Pacific Ibis Grounding

[Guest john]

Hi Bilby,

 

Thanks for the info. The Gazelle is still a good type plane, as I use to have one & regretted selling it however there was no point in crying over spilt milk. I then brought a Skyfox Taildragger & flew it for a while. I think the Ibis is also a good safe type plane as I have also flown this type of plane & was very impressed with its performance & handling & have been considereing buying one, which is why I was enquiring if yours is available.

 

Cheers

 

John:thumb up:

 

 

[Teckair]

Depends on your definition of grass roots. Today's rag and tubes seem to be a world apart from the original rudimentary frame with a plastic stackable chair for a seat. Maybe it isn't as risky any more. A Drifter probably has a better stress rating than most LSAs. But the perception is still there and the perceptions of non-flying loved ones are often a big factor in what a person flies.Again, I have nothing but admiration for grass roots pilots. But it seems some grass roots people have a big chip on their shoulder towards the higher end of ultralight aviation.

 

Apologies again for the thread drift.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder towards the so called "higher end of ultralight aviation" and don't ever remember seeing an ultralight aircraft "with a plastic stackable chair for a seat".

What I do resent is my organisation being hi-jacked away from it's intended purpose of affordable flying and being directed towards GA Mk 2 or light GA or whatever you want to call it, it certainly is not affordable ultralight flying.

 

If people want to fly GA style aircraft that is fine with me but it should be user pays, if people want the AUF/RAA to pursue complicated aircraft with the associated complicated expensive problems that go with them such as we are now witnessing with legal action/grounding issues then those people should pay for it and it should not be imposed on people who do not want it.

 

The AUF was never set up to try and administer what we now have and it shows just check what has happened to a whole series of Tech Managers.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

The grounding issues we have seen of late have NOTHING to do with whether the Aircraft is rag and tube or percieved by some to be COMPLEX (Itself a bit of a joke in GA noone is ever going to look at a tecnam(single) or a jabiru and think complex!!) As I inferred previously the checks and balances required for a purchased aircraft (specifically one the owner didnt build) are EXACTLY the same.....

 

Why does every problem that RAA ever have seem to degrade in these forums down to an attempt to further split an already split multiple times group of people into Rag and Tube and Complex......furthermore it always seems to come down to complex aircraft should pay more...WTF, what exactly do we get for more? I cant think of a single thing that the complex aircraft imposses on RAA that a simple aircraft doesnt.......I can kill myself in a simple aircraft, I can fly into controlled airspace in a simple aircraft.....the training regeme is pretty much the same (bit of additional focus on high drag low inertia) and so on..... Can you also please explain to me why RAA is anynore "your organisation" than it is mine! If I want to fly my jab I must be a member of RAA, an incoporated association owned equally by all 11,000 members....so why the hell is it "your" organisation anymore than mine....Is it a how long have I been a member thing? cause if it is that would infer that all the members that have been members for the longest time would only be flying rag and tube (which Im pretty sure is plain old B/S...) or is there some other reason that makes it yours more than mine?

 

It seems to me that horse owners could think the same thing of the RTA being hijacked by car owners....or anything else equally stupid!

 

Its my personal view that there isnt a single aircraft that can legitimately (today) be licensed by RAA that could in anyway be considered complex. That isnt to say that each different type doesnt need care and endorsement training but in reality any of us here should be able to fly anything within the stable of types available to us with nothing more than a bit of instruction. So please stop with the complex and simple division that doesnt exist. Even the High Performance rating that RAA has (HP) is a joke....in the broader GA HP in RAA would be considered very low end or LP to be honest....

 

As recent events at the AGM showed we will achieve the greatest outcomes when we all work together and achieve nothing but bickering when we work against each other trying to subdivide what is already a very small segement of avitaion in Australia

 

Andy

 

P.S if you want to see a stackable chair ultralight check out the scout it absolutely used the old mustard yellow stackable chair base.....

 

 

[bilby54]

P.S if you want to see a stackable chair ultralight check out the scout it absolutely used the old mustard yellow stackable chair base.....

Ahh the Scout!!

 

Now there was an aircraft you could stack in the air!!!

 

 

[Guest john]

Hi Andy,

 

It was interesting to read your opinion of where RAAus is with respect to the grounding of the Ibis .

 

Would your opinion be the same if you owned 1 of these type aircraft & had invested your hard earned dollars on an Ibis or would you accept without question that your Ibis could not be flown again because of beaureaucratic bullshit which had previously been approved by the organistion that has the responsibilty in Australia to administer these matters?

 

Unless someone speaks out about this type of negligence & incompetence then no one is any of the wiser & then things can go from bad to worse.

 

It would be good to know your views on this matter if you were to put the boot on the other foot, as you have indicated that we all have to work together & that includes owners & pilots with rag & tube aircraft on the lower end of the spectrum & the owners & pilots on the high end of the spectrum with the newer & faster type aircraft that are now available, such as LSA's.

 

Remember that the only thing constant about change is change itself.

 

Regards

 

John:victory:

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

John

 

Nothing in my post should be construed as to suggest that the situation we have at present with IBIS and the similar issues with other aircraft is in any way at all tolerable. Wether I own an Ibis or the current J230 my thoughts would be exactly the same with regard to it being intolerable and I would be considering my legal options if I too owned an expensive aircraft that was capable of being used only as an expensive paper weight at this time.

 

My post was a flair up at those that want to use any problem as an excuse to call for tan artificial subdivision between LP and HP aircraft.

 

The tired old rationale used is that the total cost to the organisation is increasing on a per head basis as a result of RAA choosing or being told to deal with HP aircraft over that which would be inplace if RAA only dealt with LP aircraft. I believe such an argument is fundamentally flawed and will in no way stand up to logical scrutiny. Furthermore I would be very suprised in life if a pilot chose LP or HP and never moved between the 2, or worse had one of each which would require 2 memberships to 2 different organisations.

 

If you read that my post was somehow excusing the current situation then Im sorry I was not clearer, nothing could be further from my position.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest john]

Ahh the Scout!!Now there was an aircraft you could stack in the air!!!

Hi Bilby,

 

You have indicated in a previous thread the reason why RAA immediately grounded the Ibis because certain airworthiness documentation was non existant. Could you now please specify what actual airworthiness documentaion exists in the Flight Manual for the Ibis when this type plane was first registered in the 24 category by RAA in Australia either from the Manufacture or RAA?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[bilby54]

John,

 

I'll be over at the airfield today taking a trip down memory lane so will have a look

 

 

[M61A1]

I don't have a chip on my shoulder towards the so called "higher end of ultralight aviation" and don't ever remember seeing an ultralight aircraft "with a plastic stackable chair for a seat".What I do resent is my organisation being hi-jacked away from it's intended purpose of affordable flying and being directed towards GA Mk 2 or light GA or whatever you want to call it, it certainly is not affordable ultralight flying.

 

If people want to fly GA style aircraft that is fine with me but it should be user pays, if people want the AUF/RAA to pursue complicated aircraft with the associated complicated expensive problems that go with them such as we are now witnessing with legal action/grounding issues then those people should pay for it and it should not be imposed on people who do not want it.

 

The AUF was never set up to try and administer what we now have and it shows just check what has happened to a whole series of Tech Managers.

While I agree that the organisation has moved on and is struggling to cope, I think it has more to do with factory built aircraft and the associated certification. It doesn't matter with an owner built aircraft because no mater how complex or fast it is, it won't be certified (without a lot of work and expense), the problem comes from wanting to buy an off the shelf aircraft with the associated warranty/certification instead of doing it yourself and bearing the risk yourself.

[Teckair]

While I agree that the organisation has moved on and is struggling to cope, I think it has more to do with factory built aircraft and the associated certification. It doesn't matter with an owner built aircraft because no mater how complex or fast it is, it won't be certified (without a lot of work and expense), the problem comes from wanting to buy an off the shelf aircraft with the associated warranty/certification instead of doing it yourself and bearing the risk yourself.

Yes that is correct, but I think there are way too many new models flooding the market place which in it self is limited. I would hate to be the Tech manager trying to deal with it all. The way it is going we will need a team of Tech Managers to cope with every Tom , Dick and Harry wanting to put the latest wizz bang design imported from god knows where on the register. The market for 100 K plus toys is limited and is becoming more so each day, which means the situation will become increasingly unsustainable.

 

 

[dazza 38]

If I owned a IBIS & had a $100K plus invested in it. I would seriously be considering thinking that the RAA/CASA can go a get farked & fly it. And I wouldnt be changing the 24 number to 19. RAA have realy turned into a circus.I understand that Columbia isnt a member of ICAO which is probably corrupted, like every other international organisation. (Columbia doesnt have time to become a member of the ICAO, they are too busy producing cocaine, to be bothered).

 

Having said that, somebody (incorrectly) approved them.The precedent has been set.Happy flying.

 

 

[Gentreau]

So if I understand the sytem correctly, the long term impact for a private owner of an Ibis is that it may have to be re-registered 19 and can then be flown again, and there may or may not be some loss of value. However for a training organisation, there is a more significant impact because the aircraft will have to be replaced with an alternative, certified, 24 registered machine.

 

Can somebody explain to me why a machine used for training has to be certified and registered 24 ?

 

What practical difference does that make to the safety ?

 

Would an instructor go up every day in a 19 registered aircraft if he or she didn't consider it safe ?

 

Does the system assume that private owners are somehow less safety concious than flying schools ??

 

Under the french system, any machine which is a legal 2 seater with full dual controls can be used for training if the PIC (instructor) is happy with it's airworthiness. In most cases he/she is happy with it because he/she maintains it and knows it inside out, as would any instructor who flies the same machine day-in day-out.

 

 

[winsor68]

Not only not able to be used for training but unable to be used for hire or reward?

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

So if I understand the sytem correctly, the long term impact for a private owner of an Ibis is that it may have to be re-registered 19 and can then be flown again, and there may or may not be some loss of value. However for a training organisation, there is a more significant impact because the aircraft will have to be replaced with an alternative, certified, 24 registered machine.Can somebody explain to me why a machine used for training has to be certified and registered 24 ?

 

What practical difference does that make to the safety ?

 

Would an instructor go up every day in a 19 registered aircraft if he or she didn't consider it safe ?

 

Does the system assume that private owners are somehow less safety concious than flying schools ??

 

Under the french system, any machine which is a legal 2 seater with full dual controls can be used for training if the PIC (instructor) is happy with it's airworthiness. In most cases he/she is happy with it because he/she maintains it and knows it inside out, as would any instructor who flies the same machine day-in day-out.

Under the current CAR and relevant CAO only factory build aircraft can be used for training. I guess the thinking was that a factory and company with liability implications and statements of conformance and adherence to long held type certification provides some comfort if not guarantee that relevant ASTM standards for safe and robust manufacturing and design are adhered to. Every paying member of the public has the right to expect this in our industry if we are charging them for this service.....

 

 

[M61A1]

Under the current CAR and relevant CAO only factory build aircraft can be used for training. I guess the thinking was that a factory and company with liability implications and statements of conformance and adherence to long held type certification provides some comfort if not guarantee that relevant ASTM standards for safe and robust manufacturing and design are adhered to. Every paying member of the public has the right to expect this in our industry if we are charging them for this service.....

Just to clarify, it was my understanding that you could use it for training, but only your own. As in, if you bought one, an instructor could train you in it, (assuming you could get one to fly it), but not allowed to be used for hire or reward, ie: no school use or rental.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Just to clarify, it was my understanding that you could use it for training, but only your own. As in, if you bought one, an instructor could train you in it, (assuming you could get one to fly it), but not allowed to be used for hire or reward, ie: no school use or rental.

That is my understanding as well. The key point being that you are able to find an instructor prepared to instruct you in your own 19 registered craft.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

As CFI says both correct but try and run a business on owner/ builder training and see how far you get.... I really feel for every one caught up in this monumental debacle.

 

 

[turboplanner]

done is the word

 

 

[turboplanner]

done is better, as in dinner

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Just to clarify, it was my understanding that you could use it for training, but only your own. As in, if you bought one, an instructor could train you in it, (assuming you could get one to fly it), but not allowed to be used for hire or reward, ie: no school use or rental.

Not quite correct I'm afraid. AFAIK you can't be trained for your PC in a kit built plane you have bought - only one you have built

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[kaz3g]

I have spoken to an aircraft owner of an IBIS today about RAAus gounding the Ibis & RAAus obviously know that their actions have placed them in the **** & they are trying every which way to get out of the hole they have dug for themself....<snip>...

Equity has a principle known as "estoppel" which acts to prevent a person (the Representor) from changing his or her conduct after they have given another (the Relying Party) notice of their intended conduct and that other in good faith acts in reliance upon it occurring. If the change occurs and the other suffers a detriment then the person who gave the notice is likely to have to pay compensation.

 

Estoppel will operate when the Relying Party has acted on assumption (or reliance) on a representation made by the Representor, and will suffer detriment if the Representor will act inconsistently with his representation.

 

• For example, the Relying Party acts on the assumption that the Representor has signed/will sign a contract for sale of goods.
   
   
  
• He then makes arrangements (incurring expenditure) to transport and store those goods.
   
   
  
• It is then revealed that the Representor has not signed the contract, or will not do so in the future.
   
   
  
• The Relying Part has thus suffered a detriment by relying on a representation made by the Representor, whose conduct proved to be inconsistent with his representation.
   
   
  

 

 

As I have said before, my area of practice is primarily criminal law and this is a complex area of the civil law of negligence involving equitable principles rather than statute law. That said, if an importer of aircraft makes inquiries of RAAus about a certain machine and is told it is elegible for a particular registration and pays the fees for the assessment and certification, then they have acted in reliance upon the decisions of RAAus. If they import machines and their registration is subsequently denied or cancelled it would seem very likely, in my view, that the importer would suffer a detriment and the association would be held liable for their loss.

 

My guess is there will be a few rabbits disappearing down holes pretty soon.

 

kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

What makes you think grass roots flying is any more risky than any other type of flying?

Statistics?

 

kaz

 

 

[Gentreau]

Statistics?kaz

Are there sufficiently detailed statistics to make fair comparison, and do they show that it to be the case ?

 

 

[Guest john]

Officially the reason for the grounding - from RAA# Firstly the aircraft manufacturer does not hold a production certificate to produce a Type Certified Aircraft in accordance with our regulation CAO 95.55.

#Secondly the aircraft itself does not have or hold a Type Certificate issued by any country that is recognised by CASA., EASA or any other ICAO aviation approved countries. as far as we can find .

 

# The aircraft has no Compliance Statement signed and approved from the manufacturer stating that the aircraft conforms to any LSA ASTM standards.

 

It still begs the question as to how it got approved in the first place and not a witch hunt against Tech Managers

Hi Bilby,

 

What are the titles or names of the actual official airworthiness documents in the front of the flight manual for the Ibis either from the manufacturer or RAAus?

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[bilby54]

Hi Bilby,You have indicated in a previous thread the reason why RAA immediately grounded the Ibis because certain airworthiness documentation was non existant. Could you now please specify what actual airworthiness documentaion exists in the Flight Manual for the Ibis when this type plane was first registered in the 24 category by RAA in Australia either from the Manufacture or RAA?

 

Cheers

 

John

I only cross hire this particular aircraft so other documentation is held at the maintenance facilty off field.

 

The flight manual only refers to documentation for the country in which it is registered so I surmise that it is with the maintenance and technical records but not in this particular aircraft.