Pacific Ibis Grounding

[M61A1]

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...

So, why wouldn't they sue the manufacturer that said it was certified? Suing your own organisation seems a bit bit like punching yourself in the face.

 

 

[Guernsey]

So, why wouldn't they sue the manufacturer that said it was certified? Suing your own organisation seems a bit bit like punching yourself in the face.

Probably because the (local) manufacturer had his aircraft inspected by RaaUs and certified by them. In the case of an import, the manufacturer would not be able to state that it was certified in Australia.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Teckair]

The same old question still applies why should the people who only wanted affordable flying be forced to help pay for this mess that has been imposed on them? The AUF was never set up to deal with what we now have. The Tech Managers job would seem to be mission impossible going on the way a long line of them have suddenly disappeared.

 

 

[Guest john]

Under the new national consumer laws established in 2011, one of the reasons these consumers laws were nationalised into one & removed from each state legislature in Australia was to give the consumer, be they private, business or organisation the opportunity to instigate litigation directly against the person or business they dealt with, if the goods or services obtained were not of merchantable quality or as purported to be.

 

In this case RAAus being the organisation that has the authority & duty to approve all Ultralight aircraft , it is their responsibilty to administer this procedure as delegated by CASA in Australia. Therefore why would anyone be so stupid to tell Ibis owners that they should be suing the overseas Manufacturer of these planes when the Ibis planes are flying safely around the world in other countries. Are Australian skies different to the rest of the world ?

 

Instead of RAAus acting in haste & grounding these Ibis aircraft in Australia if they have only recently become aware that the paperwork was not in order in Australia, then common sense should have prevailed & they could have issued a dispensation, until the bullshit was sorted out, which RAAus have now brought upon themself by their own negligence.

 

One thing is 100% now guaranteed, & that is all IBIS aircraft owners in Australia are one day closer to again flying this safe aircraft type in Australia than yesterday.

 

 

[winsor68]

So, why wouldn't they sue the manufacturer that said it was certified? Suing your own organisation seems a bit bit like punching yourself in the face.

Wake up people! Ra-Aus is no more "your own" organization than is a bank... Why the heck would someone not sue Ra-Aus for causing them a commercial loss regardless of their membership status? What has this got to do with the Manufacturer?

Now if we were a bunch of "Ultralight enthusiasts" in a club like organization whose only interest was flying our simple little aeroplanes and not bothering or being bothered by anyone... BUT IT ISN'T ANY MORE...

 

 

[turboplanner]

So, why wouldn't they sue the manufacturer that said it was certified? Suing your own organisation seems a bit bit like punching yourself in the face.

Happens all the time and has since the eighties M1. Welcome to the real world.

 

Best thing for members to do is to put aside two or three thousand, and stop bellyaching about "just wanting to fly" You are flying because you accepted responsibility for risk management

 

 

[M61A1]

Probably because the (local) manufacturer had his aircraft inspected by RaaUs and certified by them. In the case of an import, the manufacturer would not be able to state that it was certified in Australia.Alan.

It was my understanding that the manufacturer provided the documentation stating that it met the required standard (according to a previous post). If, in a later audit it was found that the standard was not met, why would the manufacturer not be responsible. The certification process has little to do with RAAus, but rather providing the documentation (to RAAus) that that standards have been met.

[M61A1]

Happens all the time and has since the eighties M1. Welcome to the real world.Best thing fir members to do is to put aside two or three thousand, and stop bellyaching about "just wanting to fly" You ate flying because you accepted risk managemt

Just because it happens all the time, does not make it right or wise.

That sounds like a really good reason to take LSA and put it under the CASA umbrella.

 

 

[Mick]

The certification process has little to do with RAAus, but rather providing the documentation (to RAAus) that that standards have been met.

It would be RAAus responsibility to reject the type ( if documentation is not correct ) before the first aircraft is registered, not after more than 10 aircraft are flying and people have purchased aircraft with the knowledge that RAAus have accepted of the type.

 

In fact even the dealer took on the agency with the knowledge that RAAus had already accepted the type, it was originally imported by Bert Flood.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just because it happens all the time, does not make it right or wise.That sounds like a really good reason to take LSA and put it under the CASA umbrella.

That could be. but this one, if it was to go ahead, is an additional insurance load based on decisions already made.

 

 

[Guest john]

It is apparent that we in Australian aviation are smarter than the rest of the worlds population in aviation, even much smarter than the people in the overseas countries that design , build & fly these planes, & yet we all live on the same planet & breath the same air & share the same skies.

 

This brings back the memories that would have been of concern to many Pilots around Australia, when reading an article in the August 2010 edition of the RAAus magazine, (which depicted on the front cover an image of the IBIS Aircraft,) wherein it was stated in the article

 

"----that all accidents fatal or not are preventable in some way shape or form".

 

To all rank & file thinking pilots whether they be Captains on 747's or ultralight pilots of a rag & tube plane, the only 100% method of preventing aviation accidents of any description is to ground all aircraft worldwide, which of course is not practical, or acceptable to the worlds population.

 

It appears that RAAus executive are simply shuffling the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic.

 

Let us not forget that the Titanic was constructed by Professionals & this unsinkable ship sank on its maiden voyage, whereas Noahs Ark was constructed by amateurs & withstood the floods for 40 days & nights.

 

 

[dustyoutback]

RA-Aus did not notify me... i was notified by the importer, i dont think its the importers responsibility to notify me, he didnt ground us ... To this day I have still not recieved any thing in writing from RA-Aus except a short note saying they were sorry this had occured. your right, this is going to get messy :(

 

 

[dustyoutback]

So, why wouldn't they sue the manufacturer that said it was certified? Suing your own organisation seems a bit bit like punching yourself in the face.

funny thing is we have the paper in our hands stamped type approved by the RA-Aus.

 

 

[M61A1]

funny thing is we have the paper in our hands stamped type approved by the RA-Aus.

Is that approval based on information supplied to RAAus by the manufacturer? I can't see RAAus taking an airframe, doing all the sums, checking the engineers work, proof loading and flight testing. They take the manufacturers word on the documents given to them when the engineers sign saying that it meets the necessary standards. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I see it as, like chasing QLD transport, after they found that the car you bought and registered didn't meet ADR's.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Has everyone got me on ignore?

 

I gave the reason for the Ibis grounding straight from the horse's mouth (CASA at least) and you're all still speculating about manufacturer approvals.

 

Columbia is not an ICAO signatory.

 

I'm just going to slink away again.

 

Russell, I really feel for you. This action, the witch hunt against Garry Morgan, and the other LSA crap could be handled with a lot more humanity and sh1tload less bureaucracy without affecting safety outcomes whatsoever.

 

As Mick said, he took on the agency when it was already type approved. To revoke the approval and ground the aircraft simply compounds their mistake.

 

There are probably other ICAO approved countries who have approved the Ibis. The simple solution is to accept their approval.

 

I'm getting disillusioneder by the minute.

 

 

[Mick]

Is that approval based on information supplied to RAAus by the manufacturer? I can't see RAAus taking an airframe, doing all the sums, checking the engineers work, proof loading and flight testing. They take the manufacturers word on the documents given to them when the engineers sign saying that it meets the necessary standards. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I see it as, like chasing QLD transport, after they found that the car you bought and registered didn't meet ADR's.

Yep, you are not getting it. The aircraft is exactly what the paperwork says it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that way.

 

The problem is that RAAus / CASA only recognise certification from some countries, the origin of the Ibis is not one of them. Somehow that was not picked up until now. It is not the manufacturers fault, it is not the importers fault. They submitted paperwork to RAAus and RAAus accepted it. Aircraft were imported & sold based on RAAus acceptance. Now RAAus realise what has happened and it is the owners and the importer who are suffering.

 

Despite all the talk above about LSA the Ibis is not registered LSA, it is registered standard Recreational. Please don't think this is a problem due to a new or confusing category of registration. The Ibis is registered the same as aircraft from as far back as 10 or more years ago in a standard category that has been the bread & butter of RAAus for all of this time.

 

 

[Guest john]

Now that RAAAus have moved the goal posts & have exercised the powers as delegated by CASA to ground all Ibis aircraft in Australia forthwith simply because of beaureaucratic bullshit, & nothing whatsoever to do with SAFETY, & instead of acting like mature adults to sit around a table to talk & work through a procedure with these aircraft owners which would have been a simple & more diplomatic procedure, RAAus have certainly made a rod for their own back. Lets now see if the people in RAAus who ultimateley made this decision to ground this type aircraft is as quick to get out their CHEQUE BOOK & refund all the fees & charges that RAAus have demanded for their so called services which are now proven to be as useful as an ash tray on a motor bike from these aircraft owners since inception by RAAus.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Has everyone got me on ignore?I gave the reason for the Ibis grounding straight from the horse's mouth (CASA at least) and you're all still speculating about manufacturer approvals.

Columbia is not an ICAO signatory.

 

I'm just going to slink away again.

 

Russell, I really feel for you. This action, the witch hunt against Garry Morgan, and the other LSA crap could be handled with a lot more humanity and sh1tload less bureaucracy without affecting safety outcomes whatsoever.

 

As Mick said, he took on the agency when it was already type approved. To revoke the approval and ground the aircraft simply compounds their mistake.

 

There are probably other ICAO approved countries who have approved the Ibis. The simple solution is to accept their approval.

 

I'm getting disillusioneder by the minute.

Correct me if I am wrong slartibartfast but in the case of the Morgan Sierra the current RaaUs Tech Manager at the time (Steve Bell) actually visited the Morgan Aeroworks factory and physically inspected the aircraft, not just the paperwork before approving it to be registered under the 24 category.

 

Is this correct?

 

Alan.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Correct me if I am wrong slartibartfast but in the case of the Morgan Sierra the current RaaUs Tech Manager at the time (Steve Bell) actually visited the Morgan Aeroworks factory and physically inspected the aircraft, not just the paperwork before approving it to be registered under the 24 category.Is this correct?

Alan.

<Momentary de-slink>

No he didn't Alan. He was going to, and was going to sign the CofA (something he shouldn't have been doing), but didn't in the end.

 

He had the list of requirements for LSA, so we shouldn't be in this position.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Thanks slartibartfast for the info.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Powerin]

I take all the comments here on board and totally agree that it's a RAAus stuff up and terribly unfair to the aircraft that have been grounded after previously being approved. However, as a potential future aircraft buyer, I would hope that any "factory built" aircraft that I bought would at least conform to some sort of standard. I'm sure the Colombians or the Slovenians build fine aircraft, but I know nothing of their standards, how would I know for sure unless someone here in Australia has given it the once over and approved it? I would think a Jabiru buyer in Colombia would expect the same from their aircraft approval authority.

 

We are seeing a lot of aircraft now being assembled here and sold as factory built, some of which were previously available as kits. The reason, of course, is to be able to get these aircraft into schools, which is good for future sales prospects. Getting them into schools is potentially lucrative. Are these aircraft being built, or assembled, by qualified people? LAMEs? Even if they are just having the wings bolted on, are they being bolted on by someone with a calibrated torque wrench, or someone with a rattle gun? Are the weights and balances something that has been properly tested?

 

I'm really sorry to pick on one aircraft and I'm sure the design of it in kit form is fine. But witch-hunt or not, and with the greatest of respect to Slarti and other owners, the quality of manufacture revealed in the ferris-wheel accident aircraft was not up to a standard I would accept in any machine I purchased, let alone one I would go up in the air with. I think the industry needs a bit of closer scrutiny.

 

 

[winsor68]

I think the industry needs a bit of closer scrutiny.

IMO I think it would be better said as the Commercial Industry needs a bit of closer scrutiny... Sadly with the direction Ra-Aus has been steered it seems to have put itself in this category..

 

Ultralight flying was supposed to be about less scrutiny... I don't know what this Ra-Aus was thinking they were taking on with all this commercial activity? Folly IMO.

 

 

[Mick]

I'm sure the Colombians or the Slovenians build fine aircraft, but I know nothing of their standards, how would I know for sure unless someone here in Australia has given it the once over and approved it?

Most of these aircraft are not checked by someone here in Australia ( for design & construction ), it is just that we accept the certification of some countries. For example if the Italian authorities accept the Tecnam, as we recognise Italian certification, it is then accepted here. The same goes for the multitude of aircraft coming out of the Czech Republic.

 

We are seeing a lot of aircraft now being assembled here and sold as factory built, some of which were previously available as kits. The reason, of course, is to be able to get these aircraft into schools, which is good for future sales prospects. Getting them into schools is potentially lucrative. Are these aircraft being built, or assembled, by qualified people? LAMEs? Even if they are just having the wings bolted on, are they being bolted on by someone with a calibrated torque wrench, or someone with a rattle gun? Are the weights and balances something that has been properly tested?

In the case of the Ibis the final assembley is being completed by LAMEs.

 

Weight & balance details are a requirement of any aircraft registration ( whether factory built or home built ). Again this is done by LAMEs for the Ibis.

 

.

 

 

[Powerin]

IMO I think it would be better said as the Commercial Industry needs a bit of closer scrutiny... Sadly with the direction Ra-Aus has been steered it seems to have put itself in this category..Ultralight flying was supposed to be about less scrutiny... I don't know what this Ra-Aus was thinking they were taking on with all this commercial activity? Folly IMO.

That may be true Win, but I really don't care if it is a plastic fantastic, or made of balsa wood and tissue paper, if it is sold to me as complete aircraft by a manufacturer I expect it to have been built to a certain standard by qualified personnel...the same as any car or truck or tractor I might buy. If you build it yourself, or buy from a home builder then the onus is on you to make sure it is built to a standard you are comfortable with.

I understand the wish of some to get back to the grass roots upon which the RAAus was founded, but there are others of us who still want affordable flying but are not comfortable with the level of risk that bare bones grass roots flying seems to involve.

 

 

[winsor68]

That may be true Win, but I really don't care if it is a plastic fantastic, or made of balsa wood and tissue paper, if it is sold to me as complete aircraft by a manufacturer I expect it to have been built to a certain standard by qualified personnel...the same as any car or truck or tractor I might buy. If you build it yourself, or buy from a home builder then the onus is on you to make sure it is built to a standard you are comfortable with.I understand the wish of some to get back to the grass roots upon which the RAAus was founded, but there are others of us who still want affordable flying but are not comfortable with the level of risk that bare bones grass roots flying seems to involve.

That is the whole point... This is not GA. It was set up with the intentions of allowing cheaper flying to a lower (self) certified standard. It seems to me that the current problems come from some smart mugs (not intending this at anyone here) realizing that there was a serious quid to be made in this game and altering things to suit... I am not saying this flying shouldn't happen or that the individuals are at fault... but finally can anyone acknowledge that the desire for more complex aircraft has had an impact on all this. I am saying it was not managed very well and IMO we have been very poorly served by our administrators.

 

Ra-Aus (which was the AUF) is not set up to administer GA light...