Jump to content

CASA Revokes Bristell Bans.


Recommended Posts

We were asked to weigh our ROKO ( earlier model before the name change) this week……turned out to be 31kg over certified weight.
wow! ….CG near the back.  More wow…

No modifications done, standard aircraft.

CASA is now going to attend and conduct an official [email protected] The club as taken it off line pending this weigh in.

 

murkier and murkier

 

Ken

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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 ha

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

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, Kenlsa said:

We were asked to weigh our ROKO ( earlier model before the name change) this week……turned out to be 31kg over certified weight.
wow! ….CG near the back.  More wow…

No modifications done, standard aircraft.

CASA is now going to attend and conduct an official [email protected] The club as taken it off line pending this weigh in.

 

murkier and murkier

 

Ken

 

Good move, sorry to hear the unfortunate surprise, however better to be safe, eg hire out for a trip and load some baggage that places behind aft cg limit. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glen, I wasn’t there for the weigh in, only spoke to our maintenance man who conducted it. I only work on our Jabs. I can’t remember if it was a request from RAoz or Casa.

it wasn’t done from our end.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there was a previous case of one of these being grossly over the documented empty weight.  Cant find it ATM. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's prompted the actions ?   

 

Factories and importers lying and falsifying documentation to make heavy planes lighter so they can be registered. 

 

Its screwed up the industry with EVERY newly registered or transferred CASA to RA-Aus aircraft requiring a W&B to be completed by a specially approved CASA weight and balance officer, I understand there are only about 6 in all of Australia.

 

All of this has happened because of a couple of lying importers in Victoria, think Bristell, Carbon Cub and Rocko. 

 

The importers at our airport are very unhappy and I believe one is taking legal action against the guy that imports the Bristell for the additional costs he has incurred due to his falsifying documents and is now affecting all new planes he imports by upping the price by $500 on each aircraft.

Edited by FlyBoy1960
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if there was a statutory declaration made by importers that the model was compliant, that would be enough  to satisfy CASA in the future? 

 

That would at least prompt the importer to actually measure one so that could make a stat-dec (and would be unwise not to do it on one of a model). And probably need to weigh each one with own gear.

 

I am sure RAA and AOPA can go into bat , or should do, for the importers to have stat-dec W&B sufficient, not a CASA goon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Surely if there was a statutory declaration made by importers that the model was compliant, that would be enough  to satisfy CASA in the future? 

 

That would at least prompt the importer to actually measure one so that could make a stat-dec (and would be unwise not to do it on one of a model). And probably need to weigh each one with own gear.

 

I am sure RAA and AOPA can go into bat , or should do, for the importers to have stat-dec W&B sufficient, not a CASA goon.

Should be ‘No Fear’ in a w&b being done on any RAA aircraft or any presented for sale by CASA staff. They are welcome to weigh mine anytime either in the hangar or at an airfield I land at.  We need the aircraft within the requirements. If mine was done I would check the figures they record for my verification that it’s being done right.  IMHO.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea with the Stat Dec is that the onus goes on the the signer.....If you sign it off then you put your cock on the block that it was done right. My point is that W&B is not hard to do. Sign it off, and the coroner will come after YOU if you f***ed it up.   

 

And appointed people are not infallible, and there will usually be some get-out liability clause in their professional contract.

An appointed person is not a guarantee of quality nor correctness.  If fact if they are employed by the government, good luck with that because the way APS  employment stuff is written , is that no one can be made responsible for anything , unless they are director level.

 

Got to lessen this ineffectual government intervention.  Sure OK, we need to weigh everything, but be realistic about how it might be done

 

 

 

Edited by RFguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, RFguy said:

Surely if there was a statutory declaration made by importers that the model was compliant, that would be enough  to satisfy CASA in the future? 

Apparently not, several have been caught out from what they were saying today so the new rule stays in effect forever.

 

33 minutes ago, RFguy said:

I am sure RAA and AOPA can go into bat , or should do, for the importers to have stat-dec W&B sufficient, not a CASA goon.

 

You would think so but its now not enough - a few rotten apples have ruined it for everyone !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grapevine tells me today that Bristell provided the information to reverse the CASA restrictions and that information initially provided by RAAus in this matter to CASA, was allegedly incorrect?

Bristell are now organising battalions of lawyers to claw back the 10 of millions of dollars from places that have caused them grief?  So, will that include RAAus?  If so, under the present structure of our organisation members are liable IF the RAAus indemnity insurance coverage is insufficient?

Hope this brewing monster sh1storm is wrong……..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it is by their own admission that they had mistakes in the POH and all of the weight and balance documents. That is one simple fact that they can't avoid.

 

The other fact is as I have mentioned previously, they lied on the weight and balance documents in Australia so that the aircraft were not overweight. Some of them were listed 60 kg underweight !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bristell would not have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning any kind of defamation case against the regulator. If they had provided the required information when requested there would not have been any restrictions. I feel sorry for the dealers and owners.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Bristell would not have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning any kind of defamation case against the regulator. If they had provided the required information when requested there would not have been any restrictions. I feel sorry for the dealers and owners.

But it’s been found that RAAus had provided allegedly incorrect information to CASA that led to the initial restrictions?

Its not the regulator that Bristell are after, it’s meant to allegedly be RAAus?   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If RAA relied on data provided by Bristell to give to CASA e.g POH errors and W&B mistakes, it is not RAA who are to blame, it is Bristell so RAA have nothing to worry about.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jackc said:

But it’s been found that RAAus had provided allegedly incorrect information to CASA that led to the initial restrictions?

Its not the regulator that Bristell are after, it’s meant to allegedly be RAAus?   

 

Jack, what is the information the RAAus provided that is allegedly incorrect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RossK said:

Jack, what is the information the RAAus provided that is allegedly incorrect?

CASA won’t give me the transcripts, maybe  RAAus should state what they allegedly supplied to CASA, re Bristell aircraft?

Its probably commercial in confidence anyway and would only come out in a court case……IF that happens?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackc said:

Grapevine tells me today that Bristell provided the information to reverse the CASA restrictions and that information initially provided by RAAus in this matter to CASA, was allegedly incorrect?

Bristell are now organising battalions of lawyers to claw back the 10 of millions of dollars from places that have caused them grief?  So, will that include RAAus?  If so, under the present structure of our organisation members are liable IF the RAAus indemnity insurance coverage is insufficient?

Hope this brewing monster sh1storm is wrong……..

RAAus is a company limited by guarantee. It can be sued, but members are not liable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

it is by their own admission that they had mistakes in the POH and all of the weight and balance documents. That is one simple fact that they can't avoid.

 

The other fact is as I have mentioned previously, they lied on the weight and balance documents in Australia so that the aircraft were not overweight. Some of them were listed 60 kg underweight !

I might suggest there could be RV-9 and Piper aircraft in the same boat, only meeting MTOW with an underweight pilot and enough fuel for 2 circuits, yet have 2 seats and are RAAus registered?

It would appear the Bristell fiasco is a result of ‘self certification’ ?  A system proven to never be reliable in many cases outside the aircraft industry, and maybe in it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kiter said:

RAAus is a company limited by guarantee. It can be sued, but members are not liable.

I sure hope you are right, needs a major fact check and an explanation from RAAus?

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, jackc said:

I might suggest there could be RV-9 and Piper aircraft in the same boat, only meeting MTOW with an underweight pilot and enough fuel for 2 circuits, yet have 2 seats and are RAAus registered?

It would appear the Bristell fiasco is a result of ‘self certification’ ?  A system proven to never be reliable in many cases outside the aircraft industry, and maybe in it?

Lightweight pilots and a small amount of fuel no longer applies.
You now have to get the empty weight to 413kg or less and that will put it on the LSA list.
Looks like I can do it on my Piper and that will allow 2 pax and 2.5 hrs of fuel…….tho I am waiting for 760 (600 LSA is only if it all falls over)

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackc said:

I might suggest there could be RV-9 and Piper aircraft in the same boat, only meeting MTOW with an underweight pilot and enough fuel for 2 circuits, yet have 2 seats and are RAAus registered?

It would appear the Bristell fiasco is a result of ‘self certification’ ?  A system proven to never be reliable in many cases outside the aircraft industry, and maybe in it?

But you are missing the whole point of LSA manufacturing - its self certification by manufacturers of not just compliance with the design standard for the type but also self certification of the individual airframes they manufacture and maintain.

 

So-

IF a manufacturer tells fibs about the performance characteristics of the aircraft in the design certifications and is caught out ALL airframes get grounded.

IF a manufacturer tells fibs about an individual airframe meeting the design standard then THAT airframe gets grounded.

 

My understanding was that the initial concerns (from wherever raised) were that the spin characteristics may not meet the performance characteristics of the design standard do it was potentially a ALL airframes get grounded.

However, when they did a check of the spin characteristics they also did a check on the airframe they were looking at and found additional certifications concerns being POH errors AND an unmodified from factory airframe that was SIGNIFICANTLY over the empty weight it was certified by the manufacturer to be and that weight made the use of the POH to determine CofG made the actual safety margin minuscule thin AND operators were likely to exceed legal MTOW based on the invalid empty weight

 

Overall if faced by that - even if you were dobbed in my RAAus  or provided with a strong steer to look in that direction by them the onus and liability for the errors (and the losses to the manufacturer or importer resulting from the errors) sits squarely with the manufacturer.

 

Very simple really - the errors were made by the manufacturer and have to rectified by them to get the fleet flying.

 

Bristells may be able to fly again  ... but if I were an owner with an empty weight plane that is higher than I was told at purchase I would be getting my lawyers to sue the importer/manufacturer ... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,   maybe there needs to be audit checks on aircraft self certification, IF there is no audit regime in place by any organisation responsible for the relevant aviation sector, then it’s negligence on their part.

Ask the FAA how the MAX fiasco went for Boeing?

The car industry seems to do it better 🙂

 

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/vehicles/legislation/certification/vehicle_certification.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jackc said:

Well,   maybe there needs to be audit checks on aircraft self certification, IF there is no audit regime in place by any organisation responsible for the relevant aviation sector, then it’s negligence on their part.

Ask the FAA how the MAX fiasco went for Boeing?

The car industry seems to do it better 🙂

 

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/vehicles/legislation/certification/vehicle_certification.aspx

Jack you are talking apples and pears.  Either you want a certified by the government regime as a necessary step to have public safety OR you have recreational flying with lower standards as the risk to the public is limited and the risks from a societal perspective is acceptable. 
 

if you want an audit of LSA self certification with an “out” for the manufacturer because the govt said it’s ok the you are scrapping any and everything the raaus and it’s predecessor orgs have fought for for the past 40yrs.  
 

sorry but if you want fully  certified aircraft go to GA. Accept the costs and accept the restrictions.  
 

LSA was never intended to be the same as certified GA and if you thought it was you were very misled in that belief. 
 

LSA is trust your manufacturer not trust your government- if your manufacturer disappears you become an orphan airframe.  If your manufacturer told fibs you live with the consequences of those fibs and go back to the importer/manufacturer.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kasper said:

Jack you are talking apples and pears.  Either you want a certified by the government regime as a necessary step to have public safety OR you have recreational flying with lower standards as the risk to the public is limited and the risks from a societal perspective is acceptable. 
 

if you want an audit of LSA self certification with an “out” for the manufacturer because the govt said it’s ok the you are scrapping any and everything the raaus and it’s predecessor orgs have fought for for the past 40yrs.  
 

sorry but if you want fully  certified aircraft go to GA. Accept the costs and accept the restrictions.  
 

LSA was never intended to be the same as certified GA and if you thought it was you were very misled in that belief. 
 

LSA is trust your manufacturer not trust your government- if your manufacturer disappears you become an orphan airframe.  If your manufacturer told fibs you live with the consequences of those fibs and go back to the importer/manufacturer.  

Maybe it should have went like this……CASA keep your nose out, RAAus negotiate to solve the problem with Bristell based on mistakes were made and make a plan to fix it.  

GA?   Well RAAus are breathing down their neck now, with the current costs of Flying School instruction rates. 

Low budget aviation went out the window years ago,  when the AUF fell by the wayside……..that sector of aviation should still be with us, given airframe designs have come a long way.

 With what I have seen,  I am convinced that my aviation safety buck, stops with me.   The only person I have faith to work on my aircraft is me.  I seek advice from those who’s knowledge I respect.  No I don’t like rules and regulation, but iF we are stuck with it, it should work properly.  The whole regulatory regime is a bit of a mess, Part 149 needing Part 103 and now Part 103 being incorporated into Part 149.  Must admit I am short of good knowledge on this, but have gleaned enough bits and pieces to form the opinion it’s a bit messy.  No room for messy regulation:-(

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...