Is this considered a Serviceable or Unserviceable aircraft condition?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Probably not great for the sport as a whole. I'd be more inclined to agree with the poster who recommended reporting it to CASA. If they got those pics and the stories that've been told here, I can't see them ignoring it.

Only as a last resort, after going through the regulatory regulatory channels... Isn't that what the press is for?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Only as a last resort, after going through the regulatory regulatory channels... Isn't that what the press is for?

I'll never argue with using the press as a last resort to keep the b*stards honest... but I don't reckon this has been to CASA yet, if the stories are true.

 

 

[Icarus]

at the moment my BS alarm is going of in a big way.

I see . do you suspect commercial motives?

 

 

[Geoff13]

As I say I have no idea about the flying scene up that way so I have no idea if it could be commercial or personal, but what I am seeing on here seems off to me.

 

That is what I am saying.

 

 

[bt50flyer]

It's now falling into place !

 

Days before Ross Millard passed we ran into him at a strip just North of Cardwell and he took a keen interest in an old style Bolly prop hub on an aircraft there.

 

He told us of a Gazelle he was asked to inspect that had an old style hub that had cracked and that we should keep an eye on it.

 

He went on to say that the Gazelle in question had a number of severe defects and he advised the owner the aircraft has had its day and needed serious work and not to fly it until it was rectified .

 

He refused to sign the aircraft off and he expressed his frustration at the owner for refusing to hand over the aircrafts log books so he could log the defects.

 

A search on the forum revealed this thread Caution : Older type 2-blade Bolly prop hubs.

 

I'd suggest it's the same aircraft! It looks like a Gazelle nose wheel and the colour matches.

 

If so,is this aircraft still flying without a L2 sign off or is there a rogue L2 which has signed it off ?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

It's now falling into place ! Days before Ross Millard passed we ran into him at a strip just North of Cardwell and he took a keen interest in an old style Bolly prop hub on an aircraft there.

He told us of a Gazelle he was asked to inspect that had an old style hub that had cracked and that we should keep an eye on it.

 

He went on to say that the Gazelle in question had a number of severe defects and he advised the owner the aircraft has had its day and needed serious work and not to fly it until it was rectified .

 

He refused to sign the aircraft off and he expressed his frustration at the owner for refusing to hand over the aircrafts log books so he could log the defects.

 

A search on the forum revealed this thread Caution : Older type 2-blade Bolly prop hubs.

 

I'd suggest it's the same aircraft! It looks like a Gazelle nose wheel and the colour matches.

 

If so,is this aircraft still flying without a L2 sign off or is there a rogue L2 which has signed it off ?

If you read the whole thread you'll see a defect report was raised and new item offered to the owner and Maj said the item had been removed from service. No mention of not handing over log books. Perhaps you're going a bit too far now.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

It's now falling into place !Days before Ross Millard passed we ran into him at a strip just North of Cardwell and he took a keen interest in an old style Bolly prop hub on an aircraft there.

He told us of a Gazelle he was asked to inspect that had an old style hub that had cracked and that we should keep an eye on it.

 

He went on to say that the Gazelle in question had a number of severe defects and he advised the owner the aircraft has had its day and needed serious work and not to fly it until it was rectified .

 

He refused to sign the aircraft off and he expressed his frustration at the owner for refusing to hand over the aircrafts log books so he could log the defects.

 

A search on the forum revealed this thread Caution : Older type 2-blade Bolly prop hubs.

 

I'd suggest it's the same aircraft! It looks like a Gazelle nose wheel and the colour matches.

 

If so,is this aircraft still flying without a L2 sign off or is there a rogue L2 which has signed it off ?

bt50flyer....it seems you know all about this aircraft and it's condition...so I ask you, what have you done personally....firstly have you talked to the aircraft's owner lately, maybe they have grounded it since the photo's were taken and if they have all of this talk it just a waste of time and as Geoff 13 said just a witch hunt...if it is still flying then...I think it is up to you now to follow all of this up with RAAus or CASA...have you done this? and if so what are they doing about it? and if you have not...why not?

 

David

 

 

[storchy neil]

bt I wont disagree ross R I P mate and I discussed at temora an aircraft up near him that was not in any way shape or form anywhere near air worthy state

 

ross showed me a couple of photos and I recall looks very similar to the photos in this thread

 

I wonder is there a paper trail leading to raa from ross on this aircraft if not why not neil

 

 

[farri]

a number of official complaints had been made to the Tech manager by people trying to give him a heads up on what is actually happening,only for the Tech manager to say a thorough investigation has been carried out and it has been sorted.

If it is correct that the Tech manager has conducted a thorough investigation, I would say it is now the responsibility of the Tech manager and RA-Aus to do whatever is required.

 

Frank.

 

 

[winsor68]

I Have a LAME friend who says RAA is full of death traps.Told my mrs that I should not build an aircraft because its too dangerous to maintain yourself

Pics like this make it hard to argue.

 

Aircraft like this do nothing but harm to the hobby/pastime and make it harder for everyone who wants to build and

 

.maintain their own aircraft.

 

24 reg so probably owner is L2

 

Makes me cranky

It's exactly why a lot of knowledgable people have given away flying...and it's not just older aircraft with maintenance issues.

 

 

[winsor68]

It's exactly why a lot of knowledgable people have given away flying...and it's not just older aircraft with maintenance issues.

But hey...just keep on burying your heads in the sand...why not?

 

 

[storchy neil]

Yeh kinda reminds me of my shit neil

 

 

[facthunter]

Not condoning any tolerance of shoddy maintenance but the essence of RAAus is participant individual and collective responsibility for a lot of this. If you want an over policed hobby just keep expecting "someone " to oversee everything with the risk of overkill and too much restriction resulting for many to be bothered participating in it. YOU set your own standard. You are not forced at the point of a gun (or such) to fly anything. You are supposed to be "informed" people, That's one of the reasons we give for reduced requirements There's planes I won't ever fly in even if for free or paid to do. If you want total absence of anything suspect by accusations or allegations you will pay much more and lose (more) freedoms and having requirements imposed on us as is already occurring. There's such a variety of planes under our umbrella and that's one of it's advantages. OK that's a background..

 

IF this plane is at the extreme end of where it's alleged to be condition wise, anyone with a KNOWLEDGE or witnessing an unsafe action in aviation is required to report it to the authority. In our circumstances it would logically be to the RAAus initially, as that organisation has been structured along those lines and they should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

bloody hell a question was asked

 

G'day All. Just wondering if I might be able to ask the views of the panel? Long story short, I'm an ex GA pilot looking to get into recreational aircraft, with the goal of eventually building my own. Tail-end of last year I Googled flying schools in the area and decided to go out and have a squiz and a yarn. Being new to RA, I'm not too sure on the rules and regulations for the different registrations, but one of the aircraft triggered a "What The Fark !?...Mob of Dodgy Can'ts!" response. Just wondering if this is considered a serviceable or unserviceable condition, and common for RAAus aircraft?

 

Also, the corroded Flaperon hanger assembly did not appear to have any bearing or bush fitted, so the whole mechanism wobbled like an Elvis impersonator with Parkison's. Is this normal?

 

no its not

 

but

 

owing to the fact that their are rouge operators in this sport that need to be hung drawn and quartered and named so as the person like you do not get the impresion that all rec planes are a death traps

 

this information about operators of planes in this condition needs to be addressed in writing to raa and if no response CASA as the charter that we as an organization operate under has been broken there for no one will able to partisapate in this sport

 

don't phone put it in writing

 

IF this plane is at the extreme end of where it's alleged to be condition wise, anyone with a KNOWLEDGE or witnessing an unsafe action in aviation is required to report it to the authority. In our circumstances it would logically be to the RAAus initially,

 

nev the part of this saga that has me concerned is with a plane in that condition and used to train persons to fly what sort of instructor was he /she ? neil

 

 

[dutchroll]

A commenter has clearly stated that this aircraft was operationally flying at the time the photos were taken.

 

Yes planes can have corrosion and still fly, but there appears to be clear and substantial visible corrosion on flight control components and aerofoil bracing and/or attachment components. That is a no-no, and just because "it has happened on other planes" or "it's only RAAus" doesn't actually constitute a plausible excuse that this one is good to go.

 

I have been flying professionally and privately for 30 years and am still alive to talk about it. Going on the two dozen photos presented (to me they're not "just meaningless photos" - they actually do start to tell a story, though an up close inspection would obviously be ideal), a simple standard pilot walk around would have me refusing to fly this aircraft. I'm actually a little horrified that anyone would think otherwise, but for those who do, perhaps we'll just agree to differ.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.....

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Now that we all know about this issue has anyone called RAAus and asked them if this issue has been brought to their attention and then report this back to us here so we can put this to bed and stop all the guessing !!!!!!!!!

 

David

 

 

[Yenn]

If you believe this plane is flying in an unsafe condition you should report it to the relevant authorities. Namely RAAus.

 

All this airing of facts and predjudices on this site does is alert CASA to the fact that there could be a problem. Next thing all aircraft will be grounded until checks for corrosion are carried out.

 

Don't think this can't happen, just think back to the Jab engine farce.

 

 

[Diddy Pilot]

This thread has now been up for four days with lots of opinion and conjecture being offered. Facts have proven very difficult to distil.

 

Repeatedly posts advise that the original poster should report the issues not just raise them via a public forum. Good advice which does not appear to have been acted on.

 

Being aware of how the internet can breed a mob mentality, innuendo can become fact and stories gain a life of their own; I contacted the RAA Technical Manager to make sure that he was aware of this thread, the alleged issues with this aircraft and the potential threat to RAA (and by association all recreational pilots, aircraft owners and maintainers - us).

 

I was provided with a comprehensive description of the background to this issue and the current actions being taken to again investigate this issue (yes it has been previously investigated, the same photos as were used prior to old issues being fixed and aircraft placed in locked shed have been used). I am more than satisfied that the Technical Manager is taking appropriate actions to investigate the voracity of the claims made on this forum. This has involved the precautionary grounding of the aircraft in question, contracting of an independent LAME to inspect the aircraft and follow up on the information provided by the aircraft owner and maintainer.

 

Should this identify that the allegations are vexatious then then the costs of substantiating the facts will be borne by the those who have made the allegations. If the allegations made on this forum are proven then this is now in the right hands (as it should have been instead of posting here) and the matter can be put to bed.

 

If any of us have concerns about the safety or maintenace of an RAA aircraft we should in the first instance report it to the owner and then if still concerned ensure that it is reported to the Technical Manager.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Hi, Darren

 

 

[Yuri Gagarin]

Hi, Darren

Hi Frank

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Well I think that finally finishes this thread!!!!! thankyou Diddy Pilot...

 

David

 

 

[AVRGirl]

This thread has now been up for four days with lots of opinion and conjecture being offered. Facts have proven very difficult to distil.Repeatedly posts advise that the original poster should report the issues not just raise them via a public forum. Good advice which does not appear to have been acted on.

 

Being aware of how the internet can breed a mob mentality, innuendo can become fact and stories gain a life of their own; I contacted the RAA Technical Manager to make sure that he was aware of this thread, the alleged issues with this aircraft and the potential threat to RAA (and by association all recreational pilots, aircraft owners and maintainers - us).

 

I was provided with a comprehensive description of the background to this issue and the current actions being taken to again investigate this issue (yes it has been previously investigated, the same photos as were used prior to old issues being fixed and aircraft placed in locked shed have been used). I am more than satisfied that the Technical Manager is taking appropriate actions to investigate the voracity of the claims made on this forum. This has involved the precautionary grounding of the aircraft in question, contracting of an independent LAME to inspect the aircraft and follow up on the information provided by the aircraft owner and maintainer.

 

Should this identify that the allegations are vexatious then then the costs of substantiating the facts will be borne by the those who have made the allegations. If the allegations made on this forum are proven then this is now in the right hands (as it should have been instead of posting here) and the matter can be put to bed.

 

If any of us have concerns about the safety or maintenace of an RAA aircraft we should in the first instance report it to the owner and then if still concerned ensure that it is reported to the Technical Manager.

I know I am new to all of this - but if these defects were reported to RAA, why can't I find it in their investigation details on their defect report summary page?? Am I looking in the wrong place?

 

 

[winsor68]

Not condoning any tolerance of shoddy maintenance but the essence of RAAus is participant individual and collective responsibility for a lot of this. If you want an over policed hobby just keep expecting "someone " to oversee everything with the risk of overkill and too much restriction resulting for many to be bothered participating in it. YOU set your own standard. You are not forced at the point of a gun (or such) to fly anything. You are supposed to be "informed" people, That's one of the reasons we give for reduced requirements There's planes I won't ever fly in even if for free or paid to do. If you want total absence of anything suspect by accusations or allegations you will pay much more and lose (more) freedoms and having requirements imposed on us as is already occurring. There's such a variety of planes under our umbrella and that's one of it's advantages. OK that's a background..IF this plane is at the extreme end of where it's alleged to be condition wise, anyone with a KNOWLEDGE or witnessing an unsafe action in aviation is required to report it to the authority. In our circumstances it would logically be to the RAAus initially, as that organisation has been structured along those lines and they should be given the opportunity to rectify the situation. Nev

That is all well and good for experienced aviators...people who come from an aviation background and may know what to look for...people with peers who can look out for them...

But what about the bloke who has never seen an aircraft up close and personal except in magazines and when flying commercially looking to take up flying? These are the people the rules need to be protecting. And they aren't in my opinion.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you want ALL the assurances and backup surveillance, your freedoms and costs change. You are not even supposed to do paid for joy flights. People who have taken passengers up and had bad events happen can be very badly off after the system has had it's way with them, subsequently. Most do the right thing. To totally clean up the show, so anyone could just walk in off the street and go flying everywhere with everyone, given the vastness of this country and our limited resources and many operating variables would be difficult. "informed " person means you are " this form of aviation," savvy, and make decisions accordingly about who with and in what you fly. A large % are single seat, which it could be argued, less stringent rules should apply, as less people are exposed to the pilot's care. Nev

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Well I think that finally finishes this thread!!!!! thankyou Diddy Pilot...David

 

Well I think that finally finishes this thread!!!!! thankyou Diddy Pilot...David

This aircarft is no longer operating in the flying school as RAA has recently taken action. My information was from Jarrod when he phoned me on Friday (yesterday) to advise me that my L2 application was successful and being emailed that day. Then whilst he was on the phone I advised my concern about this aircraft, and the images (although limited in number - thanks BT50fyler for reporting and later posting) that showed good reason to make a targeted monitor / inspection of the aircraft. I have also been the owner and maintainer of a CA21 - 912 80hp Skyfox for a number of years and any corrosion of the aileron control system requires maintenance IAW the respective Skyfox maunals, etc. I believe there is still a further inspection to be made of this aircraft. All effort with this aircraft like all similar matters are good for the group keeping flying safer.

 

Cheers

 

Mike