CASA Revokes Bristell Bans.

[walrus]

CASA was just kidding. From AOPA:

 

Quote

OPINION: CASA BACKFLIP

REGULATOR REVOKES ADDITIONAL OPERATING LIMITATIONS

ON BRM AERO LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (BLSA)

AOPA Australia CEO, Mr Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion.

In a letter dated 21st June 2021, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has today announced the revocation of additional operating limitations placed on BRM Aero Light Sport Aircraft (BLSA), signalling a major victory for the aircraft manufacturer.

The CASA backflip comes almost a year after it imposed restrictions on the aircraft type, that were largely encouraged by what BRM Aero have vigorously claimed to be a defective and inappropriate flight test report from the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS).

Signed by Mr Robert Walker, Executive Manager of the Stakeholder Engagement Division of CASA;

“Upon consideration of your submission and other emergent facts and circumstances as set out below, I am writing to give you notice that pursuant to subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (AIA) and regulation 262APA of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR), I have decided in my capacity as delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to revoke the additional operational limitations previously imposed upon BLSA operating within Australia by notice dated 28th July 2020.”

But more importantly, it’s the following statement that is of significant interest to our industry;

“In making this decision, I am also reasonably satisfied that revocation of the additional operating limitations is not contrary to the interests of aviation safety.”

So, if there was no risk to aviation safety, it begs the question; why did CASA take the public action that they did? And, more importantly, who was motivating them to do this?

Aircraft manufacturers and regulators must be able to work with together constructively. When problems or concerns are identified, its incumbent for all to work in the best interests of safety in addressing problems.

Based on the documentation and correspondence shared with AOPA Australia, CASA appears to have taken an unnecessarily hostile approach with BRM Aero, largely fuelled by staff and representatives who held significant conflicts of interest, thus prejudicing the regulator from resolving the concerns in a productive manner. Or was that the intention all along?

During the course of this past year, AOPA Australia on behalf of BRM Aero aircraft owners reached out to CASA seeking an intervention, only for it to have fallen on deaf ears. The then Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Carmody, refused a meeting - CASA it seemed was uninterested in any other view or opinion other than its own.

A simple meeting, a coming together of cooler minds could have averted the senseless damage caused by CASA taking the action they did.

There is much to be learned from this sorry debacle and with proper independent review and guidance CASA could be the better for the experience - if it were open to genuine consultation and feedback from the industry and broader community. History shows this may be difficult for CASA.

Despite the above, its abundantly clear that CASA lacks appropriate oversight of its critical safety decision making and should be restrained from knee jerking to public outcomes. To do anything other continues to undermine external confidence and relationships with CASA, along with damaging the broader reputation of the aviation industry and CASA itself.

AOPA Australia recognises the need for a robust safety regulator, we must have a diligent and capable CASA for our industry to move forward. This must be achieved in partnership with the industry, trust and respect must be restored for aviation to progress.

It’s not lost on AOPA Australia that the revocation comes just weeks after the appointment of the new Director of Aviation Safety of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and we can only hope that this kind of positive direction continues for the sake of our industry’s future. With Ms Spence, we have a new and unique opportunity to work together and we need to embrace this.

For BRM Aero, they now have the task of rebuilding their brand and reputation – vindicated by today’s announcement, but with a damages bill that could likely run into the tens of millions worldwide. With major international law firms circling to represent BRM Aero, their distributorship network and aircraft owners worldwide, the RAAUS (who are alleged to have been responsible for creating this mess) are possibly beginning to sweat somewhat.

If the prospect of funding what could be a long, and extremely expensive legal battle is not frightening enough, then the sobering reality of a damages settlement to the tune of tens of millions might be.

For the broader aviation industry, this next phase of the BRM Aero saga is likely to have some significant consequences and ramifications for aircraft owners and pilots in the recreational space.

Should they be successful in suing the RAAUS for damages to their worldwide brand, network and product, RAAUS could be looking at a hefty payout, with insurers and potentially members left picking up the tab. Either way, this case may potentially open the door to others, with claims against the self-administration.

If the damages figure reaches high enough it could risk bankrupting the self-administration, which under the current regulatory framework, could leave thousands of pilots and aircraft owners unable to fly. The situation highlights how fragile and inadequate the current approach to self-administration truly is and why a parallel pathway must be returned to within the CASA regulated system as a priority and a must.

 

[Kiter]

The last couple of paragraphs are confrontational and unnecessary in my view.

CASA did what it did and cannot be sued…it’s drawing a long bow to say RAAus can be sued for the limitations imposed by CASA.

[RFguy]

Operators could seek remedy , but  governments have deep pockets and a floor of lawyers that cost them nothing to use, and bear no personal risk.

Edited June 21, 2021 by RFguy

[FlyBoy1960]

Morgan hates RA-Aus as evidenced in every time he gets a chance to dig into them. 

 

Remember this is just HIS opinion, i would like to read the CASA document without his interpretations.

[Kiter]

1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

Morgan hates RA-Aus as evidenced in every time he gets a chance to dig into them. 

 

Remember this is just HIS opinion, i would like to read the CASA document without his interpretations.

I certainly don’t know enough about the background of the BRM issue, but I don’t think it is helpful to drive a wedge between different elements of the private aviation sector. I reckon AOPA should have a more diplomatic approach.

[Blueadventures]

Informative comment on another site about the w&b matter in POH chapter 6 that was incorrect (identified buy the Irish regulator) and lead to aft loading. That could have been corrected quicker with an AD.  Good to hear this as never want to be in an aircraft loaded aft beyond the aft cg limit. Cheers.

[RFguy]

I do all  W&B calcs myself, and I dont rely on the graphs and charts (which I find totally confusing and ambiguous) . And verify the airplane weights yourself. 
Most people I know do that - they run a few corner case scenarios so that W&B doesn't have to be recalculated at all. (small airplane).

I am a AOPA member . But I dont know the RAAus background on this, so I wont pass judgement. I do know Mr Morgan's history, and he's there because he 'feels strongly' which is required to have the will to execute this stuff. So, he personality is what his is. You need a tiger to get stuff done.  It is sometimes up to the person 'on the other end' to ' to take into account the position and personality of a person, and  put that aside and look at the true objectives of that person, and work with compromise on the true objectives, and ignore the shotgun sprays.

[onetrack]

The simple fact remains that CASA is a monstrous bureaucracy, answerable to no-one, with multiple depts and divisions (I mean to say "Stakeholder Engagement Division"?? - how many more gravy trains are there, like this?), ruthless in its decisions, which are unchallengeable. This entire arm of Govt goes against every aspect of fair treatment, justice, and accountability under our so-called democracy. It is more like the Gestapo than any other authority in the Western world.

 

It has powers far beyond anything that is needed, and the entire authority is never reviewed for cost-effectiveness, staffing levels, nor fairness in its decision-making. It is high time it was gone through with a dose of salts and cleaned out.

Since the aviation industry has shrunk to 25% of its size since the COVID-19 virus decimated the industry, I wonder how many desk-pushers in this organisation have had so little to do, that paper-plane making has flourished in their offices?

 

If aviation activity has declined by 75% in the last 15 months, then there should have been mass sackings in CASA in the same time frame, because of vastly-reduced requirements for the staff numbers, thanks to minimal aircraft operations and movements. But I'll wager it's still the same size as it was in 2019. I guess they've been exceptionally busy drawing up a raft of new regulations for stored aircraft, and why they could present a major risk factor to the public.

[facthunter]

Ben's pushing his own barrow with the attack on RAAus. Easy to understand when RAAus declared "WE are the NEW GA" Unilaterally, which was Never going to run . (Nor should it). AOPA can attack CASA as it's Independent. RAAus has to cop what it gets as CASA can close it down  If it thinks there's a good reason. RAAus can't over rule any CASA directive. Nev

[FlyBoy1960]

if they do close it down will CASA want to oversee and license/register all of the RA-Aus aircraft ?

 

I don't think so

[facthunter]

My point is they have to keep CASA happy. or risk "issues". like failing an audit.  RAAus aren't likely to go in to BAT against CASA for you, but AOPA see that as their "reason to be". Nev

[FlyBoy1960]

AOPA has "no skin in the game" so can  pretty much say what they want, they just lose credibility at times when they go off track in my opinion

[facthunter]

They represent their members as the person elected decides. IF that is not done well they lose members or elect another president. CASA go off track too, often but with little redress when they end a Company's  or pilot's future. Nev

[Thruster88]

16 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

Morgan hates RA-Aus as evidenced in every time he gets a chance to dig into them. 

 

Remember this is just HIS opinion, i would like to read the CASA document without his interpretations.

Here are the CASA reasons for cancelling the instrument. It all sounds reasonable to me. We have a new acronym, an AOI is what we would traditionally call a POH or FM, flight manual.

 

 https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/aircraft-safety/safety-advisory-notice-bristell

[RFguy]

"Based upon a review of self-certification practices by LSA manufacturers, CASA is changing the process to obtain the first-of-model (within Australia) SCoA for an LSA. In all such cases, CASA is to be notified of any SCoA applications before assessment and CASA will have the option of conducting the assessment directly. CASA may also specifically approve an Authorised Person on a case-by-case basis, based on risk and other relevant factors."
 

Another one for CASA where you likely get no right of reply , CASA just saying it is so, only recourse through your local MoP to get a please explain ?

Anyone got an 'original ' Bristell POH  for us to assess  the 'errors' ?
 

 

 

 

[FlyBoy1960]

 

CASA are even now predicting the future !  this evidence of straight off their own website !

 

In the screenshot below I have proof that they are already issuing documents dated the 28th of July 2021, more than a month into the future.  How do they do that ? I wonder if they can get me the lotto numbers ?

 

And these are the regulators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FlyBoy1960]

reference to the AOPA information, I have no idea where they get the information from. As requested a long time ago CASA has been asking for additional information to validate the airworthiness approvals that the manufacturer could not validate at the time.

 

It seems sometime in March they did provide the information to CASA, they then did distribute the information to  owners as advised, they made corrections to the aircraft operating instructions and now they are free to go on their way again.

 

Personally, I can't see that CASA had any other option but to ground the aircraft when the information supplied with them was grossly negligent by the manufacturers own admission by having incorrect information in the aircraft operating instructions and the weight and balance documentation.

 

CASA could not have turned a blind eye to this and acted appropriately even though they can see into the future

[walrus]

………and suing RAA is a waste of time. Furthermore, members are not liable for any more than the balance of their current subscription. In any case, Bristell would have to prove that the alleged action was ordered and approved by the Board and was not the action of some wilful employee…..

’’

How much is in kitty anyway? Not enough to keep Bristells lawyers fed, it won’t happen.

[jackc]

What a mess, peak body’s of aviation sectors intertwined with regulators etc all scrapping amongst themselves, make me wonder WHY I should be any part of it.

No rego, No Licence, No membership of anything………Just go make clandestine flights in remote places and enjoy 🙂

Could you blame people?  I am too close to EOL to care anymore…….

[RFguy]

that Bristell had an error in their manual wont give them much lean with the judge......

[FlyBoy1960]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

that Bristell had an error in their manual wont give them much lean with the judge......

it's not so much the error it is a fact that they refused to validate anything and basically told CASA and the rest to go away in mind their own business. This is where the real problems came from I think not from the fact that the aircraft were falling out of the sky

[jackc]

On 22/06/2021 at 10:57 AM, FlyBoy1960 said:

if they do close it down will CASA want to oversee and license/register all of the RA-Aus aircraft ?

 

I don't think so

CASA would not have the capacity to take over RAAus responsibilities, too much work and RAAus would not simply hand them all their documentation, nor should they.  CASA would need to start ground up to take over Recreational Aviation…….big job.

What would happen in that transition?  Ground all aircraft for 6 months while CASA gets organised.

A monstrous uproar would result…….

[RFguy]

If Bristel and the importer 'got what they deserved' then why is Ben so much on the case of what appears to be wrong doing  or errors by Bristel and co ? (apart from  the fact that being on the pilots side is his brief)  ? Now, I am confused.

 

[kgwilson]

I still don't like the Bristells horizontal stabiliser position. All of the rudder and vertical stabiliser is completely shielded in a spin. There was a thread here about that somewhere.

[kgwilson]

Double Post can't delete

Edited June 24, 2021 by kgwilson