Al B Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Home "Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. (RAAus) has asked CASA to establish a new legislative project to increase to 750 kg the maximum take-off weight for aircraft operating under the current CAO 95.55. CASA's CEO has indicated he has no objection in principle to an increase in the maximum weight, but that CASA would need to consult more broadly with the aviation community and assess any risks before legislative change could take place." Project Closure Notes Project closed 9 October 2009. CASA has decided not to proceed with this project."
Guest ozzie Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 so 3 years of run around now concludes with 'zip'. my grand dad had a saying that would sum up this lot. (casa) "as useless as tits on a bull!"
Thx1137 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Kill the project because it "may be controversial for other sectors of the aviation community". Hmmm. And three years and they didn't consult with the "other sectors of the aviation" to find out if it _IS_ controversial?! After reading lots of negative stuff about CASA I thought, no, make up my own mind. Except for the safety roadshows, so far so bad.
Guest Cloudsuck Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I think that this CEO has shown his colours. He does not appear to be a big fan of RAAus. Time to start writing to our local federal members. How about 10,000 faxes to the minister's office.
Guest 1134581 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 without being the bad boy here some of CASA's objections are actually fully founded
Guest ozzie Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 i've lost count of how many CEOs, Directors and name changes have come and gone over the last 35 years i've been playing this game. this servant of the crown is no different from all the rest, they roll in under huge fan fare, make a lot of noise, toss out a lot of hard work, spend a bucket load of our cash to rebrand the image then when they discover it is a lot harder and that deep down the entire aviation comunity really and truely hate their guts they either run off or fall foul of political knifing. shall we run a poll on how long before this guy grabs the cash and runs? I can't help but think that this is payback for somethig that someone has said or done. 'tomorrow the world' maybe??
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Hey I hate to be the bad boy also, and yes, I am reaching for the flak jacket !. Do we really need 750 kg ?...or is it just a high-end manority that wants it, or needs it ?. We have 650 kg don't we, where's the challange gone of keeping it light ?, which, as those who have designed and built will know, takes more skill and brainpower than building heavy ! Where's it stop ?...personally I'm quite happy with 650 when I only need 540 anyway, and I believe there are more important things we could persue to our future benifit....................................................................
Guest ozzie Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I was completely against this increase at the beginning. But it was presented for consideration and therefore it is the absence of due and correct process as to whether or not it is implemented that annoys me. It should not be put down to the whime of one person. due process is the democatic way. deciding not to procede is not due process.
HEON Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Price of 150's and 152's etc now in free fall!. Am at the age where one knows that one of the hardest things to do is make a decision...CASA is too old!
sain Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 .:Puts on flame proof underderps:. Gets up my not particularly reasonable nose i'm afraid... If you want to fly a J230 as a 700kg MTOW aircraft nobody is stopping you.. simply register it as a GA Experimental and awaaaaaaay you go. Of course you need a GA license for that, and to comply with all those pesky GA rules and regulations, like medicals and so forth. If you want to fly with less personal restrictions, but more restrictions on your aircraft then do so.... if you want to fly GA, then go do that...
Thx1137 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 without being the bad boy here some of CASA's objections are actually fully founded I am sure they are however I would expect to see some reasoning other than that provided. As for if we need it. I don't but that isn't the point. If I get told "no" I want to know why whether it be CASA or my mother! And saying that others might object is a rubbish reason. At least give them the opportunity to _actually_ object.
facthunter Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 750/760 Kg weight. This is a bigger loss than it might appear to firstly, the owner builders of the future, and to australian built aircraft like the Brumby and possibly the Lightwing swift and maybe stuff from Aistralian aircraft kits, too. The LSA road is not attractive. I won't elaborate here, but for those who have gone into it, there seems to be general agreement. Most build figures for a 2-seat airframe come in at 340 Kg MINIMUM. unless you build very light or use sophisticated materials like carbon fibre. A WEIGHT LIMIT can be counter-productive from the safety point of view because the structural strength is compromised. From the pilot skill required the slightly heavier machine will be easier to fly (more inertia and accept harder landings. Training application) You can use a greater range of engines, including some automotive types and the smaller LYC. & Continental Getting to the usefullness of the heavier machine. The maths. Basic weight 340 Kgs. Two crew (lets be realistic here.) 170 - 200 + Fuel for 4 hours plus reserves. 100........ Tie-downs and baggage..............60.. about 670 KGs minimum. There seems to have been a fair bit of concern about some older , particularly cessna 150 type planes. Where an individual aircraft is in a poor condition structurally, it should be subject to inspections appropriate to the risk and the necessary repairs effected. This MUST happen to these aircraft regardless of which "authority" they operate under. Aircraft operating near (or on) SALT water could deteriorate in a very short time if not designed/ prepared/ serviced properly. would there be any difference, in principle. SOMEONE will build these aircraft (and fly them). If it is not to be the RAAus. WHY, when it seemed to be a goer a little while back. I got the impression the CASA was all for it and that the 760 limit was their idea. It is not just enough to withdraw an expected change without some indication of why. Most of us are far from being little kids. (And don't like being treated as such). If the standard has been found wanting, let's discuss that. IF there have been some "naughty" boys (or girls) let's discuss that also. I think we are big enough to cope surely. The fact that NOTHING is being said has me a bit concerned. Nev
HEON Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Facthunter 's maths right on the ball. Took cross Australia trip last year two up and payload was 265kg. Cannot see how to change this by much. Thus most would be over MTOW doing this. Leaving legals side, over MTOW in lightly constructed aircraft MUST reduce the reserve strength if you hit an air pocket etc. Most 4x4's that go through the centre are over weight; they have their wheels on the ground if they break. Again reason and common sense have eluded CASA...how typical:kboom:
Guest redleader Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 What is the reason for the jabiru 230 only being certified to 600kg? is that to fit into the lsa category? Or just the flight testing wasn't done to 700kg? cause I have often thought why jabiru did it that way. Cause at 700kg that 230kg looks awesome for payload, range all that stuff. 600kg not so much
mAgNeToDrOp Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Its do do with the stall speed, at 700 kg it won't stall within the limits for raaus
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I am assuming our elected leaders in RA Aus know more on this, and will speak soon ??? if not , why not ?............................................................................................
Guest redleader Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 the blindly obvious again. thanks for that :)
Guest Cloudsuck Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 We may be jumping at shadows here. I have just read the web site and all it is saying is that the project of examining the weight increase has closed. The way I see it is this, RAAus want 760kg MTOW, CASA do a project to check it's feasibility. Once the project is finished, it is closed and findings are then announced at a later time. This is not an unusual practice for government departments. By announcing that the project is closed may not mean that it has been canned, they have just completed looking into the matter. Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Project CS 06/01
Al B Posted October 12, 2009 Author Posted October 12, 2009 Cloudsuck, I hope you're right... but "CASA has decided not to proceed with this project" Seems pretty straightforward to me. It seems to me that given the years of RAA lobbying, massive amount of member input, and overloading CASA's discussion paper with responses, we are justified to hear something more then "yeah we're not doing that now". Same with the controlled airspace endorsement. Both of these decisions deserve a proper reply explaining why CASA has changed their minds. Also, if it's because of certain problems with the RAA membership, what steps we can do to rectify things. My personal opinion is it almost sounds like someone has a grudge against the RAAus.
Thx1137 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 We may be jumping at shadows here. I have just read the web site and all it is saying is that the project of examining the weight increase has closed. Thats true. What I don't like is the ambiguity and to me, the implication that it was closed because some people might not like it. I always have to deal with people who are supposed to provide explicit guidelines and rules but instead leave holes that we can drive a planet though. The older I get the more it bugs me :-) To me there is a simple template: 1. Describe the request 2. Document the high level process used to investigate the request 3. The investigation findings 4. The result determination 5. The next step (acceptance process, appeals, etc) It tends to remove guesswork for those "not in the loop". Without it, people assume the worst. And are often justified in doing it...
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Yes your right Al B, instead of slowly dissappearing like they wanted, we"ve multiplied !! and we have real nice planes now too !............................................................
dunlopdangler Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Guys..guys don't jump on the negative outcome too early, as Cloudsuck rightly pointed out, CASA has merely closed the examination of granting the weight increase application and in their reasoning have no problems in granting the increase....as they state in their release Quote: "The current requirements for operating aircraft under CAO 95.55 restrict the MTOW to 544 kg for most certificated aircraft and 600 kg for light sport aircraft (LSA). Currently, the design standard for CS VLA (formerly known as JAR VLA) allows aircraft to be designed up to a MTOW of 750 kg. This design standard is acceptable under CAO 95.55 provided the weight does not exceed 544 kg or 600 kg depending on the aircraft category. CASA believes that there would be no adverse safety impact by operating these aircraft with increased weight provided the aircraft are certificated to a suitable standard that allows up to 750 kg (such as CS VLA). However, it is expected that the increase in the MTOW for RAAus operations may be controversial for other sectors of the aviation community and CASA needs to undertake a broad and proper consultative process through this project." So they are looking at the overall methods involved in how to impliment regulatory and administrative issues with all stakeholders..It will take a while and I would imagine this time next year at the earliest (at a guess) And for those who aren't aware of the new JAR standard: (compliments of wikipedia, hence all the "W's") EASA CS-VLA is the European Aviation Safety Agency Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft. The Very Light Aircraft or VLA aircraft certification category introduced in 2003 by the EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) is intended to make it easier and less costly to get full European certification of a general aviation aircraft. The somewhat relaxed certification procedure is available for aircraft satisfying the following criteria: A single engine with spark or compression ignition (i.e. no jets). One or two seats. Maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of not more than 750 kg. Stall speed in the landing configuration (VS0) of no more 83 km/h (45 knots). A CS-VLA aircraft is not certified for aerobatics and may be flown under daylight visual flight rules only. so hang in there and make sure you and your aircraft are correctly licenced and enjoy what we currently have.
Guest becky1 Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Hi Guys, Im just curious,I put in a post in the announcements and site news recently,re the dinner with John McCormick,asking if anyone had any specific questions that they would like to know in reference to CASA decisions and the organises of the dinner could maybe ask him to comment in his speech,however I did not get one reply,which is fine,maybe you think that is all boring,but then on the other hand, everyone is getting very vocal in this thread and have done so also in previous threads re weight increases CTR endorsements etc. As RAA members and pilots we are getting the opportunity at this dinner to listen to the CEO of CASA give their reasons for a decision being made which may be better then just a lot of speculation and assumptions which may or may not be warranted. Sure I know not everyone can travel to Noosa to hear John speak,but if you can, why not come and find out what is CASA is thinking and if you can't then go back to the announcements and site news and give us some thoughts on what you want to know and then perhaps we may all end up with a better idea of what the future holds for us. Jennifer
Guest redleader Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Under current LSA rules it is limited to 600kg MTOW. The J230 stall @ MTOW of 600 kg is"only" 40 kts and the J430 is said to have a 45 kt stall at 700 kg MTOW.So, the only thing stopping the J230 from being RA-Aus registered at MTOW 700 kg is the CASA 600kg limit for LSA. Ok thats what I would have thought too but then why does jabiru then have the 230 listed at 600kg as a vh registered? is that cause of the lsa limit? oooo I think i just answered my own question.. I didn't have the figures for the stall so was taking what you guys had. Cause the more i look at that jabiru 230kg. At 700kg it is sure a class leader. Was just trying to find the reason it is limited to 600kg. It being that i think it was certified to the lsa limit while the structure is able to cope with 700kg. Which in vh registered would need to be certified as experimental as it hasn't gone through all the higher limit certification process like the far23 certification process. its late and i am rambline so who knows if this makes any sense.
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