|
Gippsland GA-8’s Grounded
ABC news reporting that CASA have grounded GA-8’s after an accident in Sweden. |
EASA AD issued prohibiting all flights - EAD 2019-0177-E GIPPSLAND: Prohibition of all Flights
CASA - well it's the weekend isn't it! |
|
Interesting that EASA AD indicates that you can still ferry the aircraft. CASA website indicates you can ferry but the CASA instrument indicates no flying at all which is it boys and girls? |
Ethel,
It's very easy, a no brainer! make your own decision and simply don't fly. Go for the safest option at all times. Don't become a test pilot. Don't expect an Insurance pay out if duty of care and common sense are the safer option. |
Originally Posted by Ethel the Aardvark
(Post 10523319)
Interesting that EASA AD indicates that you can still ferry the aircraft. CASA website indicates you can ferry but the CASA instrument indicates no flying at all which is it boys and girls? |
Its not about wanting to fly one Office. It’s about CASA having many days to write the instrument and I believe it contradicts with EASA and CASA ‘s own media page. The grounding period starts at midnight so their was all day Sat to get them home. |
So what’s caused the grounding from the Sweden crash? Other types have crashed and not immediate grounding. Something we are not being told? |
So what’s caused the grounding from the Sweden crash? |
Originally Posted by RVDT
(Post 10523719)
Maybe the fact that no other aircraft was involved and the wing outboard of the strut broke off?
|
Not only the wing broke but the tail is missing with a chute trailing. Flightradar gives the altitude as 13,400 so probably about to drop. Accidental release of a chute resulting in LOC? Similar to the Caravan at Nagambie?
|
Originally Posted by RVDT
(Post 10523719)
Maybe the fact that no other aircraft was involved and the wing outboard of the strut broke off?
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
(Post 10523688)
So what’s caused the grounding from the Sweden crash? Other types have crashed and not immediate grounding. Something we are not being told? Early reports are that a wing may have detached from the aeroplane prior to the accident, but, at this time, the root cause of the accident cannot be confirmed. CASA Australia, the authority of the State of Design of the affected type design, has informed EASA that a Direction will be issued, which provides for the temporary prohibition of operations of the GA8 Airvan in Australia. Same logic as when I got a phone call from someone after a Pitts accident telling me not to fly mine as it had the same propeller. Nope, quick read of the newspaper report and peek at a photo of the wreckage - my opinion - it was LOC at low altitude. Perhaps there should be some ADs grounding aircraft which have entered an unrecoverable spin until investigation proves the aircraft was not at fault. |
Originally Posted by Ethel the Aardvark
(Post 10523605)
Its not about wanting to fly one Office. It’s about CASA having many days to write the instrument and I believe it contradicts with EASA and CASA ‘s own media page. Isn't that what you would expect from CASA. Seriously, let's hope it is rapidly established that the problem was a mistake by jumpers, and not a fundamental structural problem with the aeroplane ---- the latter would really play into CASA's hands, and most likely be the end of the GA-8 and the company. The history of CASA (and predecessors) treatment of Gippsland Aeronautics does not inspire confidence. Tootle pip!! |
LeadSled, not even CASA would have enough money to shut down Mahindra !! |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 10523967)
LeadSled, not even CASA would have enough money to shut down Mahindra !! |
CASA have enough money for Mahindra to close the factory here and take all work overseas. My guess is that is what will happen, much to the relief of CASA, because it then removes any accountability for continuing oversight of Gippsaero. To put that another way, CASA doesn’t have a mandate to foster, or to at least not destroy, Australian businesses. The simplest method for CASA to fulfill the “safe aircraft” part of their “safety” mandate is to prevent aircraft from being built here. My guess is that CASA will hit Gipps with audits and extremely expensive or impossible demands. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10524052)
CASA have enough money for Mahindra to close the factory here and take all work overseas. My guess is that is what will happen, much to the relief of CASA, because it then removes any accountability for continuing oversight of Gippsaero. To put that another way, CASA doesn’t have a mandate to foster, or to at least not destroy, Australian businesses. The simplest method for CASA to fulfill the “safe aircraft” part of their “safety” mandate is to prevent aircraft from being built here. My guess is that CASA will hit Gipps with audits and extremely expensive or impossible demands. |
As a matter of interest, I see the CASA announcement says that they have sent an airworthiness engineer to Sweden to gather data.
(https://www.casa.gov.au/media-releas...rily-suspended) Why CASA? Surely ATSB are the folks who should be invited to be present? (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ae-2019-034/) |
Why CASA? Surely ATSB are the folks who should be invited to be present?
Consider which NAA is the certificating authority ? https://www.mahindraaerospace.com/ma...20Rev%2022.PDF ATSB would have been invited to participate by the State of Registry. I am only speculating, here, but it would not be unreasonable/unexpected for the ATSB to request either a Gippy Aero or CASA accredited representative to go on ATSB's behalf. When I last was working with ASTA, I was part of a two-man team which went on ATSB's behalf to an O/S Nomad fatal - quite some years ago, now. The NTSB was a tad busy with other stuff at the time so we ended up running the bulk of the investigation, as it turned out - a bit unusual, but them's the breaks at times .. |
By Dorthom in Accidents forum
Directive issued last year:AD/GA8/9 Airworthiness Directives as madeThis instrument amends certain part replacement times which were recently mandated by AD/GA8/9. As Australia is the State of Design for the type, CASA is required to develop, and to transmit to other States of Registry, an airworthiness directive (AD) to correct the problem. The AD sets out required remedial action to replace certain GippsAero GA8 wing struts and wing strut fittings within specified timeframes in response to a manufacturing quality escape which resulted in wing strut fittings in the effective serial number range to be manufactured with incorrect grain orientation.Administered by: Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE On the commencement date specified below, and for the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below repeals Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/GA8/9 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.001 (1) of CASR 1998 and subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct an unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section. GippsAero GA8 Series AeroplanesAD/GA8/9 Amdt 1Wing Strut and Wing Strut |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:42. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.