Stawell crash
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: dubai
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Long ago and far away ......
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Last edited by Arctaurus; 6th Oct 2018 at 03:21.
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 ?
Is it the horse before the cart or the cart before the horse ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Long ago and far away ......
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: dubai
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Currently: A landlocked country with high terrain, otherwise Melbourne, Australia + Washington D.C.
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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)
