Does anyone have more information on this NSW South Coast accident?

[Oscar]

Given human nature, it may not be entirely adequate protection to just provide the instructor with the risk analysis rating.

 

This is without doubt suggesting that the regulatory authorities would be venturing into territory more concerned with behaviour rather than matters of safety per se, but I can forsee the situation where an instructor, faced with a request from a friend for a BFR (or for instruction, for that matter), would consider that refusing that request on the grounds of the risk analysis rating is tantamount to saying that they don't trust the competence of the individual. (Same goes for people invited to 'come fly with me', of course.)

 

This is a hugely delicate area. Simplistically, it could be argued that a regulatory authority (such as RAA) could apply operational limits on the aircraft dependent on the risk analysis that precludes training, review, even carrying passengers deemed to be not competent to understand the implications of the stated risk involved. Pretty much all of that actually already exists in the requirements for flying off hours after construction etc., and perhaps all that is required is some strengthening of those requirements to extend/reinforce the 'restrictions' for aircraft that do not achieve a minimum level of 'risk' rating.

 

Some people will regard such a move as 'more of the nanny state' mentality rearing its ugly head. They have a point. It is in practical terms impossible to legislate / regulate for the disparate situations of people being competent to judge risk, because there are many factors that shade the assessment of risk. I have no personal knowledge of either of the people involved in this terrible accident, but from what has been stated, I would assume that Grahame White had every reason to be confident about the capability of the aircraft into which he stepped and equally that Ralph Buchanan would not have allowed that flight to commence if he had any misgivings about its airworthiness. We are not talking about cowboy mentality here, these were serious, experienced, cautious and conscientious people.

 

When one considers the equation of 'freedom of the individual to accept risk' vs. 'nanny-state regulation', what is frequently overlooked is the flow-on effects of consequences. If I choose to build an experimental aircraft using Molt Taylor's resin-impregnated cardboard monocoque construction technique, I would certainly expect to be allowed to fly it - on the basis that 'it's my neck, not yours'. I think most RAA people would support me on that basic philosophy. However: if that structure fails and I crash into a pre-school and kill 20 children as a result, you can guarantee that the public reaction will affect every RAA owner's operation in the future.

 

So the balancing act here is not just between the individual's right to accept risk but an assessment of the social consequences. I suspect that RAA needs to be conservative in its application of regulations in order to protect the majority of its members' 'freedoms'.

 

 

[facthunter]

Your "conservative" in the second last line could be ambiguous. Do you mean "tread lightly"?.

 

Individual aircraft risk assessment can't be based on a design only. A gazelle could be OK or very much NOT OK depending on it's condition. It's also NOT OK for performing spirals no matter how good it's condition.. What we are talking about here has no simple solution. Better knowledge is a sure good thing. If you KNOW you are exposed to risk that is one thing. IF you are not aware of it you have a totally different situation. You won't make the right decision if you don't know of the problem.

 

Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

So the balancing act here is not just between the individual's right to accept risk but an assessment of the social consequences. I suspect that RAA needs to be conservative in its application of regulations in order to protect the majority of its members' 'freedoms'.

The conservative bit is that it shouldn't be flying over a preschool, not that it shouldn't be flying. As far as instructors flying amateur built aircraft, that is and should be at their discretion, if they don't have the balls to say no, when they think they should, then they shouldn't be instructing.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

One of the reasons I bought a Savannah and teach in it is that there are so many kit versions in Oz, all these pilots have the opportunity to fly the factory item prior to testing their own and compare build processes to a compliant standard and also get used to the idiosyncrasies of the type, the same applies to Jabs, and a few others as well.

 

I am VERY selective about any amateur built I would climb into, not because it may or may not be safe but because I can't easily confirm it.Beyond an effective pre-flight, and a scan of any maintenance records I'm flying on blind trust.In any case the responsibility for my safety ultimately rests with me and the risk I am prepared to take, to ask an administrator to do this for you in an amateur category is begging for more regulation.

 

Now correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most people in RA-Aus asking for less regulation? Then with this freedom also comes the responsibility. We can't have it both ways.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I think that Instructors should be given the freedom to choose. Personally I think they should have a little more freedom of choice in regards to teaching in a 19 other than just being able to instruct with the builder. ( I do understand we don't want schools putting 19 rego online for profit and it is a fine line.)

 

Ill give my example. Ignore for a while the fact that dad helped me build.

 

Having the plane at home Dad would like to learn to fly which means if he wasn't the builder he would have to learn to fly in something else (not really a problem) and get the suitable endorsements BUT he can't pay an instructor to help him get used to the hornet as he's not the builder but Once he has the right endorsements I could convert him. My point being he can't do his familiarisation with someone with instructing experience but he can hop in with me with barely 100 hours flying time and that is seen as ok.

 

I can understand that there is a risk to instructors in 19 reg aircraft but isn't the risk higher for someone with less experience? Who better to estimate the risk/airworthiness than a decent instructor?

 

P.S. for Oscar ; I don't think it is legal to fly over towns or a gathering with a 19 reg so if we were over a preschool we would in my understanding be breaking the law:whisper:

 

 

[jetjr]

Of course an instructor can refuse to train in amateur built aircraft, but dont assume they are all subject to problems, how about factory assist, or factory built non LSA. Do these owners need to rent an unfamiliar aircraft to complete BFR?

 

How about owners who didnt build?

 

Reading more like GA everyday

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

This aspect overlooks the fact that CASA DOES have a responsibility, in regard to experimental aircraft, to protect other airspace users and people on the ground. If you people would do as I ask and READ THE REFERENCE - in this case, CASA AC 21.10 - you will see how this is done. If Joe Bloggs turns up with an experimental aircraft, all the instructor has to do is look at the limitations on the experimental certificate; those limitations are there to protect other airspace users and persons on the ground. So having ascertained that the proposed flight will abide by those limitations, what remains is for the instructor to assess the risk to himself. That's where a risk analysis score would come into play.

 

What I do NOT know is whether RAA applies the same procedures as are given in AC 21.10, to -19 registered aircraft. It would surely be negligent if it does not.

 

For the benefit of readers who have not started far enough back in this thread, the suggestion was that RAA appoints an expert panel, to perform a risk analysis, that was in effect an extension of the risk analysis concept that appears in the appendices of AC 21.10. It would contain a list of questions, with a score for each answer. The total score would indicate the risk assessment for the aircraft. As a builder, there would be no compulsion to have such an analysis run, but it would be in your interests, whether as a builder or a kit supplier, to get a high score. So it's a voluntary thing, but it's done by a third party, and a high score would result in reduced limitations on the use of the aircraft.

 

 

[M61A1]

Of course an instructor can refuse to train in amateur built aircraft, but dont assume they are all subject to problems, how about factory assist, or factory built non LSA. Do these owners need to rent an unfamiliar aircraft to complete BFR?How about owners who didnt build?

Reading more like GA everyday

Given that there are allowances for BFRs to be carried out in single seat aircraft, I see no reason a BFR cannot be done similarly in your own amateur built.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I think you will find the single seat BFR dispensation only applies to single seat aircraft. Where it is a dual seater, the BFR MUST be done in the aircraft

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

This aspect overlooks the fact that CASA DOES have a responsibility, in regard to experimental aircraft, to protect other airspace users and people on the ground. If you people would do as I ask and READ THE REFERENCE - in this case, CASA AC 21.10 - you will see how this is done. If Joe Bloggs turns up with an experimental aircraft, all the instructor has to do is look at the limitations on the experimental certificate; those limitations are there to protect other airspace users and persons on the ground. So having ascertained that the proposed flight will abide by those limitations, what remains is for the instructor to assess the risk to himself. That's where a risk analysis score would come into play.What I do NOT know is whether RAA applies the same procedures as are given in AC 21.10, to -19 registered aircraft. It would surely be negligent if it does not.

 

For the benefit of readers who have not started far enough back in this thread, the suggestion was that RAA appoints an expert panel, to perform a risk analysis, that was in effect an extension of the risk analysis concept that appears in the appendices of AC 21.10. It would contain a list of questions, with a score for each answer. The total score would indicate the risk assessment for the aircraft. As a builder, there would be no compulsion to have such an analysis run, but it would be in your interests, whether as a builder or a kit supplier, to get a high score. So it's a voluntary thing, but it's done by a third party, and a high score would result in reduced limitations on the use of the aircraft.

You know, you could actually do this yourselves. It would amount to a peer group assessment. You could design the list of questions to be addressed, and the panel could be any three members of RAA who had no interest in or connection with the builder, the supplier, or the aircraft. Self-help, in fact. Or is this too radical a concept for a bunch of whingers?

 

 

[graham brown]

I am building one of these aircraft and this incident and discussion has indeed provoked me to think a lot about the project.

 

One of the conditions of the 51% rule is…

 

“The aircraft is intended for educational or recreational purposes”

 

Well I am doing both and I guess the education part just got a lot more emphasis.

 

I have indeed downloaded some of the standards and have found them pretty easy to read. I’m an engineer however they are not that technical and not beyond anyone constructing one of these kits. The manufacturer probably has a good idea of how the aircraft design complies with the standards and a discussion with them is a good idea. The construction standards are completely up to you and if you don’t know how to do something then asking the manufacturer and consulting the standards is a good idea. I have maintained my glider for the last 30years and worked under the guidance of professionals so I have learned some of the industry practices but building a whole aircraft is a whole lot more. The manufacturer, Morgan, has been extremely helpful and I’m sure all other manufacturers do the same. I would recommend the manufacturer do the inspections of the construction as they have seen most instances and are aware of the design constraints. “how do you do this” and “can I do this” are my most frequent question to Morgan. Their advice is without guarantee of course but standards and the manufactures experience is the best you can access.

 

By the end of this I will be happy to fly my aircraft knowing I have made informed decisions. However I will be reluctant to take passengers as they will in most cases have no idea the risks they are taking. I will probably only take those who technically know about homebuilt aircraft and the processes involved. This a lot different to what I imagined only a few weeks before.

 

The suggested log of the risk assessment is not a bad idea to get around some of this.

 

 

[Camel]

I think you will find the single seat BFR dispensation only applies to single seat aircraft. Where it is a dual seater, the BFR MUST be done in the aircraft

David, It also applies to aircraft without full dual controls at the discretion of the examiner.

 

 

[AVOCET]

Yes, that's the reality of it. I don't have an issue with people doing that; however I think the pathway to improved understanding can be made easier.

I agree ,

I spent a year going around the fly in's circuit with my 14 scale balsa wood model showing & asking any one who'd listen , I spent 19 months full time studying the books & reading part 23 .comparing my design elements with what was required .

 

Asking the right people ,

 

The internet was ok , when I could get a consensus ,

 

But I think in reality , that any first year aeronautical engineer , should be able to design and build an ultralight aircraft .

 

 

[barney181269]

QUOTE - The cables supplied come with internal tooth washers which should prevent the nuts from loosening if they are done up tight. That is no guarantee though & I will definitely be wiring all of mine as per the bulletin plus some locktite. QUOTE

 

Internal or external tooth washers are not aviation standard hardware. This garden variety hardware belongs in the garden shed on a billy cart or lawnmower, not on an aircraft.

 

Drilled nuts and lockwire would be the preferred locking for that application.

 

 

[yampy]

I've just received this email via the Illawarra Flyers group ..

 

Hi Paul & John & others

 

 

 

 

RAAus have established the cause of the crash at Moruya as control surface flutter caused by a dislodged control cable turnbuckle.

 

Jill Bailey has said they cannot mention the aircraft type because of litigation but that since this information came to light others have now reported problems with turnbuckles too.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I question whether lockwire is the full answer, everywhere. Poor design of a lot of this stuff leaves it open to disaster. Control systems that are frequently disconnected should not be capable of cross assembly. You only have to vary the lengths or the nature of the fittings or spray with a different colour paint. (your solution HERE) Lock tabs (single use) are pretty effective. Bowden control cables are a real risk especially when a slackness may cause control flutter. They are an answer to a need and simple in principle. Having to push and pull makes the fittings critical at 4 points. Nev

 

EDIT. This wasn't written after reading the above post, and is not a response to it.

 

 

[kgwilson]

I've just received this email via the Illawarra Flyers group ..

 

 

Hi Paul & John & others

 

 

 

 

RAAus have established the cause of the crash at Moruya as control surface flutter caused by a dislodged control cable turnbuckle.

 

Jill Bailey has said they cannot mention the aircraft type because of litigation but that since this information came to light others have now reported problems with turnbuckles too.

 

Dave

 

Chinese Whispers

 

 

[rgmwa]

RAAus have established the cause of the crash at Moruya as control surface flutter caused by a dislodged control cable turnbuckle.

Which control surface was affected?

 

rgmwa

 

 

[David Isaac]

Jill Bailey has said they cannot mention the aircraft type because of litigation .....

What a load of dribble .. FFS, if it is a safety matter it MUST be mentioned, not to escape us the answer is pretty bloody obvious since all the Australian public know the aircraft involved and even it was a Cessna, litigation is always a possible outcome. The statement is pretty bloody irresponsible. Litigation is a separate civil matter and is a possibility in any case at any time. But again it was a kit build and a fly at your own risk aircraft.

Where does this ignorant 'litigation' hokus pokus come from from?????

 

Did she really say that or is that what someone said she said???

 

 

[facthunter]

I guess they are a little touchy about it since it's been hanging over their heads for years in respect of another event that threatens their very existence. However on a matter of safety all information should be available as quickly as possible for the greater good. Nev

 

 

[yampy]

I'm merely passing on a email that I received today .. Maybe it is " dribble " , I don't know .. Perhaps it may be time to take the issue up with Jill Bailey , after all she is implicated in this email .. Please don't shoot the messenger as they say .

 

 

[David Isaac]

... .. Please don't shoot the messenger as they say .

Sorry Yampy, my post was NOT aimed at you at all, thanks for posting.

[kgwilson]

Like I said "Chinese Whispers". Where are these turnbuckles? On the end of the bowden cable?? What control surfaces??? Who are the others who have reported problems with turnbuckles???? There are none in the kit or the manual & plans so these others must have all decided to add them. Personally after having been informed by the Kit supplier of the findings I find such statements without any corroboration quite disturbing.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

OK, leave the questions of which control surface and which aircraft out of it. Look at it as a lesson for design. Control surfaces CAN become disconnected, due to a control system failure. It happens; I've had one myself, and was directly involved in rectifying the cause of another. So, what can one do to prevent a disconnected control surface from fluttering? Answer: Mass-balance it correctly* . And design it to "float" in a neutral position, when disconnected.

 

Unfortunately, the very tight weight limits of recreational aircraft mean that very few of them can afford the weight involved in correctly mass-balancing; to be effective, the balance mass needs to be at quite a short arm, so you end up increasing the total weight of the control surfaces by around 300%. So reliance is placed instead on control system stiffness and freedom from slack, and in the case of push-pull cable, the damping provided by the cable friction, in conjunction with very light control surfaces. In these aircraft, the only answer is to be very vigilant about control system integrity.

 

Also, Frise-type ailerons cannot be aerodynamically balanced singly; they work as a pair, and therefore are quite likely to go hard-over if disconnected. Elevators are often equipped with fixed tabs that drive the elevators upwards, as a means of improving the stick-free stability; that will result in them free-floating in a position suitable for flight at close to the stall speed - so the elevator really does need to be driven by the trim system quite independently of the main pitch control system.

 

* Correct mass balance practices generally require that the balance mass be biased towards the tip of the wing, tailplane or fin. Also, there are stringent requirements on the strength and stiffness of the attachment of the balance mass. This is an area where the design standards definitely need to be consulted.

 

 

[kgwilson]

All control surfaces except the rudder are mass balanced in the neutral position on my Sierra as per the manual & plans. The only thing not supplied in the kit was the lead required for the counter weight.