Question re MTOW increase

[Kyle Communications]

Well my RANS S-21 is registered with RAA and it is Group G

Currently 19-9998. but the 19 prefix will change to reflect the group g

 

If CASA get their finger out and be sensible about medical I may transfer to VH rego and possibly re engine which will allow 820kg instead of the 727 MTOW I am limted to now.

 

If i had the money I would put a 915 IS in it then strictly speaking it is still Rotax powered and would fit in the Group G category

 

 

[walrus]

Kyle, as I read 95.55, you ( and I ) will still need an experimental C of A under 21.195A to satisfy the definition of a kit built lightweight aircraft. 

 

There are currently only 25 people in Australia that are authorised to do this and the SAAA Charge for this  service is at least $700.

 

RAA in its own right can’t award a C of A - most of the ones I’m aware of are SAAA, and I don’t. see why they would want to  do anything for an RAA member. Their forms are all VH prefix as well.

 

‘’There is thus no current way, approved by CASA, for RAA to issue you with any approval beyond 600 kg.

 

Oh yes, and what happens if you need a medical to drive group G?

 

At present, you would need to (1) get your kit built aircraft VH registered, which means you need  current PPL to fly it. Then convert it to RAA while keeping the 21.195 Cof A, if CASA will let you.

 

I fail to understand why this is going to work without even more legislation because RAA has no way of issuing the appropriate C of A.. 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Can I take issue with the word issue? A C of A is issued by CASA. CASA can appoint agents to process the application but it is still CASA that issues it.

[Kyle Communications]

After speaking with RAA a little while ago They sort of intimated to me the rules and regs will be similar to the SAAA style of approvals for build. But I was under the impression it will be similar as it is now that you need a L4 to sign off on the build. RAA has sort of their own rules with CASA in what we can do. They have not finalized with CASA yet the process but essentially it will be similar to building your own in RAA now but the maint side will be more like Experimental VH. None of it has been finalized yet. We will just have to wait and see. If the medical stuff is sorted out with CASA thewn I will shift mine into VH but of course we need to see what all these rules are. I dont have a issue with the Experimental building and maint rules now. Its all up in the air now so to speak..we just have to wait

[Flying_higher]

6 hours ago, walrus said:

 

Oh yes, and what happens if you need a medical to drive group G?

 

RAA has already made it clear that the same medical standards will apply for Group G. And given the regulations are already written in 95.55, I would suggest you’ve thrown this comment out there simply to stir people up.  Unnecessary. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I would like to know more about medical standards. What percentage of septuagenarians would pass?  What is group G?

A guy I knew who got old and subsequently died owned a current  VH medical certificate.  ( Before dying, he had not flown for a couple of weeks because he felt unwell, he told me ). I always took this story to illustrate why we, who fly for fun in good weather, can actually be safer than those professionals who have to fly all the time.

I would also like to know the money side of moving to VH.

[walrus]

Flying higher, I am not trying to stir people up. I hope RAA (and you) are right about medical matters.

 

My reading of the discussion is that Avmed is still quite capable of perverting the UK and American standards into something worse than useless or worse than the current mess. They did that with the "basic class 2".  Just ask the color blind aviation community about Avmed's capacity for deception..

 

I survived in my career by never assuming that people had my best interests at heart. Any time I hear "don't worry, she'll be right!" my BS detector triggers.

[440032]

10 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Can I take issue with the word issue? A C of A is issued by CASA. CASA can appoint agents to process the application but it is still CASA that issues it.

Ah, Peter, a correction..... CASA people probably issue fewer CofAs (all types) than all of the industry Authorised Persons in Australia do. As a CASA appointed AP myself for a certain thing, I process the applications and issue certificates under my name, on the applicable CASA certificate form/template. CASA is hands off - but does audit our activities. What we issue goes to CASA after we issue it, they don't see it first and approve it, or interfere. By time they see it, it's done and dusted.

[pmccarthy]

I bow to your knowledge of the subject, but remain confused. Probably because I tried to read and interpret the regulations. 

[SSCBD]

What is the medical standard required for the proposed 760 kg weight increase?

[sfGnome]

15 hours ago, walrus said:

RAA in its own right can’t award a C of A - most of the ones I’m aware of are SAAA, and I don’t. see why they would want to  do anything for an RAA member. Their forms are all VH prefix as well.

Some time back I was talking to one of SAAA’s technical contact points about building under SAAA oversight with an intent to register as RAA, and he was of the view that that would be no problem; that their concern was getting people building aircraft safely, not on which register it would end up. I do hope that haven’t misquoted/misinterpreted what he said. 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, SSCBD said:

What is the medical standard required for the proposed 760 kg weight increase?

At 760 kg you are morbidly obese according to Body Mass Index standards, unless you are 5.4 metres tall. 

[rgmwa]

47 minutes ago, sfGnome said:

Some time back I was talking to one of SAAA’s technical contact points about building under SAAA oversight with an intent to register as RAA, and he was of the view that that would be no problem; that their concern was getting people building aircraft safely, not on which register it would end up. I do hope that haven’t misquoted/misinterpreted what he said. 

I’m just an ordinary SAAA member, but that’s my understanding. SAAA tech counsellors are interested in ensuring build quality, not whether the plane will be VH or RAA.

[Kyle Communications]

The medical standard for Group G is exactly the same as all RAA aircraft

 

[Flying_higher]

8 hours ago, walrus said:

Flying higher, I am not trying to stir people up. I hope RAA (and you) are right about medical matters.

 

My reading of the discussion is that Avmed is still quite capable of perverting the UK and American standards into something worse than useless or worse than the current mess. They did that with the "basic class 2".  Just ask the color blind aviation community about Avmed's capacity for deception..

 

I survived in my career by never assuming that people had my best interests at heart. Any time I hear "don't worry, she'll be right!" my BS detector triggers.

Apologies for giving you some stick.  I must say I thought it was common knowledge that the medical standard doesn’t change from group G. RAA has said it a couple of times. 
 

When it comes to AVMED, I couldn’t agree more to be sceptical which is why I like RAA. Don’t have to worry for a few years yet!

[Kyle Communications]

Latest from the RAA email today on Group G

Finally, I’m pleased to say that we’re meeting with CASA twice this week to discuss our Group G (760kg) application that was submitted to them in August last year. Whilst we received some feedback on this application late last year, we need to meet with them to understand some of their commentary as well as provide them with additional clarity on some items. It’s fairly standard for an application of this size however I would like for members to know that we’re certainly doing all in our power to expedite this so you can take advantage of Group G sooner than later!
From the CEO

[walrus]

Guess I'll shut up and wait and see,,,,,,,,

[walrus]

I am a bear of very little brain because after  reading through the new CAO 95.55, I fail to understand how the proposed MTOW increase does anything at all  for existing RAA registered aircraft and their pilots. The change does seem to  allow owners and pilots of VH registered  sub 760kg. aircraft to switch to RAA membership without losing access to controlled airspace.

 

I can’t see where it allows kit built RAA registered aircraft to be reclassified in a higher weight category - ‘lightweight aircraft”. that is apparently needed to get a weight increase. I must be missing something.

 

‘It appears as before that there is no access to controlled airspace without a full CASA licence, medical and current BFR ,Kit built aircraft are also specifically excluded.

 

‘I guess our leaders can see a way through all this gobbledegook but I can’t.

[spacesailor]

But !.

It is getting closer to having All light weight aircraft on the RAA register. 

And  out of CaSa's hair .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

It will never happen Spacey. The rest of the aviation movement of the smaller craft variety would not cop it for a minute even if there's no love for the CASA in it's present mode.   Actually THEY are becoming more proactive lately. Good thing. Nev

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

But !.

It is getting closer to having All light weight aircraft on the RAA register. 

And  out of CaSa's hair .

spacesailor

No it's not; have a look at the different specifications and requirements for all the aircraft on the GA register.

[spacesailor]

WHEN !.

Will they all get onto the RAA register,  we are getting closer. 

Will RAA take over the ' experimental single prop ' light aircraft .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Get a "decent" medical worked out for GA and the RAAus would lose a lot of members.  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

please tell us more nev...  As a jab 230 owner,, I will go the cheapest way, and this could well be via VH and CASA.

But I am 77 years old, and I reckon any GP could "find something " to deny me a license. I have noticed that GP's relate to the people who give them their exalted place and not to the poor guy who is paying their bill.

[facthunter]

The "stuffing Around" for the last 25 years has ruled US out of any hoped for progress, Bruce.

     I would say  we have actually gone backwards mainly due to one Particular CASA CEO who had no time at all for anything not produced in a factory  from TSO'd stuff. and fully certified.  Once we were in the forefront of progress. It's always developed piecemeal with any progress grudgingly allowed, rather than planned or evolving logically.  Nev