Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[hendonguy]

Seems a long investergation, a small plane hit a ferris wheel end off

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

hmmmm I suspect tolstoys war and peeace may well seem like a readers digest abridged version when that report comes out........ and like war and peace may well have been all the better for a reduction in verbage....

 

 

[dazza 38]

Most CFIT (in this case controlled flight into a ferris wheel ) ATSB investigations are 12 months long at least until the final report comes out. I dunno why.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I will add something.ATSB makes recommendations AFAIK.CASA do the charging.It is alledged (sorry, I have to say that to cover my backside) that the Ferris wheel was positioned in the runway splay. The Pilot shouldnt have anything to worry about IMO. He should be in the clear when all this mess is cleaned up.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

I received an email from Gary Morgan this morning with pictures of his latest factory built Cougar heading for WA. Looks fantastic.I didn't know how to post it so have spoken to Ian who will be doing it for me.

Also progress news on his new Motor Glider.

 

Alan.

Just FYI on the "factory built" the rego is 19 so no factory rego but very nice, and Gary , like many others including Pacific Ibis,is soldiering through the current mess of LSA and rego' s in oz left by our esteemed administration, like many other importers and builders who are at the mercy of poor understanding and administration by our administering authority, and perhaps some who have not correctly supplied and understood their requirements of self compliance in this brave new world.

 

 

[68volksy]

You're on the money their Ballpoint. Investigation has taken so long as it's uncovered many deep flaws in the RA-Aus "Factory Built" regime is my understanding. I also understand that RA-Aus, CASA and ATSB have had many long, detailed discussions about the matter. It's rumoured that the 24 registration is being changed to 19 on many aircraft and they're no longer being advertised as "Factory Built" but rather "Pre-owned kit built"?

 

The "Factory Built" idea was a good one but with little to no oversight of the "Factories" or the quality of their product it was always going to come apart in some way.

 

 

[Admin]

With my CT I could either register it LSA with 600kg MTOW and controlled by the factory OR 544kg MTOW and controlled by me and RAAus...both would have had the 24 rego so correct if I am wrong but are you all saying that some aircraft can ONLY be registered LSA and NOT 544? Because it seems the groundings of many aircraft all seem to be LSA registered ones (caveat, I am still asleep when typing this)

 

 

[68volksy]

No RA aircraft have been grounded - just a few of the recent "factory built" have changed rego from 24 to 19 prior to sale from what I hear. Mind you it's an aero club rumour so i'd treat it as such... I believe the discussions being had at the moment are all around the LSA/544 area.

 

 

[dazza 38]

True, but is doesnt help that people who have bought a aircraft with the aircrafts intended use is for it to be used in a flying school. RAA realy dropped the ball on this.Now unfortunately people have to suffer. Going from 24 to 19 rego, seems to me as a consolidation prize.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

True, but is doesnt help that people who have bought a aircraft with the aircrafts intended use is for it to be used in a flying school. RAA realy dropped the ball on this.Now unfortunately people have to suffer. Going from 24 to 19 rego, seems to me as a consolation prize.

Anyone buying a factory built LSA is vulnerable to this happening. If the factory goes bust, ceases trading or simply stops supporting a particular type then the Special CoA would be replaced by an Experimental CoA and the aircraft wouldn't therefore be able to be used for training. I'd guess its pretty unlikely that all the 100+ LSA manufacturers will survive in the medium / long term so this really should be a factor for anyone considering a new aircraft purchase especially if they plan to use it for training.

 

Perhaps some of the models from less established manufacturers might not be such a good buy ?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[68volksy]

Anyone buying a factory built LSA is vulnerable to this happening. If the factory goes bust, ceases trading or simply stops supporting a particular type then the Special CoA would be replaced by an Experimental CoA and the aircraft wouldn't therefore be able to be used for training. I'd guess its pretty unlikely that all the 100+ LSA manufacturers will survive in the medium / long term so this really should be a factor for anyone considering a new aircraft purchase especially if they plan to use it for training.Perhaps some of the models from less established manufacturers might not be such a good buy ?

 

Cheers

 

John

Good points John - especially with the flood of manufacturers coming through like you mention. LSA aircraft haven't really been adopted by the schools as trainers just yet - partly for those reasons but mostly because they have practicality issues for flight school use. The skycatcher for instance looks great but its useful load and fuel capacity has knocked it out of contention for most schools. If you're busy the last thing you need is having to refuel between every flight. More issues will no doubt come up with the whole being built "down" to a weight limit rather than "up" to a standard in my view also.

 

 

[djpacro]

.... If the factory goes bust, ceases trading or simply stops supporting a particular type then the Special CoA would be replaced by an Experimental CoA .....

not necessarily - CASA rules provide for some-one to step in and provide continued airworthiness support. I imagine it could work similar to the Airtourer Association.

[Teckair]

Rudder is too short.

I agree, you wouldn't want the CofG to get towards the rear with that setup.

 

 

[Camel]

I agree, you wouldn't want the CofG to get towards the rear with that setup.

I flew this plane (Black Morgan Cougar) with the owner and its handling characteristic are brillant at high speed and low speed. I have flown many other aircraft and it is a great handling aircraft with a very effective rudder, elevator and ailerons.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Hear Hear.

 

Alan.

 

 

 

[Mick]

LSA aircraft haven't really been adopted by the schools as trainers just yet

There are a large number of Jabirus registered LSA, I have seen several myself that are in use in schools. I am pretty sure that all J120's are LSA and most J230's as well.

 

 

[Mick]

With my CT I could either register it LSA with 600kg MTOW and controlled by the factory OR 544kg MTOW and controlled by me and RAAus...both would have had the 24 rego so correct if I am wrong but are you all saying that some aircraft can ONLY be registered LSA and NOT 544? Because it seems the groundings of many aircraft all seem to be LSA registered ones (caveat, I am still asleep when typing this)

Ian, alot of the aircraft registered LSA are only able to be LSA as they do not have a type certificate. That was one of the things that make LSA different and supposedly cheaper because manufacturers do not have to go to the expense of getting a type cert, they do however have to meet the criteria of the relevant ASTM's.

 

This is the reason aircraft are still going LSA after the std RAA category got the weight increase to 600kg that LSA had had since it's beginning.

 

 

[68volksy]

There are a large number of Jabirus registered LSA, I have seen several myself that are in use in schools. I am pretty sure that all J120's are LSA and most J230's as well.

Quite right - I was really talking of the GA schools I suppose. For recreational training they might have their place in some schools but it's a hard business case to spend $60-90k on a Jab compared to the same amount on a low hour Piper Warrior when you can be quite certain the Warrior will still be worth at least $50-60k after 20 years and 20,000 hours of training life. I don't see any LSA getting even close to these figures, let alone retaining good value...

 

The RA-Aus and LSA aircraft are, in my view, owners aircraft. Not many have been built that seem capable of 20,000 hours of training use.

 

 

[David Isaac]

We are waaaaayyyy off topic here boys ... LOL

 

 

[Teckair]

True, but is doesnt help that people who have bought a aircraft with the aircrafts intended use is for it to be used in a flying school. RAA realy dropped the ball on this.Now unfortunately people have to suffer. Going from 24 to 19 rego, seems to me as a consolidation prize.

Doesn't 19 rego have to be the at least 51% builder construction rule?

 

 

[Mick]

Doesn't 19 rego have to be the at least 51% builder construction rule?

Not in the E-LSA ( experimental ) category, which would have 19 rego.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Doesn't 19 rego have to be the at least 51% builder construction rule?

generally yes, however in this case I believe the wording used in the AGM reporting was to the effect that RAA has discussed this with CASA and CASA agreed, or mandated, the use of the 19 registration....in effect applying a "not withstanding" approach .....In fact I just loooked it up on the RAAus website (under news) Its in MIddo's report which talks about this whole subject (Bolded underlined sections are mine, as most relevant to this post)

 

Andy

 

Aircraft registration is our second core function. Unfortunately a problem in this area has impacted severely on the organisation and has soaked up a considerable portion of our available resources . The problem was apparently caused by a senior employee of the Association allegedly granting certification and / or manufacturing approvals which were beyond his power to authorise. These approvals went beyond anything that RA-Aus has power or delegation for and in fact some approvals as allegedly granted, went beyond the powers of CASA. When these events were discovered RA-Aus took immediate action to identify the size of the problem and to organise a fix as soon as possible. In the 72 hours following the identification of the problem every Light Sport Aircraft registration file along with files for all the other Australian manufactured aircraft from the same period, were all examined. A number of aircraft were grounded pending submission of missing certification documents required by the Technical Manual and the CASRs. Where it was only a paperwork problem these aircraft were back in the air as soon as the missing documentation was provided. However, in a small number of cases where aircraft could not show compliance with the Certification Regulations these aircraft have had their

 

Registrations changed from 24 prefix to 19. This change has been authorised by CASA.

 

Following that initial rushed check of the files, our Technical Manager and his assistant has revisited every aircraft file emanating from the time period in question. A number of anomalies have been identified and are being followed up. While the initial grounding of the aircraft was not undertaken lightly the Association had no choice as some of these aircraft were being used in flight training when in fact they could not show compliance against a recognised certification standard as required by the Regulations.

 

A breakdown of this magnitude by RA-Aus in the discharge of one of our core functions is a first. However decisive action by RA-Aus on becoming aware of the problem has satisfied CASA as to our ongoing competence. Likewise working with the owners and the affected manufacturers has eased the tension generated by the grounding of the aircraft.

 

This unexpected breakdown in our system along with ongoing litigation stemming from aircraft accidents has highlighted the need to review the functions presently performed by RA-Aus with a view to reducing our present exposure to risk.

 

Paul Middleton

 

RA-Aus Secretary

 

11 August 2012