My tuppence worth --
ATSB - “The data recorded that at about 1230, while the aircraft was overhead the built-up area shown in Figure 2, it was operated significantly outside of its allowable flight envelope.”
“K” - “The analysis above speaks well for the integrity of the airframe and the robust margins provided within the certification data; hard to blame the 'aircraft' this time”.
Have to agree; the words 'significantly outside of it's allowable flight envelope' – not once, but repeatedly and they survived the impact, speaks well of the airframe and the design limitations. For what the aircraft is and considering the 'purpose' for which it was intended, I'd have to say well done Bristell. Even in 'skilled' trained hands, the antics described in the ATSB report would test any airframe not built for 'aerobatics' and even then – >60 bank and spins at low level demand serious training, constant practice and even then, they are still high risk category operations. Deliberately putting the aircraft into that part of the envelope; or indeed flying the aircraft in the manner described, over built up area, with a 'passenger' inboard is reckless, undisciplined and irresponsible. Three of the major crimes a pilot can commit right there; not to mention abuse of an airframe not intended for such treatment (unforgivable).
The potential for this type of behaviour in a pilot should have been spotted early in the piece and either 'cured' or further training denied. I'm not saying that on the odd occasion a little bit of 'madness' is unacceptable – we've all done it – and enjoyed it (immensely) still do – but always in the right place, with a suitable machine. Occasionally, as any professional will tell you, there is a requirement to 'push' the aircraft to a limit – it happens, rarely but it is there. Knowing the limitations of both man and machine is an important tool in any type of flight environment. Keeping the whole show together, without breaking anything or hurting anyone is very much part of a professional life. Some would say the pilot of the Bristell has learned a hard lesson; IMO he should not be allowed anywhere near an aircraft ever again.
I kicked off wanting to say what a good little aircraft this is; and wandered (old age is real). The airframe was brutalised, outside of design and certification limits and stayed together to the point of impact, no fire (luck) and they 'walked away'. Bravo Bristell; the final act of grace was survive ability after a crash impact. Nice one.
ATSB - “The data recorded that at about 1230, while the aircraft was overhead the built-up area shown in Figure 2, it was operated significantly outside of its allowable flight envelope.”
“K” - “The analysis above speaks well for the integrity of the airframe and the robust margins provided within the certification data; hard to blame the 'aircraft' this time”.
Have to agree; the words 'significantly outside of it's allowable flight envelope' – not once, but repeatedly and they survived the impact, speaks well of the airframe and the design limitations. For what the aircraft is and considering the 'purpose' for which it was intended, I'd have to say well done Bristell. Even in 'skilled' trained hands, the antics described in the ATSB report would test any airframe not built for 'aerobatics' and even then – >60 bank and spins at low level demand serious training, constant practice and even then, they are still high risk category operations. Deliberately putting the aircraft into that part of the envelope; or indeed flying the aircraft in the manner described, over built up area, with a 'passenger' inboard is reckless, undisciplined and irresponsible. Three of the major crimes a pilot can commit right there; not to mention abuse of an airframe not intended for such treatment (unforgivable).
The potential for this type of behaviour in a pilot should have been spotted early in the piece and either 'cured' or further training denied. I'm not saying that on the odd occasion a little bit of 'madness' is unacceptable – we've all done it – and enjoyed it (immensely) still do – but always in the right place, with a suitable machine. Occasionally, as any professional will tell you, there is a requirement to 'push' the aircraft to a limit – it happens, rarely but it is there. Knowing the limitations of both man and machine is an important tool in any type of flight environment. Keeping the whole show together, without breaking anything or hurting anyone is very much part of a professional life. Some would say the pilot of the Bristell has learned a hard lesson; IMO he should not be allowed anywhere near an aircraft ever again.
I kicked off wanting to say what a good little aircraft this is; and wandered (old age is real). The airframe was brutalised, outside of design and certification limits and stayed together to the point of impact, no fire (luck) and they 'walked away'. Bravo Bristell; the final act of grace was survive ability after a crash impact. Nice one.