CASA Safety Notice warns against stalling Bristell aircraft - 19 Feb 2020

[turboplanner]

It's called showing off, something a lot of pilots love doing!

"turns in excess of 90 degrees AOB over a built up area at heights betweeb 600 - 1300 feet"........."manoeuvres far inexcess of the aircraft's performance' ......"104 degree AOB > loss of control"

 

These are not showing off; they indicate a major lack of understanding of basic aircraft handling and CASA are going to have a major job on their hands trying to reef in anoy others who went through training and didn't understand that 104 degrees angle of bank in the circuit would not normally be taught by an instructor. People being trained for 30 degree AOB in the circuit, and steep turns at 45 degrees are not likely to experience what happened to this person, nevber mind about the make of aircraft.

[Flightrite]

I don't agree. Understanding A/C handling has nothing to do with it, it's still showing off whether you know better or not! Tex J was showing off when he rolled a B707 and he knew better than most!

[facthunter]

It's the appropriateness of the action/manoeuver to the circumstances. An instructor did a full roll in a stretch DC 9 below 500 feet with one engine at idle when a student applied full rudder in the wrong direction. The only response that would have saved the aircraft. You need to use and be capable of this in these circumstances. Had he not succeeded He would have had all sorts of "armchair " suggestions thrown at him from an investigatory board that may have taken a week of waffle when the pilot had microseconds to act

.The FAA tried to GET Sully suggesting he might have been able to make it back to the strip and FAKED sim results to try to prove it..Yes you shouldn't perform aerobatics and extreme manoeuvers in circuits without a good reason.. All pilots are BOUND to operate the aircraft in the most safe manner possible in the circumstances. THIS may include breaking some rule or other and if so, be ready to Justify it.. A least you may be alive to do so. Nev

[turboplanner]

Yes you shouldn't perform aerobatics and extreme manoeuvers in circuits without a good reason.. All pilots are BOUND to operate the aircraft in the most safe manner possible in the circumstances. THIS may include breaking some rule or other and if so, be ready to Justify it.. A least you may be alive to do so. Nev

Do you think, when he got it up to 104 degrees AOB he thought he was performing aerobatics?

We are talking way beyond breaking rules here, or doing a non-standard manoeuvre to save an aircraft.

[facthunter]

I really have no way of knowing Turbs I'm NOT trying to say it's ok but I don't wish to see people afraid to do things when and if they get into situations outside of the comfortable "normal". I've exceeded vertical bank at less than 100 ft altitude with a violent wind change on take off. IF that had freaked Me out I would be dead or have be been seriously injured. An onlooker would no doubt have thought "what the hell is HE trying to do?" Nev

[turboplanner]

I really have no way of knowing Turbs I'm NOT trying to say it's ok but I don't wish to see people afraid to do things when and if they get into situations outside of the comfortable "normal". I've exceeded vertical bank at less than 100 ft altitude with a violent wind change on take off. IF that had freaked Me out I would be dead or have be been seriously injured. An onlooker would no doubt have thought "what the hell is HE trying to do?" Nev

We are talking about students here, and early ones at that. Nor are we talking about violent wind changes or people being freaked out.

In this case the onlooker is ATSB, the question is how it ever got to that point.

[facthunter]

I wouldn't call 160 hours an "early" one. By then the basics are usually well covered. He didn't "accidently" do any of this. it's intentional. It's covered in the summary. Many, not one instances of exhuberent flying to say the least. The plane was flown way outside of it's legal envelope and it's structural limits and fairly predictably ended up in a spin from which it had no certainty of being recovered from till it eventually hit the ground at a ROD of around 3000 FPM destroying the aircraft. IF he wasn't showing off, what was the motivation to fly in that manner? ATSB don't try to apportion blame as far as I can see. The spin characteristics of this plane ARE an aspect of this incident. This report was brought up in that context. Nev

[Flightrite]

Looks like CASA have uped the anti on the Britell saga, getting very interesting!

[SSCBD]

Looks like CASA have uped the anti on the Britell saga, getting very interesting!

Please explain ????

[KRviator]

The latest CAsA update in *.PDF format. Thou shall not stall the Bristell lest the earth rise and smite thee!

 

On 28 July 2020 CASA issued operational limitations under regulation 262APA(4) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) in relation to particular activities associated with any flying training operation performed by BRM Aero Ltd, NG4 and NG5 LSA operating with a Special Certificate of Airworthiness.

 

1. A pilot in command of or student under instruction in, a BRM Aero Light Sport Aircraft (including the NG4, NG5 and TDO design variants) engaged in a flight training operation, is prohibited from conducting an intentional stall of the aircraft, or from performing any flight training activities that could reasonably lead to an unintended stall (for example, performance limit turns which occur at high angle of bank, high angles of attack and low airspeed).
   
2. A copy of these operating limitations must be attached to the Special Certificate of Airworthiness, be carried at all times in the aircraft and be readily accessible.
   

Notes:

 

1. The operational limitations remain in effect until such time as written notice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is issued advising to the contrary.
   
2. Nothing in these operating limitations are intended to prevent the conduct of a normal landing.
   
3. A flight training operation includes any training operation, regardless of whether that operation is administered by a Sport Aviation Body (SAB), an Approved Self-administering Organisation (ASAO) under CASR Part 149, or an operator who holds a CASR Part 141 or CASR Part 142 certificate authorising the operation.
   

The purpose of this update is to sufficiently inform aviation participants who conduct recreational and private operations in the affected aircraft, of the potential risks performing certain activities, so they are able to make informed decisions.

 

[Gibbo2]

If you only knew half the crap that has been occurring surrounding the Bristol. Going to bring a lot of people undone and a industry to its knees.

 

I won’t be ever flying a RAAus aircraft again until those issues are sorted and I would recommend the same to all other users.

[Flightrite]

What's the Bristol aircraft you speak of?

Rather a broad statement re RAAus A/C? Do you really believe all others users should not fly their planes, 1000's of them!

[Gibbo2]

Yep. Absolutely. It’s not just Bristol’s that have liability issues.

[alf jessup]

So we talking about a Bristol boxkite?, Bulldog?, Blenheim? Beaugfighter or a Britannia?

Or is it the Bristell?

Fly the Bristell within its design parameters and you will most likely not spin it in. (It should be noted that in Europe they are fitted with a BRS as it is mandatory, the chute is fitted forward of the instrument panel, so these ones that have flat spun in after being mishandled and not had chutes fitted are less 13kg forward for cog, does this play a part?)

It had a comprehensive spin testing regime conducted by a well qualified Soviet Test pilot who spun it 100’s of times with a BRS fitted and our God CASA thinks it is not up to scratch the testing?

Might get a shock old CASA discrediting a company without due cause.

Edited July 29, 2020 by alf jessup

[Thruster88]

AOPA aus are having a live discussion tonight at 19.00 with reps from BRM. Not sure if this link will work for everyone, it was posted in the RV group.

 

RVs_in_Aus

[FlyBoy1960]

Its not just CASA that is highlighting problems with this model, its happening all over the world with other CAA's.

 

A few that have crashed in AU have had chutes if i remember correctly so the comments about weight and balance are really not valid. Anyway, the aircraft should NOT be registered that it is that far out of balance that it can affect the flying performance and characteristics.

 

The piper sport (sport cruiser or whatever name they go by now) has just ceased manufacture and gone into bankruptcy again, I think it is the third time this has happened. There seems to be something generically wrong with this design and all of the clones that are having these problems.

 

The real issue here is that (in my opinion, from the outside) is not that the aircraft is or, is not dangerous to fly, the real issue here from what I see is that the manufacturer is refusing to properly validate their compliance. They claim that the aircraft has been tested thousands of times for spin characteristics but they can't produce the documentation or proof according to CASA and they tried to get the Tail-wheel aircraft through the spin approvals by using data from the nosewheel so the Tail-wheel aircraft was never tested but they stated that it did comply when in fact it was never tested.

 

I think this is the real problem for CASA, they (the manufacturer) are just declaring things as being safe or in compliance with the regulations that they have nothing to back it up and the manufacturer is just giving them the bird.

 

I was speaking with a guy at the airport yesterday and he was telling me about Cirrus how they couldn't meet the requirements for spin recovery so they added a parachute and managed to sneak through the certification. He said that no aircraft would ever be allowed to do this again and if the FAA had their time again they would not approve the aircraft until modifications were made so that it would recover from a spin.

 

The problem does not just exist with LSA, the problem also exists with certified aircraft. Another thing that just came to memory that he mentioned to me was that icon got a whole heap of dispensations which allowed a heavier takeoff weight than approved in LSA. This was apparently because they needed the extra weight to make their design completely spin proof but if I remember correctly more than a few have crashed very shortly after takeoff as a result of a stall/spin.

 

Just my two cents worth, none is expert opinion just information gained from around the traps

[SplitS]

I have trouble trusting CASA after the Jabiru debacle. Some owners of the Bristol may have purchased them after listening to CASA carry on about one of the safest est LSA's on the planet (and Australian made).

[Hwansey]

The real question is whether or not compliance with a CASA issued safety notice is obligatory or simply recommended. The document provides ample amounts of ambiguity. Either way a disaster for owners and the importer. Who in their right mind would buy one with this blot on the copybook?

[SSCBD]

The Bristol LSA I flew for a couple hours was very skittish -just one take off and landing as direct flight - it would porpoise and yaw very very easily with the slightest bump - would not settle easily without input -it would be demanding hands on to fly long flights without auto pilot for holding heading . Never got to stall it. However I have looked at the tiny tail feathers these types that may have and lack of elevator and rudder control at low speed also. May be we need an third party HONEST review by some high time CFIs and rate them for any design or operation like no coffee holders or landing differences

[gareth lacey]

I owned a Roko which is a copy of the Bristell(same designer/engineer) and except for an initial cg problem which they came out from Czech to fix i had no problems flying long distance, to slow and in stall would drop a wing, normal training stall were ok point nose down and keep flying, but as was pointed out to me by CFI who gave me instruction on type(i didnt want to bend a new plane) "to slow oh no" got very mushy and hard to control, but happilly flew over the fence 55knots ,i don,t know if the controls are different in the Bristell but i was happy in flying the Roko.

[Downunder]

The Bristol LSA I flew for a couple hours was very skittish -just one take off and landing as direct flight - it would porpoise and yaw very very easily with the slightest bump - would not settle easily without input -it would be demanding hands on to fly long flights without auto pilot for holding heading . Never got to stall it. However I have looked at the tiny tail feathers these types that may have and lack of elevator and rudder control at low speed also. May be we need an third party HONEST review by some high time CFIs and rate them for any design or operation like no coffee holders or landing differences

That sounds a bit similar to the Flight Design CTSW. A bit twitchy for those unfamiliar or inexperienced.

They morphed that design into the CTLS which had an extended fuse for more stable flight.

[kgwilson]

For my money the problem is as discussed earlier in this thread. In a spin the rudder is shielded. The whole scenario around testing sounds pretty dodgy when evidence cannot be produced. Hearsay is not good evidence, proper documentation videos & photos is.

[RossK]

There is this one

Reportedly pilot is a NZ Airforce pilot,

has right rudder applied most of the time, you can actually see him lift his right leg at 18sec and re-apply.

[facthunter]

I've done plenty of spins and can't work a lot of that out. . Nev

[Blueadventures]

There is this one

Reportedly pilot is a NZ Airforce pilot,

has right rudder applied most of the time, you can actually see him lift his right leg at 18sec and re-apply.

Glad for him that the chute worked. Is there an investigation report on it available.