[Peetwo]

There's a shit storm a' coming...  

(Powderworks)

1st a follow up to last, via Oz Flying...

---

 

BRM ups the Ante in Bristell Controversy
19 March 2021
Comments 0 Comments


Aircraft manufacturer BRM Aero has enlisted a German certification firm as the latest weapon in its battle with CASA over operational limitations placed on the Bristell LSA.


The company–Aircraft Design Certification GmbH (ADC)–was asked by BRM Aero to assess the existing spin test reports for four variants of the Bristell NG5, after which it furnished BRM with a letter stating that they considered the aircraft complied with the relevant part of ASTM 2245 covering spinning.

BRM Aero forwarded that letter to CASA on 9 March this year, accompanied by a statement from the Federal Aviation Administration saying the FAA also considered the Bristell to be compliant, and a submission demanding the operating limitations be removed.

CASA issued a ban on stall training in Bristells in July last year, stating that they had no received sufficient assurance from BRM Aero that the aircraft complied with the standard for light sport aircraft (LSA), a contention that the manufacturer has disputed consistently.

CASA has pointed to some fatal accidents around the world, including in Australia, as indication that the aircraft is not appropriate for stall training.

Boris Kolmel, Managing Director of ADC, wrote to BRM designer Milan Bristella in February saying his company found the stall test data showed the Bristell complied with the standard.

"We have reviewed the provided data (report and ref. videos) and conclude: For the LSA-class of aircraft the flight test method, data and reporting according REPORT ON THE SPIN TESTING OF BRISTELL LSA AIRCRAFT COMPLETED, dated 22nd Feb. 2020 is sufficient to be used for compliance demonstration to par. 4.5.9 "no intentional spins"of ASTM F2245 for the tested configuration."

BRM's techncial representative in Australia, Bob McGillivary from Edge Aerospace, made the submission to CASA in early March demanding the regulator remove the operational limitations, citing the ADC and FAA determinations as proof the BRM does comply.

"This submission is made on behalf of BRM Aero to address issues raised by CASA and used to justify the imposition of the Safety Notice and the Operating Limitations imposed on Bristell Light Sport Aircraft operating in Australia," McGillivray states.

"In addition to data previously supplied to CASA by BRM Aero, additional evidence is now provided in this submission. BRM Aero maintains that the previously supplied information, together with the additional information and evidence provided herein fully supports the case that all Bristell Light Sport Aircraft meet the requirements of ASTM F2245, para 4.5.9."

McGillivray also notes that in the July 2020 Safety Notice issued to aircraft owners, CASA itself stated that there "is no conclusive basis to presently find that BLSA do not comply with the spin recovery requirements ..."

"On the basis of the above CASA statement it is clear that CASA has no justifiable basis for imposing the safety notice and operating limitations," McGillivray says. "The Bristell LSA aircraft are self certified under the LSA system. BRM Aero has carried out sufficient spin testing and aerodynamic analyses to satisfy themselves that the NG 5 Bristell aircraft do comply with the requirements of ASTM 2245 ...
"If CASA do not agree, our opinion is that the onus is on CASA to prove that the aircraft does not comply, not the other way around."

The submission was sent with a covering letter from aviation law experts Maitland Lawyers on behalf of BRM Aero demanding the Safety Notice be rescinded.

"You will see from the enclosure that there is incontrovertible evidence that the Bristell NG5 LSA and its variants meet the requirements of ASTM F2245 para 4.5.9," Maitland Lawyers states.

"We are instructed that our client now demands that CASA now removes the Safety Notice and operating limitations imposed by CASA on 28 July 2020 without further delay."

A CASA spokesperson told Australian Flying today that the matter was under consideration.

"CASA is carefully reviewing the latest submission from BRM," the spokesperson said. "Our decisions will always be based on available evidence and data in the best interests of aviation safety."

The matter is also still before the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

---

And then...via the LMH:

That Airservices would come back to the aviation community with a revised proposal for Class E airspace on the eastern seaboard was predictable. Their original plan to lower the 8500-foot bases to 1500 AGL was a disaster that so few in the community supported. The new idea is to revert to an AMSL reference (smart move) and now bases of either 4500, 6500 or 8500 depending on the terrain below. It's a better idea, but still has some cracks in the welding. The revised concept will still result in some pretty funky airspace design, with polygons of Class E tacked onto the airspace design that will make VNCs and VTCs look like Picasso paintings. For example: most of the airspace west of Melbourne will have a A045 base to the E, except that sitting over the Grampians, where the E base will be lifted to A065. And if you're tracking Albury to Canberra, you can expect to have an E base of A045, A065 or A085 depending on your heading. It seems a complex answer to a problem that is really yet to be defined. Reading between the propaganda, it seems Airservices wants to make the changes simply because they now have the technology and want to use it, not to solve any identifiable safety issue. That would certainly account for the ongoing absence of a safety case.

 Plus via the UP: 

Gentle_flyer

Rather than just quote letters with plus / minus that remind me of my academic exam scores 40 years ago...and then attach a country like US / CANADA / UK as if to give more credence......


Why don’t you describe what you want as a service below A100 outside C....

It is obvious we have a variety of issues but given the disingenuous Airservice Plan B “Confidence Trick” would have done nothing to prevent:

- Mangalore accident, or

- Ballina A320 / Jabiriu incident.

The change to E at Mangalore / Ballina only extend down to 6500 AMSL, well above the altitude of both accident / incident.

VH-TNP still haunts Airservices for the wrong reasons....

Mention RAM and MSAW and it elicits interesting reactions who were in the know at the time.

it would appear the Minister has been badly misled.

But then in the Canberra bubble everything is about spin and not what is safe in the cockpits or ATC consoles.

Are all the posters here fully aware of the constraints that the low level airspace controllers opoerate to at the moment?

Are all the posters that seem to have the answer with a defined simplistic name really so confident their solution would actually work?

It is incredibly arrogant of Aiservices that seems to presume an outcome from the MNG coroner’s inquiry.

‘Be curious rather than judgemental...”

Why has AsA had the capability of 3 Supplementary Air Situation Displays per console (additional to the “Main and Second Windows ASDs” ) that were specifically designed to allow a controller to have a display zoomed right in on a conflict, whilst still maintaining the Main Window covering all the airspace they are responsible for plus some (due to so called automated coordination) but never allowed the controllers to use them???

The Mangalore accident and issues surrounding it seemed perfect for the utilisation of the SUP ASD capability???

When has any G airspace controller ever received “compromised separation training” where the scenario consisted of two TAAATS Eurocat coupled tracks were in G Airspace??? ie as was the situation at MNG...?? Could the answer be never??

When did any G airspace controller get comprehensive training in the utilisation of the STCA list Window in the management of STCA alerts, where 99,9 % of the alerts are operationally false???

Lots of interesting questions to be answered....someday or maybe never like some around VH-TNP...

Could any controller list any TAAATS Eurocat enhancement specifically commissioned for low level sectors in the last 20 year after the initial G airspace commissioning?

How many AsA ADSB receivers have been commissioned to specifically cover low level sectors?

We are all being told how good ADSB is but its really a waste of time if its not used (yep a remarkable statement in itself ) but what do you expect when CASA seems to think ATC is done with situational awareness.... sorry but its done with conflict detection (stupid) and on rare occasions saved by the ground based safety net called STCA and finally another airborne based safety net called TCAS.

How good your conflict detection is dictates your target level of safety...no utilisation of safety nets allowed....

How good your total resultant level of safety in an ATM system is includes conflict detection plus the two safety nets as per above...

Does anyone in AsA, CASA or ATSB understand that??????

That is the concept in A and C airspace...

For MNG the first two concepts failed and the third wasn’t probably on either aircraft....

Ballina the first two failed and the third ie RA failed also...

Does anyone who proposes a solution for low level D, E and G airspace want to disregard the concepts that safety nets are supposed to offer?

As always I am happy to be curious AND educated on any errors on my part...

Let’s keep out of the Canberra bull*&@# and start in the cockpit and console.

And don’t assume everyone here understands everything!

it’s obvious I certainly don’t ....

And again via the LMH:

...Angel Flight was back in court in Melbourne this week in its own long-running battle with the regulator. After a couple of fatal crashes, CASA applied restrictions to who could and couldn't fly community service flights. To name a couple: a minimum of 400 hours or a CPL, and increased maintenance for the aircraft. Ironically, neither of those would have prevented either of the accidents. So, Angel Flight wants the restrictions struck out arguing that CASA acted ultra vires, which is to say outside their power. The question is one of whether or not CASA has to power to tell you who you can and cannot carry as passengers in your aeroplane. Unfortunately, this week's court case did not wrap up the matter as the legal arguments are deep and many, extending as they will to examine the very perimeters of CASA's head of power. In the meantime, the industry is left to examine the motivations of an action that CASA has admitted will have no impact. We'll keep you updated on when the matter returns to the Federal Court...

Finally back to the GlenB embuggerance, via the RRAT Secretariat:

From: RRAT, Committee (SEN) <RRAT.Sen@aph.gov.au>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 11:00 am
Subject: FW: Submission to Senate Estimates RRAT Inquiry. Commonwealth Ombudsman matter 2019-713834
To: defendapta@gmail.com <defendapta@gmail.com>
Cc: RRAT, Committee (SEN) <RRAT.Sen@aph.gov.au>

Dear Mr Buckley

Thank you for your email to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee held a private meeting this morning in which your correspondence was provided to and noted by the attending members.

Regards

MTF...P2