Do you support the RAAus weight change to 760kg?

[Yenn]

Nev. I think a lot of people are afraid that GA planes will be transferred to RAAus, without a thorough examination, and then the owners will be able to maintain them without full knowledge of what should be done.

 

Can you explain exactly what examinations would have to be done and what qualifications are required for a maintainer. That may set our minds at rest.

 

 

[BLA82]

Nev,

 

I agree totally with MM's post and Yen's idea. I am sorry Nev I don't have your faith that these old buckets once it is not regulated will be serviced correctly. The aircraft we have now are simple to service so it is safe for owners or level 2's to do so but 30 year old crapped out GA planes that is different.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Actually when i looked at a few of the jabs and Gazzelles i realy did not see much difference between them and a GA type aircraft when it came to serviceing. the engine still requiered oil and filter change with a filte inspection a leakdown test for the cyls inspection of the accessories. the airframe was again similar maybe not so much for corrosion but f/,glass tube and fabric has their own things to look for. control systems are the same and instrumentation as well as the gear ect. so if you think that these so called ultralights don't need as much in the way of serviceing i'd have to say you are mistaken and putting yourself in harms way if you do't follow a proper procedure for maintaining them. engines are engines and airframes are airframes. don't really se any difference between the different groups.

 

i maintain my simple litlle Lazair to my own program that is very complete. and by what i've read here possibly to a higher stanard than what is requirered by the RAAus.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Nev, mate, you know i respect your opinion, ive never seen a poor post from you..

 

I am all for sticking together, and being one movement.. But mate, the simple fact is, a condition report on transfer doesn't mean jack in 2 years time when old Bob has been maintaing his 40 year old c152..

 

The cost's involved in maintaing these old birds is a direct result of the work needed to keep the things airworthy.. Be honest with yourself mate, is old bob going to do all that work if he doesn't have to???...

 

To be clear, i have no problem with older Ga acft being instroduced onto the RAA register, but i think allowances need to be made.. and age limit perhaps..

 

I have watched over shoulders as some "old bob" types attempt to maintain there RAA acft, and i wouldn't have them work on my car, let alone an aircraft i would be flying in.. Sorry if this offends, on the other hand ive seen absoultly pristine self maintaned acft getting around aswell...

 

Nev, you said, Quote" to where aeroplanes are hardly used and left out in the open, with the owners really not knowing what to do with a diminishing asset. Some of these aircraft would need a lot of money spent on them, or might be close to being beyond economical repair, in the normal repair situation."

 

But with the new weights coming in they could just flog them cheaply to "old Bob" the RAA guy..

 

You also said we need to mature and see the big picture.. Isn't the problem ive raised part of the big picture, if you think it isn't , then i can't say any more.

 

cheers

 

 

[Captain]

I voted in the positive, but do have a concern that this little step in weight might trigger additional regulation and that would not be good or welcome (or necessary imho).

 

I have faith that the RAA would be covering this issue, and I am actually more worried that some of the other licence endorsements might do more than the weight increase to get big-brother more onto our backs.

 

Just my little 2 c worth.

 

 

[facthunter]

Reply.

 

Thanks Captain. I agree.

 

Merv, I don't see how you can believe someone who is suggesting we all look at the big picture can be accused of having "his head in the sand". Why do we have to get personal? I am putting a point of view which essentially suggests we deal with the facts. You "cherry-pick" my post(s). I would be happier if the points I raise were dealt with in context, in all fairness, that's not too much to ask, is it? Nev..

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No nev, its not to much to ask. And i appolagise..

 

You asked why the beat up (by some) so i was attempting to answer..

 

i will modify my post..

 

Sorry again..

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Nev,I agree totally with MM's post and Yen's idea. I am sorry Nev I don't have your faith that these old buckets once it is not regulated will be serviced correctly. The aircraft we have now are simple to service so it is safe for owners or level 2's to do so but 30 year old crapped out GA planes that is different.

You know I struggle to understand this issue and I know that Nev and my thinking is similar let me try and talk you through my thinking:-

 

C150 style = simple aeroplane, metal skinned, simple 4 cyl motor fixed pitch prop high wing, typical performance same as Ultralight style

 

Existing Ultralight fleet already accepted into RAA = simple aeroplane, some metal skinned, simple 4cyl motor, fixed pitch prop, high wing, typical performance same as C150 style.

 

So what exactly is the difference? well lets look at them:-

 

1) Ultralight fleet is probably younger in general. Repair and overhaul understanding for corrosion issues is probably not understood. However given that the onus for inspection and repair sits entirely with the owner operator there is a variability issue around our ability to identify and understand if corrosion becomes a problem within the fleet as it ages. Ideally its best to understand their is an issue before the main spar fails in flight

 

2) GA fleet has been maintained in a formal way. corrosion is well understood because of the years of experience and in the same way that a motor vehicle inspectionin NSW would always result in Brand X having a corrosion problem identified for model Y in the door piller for example the same is well understood in the GA fleet.

 

So, somehow people seem to me to be saying newer fleet is much better than a life of formal and qualified inspection and repair. I would suggest that argument, if its true, and I dont believe it is, has a very definite use by date and I would suggest its way before our existing fleet gets to the same age as the "buckets" we are discussing... Surely no body could argue that formal inspection and repair by qualified professionals is from a technical outcomes perspective worse than DIY. When cost is factored Im sure there is an appropriate breakeven point.

 

Bottom line for me, if I was asked to choose to fly a 30year old 150 series machine that is on the GA register, or a 10yr old metal ultralight that lives its life next to the coast, realistically, depsite both risks being small I'll choose the 150 series machine every time.

 

Once both are on the RAA register then the same forces around DIY are at play. Age then will have an impact on future corrosion issues but no more or less than the equivalent Ultralight machines assuming that somehow the likelyhood of corrsion is similar in both.

 

Andy

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Andy, no-ones arguing that point.. Its not what's been done in the past, but whats going to be done in the future that is of concern. 30 years of good quality maintainace can easily be ondone by 2 years of DIY ..

 

Would you choose the 30 year old cessna if for the past 2 years it had never had an engineer look at it??? only "old Bob" saying, she'll be right mate...honestly??

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy, no-ones arguing that point.. Its not what's been done in the past, but whats going to be done in the future that is of concern. 30 years of good quality maintainace can easily be ondone by 2 years of DIY ..Would you choose the 30 year old cessna if for the past 2 years it had never had an engineer look at it??? only "old Bob" saying, she'll be right mate...honestly??

So I have "old Bob" owner of the 150 series machine saying she'll be right and I have "Old Tom" owner of the 10yr old RAA Technam (for example) saying she'll be right. In the end it comes down to how much I know about Tom or Bob and or how much I trust what they say doesnt it, and honestly not much about the Aircraft given that the 150 came across in an airworthy state? To further that example I have a choice of an aircraft that was last known airworthy 2 yrs ago vs one that was last known airworthy 10yrs ago..... where "known" in this case discounts Bob or Tom because best case they both exactly follow the manufacturers servicing guidlines, or worst case they have both completely ignored them. In DIY its probably the case that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

In fact to prove just that point have a look at Jabiru's latest AD re cooling which states words to the effect of "due to poor compliance with published instructions we again issuing another AD" (which pressumably will also be ignored by the same bunch that ignored it previously).

 

Andy

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes, point taken.. But for mine, i'd rather the 10 year old acft over the 30 year old one, that wasn't designed to still be flying all these years later..

 

I smell what ya cooking though..:thumb_up:

 

 

[facthunter]

Age.

 

Age is one thing, condition is another. The environment that the aircraft operates in, and whether it is hangared. rather than the years since it was built, is what counts.. The hours in the air count also, but we are talking about fatigue and cracking, rather than corrosion there. Again the lighter the structure, the more inspection and care required to keep it in service.

 

Also the corrosion protection on Al skinned ultralights appears to be non-existant, (due to cost saving and the weight penalty.) and the gauge of the skin is much lighter than the heavier types, so who knows what life they can be expected to have.

 

There are Piper Commanche airframes built in the 60's that are still OK after 15,000 hours, because they were designed and put together properly. The same company did not maintain the quality with some Cherokee models and they have corrosion problems. (later ones are better).

 

Salt water /beach environment. I would suggest could reduce the life to less than ONE year with unprotected Al skinned ultra lights, and a lot of us like to land on the sand or fly near the coast, or aspire to fit floats. Would you like to purchase a nice shiny second-hand, "tin whatever", and find that it would hardly be good enough to stick up a mast near the gate of your farm? Hardly, but it could happen . Nev..

 

 

[BLA82]

Guys,

 

I can see what you are saying and in a perfect world yes you are right but you are missing the point. There are people on here saying that they are tried and tested models with 30 years trouble free use BLAH BLAH BLAH. But the fact of the matter is people will buy these because they are CHEAP and CHEAP for a reason. GA owners can't be bothered servicing them anymore because they are to costly and as MM stated Old Bob who was a engineer in the 70's and who's claim to fame is keeping his 1980's falcon running all these years now has the opportunity to maintain his own cessna or similiar. DISASTER!!! At least with the new types yes no-one really knows how good they are but there is alot more guys servicing them themselves with little issue. And if you think that the whole thing of they are both metal skinned, fixed pitch prop, high wing, simple 4cyl so whats the difference idea thats exactly the attitude that will bring this idea down

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Guys,I can see what you are saying and in a perfect world yes you are right but you are missing the point. There are people on here saying that they are tried and tested models with 30 years trouble free use BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Yep I have no issue with subscribing to that view.... which part of it do you believe is wrong AND why

 

But the fact of the matter is people will buy these because they are CHEAP and CHEAP for a reason. GA owners can't be bothered servicing them anymore because they are to costly and as MM stated Old Bob who was a engineer in the 70's and who's claim to fame is keeping his 1980's falcon running all these years now has the opportunity to maintain his own cessna or similiar. DISASTER!!!

They are cheap simply because of supply and demand there is plenty of supply. I suggest that too costly is mostly founded in labour cost for professional people.

 

Now lets look at "Old Bob" please tell me why DIY for a 150/152 is harder that say a technam.... As a former RAAF Aircarft tech I struggle to identify sufficient difference between the 2 aircraft to understand why DIY for one is DISASTER yet DIY for the other is the best thing since sliced bread. Please identify why one is OK and the other not?

 

At least with the new types yes no-one really knows how good they are but there is alot more guys servicing them themselves with little issue. And if you think that the whole thing of they are both metal skinned, fixed pitch prop, high wing, simple 4cyl so whats the difference idea thats exactly the attitude that will bring this idea down

So if there is a difference between maintaining a 30yr old Cessna and a Technam (again only as an example) please tell me what it is because they truely arent that different, Ok, motors come from a different manufacturer, arguably the Rotax is more complicated and modern than the beast fitted to the cessna, but after that any differences you can identify I can probably find similar differences just within the RAA fleet.

 

The bottom line is this:-

 

If the aircraft is maintained to CASA requirements and manufacturers guidlines and operating event limitations (hrs / cycles etc) then there is no reason, other than cost, for it not to stay within GA. And staying within GA means it has a current CoA and therefore by your definition a certified airworthy bucket!

 

If it comes across to RAA then if you spend the same $ you can achieve exactly the same outcome. As you choose to cut the $ spent you move further and further away from that position. Both of those statements equally apply to any aircraft within the RAA register its that simple.

 

Using MM's concept 2yrs of nothing undoes 30yrs of careful maintenance. That concept does not apply soley to 30 yr old cessnas its as equally applicable to any aircraft in the RAA fleet today.

 

Now, the reality is, like cars, a 30yr old car if not maintained is more likely to bite you than a new car that isnt maintained. The issue isnt the age its simply the "not maintained bit" and if we are really worried about the "not Maintained" bit what are you doing with RAA to have this aspect addressed? Even if we are successful at keeping the buckets out its probably only a few more years before we have our own "buckets" and Id suggest well before 30years if the "not maintained" aspect is the issue?

 

I cant help but think we are treating a symptom by reacting to these older aircraft rather than an underlying cause of shoddy maintenance on cost or simply "couldntbef#kd" grounds. After all thats what I read in your post you suspect that required maintenance wont be done...

 

Andy

 

 

[BLA82]

Andy,

 

I can see your point but I am still of the belief that the idea of the supply an demand is the reason for the low cost is just wrong.

 

If there were thousands of spare planes available to purchase I would say yes but there isn't.

 

MM comment on 2 years can undo 30 in relation to old GA planes other than 2 years non maint is not correct.

 

It's a case of if somthing is used,maint,used,maint,used,maint for 20 years than all of a sudden is used every two weeks for maybe 3 hours and serviced 3 times a year IT"S GONNA BREAK.

 

You only need to look at the simple Taxi, it can be good for 300,000km's being used every day than all of a sudden it gets sold and driven as a run around and you have leaks, parts breaking etc.

 

A machine that has consistently been used and then all of a sudden sidelined will break down.

 

And as far a the comment of the can'tbef????? comment yes that is what will happen as no-one will know how to look after these types.

 

I can see the idea being suitable for bringing old types over like cubs and the likes but they are always owned by motivated owners who maint is one of their priorities.

 

As I said it should be a case by case basis.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Well put Andy, and for the most part i agree..

 

The only point where i differ is the age thing.. You asked what the differance is, well, your a techy dude, ask one of your engineer buddies to show you the manufacture's 100 hourly check schedule for say, a 1965 cessna 152.. He will no doubt produce a folder as thick as choppers criminal record.. My 1 and only concern is, will old Bob do all those checks.. The checks that cost the old GA owner upwards of 6 or 7 grand EVERY 100 hours.. Will Bob do it all??

 

I take your point that he's just as unlikely to do the checks on his tecnam.. But, the list provided by the tecnam manufacturer is probably only a page, or half a page..i don't know.. But i have seen the required schedule for a 65 cherokee (that i regularky fky mind you) and its a duzzey..

 

I am all for a weight increase... This point is my only concern..

 

cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

Over the top.

 

Merv, do me a favour will you. Put your introspective cap on, re-read all your posts on this thread, and realise how beautifully your "over the top" throw-away lines have provided some journalist(s) with all the material they need to shoot us down completely. They can quote your descriptions as coming from within the organisation. Nev.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The only point where i differ is the age thing.. You asked what the differance is, well, your a techy dude, ask one of your engineer buddies to show you the manufacture's 100 hourly check schedule for say, a 1965 cessna 152.. He will no doubt produce a folder as thick as choppers criminal record..

I’ve never argued that isn’t the case, I absolutely accept that the older it gets the more maintenance is required, however while that work is done it will remain airworthy. The fundamental question, which hasn’t changed since my last post, is will "old bob" do the maintenance. clearly under GA rules he has no choice. Within RAA he has the same obligations, but differing sets of governance.... So we are back at the "will it actually get done point"

 

With regard to the 30yr maint schedule being thick as a book vs Technams 1 page. My question is, which no one is actually answering..... What is the fundamental difference between the 2 aircraft types. Why then, if my assertion that there is very little difference is correct, is the technam schedule only one page? Perhaps a more pertinent point is, when a technam has been flying for 30yrs (assuming that they actually get there....) will a lifetime of experience, AD's and manual revisions mean that its still 1 page?? I seriously doubt that it will be one page and wonder if 30yrs is a bridge too far.

 

The real point that everyone comes back to, is that there is an age difference and as a result of that age difference the maintenance requirements are different. I agree that is true but is not at the root of the issue it is merely a symptom of something else (intent to follow manufacturers guides and good airworthiness practises).

 

Regarding supply and demand.... other posts within the forum say that the 150 series machines are relatively cheap and readily available. As a 230 owner I spend virtually no time looking at 152's so if you say they aren’t readily available then I cant argue from a position of knowledge.

 

Anyway.....at this point we've drawn the line, each agrees that there are some points of validity in each others arguments but I don’t see much more value to continuing. Given Nevs point above which is a risk. Trouble is to identify any problem and collaboratively identify a possible solution requires clear and open communications. If we cant do that for fear of someone twisting our words then are we doomed to just waiting for issues to happen, wringing our hands while we wait?

 

Maybe we need a subforum that requires an active membership to one of the governing bodies to participate... although how that would be enforced and policed while not further taking time from Ians non existant family life is beyond me..

 

Ian / Slarti do the web crawlers go over all forums. In other words will a carefully crafted google search produce a cached version of this discussion in a months time?

 

Andy

 

 

[gofastclint]

Regardless of anyone's opinions, we all want to pay less in the long run and we want more freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. stay out of the spot light and learn to be humble. Arguing just to be right without results is what teenage girls do.

 

We all would welcome a weight change if it keeps prices the same, If anything less fees would be great.

 

Self control is an art.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Gee, talk about ruffling feathers.. Excuse me for having an opinion.. I thought thats what forums were for, shareing of "opinion" and discusion.. Apparently not. No anti establishment discusion aloud for fear of someone getting wind of something that may or may not cause safety issues in the future..

 

I''l shutup now, and we can all go back to discussing lollipops and rainbows..

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

Ok I'll buy in now!

 

The difference between a 30 yr old Cessna 150 and a 10 year old Jab/Tec/shiny plastic thing is that the Cessna has been bashing around a Circuit being thrown into the ground 8 times an hour for probably 10 to 15,000 hours. Training aircraft are the most abussed aircraft in the world - Thats what they are designed for - to teach students what not to to do! So every bit of that aircraft has that wear and tear placed apon it. Yes I know alot of the aircraft has been replaced over the years but the bulk of the airframe is still the same that came out of the factory many years ago.

 

These aircraft (and aircraft in general) are not designed to be flying in 30 years time. This is a fact look at what cessna did with the SIDS program (google Cessna SIDS it basicaly says.. whoops these things shouldn't be flying with the limited maintinace we requrie) I currently fly aircraft that are pushing 50 years old and they are stupidly expensive to maintain and require alot of knowledge about the aircraft and its history something that most RAA pilots do not have.

 

I am not against change and I haven't read a post from anyone that is! BUT we must make sure we are ready to be able to handle what this change will bring to the RAA and I am sorry but I just don't think we are ready to deal with these older aircraft YET!

 

 

 

[BLA82]

I think Adam has hit the nail on the head,:thumb_up::thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

No more needs to be said and MM I think there is a few people that need to realise that we listen to their opinions so the should give us the same respect.

 

Just because they have so called "knowledge" doesn't mean they are correct so there is no need to shut up, as said forums are for discussion.

 

Self Control hasn't been an issue on this thread

 

 

[skybum]

It's painfully obvious you guys all resemble whippets!

 

Ever care to think about anyone that weighs more than 90kg and wants to fly RAA with an instructor or passenger?

 

Fuel range, the ability to carry some basic tools as well as safety gear and a bit more than a change of underpants is a good operational goal.

 

Every RAA type I want to fly I have to break the law if I carry another body.

 

There is more to this argument than just politics of allowing GA types on the register.

 

 

[Yenn]

Hey Skybum. It is not only RAAus aircraft that don't suit the over 90kg pilots.

 

My plane was not allowed onto the AUF register until a few years ago and a lot of Corby Starlets are still GA registered. No good if you are over 80kg, or 1.9m tall or need to carry any luggage. But they are so nice to fly that if you can fit in one they are the way to go.

 

I gave up looking like a whippet several years ago, maybe more like a poodle now, especially with the baldy areas instead of hair.

 

 

[skybum]

Yenn...my type of guy! I am shuddering to think what breed I belong to, mungrel bred mountain cur of dog that won't come when called;-)