Supposition and opinion.
Neither will stand up in court without 'proof' to support. The problem when chatting to 'experts' in any field is the need for a complete picture, data and fact. Get your facts right is a good tenet. So is engage brain before opening gob; but, you have to start somewhere. Between the BRM submission and the AOPA statement related to the CASA imposed restrictions on the Bristell there is a veritable feast of theory, but little in the way of 'fact' or evidence. However, this story will not be disappearing any time soon.
I bothered a few busy folk yesterday – asking fool questions – speculating and discussing the hellish legal mess CASA have landed themselves in. In short, the best opinion I could solicit was that it is for CASA a legal pickle of some magnitude, on several fronts. On an operational front, the restrictions imposed on the flight envelope are risible. 'Stall' speed range is passed through on every take off and landing; CASA stipulate 'intentional' and 'unintentional' operation within the 'stall/spin' range of speeds is prohibited. Bit like saying you can drive the car but it ain't safe to use the brakes.
Item next comes in three parts; Vic Coroner; RAOz and a 'test flight'. I cannot confirm this, but there is anecdotal evidence that BRM have declared that the aircraft used in this test flight should never be flown again; not ever. The legality of the 'test flight' must be questioned: who authorised it; what data was recorded; who certified the pitot/static calibration; who tested and calibrated the ASI; what automatic data recording was used and who tested that equipment for probity and reliability? Is the owner/ pilot an approved 'test pilot' with adequate qualification and experience? Last, but not least – who stated that I) the Coroner had ordered the 'test flight' and ii) would provide an observer. Vic Coroner flatly denies any such order/ request or offered to provide an observer – let alone a 'qualified' one.
Aye, its a buggers muddle alright. Simplest way to unpick it would be to ask the minister to 'please explain' next question time. His office should be able to provide the answers; or, empower those who can to get the answers. Have the opposition or the independents got the sand to ask the big question – WTD is going on during the ministers watch?
CASA on some very shaky 'legal ground' according to several 'experts' in the certification field. Mark you; non of the 'experts' in the disciplines involved will say much without seeing every single bit of paper: it is complicated and without 'the facts' – well; that's about all one may reasonably expect. Then we have RAOz allegedly misrepresenting the Vic Coroner. Involved in directing a 'test flight' which can, at best, be described as not really conforming to the 'rules' - the results therefore must be declared at least nugatory. Then the rumour that BRM are allegedly saying that ITO - the airframe used in this aeronautical fiasco should be grounded; forever. By the by - all experts wanted to know what 'safety' equipment and parameters (as requested and required for test flight) where approved, were in place and tested - by whom and documented evidence of this requirement being met. Ayup:: Dangerous business for an unprepared, ill equipped amateur is test flying; even for the trained, qualified and experienced, there are some very real risks. Amen.
Someone, somewhere has some pretty tricky questions (legal, operational and potentially criminal) to answer IMO. Perhaps its time for some ministerial 'dirty hands' – those you get those through working at your assigned task – it is after all why the big bucks are paid.
Toot – toot.-.
Neither will stand up in court without 'proof' to support. The problem when chatting to 'experts' in any field is the need for a complete picture, data and fact. Get your facts right is a good tenet. So is engage brain before opening gob; but, you have to start somewhere. Between the BRM submission and the AOPA statement related to the CASA imposed restrictions on the Bristell there is a veritable feast of theory, but little in the way of 'fact' or evidence. However, this story will not be disappearing any time soon.
I bothered a few busy folk yesterday – asking fool questions – speculating and discussing the hellish legal mess CASA have landed themselves in. In short, the best opinion I could solicit was that it is for CASA a legal pickle of some magnitude, on several fronts. On an operational front, the restrictions imposed on the flight envelope are risible. 'Stall' speed range is passed through on every take off and landing; CASA stipulate 'intentional' and 'unintentional' operation within the 'stall/spin' range of speeds is prohibited. Bit like saying you can drive the car but it ain't safe to use the brakes.
Item next comes in three parts; Vic Coroner; RAOz and a 'test flight'. I cannot confirm this, but there is anecdotal evidence that BRM have declared that the aircraft used in this test flight should never be flown again; not ever. The legality of the 'test flight' must be questioned: who authorised it; what data was recorded; who certified the pitot/static calibration; who tested and calibrated the ASI; what automatic data recording was used and who tested that equipment for probity and reliability? Is the owner/ pilot an approved 'test pilot' with adequate qualification and experience? Last, but not least – who stated that I) the Coroner had ordered the 'test flight' and ii) would provide an observer. Vic Coroner flatly denies any such order/ request or offered to provide an observer – let alone a 'qualified' one.
Aye, its a buggers muddle alright. Simplest way to unpick it would be to ask the minister to 'please explain' next question time. His office should be able to provide the answers; or, empower those who can to get the answers. Have the opposition or the independents got the sand to ask the big question – WTD is going on during the ministers watch?
CASA on some very shaky 'legal ground' according to several 'experts' in the certification field. Mark you; non of the 'experts' in the disciplines involved will say much without seeing every single bit of paper: it is complicated and without 'the facts' – well; that's about all one may reasonably expect. Then we have RAOz allegedly misrepresenting the Vic Coroner. Involved in directing a 'test flight' which can, at best, be described as not really conforming to the 'rules' - the results therefore must be declared at least nugatory. Then the rumour that BRM are allegedly saying that ITO - the airframe used in this aeronautical fiasco should be grounded; forever. By the by - all experts wanted to know what 'safety' equipment and parameters (as requested and required for test flight) where approved, were in place and tested - by whom and documented evidence of this requirement being met. Ayup:: Dangerous business for an unprepared, ill equipped amateur is test flying; even for the trained, qualified and experienced, there are some very real risks. Amen.
Someone, somewhere has some pretty tricky questions (legal, operational and potentially criminal) to answer IMO. Perhaps its time for some ministerial 'dirty hands' – those you get those through working at your assigned task – it is after all why the big bucks are paid.
Toot – toot.-.