Stawell crash

[mullokintyre]

The ABC is reporting a plane crash at Black range near Stawell.
No details yet.
​​​​​ABC NEWS (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-05/plane-crash-at-stawell/10343032)

[0ttoL]

Incident map shows it close to the Stawell airport.
ABC is reporting that 2 men have been taken to hospital. Hope they are ok

Incident Map
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/559x498/screen_shot_2018_10_05_at_1_43_06_pm_2617b2ca98ac3b1a049f436 d1ac11c1df96632d1.png

[mullokintyre]

Updated ABC
​​​​​​
According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the single-engine Bristell S-LSA plane was registered with Soar Aviation, a flight training school based in Moorabbin in Melbourne's south-east.
Unless I am mistaken, these are RAAus registered aircraft. Thought CASA and ATSB were not interested in RAAus.

[Framcicles]

Updated ABC
​​​​​​

Unless I am mistaken, these are RAAus registered aircraft. Thought CASA and ATSB were not interested in RAAus.

Soar have both RAAus & VH registered Bristells.

[fly_inverted]

i think the Bristell's at Soar are VH registered

[Squawk7700]

Already sounding eerily similar to the same aircraft type in August last year at Clyde, south east of Melbourne that caused serious injuries to the instructor and fatally injured the student.

http://www.google.com.au/amp/s/m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education-community/article/2105369/hong-kong-trainee-pilot-critical-condition-after%3famp=1

[Munz]

Looks like probably a Bristell from Soar

[Stikman]

Updated ABC
​​​​​​

Unless I am mistaken, these are RAAus registered aircraft. Thought CASA and ATSB were not interested in RAAus.
Soar has a combination of RAAus and VH registrations. Given the Bristells are the "complex" type Soar uses for CPL, I'd say it's VH registered.

[zanthrus]

Hope the pilots recover ok.
Looks like the Bristell is a problem child of an aircraft for flight training given two similar incidents in a year.

[Old Fella]

Hope the pilots recover ok.
Looks like the Bristell is a problem child of an aircraft for flight training given two similar incidents in a year.

It may also be that the aircraft are quite safe and the issue in each instance is more related to pilot skill levels.

[Squawk7700]

There are a good number of crash reports for this aircraft type out there with similar circumstances, or so my research leads me to believe.

[mcoates]

A lot of aircraft with a similar design (sport cruiser, Bristell etc) all suffer from rudder airflow shielding in a spin and wont come out according to overseas and local accident reports. The rudder is ineffective in any sort of spin that's anywhere near flat. I thought most of these had a ballistic parachute. I hope the guys recover quickly

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1196x753/bristell_ra_0146a_2814078295128_29_8f66d92f023833758ffc597e1 83981ee6465404e.jpg

[machtuk]

There are a good number of crash reports for this aircraft type out there with similar circumstances, or so my research leads me to believe.

Let us all hope that the two drivers can shed some light as to why this happened so that those that follow them in this type of machine can learn something to perhaps prevent this from happening again. Gods speed to getting well quickly:-)

[marksierra]

A lot of aircraft with a similar design (sport cruiser, Bristell etc) all suffer from rudder airflow shielding in a spin and wont come out according to overseas and local accident reports. The rudder is ineffective in any sort of spin that's anywhere near flat. I thought most of these had a ballistic parachute.


That ABC News report linked above quoted a witness saying he saw the aircraft in a flat spin.

[djpil]

.... in this type of machine can learn something to perhaps prevent this from happening again.I'm more interested in the independent spin trials conducted a little while ago ...https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/993x763/taildesignforspin_16f34886d4ff730ced3fe3a46113cd4b13e18e87.p ng

[roundsounds]

I'm more interested in the independent spin trials conducted a little while ago ...https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/993x763/taildesignforspin_16f34886d4ff730ced3fe3a46113cd4b13e18e87.p ng
when you review the accident data there seem to be a very high percentage of them rely on the earth to stop the spin.

[Runaway Gun]

To my concern, even the Factory Pilot Notes have a dubious Spin Recovery checklist.

.

Unintentional spin recovery technique:

1. Throttle - idle

2. Lateral control - ailerons neutralized

3. Rudder pedals - full opposite rudder

4. Rudder pedals - neutralize rudder immediately when rotation stops

5. Longitudinal control - neutralize or push forward and recovery dive.

[zanthrus]

Yep Step 5 needs to be simultaneous with Step 1 and 3 to my thinking.

[A37575]

That ABC News report linked above quoted a witness saying he saw the aircraft in a flat spin.

. Looks like similar circumstances (flat spin) to the Brumby LSA accident near Penfield, Vic a couple of years ago, killing the two pilots - one a highly experienced former airline pilot

[roundsounds]

Yep Step 5 needs to be simultaneous with Step 1 and 3 to my thinking.
You’ve described a commonly taught, but very incorrect technique for most aircraft.
You must use the manufacturers technique - for an upright spin this generally this would be:
- close the throttle
- ailerons neutral
- maintain stick back (forward stick may blanket the rudder)
- identify the direction of rotation, then apply opposite rudder
- after ruder input, pause momentarily, then progressively ease the stick forward until rotation stops
- as soon as rotation stops, centre the rudder and recover from the dive.

I cannot stress highly enough that you must use the manufacturers technique as some differ from that I’ve described. Obviously the use of elevator is reversed in an inverted spin and the only reliable way to determine the direction of the spin is to sight down the nose and look for the yaw. Inverted, the roll and yaw are opposite as viewed by the pilot. ie - upright: spinning right, rolling right, inverted: spinning right, rolling left. It’s very disconcerting at first and it’s easy to use the direction of roll to incorrectly identify the required rudder input.

[just a dumb pilot]

This latest accident demonstrates the total disconnect between RAA and GA and the regulator CAsA.
Sadly these two people have become statistics of this.
The earlier accident in Victoria which was an aircraft of the same type but RAA registered and I understand that investigations into that accident are well progressed with the ATSB.
I also understand these are not the only incidents of "Flat Spinning" in this type of aircraft.
It is time for the ATSB and CAsA to stand up and divulge what they found out in trials in Victoria following the first accident and immediately either ground the aircraft or issue a statement saying the aircraft is safe.
Don't believe that ATSB and CAsA don't communicate they are joined at the hip.
The industry needs immediate advice from CAsA and RAA is it safe to fly?
I hope these two unfortunate aviators recover quickly from their injuries.

[Squawk7700]

I’m not certain that the inquest has started for the RAA one last year. That wouldn’t help with the timing of any recommendations and action plans. Here’s hoping that the coroner hands down some solid recommendations.

[Rashid Bacon]

On the basis that this was a VH registered aircraft and that the flight controls were fully functioning at the time of the event..

What about something constructive such as again teaching incipient spin recovery.

The idea of not teaching it and then saying spins are prohibited is great until a pilot inadvertently finds the aircraft in this situation without the skills to identify and safely recover.

Instruction by instructors who themselves have never experienced these sorts of manoeuvres provides a conduit to progressively lower flight standards and capabilities of successive generations of GA pilots.

Our regulator at work (NOT)

[A37575]

The idea of not teaching it and then saying spins are prohibited is great until a pilot inadvertently finds the aircraft in this situation without the skills to identify and safely recover.


Agree. Rather like telling someone who cannot swim "I won't teach you how to swim but I will teach you how not to go near the water."

[just a dumb pilot]

Fine teach spin recovery will it make the aircraft and the pilot safe.
What if this aircraft has a tendency to Flat Spin and not come out?
This was tested at Latrobe Valley months ago?
What was the conclusion?

[Arctaurus]

Just a dumb pilot - Makes it a lot safer than if they had no training at all - recognising this early at the incipient stage provides some protection against continuing into a fully developed spin.

[djpil]

Prior to that earlier incident in Victoria one of my friends visited a flying school somewhere in Australia to do a bit of dual flying in a Bristell and was particularly interested in seeing its stall behaviour .... "oh noo we don't do stalls in that aeroplane" .... no reason given.

If an aeroplane is not approved for intentional spins then I'd be very wary of "advanced" stall exercises with a student.

With CASA's new unique non-ICAO definition of aerobatics my opinion is that an instructor would require a spin training endorsement in order to teach the advanced stall exercises of the new Part 61 and use an aeroplane which is approved for intentional spins. I will put that to CASA at one of their upcoming Flight Instructor Safety Workshops.

[MrBernoulli]

Makes it a lot safer than if they had no training at all - recognising this early at the incipient stage provides some protection against continuing into a fully developed spin.The major problem with that view is that the pilot then has no hope of recovering from an unintentional spin caused by something else e.g. a close encounter with the wake of another aircraft, or clear air turbulence

I have been aboard a single-engine piston training aircraft where the student pilot has, entirely unintentionally, put the aircraft into a rapid autorotative manouvre that very quickly became a fully developed spin. Once he had overcome the startle factor, his spin recovery training kicked in, and normal flight was resumed shortly thereafter, albeit with a slighty embarrassed air. It was pointed out to him that there could be little better advertisement for his spin training than that very incident.

Spins should be respected, definitely, but they should never be feared. Confidence in recognition and recovery comes with exposure to spin training. Not knowing about the behaviour of your craft in those corners of the envelope, where forces outside of your control may put you, is just plain daft. There is no such thing as risk-free flying, though the molly-coddling world we live in seems to give people the belief that a trip in an aircraft should be as simple as a drive in a car. It isn't.

Pilots need to get a grip on the skills that the blue yonder can, and will, throw at them and get proper flight training. Avoiding spin training is not proper flight training

[megan]

SOAR AVIATION VH-YVX

[Arctaurus]

Bernoulli - Full spin training - I agree entirely, but trying to convince the muppet regulator of that could be problematic. At least incipient spin training was a former training requirement and would not be a bridge too far.

[mcoates]

. Avoiding spin training is not proper flight training

Most RA-Aus registered aircraft are not approved for spinning (the only one that I believe is certified for spin training is the Pipistrel Virus SW) it is therefore very difficult to get spin training when you are getting a recreational license because spinning is not allowed in an RA-Aus registered aircraft.

Is it the horse before the cart or the cart before the horse ?

[roundsounds]

An interesting video on YouTube of an LSA doing some sort of spin testing and the aircraft fails to recover. The cockpit / canopy looks very Bristell like.

LSA Spin video

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1540x1525/7a593722_0664_4afe_a081_a4bd112c87a0_3773216df10b58b3b75df05 2f7332bddfc4f72ef.jpeg

[MrBernoulli]

Most RA-Aus registered aircraft are not approved for spinning (the only one that I believe is certified for spin training is the Pipistrel Virus SW) it is therefore very difficult to get spin training when you are getting a recreational license because spinning is not allowed in an RA-Aus registered aircraft.
My point is that "recreational" licensing in aircraft that are not certified for spinning is asking for trouble.

All aircraft are at risk of getting in to some sort of auto-rotating condition, whether they are certified for spinning or not. If that occurs, it is all very well saying that they are not certified for spinning - the result will still very likely be a smoking hole in the ground. Knowing how to recover from an auto-rotative condition, in an aircraft certified for it or not, is one of the differences between being a properly trained pilot ...... or being dead. It really is that simple.

Do your training on an aircraft that can spin, or at least get a spinning recognition and recovery course on one. Lives are at stake.

[mcoates]

My point is that "recreational" licensing in aircraft that are not certified for spinning is asking for trouble.

All aircraft are at risk of getting in to some sort of auto-rotating condition, whether they are certified for spinning or not. If that occurs, it is all very well saying that they are not certified for spinning - the result will still very likely be a smoking hole in the ground. Knowing how to recover from an auto-rotative condition, in an aircraft certified for it or not, is one of the differences between being a properly trained pilot ...... or being dead. It really is that simple.

Do your training on an aircraft that can spin, or at least get a spinning recognition and recovery course on one. Lives are at stake.

I agree with you 110%. Spinning into the ground takes way too many lives of recreational pilots regardless of RA-Aus or VH registration or whatever licence is held. Spinning doesn't discriminate when you don't have the proper training.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Unless I have missed it, nobody has mentioned differences in certification standards between a LSA and a FAR 23 (or equivalent,) aircraft, and, of course, with particular reference to a capability for spin recovery, if any.

That an aircraft is registered by RAOz or CASA is beside the point ----- what are it's certification required to be demonstrated in this area, is the whole point.

No matter how thorough your spin and recovery training, and currency, if you have the misfortune to spin an aircraft that may or may not recover, and is not required to demonstrate either reliable spin recover or be spin resistant, you are in big trouble.

I note that a lot of modern "looking" designs have a fin and rudder/horizontal stab. design that is not conducive (in theory) to good spin recovery. I well remember Henry Millicer's talk on the subject, and why a Victa did not have a "swept" fin, as was the then "new fashion" ---- See C-150 to C-152, and other Cessna of the era.

Unfortunately, the basic rules of aerodynamics have been resistant to being updated by the marketing department.

Do YOU know the actual aerodynamic behavior of the aircraft YOU are flying, in this corner of its flight envelope. You might be unpleasantly surprised. I strongly recommend you find out, and manage your operation accordingly.

Tootle pip!!

PS 1: I do know that the low wing Brumby was test flown through the most rigorous test regime, as far as spin and recovery is concerned, by a suitably qualified Experimental Test and Development pilot, even thought such was NOT required for LSA or RAOz certification ---- what is the status of what YOU fly??

PS 2: The same could be said for structural design standards --- what do you know about about gust loadings or fatigue standards for your LSA or similar "relaxed" certification.

[mcoates]

.......................... Development pilot, even thought such was NOT required for LSA or RAOz certification --.


Sorry but there IS a requirement for LSA to have particular spin performance. Check the ASTM standard. Also RA-Aus don't certify LSA, CASA don't certify LSA.

The manufacturer self-certifies their aircraft was manufactured in compliance with the ASTM standards, Sorry but your wrong on both statements (i was on the F37 ASTM development committee for several years)

[Squawk7700]

Checkmate on that one old mate Leadie!


I am guessing that Soar are confident they know what went wrong as they are still currently flying their other Bristells, so seemingly not too concerned.

[Rashid Bacon]

The problem with ASTM is that external testing is the "modus operandi" in developing standards. The manufacturer may have a vested interest in nominating and using a particular testing entity to obtain a particular result.

Self certification by LSA manufacturers would not seem to be a guarantee of empirical performance data.

So I wouldn't be placing too much confidence in the reported performance characteristics of some of these aircraft, especially with end of flight envelope data.

The question I do have is does CASA make any separate certification determination when registering an aircraft on the VH register v the RA AUS pathway (as was the case with the event aircraft at Stawell). I don't know.

[Okihara]

It is a surprising fact that after many similar spin accidents, this aircraft is still being used for basic flight training. I'd be frankly somewhat anxious to see a student go on their first solo in that thing.

[mcoates]

The question I do have is does CASA make any separate certification determination when registering an aircraft on the VH register v the RA AUS pathway (as was the case with the event aircraft at Stawell). I don't know.

There is no difference between LSA registration in the VH or RA-Aus category. The paperwork differs a little bit with regards to the application but all of the supporting documentation from the manufacturer is the same.

The manufacturer themselves does the self certification, there is no need to send it out to any third party.

Any audits that I have been involved with the FAA, they are only looking at the paperwork and structure inside the company for reporting ongoing problems in the fleet, they have not once looked further into the flight characteristics or performance claims of the aircraft.

This is lacking in my opinion because we know that there are aircraft registered in the LSA category (around the world) that don't stall anywhere near the stated figures but nobody in authority has ever called them out, they don't carry the required payload for minimum fuel standard pilot and passenger and in some cases exceed the imposed speed limit in the US certification categories (that does not apply to Australia)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I am guilty of no more than not being pedantic enough about "self certification certification" versus what you assume as "certification", at the end of the day, these aircraft have still been "certified" to an "appropriate" mechanism.

As for the adequacy of the flight testing under the ASTM standards, I can only describe it as minimal, or "rough and ready" and in no way as extensive as a FAR 23 single engine (just to be pedantic) aircraft test requirements.

Tootle pip!!
PS: At least two imported LSA that I have inspected very closely during assembly have been real shockers, I would expect better from the average home builder.
Interestingly, CASA demanded that the incorrect assembly instructions of the manufacturer/certifier be followed to the letter, because anything else would be a "modification" not approved by the manufacturer/certifier.

PS2: Re. the Brumby, I was hoping to make the point that it was tested to well beyond the minimal required standards.

[zanthrus]

I am guessing that Soar are confident they know what went wrong as they are still currently flying their other Bristells, so seemingly not too concerned.

Squawk 7700

I am quite confident that SOAR do not know what they are doing. Except ripping people off.

[sta5fhl]

Anyone see the Moorabbin Accident on Sunday? C172 on landing, ran off end of runway into ditch

[Back Pressure]

Anyone see the Moorabbin Accident on Sunday? C172 on landing, ran off end of runway into ditch

Was VH-EWZ from Oxford went off end of 17L. Nose wheel broken off. Otherwise looked not too bad from a distance.

[Sunfish]

the old "land at 70 knots" problem

[Squawk7700]

the old "land at 70 knots" problem

Is that what you did when you bent the firewall of the 172 at Moorabbin Sunfish?

[A37575]

Re. the Brumby, I was hoping to make the point that it was tested to well beyond the minimal required standards.

Was there any "official" report published on the cause or suspected cause of the Brumby fatal accident north of Penfield Vic where Terry Otway and his passenger died?

If I recall, media reports described the aircraft in a flat spin.

[Cloudee]

Report out.

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

The pilot’s recollection of events and what actually happened appear to differ somewhat.

[Oli_Vert]

[QUOTE=Cloudee;10824201 The pilot’s recollection of events and what actually happened appear to differ somewhat.[/QUOTE]

yikes, wonder if they were aware of the data recording or if it was a bit of a gotcha moment.

Looking at a triple figure bank angle I can imagine some selective amnesia creep in :eek:

[Sunfish]

Read and weep. What an idiot.

[Stickshift3000]

Without wishing the pilot any ill-harm, I'm glad they got caught out.

Unacceptable behaviour, and it doesn't show a great understanding of performance limitations.

[djpil]

1. I don't understand the spin recovery method in the POH per that ATSB report:
"Unintentional spin recovery technique:
1. Throttle - idle
2. Lateral control - ailerons neutralized
3. Rudder pedals - full opposite rudder
4. Rudder pedals - neutralize rudder immediately when rotation stops
5. Longitudinal control - neutralize or push forward and recover dive."
It suggests that only after the rotation stops is the elevator moved down and then used to recover from the dive.

2. "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." CASA still hasn't explained why they think that. I would've thought that the ATSB would've read the spin test report themselves and came to a conclusion themselves.

The method of recovery from a fully developed spin may be quite different from that in the POH intended to be used up to one turn.

"Idiot" "unacceptable behavior" I wonder if anyone had told him what he needed to know.

[Squawk7700]

Possibly in another aircraft that was demonstrated as being able to meet the required standards, may have never entered the spin in the first place.

Plenty of pilots have gone to 90 degrees or more when showing off and not come close to entering a spin.

[Oli_Vert]

I’m not qualified to critique the spin recovery in the POH but I feel like when you’ve significantly exceeded the aircraft’s stated performance as was done here then the POH pretty much goes out the window.

Perhaps there are plenty of GA aircraft that could have done what was done here and not had an accident outcome. The decision to do it in this particular type though is evidently flawed. That they had decided to do it earlier at a low altitude over a mate‘s house as well..... :ugh:

[djpil]

1. I don't understand the spin recovery method in the POH per that ATSB report:
"Unintentional spin recovery technique:
1. Throttle - idle
2. Lateral control - ailerons neutralized
3. Rudder pedals - full opposite rudder
4. Rudder pedals - neutralize rudder immediately when rotation stops
5. Longitudinal control - neutralize or push forward and recover dive."
It suggests that only after the rotation stops is the elevator moved down and then used to recover from the dive.
Seems to me that is different than described in the company's spin test report of August 2011/February 2020:
"In all cases the aircraft responded to control actions and immediately recovered from a spin or spiral using “classic“ spin recovery sequence – full opposite rudder and elevator control push to neutral position. Just as the aircraft stops the rotation, rudder pedals were moved to neutral position." and "Recovery from the flat spin requires that engine power must be reduced to idle, full opposite rudder applied with ailerons and elevator in neutral position. It takes up to 2 turns to stop the flat spin. Once stopped, rudder pedals in neutral position, increase engine power, push stick slightly forward and recover to horizontal flight in the normal manner."

Possibly in another aircraft that was demonstrated as being able to meet the required standards, may have never entered the spin in the first place.Seems to me that it meets the standards for spin recovery. I haven't seen the official stall test report.

[Squawk7700]

I’ll ask Gerard next time I see him.

[Bodie1]

I’ll ask Gerard next time I see him.

Why? You're talking to an experienced aeronautical engineer, Grade 1 Flight Instructor and competition aerobatic pilot and instructor. I think he knows what he's talking about.

And Lappin will tell you that thing should never be used in a training environment.

[Sunfish]

Trespassing into aircraft engineering here, but does not having a relatively short arm between CG and rudder make rudder design and sizing more critical? Look at a C150, the rudder is at least 0.5m further aft of CG compared to a Bristell. In other words, I would have thought The tighter the coupling distance between CG and rudder/elevator, the more critical the design of those control surfaces, but what would I know? I would also expect that the shorter “wheelbase” between rudder and CG leaves less time and room for error in spin recovery.

[Squawk7700]

Why? You're talking to an experienced aeronautical engineer, Grade 1 Flight Instructor and competition aerobatic pilot and instructor. I think he knows what he's talking about.

And Lappin will tell you that thing should never be used in a training environment.

Because unless I’m mistaken, Lappin was commissioned by CASA to flight test the aircraft to assess its spinning characteristics.

[Bodie1]

Because unless I’m mistaken, Lappin was commissioned by CASA to flight test the aircraft to assess its spinning characteristics.

Yes, every time there's a Bristell crash they call him. But he's not the only authority. And you know what he's going to tell you anyway! ;)

[Squawk7700]

Even more trouble for the Bristell type.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/safety-advisory-notice-issue-2-brm-aero-ltd.pdf

The grim reaper is standing over them.

[machtuk]

I'd be surprised if CASA are doing this just for thrills!

[Squawk7700]

I'd be surprised if CASA are doing this just for thrills!

Touche....

[megan]

Here's how you get out of a Bristell spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwZrtYgnP7s&t=2s

[Denied Justice]

That is an amazing video - CASA may have a valid argument?

[Squawk7700]

F.a.r.k I got dizzy just watching that, let alone being in it. That pilot must have been a figure skater in a past life. Would love to hear from a spinner on here eg djpil if his technique should have got results.

The engine stoppage is a curveball. I know an experienced guy who spun an RV6 for many thousands of feet, unable to get out of it until he managed to manipulate power to exit the spin.

[mcoates]

You could see that he put power in once or twice but it did not make any difference because he just gave the throttle a blip. He may have done better leaving the throttle on the five seconds or so to try and help the airflow over the tail.

Remember, this is the factory test pilot apparently so it makes you wonder if there is any chance for a new student

[Ndegi]

You could see that he put power in once or twice but it did not make any difference because he just gave the throttle a blip. He may have done better leaving the throttle on the five seconds or so to try and help the airflow over the tail.

Remember, this is the factory test pilot apparently so it makes you wonder if there is any chance for a new student

Wrong Michael, the pilot is a well know instructor and ex military pilot from Tauranga, NZ. There is a Kiwi Pilots FB page that refers to this spin which may have been in China?

[mcoates]

Wrong Michael, the pilot is a well know instructor and ex military pilot from Tauranga, NZ. There is a Kiwi Pilots FB page that refers to this spin which may have been in China?

I have heard this also but its apparently not correct as the incident was in CZ and i saw the report a few years ago when it happened just after the video came on the interweb. Unless there are more of them out there ?

[djpil]

[QUOTE=Squawk7700;10849927]F.a.r.k I got dizzy just watching that, let alone being in it. That pilot must have been a figure skater in a past life. Would love to hear from a spinner on here eg djpil if his technique should have got results.[ ..../QUOTE]That is an extract from a longer video, the actions prior to this are interesting and relevant to the question posed by Squawk. As already mentioned, there has been some discussion with the pilot in this video elsewhere. May be of interest to some but irrelevant to the question as to whether it complies with the ASTM requirements for a type not approved for spinning.

[megan]

there has been some discussion with the pilot in this video elsewherea link djpil?

[pilotbm]

BRM Aero made some pretty hefty allegations in a FB Live video with AOPA. You can rewatch via the AOPA Facebook page.

Essentially, BRM Aero have completed around 260 spins in the aircraft, all recovered as per ASTM standards. CASA refuse this data, without providing any technical explanation as to why the refuse it.

BRM Aero believe the CASA attention relates to an individual who previously provided CoA certificates for Bristells in Australia, who would then go back to his job at RA Aus as tech manager, and stamp the paperwork as approved by RA.

Anderson Aviation, the importer, saw this as a conflict of interest, and sought a new person to provide the CoA.

BRM and Anderson allege that ever since, this person (now working at CASA) has sought to tarnish the Bristell’s reputation.

CASA has tried to bring the FAA and NZ CAA on board to ground the Bristell, both have said thanks but no thanks.

It’s sounding a lot like BRM and Anderson are gearing up for a litigation case in the near future, with damages now growing in the vicinity of $20-30m

[Sunfish]

Comment: PilotBM’s description suggests that part of the cause of the decay of GA is the lack of trust between industry and the regulator as asserted in the Forsyth review. Would anybody seriously suggest personal conflicts as an issue in the CAA or FAA? I think not. How can anyone safely invest in Australian aviation in such a trust - free environment?

[djpil]

a link djpil?This could be it, not sure, but scroll through the 1600 comments. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1091538964311041

Essentially, BRM Aero have completed around 260 spins in the aircraft, all recovered as per ASTM standards. CASA refuse this data, without providing any technical explanation as to why the refuse it.It seems to me that people in CASA (and the RAA) and the ATSB are way out of their depth here. There was a time when staff at CASA's predecessors would document certification issues pretty much on the spot.

BRM Aero believe the CASA attention relates to an individual who previously provided CoA certificates for Bristells in Australia, who would then go back to his job at RA Aus as tech manager, and stamp the paperwork as approved by RA.Anderson Aviation, the importer, saw this as a conflict of interest, and sought a new person to provide the CoA.Two-hatted situations are common and potential for conflict of interest does exist in small organisations. My training to become a USA FAA DER dealt with this and my FAA oversight officer would obviously have it high on their agenda. Rules for DARs are the same per https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8100.8D.pdf I would do engineering work then sign an FAA form approving the data as a DER.

BRM and Anderson allege that ever since, this person (now working at CASA) has sought to tarnish the Bristell’s reputation.He's not the only one to tarnish its reputation as a suitable basic trainer but that's a different subject than compliance with the ASTM which seems to confuse these people.

I have my popcorn ready. I wish Bob Mc and Brett the best of luck.

[mcoates]

Please don't get confused here the question is about nothing else other than ASTM compliance.

The ASTM documents list exactly what is required and this manufacture cannot prove compliance.

You need 1800 spins for basic spin compliance, and 600 more to be spin certified.

Watch this video to learn more about what is required for spin certification for intentional spin training in LSA aircraft.

https://youtu.be/C-eyCB69AAM

[pilotbm]

Please don't get confused here the question is about nothing else other than ASTM compliance.

The ASTM documents list exactly what is required and this manufacture cannot prove compliance.

You need 1800 spins for basic spin compliance, and 600 more to be spin certified.

The numbers you have quoted aren't relevant to the LSA certification. BRM Aero produced the CASA spin testing documentation during the Facebook Live stream which required a total of 36 spins to be completed.

If the aircraft is not compliant with ASTM - why is no other regulatory body worldwide taking action to revoke certification?
Why is CASA not being prescriptive with BRM Aero as to exactly WHY the ASTM standard isn't met? Is it really appropriate for the national regulator to simply say "No", and leave it to the manufacturer to work out why? We are talking about CASA believing there is a significant safety issue - should they not be working with the manufacturer to resolve it?

In regards to the fatal Bristell accident in Clyde - is it appropriate that RAA is legally allowed to self-investigate a fatal accident, and withhold their findings from the manufacturer, given that there is a supposed certification issue with the aircraft?

[Stickshift3000]

Here's how you get out of a Bristell spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwZrtYgnP7s&t=2s


Just to clarify: that is NOT a Bristell spinning.

The pilot - Phill Hooker from NZ - was testing the Triton Skytrek LSA:

https://fearoflanding.com/fun-stuff/parachute-deployed-in-flat-spin-at-1000-feet/

http://www.kiwiflyer.co.nz/KiwiFlyer-Issue-21-KF-Interview-Phill-Hooker.pdf

[Squawk7700]

It doesn’t matter that anyone has allegedly tarnished the aircraft, as the aircraft appears to be doing a fine job of that on its own.

[Ng5]

I can’t see how you can blame the aircraft . The first accident was caused by the student being chock a block full of Fentanyl and the second by a relatively low time pilot putting on a crazy flying display.

[Squawk7700]

I can’t see how you can blame the aircraft . The first accident was caused by the student being chock a block full of Fentanyl and the second by a relatively low time pilot putting on a crazy flying display.

There have supposedly been a number of them do the same all over the world. Would have to assume that our regulators have looked into those. It’s bordering on unprecedented action and short of the MU2 limitations, there are very few aircraft out there with handling limitations placed upon them. Jabiru of course, had engine limitations, not handling. Will be interesting to see where it leads.

[Ng5]

I have seen most of the spin testing which they’ve done and I am satisfied. It seems like more of a documentarian problem that CASA are concerned with particularly as it relates to the diferent models long wing vs short wing vs tail dragger etc. One of the complaints relates to the Roko Spol which was the forerunner to the Bristell and has been out of production for about 10 years with the manufacturer having gone broke. Retesting and proper documentation would probably solve it. The rules around LSA are very complicated and not well understood. CASA seems to take a lot of unprecedented actions and are well on the way to destroying GA in Australia.

[Squawk7700]

I have seen most of the spin testing which they’ve done and I am satisfied.

You are a Bristell owner. Would you be happy
to have yours enter a spin and have the confidence to get out of it under all allowable C of G conditions?

[Stickshift3000]

Spinning is prohibited in Bristells. If you spin it you may be asking for trouble.

What is the issue here?

[Ng5]

I would never spin my Bristell . The POH says not to and to do so would break CASA’s rules. I have stalled it many times though with not a hint of trouble. It must be properly rigged though with the rudder cables correctly tensioned .

[Squawk7700]

Spinning is prohibited in Bristells. If you spin it you may be asking for trouble.

What is the issue here?

Therein lies the possible problem... those that entered a spin most likely never intended to.

I heard somewhere that in certain overseas they are required to be fitted with a BRS. Would love to know if that was true.

[Ng5]

Especially if you are a student high on Fentanyl being taught by an inexperienced instructor who didn’t expect it to happen, or alternatively a low time pilot showing off to your passenger and people on the ground with extreme manoeuvres. Surely a recipe for disaster in both cases don’t you think?

[Squawk7700]

So you’re saying they are a high performance aircraft, not suitable for a low time pilot?

I’m not defending the aircraft or the CASA actions, however something strange is going on somewhere... it does pass the sniff test.

[Stickshift3000]

Therein lies the possible problem... those that entered a spin most likely never intended to.

I heard somewhere that in certain overseas they are required to be fitted with a BRS. Would love to know if that was true.

Perhaps CASA should mandate no unintentional spins, just as they have for no unintentional stalls?! :ugh:

[Squawk7700]

As a purchaser of any new or used aircraft, I would reasonably expect that if I was to spin the aircraft, either intentionally or unintentionally, that I would, with reasonable piloting skills, be able to exit the spin using normal recovery techniques, or as modified and documented in the POH.

That should be the litmus test in reality, but it appears that proving this is an issue.

[Ng5]

I would imagine that’s exactly what the ASTM standards are about. The Bristell has been spin tested extensively by a Russian test pilot who works as an engineer and test pilot testing the Sukoi S35 fighter. He also happens to be a Bristell owner. For various reasons some of which have been specified and some not , CASA do not accept this testing and have asked for it to be redone by an independent organisation. As I said previously a lot of it is around documentation and extrapolation from one model to another which CASA do not think is appropriate. Perhaps I should mention the letter came from CASA’s Manager of Stakeholder Engagement for goodness sake. That had me puking before I started reading . There is a lot more to come out in this matter yet including a proper investigation of some unofficial spin testing possibly carried out at the behest of RAAUS in the Latrobe Valley a couple of years ago which is referred to in previous posts and which probably broke several CARs.

[Sunfish]

Ng5: The Bristell has been spin tested extensively by a Russian test pilot who works as an engineer and test pilot testing the Sukoi S35 fighter.


.....And therein lies the problem.

The aircraft does not appear, in CASAs view, to be capable. of reliable spin recovery by an ordinary pilot and certainly not drug users or the testosterone fuelled.

[runway16]

But what happened to the manufacturers test pilot? If I am correct he died in a spin accident of a Bristel.

[Ng5]

That’s not correct . His name is Yuri Vaschuk and I can assure you he is alive and well and living Russia and works as a professional test pilot and engineer for Sukoi.

[mcoates]

He said, she said... yadda, yadda, yadda

They just didnt test properly or comply with the ASTM requirements.

I served on the F37 committee for about 4 years and know shortcuts taken by some manufacturers because they used to stupidly boast about them, including signing off other model variants (nosewheel versus tailwheel, short wing versus long wing etc) because they just didnt want to do the work. Many also tested spinning at the 472.5 kgs European limit and then declared compliance at 600 kgs without any additional testing.

There are 600 test points as part of proper spin and recovery testing and each must be completed 3 times safely.

I cant post the requirements here for ASTM copyright reasons.

Lest just say, regardless of who was flying the plane during testing that this any many other manufacturers didn't meet the testing requirements for spinning and many other requirements and this is a big issue with manufacturer self-validation. The manufacturer can say anything up until they are asked to validate the compliance with the standards and the problem comes when they cant validate as has happened here.

[megan]

Stickshift, thanks for putting things right, that's the problem with the 'net and assuming what is said is correct, y'tube had it listed as "Bristell flat spin". The video here tells you it was a Skytrek from the panel layout (1:24). Given the design elements of both aircraft it would seem evident that they both have the same parent. The Skytrek manufacturer does say "The Triton Skytrek is the first CAAC and FAA-certified factory-built Light Sport Aircraft made in China! It shares the same heritage as the likes of CZAW SportCruiser, the PiperSport and some other look-alike that are derivatives of the ZenAir 601XL"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=84&v=M-cNbEcnwYg&feature=emb_title

[djpil]

The ASTM LSA guidance material that I have seen refers to the FAR 23 Flight Test Guide so the applicable nominal spin matrix is this one. Cross out the items not applicable. AC 23-8C has some associated notes which are relevant.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1020x730/ac238cnormalspinmatrix_16b5fb84c96b968cb752ab3e91c16f234cad4 285.png

[Stickshift3000]

Stickshift, thanks for putting things right, that's the problem with the 'net and assuming what is said is correct, y'tube had it listed as "Bristell flat spin". The video here tells you it was a Skytrek from the panel layout (1:24). Given the design elements of both aircraft it would seem evident that they both have the same parent. The Skytrek manufacturer does say "The Triton Skytrek is the first CAAC and FAA-certified factory-built Light Sport Aircraft made in China! It shares the same heritage as the likes of CZAW SportCruiser, the PiperSport and some other look-alike that are derivatives of the ZenAir 601XL"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=84&v=M-cNbEcnwYg&feature=emb_title

No problem, it’s clear there’s a bit of confusion over this video (and it is quite confronting).

[Stickshift3000]

Further potential issues coming to light with the actual CoG measurement Vs handbook datum measurement:
https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-issues-warning-over-bristell-cog

[djpil]

Further potential issues coming to light with the actual CoG measurement Vs handbook datum measurement:
https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-issues-warning-over-bristell-cogThat is a very large error in CG as a result and pushes the sample in the POH way behind the aft limit. I wonder which moment arm BRM used when they determined CG for their flight tests.

There is no Type Certificate Data Sheet with moment arms which I'd use when doing weight and balance for a certified aircraft. If not certified I would check measure stuff like that myself. POHs can have typos.

The Super Decathlon's AFM had an error in crew moment arm from 1995 until a SL in 2018. That error also pushes the real CG further aft - just the rear seat moment arm and the change is about half that of the Bristell. CASA's role in that is interesting too but a topic for another thread maybe.

I have seen most of the spin testing which they’ve done and I am satisfied. It seems like more of a documentarian problem that CASA are concerned with particularly as it relates to the diferent models long wing vs short wing vs tail dragger etc. ...I haven't seen any substantial issue raised by CASA.

The ASTM documents list exactly what is required and this manufacture cannot prove compliance.

You need 1800 spins for basic spin compliance, and 600 more to be spin certified.If that is the case then why doesn't CASA state that? Because it is not true?

The ASTM LSA guidance material that I have seen refers to the FAR 23 Flight Test Guide so the applicable nominal spin matrix is this one. Cross out the items not applicable. AC 23-8C has some associated notes which are relevant.
The Cessna Skycatcher saga is informative here. To that matrix I provided one would add build-up tests rather than jump into the deep end. If an external spin chute was fitted then repeat the tests without the spin chute - be cautious and build up to it again. That certainly expands the test program. Of course, as Cessna found out, if there are problems then the test program will blow out further. There is a lot of detail here:
http://flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2010/07-Sky_Catcher_Flight_Test_Spin_Testing.ppt

If a company has already been through a development spin test program and an authority wants to see a report to show compliance then it may only get the data required to show compliance. It would be interesting to look at the CT-4 spin test report that CASA wanted for their certification of the civil registered aircraft going to Tamworth many years ago. The original spin test report was not available. The company test pilot had spun every aircraft off the production line over many years. ARDU had done comprehensive spinning tests for the first RAAF aircraft. How does the scope of that CT-4 report for CASA (for intentional spinning) compare with the Bristell report (not for intentional spinning)? CASA also has a copy of the Pitts S-2A spin test report that they may care to look at too (back then they wanted all the data, now they accept FAA certification so they haven't seen the reports for later models) - it has far fewer test points than the Bristell and it includes inverted spins too.

[hum]

2-up using the book moment for pilots may result in a CofG well aft of the limit - this may explain the many flat spin accidents with this type..

https://gasci.weebly.com/new.html

[Jman1984]

Especially if you are a student high on Fentanyl being taught by an inexperienced instructor who didn’t expect it to happen, or alternatively a low time pilot showing off to your passenger and people on the ground with extreme manoeuvres. Surely a recipe for disaster in both cases don’t you think?

Where’s the evidence that the student pilot was under the effects or Fentanyl at the time of the crash?

[Squawk7700]

Where’s the evidence that the student pilot was under the effects or Fentanyl at the time of the crash?

NG5 stated this. He also stated that he is a Bristell owner. Joining the dots considering Fentanyl wasn’t mentioned in the ATSB report... he must have inside knowledge via the aircraft importer, Police or coroner. Not many others would know about it!

[Squawk7700]

Where’s the evidence that the student pilot was under the effects or Fentanyl at the time of the crash?

NG5 stated this. He also stated that he is a Bristell owner. Joining the dots considering Fentanyl wasn’t mentioned in the ATSB report... he must have inside knowledge via the aircraft importer, Police or coroner. Not many others would know about it!

That being said, I’m not sure which crash he is referring to as the “first.” It could be the one at Moorabbin that was related to a go-around, or the fatal crash at Clyde where the aircraft belonged to another operator, Learn to Fly, also from Moorabbin.

[Stickshift3000]

The Australian agent for Bristell has raised CASA’s handling of this issue with the Commonwealth Ombudsman:

https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-referred-to-commonwealth-ombudsman-over-bristell

[machtuk]

I wonder if Bristell are 'fiddling the books' so to speak to make it look like the type has no Issues!

[Ng5]

Can’t see how they can be accused of fiddling the books. Their spin testing has been found to be unacceptable to CASA for unspecified reasons. They are now in the process of having the testing redone by the German testing company approved by the EASA. The latest model the B23 which has a Max weight of 750 kg has already passed and is now a fully certified aircraft . Unfortunately they have a little issue with the Pandemic happening which is a big problem in Europe generally and particularly in the Czech Republic which is delaying things. I would be very surprised if it doesn’t pass the retest.