Is RAA getting 760kg MTOW?

[Thruster88]

This sounds promising. 

 

 https://updates.communication.casa.gov.au/link/id/zzzz623bbfea20b58662Pzzzz5f2e768d8d88b259/page.html

[Kenlsa]

I have just completed the above survey to get rid of the stall speed limitation so I can fly my Colt under the RAoz banner.

 If I may urge all owners and potential owners to respond positively to it.

For those who have articulated a reluctance to increase the stall speed, remember, it is NOT COMPULSORY that you alter your aircraft in any way, all will stay ‘as is’ for you.

Ken

[Kyle Communications]

Done

 

[kasper]

47 minutes ago, Kenlsa said:

I have just completed the above survey to get rid of the stall speed limitation so I can fly my Colt under the RAoz banner.

 If I may urge all owners and potential owners to respond positively to it.

For those who have articulated a reluctance to increase the stall speed, remember, it is NOT COMPULSORY that you alter your aircraft in any way, all will stay ‘as is’ for you.

Ken

It may not be compulsory ... but the evidence from the past two releases of the tech and ops manuals from RAAus shows that everything is leveled UP to the highest degree that they have coverage of ... as soon as type cert airframes over 45knts are in the pool what the hell hope is there for the few of us left tinkering around with self designed self built single seat aircraft? 

 

Already I find it ridiculous that RAAus completely 'forgot' about a whole control type and now not only do I have no biennial or medical reqs for one group of airframes but the CAO was modified without care and now that control group is not covered by the CAO at all throwing several airframes reg into question and one of my half built projects parked up due to no registration path at all.

 

By all means be positive about something that will help a few more people and airframes get lower cost flying but be aware you are getting this at the cost of others on the other end.

 

And I'll be open and frank - I do not fly RAAus coverage airframes outside by RAAus reg and cert ... BUT I know of several beautifully maintained airframes that continue to fly outside of reg and cert of pilots simply because the whole CASA/RAAus admin and control became far too much for their fun flying and I can completely understand where they are coming from - its just I have not taken the step outside the system that they have.   

 

Edit - this is not an attack on you Ken - its the system and progression on control that is getting worse in my opinion.

Edited March 24, 2022 by kasper

[Rastus]

Done. 

[kgwilson]

Ditto

[skippydiesel]

I may have misread/understood  - has not the stall speed (45 knots) been left as is for the time being. Effectively preventing many heavier aircraft from joining RAA. Sure this will be reviewed but how long will the process actually take?

[Kyle Communications]

That is what CASA are doing now...they want responses about why the 45kt limit should be lefted

 

[kgwilson]

It is the obvious answer to allowing heavier aircraft into the RA category. It was a value originally set to keep RA aircraft in the (ultra) light grouping. Since then of course 2 major things have happened.

1. Technology and materials have advanced dramatically so that many so called Ultralight aircraft now outperform traditional General Aviation single engine aircraft.
2. CASA has decided (without actually publishing it or telling anyone) that it would like to hand over the administration of private light aircraft to RAA so it can concentrate on commercial aviation.

I support the move. It will mean an easier route to getting access to CTR even if it requires fitting of a transponder. This has been in place in NZ for 20 years now. The issue of LAME maintenance needs to be resolved as well but GA experimental and RA Amateur built are essentially the same.

[Flightrite]

It’s actually common knowledge (to those within the inner circle) that CASA want to hand over the control of GA up 1.5t as I mentioned earlier but the hype of .76t as become the main focus. 

[kasper]

And if they want to hand over up to 1500kg that means then the four seat GA come after 2 seat GA ... wonder how much leveled up will apply to training and maintenance on that one within RAAus ...

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, kasper said:

And if they want to hand over up to 1500kg that means then the four seat GA come after 2 seat GA ... wonder how much leveled up will apply to training and maintenance on that one within RAAus ...

  I wouldn't expend too much effort thinking about it. It was gossip in 2006, so old man's talk. It didn't sound too bad for RAA then, but today RAA has shrunk into a single company with an office in Canberra, and as you've pointed out, important sectors of RAA are not receiving the focus they deserve. The people who are operating unregistered are not doing themselves any favours because when the inevitable collision or crash into a town occurs they will be taken out of the skies. Their efforts would be better applied reshaping RAA to represent its roots and separating it from GA at the dividing line of LAME maintenance.

GA has operated as an autonomous group since the inception of aviation and fly much more closely together in GA airspace than RA. The top end of RA is already knocking at the door of GA airspace with less rules and compliance and that can only lead to difficult times ahead when things go wrong.

[kasper]

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

  I wouldn't expend too much effort thinking about it. It was gossip in 2006, so old man's talk. It didn't sound too bad for RAA then, but today RAA has shrunk into a single company with an office in Canberra, and as you've pointed out, important sectors of RAA are not receiving the focus they deserve. The people who are operating unregistered are not doing themselves any favours because when the inevitable collision or crash into a town occurs they will be taken out of the skies. Their efforts would be better applied reshaping RAA to represent its roots and separating it from GA at the dividing line of LAME maintenance.

GA has operated as an autonomous group since the inception of aviation and fly much more closely together in GA airspace than RA. The top end of RA is already knocking at the door of GA airspace with less rules and compliance and that can only lead to difficult times ahead when things go wrong.

However, whilst this is the object of that company bunkered down in Canberra:

 

"6 Object

The Company’s object is to pursue the following purposes:

(a) the advancement of aviation in Australia including to take all actions howsoever connected with the design manufacture of all and any machine object device and/or concept that relates directly or indirectly to the advancement of flight whether powered or otherwise whereby such flight is under the control, supervision or participation in any degree by human activity, and

(b) to encourage training in the art and science of aviation, piloting, operation, design, manufacture of aviation and/or space craft of whatsoever design and capability."

 

We have bugger all hope of refocusing the direction of travel.

 

It includes unlimited weight, unlimited classes, covers powered and unpowerd flight and explicitly includes spacecraft - this is the core problem - we have a company with an unlimited scope - if it is not directly attached to the earth its within their possibility and they want it all.

Add to that the rusted on instructors/agents for aircraft sales that are involved in the company and you have, from an old school ultralight perspective no viable ability to have any voice heard at all.  Ever.

 

I'm a compliance minded person so I am still within the playpit of RAAus BUT there is only so long you have have the sand kicked in your face and any toys you like taken away before you walk away and decide there is no longer a passtime (not a sport) of ultralight/recreational flying that has any attraction.

Edited March 25, 2022 by kasper

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep, whatever happens it will need to be acceptable for recreational pilots, or else we will find other toys and pastimes.

[jackc]

I still fail to understand how a company can be a regulator……..

[jackc]

27 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Yep, whatever happens it will need to be acceptable for recreational pilots, or else we will find other toys and pastimes.

No I wont 🙂. Aircraft are my last hurrah, before I die……

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, jackc said:

I still fail to understand how a company can be a regulator……..

All Companies are able to develop policies, administer, make rules, and ensure compliance with those rules and expell people subject to natural justice. If you get a copy of the RAA Ltd Articles you should be able to find the channels that are sometimes used for the purpose of doing someting similar to an Association.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Kg,I have no problem with guys like you flying in CTA, but I don't want to pay open-ended "user pays fees" myself and I will go without CTA if this is what is intended.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Turbs, the aim of a company is to make money for it's shareholders. Anything else is secondary.

 

[jackc]

19 hours ago, kasper said:

 

 

We have bugger all hope of refocusing the direction of travel.

 

It includes unlimited weight, unlimited classes, covers powered and unpowerd flight and explicitly includes spacecraft - this is the core problem - we have a company with an unlimited scope - if it is not directly attached to the earth its within their possibility and they want it all.

Add to that the rusted on instructors/agents for aircraft sales that are involved in the company and you have, from an old school ultralight perspective no viable ability to have any voice heard at all.  Ever.

 

I'm a compliance minded person so I am still within the playpit of RAAus BUT there is only so long you have have the sand kicked in your face and any toys you like taken away before you walk away and decide there is no longer a passtime (not a sport) of ultralight/recreational flying that has any attraction.

I am compliance minded, WHEN it’s fair, logical, reasonable and safe for me and others.  Sadly that is not always the case as EGOs and control freaks get in the way, a fast increasing human trait.  Where required, I flip ‘em the bird and do my own thing…..worked for me the last 70 years 🙂 

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Turbs, the aim of a company is to make money for it's shareholders. Anything else is secondary.

 

How do you feel about RAA Ltd then?

[spacesailor]

How many shareholders  are there in That company? .

Certainly Not it,s members. 

spacesailor

[jackc]

7 hours ago, turboplanner said:

How do you feel about RAA Ltd then?

How would you feel about VICPOL Ltd?

[turboplanner]

17 minutes ago, jackc said:

How would you feel about VICPOL Ltd?

That would be ridiculous.

 

I would shut down RAA Ltd and reopen  RAA Inc. which is designed for this type of organisation.

[coljones]

On 25/03/2022 at 7:48 PM, jackc said:

I still fail to understand how a company can be a regulator……..

RAAus, the company, is an "association" owned by the members, generally the financial pilot certificate holders, just like most other associations, including registered clubs and aero clubs.