|
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 |
This from an operator of a fleet of Airvans which I think sums it up nicely:
|
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. I would agree with Sunfish, and we have a precedent with Victa, forced out of business and went to NZ. It was established at an inquiry many tears ago, CASA admitted to blocking quite legal activities, based on the CASA perception of its own liability if it approved whatever. Just take note, this is not theory, it was answers to carefully crafted questioning by a Government of the day established inquiry ---- that entirely legitimate and responsible industry programs were refuse CASA regulatory approvals based entirely on the basis of CASA's perception of liability of CASA, if any approval were granted. In other words, CASA's internal views on CASA liability for carrying out its job, and the resulting "unofficial" policies that have done so much damage to the aviation sector over the years. It is not just "mindless" bureaucracy that causes so much of the problem, but "minded" bureaucracy, where self-protection and organisational liability protection are all important. The interests of the industry sector or the economy in general just don't rate in comparison. I could (but I won't) quote several examples of STC products that CASA refused certification, that went to US, were certified rapidly and at minimum cost by FAA, and were and are very successful. Some of you will recall, it was only political pressure (John Anderson really cracking the wip) after a Ministerial visit to Gippsland Aeronautics, that the GA-8 got a C.of A at all. Tootle pip!! |
Has CASA actually issued an AD? I don't see it on the website, maybe I missed it. There's a media release saying ops are suspended, but is that considered an AD?
May seem like a minor distinction, except if you are registered in a foreign country where that countries laws require you to abide by Airworthiness Directives from the State of Design. |
No AD on the Airvan that I can find. Grounded by a letter that CASA sent to operators, Anybody care to post the contents of this letter? |
Originally Posted by Cloudee
(Post 10524873)
No AD on the Airvan that I can find. Grounded by a letter that CASA sent to operators, Anybody care to post the contents of this letter? Instrument number CASA 44/19 I, SHANE PATRICK CARMODY, Director of Aviation Safety, on behalf of CASA, make this instrument under regulation 11.245 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. [Signed S. Carmody] Shane Carmody Director of Aviation Safety 19 July 2019 CASA 44/19 — Temporary Prohibition of Operations (GippsAero GA8 Airvan) Direction 2019 1 Name This instrument is CASA 44/19 — Temporary Prohibition of Operations (GippsAero GA8 Airvan) Direction 2019. 2 Duration This instrument: (a) commences at 11:59 pm on the day it is registered; and (b) is repealed at the end of 15 days after the day it commences. Note For regulation 11.250 of CASR, the direction in section 3 ceases to be in force on the day this instrument is repealed. 3 Direction A person must not operate a: (a) GA8 aircraft; or (b) GA8–TC 320 aircraft; within Australian territory, or, if the aircraft is Australian registered, in any place outside Australian territory. |
administrative direction is the new method of aviation regulation...
|
Typical that they don't use the 24 hour clock, or specify the time zone, for the direction to commence.
Not very good on precision, are they? |
Typical that they don't use the 24 hour clock, or specify the time zone, for the direction to commence. |
Today's email from CASA doing the rounds
UNCLASSIFIED To the Operators of GippsAero GA8 and GA8-TC 320 Aircraft Regarding the recent issue of Instrument number CASA 44/19 Temporary Prohibition of Operations (GippsAero GA8 Airvan) Direction 2019. Please be advised that CASA is actively working to resolve the issues leading to the precautionary temporary suspension of operations. It is anticipated that an update to the instrument will be issued as soon as possible. Yours sincerely Pieter van Dijk Manager Continued Operational Safety Airworthiness & Engineering Branch National Operations & Standards CASA\Aviation Group p: 02 6217 1417 |
Is it grounded any other countries than Oz and Sweden?
|
Instrument has now been repealed.
|
You have to wonder why CASA didn’t ground the C210 after several recent inflight breakups when it only took one reported breakup to ground the GA-8. GippsAero GA8 return to airDate of publication: 25 July 2019The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has lifted a temporary suspension of GippsAero GA8 aircraft operations. The temporary suspension of GA8 aircraft flights was put in place as a safety precaution following a recent fatal parachuting accident in Sweden. Based on the limited information available immediately after the accident the sixty-three GA8 aircraft in Australia were grounded, as well as a number operating overseas. The suspension was in effect for five days. The precautionary suspension was triggered by initial information from the investigation into the Swedish accident which showed the accident aircraft had broken up in flight. CASA has now received further information that there is no evidence to indicate a potential unsafe condition associated with the aircraft and as such the GA8 aircraft type can be safely allowed to return to normal operations. A CASA airworthiness engineer is currently observing the accident investigation in Sweden and this has proved to be very beneficial. CASA will continue to monitor the investigation into the GA8 accident and will take appropriate action should any related safety issues become apparent in the future. A safety assurance review of Australian parachute operations will also be conducted over coming months. The parachuting accident happened on 14 July 2019 near Umeå in northern Sweden. None of the nine people on board the aircraft survived the accident. The GA8 is manufactured in Australia by GippsAero, which is based in the Latrobe Valley. The GA8 is a single engine high wing aeroplane with fixed tricycle landing gear. In Australia the GA8 is used in a range of operations including charter, aerial work and parachuting. |
Personally I don't think 4 days suspension is the end of the world if the wing came off........................
|
Could be the beginning of the end for GippsAero though. CASA has form when it comes to jerking industry's chain until it withers a la Jabiru/CAMit
Of course the winglets made in Port Melbs are also grounded so CASA should be feeling pleased with a job well done preventing any of this dangerous flying malarkey from taking place. Air safety starts and ends inside a locked hangar... |
It wasn’t safety related it was a penalty related to Gippslands refusal to use aerodynamics or style in any of its designs |
Personally I don't think 4 days suspension is the end of the world if the wing came off. There are a lot of business owners who would disagree with you. There was a great deal of evidence pointing to the cause, and a structural failure "just because" was not on the list. The grounding has caused incredible distress to the business owners and employees of the operators of these aircraft, not least because it was accompanied by so little information. I asked CASA to eliminate what turned out to be the primary cause and their response was along the lines of "Of course we looked at that, you must think we're stupid, it was definitely something else". That our #1 theory has turned out to be the #1 cause says to me that the grounding was unnecessary and that there needs to be some jobs reviewed at Fort Fumble. |
That our #1 theory has turned out to be the #1 cause says to me that the grounding was unnecessary and that there needs to be some jobs reviewed at Fort Fumble. The person determining the grounding had to weigh up: 1 - make a judgement like yours that there was a non engineering cause, but if the risk -however small - of being wrong and another one spearing in would expose the person to the courts, or 2. Fly to Safety and ground everything until there is irrefutable proof that it was an external factor. For the public servant, what reward is there for choosing 1 over 2? None, nada, zilch. Which approach - for the public servant - will guarantee seeing them retiring with super intact? This is doesn’t help small business I know but it is the way of the world in the public service, not just CASA. |
Originally Posted by compressor stall
(Post 10528497)
sadly the public service don’t work that way. The person determining the grounding had to weigh up: 1 - make a judgement like yours that there was a non engineering cause, but if the risk -however small - of being wrong and another one spearing in would expose the person to the courts, or 2. Fly to Safety and ground everything until there is irrefutable proof that it was an external factor. For the public servant, what reward is there for choosing 1 over 2? None, nada, zilch. Which approach - for the public servant - will guarantee seeing them retiring with super intact? This is doesn’t help small business I know but it is the way of the world in the public service, not just CASA. |
You have to wonder why CASA didn’t ground the C210 after several recent inflight breakups when it only took one reported breakup to ground the GA-8. |
Compressor stall, then change the Aviation Act to require the public servant to weigh up commercial considerations! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.