[Peetwo]

CASA lifts embuggerance on BRM Aero?? -

Via EWH:

 

CASA lifts Restrictions on Bristell Operations
21 June 2021
Comments 0 Comments


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today removed the restrictions on Bristell LSAs that prevented them from being used in stall training. CASA issued a ban on stall training in Bristells in July 2020, stating that they had not received sufficient assurance from BRM Aero that the aircraft complied with the standard for light sport aircraft (LSA), a contention that the manufacturer has disputed consistently.

CASA today revoked the instrument, stating that they had now received more information from independent bodies about the stall testing done on the Bristell and BRM Aero's notification to owners about the centre of gravity arms.

"[Today] CASA revoked the regulation 262APA(4) operating limitations following receipt of new compliance information from BRM Aero Ltd and fundamental corrections having been made to the Aircraft Operating Instructions (AOI)," CASA says.

"On 9 March 2021, BRM Aero Ltd provided to CASA further information as to compliance of Bristell LSA with ASTM 4.5.9 spin requirements by two specialist organisations as to spin compliance and the scope of the LSA self-certification scheme.

"In addition, CASA had information that BRM Aero Ltd had recently made and distributed to aircraft owners, important corrections to the centre of gravity calculations for the affected aircraft. The corrections were required to be incorporated into the AOI.

"CASA is reasonably satisfied that the corrections made to the AOI have adequately mitigated the safety related concerns held by CASA, such that all participants are meaningfully aware of these corrections and importantly, how they change the loading requirements of the aircraft.

"Provided operators of the aircraft only operate the aircraft in compliance with the corrected AOI data, CASA considers that the potential for inadvertent operation of the aircraft at or outside the centre of gravity limits is substantially reduced."

In light of the corrections to the AOI, CASA has issued the following recommendations.

• CASA recommends that pilots and operators of the affected aircraft ensure they are familiar with the effect of the revised AOI corrections, as there may now be a significant change to the way the aircraft is permitted to be loaded and there may now be restrictions upon operating the aircraft in certain.
  
  
• Pilots and operators should pay particular attention to the corrected arm associated with the pilot and passenger row. The correction to the AOI has adjusted the arm for the pilot and passenger significantly further.
  
  
• Pilots and operators should pay particular attention to the aft movement of the centre of gravity with fuel burn. Dependant on the empty weight and empty CoG of each aircraft, the corrected arm and the effect of an aft moving CoG with fuel burn, may significantly change the revised permitted loading of the aircraft, when compared to previous loading of the.
  
  
• Pilots should check that the loading of the aircraft is within the published limits, both at the proposed take-off weight and also at a zero-fuel or minimum fuel.
  

CASA applied the restrictions after a number of Bristell accidents around the world including two in Australia where the stall recovery characteristics were brought into question. The regulator then stated they were not satisfied with undertakings from the manufacturer that the aircraft complied with the stalling requirements of the ASTM standard.

According to CASA. it was the investigation into a fatal crash in Ireland in June 2019 that exposed the CoG problem, when investigators found the moment arm was longer than that specified in the weight and balance documents. An interim report was issued last week.

The UK Light Aircraft Association also completed work late last year that supported the findings of the Irish investigation.

BRM Aero worked through Australian agent Edge Aviation on the matter, which has resulted in CASA being referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman over their conduct in dealing with BRM Aero and local dealer Anderson Aviation.

Plus via AOPA Oz:

OPINION:  CASA BACKFLIP
REGULATOR REVOKES ADDITIONAL OPERATING LIMITATIONS
ON BRM AERO LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (BLSA)

AOPA Australia CEO, Mr Benjamin Morgan, provides an opinion.

In a letter dated 21st June 2021, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has today announced the revocation of additional operating limitations placed on BRM Aero Light Sport Aircraft (BLSA), signalling a major victory for the aircraft manufacturer.

The CASA backflip comes almost a year after it imposed restrictions on the aircraft type, that were largely encouraged by what BRM Aero have vigorously claimed to be a defective and inappropriate flight test report from the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS).

Signed by Mr Robert Walker, Executive Manager of the Stakeholder Engagement Division of CASA;

“Upon consideration of your submission and other emergent facts and circumstances as set out below, I am writing to give you notice that pursuant to subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (AIA) and regulation 262APA of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR), I have decided in my capacity as delegate of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to revoke the additional operational limitations previously imposed upon BLSA operating within Australia by notice dated 28th July 2020.”

But more importantly, it’s the following statement that is of significant interest to our industry;

“In making this decision, I am also reasonably satisfied that revocation of the additional operating limitations is not contrary to the interests of aviation safety.”

So, if there was no risk to aviation safety, it begs the question;  why did CASA take the public action that they did?  And, more importantly, who was motivating them to do this?

Aircraft manufacturers and regulators must be able to work with together constructively.  When problems or concerns are identified, its incumbent for all to work in the best interests of safety in addressing problems.

Based on the documentation and correspondence shared with AOPA Australia, CASA appears to have taken an unnecessarily hostile approach with BRM Aero, largely fuelled by staff and representatives who held significant conflicts of interest, thus prejudicing the regulator from resolving the concerns in a productive manner.  Or was that the intention all along?

During the course of this past year, AOPA Australia on behalf of BRM Aero aircraft owners reached out to CASA seeking an intervention, only for it to have fallen on deaf ears.  The then Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Carmody, refused a meeting - CASA it seemed was uninterested in any other view or opinion other than its own.

A simple meeting, a coming together of cooler minds could have averted the senseless damage caused by CASA taking the action they did.

There is much to be learned from this sorry debacle and with proper independent review and guidance CASA could be the better for the experience - if it were open to genuine consultation and feedback from the industry and broader community.  History shows this may be difficult for CASA.

Despite the above, its abundantly clear that CASA lacks appropriate oversight of its critical safety decision making and should be restrained from knee jerking to public outcomes.  To do anything other continues to undermine external confidence and relationships with CASA, along with damaging the broader reputation of the aviation industry and CASA itself.

AOPA Australia recognises the need for a robust safety regulator, we must have a diligent and capable CASA for our industry to move forward.  This must be achieved in partnership with the industry, trust and respect must be restored for aviation to progress.

It’s not lost on AOPA Australia that the revocation comes just weeks after the appointment of the new Director of Aviation Safety of CASA, Ms Pip Spence, and we can only hope that this kind of positive direction continues for the sake of our industry’s future.  With Ms Spence, we have a new and unique opportunity to work together and we need to embrace this.

For BRM Aero, they now have the task of rebuilding their brand and reputation – vindicated by today’s announcement, but with a damages bill that could likely run into the tens of millions worldwide.  With major international law firms circling to represent BRM Aero, their distributorship network and aircraft owners worldwide, the RAAUS (who are alleged to have been responsible for creating this mess) are possibly beginning to sweat somewhat. 

If the prospect of funding what could be a long, and extremely expensive legal battle is not frightening enough, then the sobering reality of a damages settlement to the tune of tens of millions might be.

For the broader aviation industry, this next phase of the BRM Aero saga is likely to have some significant consequences and ramifications for aircraft owners and pilots in the recreational space.

Should they be successful in suing the RAAUS for damages to their worldwide brand, network and product, RAAUS could be looking at a hefty payout, with insurers and potentially members left picking up the tab.  Either way, this case may potentially open the door to others, with claims against the self-administration.

If the damages figure reaches high enough it could risk bankrupting the self-administration, which under the current regulatory framework, could leave thousands of pilots and aircraft owners unable to fly.  The situation highlights how fragile and inadequate the current approach to self-administration truly is and why a parallel pathway must be returned to within the CASA regulated system as a priority and a must.

MTF...P2