“and the lawyers have been at it with both hands.”
The boys are on a learning curve and its quite a journey. Will it change anything? Will the likes of SOAR have to reassess the 'suitability', integrity and fitness for purpose of the aircraft they use to train future pilots. I doubt it. Will CASA put the heavy boot of 'safety' down and return RA Oz to its proper design function? Will airworthiness step in before something comes apart in the air – fatigued beyond design intent?
Instructing a person to 'fly' a particular type of LSA is one very acceptable thing. Extending the notion to teach flying to many, using a fleet of LSA is an entirely different matter. Maximum fees for a tick-a-box service, minimum costs for provision of same in a high risk fleet. When used for design purpose, (light sports and recreational) LSA such as the Bristell will safely serve for the life of the aircraft, the accident survivabilty quotation seems to be robust. The question mark hangs over whether or not the aircraft can survive long term the beating served up as a training aircraft, intensively used. Let me explain:-
Charlie buys a LSA and is taught to fly it by an experienced instructor – Off he goes to enjoy his sport and recreational flying, having been made very aware of the limitations and margins the aircraft has. In a normal situation, Charlie will perhaps practice one or even two 'forced landings' leading up to a check flight – low risk exercise – he understands the need for accurate speed control and is practised on type. Young Spotty on the other hand is a student with NDI. Sent Solo and maybe even to practice forced landings- or whatever. Engine fails or, more likely – during practice the aircraft is high and slow – in short, at the critical, minimum speed for landing 30 or 50 feet above the ground – it quits flying about then – crunch. When you have many such students practising similar exercises, in a speed critical, unforgiving, high risk aircraft the mathematical chances of a smash increase. This, even before you consider the fatigue life of an airframe being subjected to rough' handling day in day out. The percentage chances of accident increased, without doubt, the accident rates prove this.
“K” - The first question being, where was the accident report? I did look long and hard – but nary a sign of that elusive document did I find. It may well be lurking in some festering pile or another –
We may safely identify that particular festering pile – the 'Privacy Act'. The current FOI request from AOPA is (IMO) an odds on bet to be knocked back. 'Enthusiastic' compliance with this 'Act' provides all manner of protection and to legally challenge that, particularly when ministerial support is a foregone conclusion, firmly closes the door on any chance of investigating the 'investigation'. Anyway, the 'book' is open on the AOPA FOI request; no doubt 'K' will set the odds shortly. Grr8 system though – RA Oz in breach of that Act, deemed illegal if they open the books. Wow! How good a defence is that?.
“K” - Much of this comes into the 'certification' of aircraft. An aircraft may be designed and 'certified' for a specific role and that role only. Much depends on whether the aircraft is to be used for 'commercial' purpose or private use or both.
Ah, yes but: “manufacturer” certification is the name of the game, particularly for LSA. Its a game of thrones and once again, the terrifying 'legal' costs involved to nail down a departed manufacturer will serve those avoiding responsibility for certification. Of course CASA is at the bottom of this pile of nonsense, but anyone with a spare million or two could probably win the verdict – which would change absolutely nothing. When next the Monday comes around the same crew will be seen washing their hands at the trough of plenty.
IMO “K” there is no hope of sanity. Not while the minister appears to be happily held in thrall by the glamour and seductive advertorials which allow self promotion. Hearing 'advice' which will not burst his happy bubble. I wish you well on the quest and I doubt not that you fellahs' will plumb the depths of this 'wrong thing'. But then what? I can't see this current village idiot, posing as a well informed minister, caring about ensuring flight training is properly conducted in aircraft suitable for the purpose. Can you....?
“The powers of Evil can take many forms. Remember that, Sir Henry, when you're at Baskerville Hall. Do as the legend tells and avoid the moor when the forces of darkness are exalted.”
Handing over -.-. .-. .- –.. -.--
The boys are on a learning curve and its quite a journey. Will it change anything? Will the likes of SOAR have to reassess the 'suitability', integrity and fitness for purpose of the aircraft they use to train future pilots. I doubt it. Will CASA put the heavy boot of 'safety' down and return RA Oz to its proper design function? Will airworthiness step in before something comes apart in the air – fatigued beyond design intent?
Instructing a person to 'fly' a particular type of LSA is one very acceptable thing. Extending the notion to teach flying to many, using a fleet of LSA is an entirely different matter. Maximum fees for a tick-a-box service, minimum costs for provision of same in a high risk fleet. When used for design purpose, (light sports and recreational) LSA such as the Bristell will safely serve for the life of the aircraft, the accident survivabilty quotation seems to be robust. The question mark hangs over whether or not the aircraft can survive long term the beating served up as a training aircraft, intensively used. Let me explain:-
Charlie buys a LSA and is taught to fly it by an experienced instructor – Off he goes to enjoy his sport and recreational flying, having been made very aware of the limitations and margins the aircraft has. In a normal situation, Charlie will perhaps practice one or even two 'forced landings' leading up to a check flight – low risk exercise – he understands the need for accurate speed control and is practised on type. Young Spotty on the other hand is a student with NDI. Sent Solo and maybe even to practice forced landings- or whatever. Engine fails or, more likely – during practice the aircraft is high and slow – in short, at the critical, minimum speed for landing 30 or 50 feet above the ground – it quits flying about then – crunch. When you have many such students practising similar exercises, in a speed critical, unforgiving, high risk aircraft the mathematical chances of a smash increase. This, even before you consider the fatigue life of an airframe being subjected to rough' handling day in day out. The percentage chances of accident increased, without doubt, the accident rates prove this.
“K” - The first question being, where was the accident report? I did look long and hard – but nary a sign of that elusive document did I find. It may well be lurking in some festering pile or another –
We may safely identify that particular festering pile – the 'Privacy Act'. The current FOI request from AOPA is (IMO) an odds on bet to be knocked back. 'Enthusiastic' compliance with this 'Act' provides all manner of protection and to legally challenge that, particularly when ministerial support is a foregone conclusion, firmly closes the door on any chance of investigating the 'investigation'. Anyway, the 'book' is open on the AOPA FOI request; no doubt 'K' will set the odds shortly. Grr8 system though – RA Oz in breach of that Act, deemed illegal if they open the books. Wow! How good a defence is that?.
“K” - Much of this comes into the 'certification' of aircraft. An aircraft may be designed and 'certified' for a specific role and that role only. Much depends on whether the aircraft is to be used for 'commercial' purpose or private use or both.
Ah, yes but: “manufacturer” certification is the name of the game, particularly for LSA. Its a game of thrones and once again, the terrifying 'legal' costs involved to nail down a departed manufacturer will serve those avoiding responsibility for certification. Of course CASA is at the bottom of this pile of nonsense, but anyone with a spare million or two could probably win the verdict – which would change absolutely nothing. When next the Monday comes around the same crew will be seen washing their hands at the trough of plenty.
IMO “K” there is no hope of sanity. Not while the minister appears to be happily held in thrall by the glamour and seductive advertorials which allow self promotion. Hearing 'advice' which will not burst his happy bubble. I wish you well on the quest and I doubt not that you fellahs' will plumb the depths of this 'wrong thing'. But then what? I can't see this current village idiot, posing as a well informed minister, caring about ensuring flight training is properly conducted in aircraft suitable for the purpose. Can you....?
“The powers of Evil can take many forms. Remember that, Sir Henry, when you're at Baskerville Hall. Do as the legend tells and avoid the moor when the forces of darkness are exalted.”
Handing over -.-. .-. .- –.. -.--