turboplanner Posted December 27, 2008 Posted December 27, 2008 Thanks Basscheffers, nothing like the real facts to get the correct colour of the green grass over the fence. I would like to see a slightly bigger stretch to let the Cessna 152 Aerobat in, or at least a cost effective aerobatic aircraft which would fit in to flying schools and allow spin training and limited aerboatic training.
Yenn Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 With us being Recreational Aircraft operators, the way I see it is that we will be able to operate planes such as the RV4 in exactly the same way as I now operate a Corby Starlet. That is a plus as it is opening up well performing 2 seater aircraft at lower cost than the plastic fantastics which are already on the register. The only problem I can see from the higher weights is maintenance and owner builders will be competent and capable, but those who buy need to have either training and experience or have maintenance done by a qualified person.
Guest ando79 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Thats a bold statement, I to agree with the increase but what concerns alot of people and it is a fair comment is that will RAA become swamped with old buckets of unairworthy bolts. The new ones might be plastic but they are also in most cases more safer, easier to fly more economical and most of all New(I say in MOST cases). I am not saying that all old aircraft are bad, gees there is some beautiful old aircraft flying but they are also well looked after and maintained. For the average Jo I would much rather see the rules bring a bit more competition in pricing into the market place so we can all fl in safer aircraft for a better cost. I can be honest I would feel alot safer rocking up to a flying school and seing a flightline full of near new Jabs instead of seeing a full line of early model 150 and 152's. I agree with Ian. For an organisation that seems to have come an aweful long way, the argument against "old buckets" coming onto our register is very short sighted. You must remember that our nice new baby boomer funded aircraft will one day be old buckets on the RAAUS register. If and when you feel, as a level one or two maintainer, that you are out of your depth, then it is YOUR responsibility to seek the assistance of someone more experienced/qualified. This may mean paying a LAME to do some of your maintainance. Some of the "old buckets" that will be eligible for the register with the weight increase have much higher engine reliability than some of the standard fare currently on offer. Engine TBO's of over 2000 hours are not unseen (O-235 lyc = 2400hrs). And I for one will be glad to be given the opportunity to fly an aircraft that I can conservativey load with me, my wife, full fuel, safety gear etc. I have found the prospect of buying an older RAAUS aircraft such as a Gazelle concerning because I KNOW it has been overloaded it's whole life. Aircraft maintenance cannot be trivialised, they are machines, and as such WILL fail if not looked after properly. Having said that, there is no reason why a VH registered (therefore LAME maintained) C150 with a midlife engine cannot be safely (and cheaply) brought onto the RAAUS register. The owner will have an obligation to maintain it in accordance with the maintainance manual, and therefore poses no more risk than on the VH register. If you don't have the skill, then you cannot maintain it. I for one will be popping open the bubbly when we can all enjoy a greater range of aircraft to suit all needs and budgets. Cheers. Ando.
Guest basscheffers Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 And I for one will be glad to be given the opportunity to fly an aircraft that I can conservativey load with me, my wife, full fuel, safety gear etc. Well, most of these heavier two seaters are simply that: heavier. They don't actually have more useful load capacity. In fact, a 150, 152 or Tomahawk has less capacity than many 600KG LSA registered jobbies. A Sportstar SL can can carry 268KG for instance, compared to 257KG for a C152, 245 for a Tomahawk and just 220 for a C150. And being less efficient, you need to take more fuel to go the same distance! They are just a heavier airframe with a heavier engine... I am not that apposed to them entering the register, but don't get your hopes up for carrying more stuff with these planes!
Guest basscheffers Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 PS: buy one now and sit on it until you can register it; prices will go up when the rule comes through! A Tomahawk should be quite good fun and for the quarter or less of the price of a plastic fantastic, you can buy a whole lot of fuel and maintenance over the years.
BLA82 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 For an organisation that seems to have come an aweful long way, the argument against "old buckets" coming onto our register is very short sighted. Cheers. Ando. Ando, I don't think that it's short sighted, it's a fair concern. I am not saying all old VH aircraft a buckets of bolts but it is only fair to say that some old cessna(or the like) that has long seen it's day will be bought, registered RA-AUS and without the knowledge the owner maintainer will come unstuck. Basscheffers makes a great point, heavier planes with heavier engines whats the advantage????. I am all for the increase it will bring a whole lot of different types into our register but common sense will have to prevail. If somthing is cheap, it's usually for a reason 1
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 The whole extra room for gear thing is only really good for planes like the jab j230 which are restrictive just because of the weight restriction. Gaining the old faithfulls is good for the reliability of the Lycs and Conts. Another advantage is that kits can be built with the heavier reliable engines and still have room for two plus luggage plus performance. :thumb_up:
antzx6r Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 If somthing is cheap, it's usually for a reason The reason at the moment is that its at the bottom of the 'I want' list for GA. When the option opens for them to come into RAA their 'I want' status will go back up(a bit). Hence the get in quick comment I believe.
Guest basscheffers Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 The reason at the moment is that its at the bottom of the 'I want' list for GA. Except for the 152 Aerobat, of course! One of the few aircraft both good as ab-initio trainer and useful as aerobatic trainer - two aircraft for the price of one, so school wants to get rid of theirs and they are running them until they will be worthless. That's what my school's CFI tells me anyway. And looking in Aviation Trader, he's probably right.
poteroo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Recently had the chance to fly a Gazelle, followed by a C150 - in same light to moderate winds. Flew the 150 without flaps for a better comparison. I think the 150 would be the better trainer on several grounds, though it costs more to run and hangar. (Yes, I'm somewhat biased by a GA background). You can still buy reasonable 150's - they are not all basket cases. In our case, it would prove a good 'fit' into the local scene, as an ab initio trainer, because the student has the option to switch over to a 150 Aerobat to complete the GA GFPT. Because of the co-location of the GA and RAA flight schools, with both instructors dual rated, it seems to happen that the RAA skilling isn't going to be much, if any, different to GA by the time they do their PC. happy days,
Yenn Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 From all the above posts it seems the fear is that owners will not be proficient at servicing their aircraft. I have not looked at the requirements for owner maintenance, but can we buy a plane and do all the maintenance on it legally? I thought that I could maintain my own plane because I built it, but cannot maintain some other plane because I have no qualifications with RAAus. I have no desire to maintain someone else's plane, one reason being I would not want to be responsible for it. Tht surely would be the thinking of anyone doing maintenance on ex CA planes on the RAAus register.
Guest ando79 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 From all the above posts it seems the fear is that owners will not be proficient at servicing their aircraft. I have not looked at the requirements for owner maintenance, but can we buy a plane and do all the maintenance on it legally? I thought that I could maintain my own plane because I built it, but cannot maintain some other plane because I have no qualifications with RAAus. I have no desire to maintain someone else's plane, one reason being I would not want to be responsible for it. Tht surely would be the thinking of anyone doing maintenance on ex CA planes on the RAAus register. here is the pertinent section from the tech manual. http://www.auf.asn.au/techmanual/4-1.pdf Basically, if you own it, have a pilot's license, and it isn't for reward or hire, you can maintain it.
Guest ando79 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Ando,I don't think that it's short sighted, it's a fair concern. I am not saying all old VH aircraft a buckets of bolts but it is only fair to say that some old cessna(or the like) that has long seen it's day will be bought, registered RA-AUS and without the knowledge the owner maintainer will come unstuck. Basscheffers makes a great point, heavier planes with heavier engines whats the advantage????. I am all for the increase it will bring a whole lot of different types into our register but common sense will have to prevail. If somthing is cheap, it's usually for a reason What will happen in ten or fifteen years time when all the LSA's start getting long in the tooth. Somewhere along the line we must become responsible for our own maintenance liability. As an owner maintainer, if you have any doubt whatsoever about your ability to maintain your aircraft, then you should be seeking higher help. This perception that we need not worry too much about owner maintenance because all our aircraft are "new" is a very dangerous one.
facthunter Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 New planes. Some of the sheet metal types that we love so much, on the RAAus current register will be corrosion problems long before the C-150's etc ever were. They are basically unprimed & unprotected internally, probably because they are trying to save weight.The very thin Al sheet will fatigue around rivets, much quicker than slightly thicker sheet. They should be bonded as well as rivetted to distribute the loads better on the rivetted seams, and stop corrosion under the lap. Especially important near salty atmosphere.. Nev.
Guest brentc Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Yenn, you are referring to GA ops. If you build it you can maintain it, but can't maintain another aircraft. In the RA-Aus world, you can maintain any aircraft unless for hire or reward.
Student Pilot Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Yenn, you are referring to GA ops. If you build it you can maintain it, but can't maintain another aircraft. In the RA-Aus world, you can maintain any aircraft unless for hire or reward. So what's a level two for then?
antzx6r Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Or if you wish to keep the aircraft able to be for hire or reward. I think if you stop maintaining an approved type with L2 it can no longer be used for hire or reward. (Trainer)
Guest ando79 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Or if you wish to keep the aircraft able to be for hire or reward. I think if you stop maintaining an approved type with L2 it can no longer be used for hire or reward. (Trainer) according to the tech manual, an aircraft that has been owner maintained can be used for hire or reward once it has been given a bill of good health from a L2. But must be L2 maintained from then on.
Guest basscheffers Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 They should be bonded as well as rivetted to distribute the loads better on the rivetted seams, and stop corrosion under the lap. Like my favourite, the Sportstar! :D Do you know if bonding is something you can do yourself if you are building a kit? Or does it require very specialised skills and/or equipment?
facthunter Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Bonding materials /techniques. I'd get expert advice on that. There must be new materials available for home built. Check on repair procedures for the Sportstar. If you can repair them, you can build them. nev..
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 according to the tech manual, an aircraft that has been owner maintained can be used for hire or reward once it has been given a bill of good health from a L2. But must be L2 maintained from then on. Dont think its quite that straight forward, the typo of rego comes into play, and of course the type of rego is dtermined by who built it. If it starts with 19 then no hire and reward no matter what. if it starts with 24 then your statement is correct as I understand it. Andy
Guest brentc Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Correct Andy. Factory Built regos start with 24 25 32 55 Amateur Built 19 10 Can't remember about 28. Think it's factory but can't remember. Either way, you get the idea.
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