CAO 20.7.1B First segment
Moderator
Southdown Engineering
Can't bring the organisation to mind. Perhaps you might PM with the principal's name ?
Most of the major leg work was done by CASA staff seconded to the CASA Review program office
Likewise ?
OTT: Not really, and we were most surprised, as we expected exactly the opposite
Having compared more than a few sets of charts, my experience does not support your contention. Again, perhaps you might offer some specifics ?
We came to the conclusion that a lot of OEM and local "test flying" was pretty rough and ready
I concur there. There were some strange outcomes consequent to saving a dollar eg the landing charts based on gross approach speed where the lower weight distances increased. However, they were pretty obvious cheap and nasty workarounds.
the Chipmunk had never been "properly" certified in Australia.
I had some involvement with several Chippies. Perhaps you can indicate where the deficiencies lay ?
C.of As were just issued to airframes in ex-military condition
Don't recall ever being involved with ex-MIL machines so I can't comment there.
Can't bring the organisation to mind. Perhaps you might PM with the principal's name ?
Most of the major leg work was done by CASA staff seconded to the CASA Review program office
Likewise ?
OTT: Not really, and we were most surprised, as we expected exactly the opposite
Having compared more than a few sets of charts, my experience does not support your contention. Again, perhaps you might offer some specifics ?
We came to the conclusion that a lot of OEM and local "test flying" was pretty rough and ready
I concur there. There were some strange outcomes consequent to saving a dollar eg the landing charts based on gross approach speed where the lower weight distances increased. However, they were pretty obvious cheap and nasty workarounds.
the Chipmunk had never been "properly" certified in Australia.
I had some involvement with several Chippies. Perhaps you can indicate where the deficiencies lay ?
C.of As were just issued to airframes in ex-military condition
Don't recall ever being involved with ex-MIL machines so I can't comment there.
JT,
A reply in part, re. the Chipmunk:
The deficiencies were legal process, not the aeroplane.
When the ARB certified the aircraft in UK, there was a laundry list of meaningless modifications, in my view not one of them made any difference to the safe operation of the aircraft. They cost a lot of money to carry out. Fundamentally, military and civil didn't recognise each other, much the same for pilots, SAL4 Pilot Licensing didn't recognise military qualification beyond just hours logged.
As you will well recall, the ANR/ANOs had a well defined process for certifying any aircraft to "Australian standards", which added sometimes tens of thousands of pounds/dollars to the cost of putting an aircraft on the register, and doing a "first of type" certification was a long and painful business ---- and you may recall that the number of aircraft damaged by DCA "test flying" resulted in no insurance coverage for such flying, the "Pool" said no.
Somehow or other, that process was never visited on the Chipmunk. We speculated that the most likely reason was that Sir Donald Anderson was patron of Royal Newcastle Aero Club, but we don't really know. There was no "first of type", the aircraft were just given individual C.of As.
To this day, a little seaplane, a Riviera, rests at the bottom of Pittwater, the damage to DCA's own Merlin at Mangalore, and Max Hazelton fought a long court battle to recover damages from the Commonwealth, subsequent to a test flying "event" during "certification" ---- I think that was the first Beech 1900, two cooked engines and structural damage, but not as bad as the Merlin.
Re: Southdown Engineering, think Seabird Seeker, Jabiru and several others, first degree from Sydney (we started Engineering the same day) and long time in DCA in Melbourne in Airworthiness early in his career. Later, engineering-wise, ran the CSIRO F-27, for all the interesting things it got up to. Headed up the Airworthiness Tec. Subcommittee of the CASA Review from 1997-1999. First person to hold a CASA delegation to sign off for a Type Certificate, other than a CASA employee ---- an idea stoutly resisted by the "iron ring" in CASA, but an intent of Part 21.
Tootle pip!!
A reply in part, re. the Chipmunk:
The deficiencies were legal process, not the aeroplane.
When the ARB certified the aircraft in UK, there was a laundry list of meaningless modifications, in my view not one of them made any difference to the safe operation of the aircraft. They cost a lot of money to carry out. Fundamentally, military and civil didn't recognise each other, much the same for pilots, SAL4 Pilot Licensing didn't recognise military qualification beyond just hours logged.
As you will well recall, the ANR/ANOs had a well defined process for certifying any aircraft to "Australian standards", which added sometimes tens of thousands of pounds/dollars to the cost of putting an aircraft on the register, and doing a "first of type" certification was a long and painful business ---- and you may recall that the number of aircraft damaged by DCA "test flying" resulted in no insurance coverage for such flying, the "Pool" said no.
Somehow or other, that process was never visited on the Chipmunk. We speculated that the most likely reason was that Sir Donald Anderson was patron of Royal Newcastle Aero Club, but we don't really know. There was no "first of type", the aircraft were just given individual C.of As.
To this day, a little seaplane, a Riviera, rests at the bottom of Pittwater, the damage to DCA's own Merlin at Mangalore, and Max Hazelton fought a long court battle to recover damages from the Commonwealth, subsequent to a test flying "event" during "certification" ---- I think that was the first Beech 1900, two cooked engines and structural damage, but not as bad as the Merlin.
Re: Southdown Engineering, think Seabird Seeker, Jabiru and several others, first degree from Sydney (we started Engineering the same day) and long time in DCA in Melbourne in Airworthiness early in his career. Later, engineering-wise, ran the CSIRO F-27, for all the interesting things it got up to. Headed up the Airworthiness Tec. Subcommittee of the CASA Review from 1997-1999. First person to hold a CASA delegation to sign off for a Type Certificate, other than a CASA employee ---- an idea stoutly resisted by the "iron ring" in CASA, but an intent of Part 21.
Tootle pip!!
Moderator
When the ARB certified the aircraft in UK,
Indeed
Somehow or other, that process was never visited on the Chipmunk.
I was not aware of that history. I doubt that Donald George would have had any direct involvement .. small world, though, I completed my PPL at RNAC with Stan and Jack, many years ago, now.
Re: Southdown Engineering,
Ah, DL - of course - a fine and honourable chap, if ever there were one. Long time since he and I have crossed paths, hopefully he enjoys good health in his retirement ?
First person to hold a CASA delegation to sign off for a Type Certificate, other than a CASA employee
That's probably not quite the case. There was a number of OEM engineers who held FOT AP appointments. For instance, I had ANR 27/40/41 from the mid-70s, courtesy of the long-departed and illustrious Edward Mannix B. And the earlier chaps prior to me with that OEM, I am sure, would have predated DL's appointment.
However, can you provide some specifics re the suggestion regarding P-chart problems ?
Indeed
Somehow or other, that process was never visited on the Chipmunk.
I was not aware of that history. I doubt that Donald George would have had any direct involvement .. small world, though, I completed my PPL at RNAC with Stan and Jack, many years ago, now.
Re: Southdown Engineering,
Ah, DL - of course - a fine and honourable chap, if ever there were one. Long time since he and I have crossed paths, hopefully he enjoys good health in his retirement ?
First person to hold a CASA delegation to sign off for a Type Certificate, other than a CASA employee
That's probably not quite the case. There was a number of OEM engineers who held FOT AP appointments. For instance, I had ANR 27/40/41 from the mid-70s, courtesy of the long-departed and illustrious Edward Mannix B. And the earlier chaps prior to me with that OEM, I am sure, would have predated DL's appointment.
However, can you provide some specifics re the suggestion regarding P-chart problems ?
Re. "the first", I was really referring to certifying a new design in Australia, not first of type/type acceptance of an import.
The particular delegation was issued pursuant to a clause in Part 21 that CASA subsequently deleted when nobody was looking ---- no consultation, nothing that made the situation clear to the Minister of the day etc., nothing in the explanatory memorandum with the "amendments", and it is much harder to pick up a subtraction than an edition.
The particular provision enabled "industry certification" for aircraft up to 750 kg, and was a provision put together by DL and RSJW, and, of course, initially Leroy Keith.
Tootle pip!!
PS: As the OEM POH/AFM were, for all examined, more restrictive than the DCA books, we decided that there was no problem that required more time and effort.
JT,
Max Hazelton fought a long court battle to recover damages from the Commonwealth, subsequent to a test flying "event" during "certification" ---- I think that was the first Beech 1900, two cooked engines and structural damage, but not as bad as the Merlin.
Tootle pip!!
Max Hazelton fought a long court battle to recover damages from the Commonwealth, subsequent to a test flying "event" during "certification" ---- I think that was the first Beech 1900, two cooked engines and structural damage, but not as bad as the Merlin.
Tootle pip!!
He made pretty nice violins as well.
But I mostly enjoyed the things I bought after certain parties made claims about the Beech 1900 then settled out of court.
Seems that they were advised that hearsay was not a good basis for public criticism.
Last edited by zzuf; 9th Apr 2019 at 11:09.
Moderator
As the OEM POH/AFM were, for all examined, more restrictive than the DCA books
Some differences were due to differences in rules, eg the 500S GW change. In general, though, I think I have to continue to disagree with your overall assessment. I thought the local product generally was pretty reasonable for operational use. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree ?
He made pretty nice violins as well.
Learn something new every day. A talented chap, indeed.
Some differences were due to differences in rules, eg the 500S GW change. In general, though, I think I have to continue to disagree with your overall assessment. I thought the local product generally was pretty reasonable for operational use. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree ?
He made pretty nice violins as well.
Learn something new every day. A talented chap, indeed.
As the OEM POH/AFM were, for all examined, more restrictive than the DCA books
Some differences were due to differences in rules, eg the 500S GW change. In general, though, I think I have to continue to disagree with your overall assessment. I thought the local product generally was pretty reasonable for operational use. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree ?
He made pretty nice violins as well.
.
Some differences were due to differences in rules, eg the 500S GW change. In general, though, I think I have to continue to disagree with your overall assessment. I thought the local product generally was pretty reasonable for operational use. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree ?
He made pretty nice violins as well.
.
I am/was not really making of a relative quality assessment of either.
Our concern, at the time, was that, as the DCA et al Flight Manuals would no longer have a legal existence, that OEM data didn't present any bear traps. It was an instructive exercise all round. We had had some concerns that some thought that marketing departments of at least one US OEM "created" the performance number, with the assistance of their legal departments.
Re. violins, probably not a surprising interest, his father was first violin in the SSO for many years.
Re. the Aero Commander 500S ---- I can advise you, from personal experience, the current TC holder doesn't want to know about Australian airframes that have been operating at "Australian" weights --- that even "thinking" about it could generate a liability. Personally, I do not believe the operation at increased weight was significant in the two AU losses due wing structural failure in the air, outboard of the engines.
DL does do a very good presentation on the root cause of the AC wing root cracking and subsequent ADs.
Tootle pip!!
Moderator
OEM data didn't present any bear traps.
Oh, there be dragons awaiting the unwary in some areas ... probably not too much of a concern now that all the older P-chart folk are dying off, I guess. Having run up a few of the P-charts, I thought the DCA approach was more than reasonable for GA purposes.
his father was first violin in the SSO for many years
Ernest. Of that I was unaware. Small world - until aeroplanes interfered with my plans as a younger chap, I was heading towards a career as a professional flautist (a student of Victor McMahon in Sydney). A number of my schoolboy buddies continued on with instrumental work and ended up in this and that SO around the country. Ah, the most fond memories of the Sydney Con ... but let's not go there so that the guilty be protected from their youthful inappropriatenesses, as it were ...
.
Re. the Aero Commander 500S
I have no current knowledge of the situation. However, the basis for the recertification was component comparison to heavier airframes with whatever changes were required and the GW ending up limited per the ANO 101.22 OEI climb requirement - made a useful difference VFR ops. The US basis was, as I recall, the climb limited requirement. On a like tack, I did a similar recert for the 500A some time later and on the same basis. I fail to see that there would be any real concern regarding the increased weights from a point of airworthiness signficance ?
Oh, there be dragons awaiting the unwary in some areas ... probably not too much of a concern now that all the older P-chart folk are dying off, I guess. Having run up a few of the P-charts, I thought the DCA approach was more than reasonable for GA purposes.
his father was first violin in the SSO for many years
Ernest. Of that I was unaware. Small world - until aeroplanes interfered with my plans as a younger chap, I was heading towards a career as a professional flautist (a student of Victor McMahon in Sydney). A number of my schoolboy buddies continued on with instrumental work and ended up in this and that SO around the country. Ah, the most fond memories of the Sydney Con ... but let's not go there so that the guilty be protected from their youthful inappropriatenesses, as it were ...
.
Re. the Aero Commander 500S
I have no current knowledge of the situation. However, the basis for the recertification was component comparison to heavier airframes with whatever changes were required and the GW ending up limited per the ANO 101.22 OEI climb requirement - made a useful difference VFR ops. The US basis was, as I recall, the climb limited requirement. On a like tack, I did a similar recert for the 500A some time later and on the same basis. I fail to see that there would be any real concern regarding the increased weights from a point of airworthiness signficance ?
