I think the real issue there is the cost and resourcing of surveillance for RA Aus, the cost of which would be passed on to all of us. Would it not be far more effective to have an appropriate CAR 35 engineer, or RA Aus equivalent; (well what I mean is someone who knows how aircraft are built, not someone with a degree in engineering straight out of university), to audit facilities on defined schedules at the cost of the Certified aircraft builder and to ensure that the Audit body was chosen by RA Aus not the manufacturer? We would indirectly wear this cost as well but at least there would be commercial constraints in place that only the aircraft purchasers would wear.
They didn't actually quote the regulation correctly. Within Australia, there is no requirement to carry the CofA in the aeroplane. CASA is responsible for the oversight of manufacture of LSA. Interesting to compare CASA's level of interest compared to the FAA's in their oversight of the Skycatcher.
I once went in an aircraft of the same type and declared I never would again for several reasons. Seems like I made a good choice when I made that decision some two years ago.
Interested to know, why was that? I know David commented about the overly sensitive pitch control, does that mean more so than other all flying tailplanes - any other issues that concerned you? As I'd commented elsewhere, up until now the chorus of praise singers has drowned out any negative comments, to the extent that I'd thought that when the opportunity presented itself I'd like to take a closer look - might not be so keen now, unfortunately.
Yes, mostly around pitch. Poorly designed fully flying tail plane, pitch sensitive bit not only that, it won't hold on the horizon, all over the place, desperately needs an anti-servo tab like Pipers have. Don't like the elevator attachment plus many other features that make the aircraft look like it was assembled from components purchased at Bunnings Warehouse. Much of the hype around the aircraft that you speak of was stirred up by one particular person on a forum elsewhere in an effort to steer people towards this aircraft versus another type but I suspect with zero knowledge of the prodcuct actually being recommended. For their price they are probably a good buy if professionally assembled. Really just goes to show that you get exactly what you pay for these days. Those that suggest that the aircraft is super strong of bullet proof due to the way it "held up" in the crash are simply uneducated in engineering principles. There is no way to compare what would happen to any other aircraft type in this situation.
One of these was actually on my short list for a kit build when I got the Zephyr. I must admit just about anyone with any knowledge of them told me it would be a bad move, but I thought at least assembling it myself I would discover its shortcomings if I recognised them. Of course therein lies the danger, I'm not an aircraft fitter or anything else, but at least know that 2 pieces of riveted material require the rivet to go through both pieces with some surrounding meat. It was also pointed out to me by a CFI who was familiar with them that the flying stabiliser was in 2 pieces & joined by a riveted shaft & he had witnessed these come loose from each other. Then he told me about all the rivets coming loose generally. I actually saw a pilot/owner at Cessnock one day silastic-ing loose rivets??? I still think they could be a good plane but I think its also good that this has surfaced for all concerned if not with a fair degree of sadness for all concerned & that is RAA generally.
No Darren it's not my intention to do that. I doubt there hasn't been a plane built that hasn't had its fair share of shortcomings, Zephyr's included. I've had pilots tell me they don't like the way the stabiliser is attached to the Zephyr, some don't like it because it's a "T" Tail & "T" tails aren't pretty in a stall (which isn't true in this case) Maybe I shouldn't have commented in my "new" position. I don't own the best, nor the worst for that matter.
As Australian metal LSA aircraft goes.IMO the Brumby is the best that i have seen.You can tell that they are built by Aircraft engineers. There are non australian metal aircraft that are built well as well.Im wondering if some manufacturers have ever heard of adel clamps to clamp wiring looms.Especial FWF.Zip ties are good as well for looms.Should not used to secure wires to fuel lines.Thats a no brainer.IMO I better add there are other all metal aircraft in Australia eg- The Hornet.I have never had a look at one.They look by Scotty's photos to be well desiqned as well.
there's a culture in Oz that we cut down the tall poppy, sometimes this backfires on us when things like this happen, I have had a look over the morgan aircraft at a few flyins and was pretty unimpressed, I thought they were just rough, I have a mate who does builder assistance with RV's and the quality is worlds apart. I stayed out of a lot of the discussions on these and plenty of other aircraft as I didn't want to be seen to "bag" another Ozzie trying to make a go of it, I still resist really letting fly cause there is a lot of people who have bought these aircraft in good faith and I'd hate to see them done wrong. Hopefully Morgans can move on ,but i would be a liar to say I'd fly in one ,
Whilst I don't necessarily like the "lines" of the Brumby it does appear to be a very well finished off aircraft and when I saw the builders talking to their prop supplier about a tiny scratch on the blade of a newly supplied prop, I knew hey were perfectionists and the final finish of their aircraft was a testament to their skills. Chalk and cheese it would seem between these two aircraft types. It would seem that the Morgan aircraft are cheap to purchase and perhaps I should leave it there.
I think any reasonable person would assume that Ra-Aus already performs this function... the fact that our organization failed to meet this minimum is what is most alarming to me... Time to ask some serious questions in my opinion.
Hi Matt, Unfortunately kit aircraft are only ever as good as the builder either has the inclination for them to be or as poor as the lack of skill of the builder. There are plenty of GA aircraft out there that I would not fly due shonky maintenance by LAMEs of dubious reputation. So in fairness to this situation making an issue of these Morgan discrepancies in the obvious knowledge that many of us have about shonky practices across the industry is a bit harsh on Morgan. Sure this report shows clearly some unprofessional practices, but I will speculatively guarantee there will never be another Morgan Factory Build aircraft with the defects the ATSB report revealed because Morgan Aeroworks will have rectified their practices. What about all the other shonky practices out there in RAA and GA land, are they going to have a little private wake up call over this????? How lucky have Jabiru been that one of their engine failures hasn't killed anyone yet. This report will be a wake up call for Morgan and for the rest of the industry who do SIMILAR things and this is NOT isolated to Morgan. In all reality everyone who has a Morgan is going to go over their aircraft and fix the things that have been highlighted or other things they may have done to their aircraft. Every time there is an accident like this it will expose the aircraft involved to a fairly high level of scrutiny. I'll bet there are few people out there who have put kits together and also factory build aircraft at the moment thinking "there but for the grace of God go I ...". Lets make sure we collectively take this on board as a lesson to all and not let it turn into a destroy RAA and Australian Manufacturing. We know the problem, so does Gary Morgan, so let us collectively learn and let us collectively fix the problem, and move on.
You obviously don't know about the class action based out of Texas, USA for 7 fatalities behind their engines. The lawyers were doing the rounds at Oshkosh earlier this year basically coming up in saying.... "We are starting a class action against the said engine manufacturer on behalf of families with a number of fatalities in the US... do you know of any said engine accidents that have contributed towards loss, injury or death" these are as close to the exact words as I can remember. I first heard of this about two years ago on the Internet but this year they were actively sourcing information first-hand information at Oshkosh. The way I see it, LSA manufacturers in Europe have to comply with not only ASTM regulations but also with the regulations of their local CAA and this includes building the aircraft to a known standard which includes accepted aviation practices otherwise they lose their production licence. If I wanted to start up manufacturing aircraft in Australia myself I simply claim that I meet the ASTM standards without any local CAA involvement. It would require a CASA appointed inspector to come and have a look at my facility and that my paperwork trail ensuring that I was complying with the accepted ASTM standards. The big problem with the standards is they are based around paperwork rather than manufacturing standards and I see this happening everywhere! Some inspectors couldn't care less if the plane was airworthy or otherwise all they are interested in is if the paperwork is correct! All of this is my opinion only.
as with most government dept ,it all comes down to paper work,,,,,, common sense, reality, best practices ,proven engineering all mean nothing if the pencil d1ck behind the desk is on a power trip ,fact is they don't actually know what is right, just what paperwork needs to be filled out. Try getting the same answer from three different people in ### transport on the same day,for the same question, hasn't been done yet and I doubt it ever will ,,,,I'm speaking of the automotive industry ,,,,,in another country,,,,,we don't have that problem here with the wonderful folks at DoTARS ,,,,,,and the state depts, god bless em!
nobody is safe from lawyers in the us.... they will chase anything. heard the otherday they were suing sun screen makers, you know the 15plus creams cause you could still get burnt in the sun whilst wearing the sun screen ??? you have got to worry about them.
In a previous life, I worked with a couple of lawyers over in the States. One of them, Mark, told me a yarn about an ocurrence in a bar frequented mainly by lawyers, just down the road from the Supreme Court. Mark said that one lunchtime, a mountain of a man burst through the swinging doors and stood just inside, glaring around at the dozens of suited dinners congregated in the room. In a voice like rumbling thunder, he roared, "ALL LAWYERS ARE JERKS!" A little, weedy, but well dressed chap at the other end of the room leapt to his feet and pounded the bar with his fist as his stool crashed to the floor. "I OBJECT," the little chap said. With a smile, the Big man ambled down to tower over the little chap. "That's because you're a lawyer, isn't it?" The big man said. "Hell NO!" The little chap declared. "It's because I'm a jerk." My apologise in advance to anyone this yarn may offend. But I swear, it was told to me by an aviation specialist lawyer who back in the early '90s, before I knew him, was on the short list of people to head up the FAA. And yes, he was a bloody good bloke to work with/for.
I am uncomfortable with the assumption that what went on in one corner of Taree, applies across the field of aircraft manufacturing and maintenance in Aus; seems to harken back to the "could have happened to anyone" attitude that prevailed immediately after the incident, before the ATSB report opened the can of worms so to speak. In not distancing ourselves from what appears to be a systematic failure to adhere to accepted aviation standards, we are in effect telling the rest of the aviation fraternity that we are not capable of administering ourselves. I don't for one minute believe that is the case; yes this accident has revealed shortcomings in the oversight of manufacturers by the governing authority, but provided that RA can show that they are addressing this and quickly too, I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The same goes for the pilot's actions I'm afraid; I've said it before elsewhere, but if the aircraft had missed the ferris wheel, he would still have been flying over a considerable crowd of people at well under 100', having barely cleared the fence and possibly not being able to clear the trees beyond the wheel. I am willing to bet that the assembled throng would have been baying for his blood and phrases like "criminally irresponsible" would have been used to describe his actions. The fact that he actually collided with the wheel does not diminish the severity of his transgressions, if anything it makes it worse, because literally thanks only to intervention of the applicable deity did we avoid multiple fatalities and injuries. We would be facing a very different legal and social landscape if the worst had occurred.
There have been quite a few "assumptions" made that are not supported by the publicly available evidence. Of course some may turn out to be valid, but only the passage of time and the investigation outcome will reveal the actual situation(s). In the interim, drawing invalid conclusions won't be helpful. On the other hand, exploring what-ifs can be useful to a wide audience if it is made clear that the proposition is hypothetical.
