replica spittfire watts bridge

[GAFA]

Good concept but they're split flaps so they introduce a lot of drag which isn't a good idea for take-off, especially not using more than about 5 degrees flap which would only change the chord line angle by about 1 to 1.5 degrees.Even then, unfortunately it doesn't seem to work for the elliptical wing of the Spit because even with 40 degrees used for landing, if you get too slow the tips still stall first causing a vicious wing-drop.

 

I've heard brown trousers stories from several folk who have allowed the speed to bleed off while still 10 ft off the deck.

Have a look at the photos I've posted on page 2 of this aircraft. The replica's don't use the split flap like the original Spitfire's had.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Have a look at the photos I've posted on page 2 of this aircraft. The replica's don't use the split flap like the original Spitfire's had.

Good point GAFA, I'd forgotten that.

 

Regardless though, the concept of using flap to modify the stall characteristics to make the inboard stall first still doesn't work on the full-scale or Supermarine's replica Spits, to which many of their owners will attest, having found out the hard way.

 

I've also read a number of fascinating authentic WW2 accounts written by instructors and students converting onto the Spit from Harvard's and Hurricanes. Learning to avoid the tip stalling vice during takeoff and landing management was a major part of the conversion training, as was the torque roll due to rapid throttle advancement combined with the narrow wheel track.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

That's right it doesn't, and though I'm not defending him in the slightest, what he said about being encouraged from within the organization is probably not all fabricated, based on others' anecdotal evidence of what went on in RAA at the time. It's been the subject of considerable discussion and angst over the last few years ...Regardless of that, though, and purely my opinion, is that the coroner seemed determined to find any reason at all that he crashed, except that he didn't fly the plane. She describes him as an extremely experienced and talented pilot when other respected instructors werent altogether impressed with his handling even in much simpler aircraft.

 

As for his level of experience, he had less than 1000hrs as PIC, I'd call that novice level in terms of a Spit, with its known vices ... and less than 3 hrs on the Spitty in the previous 2 yrs IIRC.

 

The coroner's finding was that he crashed because of an engine problem or a landing gear problem, or both, whereas in my humble opinion he crashed because while he may or may not have had some airborne problem he forgot to fly the aircraft, stalled and spun in.

 

O'Sullivan's dishonesty regarding the aircraft weight on the registration documents really had nothing to do with the crash as far as I can see.

Do you really mean less than 100 hrs TT PIC here ?..

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Do you really mean less than 100 hrs TT PIC here ?..

No Maj, I wrote less than 1000hrs. IIRC his total time was a bit over 1000hrs, with about 850 as PIC.

 

Of that he had about 37 on the Spit IIRC, and only 2.7 in the last two years ...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

No Maj, I wrote less than 1000hrs. IIRC his total time was a bit over 1000hrs, with about 850 as PIC.Of that he had about 37 on the Spit IIRC, and only 2.7 in the last two years ...

Thanks....but I wouldn't call 1000 hrs TT a novice considering most young WW2 Spit pilots went into the Frey often with less than 100 hrs TT ...but yes low time on the Spit as you say, and certainly low currency hours.

 

 

[Camel]

Thanks....but I wouldn't call 1000 hrs TT a novice considering most young WW2 Spit pilots went into the Frey often with less than 100 hrs TT ...but yes low time on the Spit as you say, and certainly low currency hours.

I think it's more about what time he had it on !

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Regardless of that, though, and purely my opinion, is that the coroner seemed determined to find any reason at all that he crashed, except that he didn't fly the plane. She describes him as an extremely experienced and talented pilot when other respected instructors werent altogether impressed with his handling even in much simpler aircraft. The coroner's finding was that he crashed because of an engine problem or a landing gear problem, or both, whereas in my humble opinion he crashed because while he may or may not have had some airborne problem he forgot to fly the aircraft, stalled and spun in. O'Sullivan's dishonesty regarding the aircraft weight on the registration documents really had nothing to do with the crash as far as I can see.

I'm (obviously) not privy to any conversations between the deceased and O'Sullivan, but:

 

1. It was a 19-rego factory built aircraft.

 

2. It appears to not have been airworthy (or rather, to not be demonstrated to have been airworthy)

 

3. It's unclear whether the unairworthiness was communicated to the deceased.

 

Essentially, Supermarine sold the deceased an aircraft which, on the face of it, was unregistrable in this country. There is the question about whether the CG limits were properly ascertained, and then, after the ballast was moved at Gympie, whether the aircraft was still within its limits. The most skilled pilot in the world might not be able to fly an unairworthy aircraft; there is a reason test pilots wear parachutes.

 

The other question is about Tony Kerr, who the coroner states:

 

The ‘Change of Ownership’ forms were accompanied by an ‘Aircraft Condition Report’, which again listed the empty weight of the aircraft at 403kg, indicating that it had been weighed on 10 December 2003. This form was signed by Mr Anthony Kerr, from Gympie Air Maintenance in his capacity as an RA-Aus Level 2 Maintenance Authority Holder on 6 April 2009 as being complete, accurate and correct to the best of his knowledge.

edit: I might have been a touch aggressive.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

................. There is the question about whether the CG limits were properly ascertained, and then, after the ballast was moved at Gympie, whether the aircraft was still within its limits. The most skilled pilot in the world might not be able to fly an unairworthy aircraft; there is a reason test pilots wear parachutes .........

Disclaimer - the comments below are my opinion only, I am not in possession of any facts other than the descriptions provided in the coroners findings -

 

As I understood it, the ballast was moved at Gympie to improve the CG condition rather than make it worse. IIRC they asked O'Sullivan for W&B info and were told to set it up in flight attitude and ballast it so that there was 8kg on the tailwheel. Ultimately they set it up for 8.5kg on the tailwheel (so they (Kerr) said) which is very close and certainly would have been well within limits. In any case this was performed by Gympie not by the Supermarine factory, so whatever you might be suggesting about it being 'unflyable' would have been due to Gympie rather than Supermarine I would have thought. Or are you saying the advice to use 8kg tailwheel weight was incorrect?

 

In any case, how could it be suggested that it was unflyable when the good Doctor had been flying it for 16 mins that day, first at height and then conducting 4 circuits before crashing while perhaps distracted?

 

Since he had an interest in the aircraft not being deemed to be at fault, it might be suggested that Kerr might have been biased in his reported observations of the pre-crash circuits, however Raffels was the Doctor's close friend and he concurred that in each prior case the aircraft was seen to significantly overshoot the runway during the turn onto final approach. They both also talk about the wings being almost level just prior to the wing-drop and spin. I think we all know that the combination of those factors are the classic recipe which encourages generally lower time pilots to stand on the rudder in an effort to tighten the turn and get lined up, and which all-too-frequently culminates in a stall-spin crash.

 

Add to that, that more than one instructor found the Doctor's technique on final approach to be questionable, notably too slow and shallow an approach angle, which the Doctor wouldn't agree with, and I'm sure you could draw your own conclusions.

 

Whilst the full-scale and replica Spittys are described by all who have flown them as a delight and a dream, it certainly isn't known for being forgiving of mishandling errors.

 

Regarding the build and sale/purchase of the aircraft, the information provided suggests that it was built over a long period under the factory 'builder-assist' program. Whether or not the Doctor spent as much time on the build as was suggested is perhaps a matter for conjecture however I doubt it could be said that he wasn't aware of the requirements of the 51% rule. Similarly I would think that since he did have experience with a number of aircraft types and held various licences, I would think he was well aware of both the weight and stall-speed limitations of 95.55 (at least he was legally required to be, since he held a Pilot Certificate to operate those types) and I'm sure he would have also been aware of the actual weight and stall speed of the aircraft. If my surmise is correct it might be said that the good Doctor made the purchase while being fully aware of what he was doing, a case of 'Eyes Wide Shut' perhaps?

 

 

[Ada Elle]

As I understood it, the ballast was moved at Gympie to improve the CG condition rather than make it worse. IIRC they asked O'Sullivan for W&B info and were told to set it up in flight attitude and ballast it so that there was 8kg on the tailwheel. Ultimately they set it up for 8.5kg on the tailwheel (so they (Kerr) said) which is very close and certainly would have been well within limits. In any case this was performed by Gympie not by the Supermarine factory, so whatever you might be suggesting about it being 'unflyable' would have been due to Gympie rather than Supermarine I would have thought. Or are you saying the advice to use 8kg tailwheel weight was incorrect?

A certified aircraft would have had fore and aft CoG limits established as part of a test flying program, and after the ballast was moved either the CoG of the empty plane should have been re-measured/re-calculated and/or the plane re-test flown if it was out of its previously established limits.

 

In any case, how could it be suggested that it was unflyable when the good Doctor had been flying it for 16 mins that day, first at height and then conducting 4 circuits before crashing while perhaps distracted?Add to that, that more than one instructor found the Doctor's technique on final approach to be questionable, notably too slow and shallow an approach angle, which the Doctor wouldn't agree with, and I'm sure you could draw your own conclusions.

Regarding the build and sale/purchase of the aircraft, the information provided suggests that it was built over a long period under the factory 'builder-assist' program. Whether or not the Doctor spent as much time on the build as was suggested is perhaps a matter for conjecture however I doubt it could be said that he wasn't aware of the requirements of the 51% rule. Similarly I would think that since he did have experience with a number of aircraft types and held various licences, I would think he was well aware of both the weight and stall-speed limitations of 95.55 (at least he was legally required to be, since he held a Pilot Certificate to operate those types) and I'm sure he would have also been aware of the actual weight and stall speed of the aircraft. If my surmise is correct it might be said that the good Doctor made the purchase while being fully aware of what he was doing, a case of 'Eyes Wide Shut' perhaps?

I didn't say unflyable, I said unairworthy. An aft CoG will move the stall stick position forwards, for example. If you fly as PIC an aircraft with its W&Bs out of approved envelope, you're flying an unairworthy aircraft.

 

Too slow and too shallow an approach angle might be a GA thing - 1.3 VSo and 3 degree approach path. I know that many RA instructors will suggest approaching at 2.0 Vso or higher, and 6 degree (or more - I was taught to dive bomb the runway!) approach path.

 

The aircraft can't have been built 51% by Dr Uscinski; it was originally registered by Mr O'Sullivan and who:

 

submitted to RA-AUS an ‘Aircraft Data Sheet’, which he signed and dated 11 December 2003. He did this in order to register the aircraft and made declarations that: (a) he was the builder and designer of the aircraft; (b) the aircraft was completed and ready for weighing on 22 November 2003

Essentially - if I bought a 19-rego aircraft off someone else, and it was not as described, and I had a non-fatal but disabling crash - I would be very unhappy!

 

(you don't know what weight O'Sullivan told Uscinski, and how accurate it was, given that the test flying hours weren't done and were lied about!)

 

The regulations serve to protect pilots and the public. You can talk about minimising bureaucracy all you like, but if you don't rid the organisation of this type of operator no wonder RAA has been described on pprune as "the association of last resort for the pilots at the bottom of the food chain - the shallow end of the Gene pool".

 

 

[M61A1]

Buying one of these is not like going to your local Hyundai dealer and saying "I'll have a green one". If this pilot was genuinely unaware of the true weight (and I really doubt that), and the effect on the aircrafts handling, then, he had no place being in that cockpit.

 

As far as pprune, there are bigger things to worry about than what a bunch self important knobs think because we dare fly something uncertified.

 

I am with HITC on this one, I've read the report, and it appears as nothing more than a witch hunt to exonerate someone that effectively killed themselves.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

Buying one of these is not like going to your local Hyundai dealer and saying "I'll have a green one". If this pilot was genuinely unaware of the true weight (and I really doubt that), and the effect on the aircrafts handling, then, he had no place being in that cockpit. As far as pprune, there are bigger things to worry about than what a bunch self important knobs think because we dare fly something uncertified.

I don't know - I can imagine myself in Uscinski's place, but not in O'Sullivan's place. If I were O'Sullivan I'd be distraught that I'd sold someone something that killed them.

 

I think that if I hire a plane I should be able to rely on the placarded weights, and the placarded CoG limits. If someone's willing to lie to the regulator about that, what else about the plane are they willing to lie about? Are you saying that if I accidentally fly an aircraft that's 200kg heavier than advertised, I have no place being in the cockpit?

 

The only way any of this works is commercial honesty. Seriously - a used car dealership that sold someone a known unroadworthy car should get done for negligence and fraud if the car kills people.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

A certified aircraft would have had fore and aft CoG limits established as part of a test flying program, and after the ballast was moved either the CoG of the empty plane should have been re-measured/re-calculated and/or the plane re-test flown if it was out of its previously established limits.

That's just the point, he didn't buy a Certificated (you can call it Certified if you like) aircraft, he chose to buy an Experimental aircraft. When you fly Experimental YOU are responsible for it being airworthy, not anyone else. It's time people stopped looking for someone else to blame all the time. If you want Certificated, get out of RAAus and go to GA ...

 

I didn't say unflyable, I said unairworthy. An aft CoG will move the stall stick position forwards, for example. If you fly as PIC an aircraft with its W&Bs out of approved envelope, you're flying an unairworthy aircraft.

In which case, see above, you're responsible, it's an Experimental category aircraft. A LAME or L2 might do the work but it's your responsibility to comply with the Operations Manual, and that includes flying the aircraft within the CG limits and at or under the legal weight. What the coroner missed, IMHO, is that the pilot was conducting an illegal operation by flying the aircraft. He can't say he wasn't aware of the weight because that very admission means he was flying illegally because he's required to be aware of the weight ...

 

Too slow and too shallow an approach angle might be a GA thing - 1.3 VSo and 3 degree approach path. I know that many RA instructors will suggest approaching at 2.0 Vso or higher, and 6 degree (or more - I was taught to dive bomb the runway!) approach path.

He wasn't flying GA, he was advised of the differences and the proper way to operate the type - and lower inertia aircraft in general. He didn't agree, that was his choice. It may be a largely nanny State but some decisions are still left up to the individual and he exercised his right. Unfortunately it appears he paid dearly for that, IMHO, but there's no point in trying to lay the blame on others, if the weight/CG was right then he crashed due to his own error, if the weight/CG was wrong then he was at fault flying it because it was his responsibility to be sure it was right. Experimental aircraft, by definition, are for the 'education and recreation' of the participant - see CAO 95.55

 

The aircraft can't have been built 51% by Dr Uscinski; it was originally registered by Mr O'Sullivan

It's not a requirement that the aircraft be registered to the owner/builder. There are often reasons why that doesn't happen, both in GA experimental and RAAus experimental. Reasons can be partnership agreements with the factory in the case of builder-assist, especially where full payment may not have been made, or in the case of lease-back to the factory where the factory puts the aircraft on-line for hire. I know of several examples where that took place quite legally. Then there is the case of syndication where it may be registered to one, some or all of the parties. Owners overseas, as was the case here, sometimes have an agent register their craft here. The point is that the claim was that the Doctor was the owner/builder and it is my opinion that he probably didn't do much of the construction but was probably a party to the deception that he did do so. That would be far from an unique case ... and if my surmise is correct do you think his complicity in the deception should somehow transfer responsibility for what ultimately happened?

 

Essentially - if I bought a 19-rego aircraft off someone else, and it was not as described, and I had a non-fatal but disabling crash - I would be very unhappy!

If you buy a 19 aircraft the onus is on you to be sure what you are buying - Emptor Caveat.

 

(you don't know what weight O'Sullivan told Uscinski, and how accurate it was, given that the test flying hours weren't done and were lied about!)

See above, the onus is on the buyer to ensure they know what they are buying and that they know all about it when they fly it. There is no responsibility on anyone else for how YOU operate a 95.55 aircraft, YOU must ensure that YOU comply with the Ops Manual and the Regulations.

 

The regulations serve to protect pilots and the public. You can talk about minimising bureaucracy all you like, but if you don't rid the organisation of this type of operator no wonder RAA has been described on pprune as "the association of last resort for the pilots at the bottom of the food chain - the shallow end of the Gene pool".

I also believe everything I read on pprune. It's one of those things though - if you're not willing to be responsible for your own actions, if you want to find someone else to blame when you stuff up, you'd be better off leaving RAAus to its own and finding a category that better suits your litigious needs.

 

 

[Ada Elle]

In which case, see above, you're responsible, it's an Experimental category aircraft. A LAME or L2 might do the work but it's your responsibility to comply with the Operations Manual, and that includes flying the aircraft within the CG limits and at or under the legal weight. What the coroner missed, IMHO, is that the pilot was conducting an illegal operation by flying the aircraft. He can't say he wasn't aware of the weight because that very admission means he was flying illegally because he's required to be aware of the weight ...

It is a defense to a strict liability law that you considered the risk of breaking the law, and had valid justification for your belief that you were not breaking the law. So he can say that he wasn't aware of the true weight, because he was entitled to rely on the weight from the LAME/L2 when re-weighing.

 

Experimental aircraft, by definition, are for the 'education and recreation' of the participant - see CAO 95.55It's not a requirement that the aircraft be registered to the owner/builder. There are often reasons why that doesn't happen, both in GA experimental and RAAus experimental. Reasons can be partnership agreements with the factory in the case of builder-assist, especially where full payment may not have been made, or in the case of lease-back to the factory where the factory puts the aircraft on-line for hire. I know of several examples where that took place quite legally. Then there is the case of syndication where it may be registered to one, some or all of the parties. Owners overseas, as was the case here, sometimes have an agent register their craft here. The point is that the claim was that the Doctor was the owner/builder and it is my opinion that he probably didn't do much of the construction but was probably a party to the deception that he did do so.

95.55 says that experimental aircraft are for the education and recreation of the constructor, who must build the major part.

 

The coroner's report says that O'Sullivan declared that he was the builder. A guy who owns an aircraft plant saying that he built a kit that he sells for his own recreation and education is a bit rich!

 

I also believe everything I read on pprune. It's one of those things though - if you're not willing to be responsible for your own actions, if you want to find someone else to blame when you stuff up, you'd be better off leaving RAAus to its own and finding a category that better suits your litigious needs.

Letting cowboys flout the law without consequence doesn't speak very highly of your organisation.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

It is a defense to a strict liability law that you considered the risk of breaking the law, and had valid justification for your belief that you were not breaking the law. So he can say that he wasn't aware of the true weight, because he was entitled to rely on the weight from the LAME/L2 when re-weighing.

Maybe, maybe not, that would have to be decided by the court. Unfortunately though, since you suggest that the good Doctor chose to accept the word of others instead of being certain by determination by more guaranteed means, he won't get his day in court to find out. The requirements of the CAO are clear, it's his responsibility to be certain that he's complying with the Regulations, not to 'believe' or 'think' he's doing so.

 

And frankly, this is nonsense. The aircraft actually weighed about 600kg empty, more like the weight of the Yak he had been flying. He'd also been flying a Lightwing which was about 350kg empty - are you seriously suggesting he couldn't tell the weight difference between them without having to weigh them? If he couldn't he certainly shouldn't have been flying anything at all. Have you actually had a look at the V6 Isuzu truck engine the Spit is equipped with? It's a bloody monster! To suggest he couldn't tell the weight difference is like suggesting someone wouldn't notice the difference if someone added 5kg to the weight of your 3kg boogie board bag ...

 

95.55 says that experimental aircraft are for the education and recreation of the constructor, who must build the major part.

Yes, we've been through this - you don't think the Doctor was part of the conspiracy to suggest he was supposed to be seen as an owner/builder? The coroners report rubbishes that suggestion on page 10, certainly, but the practice was not uncommon. We'll never know the actual truth of that one.

 

The coroner's report says that O'Sullivan declared that he was the builder. A guy who owns an aircraft plant saying that he built a kit that he sells for his own recreation and education is a bit rich!

No, the coroners report says that O'Sullivan wrote on the registration application that he was the builder, that's a slightly different matter when the other discrepancies are taken into account.

 

Letting cowboys flout the law without consequence doesn't speak very highly of your organisation.

It's your organisation too I imagine, if you're a member as you should be to be training in 95.55 aircraft. The organisation is far from perfect that's for sure, but you may be judging it based solely on what was then rather than what is now, and what is in motion for the future. The organisation went through a very black period but appears to be emerging from the gloom due to the tireless efforts of the few.

 

The elections are on at the moment and I'm sure a person of your perspicacity could provide valuable assistance, why don't you put your hand up for a position on the Board?

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Has anyone asked the pilot? He was flying the plane and if as everyone suggests it's a tricky plane to fly I don't think a low time or on type pilot would be.and really it's more supposition than real facts.also we need to ask how the pilot is feeling, that would have scared the s##t out of me cheers Gareth

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's just the point, he didn't buy a Certificated (you can call it Certified if you like) aircraft, he chose to buy an Experimental aircraft. When you fly Experimental YOU are responsible for it being airworthy, not anyone else. It's time people stopped looking for someone else to blame all the time. If you want Certificated, get out of RAAus and go to GA ...

When you sell it though, other factors kick in:

 

The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for example, where the product sold has to be suitable for the purpose, and the transaction has to be free of misleading and unconscionable conduct etc.

 

And the seller may have certain duties of care, such as with the forseeable event where, with CG out of envelope, the aircraft will be unstable.

 

So Ada is making some good points.

 

Placarding is the centrepiece of how the DIRD works these days, and if a product is not in accordance with it's plating, then whoever altered the product without having it recertified and replated, usually has some serious stress time coming. I think these types of issues are why DIRD seems to be moving to push the old guard out.

 

 

[M61A1]

I don't know - I can imagine myself in Uscinski's place, but not in O'Sullivan's place. If I were O'Sullivan I'd be distraught that I'd sold someone something that killed them.I think that if I hire a plane I should be able to rely on the placarded weights, and the placarded CoG limits. If someone's willing to lie to the regulator about that, what else about the plane are they willing to lie about? Are you saying that if I accidentally fly an aircraft that's 200kg heavier than advertised, I have no place being in the cockpit?

 

The only way any of this works is commercial honesty. Seriously - a used car dealership that sold someone a known unroadworthy car should get done for negligence and fraud if the car kills people.

What I'm getting at is....If the Doctor was even half as smart as suggested, and half the pilot suggested in the report, then there was no way that he was unaware about the weight of his aircraft. He didn't hire this thing, he bought and had flown it quite a few times.

Frankly, to suggest that he was unaware of the aircraft's actual weight and the effects on it's handling, is like telling me that you got in your car, and had no idea that someone put half a tonne in the boot and that the tyres were all flat, even if you couldn't see it, you would notice the handling before you left the driveway.

 

I'm not suggesting that it was ok to register, just that it was extremely likely that all parties involved knew that it was overweight, including the Doctor, in which case, he is just as responsible as any of the parties involved, if not moreso.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

When you sell it though, other factors kick in:The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for example, where the product sold has to be suitable for the purpose, and the transaction has to be free of misleading and unconscionable conduct etc.

And the seller may have certain duties of care, such as with the forseeable event where, with CG out of envelope, the aircraft will be unstable.

 

So Ada is making some good points.

I don't quite agree.

 

There seems to be some misconception that the Doctor bought the plane from O'Sullivan. He didn't, he bought the kit from Supermarine way back in 2001, assembly of it wasn't completed until 2003. It was agreed that O'Sullivan would register it in his name so he could conduct the test flying and make modifications as required etc - remember that this was one of the first, if not the very first of the Mk26 type with the Isuzu V6 truck engine, 2 seats (sort of), it certainly wasn't one of the much smaller earlier versions which had the Jab engine.

 

The test flying took place in 2004/2005 and in 2009 the registration was transferred to the Doctor by Notice of Disposal to RAAus. Unless I've missed something there's no suggestion that any money exchanged hands when the rego was transferred, I understood full payment was made at the time of the kit purchase in 2001.

 

That was not a one off event - I know of two other Mk26s which were purchased sometime around 2001/2 and which weren't actually delivered until around 2010 or shortly before O'Sullivan moved the manufacturing to Texas, whenever that was exactly. This arrangement was by agreement between the parties and considered something of an investment by the purchasers. Those aircraft were never intended for the RAAus register, instead being built for the GA Experimental category.

 

I still think this whole 'blame someone else if possible thing' is a nonsense and thoroughly undesirable. If we want many of the freedoms we have, we need to be willing to be responsible for own actions, and that is and always has been the spirit of intent of the CAO. If we want to be able to shed the personal responsibility then get a licence and fly GA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I still think this whole 'blame someone else if possible thing' is a nonsense and thoroughly undesirable. If we want many of the freedoms we have, we need to be willing to be responsible for own actions, and that is and always has been the spirit of intent of the CAO. If we want to be able to shed the personal responsibility then get a licence and fly GA.

Interesting juxtaposition.

 

A plaintiff has to prove someone was negligent, and that's not as easy as it sounds - many steps above blaming someone else.

 

The steps in the law fit well with the freedoms we have, and we still have to be responsible for our own actions; but we are protected against someone else's negligence.

 

I think you will find that CAO fit in with that.

 

Your last sentence is interesting. In GA CASA appears to have a lot more exposure; so my guess is they cringe every time someone from RAA publicly suggests they should be able to expand their operations into CTA etc. where there are going to be more Dash 8s etc.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think many in GA would be very against RAAus operating in CTA. I doubt many Rec pilots really know what is involved. accurate ETA's' position reports tracking tolerences altimetry and altitude tolerences Standard ROD for descents holding entry and pattern procedures and Tso'd imstruments, power load capable and reliable electric systems, radio fail procedures and so on. AND higher medical standards.Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Your last sentence is interesting. In GA CASA appears to have a lot more exposure; so my guess is they cringe every time someone from RAA publicly suggests they should be able to expand their operations into CTA etc. where there are going to be more Dash 8s etc.

I suspect that what HITC means in his last sentence is more to do with CERTIFICATION of the aircraft. Meaning that if you want someone else to be responsible for the manufacture, and certification of your aircraft, go and buy something certified like a Cessna or a 737.

That said, I don't think that uncertified machines should be playing in areas of high density RPT (CTA)

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think many in GA would be very against RAAus operating in CTA. I doubt many Rec pilots really know what is involved. accurate ETA's' position reports tracking tolerences altimetry and altitude tolerences Standard ROD for descents holding entry and pattern procedures and Tso'd imstruments, power load capable and reliable electric systems, radio fail procedures and so on. AND higher medical standards.Nev

Some RAA people still raise it publicly; in fact it got quite an extensive run just recently.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I suspect that what HITC means in his last sentence is more to do with CERTIFICATION of the aircraft. Meaning that if you want someone else to be responsible for the manufacture, and certification of your aircraft, go and buy something certified like a Cessna or a 737.That said, I don't think that uncertified machines should be playing in areas of high density RPT (CTA)

In the DIRD system, of which aviation admittedly is a small and not very well known player there are two categories - one for the high volume market, and one for low volume certification. While the low volume signatories are vetted for qualifications by the State Authorities they hold authority, and take responsibility for low volume certification, and the builder/modifier has to comply with the Act and their decisions for the vehicle to be certified. This has been the case since 1989, and it has worked very well, cleaning out poor quality mass-produced vehicles, and allowing people like me to build certain vehicles which would otherwise be off the road.

So I would have no fears about experimental aircraft facing any sort of unfair threat.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think they should be careful what they ask for. RAAus should remain aware of the type of aviation it stands for. Simple Affordable Aviation. ....Transit rights and procedures, YES. Simplified VFR access to some primary Airports Yes. Why would anyone wish to operate in controlled airspace when you can avoid it? It's often over some of the worst tiger country around. Tracking over the top of aerodromes is exposing yourself to more interaction with other traffic which you are best to try to minimise. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

I'm not suggesting that it was ok to register, just that it was extremely likely that all parties involved knew that it was overweight, including the Doctor, in which case, he is just as responsible as any of the parties involved, if not moreso.

Everybody with any understanding of these things knew it was over weight including RAAus personnel in fact M OS was encouraged to do what he did.