paul Middleton was in CAA licencing branch.

McCormick was a disaster in just about every way. Unfortunately he graduated from 2FTS. I knew his instructor there quite well and he tried his best to fail him.

I never did get a reply to this "Some months later, the RAAus Paul Middleton, GFA's Henk Meertens and Bob Hall arranged a meeting with the Minister, John Anderson and had the proposal killed" after posting it at least 3 times on the old aus-soaring list server. I actually heard about the meeting before it took place but didn't know what was going to be asked. Thactions of those 3 has to rate right up there as one of the greatest acts of sheer b.......ry in the history of Australian aviation. Done just keep power, control and money for organisations that long ago lost sight of what they exist for.

[facthunter]

Yes . They were guardians of their own turf. I find that quite natural.  It wasn't confined to AUF/RAAus. The Casa can  divide and conquer and was pretty anti anything but we were progressing pretty well  though slowly prior to McCormick being the head of CASA... What we had gotten then became taken away by decree not discussion. It cost me about 70K  so I'm not likely to forget it. I never recovered financially from that hit. and trust never returns., nor has it been earned. Since then I'm not really impressed. but it's all you have. Australia, in this area doesn't lead anyone. So much opportunity wasted  NO leadership from CASA. That's where it has to come from..Nev 

Edited March 10, 2021 by facthunter
expand

[Mike Borgelt]

It is quite OK to push your own barrow BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE. The CASA Rec Licence would let RAAus and GFA members continue as they were if they wished. It was none of of the two organisations business if people wanted to operate outside them and in fact I know from the discussion on aus-soaring that it was about 5 to 1 in favour of the CASA proposal. One reason was that wives, friends etc feel better about someone flying or flying with someone if they have a government sanctioned licence, not some gimcrack "certificate" issued by a bunch of what can only be described as well meaning amateurs (and in the case of GFA not all that well meaning a lot of the time).
The other point is that if the proposal had gone through it would all have been a done deal by the time McCormick arrived.

[spacesailor]

C A S A

It,s suposed to be for Safety.

BUT

It seems it,s just another club for Bureaurocrats.

How does it make a plane Safe , move it to another category, ,.

ONLY MAKES SENSE TO BUREAUROCRATS. 

Perhaps we should go Back to Pre-RAA, 

Skydiving used to get done in a weekend, now one full day for that Bureaurocrats paperwork.

Hang gliding was going great, now it,s more rules, to manuver around ! Trikes RAA or Gliding? .

It,s all getting to Paperwork heavy to Fly.

spacesailor

[facthunter]

I don't want a GA copy either  Mike,  but the weight limits don't allow a safe structure for 2 people unless it's carbon fibre. WHO designs and builds their own anyhow, these  days?  They haven't satisfactorily addressed the matter of the Licence  medical either. I don't care if its a licence or a certificate either as long as you're covered. To be suitable it wouldn't be internationally recognised as that makes any change take too long or just not happen. Nev

[Mike Borgelt]

Our RPL is not internationally recognised. If we simply reduced the medical to the current RAAus standard it would be a CASA decision and wouldn't have any international impact. Then we could simply go back to the original proposal for the RPL and have aircraft class ratings and cross country, controlled airspace etc. Those who think a medical is required for controlled airspace need to be aware that glider pilots can fly in controlled airspace with only the RAAus level medical requirement. A CASA medical is not a requirement.

I agree that 600Kg is too restrictive. I'm sure a large percentage of these aircraft take off overweight a good part of the time when 2 people are on board. A nonsense regulation that is counter productive to safety because the aircraft simply cannot be as robust as they should be or the law is flouted. Not a good law.
However an increase to 760 or 762 Kg which comes with LAME maintenance for private ops and other arbitrary restrictions doesn't seem to be worth the trouble.
The regulatory structure of recreational aviation of all types is a complete pig's breakfast. Where are the hard, quantifiable risk and safety analyses?

Let's have the RPL as originally proposed, make the RAAus and GFA work to keep and please their memberships and put an end to the obscene collusion between the people running these organisations and CASA which enables them and enthusiastically takes part in it. It is nothing but legalised extortion. I suspect both might be rather smaller.

Maintenance/Registration should never be tied to pilot competence documentation/issuance. This is simply nonsense. We have a registration system for Australian aircraft which puts VH on them. ALL Australian aircraft should be found on that register. Exactly who should maintain these under what circumstances is a matter for debate and swift resolution. It isn't rocket surgery but I bet Elon Musk isn't sad that "talented" CASA people aren't working for him at SpaceX.