Three interesting paragraphs:-
In light of information currently doing 'the rounds'. Seems to me (IMO) that the AOPA crew are edging even closer to the truth than the AOPA article indicates. Heresy or hearsay, take your pick but – however: .if it walks like a duck and quacks etc....
AOPA _ “At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft. The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing.
Questions:-
It is time to break down the innuendo and obfuscation. A 'test flight' for the intended purpose of this particular exercise is a serious affair. So can RAOz produce the documentation to authorise the 'test flight' define the parameters; and produce the recorded data in 'proper' format for scrutiny? i.e. a Test flight data base, base parameters, test flight data recordings in an acceptable format, name the restrictions, requirements and parameters which would support a 'bona fide' test event to a standard which would satisfy an internationally recognised certifying authority?
AOPA _ The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course.
The 'owner' of this aircraft – a certified test pilot? The equipment inboard – all approved and certified to conduct the 'test' flight? The recorded data analysis from the dedicated on board computer suitable for independent 'expert' analysis?
AOPA _ Exactly what the RAAus motives were to entangle itself in this mess remains a mystery. But what we can assume, is that following several accidents involving flight training aircraft, the self-administration would have been eager to distance itself from any criticism of its pilot training and licensing standards. You can only assume it would be better if the aircraft was the problem.
And, for the love of Mike – what, in all the hell's, would the 'executive' of RAOz know about 'test flight discipline, conduct, rigours, analysis or even the legal requirements and parameters?
The truly abhorrent part (wait for it) – is, had the Coroner actually requested a 'test flight' the right course would be to seek out 'approval' from our 'certifying' authority. Except we no longer 'certify' we rely on approved agencies, such as EASA or the FAA to ensure that 'test flights' for certification purposes are conducted within a very rigorously controlled narrow band width of 'requirements'. Requirements which MUST be met.
The BRM aircraft are accepted and enjoyed the world over. It begs the question – what have Raoz to do with which aircraft is 'acceptable': which airframe is 'safe' and what the Duck are they doing 'consulting' with CASA on certification and authorising 'test flights'? Rumour has it BRM reckon the aircraft should be grounded, never to fly again due to the 'brutal' treatment, without point, purpose or authorisation. I couldn't blame 'em - if that is what they said....
You know CASA reckon Buckley was 'dodgy'; and they reckon RAOz is a pinnacle exemplar of recreational flying. Well M'lud – I beg to differ – big time, in seven languages; and, I can supply (if requested or required) enough swear words in those languages to melt his honours wig. This is a national disgrace; a deceitful, ignoble act. I wish BRM all the luck in the world – they'll need it – they are dealing with a Kool-Aide' fuelled asylum; hell bent on being 'right'.
I could, in two words supply the BRM answer to this RAOz dribble; but, Aunt Pru objects to basic Anglo Saxon. If CASA keep going along these lines; they will simply confirm that which we all know – there is no technical expertise left in the mouldering pile of clerks, wanna be lawyers, industry rejects and fatally flawed ex spooks feeding off the gravy train. I cannot credit that a national aviation authority can be led around by the foreskin by a bunch of 'amateurs' with the temerity to invoke a Coroner, authorise a test flight, make serious allegations based on that 'test flight' – and get away Scott free from serious prosecution. EASA and the FAA reckon the aircraft is OK – so who the devil are RAOz in the world scheme of 'aircraft certification? At the very arse end – that's where.
Disgusting.
![[Image: Untitled%2B2.jpg]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm_HajunJBQ/Vuc7mMGoOSI/AAAAAAAAISU/PLJPRoRPvKUtliZvp7KwgHIZKQm9J3TpQ/s1600/Untitled%2B2.jpg)
In light of information currently doing 'the rounds'. Seems to me (IMO) that the AOPA crew are edging even closer to the truth than the AOPA article indicates. Heresy or hearsay, take your pick but – however: .if it walks like a duck and quacks etc....
AOPA _ “At the centre of this debacle is the now infamous and amateurish test flight report carried out in December 2017, authored by a pilot in Victoria, that cast considerable shade on the aircraft. The report was commissioned at the request of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited. It then found it’s way to CASA and was used by them as the basis for requesting certification data including spin testing.
Questions:-
It is time to break down the innuendo and obfuscation. A 'test flight' for the intended purpose of this particular exercise is a serious affair. So can RAOz produce the documentation to authorise the 'test flight' define the parameters; and produce the recorded data in 'proper' format for scrutiny? i.e. a Test flight data base, base parameters, test flight data recordings in an acceptable format, name the restrictions, requirements and parameters which would support a 'bona fide' test event to a standard which would satisfy an internationally recognised certifying authority?
AOPA _ The owner of the aircraft used to conduct the test flight, was informed that the test and subsequent report had been requested by the Victorian Coroner and that RAAus were simply complying with that request. The Victorian Coroner’s office has subsequently confirmed in writing, that no such request was ever made. In fact the aircraft owner was advised by the RAAus representative present on the day that the Coroner would be arriving to oversee the tests, that never happened of course.
The 'owner' of this aircraft – a certified test pilot? The equipment inboard – all approved and certified to conduct the 'test' flight? The recorded data analysis from the dedicated on board computer suitable for independent 'expert' analysis?
AOPA _ Exactly what the RAAus motives were to entangle itself in this mess remains a mystery. But what we can assume, is that following several accidents involving flight training aircraft, the self-administration would have been eager to distance itself from any criticism of its pilot training and licensing standards. You can only assume it would be better if the aircraft was the problem.
And, for the love of Mike – what, in all the hell's, would the 'executive' of RAOz know about 'test flight discipline, conduct, rigours, analysis or even the legal requirements and parameters?
The truly abhorrent part (wait for it) – is, had the Coroner actually requested a 'test flight' the right course would be to seek out 'approval' from our 'certifying' authority. Except we no longer 'certify' we rely on approved agencies, such as EASA or the FAA to ensure that 'test flights' for certification purposes are conducted within a very rigorously controlled narrow band width of 'requirements'. Requirements which MUST be met.
The BRM aircraft are accepted and enjoyed the world over. It begs the question – what have Raoz to do with which aircraft is 'acceptable': which airframe is 'safe' and what the Duck are they doing 'consulting' with CASA on certification and authorising 'test flights'? Rumour has it BRM reckon the aircraft should be grounded, never to fly again due to the 'brutal' treatment, without point, purpose or authorisation. I couldn't blame 'em - if that is what they said....
You know CASA reckon Buckley was 'dodgy'; and they reckon RAOz is a pinnacle exemplar of recreational flying. Well M'lud – I beg to differ – big time, in seven languages; and, I can supply (if requested or required) enough swear words in those languages to melt his honours wig. This is a national disgrace; a deceitful, ignoble act. I wish BRM all the luck in the world – they'll need it – they are dealing with a Kool-Aide' fuelled asylum; hell bent on being 'right'.
I could, in two words supply the BRM answer to this RAOz dribble; but, Aunt Pru objects to basic Anglo Saxon. If CASA keep going along these lines; they will simply confirm that which we all know – there is no technical expertise left in the mouldering pile of clerks, wanna be lawyers, industry rejects and fatally flawed ex spooks feeding off the gravy train. I cannot credit that a national aviation authority can be led around by the foreskin by a bunch of 'amateurs' with the temerity to invoke a Coroner, authorise a test flight, make serious allegations based on that 'test flight' – and get away Scott free from serious prosecution. EASA and the FAA reckon the aircraft is OK – so who the devil are RAOz in the world scheme of 'aircraft certification? At the very arse end – that's where.
Disgusting.