Is RAA getting 760kg MTOW?

[jackc]

Just now, pmccarthy said:

When 760kg comes along it will make a huge difference. We will be able to develop safer planes with a useful working load capacity. I look forward to it.

Judging by the efforts of nearly 20 years, it might take another 20 years.......

[turboplanner]

Amazing how someone's simple question, which was answered in another thread has morphed into something completely different.

[Jim McDowall]

The question was " when is the 760kg limit coming into law". If it is that CASA proposed the higher limit they must have done so with the benefit of some research and internal navel gazing.

Personally I don't care either way but what pisses me off is a bunch of bureaucrats who wave a carrot, set up the hoops, watch the performance and then run dead. 

It has taken over 12 months and still there is no Part 149 approval in the RAA headquarters. The exposition is losing currency by the day and we paid a huge price ($$$$) for it. All this after over two decades of pissing around with faux consultation.

Any other sphere of Government activity this snails pace of "regulatory reform" would see Ministers and senior bureaucrats getting the DCM. Every Budget produces changes in big spending areas like health, aged care and social security and the requisite regulations are introduced and acted upon poste haste.

This is not about ICAO  - our certificates are not valid outside of Australia ( ICAO is an arm of the United Nations - a specialized agency charged with coordinating international air travel) .

This is not about risk aversion - the studies must have been done before start and at the very least should have been done. Public servants do not make decisions like this alone - they expertly diffuse the risk.

And lastly it is not about liability. Not one case in this area has found CASA liable and the courts have defined recreational aviation as an activity where you are presumed to know the risks. In any event CASA can simply deny liability legislatively as they have done for experimental category aircraft which make up a considerable slice of the GA fleet.

And CASA seems to be flying a much different course to the rest of the world in GA regulation. It really says something when the regulation behemoth that is EASA can show more desire than CASA for genuine regulatory reform to foster GA and can propose changes, consult and introduce new regulations in the time a CASA committee takes to order coffee.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nice theory but CASA didn’t propose this.

[skippydiesel]

3 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

When 760kg comes along it will make a huge difference. We will be able to develop safer planes with a useful working load capacity. I look forward to it.

Surly you jest!

 

How safer? - increased weight usually results in increased energy, making  unplanned landings much less survivable. This may be slightly offset by stronger cabin protection but I doubt this being a great advantage in the real world.

Load capacity? - for sure IF the empty weight: max weight ratio allows. A lot of small GA aircraft are marginal load carriers - fuel load often being sacrificed to carry pax/camping gear/ etc

 

This change will allow a wider range of aircraft to be registered RAA. As I understand it, this will be in almost direct coemption with GA Recreational Pilot, except if you are GA, CTA is accessible.

 

What benefit will RAA be offering, to refugee GA Rec Pilots? and their aircraft?

[pmccarthy]

The best example is the J230. It is a strong capable airframe and could immediately be transformed from a marginal load carrier to a very useful machine. 

[Thruster88]

Will the J230 meet stall requirements at the higher weight? 

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

The best example is the J230. It is a strong capable airframe and could immediately be transformed from a marginal load carrier to a very useful machine. 

Thruster made the valid point about the stall weight.

There's another thread where someone suggested they could fly around Australia overweight becaise the aircraft had been built for four people, but have you checked that the J230 has the same structural specifications as the J430. I certainly wouldn't be saying that becaise my experience flying Jabs and checking them out on the ground is that Jabiru are masters at making subtle differences in design, such as wing, fin, fuselage which a lot of people don't pick up.

 

Aside from that, anyone could make an aircraft with MTOW if they wanted to, and we know they people want to import overseas aircraft with 750 kg MTOW - that's where the pressure is comeing from, but CASA have loked at it, given you all a chance to make submissions, and told you the results. 

 

Sloper, if it's really important to you why not contact CASA and find out for yourself.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by turboplanner

[pmccarthy]

Even  50kg increase would make a huge difference in useability. New designs don’t have to deliver 760kg MTOW just increase it to whatever stall limit applies within the new envelope. Minor wing design changes or trade-offs including vg's will determine what is possible.

[Jim McDowall]

11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Nice theory but CASA didn’t propose this.

From Australian Flying September/October 2018:

A leaked e-mail from within CASA and a statement to Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) members has all but confirmed that RAAus will get an increase in the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) for aircraft they are permitted to administer. The CASA e-mail stated that although RAAus requested a new weight of 1500 kg, CASA was proposing an initial increase to 760 kg.

Self explanatory really

[skippydiesel]

7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

The best example is the J230. It is a strong capable airframe and could immediately be transformed from a marginal load carrier to a very useful machine. 

Absolutely however not all aircraft (I would suggest only a few) will have this sort of empty weight: MTOW ratio and probably most that do, will be within the existing RAA classification ie not currently GA

[RFguy]

After 2007, J430 and J230 got the same wing bolts (and mains I think- there might be some variation there but the Ds will have the heavier parts). 

 

The POH MTOW stall speed is 42KCAS (flaps max), that will go up according to the square root of the weight increase.

(because the work done is proportional to airspeed squared).

So going from 600 to 660 kg would yield a new (full flap) stall speed 44 k and clean stall goes  from 45 to 47 k.

But ! 

That's not the full story from a flying perspective:

In the case of the inner wing being unstalled (extended flap area) , the ailerons out there on the tips on the stalled wings will be pretty mushy.  So, caveats  apply !

You can feel the airspeed of a J230 during landing , when it is getting slow, you don't need to look at the airspeed, you can feel the roll control going into the toilet. You'd certainly want to carry more airspeed in the case of a wing down crosswind (to be able to maintain roll authority).  So you might find you have a little less roll authority than you had before. But you are not going into a Xwind landing at marginal speed are you! the practical 2 kts difference is likely insignificant in most cases.

Still, it would *just* meet the 45 Kts requirement with full flap at 660kg.

The classic manouvering margin of flying at min 1.5x Vs clean goes up to 71 kts.

 

glen

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Jim McDowall said:

From Australian Flying September/October 2018:

A leaked e-mail from within CASA and a statement to Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) members has all but confirmed that RAAus will get an increase in the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) for aircraft they are permitted to administer. The CASA e-mail stated that although RAAus requested a new weight of 1500 kg, CASA was proposing an initial increase to 760 kg.

Self explanatory really

Superseded actually.

[Sloper]

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

 

Sloper, if it's really important to you why not contact CASA and find out for yourself.

 

 

 

 l may or may not have said to  CASA person that a clear sky is a safe sky,  and they make it too hard and expensive to fly.😅

 

But yes it looks like l have to call them. (When l am calm and relaxed)

 

regards Bruce

[Student Pilot]

On 17/12/2020 at 6:12 AM, turboplanner said:

 

 

Sloper, if it's really important to you why not contact CASA and find out for yourself.

 

 

 

And you expect a clear concise answer from CASA? Things must have changed if somebody in CASA will give you answer to a question, they will just refer you to legislation or onto somebody else.

[Roundsounds]

23 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

And you expect a clear concise answer from CASA? Things must have changed if somebody in CASA will give you answer to a question, they will just refer you to legislation or onto somebody else.

The last I heard on this matter was CASA wanted to wait until part 149 was in place. Now that’s done, it will be wait until certain stars are in alignment. This, along with controlled airspace access, will just be kicked along until RAAus gives up.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Roundsounds

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Student Pilot said:

And you expect a clear concise answer from CASA? Things must have changed if somebody in CASA will give you answer to a question, they will just refer you to legislation or onto somebody else.

Yes, that's been my experience, but then I've always asked concise questions that were reasonable, and I have always asked the appropriate person.

 

If you spray a question at the PR department, you'll get a predictable reply.

 

If Sloper does the same I expect he will receive a reasonable reply.

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by turboplanner

[Student Pilot]

I'll leave it to you then Turbo to ask "clear and concise reasonable questions" to CASA. 

I have never "Sprayed" questions to the CASA PR department.

If I've had questions (concise AND reasonable) they have always been directed to the relevant person. 

40 years working as a commercial pilot and half of that time running an aviation business, I've had enough of Casa and have as little to do with them as I can. 

[facthunter]

That's the attitude I find most prevalent amongst people in your situation. it's the only approach you can work with. A  required change to the AOC will be followed up by requiring it be removed next time when dealing with a different person.. Pointing out they are wrong is the last thing to do if you want a smooth ride. At the end of the day, THEY have deeper pockets than you do and will act accordingly. How you might relate to some employee over the counter is not an indication of what can happen when they come around and have an issue they have made up their minds on.. I suspect at times they might have a high turnover of staff also. Nev

[turboplanner]

17 hours ago, Student Pilot said:

I'll leave it to you then Turbo to ask "clear and concise reasonable questions" to CASA. 

I have never "Sprayed" questions to the CASA PR department.

If I've had questions (concise AND reasonable) they have always been directed to the relevant person. 

40 years working as a commercial pilot and half of that time running an aviation business, I've had enough of Casa and have as little to do with them as I can. 

I like, thousands of RA members will not be asking any questions of CASA on this beat up.

[jackc]

3 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I like, thousands of RA members will not be asking any questions of CASA on this beat up.

Well, just suck it up as it is and hope one day it might happen........in the meantime fly happy 🙂

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, jackc said:

Well, just suck it up as it is and hope one day it might happen........in the meantime fly happy 🙂

Suck up what?

I'm perfectly happy with what CASA has said; to me it's logical.

[jackc]

11 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Suck up what?

I'm perfectly happy with what CASA has said; to me it's logical.

So, personally you don’t care for the increase option of  760kg MTOW?  Well that’s OK, but you could at least support the Aviators who do?  We are all in the flying caper together although many may not want to take advantage of the increase option......

[turboplanner]

31 minutes ago, jackc said:

So, personally you don’t care for the increase option of  760kg MTOW?  Well that’s OK, but you could at least support the Aviators who do?  We are all in the flying caper together although many may not want to take advantage of the increase option......

Now you're going in the opposite direction; don't worry about it.

[kgwilson]

Opinion.

RA-Aus should be scrapped & responsibility returned to CASA with one time VH rego & no ongoing fees

All single engined aircraft under 1500kg deemed recreational unless used commercially

All pilots required to have a PPL, self declared medical under 70 with endorsements as per PPL.

Amateur builds as per current SAAA requirements

Maintenance by owner for amateur builds & as per current L2/Lame for factory builds

 

Simple & logical but not doable with the current ridiculously complicated legislation & head in the sand regulator.