turboplanner Posted January 29 Posted January 29 4 hours ago, BurnieM said: As regards LAME maintained, I suspect this is partly political; 'my GA plane is LAME maintained so why are the RAA guys getting away with cheaper maintainance'. Same with Basic 5 medical which I suspect will be simialr to us with similar restrictions. That will be round 2. I’m surprised there hasn’t been an avalanche on that from the GA guys.
LoonyBob Posted January 29 Posted January 29 18 hours ago, turboplanner said: The reduced standards were expected to result particularly in more engine failures, so that was offset by a very low stall speed, so when the engine failed, the aircraft could flop down safely onto anything but forests etc. In that mix was the concept that above a certan mass that wouldn't work so well so an upper limit was set. I haven't looked for the actual history of AUF, but I imagine they came up with that as a persuader to CASA and CASAs number crunching was good enough to ensure it wasn't likely to be "banned", a political action which usually followed any conduct which drew too much attention to its injuries or deaths. So far, whe I calculated the fatality factor between road vehicles and RA in 2018 on a per mission basis, RA fatalities were 42 times more per 20,000 missions than road vehicles, and clearly that has still been good enough that there's been no political fallout calling for it to be "banned". Given that one of the elements of the current weight increase is that an old +obese pilot can keep flying with the higher limit, it remains to be seen whether medical fatalities will play a part. So CASA in setting the standard has to find a prescriptive formula where they think they will keep the same safety level. As to your comment below: Yes, it is. CASA, in being prescriptive can't guarantee ahead of time that all the forseeable risks will be covered to the same level with the change as they are before it, and they are liable for any overrun at the rate of about $1 to 15 million in theory (the exception being if RAA Ltd set the benchmarks). We've actually got the second AUF Pilot Certificate (number 00002) around here somewhere... issued to the founding president of the AUF, George Markey. The 400lb weight limit for 95:10 was based upon a Skycraft Scout with a largish pilot, and was fairly comparable with FAR Part 103 at the time. A few wags suggested that it meant a crashing Ultralight wouldn't penetrate a tiled roof, but I've never seen that in print (the maths kinda works out, though!). The AUF was a result of the CAA trying to pre-empt HORSCOTS* 1986, by refusing to parley with anything but a single national group representing all Ultralight flyers. The AUF was hammered into being just in time. HORSCOTS 86 had, as one item on its agenda, the related issues of the high incidence of ultralight prangs in the media, and the vexed issue of "illegal" heavy ultralights, and two-seaters being used for training, which the CAA were denying (a) existed in any quantity, and (b) there was a need for. I had the pleasure of seeing Kyril B. of the CAA respond to the Chair with the statement that the CAA knew of approximately 25 overweight ULs. including 2-seaters, and thought there may be as many as 50 in the country. At this point, Geo handed the Chair a list of signatures of the ~1,200 people who had been willing to sign their names as operating overweight/2 seat ultralights... The summary was: (1) Training is a critical safety factor; the CAA is responsible for the safety of every aircraft that flies in Australia; therefore, the CAA had to make UL training practicable. (2) Operating a flying school is providing a service, and under the TPA customers are entitled to a "reasonable" standard of safety; so the CAA better get off its chunk and write Design (Airworthiness) Standards for 2-seat UL trainers. The existing Thrusters and Drifters were swept up under the ghastly CAO 95:25, while 101:55 was being writ. 101:55 targetted 1000lb (450kg), after a number of aeronautical engineers argued that anything less was anti-safety and ludicrous to boot, with BCAR-S in mind. US EXperimental was the founding father of most recreational aviation as we know it; and a fundamental precept of Experimental was, "these aircraft must be useless as commercial products / unable to compete in any way with Certified light aircraft". Ever since BeeCessnaPiper got that in stone, all recreational aviation has been fighting the nonsense idea that RA aircraft must be as small/light/slow/useless as governments can possible mandate. I note that the heaviest US Experimental aircraft I wot of, had an MTOW of 475,000lb (from memory), and the fastest had a maximum level speed of Mach 2.6... Meantime in Oz, sometime during the '90s the High Court determined that there was no Constitutional reason that adults should be forbidden from indulging in such dangerous activities as "Extreme Sports", and so a proposed ban on commercial skydiving was nipped in the bud... yes, we were that much of a nanny state. After 101:55 had been flourishing for a while, some US pilots took note, and bitched about not having an equivalent until the ASTM were told to create LSA, which still followed the US penchant for dangerously low stall speeds, but allowed 600kg MTOW (up from the proposed 1,200lb). Some Oz pilots (and manufacturers) took note... 1 1
LoonyBob Posted January 29 Posted January 29 CASA is a body corporate, and liable to sue or be sued in its own name. So it need to cover its arse... LAME maintenance is used for GA singles, which are allowed into Controlled Airspace. by using the same maintenance standard, CASA is observably protecting the peole on the ground from those huge speedy dangerous ultralights crashing through their roof... It's a legal defence, which is now the primary criterion of all CASA decisions (thanks again, Mr Keating!) 2
turboplanner Posted January 29 Posted January 29 10 hours ago, LoonyBob said: We've actually got the second AUF Pilot Certificate (number 00002) around here somewhere... issued to the founding president of the AUF, George Markey. The 400lb weight limit for 95:10 was based upon a Skycraft Scout with a largish pilot, and was fairly comparable with FAR Part 103 at the time. A few wags suggested that it meant a crashing Ultralight wouldn't penetrate a tiled roof, but I've never seen that in print (the maths kinda works out, though!). The AUF was a result of the CAA trying to pre-empt HORSCOTS* 1986, by refusing to parley with anything but a single national group representing all Ultralight flyers. The AUF was hammered into being just in time. HORSCOTS 86 had, as one item on its agenda, the related issues of the high incidence of ultralight prangs in the media, and the vexed issue of "illegal" heavy ultralights, and two-seaters being used for training, which the CAA were denying (a) existed in any quantity, and (b) there was a need for. I had the pleasure of seeing Kyril B. of the CAA respond to the Chair with the statement that the CAA knew of approximately 25 overweight ULs. including 2-seaters, and thought there may be as many as 50 in the country. At this point, Geo handed the Chair a list of signatures of the ~1,200 people who had been willing to sign their names as operating overweight/2 seat ultralights... The summary was: (1) Training is a critical safety factor; the CAA is responsible for the safety of every aircraft that flies in Australia; therefore, the CAA had to make UL training practicable. (2) Operating a flying school is providing a service, and under the TPA customers are entitled to a "reasonable" standard of safety; so the CAA better get off its chunk and write Design (Airworthiness) Standards for 2-seat UL trainers. The existing Thrusters and Drifters were swept up under the ghastly CAO 95:25, while 101:55 was being writ. 101:55 targetted 1000lb (450kg), after a number of aeronautical engineers argued that anything less was anti-safety and ludicrous to boot, with BCAR-S in mind. US EXperimental was the founding father of most recreational aviation as we know it; and a fundamental precept of Experimental was, "these aircraft must be useless as commercial products / unable to compete in any way with Certified light aircraft". Ever since BeeCessnaPiper got that in stone, all recreational aviation has been fighting the nonsense idea that RA aircraft must be as small/light/slow/useless as governments can possible mandate. I note that the heaviest US Experimental aircraft I wot of, had an MTOW of 475,000lb (from memory), and the fastest had a maximum level speed of Mach 2.6... Meantime in Oz, sometime during the '90s the High Court determined that there was no Constitutional reason that adults should be forbidden from indulging in such dangerous activities as "Extreme Sports", and so a proposed ban on commercial skydiving was nipped in the bud... yes, we were that much of a nanny state. After 101:55 had been flourishing for a while, some US pilots took note, and bitched about not having an equivalent until the ASTM were told to create LSA, which still followed the US penchant for dangerously low stall speeds, but allowed 600kg MTOW (up from the proposed 1,200lb). Some Oz pilots (and manufacturers) took note... Some very interesting points there. From the mid 1980s governments divested themselves of claims in those extreme sports and risk activities by introducing Self-administration so in the current case CASA would be offloading the bottom dweller risk on to RAA but by attaching strings appears to have caught itself. Time will tell as this proceeds. 1
BurnieM Posted January 29 Posted January 29 (edited) 10 hours ago, LoonyBob said: CASA is a body corporate, and liable to sue or be sued in its own name. So it need to cover its arse... LAME maintenance is used for GA singles, which are allowed into Controlled Airspace. by using the same maintenance standard, CASA is observably protecting the peole on the ground from those huge speedy dangerous ultralights crashing through their roof... It's a legal defence, which is now the primary criterion of all CASA decisions (thanks again, Mr Keating!) Except that it looks like owner maintained group A will also be allowed into Controlled Airspace so ? Edited January 29 by BurnieM
facthunter Posted January 29 Posted January 29 How does one (CASA) contract out a liability they are legislated to carry the responsibility for to an organisation without the means of actually doing it under threat of NO existence unless you accept this condition. Contracts signed under duress are not binding in principle. It's "do what we say or no Play". Nev 1
skippydiesel Posted January 30 Posted January 30 "RA aircraft must be as small/light/slow/useless as governments can possible mandate" TO weight is mandated - don't think size is. From what I have read, speed would seem to be a US mandate. Don't recall a speed limit on AU registered RA aircraft (?) and these days some leave their GA cousins in their slipstream.
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 I believe a MAX speed is also stipulated in the US.. Nev 1
RFguy Posted January 30 Posted January 30 (edited) In RAaus, as you all know, you must get your CAO100.5 every 2 years like any GA plane. (The air and static systems/ transponder baro checks ) However is RA, just seems nothing happens in RA if you dont do it. In GA, well you wont get a maintenance release and its grounded. Not sure how they deal with that, or at the moment if it is blissfully ignored. While aircraft vertical spacing is in my opinion, rather relaxed compared to the requirements, IE your altimeter would need to be country nautical mile out before you ran into someone 500' above or below you, It's important in CTA/CTR that people are where ATC expect them to be. There's probably more likeihood of an aviator not setting their altimeter for local or area QNH than it being out by a mile. Fortunately the transponder sends baro, and ATC can figure it out from that. but altitude encoders with their lots of parallel data lines are notorious for having a bad line and hence 100' error. (or much more if two lines are bad) Edited January 30 by RFguy 3
Carbon Canary Posted January 30 Posted January 30 I'm following this CTA access thing with interest. As others have mentioned, there are some parts of Australia where CTA will become increasingly difficult to avoid......and it shouldn't be avoided. 1
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Just get transit rights and try for the rest later if you think it's worth while. Nev 2
Kyle Communications Posted January 30 Author Posted January 30 I was told by my source it is all or nothing for CTA access. So full training etc will need to be done. A proper endorsement 1
turboplanner Posted January 30 Posted January 30 29 minutes ago, facthunter said: Well isn't THAT stupid? They’ve probably been listening to the radio chatter. 1
spacesailor Posted January 30 Posted January 30 So ! . For the home builder, how do you get that " home built " static line , TSO'd . On the plans I built from, and the way others have built , it is entirely different . Mine ' under ' the wing as per plan . A flying registered bird, straight out of the ' leading edge ' of the wing . spacesailor
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 You've excelled yourself. I don't understand one word of what you have just written (2 Hrs ago). Nev
BrendAn Posted January 30 Posted January 30 another thing but same topic. are they going to raise the stall speed min to allow a lot of the heavier craft to even qualify for raaus.
BrendAn Posted January 30 Posted January 30 a c150 fits the stall criteria and will have room for about 280kg of people , fuel and baggage which is not too bad i suppose . the 150s currently under raaus only have 120kg.
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Heavier doesn't always make the stall speed faster but the only way to lower the stall speed of an existing plane is to lower the AUW or alter the wings. Nev 1
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 The tomahawk and C-150 are OLD planes now and you could get some that are not worth repairing economically. Nev 1
BrendAn Posted January 30 Posted January 30 1 minute ago, facthunter said: The tomahawk and C-150 are OLD planes now and you could get some that are not worth repairing economically. Nev lots of 150s out there. at my club anyway.
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 You will hear them corroding on a damp still night. They weren't corrosion proofed. Float C-180's were. Nev 1
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