Into a corner – painted am I.
Hitch - “Regardless of what you think of the stall/spin characteristics of the Bristell, CASA's handling of the issue has once again been poor and unprofessional.”
Not to mention it is slightly embarrassing to watch a Bantam weight amateur squaring off to an internationally recognised heavyweight pro, with a solid track record.
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials. Take a moment to read a few paragraphs of the Wiki blurb; enlightening ain't it. The ASTM have a long history and some serious 'clout'. They don't just dream up 'standards' – take a wee peek at -THIS – or for the more legal mind – there's 'the Rools'.
Now you have to wonder why CASA is taking on this crowd. The ASTM 'testing regime' for the Bristell aircraft has been internationally accepted. The manufacturer has 'tested' the aircraft, gained approvals and in good faith marketed and sold the airframe, acknowledging the limitations and providing 'cautions' within the Aircraft Flight Manual.
Hitch - CASA has been threatening to ban the aircraft from spinning because they say they don't have sufficient evidence that the aircraft complies with the ASTM rules for LSAs.
Aye, CASA can do whatever it likes in Oz – until the court battle. That will 'interesting' particularly when the comparison between 'like and like' is made and the ASTM step up to bat in defence of their 'standards' and testing regime. The burden of proof, expert international opinion, the FAA and EASA acceptance on the one hand; CASA's fluffy duck, unsupported opinion on the other:-
HITCH - CASA is pointing at several crashes and a somewhat mysterious local test as proof the aircraft doesn't comply ... which is a statement not included in the local test results and not listed as a contributing factor by the ATSB in two of the accidents.
Mysterious 'local' test flights – proof positive – court standard? Fine, publish the results. Let's see 'em. If this aircraft is a substantive danger to the public and those who operate them; the CASA test flight results must support the statements made. ASTM will no doubt be delighted to have their errors pointed out.
Hitch - At the time of writing, the issue has not been resolved and people representing the manufacturer BRM Aero are saying that CASA has become unresponsive.
Perhaps someone with a functioning brain has had a quiet word and advised CASA to back up a little bit and tone down the 'opinion' level to at least credible deniability; lest they are , once again, the subject of much international head shaking.
The accident reports we have seen so far, involving this aircraft, are sketchy at best. Accident rate to world wide hours flown on type would be handy, as would an analysis of who, why and what were they doing prior to accident. The aircraft may well be 'sensitive' in the CoG range – as advertised; limited in the latitudes allowed for pilot error; it may even be not suitable for 'training' – but that's no crime. Many aircraft fit into that slot; horses for courses and all that.
There are sensible, realistic steps CASA could take – provided they could back up their claims with real evidence. But so far all we have is some fairly 'wishy-washy' rhetoric from an authority which can't analyse flight test data; nor make up their collective minds. Perhaps its time to collect the marbles.
Toot – toot.
Hitch - “Regardless of what you think of the stall/spin characteristics of the Bristell, CASA's handling of the issue has once again been poor and unprofessional.”
Not to mention it is slightly embarrassing to watch a Bantam weight amateur squaring off to an internationally recognised heavyweight pro, with a solid track record.
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials. Take a moment to read a few paragraphs of the Wiki blurb; enlightening ain't it. The ASTM have a long history and some serious 'clout'. They don't just dream up 'standards' – take a wee peek at -THIS – or for the more legal mind – there's 'the Rools'.
Now you have to wonder why CASA is taking on this crowd. The ASTM 'testing regime' for the Bristell aircraft has been internationally accepted. The manufacturer has 'tested' the aircraft, gained approvals and in good faith marketed and sold the airframe, acknowledging the limitations and providing 'cautions' within the Aircraft Flight Manual.
Hitch - CASA has been threatening to ban the aircraft from spinning because they say they don't have sufficient evidence that the aircraft complies with the ASTM rules for LSAs.
Aye, CASA can do whatever it likes in Oz – until the court battle. That will 'interesting' particularly when the comparison between 'like and like' is made and the ASTM step up to bat in defence of their 'standards' and testing regime. The burden of proof, expert international opinion, the FAA and EASA acceptance on the one hand; CASA's fluffy duck, unsupported opinion on the other:-
HITCH - CASA is pointing at several crashes and a somewhat mysterious local test as proof the aircraft doesn't comply ... which is a statement not included in the local test results and not listed as a contributing factor by the ATSB in two of the accidents.
Mysterious 'local' test flights – proof positive – court standard? Fine, publish the results. Let's see 'em. If this aircraft is a substantive danger to the public and those who operate them; the CASA test flight results must support the statements made. ASTM will no doubt be delighted to have their errors pointed out.
Hitch - At the time of writing, the issue has not been resolved and people representing the manufacturer BRM Aero are saying that CASA has become unresponsive.
Perhaps someone with a functioning brain has had a quiet word and advised CASA to back up a little bit and tone down the 'opinion' level to at least credible deniability; lest they are , once again, the subject of much international head shaking.
The accident reports we have seen so far, involving this aircraft, are sketchy at best. Accident rate to world wide hours flown on type would be handy, as would an analysis of who, why and what were they doing prior to accident. The aircraft may well be 'sensitive' in the CoG range – as advertised; limited in the latitudes allowed for pilot error; it may even be not suitable for 'training' – but that's no crime. Many aircraft fit into that slot; horses for courses and all that.
There are sensible, realistic steps CASA could take – provided they could back up their claims with real evidence. But so far all we have is some fairly 'wishy-washy' rhetoric from an authority which can't analyse flight test data; nor make up their collective minds. Perhaps its time to collect the marbles.
Toot – toot.