Disquiet shared.
I don't believe that any thinking person who has read the AOPA statement – HERE – could dismiss it as a beat up. 'We' have been digging about a bit and the more we uncover, the more alarmed we become. IMO the 'test flight' and the motivation for it demand an investigation by the AFP; for several reasons, if only to clarify the situation. BRM aircraft are on the CASA hit list, needing to provide 'proof' that their aircraft are suitable for task as defined. CASA are facing down both European and American certification, their primary argument supported by some very sketchy 'assumptions' , hearsay and a highly suspect 'test flight'.
When you add in the flat, written denial from the Victorian Coroner that at no time, in any way, shape or form was a request for a 'test flight' ordered; nor was there a Coroner on hand to 'witness' the 'test flight' – you have to wonder what was going on and why. What purpose did this 'alleged' Coroner involvement serve?
The whole procedure needs to be clarified. There is little wrong with a pilot taking an aircraft through a 'spin' exercise, thousands of student pilots, world wide, do it every day – often more than once. However, few if any, claim to be conducting a 'test flight' on behalf of a Coroner. Even fewer would have the temerity to claim their results as 'test flight' data, at a standard for use in court or as part of aircraft certification. They'd be torn apart by even a competent Barrister. Even fewer again, would toddle into the nearest 'Safety Agency' front office and declare the manufacturer certification data, produced under controlled, legal parameters, by qualified test pilots a load of bollocks. Would they?
Apart from conducting many 'after maintenance' check flights; I have no experience of 'test flight' for certification – so. I went looking to see the how, why and what of it. Took a hour of reading to get to the underlying logic and 'common' requirements; the bare bones if you will. Interesting stuff, highly technical and awesomely 'legal'. Certainly no place for a backyard lash up, concocted by amateurs.
Yet our CASA have taken what is a very shaky argument to heart and are quite happy to stand behind their 'own' test flight results, provided by the qualified flight test engineers of RAOz. Bollocks – this whole fiasco demands an AFP investigation.
FYI the links below follow my reading: I liked the Cranfield one as a general reference one; the others are more 'official'. All provide an insight into 'test flight' for certification; there is a CASA one, but to be honest, it was of little value to the case in point.
Cranfield
CASA
EASA
FAA 1.
FAA 2.
WIKI
Disgusting – and perhaps just a little disingenuous? MTF – I reckon so.
I don't believe that any thinking person who has read the AOPA statement – HERE – could dismiss it as a beat up. 'We' have been digging about a bit and the more we uncover, the more alarmed we become. IMO the 'test flight' and the motivation for it demand an investigation by the AFP; for several reasons, if only to clarify the situation. BRM aircraft are on the CASA hit list, needing to provide 'proof' that their aircraft are suitable for task as defined. CASA are facing down both European and American certification, their primary argument supported by some very sketchy 'assumptions' , hearsay and a highly suspect 'test flight'.
When you add in the flat, written denial from the Victorian Coroner that at no time, in any way, shape or form was a request for a 'test flight' ordered; nor was there a Coroner on hand to 'witness' the 'test flight' – you have to wonder what was going on and why. What purpose did this 'alleged' Coroner involvement serve?
The whole procedure needs to be clarified. There is little wrong with a pilot taking an aircraft through a 'spin' exercise, thousands of student pilots, world wide, do it every day – often more than once. However, few if any, claim to be conducting a 'test flight' on behalf of a Coroner. Even fewer would have the temerity to claim their results as 'test flight' data, at a standard for use in court or as part of aircraft certification. They'd be torn apart by even a competent Barrister. Even fewer again, would toddle into the nearest 'Safety Agency' front office and declare the manufacturer certification data, produced under controlled, legal parameters, by qualified test pilots a load of bollocks. Would they?
Apart from conducting many 'after maintenance' check flights; I have no experience of 'test flight' for certification – so. I went looking to see the how, why and what of it. Took a hour of reading to get to the underlying logic and 'common' requirements; the bare bones if you will. Interesting stuff, highly technical and awesomely 'legal'. Certainly no place for a backyard lash up, concocted by amateurs.
Yet our CASA have taken what is a very shaky argument to heart and are quite happy to stand behind their 'own' test flight results, provided by the qualified flight test engineers of RAOz. Bollocks – this whole fiasco demands an AFP investigation.
FYI the links below follow my reading: I liked the Cranfield one as a general reference one; the others are more 'official'. All provide an insight into 'test flight' for certification; there is a CASA one, but to be honest, it was of little value to the case in point.
Cranfield
CASA
EASA
FAA 1.
FAA 2.
WIKI
Disgusting – and perhaps just a little disingenuous? MTF – I reckon so.