Experimental Aircraft over Built Up Areas?

[QNH1013.2]

I note with interest on both of the ATSB crash reports for the Lancairs, one at Bankstown and one at Archerfield that at the recommendation of the ATSB, operation of Experimental Aircraft over built up areas is under review.

Does anyone have any more info on this? ie. are experimentals on the hit list at the moment? The way I see it is that the Archerfield incident "could" be pilot and weather related (only 20'ish hours on type) and the Bankstown one is "likely" mechanical, so for them to try and shut down experimental for 2 crashes that didn't injure innocent bystanders, seems a bit harsh to me.

Any suggestions welcome.... I assume they can stop experimental over built up areas if CASA says so? Who has the ultimate say?

QNH

[Sunshine Coaster]

CASA will have the final regulatory say if it suits their agenda or they can hide behind ICAO.

The potential ban on flights over built up areas sounds more like a PR response rather than a well researched and considered investigation and findings.

I suppose the ATSB must be seen to be doing something, even if it is yet to prove there is a need and what they suggest contributes a safety benefit.

More regulatory/PR games to be played out with this yet.

The Coaster

[Bob Murphie]

One should, or would think that "THEY" would, "ACT" on mechanical, or weather, or a pilot related malfunction.

It would seem strange to include in the terms of reference ALL aircraft with an IO-360 Lycoming engine whether "experimental" or not, to, or should fly over, a built up area when lots of "certified" aircraft with the same engine do so on a daily basis.

Hopefully one of the representative groups will be in attendance and put this straight.

[Squawk7700]

The difference that Certified aircraft are maintained by a registered LAME, versus experimental built and maintainted in Joe Blow's back yard... and what the ATSB, CASA and the general public think about that. I suspect if the general public was asked about "experimental" aircraft were flying over their house maintainted by someone with NO aircraft / mechanical experience there would be a huge public uproar.

The whole experimental system leverages off the assumption that in order to preserve his own life the owner must be disciplined enough to maintain his aircraft correctly. Surely there must be people out there flying experimental that change their oil every 2 years or fix something when it breaks. (Not suggesting that this is what happened at Archers or Bankers.) It is unfortunate that someone with this approach may end it for everyone else who is doing the right thing.

You could liken this to airline security. For years airlines operated under the assumption that a person who was going to blow up a plane, intended to not be on it... eg. Suicide bombers were always a loophole on aircraft, because luggage was never scanned. I hope that parallel makes sense.

Squarker.

[Bob Murphie]

Reading the YSBK report, the aircraft was just signed out by a LAME.

[QNH1013.2]

'twas the first flight of the aircraft after a major repair from a wheel's up. Doesn't matter in the end who maintained it I guess as it's still experimental. That's my point... even though it's maintained by a LAME, they still want to review ops over built-up areas; makes me wonder if it was already on the cards.

[Bob Murphie]

As I said, one hopes the alphabet soup groups have their fingers on the pulse of this or it will be a backward step for recreational flying.

I note there was a Grob high altitude "experimental" aircraft operated by Flinders University some time ago and one wonders how this sort of thing would be tolerated given these terms of reference.

Next it will be ex Military surplus firefighting helicopters and WW2 iron that gets the chop. I am reminded by a mention of a senior RAAF pilot who said that you should always remember that the A/C you are flying was manufactured by the lowest bidder.

You may be right about the deal already being done, but struth! someone needs to speak up. The engine is the engine is the engine, and maintained by a LAME shouldn't be any different to a Piper Arrow.

I say again, mechanical, weather or pilot related, surely not the aircraft or it's sticker on the side.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I note in reading the cost recovery impact statement on the CASA website that AOPA never even put in a submission...what hope that this will peak their curiosity.

Agree though that it shouldn't be an issue...two prangs with no third party injuries does not a problem make.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

My undertsanding was that each Experimental certification has individual limitations placed in it - including flight over built up areas. And dependant upon what you are applying for.

[Squawk7700]

Most if not all experimental certificates place no limitation on flight over built-up areas. Once the test flight period has been flown, you are free to fly anywhere, even if you aircraft is built from string and sticky tape!

Where is the cost recovery impact statement located that is related to this? (just wondering)

[Chimbu chuckles]

It doesn't relate to this...just a certain alphabet group's general lack of get up and go.

[Sunshine Coaster]

Were these 2 aircraft VH-BST (Archerfield) and VH-ZNZ (Bankstown) "Experimental" aircraft or were they fully registered. The CASA register for ZNZ says "Full Registration" yet the ATSB refers in both accident reports to experimental aircraft, but not in the narrative, only as a footnote as something additional to investigate.
Perhap the term "amateur built" is more appropriate.:8
Chuckles, the alphabet group was closely connected to the ZNZ accident and have gone all introspective since.
The Coaster

[Squawk7700]

Both AC were experimental... The "Full registration" is in only in relation to the new part 47. any that have not been transitioned would say CAR 1988. Definitely both experimental. There are few lancair certified aircraft in this country.

[Deaf]

CAR 1988 262AP seems to cover this. The particular experimental aircraft needs approval.

[Sunshine Coaster]

It's a bit like the old argument about Single Engine operations at night or over water in a fully certified, maintained top notch Cessna, Piper, Beech, Pilatus or the like.

Whether the aircraft is certified or experimental, day or night, over water or over land be it Mt Everest or Sydneythe aircraft does not know the difference

Who remembers all the doom and gloom during the early days of the ultralight, they weren't permitted to fly over built up areas or roads or even above 500ft agl.

It will be a doozy of a safety case that justifies any changes to the current arrangements.

The Coaster:ok:

[QNH1013.2]

It doesn't matter if the aircraft is flying over water or built up areas. For them to ban experimentals over built-up areas is to suggest that experimental aircraft are either less airworthy or maintainted to a lower standard than certified aircraft, and in all honesty, like it or not, to an extent this is in fact true. Nobody can guarantee the build quality of an experimental aircraft because they history and or build quality is essentially unknown and even when it's registered, it's not checked over. To register an experimental aircraft is a simple process and regulations prohibit the resigterer as a delegate of CASA to actually check over the aircraft. They can only offer "advice" on issues and they are not allowed to refuse a certificate of airworthiness; however if requried they can impose restrictions if they feel them to be appropriate. Once the aircraft has passed the flight test period, all restrictions are lifted.

Let's be honest, as much as I enjoy my experimental aircraft, what's more legitimate:

a. A 1982 Cessna 172 with certified Lycoming Engine operating over a built up area

b. An uncertified 3/5 Spitfire kit with modified Isuzu 3.5 litre V6 utility engine built in a service station console operator's back yard

I know the answer to that...

[Cloud Basher]

QNH,
I disagree. Homebuilt can be just as well if not better maintained than factory and LAME maintained aircraft. Granted, some may not be, but to tar all homebuilt/experiemental aircraft with the one brush is the same as saying ban all 4WD's, guns, jetskis (insert latest marginalised group here) because they have in increased risk of something going wrong even though this has never been proven. Even whilst flying over built up areas (and who gets to decide that? Would we still be able to fly into YBSK in the course of normal navigation, or can we hop from golf course to golf course?) there are usually at least some options in case of engine failure. Indeed if the airframe failed then you are sh1t out of luck, but how many homebuilts/experimentals have had airframe breakups that have not been the result of pilot error?

Cheers
CB