Pacific Ibis Grounding

[Mick]

Should we stay away from their products?

 

so is it only the dodgy a/c owners that are made aware of problems?

Guys please be aware that this is purely a paperwork issue and before you go speculating about the quality of this aircraft please consider what damage you may contributing to the reputation of what is a good product and also what damage you could be doing to the owner of the agency and his business.

 

Please remember that the agent has no responsibility to advise this forum or anyone other than the aircraft owners of the details of this problem. He honored his duty of care by advising owners in very short time and since then has been working with the authorities to resolve this issue ASAP.

 

 

[Mick]

I have never suggested any view regarding the airworthiness of the a/c...this suspision was created by bilbys' post.

So how do you justify the use of the word "dodgy" in this post by you?

 

so is it only the dodgy a/c owners that are made aware of problems?

Are you refering to the aircraft as dodgy or the owners of them?

 

 

[Mick]

sorry Mick...didn't realise u are so touchy......

CFIC, if I come across as "touchy" on this it is because I am seeing the human side of these problems.

 

The agent for the Ibis is a great mate of mine and in fact up until this sh#t hit the fan on Friday we had planned on getting together Friday night for a few quite drinks & to catch up. I still flew to Maryborough for the weekend but ended up staying with other friends so as to allow him to focus on the problem.

 

As a friend I am seeing the stress this issue is causing a person who sold aircraft in good faith, only to have this happen.

 

As I mentioned in an above post, he also uses the Ibis in a busy flying school that can now not function and earn an income whilst the bills will not stop coming in.

 

I would also like to point out that RAAus had approved the type for registration here in Australia prior to Pacific Ibis taking on the agency, it was originally accepted as a type when being imported by Bert Flood prior to Bert's passing.

 

 

[metalman]

This is directed at no one in particular but just about all the Internet heroes here,

 

1 the guy who brings these aircraft in is a very honorable guy who is facing a really tough time ,along with his customers

 

2 he doesn't have to report to ANYONE about his issues ,apart from the people directly effected

 

3 I've got a few hours in the Ibis and they're a nice honest aircraft, with a good build quality.

 

4 I posted a bit about this answering specifics and copped it.

 

5 there IS NO CONSPIRICY here ,so get over it and get back to bashing the RAA board.

 

6 if I've given you my Phone number have the guts to talk to me instead of writing crap on forums

 

Cheers Met ;-)

 

Just read another post WHAT MESS ! Are posting about a lot of speculative stuff on a forum or actual mess the Ibis guys are dealing with???

 

(Moderated for use of foul language (rules 2.8 and 4.9) - Ian)

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy the Ibis ( specific subject of this thread ) is not registered LSA, it is registered standard Recreational.

Mick I wasnt making any judgement just reporting as I recall at yesterdays AGM.

 

I dont claim that reporting to be 100% accurate there was a hell of a lot of ground covered yesterday and the discussion around this issue was nothing to do with IBIS (as infered before, type wasnt even discussed) more about "How the hell did this happen? How can we assure it wont happen again?" The answers were all about future and didnt give clarity that anyone could walk away and say "well we've seen the last of these issues". Detailed review of existing aircraft registration would seem to be ongoing where a previous 100% check was more high level review to pick out the obvious

 

errors and/or missing documentation.

 

Sorry if I made any mistakes it was certainly not my intent to damage anyones busines and or integrity.

 

Andy

 

 

[Mick]

Mick I wasnt making any judgement just reporting as I recall at yesterdays AGM.Sorry if I made any mistakes it was certainly not my intent to damage anyones busines and or integrity.

 

Andy

Hey Andy, no worries. I was not infering any judgement on your part, not having a go at you either.

 

Most of the reporting of the recently exposed problems of this nature have been with LSA aircraft, I just wanted to point out to everyone this problem is totally unrelated to LSA as the Ibis is registered standard Recreational, hence the problems run deeper than some may think.

 

 

[bilby54]

bilby needs to modify his/her posting style...You cannot say.."RA-Aus has grounded all Pacific Ibis aircraft from 1138 today."....without the supporting evidence/ rationale

 

.

 

I have never suggested any view regarding the airworthiness of the a/c...this suspision was created by bilbys' post.

At the time of my posting, I did not know the circumstances behind the grounding and never having had an aircraft grounded before, I did not know how to react except to get the info out. I fully support the importer of the Ibis as he is a bloody good bloke and has done a remarkable job in promoting the product and supporting all of the owner / users.

 

See how you feel when your aircraft is grounded and flying school shut down- without warning - without any idea of why except that it was NOT airframe related. As I stated previously, someone previously in command of one of our organisations that deal with aircraft 'licensing' needs a number 10 planted in his backside.

 

There is no suspision from me and I do not understand what your issue is here

 

 

[winsor68]

I think the real issue here is being clouded by petty arguments... this is no place for ego...grow up... Its a paperwork issue... that much is obvious...enough said about the aircraft...

 

NOW... ABOUT THE PAPERWORK ISSUE (that is Ra-Aus's part)... I put it in capitals because you should read it.. as well as the other posts from members whose aircraft have been grounded because of the stuff ups that have taken place under the current office management at HQ.. In case you didn't notice... Am I crazy for worrying about this sort of Admin stuff up given that Ra-Aus is there to administer Recreational Aviation?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I wonder if this is CASA breathing down RA-Aus neck. Apparently a very similar thing is happening currently with the FAA in the USA, they've come up with a non-workable list of criteria to define factory built LSA aircraft. Note that none of this has to do with any actual observable safety issues, it's just bureaucrats demanding more and more authority via petty regulations.

 

 

[dustyoutback]

They know, that question is answered!

I own one..... i was not informed by the RA-Aus, and even recieved a phone call from them the DAY it was grounded asking what my plane was doing, re hire or training or private use, nothing was mentioned about it being grounded ! there has been nothing put in writing from them.

 

 

[djpacro]

?... Apparently a very similar thing is happening currently with the FAA in the USA, they've come up with a non-workable list of criteria to define factory built LSA aircraft....

Can you expand on that please? My understanding is that the criteria have not changed and I can't see what was unworkable about the LSA manufacturing rules in the USA.http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/faa-plans-greater-role-in-lsa-certification

 

If I purchase a factory built LSA airplane from the USA I would expect the manufacturer to have complied wih the certification rules there i.e. the product is as advertised.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

There is a good editorial in October 2012 Kitplanes by Mary Bernard on this topic DJP, not sure if it is online. All relates to a new FAA docket number FAA-2012-0408 - special airworthiness certificates for LSA. They also seem keen to push lots of aircraft off into ELSA by very tightly defining the manufacturing criteria eg an imported aircraft with a few bits (wings etc) attached on arrival in the USA may no longer comply depending upon who attached the bits etc. So for them more problematic for imported than 100% local made aircraft apparently.

 

 

[bilby54]

I own one..... i was not informed by the RA-Aus, and even recieved a phone call from them the DAY it was grounded asking what my plane was doing, re hire or training or private use, nothing was mentioned about it being grounded ! there has been nothing put in writing from them.

The requirement is for every owner to be notified in writing by registered post within 24 hours with a complete description of the reasons and the relevant regulations

 

This is going to become a very messy and expensive event for the RAA.

 

 

[metalman]

I own one..... i was not informed by the RA-Aus, and even recieved a phone call from them the DAY it was grounded asking what my plane was doing, re hire or training or private use, nothing was mentioned about it being grounded ! there has been nothing put in writing from them.

RM didn't contact you ?

 

 

[rankamateur]

So for them more problematic for imported than 100% local made aircraft apparently.

Sounds like a non-tariff trade barrier to me to protect the local industrywhile thier economy is in a deep hole.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sounds like a non-tariff trade barrier to me to protect the local industrywhile thier economy is in a deep hole.

Well I think Gary Morgan was one of the first to be hit, so local mfrs as well.

 

 

[rankamateur]

That was in the American context Turbo, Kelvin Huchinson's Super petrels were also one of the first three to get grounded too and he says that was an advantage because there wasn't too many people in the line wanting their paper work sorted out, so it was easier to get it resolved quickly, but he is a "cup half full" sort of bloke I guess.

 

 

[djpacro]

Sounds like a non-tariff trade barrier to me to protect the local industrywhile thier economy is in a deep hole.

US regs tend not to be helpful to foreign individuals but many countries help their own more so than ours. As for LSAs there the factory production certification rules apply to all, companies get to choose whether to comply or not - or go full production certificate or not. Still can't see why some-one would consider it unworkable.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

A couple of quotes from the (US Kitplanes) editorial referring to FAA-2012-0408:

 

...the last paragraph states that there will be some entities who have claimed to be SLSA manufacturers who may not meet the requirements for compliance, rendering their fleets ineligible to retain their airworthiness certification as SLSA. They may, however, be eligible for certification as Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA).

 

What exactly are the manufacturers of SLSA required to do? Well, they must 1) be able to identify the aircraft by make, model, serial number, class, date of manufacture and consensus standard used; 2) state that the aircraft meets the provisions of the consensus standard; 3) state that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer's design data, using the manufacturer's quality assurance system that meets the consensus standard; 4) state that the manufacturer will make available to any interested person the following documents that meet the consensus standard: operating instructions, maintenance and inspection procedures, and flight-training supplements; 5) state that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safety-of-flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued airworthiness system that meets the consensus standard; 6) state that by request of the FAA, the manufacturer will provide unrestricted access to its facilities; and 7) state that the manufacturer, in accordance with a production acceptance test procedure that meets an applicable consensus standard has: ground- and flight-tested the aircraft; found the aircraft performance acceptable; and determined that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation. If the manufacturer cannot demonstrate that it is able to perform the functions specified in this statement of compliance, the FAA would not consider that person to be the manufacturer of the aircraft.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Con't:

 

This doesn't seem unreasonable until you begin to consider how many factory-built Light Sport Aircraft are imported. I found myself thinking, "How could this policy be enforced overseas?" And, not coincidentally, the FAA addresses this very question. SLSA manufactured outside the U.S., the FAA says, must be manufactured in a country that has a bilateral airworthiness agreement (concerning airplanes) with the U.S., a bilateral aviation safety agreement with associated implementation procedures for airworthiness or an equivalent airworthiness agreement. The aircraft must also be eligible for an airworthiness certificate in the country of manufacture.

 

Again, this needn't be especially onerous, but here's where it gets complicated. During its assessment, the FAA found numerous anomalies. For example, some SLSA are shipped disassembled to the U.S. and are assembled by people who declare themselves to be U.S. manufacturers. Some of these aircraft came from countries with bilateral agreements with the U.S.; some did not. In either case, the U.S. assemblers could not carry out the functions they attested to in the statement of compliance. In other cases, the foreign manufacturer claimed responsibility for certain aspects of the statement of compliance, while its U.S. counterpart claimed responsibility for other parts, splitting the responsibility between two distinct persons (and, it would seem, making policy enforcement problematic). Further, for some aircraft manufactured in countries with the appropriate bilateral agreements who shipped to a U.S. distributor, neither the manufacturer nor the distributor could maintain a program to correct safety-of-flight issues as stipulated in the statement of compliance. In other words, buyers could be on their own. Certainly there are legitimate SLSA manufacturers who meet the statement of compliance requirements and provide safe aircraft and reliable customer service—and who can document this. They are not the subject of the FAA's attention.

 

Sounds rather similar no? Presumably the US has a "bilateral airworthiness agreement" with China so if 'made in China' stuff will fly one could reason the quality bar may not be that high - or simply requires a bit of baksheesh to sort out.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Mick Poole gave a talk on LSAs at Monto yesterday. There is a move in many countries worldwide to straighten it all out.

 

It's not just Oz. He has responsibility in CASA to get it right here.

 

The problems are legion, but the issue with the Ibis is simple.

 

LSAs must be approved/certified in their country of manufacture. That country must also be an ICAO member state.

 

Columbia isn't.

 

However, grounding them first and then working out how to resolve the issue is ridiculous. They don't fly any different to the way they did last week. There are people relying on the planes they bought in good faith for their livelihoods. They were LSA when they bought them.

 

Mick said this was RAA's call.

 

 

[Guest john]

The Ibis airframe is a structurally sound & a safe aircraft with the approved Rotax 912 s engine .

 

It is apparent from the recent events from RAAus that they have acted in haste, & have failed in their duty to protect the members best interests who have purchased this type aircraft in good faith after first having it approved by RAAus.

 

An owner of an Ibis aircraft has indicated that a mega dollar class action writ is in the process of being issued on RAAus in the near future for their negligence & incompetence regarding this matter.

 

This will surely get the Board members running for cover.

 

All concerned members of RAAus should now be informed as to the approriate Sum Insured for Proffesional Indemnity cover the Board have taken out with the Insurers & in the event that this class action is eventually determined to be in favour of the Ibis owners, let us all be hopeful that the insurance cover will be suficient to meet this claim otherwise, RAAus & us as members may in for some troublesome times ahead.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Great, threats from legal grubs now. Remember two can play this nasty game, RA-Aus may have a basis to counter-sue.

 

 

[winsor68]

Great, threats from legal grubs now. Remember two can play this nasty game, RA-Aus may have a basis to counter-sue.

That is a bit hasty IMO...

The saddest part is that these events and the potential harm they may cause ave been foreseen and concerns raised by members... and the message seems to have gotten lost in translation due to many muddying the issue with talk of the whole thing being a personal vendetta and not worthy of attention.

 

The commercial operators of these aircraft have every right to sue... Sadly as previously explained IMO Ra-Aus is not set up and never was (Ops or Tech) to run a large and growing commercial aviation enterprise... regardless of the fact that the individual operators for the most part may appear to be individuals with less than $250K invested in their flying operation... when you add the numbers up over the industry the figure is considerable...

 

Things as they are can IMO only get worse...

 

 

[ave8rr]

Can I ask a question? If these aircraft are factory built then can they be re-registered as a normal factory built aircraft with a 24 rego (required for training) and a MTOW of 544/600kg? Is this different to Piper sport, Texan etc or the old Gazelle or are they now also LSA registered? I thought that LSA was a new certification that allowed a MTOW of up to 600kg when RAAus was still only allowed 544kgs. This has since been increased to 600kg and now allows aircraft like the J230 etc to operate to this new weight and IF factory built (24 rego) are they "LSA"?