VANS RV's under RAA

[djpacro]

- Apparently, CASA's intent is to provide a choice of going to CASA for admin of LSA-style a/c and ops in future without having to suffer anything fundamentally different from the new Part 103

 

- All hypothetical as I don't expect CASA to get any significant regulatory changes thru the Attorney General's Dept in my lifetime

 

- The intent of the draft Part 103 is to provide simple rules for simple aircraft engaged in simple operations. CASA has drawn the line (for landplanes) at 600 kg and a stall speed of 45 KCAS. They have included aerobatics. (I admit to being out of date by quoting the old draft rather than recent proposals)

 

- I guess that the RAA needs to draw its own lines which may be different from where my own personal ones are, as follows.

 

- Aerobatics in something like a Clipped-Wing Cub or RANS S-10 is simple. Aerobatics in an RV is not so simple.

 

- Operation and support of aircraft where flutter and fatigue life (or damage tolerance) substantiation becomes significant - that is not simple. The type of structure employed on a Cub and application of FAA Rept 45 to flutter (where applicable) is simple enough.

 

- In another thread I mentioned that I liked the Ultrabat but I didn't want to buy one or operate one. I didn't know about how its flutter was substantiated. I didn't see any fatigue life on parts where I may have expected it.

 

Some-one mentioned the Cessna 150/152. I'm quite comfortable flying it - it is not pushing the frontiers of science but I know its history of safe operation.

 

 

[Guest J430]

That is all well and good folks, but it has been said here many times before by others, BrentC where are you, that the RAA are in no position now or any time soon to cope with the task.

 

Poor TechMan would be swamped with his stuff for a start.

 

On a training and skills level, sure it can be migrated but at what cost? I don’t care, I will not be disadvantaged and my flying will not suffer, but there are many thousands of OUR members that will be. And that does concern me. Some or many of you lot complained about having to spend $150 every two years to service/check an ADSB transponder that would be given to you FREE OF CHARGE and provide you with a level of service and safety. One can only wonder what will happen when you get charged another $150 a year for supporting a more complex RAA.

 

Do not try to tell me it will not happen, if you get it, you pay for it.

 

Back to training and common sense, the few of you who have posted above saying you would ensure you were trained etc......GOOD FOR YOU! I am not convinced the vast majority are like you. Perhaps on this forum there are more significant numbers who are committed and careful, but I can assure you there are a large number of our fellow members who are not. While I am on my soap box I will list a few things that come to mind. Not everything I have seen or heard and I bet you can add some more, but if these folk behave like this and have levels of knowledge like this, what will happen when they get a 180kt machine that stalls above 60 knots, is slippery as heck has CSU and Retract and has 100% more capability than they have ability!

 

1. This last weekend, an otherwise intelligent person without tail wheel training and a new Biplane claims he will just taxi up and down and then fly to YXXX to get an endorsement . Also had no idea of the CTAF freq he was working in!

 

2. Long term RAA pilot, and a very safe one, never new about an ERC let alone use one. About to blast off into remote country and Restricted Areas

 

3. Several long term and reliable fliers, with some 100-130 knot machines operating illegally without licenses for the ops conducted. i.e X-Country or PAX etc

 

4. BFR's issued to pilots who have very poor circuit and landing techniques, using F111 style landings in a Jabiru 2 seater and never gets corrected after 2 x BFR's , do not ask me how or why, I am not game enough to publish it.

 

5. New kit built a/c tested and flown..... no CofA and invalid license and no BFR for years. Plane had 40 hours on it by the time I convinced him to fix it all up!

 

6. Another new a/c and pilot with 20-30 hours, and none for several years, has now bent it twice, and significantly. Then thinks some patch ups are in order until myself and an experienced builder hauled him into line (we hope). Probably no reports either!

 

I am sure there are plenty more we could all add, and yes plenty of incidents from GA and RPT when it comes to cutting off in the circuit etc , but these are not slip ups in airmanship, these are blatant disregard for rules that are there to protect us all, and are in a system that if was allowed to balloon in size and not cope with it, will be far worse than what we have now. To prevent this happening we will just shift the nasty CASA inspectors into RAA and bring a heap of cost etc.

 

I hope some of this makes sense, its getting late and I am tired, but believe me I am not typing all this just as a bagging exercise, I support the RAA and its grass roots cause, but the local Karting Club is not V8 Supercars Australia either.

 

Be careful what you wish for!

 

And enjoy flying LIGHT!

 

J:wave:

 

 

[Guest Cloudsuck]

A Thruster Pilot once said to a Drifter Pilot!

 

1. This is getting out of hand, the AUF want to up the MTOW to 544 kgs. This is crap! Ultralights don't need to be that heavy.

 

2. It hasn't been the same since they gave us the right to fly above 500 feet and made us have one of those pilot certificates.

 

3. The only reason they want to make it 544 kgs is to bring in those plastic Cessna look alikes, the Jabiru.

 

4. Who the hell wants to fly at 100+ knots, that is crazy. Those things stall at like 43 knots, I'd like to see you land one of those plastic fantastics in a paddock and walk away.

 

5. The next thing you know they will want you to have a VHF radio, Jesus, if I bloody well wanted to be an airline pilot I would be. Besides, I've got me UHF CB and I'd rather talk to the truckers.

 

6. I joined the AUF to fly without doors and if these people want things like 100+ knots, flight above 500 feet, Cessna look alikes and radios, they should just leave us alone and fly GA.

 

7. All this will do is drive up costs and make all these regulations we will have to comply with.

 

8. Did you see that Jabiru are now bringing out a J430? Might as well fly a bus I reckon. I bet no one will ever be able to fly one safely with all that 120 hp up front. And not to mention flaps, they will need special training for that. Mark my words, these are very complex aircraft.

 

9. Yep, if you ask me, the sun won't come up the day after they change to RAAus and up the MTOW to 544 kgs.

 

 

[Guest sypkens]

Cloudsuck!!

 

Really gave me a good laugh.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Cloudsuck, very impressive Even funnier that I've heard all that before in one way or another.

 

I guess we've gone from 50 knots to 130'ish knots and haven't lost everyone. Why not from 130 to 180 or thereabouts?

 

 

[Guest J430]

Gave me a really good laugh too!

 

Only thing thats funny after I stoped smiling is the fact that going to some enormous pool of GA aircraft will in the end hurt a very large number (and it is large) number of the people who started the AUF and RAA as we know it today, and you are willing to make jokes about it.

 

J:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Personaly I think the C150/152 would make a good adition to the RAAus 'fleet'

 

BUT, Doom and gloom scenario here -

 

C150/152, some say one of the safest light aircraft ever built. A large acciedent data base to draw on to see trends/whatever of, for example, maintenance related acciedent history.

 

I wonder what happens if after a few years of RAAus ops some bright spark compares the RAAus maintenance related acciedent history of the C150/152 with the previous GA history... calls for a mandatory LAME style maintenance sytem perhaps.

 

But again, who knows. Methinks the little Lyc/Contys to be a far simpler engine then the Rotax range.

 

.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Hmmm, very true. And if anything, the idea of keeping things simple just makes these cowboys think 'well its not real aviation, no-one's policing me. I'll do what I ruddy well like!' A little heavy handed casa like discipline is a good thing. (What am I saying!!!)

 

 

[Yenn]

Funny about the rules and roads. I heard yesterday that the Central Qld area had a much lower number of speeding offences over the long weekend. This was explained by the police officer giving the figures as being due to the wet conditions making people drive slower.

 

Seems odd to me that the speed limit is so necessary for safety when people are making their own decisions about speed.

 

I don't think there is much relationship between road rules and rules of the air. The air rules have come about from experience while the road rules are just a knee jerk reaction from politicians.

 

 

[Guest J430]

TOUCH'E! Cloudsuck

So far it's been about the few who behave badly, it's the same in the car scene ,afew d***heads give the wollopers an excuse to bring down the hammer. Ratbags will be ratbags regardless of who administers the rules ,cheers Mat

 

Hmmm, very true. And if anything, the idea of keeping things simple just makes these cowboys think 'well its not real aviation, no-one's policing me. I'll do what I ruddy well like!' A little heavy handed casa like discipline is a good thing.

We have two camps here, and they are the ratbags and the police!

 

Problem 1 is enough ratbag cowboys (and most are probably not here on RF ... remember this point) and then expanding the system they will have more room to play and more trouble will follow.

 

Problem 2 is not enough police to ensure problem one is kept to a minimum.

 

Now.....as Yenn so wisely pointed out,

 

The air rules have come about from experience while the road rules are just a knee jerk reaction from politicians.

None of us, and especially here seem to think we need more policing if we already behave. So, what do you think will happen.

 

Those who whinge the most will most likely be those who complain about the Transponder and ADSB debate.

 

If you want GA............ GO THERE, if you want RAA stay here. When the costs go up because of the I WANT I WANT I WANT groups there will be a lot of folk complaining then.

 

If you want to fly an RV7, in CTA and do aerobatics, and be IFR and and and........... Get one, put in the transponder, get a PPL with CTA endo, and a CSU most likely and a CIR or PIFR and do an aero endorsement.........and knock yourself out!

 

Dont expect the RAA to do all this for just $160 a year and cover you with insurance!

 

Stop assuming I am on an ANTI - RAA crusade.....I am NOT!

 

J:wave:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Stop assuming I am on an ANTI - RAA crusade.....I am NOT

You seem fairly pro RAAus to me J430 :thumb_up:

 

 

[Yenn]

J430. Could you explain how going to an enormous pool of GA aircraft will hurt the RAAus members. I may be wrong but this just sounds to me like the old cry of keep it simple and stick to the stringbag type of aircraft.

 

I can not see any problem with having GA type aircraft on our register, as long as the pilots realise that they have to fly according to our RAAus rules. My plane comes into that category and even though it is aerobatic I know I cannot do aerobatics in it even though I have a PPL and can do aerobatics in a GA plane.

 

 

[Guest ramcam]

I know the rv4 is already under raa. With the 6 having an empty weight of 380kgs or thereabouts they should go under. What stall speed do they have?

 

 

[Guest J430]

RAMCAM

 

RV6 Stall is too high..........see previous page. The RV9 will make it in, especially with smaller engine.

 

Yenn

 

It is naive to think that with a larger influx of more members and the talk of RAA taking over all GA private ops and encompassing many higher performance machines would not add to the overheads at RAA HQ.

 

You will need to cater for engineering,AD's, training, licensing and testing, plust train the trainers and test the testers. More admin, and the big kick in the guts...... the free or shall we say included Insurance.

 

A C152 is probably about the limit, some RV's etc, but not the 6,7,8 & 10's.

 

Hey it would suit me fine if I could have all the goodies RAA offer, with a high performance 4 seater or 6, plus CTA, IFR etc.

 

I am just pretty damned sure that those in the rest of RAA do not want to subsidise ME!

 

I keep harping back to the RAA actively encouraging its members (I am one) to resist actively ADSB. So its a bit hypocritical to then expect the RAA board to go with a new campaign to take over the PVT end of GA. Don't ya think!

 

J:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Hmmm... things are not all sweetness and light in ADS-B land. Probably be a heck of a lot more then a few ultralight pilots concerned about the dangers of ADS-B and GPS ;)

 

 

[Guest ramcam]

the problem has been in the past that if we don't look to broaden our base of flyers, then we spend all our resources in fighting casa. They in the past have tried to revoke almost all of our powers. If the rv4 can get in as a single seater, the why can't the 6. they have the same airfoil

 

 

[antzx6r]

I'm not sure the rv4 can be raa rego'd. Do you know of any?

 

MTOW is 681kg and Stall is 47knts.

 

In Theory, with the second seat empty, the MTOW lowered by 81Kg may bring the VSO down. Not sure if its as simple as that tho.

 

The rv3 is a single seater and falls inside the numbers. Is this what you ment? Still not sure if it is "approved" tho.

 

I was keen on that, but then thought, all that aerobatic ability and the numbers on the fuselage say strictly no aeros! I don't know if I could live with that...:confused:

 

 

[Guest ramcam]

there are some on the register.

 

MTOW does not come into the equation. It is empty weight plus 75kg per person and fuel. The stall is the omitting factor. the rv4's that are in the register already are classed as a single seat aircraft

 

 

[antzx6r]

That's incredible... I just checked the RAA members market and there is an RV4 RAA rego'd. Who'd a thunk it? Now there is an aircraft that can get you into alot of trouble if you don't know how to treat it. If you have the self control not to get crazy with it, it's a quick x-country with way more usable load ability than technicaly allowed. Plus with the +/- G capabilties it's got to be some fun. :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest ramcam]

great second aircraft. Straight out of a thruster into an RV

 

 

[Guest J430]

M Wreford

 

It's already an expensive pasttime and I will be really ,,,er annoyed when on finally getting to fly my RV6 I have to spend more so some one else doesn't have to watch where their going

That is a very selfish and naive statement to make. You should visit the flight deck of an A320 or 737 going into any of the CTAF R's that have no radar coverage. I can assure you that the crews have sphincters that would crush diamonds making those approaches. YHBA is a classic case and right on your doorstep.

 

Maybe you are perfect, but the rest of us, you can not be so sure!

 

Ohh and some of my friends who are ATC'ers at the coal face do not share anti ADSB thoughts either!

 

From Van's data sheets collection take a look here. these are at MTOW so you could get a calculation done of a reduced MTOW, and register it that way, but thats the only way. Seems on the face of it the RV9 & the new RV12 of course are possible. Note these are in MPH not knots!

 

http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/speeds.pdf

 

J:thumb_up:

 

 

[IanR]

there are some on the register.MTOW does not come into the equation. It is empty weight plus 75kg per person and fuel. The stall is the omitting factor. the rv4's that are in the register already are classed as a single seat aircraft

There is one on the updated Aviation Trader website for sale - says it is RAA registered as single seat only as per your post

 

 

[Yenn]

So you can get into a lot of trouble in an RV4.

 

I would like to compare the crash statistics for RV4's with those for Drifters, and I would be surprised if there were more crashes in RV4's than Drifters as a proportion of number of planes flying.

 

There seems to be a fear that flying a bigger, faster or heavier plane is harder and I cannot see it as being logical. It is no harder to fly a C182 than a C150 except for the CS prop and cowl flap controls and they are both easier to fly than a Thruster, I will not compare with a Drifter as I haven't flown one.

 

 

[antzx6r]

I agree. I've done only 15hrs in GA training in a C152 aerobat. And compared to a Jab, it is incredibly stable. And thats just doubling(roughly) the weight. However I have heard you yourself say Ian, that you wouldn't let just any low time pilot in the Starlet. There is just a little transition training involved.

 

 

[Adrian Lewer]

i think i will stick to the 100 kts or there abouts of the jabie..... even slower will be fine.. Hanuman.. including 55 kts... the longer i am in the cockpit the better for me and more fun.. if i wanted to fly long distances in a hurry i would get a GA ticket and fly a 152 to the destination...

 

for me this is fun. but i can see how people want to go faster... nothing wrong with that at all.. but remember, RAA fees will go up, training costs will go up,(as schools will have the latest and gratest) and the average joe blow like me will not be able to afoard it... which sucks.

 

having said that... as with the controlled airspace endorsement and 750 MTOW i will probably get my controlled air endorsement if i can, but to fly a RAA aircraft it is not needed IMO, unless the RAA boy's want to go and visit the GA boy's oneday... ?

 

sorry, i had not posted in a couple of days and had itchy finger's

 

 

ok having said that, lets ansewr the question, with the info we have can we reg the RV-9 under RAA single or dual seat ?