720kgs

[Guest Crezzi]

"So in effect the aircaft that we're seeing in the skies registered as RAA aircraft today would essentially be the same aircraft after a weight change. What's the issue with that?"

 

If the weight limit is raised to (say 720kg) how long beforeplanes with a higher MAUW are registered with RAA. And won't theirowners | importers | manufacturers make exactly the same arguments to increase the limit still further ?

 

If one chooses to register a plane with the RAA thenone should accept the restrictions that go along with it (as well as the freedoms). If not, there are other alternatives. Sorry but I don't believe that negotiating for an increase in MAUW is the best use for the scarce resources of the RAA staff.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Prometheus]

The heavier aircraft you speak of are already on the register, and being used by RAA Pilots now. Would you please give some examples of aircraft that are as you say, already on the register.

 

Speaking with others, including RAA (some time ago), it appears that more than weight is under consideration. An increase in the stall speed is being looked at. Whatever changes will be made, well, we will have to wait and see. Hopefully we will know before the end of the year.

The Texan TC is one. Factory built to 600kgs MTOW.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Things change and evolve, how many machines are flying around today are 95.10 weight? Going heavier is a natural progression and will allow most of the plastic fantastic machinery to fly legally with the loads they carry.

 

 

[Guest Prometheus]

If the weight limit is raised to (say 720kg) how long beforeplanes with a higher MAUW are registered with RAA. And won't theirowners | importers | manufacturers make exactly the same arguments to increase the limit still further ?

John makes a good point with that. Can't argue with that logic!

 

Touché.

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

Personally, I'd like to see all single engine less than 5700kg MTOW

 

Used in private operations Looked after by RAAus.

 

Leave CASA with Commercial Operations.

 

 

We are allowed to dream a little!

 

Regards,

 

AusDarren

 

 

[Ben Longden]

That is not such a silly idea...

 

Makes a lot of sense to me.. but then I guess the Empire Builders and various pubes (public servants) will see it as a personal threat to their particular Kingdoms and not to the betterment of aviation, and they will do their utmost to ensure it never happens.

 

Once a cynic.....

 

Ben

 

 

[Guest Prometheus]

At first this seemed sensible to me also, but with further thought it would be a minefield for RAA to administer and we would be creating the "son of CASA".

 

Increasing the weight to cover anything less than 5700kgs opens up a can of worms with regard to NVFR &IFR. Moving anything that happens to be in this weight category over to RAA and divesting CASA of the responsibility also means taking on the pilots that fly them under current CASA regs. RAA would then possibly be covering IFR and NVFR pilots and aircraft.

 

Reading all the opinions of those member who frequent these forums, I'd have to agree that current regs should remain as they stand, perhaps a weight increase to 700kgs as proposed with no aim at all to deviate from what RAA is all about - Recreational Flying.

 

 

[poteroo]

Understood that the 720/750kg AUW proposal was driven by the fact that several European designs were already certified under JAR for the 750 weight. The intention was that they could be flown at the same weights under factory or kit built in RAA, as they can be in GA.

 

The thinking pilot will use the increased AUW to legally carry more fuel, up to full tanks,rather than pax and baggage - which must be a positive.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest AusDarren]

What is a Recreational Aircraft? Certainly There are design catagories and differing qualifications of Pilots, though what really matters is what can a particular Aircraft carry safely. An Aircrafts performance is not changed by Stenciling VH on the side; Yet the permissable MTOW certainly is in some cases.

 

We all know having a greater margins gives increased safety (performance), that may well keep you out of trouble.

 

I think of the Recent Crash of a C172 based out of Essendon, which was operating at night, over tiger country, in winter (icing?) with 4 Adults on Board.

 

I don't know how much fuel they had on take off, or how much if any bagage.. however there isn't that much performance margin in a 172.

 

add a few negitive factors and you may well push too far.

 

Very few piston Aircrcaft have a weight and balance check of "Can I shut the doors?" So in your particular operation, there are choices to be made, how much fuel, baggage, and or passengers..

 

However, what really matters, is what is safe for a particular Aircraft.

 

having Aircraft that easily can carry more than permitted, I think of the Jabiru J230- J430 here, in VH registration MTOW is 700kg yet if Registered RAA can be 544kg a difference of more than 150KG

 

Perhaps we would be better served if the CAO's specified the perfomance envelopepermited. and leave setting the MTOW to the manufacturer, or test what it really is as part of the certification process.

 

Just a little radical?

 

Regards,

 

AusDarren

 

(yes I do Pilot GA as well as RAAus)

 

 

[Yenn]

If RAAus took over aircraft up to 750 or whatever max weight then I would expect the pilots would not be able to do night VFR or IFR or enter controlled airspace just as we are restricted now. I have a PPL but only fly RAAus in a plane which could have been VH registered and I don't really regret it. I would like to be able to do aerobatics but can live without them and if I really need to indulge myself I can always upgrade the PPL. I wouldn't cost much, at least not in comparison with company directors fees nowadays. Unfortunatelt I am a pensioner.

 

Ian

 

 

[Guest Prometheus]

The comment I was referring to was.....

 

Personally, I'd like to see all single engine less than 5700kg MTOW Used in private operations Looked after by RAAus.

Leave CASA with Commercial Operations.

This would cause havock as "Private Operations" can also include IFR and NVFR.

 

 

[Guest Kitfox 4004]

Well I'm fairly new to this forum and also only about 2 to 3 years into this sport so I don't have a lot of experience but my impession of the situation at the moment is that a reasonable MTOW is very desirable. It means that at least new models will surely strive for such a figure. This then gives us a reasonable plane that will safely carry 2 slightly overweight people [ a lot of us are if we are honest ] plus a reasonable amount of luggage. To say in order to do this we can't then fill the tanks is ridiculous.

 

I remember when I bought my plane and was on the phone to Geoff Shepherd registering it [ as it had been registered GA ] he asked what the MTOW was and I had no idea at that time. I remember coming to the comment "Well whatever it is it must be able to carry 2 reasonable weight people and some luggage plus fill the tanks and if not why ?" I think low MTOW planes only invite overloading. It is better that planes are designed to be reasonable MTOW. How would you like to buy a car only to find you can't really use all the seats and fit some luggage and of course fill the tanks. If it has say four seats and a boot and a fuel tank you naturally assume you can put 4 people in, use the luggage space and then it's only natural you want to fill the tank. So why accept less in a plane ? It will just get overloaded at times and possibly be dangerous but if the manufacturer had had to meet a reasonable MTOW figure to be competitive in the market this may not happen.

 

I trained in a 430Kg Jabiru. My mate and I weigh a reasonable [ I think ] 90 Kgs each but with us in this plane it works out we can only carry 10 litres of fuel. Sorry but I think to make this plane is stupid. I know it's not stupid for it to have that MTOW now it's made. Consider though how many times one of these planes must get overloaded. This plane is now being sold due just to the fact of it's low MTOW. It would have been virtually useless had it not been for the instructor being only 70 Kgs. However I would think 544Kgs should generally address the problem satisfactorarilly. Yes I now several years later realise what MTOW is about butI don't think that overules my point.

 

Maintainence is another safety issue. Yes it might be nice to enforce everyone doing courses etc but access for country people etc would be a problem unless perhaps we could get Tafe courses by getting a trained lecturer that would go around the country to all the Tafe's in turn. Would that be possible ? If so then I think the government should cover the cost in the interestof safety and all pilots be compelled to either attend or else show they don't need to somehow.

 

Another suggestion is that our RAAus magazine should have a maintainence article in each issue. We need to be taught some basic things to start with. For instance how many realise that if you add an electric fuel pump [ that you consider a safety issue ] in series with the mecanical pump on the engine the fuel pressures are additive ? It would appear that at least one very well known manufacturer does not realise that as a lot of these planes leak fuel. Yes sure if you only turn the pump on in times of high demand it might be OK but what about wanting it on on final in case of a go around ? I guess it's just easier not to run a second fuel line forward.

 

Anyway whatever there is a need to educate us all in safety and maintainence for our own well being let alone somebody elses.