mAgNeToDrOp Posted January 7 Posted January 7 Apologies if this is a dumb/repeated question - I can't find an answer on the Raaus site... If I just want to fly one of these class G aircraft, registered under Raaus, and not in CTA, do I need a CASA class 5 medical? Or will the standard Raaus self declared medical suffice?
Kyle Communications Posted January 7 Author Posted January 7 RAAUS currently do not recognise Class 5...thats what they told me when I submitted mine as my medical...I had to submit the usual medical that I do which is the Austroads medical
sfGnome Posted January 8 Posted January 8 Who know what changes CTA access will bring, but for OCTA, group G is the same as group A as far as medical is concerned - just self declared. 1
Freizeitpilot Posted January 10 Posted January 10 What I would find interesting is a breakdown of the number of aircraft registrations in each of the RAAus groups, and how these numbers have changed over say, the past 5 years. That would indicate where the trend in recreational aviation is headed, and anecdotally, I suspect it is factory LSA. I note however there has been a net drop of 30 RAAus registrations over the past 12 months as indicated by the RAAus website. Group G may change this, but by how much?
facthunter Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) LSA is a stop Gap category with as many problems as benefits.. 19- xxx registration used to give freedom to the builder. RAAus sold out self maintenance to get a weight rise. A weight increase is a safety matter . We need more than 300 Kgs empty weight to carry US and a realistic payload and fuel unless it's composite or very carefully built. nev Edited January 10 by facthunter more content.
Thruster88 Posted January 10 Posted January 10 There is some stats on the raaus website on the fleet. Fixed wing is static in numbers, weight shift and powered parachute are in decline. I don't see group G giving much of a bump in numbers. Some of the new group G will be existing raaus registered aircraft like the kitfox just so they can use their full MTOW and not be artificially restricted to 600kg.
facthunter Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Do the aircraft get stronger as they age? These types are far from NEW now. Nev
Thruster88 Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) 10 minutes ago, facthunter said: Do the aircraft get stronger as they age? These types are far from NEW now. Nev No they don't, they also don't get weaker if maintained correctly. As you know, one of the most desirable GA aircraft would be something like a 1956 C180, yes 69 years old. Love my 62 year old beech23, 37 year old Thrusters and the near new 27 year old RV. Edited January 10 by Thruster88 1
Kyle Communications Posted January 10 Author Posted January 10 23 minutes ago, facthunter said: RAAus sold out self maintenance to get a weight rise. A weight increase is a safety matter . Well thats not true for builders Nev. I am building a Group G and I have done the SAAA maintainer course. I believe the same rules for Experimental will apply to Group G..if you bring in a Cessna or similar the rules for maintenance will be the same because you are not the builder 1 1
BrendAn Posted January 10 Posted January 10 55 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said: What I would find interesting is a breakdown of the number of aircraft registrations in each of the RAAus groups, and how these numbers have changed over say, the past 5 years. That would indicate where the trend in recreational aviation is headed, and anecdotally, I suspect it is factory LSA. I note however there has been a net drop of 30 RAAus registrations over the past 12 months as indicated by the RAAus website. Group G may change this, but by how much? casa bringing out the self declared medical took the momentum out of group g i think. that is ga to raaus conversions,
facthunter Posted January 10 Posted January 10 They All FATIGUE and corrode in hard to detect places. Fatigue life assessment of small planes is NOT carried Out. Extensive required / mandated inspections and AD's have to be done on MOST older GA planes, More so with large planes where thy have Pressurisation and flying hours LIFE limitations. The Al tube wing spar is a bit suss in the kit fox range. and steel tube corrodes internally where you CAN'T see it. Piper Tri Pacer etc . Auster frames near the rudder. ALL planes have a limited useful life especially those operated in a salty environment. NOTHING beats a BRAND new ONE They even have a Nice new Plane smell and perform closer to the book figures. Flying is a great way to get rid of excess money.. Who doesn't find THAT out? Nev 1
facthunter Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Kyle, you got AROUND what the RAAus DID. I stand by what I wrote. Nev
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now