walrus Posted July 2, 2021 Author Share Posted July 2, 2021 There is very little point in Bristell suing RAA in my opinion because even if Bristel won a judgement, there is unlikely to be any money in it. The members are not liable beyond losing the subscription money they paid. I assume RAA has a D & O (Directors and Officers) policy, but I would be surprised if money from that was available to a Bristel lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted July 2, 2021 Share Posted July 2, 2021 50 minutes ago, walrus said: There is very little point in Bristell suing RAA in my opinion because even if Bristel won a judgement, there is unlikely to be any money in it. The members are not liable beyond losing the subscription money they paid. I assume RAA has a D & O (Directors and Officers) policy, but I would be surprised if money from that was available to a Bristel lawsuit. The only way to know that is, IF RAAus made a statement concerning the legal liabilities it’s members could be subject to? I guess the constitution may have the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted July 2, 2021 Share Posted July 2, 2021 From the information posted here this is clearly a failure on the part of the manufacturer or its agents. There isn't a lawyer anywhere (except perhaps Powell & Guiliani) who would go near this as there is no case to answer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted July 2, 2021 Share Posted July 2, 2021 1 hour ago, jackc said: The only way to know that is, IF RAAus made a statement concerning the legal liabilities it’s members could be subject to? I guess the constitution may have the answer? Simple and clear. memebr liability is limited under the corporate structure to our investments in the company plus $1 is liquidation. so any law suit is basically limited to the value of the building we own in Canberra as it costs more than $1 for a liquidator to send you a letter of demand for the $1 you are liable for. director liability is their problem. It’s a company they that is how it’s been run for the past few years so leave it to them to have cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 2 hours ago, kgwilson said: From the information posted here this is clearly a failure on the part of the manufacturer or its agents. There isn't a lawyer anywhere (except perhaps Powell & Guiliani) who would go near this as there is no case to answer. We only have the information circulated and can only form opinions based on that. IF something else has actually happened differently to what has been heard, only then will it all come to light in the future IF or WHEN there is any legal action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted July 3, 2021 Author Share Posted July 3, 2021 (edited) Jack, put your mind at rest, you can't get pinged by Bristell. The Directors of the company that is RAA could perhaps be sued, but all that is available to Bristell if they won are the assets of the company and its Directors and perhaps a D & O insurance policy if RAA has one. Clause 60 and 61 of the Constitution covers the matter. Bristell may also want to consider if they want to perhaps alienate future RAA pilots wanting Bristell products. Edited July 3, 2021 by walrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 Bristell wont sue. The judge would look at what caused the initial issues (errors by Bristell) (IE what started this whole cascade) and throw it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted July 3, 2021 Share Posted July 3, 2021 20 minutes ago, RFguy said: Bristell wont sue. The judge would look at what caused the initial issues (errors by Bristell) (IE what started this whole cascade) and throw it out. One would hope not, but anything is possible in today’s World….. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 On 26/06/2021 at 3:03 PM, 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 w@b. The club as taken it off line pending this weigh in. murkier and murkier Ken Further to the above. The Roko was weighed by CASA certified person. noted that the prop was changed to a lighter version, by 5kg. (that actually makes it worse!) There is no aircraft level indicated either in the hand book or the website, so had to ensure true tyre psi was to pilot notes. semi reclined seats did not have a moment point indicated for weighing. 1lt of unusable fuel in each tank. So, any not mentioned - stations, points or arms were taken as a standard in the industry. Bottom line —24kg over weight BUT there is more….. ALL loading puts the weight out the back! To fix it……We have to put in 25 (fark!) kg in the cowl so it can be flown and only as a single seater. RAoz have been informed. Our club is looking how to get some weight out of the rear and have identified a few kg that can be deleted. Hopefully we will be allowed to do it, as ours is a E24 reg. we think there are 4 in Oz, poor bastards. Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackc Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 Surely it would have flown horribly like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 Flew ok but over the about 200 hrs that we have owned it we only have allowed experienced pilots to fly it. We have never allowed training in it. Lucky….. Our Jabs are for training. it sure was a good move that many eons ago the regulators built in margins with all the limits to protect us from ourselves. The holes had not lined up for any pilot and we will see where it all ends Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 I think Gareth Lacey on this forum had one of these. He might like to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 Yes i had the Roko via flew it for 2 years before my flying buddy needed to sell his share to buy a bigger industrial premises,we had a cg problem (when 2 people stood on wing walk it would tip back) as well but only moved the seat rear (back support) forward by 50mm and about 4 kg on the psru front all done by the factory engineers from Czechslovakia no problems to fly great aircraft did 135 hrs myself There is a vid on u tube with my son and i flying and he weighed at the time 120kg and i was at 105kg with 100litres of fuel the plane handled great . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 11 hours ago, gareth lacey said: Yes i had the Roko via flew it for 2 years before my flying buddy needed to sell his share to buy a bigger industrial premises,we had a cg problem (when 2 people stood on wing walk it would tip back) as well but only moved the seat rear (back support) forward by 50mm and about 4 kg on the psru front all done by the factory engineers from Czechslovakia no problems to fly great aircraft did 135 hrs myself There is a vid on u tube with my son and i flying and he weighed at the time 120kg and i was at 105kg with 100litres of fuel the plane handled great . Ours is serial number 1. that could mean first built, first Oz import, first prototype or first to fail! About a year ago we suffered an unreported heavy landing in it. Damaged the nose leg mount and the floor area and tunnel immediately behind the fire wall. Fixed with replacement parts (no weight added). But was/is of interest is the number of experienced pilots who said the flare speed had to be perfect or you had trouble getting it on the ground. I have witnessed a couple of small PIOs in the early days. I have discussed this with your maintenance man and this MAY have occurred due to “being out the back” and became evident upon landing. Also a few high time pilots, with many GA hours, reported that it was not a comfortable plane to fly when the conditions got a little sporty…….I at first put it down to a low wing loading compared to what they used to fly, but they have been flying RAoz for years……maybe the balance did not make the flying any more comfortable.. Luckily it doesn’t have an all flying stab…..that would have made life interesting. Curiouser and Curiouser, if I may borrow from Alice. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth lacey Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 In turbulance if you had a firm grip it would be a bit bouncy was told by instructor to let the plane fly 2 finger grip cruised about 115 knots indicated had no trouble with flare and you could place it where you wanted ,in saying that one time i came n at 70 knots and it did float , my best aproach speed was 70 over the threshold and 50 to 55 at landing , we also found the rubber doughnuts for nose wheel where to soft and put in slightly harder ones ,my wife would fly in the Roko because she "felt safe" unquote but didnt like the RV6a go figure ,they are built light but if i could afford a new one i would buy ,however got to get back to building Cheers gareth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 If its borderline aft CG configuration, upsets ("sporty air') maybe be uncomfortable due to being underdamped, IE a step input may induce multi cycle pitch oscillation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 Worse than that, the tail horizontal parts may stall..Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenlsa Posted August 4, 2021 Share Posted August 4, 2021 Further update on our club Roko NG4 looks like it was the factory display model at Friedrichshafen expo so may have had an extra good paint job, maybe explaining the extra weight. It sure looks good. So the seats will be moved 75mm forward and 5kg of lead on the prop reduction drive housing. This will give us a useful load of 220kg. So that will be 2 x 85kg pax (all up with headsets, dressed, any water, iPad etc must be included in the number) and 70lt of fuel. Not ideal but workable for most of the club members. All up we lost 30kg oh useful load. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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