BrendAn Posted September 19 Posted September 19 39 minutes ago, onetrack said: Brendan, the ATSB works on the basis if they see anything new in the latest crash, especially related to particular aircraft faults that were previously unknown, they will investigate it. Otherwise, there's little to be learnt from investigations that find the pilot simply did the same stupid things as thousands of pilots have done before..... 1. Carried out unauthorised aerobatics ... 2. Flew while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or even prescription medications, where the doctors and drug manufacturers advice was not to drive machines whilst taking them.... 3. Flew into IMC or poor light with no IFR qualifications, against all their training... 4. Failed to completely understand what important controls do, under varying circumstances... 5. Failed to exercise good judgment when faced with important decision-making... 6. Failed to keep track of their precise position... 7. Failed to keep track of their fuel reserves... 8. Indulged in showing off with unauthorised manouevres, trying to impress pax... 9. Failed to understand the importance of a major deterioration in weather conditions... 10. Failed to keep themselves aware of other aircraft in their vicinity... 11. Failed to keep up a professional level of preciseness in aircraft operation, especially when it came to checklists... And so on ... and so on. There are hundreds of crash investigations that all tell similar stories, and only a few where something completely new was learnt. they do not investigate raas accidents at all and the point i am making is how it relates to group g. 1
onetrack Posted September 19 Posted September 19 Group G is simply an increase in MTOW for RA-registered aircraft and as such, RA-Aus will investigate if an investigation is deemed necessary, and if the right people are available for the investigation.
BrendAn Posted September 19 Posted September 19 I know what group g is and raas do not investigate accidents. What I am getting at is with group g there will be more aircraft that can be vh or ra. So if Joe blogs gets killed in his vh AC the atsb will Investigate, but if Joe blogs gets killed in the exact same aircraft with ra reg no one will look at it except the cops. It's just my opinion , I think it's wrong to seperate the 2. 2 1 1
FlyBoy1960 Posted September 19 Posted September 19 18 hours ago, Hwansey said: Given the requirements to record annual aircraft hours and landing for RA-AUS registration, it might be constructive to know the accident rate for the NG 4 and 5. It should also be possible to state the experience of the pilot given the information held by RA-AUS. Then, perhaps, one could make a subjective assessment as to whether or not the type was suitable for the proposed operation. I am confident that the historical incident rates for say the C180, would suggest that its high incident rate was directly proportional to the experience of the operator. Experienced operators found the type to be immensely satisfying to own and fly this supremely capable machine, and this may well be the case with the Bristell. But the C180 was not for beginners and the Bristell may be likewise. There is a record already for this aircraft manufacturer including falsifying certification documents, saying that the aircraft had been tested to certain standards etc. but none of this was actually qualified and the required testing was never done. If the testing had been completed then we could make sure the aircraft met certain standards but it seems like it doesn't. From memory and this is going back 4 or 5 years, the claimed centre of gravity position was something like 300 mm rear of where it needed to be. I don't remember the full story in total detail but it was all very dirty at the time. 1 2
djpacro Posted September 19 Posted September 19 9 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said: There is a record already for this aircraft manufacturer including falsifying certification documents, saying that the aircraft had been tested to certain standards ... the claimed centre of gravity position was something like 300 mm rear It seemed to me that they had done the required stall and spin tests and it was satisfactory. CASA didn't like the reports and wanted more. An issue with a self-certification system. CASA eventually decided they had no issue with stall/spin characteristics. My opinion is that CASA and RAA are way out of their depth on this subject. Meeting LSA certification standards and having behaviour suitable for a training aircraft are two different considerations. As for the CG, seemed to me it was an error, put it down to incompetence maybe. I wonder how other manufacturers determine crew moment arms in a reclined seat like that. I wonder whether the CG issue was a factor in the incidents/accidents. Strange that neither CASA nor ATSB has made a statement connecting the two issues. At least now, they should all be flying around with a much more forward CG than previously. The crew moment arm change had a significant effect. 1 3
danny_galaga Posted September 20 Posted September 20 On 15/09/2024 at 8:28 PM, onetrack said: Flightrite, a search reveals no-one by the name of Mark Freedtone of Penfield. Did you mean to type Freestone or Freedstone? Have the Police released the pilots name? It's bad form to name deceased pilots in crashes, before the Police have publicly released the pilots name officially. Meantimes, the ATSB has stated that they're not investigating, as the aircraft was RA-registered. There can't be too many Bristells on the RA register? Indeed, not too long ago a guy joined up on this forum purely to inform everyone he had not died in a crash like some people were saying..he was not best pleased and I don't blame him for being upset about it. 1
kgwilson Posted September 20 Posted September 20 As I recall there was a lengthy discussion on the spin characteristics of the Bristell when an instructor & student died when they got in to a flat spin a few years ago. The location of the horizontal stabiliser apparently may create a shadow making the rudder ineffective once the flat spin commences making it impossible to get out of. 2 1
BrendAn Posted September 20 Posted September 20 5 hours ago, danny_galaga said: Indeed, not too long ago a guy joined up on this forum purely to inform everyone he had not died in a crash like some people were saying..he was not best pleased and I don't blame him for being upset about it. If I remember correctly his name was reported in the media , our member only posted what he read.
danny_galaga Posted September 20 Posted September 20 25 minutes ago, BrendAn said: If I remember correctly his name was reported in the media , our member only posted what he read. I Think a simple apology to him would have been nice, instead people, including you just doubled down. A simple apology and move on. The original thread has been edited but you can see he had a valid point.
turboplanner Posted September 20 Posted September 20 18 hours ago, BrendAn said: they do not investigate raas accidents at all and the point i am making is how it relates to group g. Yes they do. You can check back through the ATSB files and see for yourself. They just select a few they want to investigate. 1
BrendAn Posted September 20 Posted September 20 21 minutes ago, danny_galaga said: I Think a simple apology to him would have been nice, instead people, including you just doubled down. A simple apology and move on. The original thread has been edited but you can see he had a valid point. Maybe if hadn't carried on so much he might have had a better reception.
danny_galaga Posted September 20 Posted September 20 29 minutes ago, BrendAn said: Maybe if hadn't carried on so much he might have had a better reception. And there it is. Some people just can't see someone else's point of view. I think you've just invented the 'triple down' 😄 1 2 1
BrendAn Posted September 20 Posted September 20 1 hour ago, danny_galaga said: And there it is. Some people just can't see someone else's point of view. I think you've just invented the 'triple down' 😄 So it's ok for someone to abuse a person on here who only posted what he read in the media. He should have contacted the source I would have thought.
FlyBoy1960 Posted September 20 Posted September 20 Copied from another site. tail wheel Moderator "In February 2020, the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority released a safety notice advising of a number of fatal accidents globally involving spins and stalls of Bristell LSAs. The safety notice states "aircraft may not meet the LSA standards as it does not appear to have been adequately tested" and that "the manufacturer has been unable to provide satisfactory evidence that the design is compliant with the requirements of the ASTM standards applicable to light sport aircraft." The company contested the CASA notice and claims that spin testing was conducted, although the manufacturer prohibits the design from intentional spins. CASA indicated on 28 February 2020 that "further investigation and discussions with the manufacturer are ongoing and CASA will provide an update as new information becomes available." The Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit report in May 2022 on the crash of an NG 5 Speed Wing in June 2019, resulting in the death of the two occupants, and found that incorrect weight and balance information supplied by the manufacturer was a contributory factor to the crash and recommended that BRM Aero revise and enhance the operating guidelines for the aircraft. On 21 June 2021 CASA issued a notice indicating that the manufacturer had provided data on spin testing and had also amended its weight and balance information provided to builders and owners, including changing the datum from the wing leading edge to the engine firewall. CASA indicated that the amended weight and balance limits and new datum adequately addressed the safety concerns previously raised and "provided operators of the aircraft only operate the aircraft in compliance with the corrected AOI data, CASA considers that the potential for inadvertent operation of the aircraft at or outside the centre of gravity limits is substantially reduced." 1 1
RFguy Posted September 20 Posted September 20 How far is the leading edge from the firewall (datum) ?
facthunter Posted September 20 Posted September 20 Datum point s are fairly arbitrary. Easier to understand if you use range of mean aerodynamic chord Tail heavy is very risky often compounded by shielding of RUDDER and short tail moment arms and mass distribution lengthwise. Ie weights on engine or tail. and small area tailfeathers. Nev
djpacro Posted September 20 Posted September 20 1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said: On 21 June 2021 CASA issued a notice indicating that the manufacturer had provided data on spin testing and had also amended its weight and balance information provided to builders and owners, including changing the datum from the wing leading edge to the engine firewall. CASA indicated that the amended weight and balance limits and new datum adequately addressed the safety concerns previously raised ... I had overlooked/forgotten that. Amended weight and balance limits were only a consequence of the different datum, there were no actual changes in the limits. The important change was the corrected crew moment arm and consequent need for ballast on the nose.
RFguy Posted September 21 Posted September 21 yeah but if they said aft CG limit was 900mm behind the datum , and the datum was specified as the leading edge of the wing, but that was wrong, and in fact it was the firewall , at say, 200mm forward, then operators would have been running 1100 mm aft of the datum.. a very different case...
facthunter Posted September 21 Posted September 21 Do a proper W&B check. . Don't just believe what your read. "somewhere". with Weight & Balance. Emphasis on the "balance". Nev 1
RFguy Posted September 21 Posted September 21 and most aircraft (common , conventional types) that RAAUS fly all have similar ranges they work in as a % of MAC so a bit of a sanity check can assist.
FlyBoy1960 Posted September 21 Posted September 21 you just can't say do a proper weight and balance. You have to rely that the manufacturer is giving you the correct information to start with. If they are not giving you the correct information what ability do they have to make sure the design complies with such a basic and important calculation. I would say RUN
djpacro Posted September 21 Posted September 21 CASA's note on 7/8/20 referred only to the change in crew moment arm. Nothing else changed as shown in my diagram here. The blue line was an example from the Bristell manual. The red line is the same example with the correct crew moment arm. The change to the datum (and therefore the limits wrt that datum), it seemed to me, only obfuscated any comparison.
FlyBoy1960 Posted September 21 Posted September 21 Nearly any plane ever made will be in the correct weight and balance range of 25% to 35% MAC, it's physics ? if you position the crew so they are at 40% MAC then you will fly very tail heavy and could possibly be uncontrollable. 1
BrendAn Posted September 21 Posted September 21 20 hours ago, turboplanner said: Yes they do. You can check back through the ATSB files and see for yourself. They just select a few they want to investigate. That would be pretty rare .
Thruster88 Posted September 21 Posted September 21 I understand this accident aircraft 23-2136 was very new with only 16 hours tt. Presumably the weight and balance was sorted. Problem appears to start in cruise flight so stall spin talk seems a moot point? The true cause is likely already known, we will just have to wait a few years for that. 2 2
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