CASA Considering Raising RA-Aus Stall Speed Above 45 kt.

[APenNameAndThatA]

From their news letter. 

 

"Because a change to the 45-knot stall speed had not been subject to formal public consultation in that paper, we determined that it was appropriate for it to initially remain in place and that a review of the limitation be conducted and consulted with industry."
 

[Student Pilot]

"and that a review of the limitation be conducted and consulted with industry" Good one......😁 

CASA consulting, that does happen, then they ignore what people tell them and do what they want to, they don't take any notice of anybody.

They are making GA in Australia safer, with something like 40% less aircraft flying than 20 years ago does that make it 40% safer?

There are other reasons why there are less aircraft flying now but CASA is the MAIN reason.

[Kenlsa]

I hope everyone fills out the survey 

Ken

[cscotthendry]

LOL and there was RA Aus and some owners wanting to get away from the GA costs thinking that they were going to transfer all those GA planes to RA Aus. 
This 760kg weight increase has been dragging on for how long now? And only now, they've discovered this stall speed issue?

I think CASA is “slow-walking” RA Aus on this.

I've spoken to a LOT of RA pilots and not one has said they wanted this weight increase. All the ones who wanted it are owners of light GA planes trying to get away from GA maintenance costs, and the RAAus leadership looking to grow the membership and by extension, the income stream.

When I speak to RA Aus aircraft owners and pilots, what THEY want is access to controlled airspace, at least to be able to fly through, not land. But that does nothing for the RA Aus hierarchy and so it was put in the “too hard” basket.

In any case, any new priviledges sought by RA Aus will be “slow-walked” by CASA if not killed outright somehow.

If they manage to deal with this stall speed hurdle, I wonder what new hurdle CASA will “discover” then.

[Bruce Tuncks]

cscott, is that where the lot that was going to compete with Raaus finish up? being "slow walked?"

[Bruce Tuncks]

I know a couple of pilots, one with an 80 hp Rutan type plane and one with a Lycoming 360 one, who are doubtful whether moving to RAAus would suit them anyway.

At present they fail on the stall-speed issue, but if this is sorted out, they will have to look closely at the cost of RAAus membership vs the cost of lame work. And the lames  actually do useful things for your plane. The new CASA medical rules have removed the one big impediment to GA, so I reckon these guys will stay as GA. 

[Thruster88]

LAME maintenance is required for the over 600kg new group G with RAAus so no change by switching camps. I won't be switching the RV6a even if the stall speed requirement is relaxed.  

Edited April 6, 2022 by Thruster88

[facthunter]

The length of time this matter has been floating around with NO resolution OR direction, reflects badly on the CASA, mainly. They "reneged" on  agreed processes when McCormick took over. The Current RAAus want to be the NEW GA which would be strongly resisted by the present GA . GA EXP> is a useful category if your preference is to do some changes.. RAAus want to expand and grow. Taking over Other areas is not necessarily in current member's Interests.  Nev

[rodgerc]

From my viewpoint, RA-Aus is pursuing the weight increase in response to the stated wishes of its members. Many of whom have both GA and RA flying qualifications. 
 

In my case, CTA access is the only reason I maintain a Part 61 licence and the instant RA-Aus gains CTA access, the small novel sized document that is my GA licence will be placed in the round file under my desk. 

[Carbon Canary]

Rodgerc - I have a similar situation wrt CTA access and keeping my Pt 61 licence current. If RA-Aus gained CTA access, I'm sure there would be more GA deserters.

 

Clearly there are areas on the eastern seaboard where avoiding CTA pushes you toward high ground.  This would easily feed into a safety case.  Additionally, once Western Sydney airport is opened, even more Sydney basin transiting traffic will be funnelled into the already busy VFR lanes.

[turboplanner]

26 minutes ago, Carbon Canary said:

Rodgerc - I have a similar situation wrt CTA access and keeping my Pt 61 licence current. If RA-Aus gained CTA access, I'm sure there would be more GA deserters.

 

Clearly there are areas on the eastern seaboard where avoiding CTA pushes you toward high ground.  This would easily feed into a safety case.  Additionally, once Western Sydney airport is opened, even more Sydney basin transiting traffic will be funnelled into the already busy VFR lanes.

There's a straightforward pathway to CTA now in terms of training and equipment.

[walrus]

8 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

LAME maintenance is required for the over 600kg new group G with RAAus so no change by switching camps. I won't be switching the RV6a even if the stall speed requirement is relaxed.  

What about owner built and maintained?

[walrus]

CTA for RAA currently requires a PPL plus BFR plus medical plus the removal of the “avoid built up areas” condition on the aircraft certificate. This is impractical for most and puts major obstacles in way of touring in an LSA type aircraft.

 

Roadblocks at all capital cities, plus Sale, Newcastle, Coffs, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Alice Springs and Broome..

Edited April 7, 2022 by walrus

[Thruster88]

28 minutes ago, walrus said:

What about owner built and maintained?

If you built the Experimental aircraft or one similar then you can maintain it. I bought mine so need a LAME (I work as an AME). SAAA are working with CASA towards a new maintenance course to allow people like me to maintain a VH experimental.  

 

I guess RAAus could come up with a similar scheme down the track.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Thruster88

[Blueadventures]

8 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

LAME maintenance is required for the over 600kg new group G with RAAus so no change by switching camps. I won't be switching the RV6a even if the stall speed requirement is relaxed.  

Fully agree; from what have been told over 600kg factory built will be required to be maintained by LAME or RAAus endorsed equilivant.  And I recon the hurdle height for RPL of experience and qualifications will be more difficult than training as a LAME.

[kgwilson]

17 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

 

When I speak to RA Aus aircraft owners and pilots, what THEY want is access to controlled airspace, at least to be able to fly through, not land. But that does nothing for the RA Aus hierarchy and so it was put in the “too hard” basket.

In any case, any new priviledges sought by RA Aus will be “slow-walked” by CASA if not killed outright somehow.

If they manage to deal with this stall speed hurdle, I wonder what new hurdle CASA will “discover” then.

As I mentioned on another thread, RA in NZ have had access to CTR for over 20 years with no apparent issues. When I was GA these lighties used to fly in to Hamilton International to get Avgas from the club bowser. RA NZ just has a CTR endorsement on the Pilot Cert & the aircraft must be fitted with a transponder. Couldn't be simpler. And NZ has more aircraft per head of population and a lot of CTR in close proximity to one another. The only problem here is CASA bureaucracy.