Bass Strait plane missing 02/08/25

[Rotorwork]

Nothing Found 

 

https://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/update-search-for-missing-light-plane-2/

[onetrack]

Beachcombers will the ones that will find anything. Something will turn up eventually.

[Thruster88]

Anyone know if this Bristell was fitted with the optional BRS chute?

[facthunter]

"Somewhere" it appeared as NOT. Nev

[BirdDog]

On 4/8/2025 at 5:17 PM, onetrack said:

 

 

Then there's the fact that the Bristell has some serious handling issues, and the owner has only owned it a short time, and perhaps may have not been fully conversant with the Bristells "issues".

And finally, the Bristell is available with a BRS, but it seems this aircraft wasn't fitted with one.

 

Serious handling issues??  And you have proof of this information where? 
 

I’ve owned and flown one for 5 years mate. There’s no “serious” issue that I know of, or have ever experienced, so I’m curious on your statement. 
 

Care to elaborate??

[onetrack]

Yep - Quote from the ATSB crash report below....

 

"The Bristell exhibits different handling characteristics to the other aircraft type the student pilot had previously operated. Specifically, instructors reported that it is less docile and has a stronger tendency to pitch up when engine power is applied for a go-around.

The instructors also reported that the Bristell has less elevator authority to counter the nose-up effect and a greater tendency to drop a wing (usually the left) during a stall."

 

Loss of control and collision with terrain involving BRM Aero Bristell S-LSA aircraft, VH-YVF, Moorabbin Airport, Victoria, on 12 December 2019 | ATSB

WWW.ATSB.GOV.AU

 

 

Another quote from a different ATSB crash report below....

 

"Following a number of fatal accidents involving Bristell aircraft entering into and not recovering from spins in Australia and overseas, CASA assessed the Bristell LSA self-certification testing documentation against the ASTM certification test standards.
CASA found that there was insufficient information in the initial test data to provide assurance that the aircraft type met the ASTM standards for spin recovery. As a result, CASA requested more certification testing data from the manufacturer.

The manufacturer conducted further certification flight tests in the Bristell LSA and provided that data, including video recordings of each flight sequence to CASA.

CASA’s assessment of the new flight testing data and further information supplied by the manufacturer was that it still did not confirm that the aircraft met the required ASTM standard for spin recovery."

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/5778172/ao-2018-066_final.pdf

[FlyBoy1960]

it is so funny how the owner of an aircraft gets so defensive when somebody brings up factual information about an engine or handling issue of that particular breed

[facthunter]

You like to think your choice is good.. People get attached to their Plane, car or Motorbike.  Nev

[pmccarthy]

My friend who had a Bristell says that the transponder came on automatically at a certain airspeed. So if it did not come on, it must be a deliberate switch off or an electrical failure. Perhaps a master switch or isolator bumped off during preflight checks?

[djpacro]

17 hours ago, BirdDog said:

Serious handling issues??  And you have proof of this information where? 
 

I’ve owned and flown one for 5 years mate. There’s no “serious” issue that I know of, or have ever experienced, so I’m curious on your statement. 

You probably missed the saga prior to your 5 years with it?

16 hours ago, onetrack said:

Yep - Quote from the ATSB crash report below....

 

"The Bristell exhibits different handling characteristics to the other aircraft type the student pilot had previously operated. Specifically, instructors reported that it is less docile and has a stronger tendency to pitch up when engine power is applied for a go-around.

The instructors also reported that the Bristell has less elevator authority to counter the nose-up effect and a greater tendency to drop a wing (usually the left) during a stall."

Much happened after that. I was following it all but I'm sure I don't know the whole story. 

 

Some years ago, one of my friends sought a dual flight in a Bristell at a flight school. He was told they didn’t do stalls in them! A year or so later a CASA examiner told me that pilots were presenting themselves for flight tests in Bristells and refusing to stall them for the test. Why was that? I spoke to some Bristell flight instructors.

In 2020, CASA issued a safety notice for flight schools operating Bristells which “prohibited from conducting an intentional stall of the aircraft, or from performing any flight training activities that could reasonably lead to an unintended stall …”

CASA  then “sought confirmation from the manufacturer as to compliance with the ASTM LSA standards and, in particular, spin compliance flight testing. At the present time, CASA has not received sufficient assurance as to the extent of such testing, including testing covering each design variant.” It seemed to me that BRM had shown compliance with the spin requirements (I reviewed the reports) but CASA was stuck on the thought that it must not comply because of the spin accidents but unable to identify any specific issues with the test reports.

Then we got some independent flight tests of an in-service aeroplane with questions as to the conformity of the particular aeroplane and conduct of the tests. All a little murky as to who authorised these tests. Certainly not CASA.

I did a W&B calculation from the data in the manual. Two people at 90 kg each right on the aft limit. Then there was another airworthiness alert! The crew moment arm in the manual was incorrect. W&B section of the manual was rewritten to make comparisons difficult. The same two 90 kg people now put the CG way way behind the aft limit!

Aeroplanes were reweighed and ballast added firewall forward to move the empty CG forward. Moving the CG forward has a beneficial effect on handling characteristics, especially stalling and spinning.

All the issues seemed to disappear overnight. No more said that I am aware of. The whole saga certainly showed the incompetence of some at the factory, RAA and CASA. Some at the regulatory authority especially were out of their depth.
 

[FlyBoy1960]

2 hours ago, djpacro said:

 

All the issues seemed to disappear overnight. No more said that I am aware of. The whole saga certainly showed the incompetence of some at the factory, RAA and CASA. Some at the regulatory authority especially were out of their depth.
 

 

From what I was told (airport gossip) everything went quiet because the importer in Australia started legal action against everybody (RA-Aus and CASA) once this happened everything was dropped like a sack of potatoes...

[facthunter]

ANY plane becomes a death trap if the Cof G is too far Back. EVERY Pilot should KNOW that. It's BASIC.  Nev

[djpacro]

4 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

 

From what I was told (airport gossip) everything went quiet because the importer in Australia started legal action against everybody (RA-Aus and CASA) once this happened everything was dropped like a sack of potatoes...

That too.

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

ANY plane becomes a death trap if the Cof G is too far Back. EVERY Pilot should KNOW that. It's BASIC.  Nev

Yes, but the wrong crew moment arm was in the manual so the pilots did not know their CG was further back.

[facthunter]

You can tell by where the Elevator sits in flight and the stick will be forward and elevator down.. With a tail dragger the rear will be reluctant to lift off the ground on take-off roll.  You should ABORT IF that is the case. With a tricycle gear the Nosewheel won't have enough weight on it and will rotate too easily if trim is normal and want to go to a high nose up pitch..

  Having the Book wrong is inexcusable but the Pilot should be alert for anything that is NOT Normal and be ready to STAY on the ground.. Nev