bilby54 Posted October 6, 2012 Author Posted October 6, 2012 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. . Can anyone explain why we have to have ICAO signatures for aircraft to fly and the reason behind it?? As was mentioned by Dazza in a previous post, ICAO is probably corrupt and to my understanding, payment of money to some distant organisation doesn't suddenly make an aircraft safe to fly. The old school tie syndrome 1
David Isaac Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 buggered knowing where u are going with this tp..... Phil, What TP is saying is that 'done as a dogs dinner ' is a better way of putting it than ' let the members and board down' ... a play on hilarity buddy.
djpacro Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Can anyone explain why we have to have ICAO signatures ....e I don't believe that is particularly relevant but clearly a big factor in the basic issue for CASA - which airworthiness authorities in other countries do they trust to control compliance with engineering airworthiness requirements (whether it is FAR 23 or the more simple ASTM standards etc)? I would want to know, for example, that claimed structural strength and freedom from flutter has been satisfactorily demonstrated. That first step is the type certificate or approval of the design.Take that design and manufacture it in a factory needs control of the manufacturing processes and obligations for continued airworthiness to aircraft in service which is where a production certificate comes in. Individual aeroplanes then get their certificate of airworthiness - if built to that approved design per the approved factory processes and checks. It may seem like a paperwork exercise but each of the three certifications involve significant safety issues. I could set up a factory here and get everything made by the cheapest source anywhere in the world then just stick a logo on and sell it. I could get a production certificate if I could demonstrate my control over production processes and that every part was built to the approved drawing. I guess I could if I win the lottery this week. 3
Teckair Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Are there sufficiently detailed statistics to make fair comparison, and do they show that it to be the case ? Don't know for sure but I think the answers would be NO and NO. Early ultralight aircraft got a bad name due to a number of accidents mainly due to General Aviation pilots trying to fly them the same way they they were used to flying their GA aircraft. Rag & tube ultralight aircraft are high drag and low inertia and failure fly them in the appropriate manner will result in accidents which can be fatal. If flown correctly ultralights are just as safe any other aircraft and in some ways they are safer. 2
turboplanner Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Don't know for sure but I think the answers would be NO and NO. Early ultralight aircraft got a bad name due to a number of accidents mainly due to General Aviation pilots trying to fly them the same way they they were used to flying their GA aircraft. Rag & tube ultralight aircraft are high drag and low inertia and failure fly them in the appropriate manner will result in accidents which can be fatal. If flown correctly ultralights are just as safe any other aircraft and in some ways they are safer. I agree you certainly have to be extensively retrained, but many also broke up in flight due to assembly or design faults
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I agree you certainly have to be extensively retrained, but many also broke up in flight due to assembly or design faults How many? 1
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I found this just now online... It is a PDF download... has a summary of CASA Ultralight Aircraft accident investigations from year 2000 to 2010... http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3432943/attachment%20e%20-%20ultralight%20accidents%2000-10.pdf 1
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 A search of the term "Ultralight" will get you all the CASA reports on Ultralight accidents from 1987 to present... Just wondering if the perception that traditional Ultralights are structurally "lacking" has any weight... http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-investigation-reports.aspx?mode=Aviation&q=Ultralight
turboplanner Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 And i was about to give you their names! I'd be interested in seeong the numbers but gut feel is 6 to 8 per year
rankamateur Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 VH-KTV is an interesting inclusion in that list. 1
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 And i was about to give you their names!I'd be interested in seeong the numbers but gut feel is 6 to 8 per year There aren't that many structural failures in the whole recorded period... I am guessing that a lot of accidents were not investigated. There was one definite and a couple of maybes from my quick reading... What is interesting is the survival rate with "Ultralights" when they hit power lines... Recent events have got me thinking about this aspect...
Gentreau Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 How about the other part of the information required to come up with comparative safety statistics ? We may know the number of accidents (reported) but how many safe hours/kilometres were flown in microlights in that period ? Impossible to know and hence impossible to say that microlights are less or more safe than anything else, it's all perception and feeling. 2
Powerin Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 How about the other part of the information required to come up with comparative safety statistics ?We may know the number of accidents (reported) but how many safe hours/kilometres were flown in microlights in that period ? Impossible to know and hence impossible to say that microlights are less or more safe than anything else, it's all perception and feeling. There are some statistics on this tutorial page. I'll let others decide if they provide any meaningful information.
bilby54 Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 I don't believe that is particularly relevant but.....] Thanks DJ, I wanted to know for my own information. Is there another organisation other than ICAO that onon icao members may belong to but just don't want to be associated with icao as possibly a bunch of other manufacturers have just as high standards but are not in the accepted club as defined in 95.55?? As for testing, the Thruster was the first certified aircraft on the register and was rushed through for political expedience so was never completely tested but is a rugged little aeroplane with documentation to back it.
turboplanner Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 There aren't that many structural failures in the whole recorded period... I am guessing that a lot of accidents were not investigated.There was one definite and a couple of maybes from my quick reading... What is interesting is the survival rate with "Ultralights" when they hit power lines... Recent events have got me thinking about this aspect... Interesting how newspaper reports stick in your mind and multiply. The power line issue is easily fixed Win.
kaz3g Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 ...The power line issue is easily fixed Win. Underground them? Kaz (Tongue firmly planted in cheek) 1
turboplanner Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 That would be good, but flying above 500 feet eliminates more lines now.
Gentreau Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 There are some statistics on this tutorial page. I'll let others decide if they provide any meaningful information. What is clear from that data, as is found in other accident data, is that the vast majority of accidents are attributed to pilot error of some kind. The occurences of structural failure during normal flight (overstress failure is also pilot error) are minimal. With many machines now having BRS parachutes, even that need no longer be serious. The HAWK report recently attempted to compare the different regulatory regimes in Europe for Microlights and to identify the best areas to concentrate efforts in order to reduce accidents. The major conclusion: Pilot Training !
Guest ozzie Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Hell Ultralights breaking up in flight! Really glad i flew a "Minimum Aircraft" back then.
Teckair Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Hell Ultralights breaking up in flight! Really glad i flew a "Minimum Aircraft" back then. Yep I have still got mine from 1987 and it was old when I bought it, how lucky can you get? 1
dustyoutback Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Hi Bilby,Thanks for the info. The Gazelle is still a good type plane, as I use to have one & regretted selling it however there was no point in crying over spilt milk. I then brought a Skyfox Taildragger & flew it for a while. I think the Ibis is also a good safe type plane as I have also flown this type of plane & was very impressed with its performance & handling & have been considereing buying one, which is why I was enquiring if yours is available. Cheers John:thumb up: Hi John, depending on the outcome of this whole saga, mine may be available for sale :( if it goes that way it will be a sad day, i waited a long time to be able to buy one and absolutely love it, trouble is what do I replace it with ? the room in the cockpit and the great handling is very hard to find...really hope this is worked out soon as I need it in the air, im doing hundreds and hundreds of kms every week checking stock and country just because some one shifted the goal posts... 1
Kyle Communications Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Buy a World Aircraft Spirit or the Vision would be better. Max Tedesco has designed these amoungst many others including the Savannah and I am also told he had a lot of the design input into the Ibis...if you look at the Spirit they are very similar...the Vision has a different wing better more open doors and huge inside the cabin and much better Stol performance...these are legal factory builds as they come from the USA
bilby54 Posted November 6, 2012 Author Posted November 6, 2012 Has anyone heard about other possible groundings to date?
Guest ozzie Posted November 8, 2012 Posted November 8, 2012 No regos' transfers being processed and possible RAA fleet grounding coming up. Can any one confirm this rumor?
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