Guest basscheffers Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Hot off the press. So no 760KG, but likely will get 600. That should make some owners of capable aircraft quite happy! Also: we'll be allowed up to 10,000 feet (yay!) and allowed to stray 25nm from land, so a total of 50nm crossing. (again: yay!) The only cost seems to be PLB, which I can live with; wouldn't go flying without one. On the whole I will probably find this a positive outcome.
dunlopdangler Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Hot off the press. Getting there!! We now need to work with all stakeholders including CASA to get the 760KG matching the criteria of CS-JAR as I pointed out earlier for further choices of aircraft to be available for RAA flyers.
Guest Maj Millard Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Yes Ozzie I believe that was the case initially as a lot of the real early ULs did come directly from hanggliders IE: Easyrider, weight shift Eagle,weightshift Quicksilver MX, Mitchell wing, and Lazair which came from the foot launched Super Floater. It didn't last long though, but yes it was in the original FAR 103...............................
jetjr Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 600kg yes, but max stall is 45 kts?? These changes will only mostly help new AC wont they? Older ones looking for more weight will be prevented by 45kts stall. Anything newish will be 600kg LSA anyway unless home built. J160, J200 and other older designs dont make it. It will help old Cubs etc. Also wont this make LSA uneeded? Could read this as LSA AC just lost some value. ie I can buy a non LSA with no restrictions etc and have the still MTOW benefit. Am I missing something? JR
Mick Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Also wont this make LSA uneeded? Could read this as LSA AC just lost some value. ie I can buy a non LSA with no restrictions etc and have the still MTOW benefit. Am I missing something? JR The thing that will keep LSA alive is that many of the aircraft out there that are designed and built for LSA do not have a type certificate. To go standard Recreational the aircraft must have a type certificate, or are only type certified up the common European Ultralight limit of 450kg. Overseas manufactures will not see the Aussie market as being big enough to justify the cost of doing a type certificate to 600kg when they can sell to the LSA market without one.
HEON Posted October 14, 2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Am currently in the first of type situation negotiations with RAA and manufactuer on Super Petrel LS. Recommendations are to avoid LSA in Australia to which the factory is keen to do. Super Petrel LS is rated at 600kg MTOW with empty weight of 320kg. No advantage to go LSA 650kg over CAO 95.55 614kg MTOW (it's an amphibian!) with LSA liability, cost and modification restrictions. I currently have an LSA and beleave the increase of 56kg MTOW (non amphibian) make the classification questionable. When CAO 95.55 is altered, or Part 103 introduced (IF I live that long!) avoiding LSA if possible seems the way to go.
Guest sirius Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Does anybody know recflyingdotcomdotau posting on prune on this topic? He is trying to make a fool of RA-Aus and it's participants.
Al B Posted October 16, 2009 Author Posted October 16, 2009 Hopefully, if people ignore it it will go away.
dazza 38 Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Does anybody know recflyingdotcomdotau posting on prune on this topic?He is trying to make a fool of RA-Aus and it's participants. i dont know him, luckily, but he will be easy to spot, just look for the PPL pilot in the aeroclub with bars on his uniform HA HA. Seriously- doesnt he realize that, there is alot of people in RAA, who are also PPL,CPL, ATPL or RAAF -fighter jet jockies in our ranks. I just get realy annoyed when GA guys automatically think that they superior to us (how they come to this conclusion, i dont know). At least i upgraded my skills when i went from GA to AUF/RAA. I couldnt be happier
Yenn Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 They are superior to RAAus pilots. They are allowed to fly higher. Apart from that, judge them on their merits and you will find a lot of superior RAAus pilots and some definitely inferior GA pilots. I talked to one at Bundaberg when we arrived for the air show. He was severely frightened landing his tricycle gear plane in the cross wind on the bitumen strip, which I had landed my taildragger on just after him. I will admit that the grass strip should have been in use as it was directly into wind.
Guest ozzie Posted October 18, 2009 Posted October 18, 2009 Can anyone tell me who was the person (s) who proposed this and put it forward to CASA and what was the reasoning for it? just curious and don't have the time to wade back thru the magazines to search for it.cheers
Guest ozzie Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 interesting no one knows how this came about. maybe it's not needed afterall
jetjr Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Some of the new homebuilt kits have stalls below 45kts and can handle more weight (not 760kg though) I thought this was additionally to bring C150's into RAA catagory - hence 760kg not 750kg JR
Al B Posted October 21, 2009 Author Posted October 21, 2009 Hi Ozzie, Hasn't the 750kg thing been an RAA goal for years? AUF objectives was written back in '97 and mentions it.
Guest ozzie Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 wow that far back. being from the other end of the scales i've never really been interested so never paid to much attention. i still feel that the effort has been uttterly wasted the way it has just been pulled from consideration. again just one persons decision affecting many. wrong wrong wrong.
Guest kozmik Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I have been trying to follow this post and its threads but I am somewhat a little confused, the 750 kg weight increase was squashed months ago and it's the 600 kg increase from the 544 kg for amatuer built (RAA reg) that has been thrown out the window also. So planes like the J170, J230 etc are stuck at 544 kg and it is only if they are registered LSA that they will get their 600 kg or registered experimental/VH.
HEON Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Just to add some more numbers to the mix. Amphibians MTOW is 614kg UL and 650kg LSA!
Guest kozmik Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 The point I am making here members have been following this post believing the announcement made on the 9-10-09 to do with the Cancellation of CASA Project CS 06/01 – proposed MTOW increase for aircraft operating under CAO 95.55 the MTOW this refers to is 600KG not the 750KG. 750 went months ago. That puts those with J250 J170 and aircraft with the legal requiments to fly at 600kg some what ;;;;; as 600kg was supposed to be a done deal. If one happens to own a plane with an empty weight of 360kg plus on the RAA reg 600 would be handy and theres plenty out there that are. By saying I was some what confused, why are we discusing 750kg--600kg gone to.So if you need 600kg LSA is the only way and LSA reg is not as simple as it sounds.
Guest basscheffers Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Kozmik, can you give some more clarification? CS 06/01 seems to only state 750KG. OS 08/13 (Early implementation of certain proposed CASR Part 103 standards via CAO) does speak of the 600KG rule: Adoption of the CASR Part 103 proposals would slightly extend the range of aircraft covered by these CAOs by raising the weight limit for all aeroplanes, rather than just those certificated as a Light Sport Aircraft, to 600 kg for landplanes and 650 kg for seaplanes As far as I know, there has been no change to the rules for part 103 and project OS 08/13 seems alive and well. Indeed: in the communication from Andrew Ward (Project Manager OS 08/13) of September 17th and posted here on page 6 of this thread stated the following: RA-Aus had sought and CASA had issued a Discussion Paper (DP) about an increase up to a maximum of approximately 760 kg MTOW.However, it has been confirmed that the proposal will not be accepted and the alternative policy (600 kg) has been chosen. To me that sounds we are still on track to get 600KG for all aircraft that have a type certificate that says they are capable. Either with part 103, or via early implementation.
Admin Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 This may help...my notes from the last Board Meeting after McCormick say: >5,000ft - Yes 760kg - No...not yet 600kg - Yes Over Water - Yes Some CTA corridors will be looked at for safety CTA and other - looked at after April Aerobatics - No Aerial Work - No Hope this helps!
eastmeg2 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 This may help...my notes from the last Board Meeting after McCormick say: . . .Some CTA corridors will be looked at for safety . . . Hope this helps! Hi Ian, As far as CTA goes, if more G-Class VFR corridors through CTA, similar to Sydney's Victor-1 can be made available for coastal over-water-transit at places like, namely, Coffs Harbour, Gold Coast and Maroochydore then I think you'd find RAA requests for CTA would mostly evaporate. It would be a great step forward and a good win for RAA members. Slightly higher CLL between Bribie Island and Tangalooma resort (Moreton Island I think) wouldn't go astray either. Cheers, Glen
Guest Crezzi Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 As far as CTA goes, if more G-Class VFR corridors through CTA, similar to Sydney's Victor-1 can be made available for coastal over-water-transit at places like, namely, Coffs Harbour, Gold Coast and Maroochydore then I think you'd find RAA requests for CTA would mostly evaporate. I couldn't agree more especially past Coffs and Gold Coast. Maroochy at least has a pretty safe inland route. Slightly higher CLL between Bribie Island and Tangalooma resort (Moreton Island I think) wouldn't go astray either. Regretably its rather more likely that the current height will be reduced once Brisbanes 2nd runway opens Cheers John
Guest kozmik Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Basscheffers I hope I am wrong but there are a few of us that have looked at this but going by CS-6 on April 6 on the AUF states the following: 1. Extend the range of aircraft covered by CAO95.55 by raising the weight limit for all aeroplanes to 600 kg for landplanes and 650 kg for seaplanes — where a certification standard does not limit them to a lesser weight. A weight increase to 750/760 kg will not be implemented in CAO95.55. You will note that the 750/760 will not be implemented and that was April 6 and it is now October. Therefore the cancellation on October 9 relates to the 600 kg part of the proposal. There are many of us that have been banking on the 600kg part of the proposal so we are hoping we are wrong in deciphering the cryptic message on the AUF site.
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