turboplanner

(You don't buy a dog to bark yourself)

.......or the construction of some rag, wire, and tubers, such as.........................

.............have been known to use it for.............

...........other hair styles; we need to elevate (avref just in case planedrivel looks in) ourselves to the modern era and make sure our women look like they've been dragged backwards through a wire netting fence, like everyone else, because.......

"............they don't hear so good, so if you and your mormon mates [....content removed, subject to review by Moderators Panel], you can make an extra 30% per set, and also have...............

.......quietly sold the "Crazy Turbo" Headphone business to the Mormon Church, along with a possum breeding licence, and then.................

............his workshop to do something useful, like weld up another exhaust crack.

"Why do I have no friends?" he asked himself over and over again. "I only............"

"The ACCC are a pack of bastards" said Turbo who was struggling under a ban on his "Crazy Turbo" headsets.

"The 1,500 girls who complained about deafness had the volume up too high", he added "I told them if they kept doing it they'd go deaf"

But the ACCC wouldn't budge, the ban stayed in place...................

Fine, work it out for yourself then.

Give over! - nobody takes Turbs seriously...

Google: CASA Act

First thing that comes up is: Civil Aviation Act 1988 - Comlaw

If the facts are reconciled and agreed upon, the next step would be to see if the claims upon which the action was based upon hold true.ie engine failures significant and increasing

There is an an unacceptable risk to public or pax in Jab powered aircraft

 

That they do or do not in fact have higher failure rate than an average of other manufacturers - this would require establishing acceptable levels.

 

Explain why action wasnt taken equally to others which fail to meet this benchmark.

BTW what happened to your engine?

TP, I think that is what people want to see - CASA's legal justification for the action. So far, I can't see that any has been provided.

That's a stance TP has maintained from the beginning and one which the rest of us seem to completely disagree with.It is not acceptable to apply the restrictions based on " some" events.

They must be on " some events per some number of hours " and you can't simply say " any number of events " because. Every brand of engine up to and including the Rolls Royce that powers the A 380 have had a failure or some failures in the last few years.

 

I bet not a single brand of engine has been without a failure somewhere in that time.

 

So they have to look at some statistic and have a bench mark for what are an acceptable number of failures.... So the numbers are important and in my opinion ARE the central issue.

So far I haven't seen anyone post that "according to clause xx of the xx Act, CASA has to [insert your favourite statement]

And here we are back at the start nearly 1000 posts ago, TP thinks Jabiru owners deserve the action and CASA have acted appropriately, presents the same old info thats been here beforeDo you seriously think there was just 3 Rotax failures in nearly five years? - not talking just 912, but all types, the same as Jabiru numbers

CASA as any other publicly funded office has to act fairly and are open to action if it were found to be otherwise, let alone compensation if they did the wrong thing.

 

If the facts dont exist, dont care which regulation level they are at, they cannot act upon personal feelings without repercussions.

 

Once the real data they acted on it accessed, it seems far fewer failures than the action was based upon and therefore buisnesses and owners have a right to be upset about. - this roughly matches ATSB and RAA and other data packages.

 

The list was prepared by CASA???

What I think doesn't matter, the Rotax statistics were taken from the exact same RAA reports as the Jabiru statistics.

You can add Rotax two stroke/500cc - which have a 300 hour TBO if you wish, just go through the published statistics like I did.

CASA does have to discharge natural justice.

The numbers which have been bandied about seem to be getting people animated, but they are not the central issue, and even if there was a reconciliation to a jointly agreed number, what does that leave you with?

In Jabiru's original 'defence' of their product, they claim to have, in conjunction with RAA, examined the proposed list and reduced the number of 'provens' down to 12 (from memory). I personally doubt that is anything like correct, and I suspect just about everybody else would be equally sceptical of that as being the true figure. However, there is a vast difference between 12 and 46, and if the CASA list is evidently padded, it is hard to draw any other conclusion than that CASA has placed itself in a combative position against Jabiru, which it is not entitled to do.

The Fat Lady has not even started to warm up her vocal chords on this one, but just perhaps she has now received the song-sheet.

I'd suggest that arguing over which items are correct and which are incorrect, is likely to produce an amended list.

I would be way more interested in who compiled that particular list.

Has similar 'in depth' analysis been done on other manufacturers. The 'one point' assessment has no value without a true comparison point instead of what seems just conjecture and biased opinions.

If you did that on engines generally, you might well come up with a list of component life cycles which vary significantly, but that would be a commercial comparison, which would lead to people buying more of the longer life engines, and that's not what CASA are there for.

What this subject is all about is:

(i) The completely random nature of failures, primarily on 4 component/sub assemblies

(i) in component failure

(ii) in hours of operation

(ii) These failures causing equally random forced landings, with the potential for injury/fatality resulting from the forced landings.

Therefore CASA were only required to become aware of a potential safety risk, to act.

Also, they were only required to look at the outcome, i.e. engine failure which did or would result in a forced landing, to establish the risk.

There have been some people on here who have been smugly quoting others in the background who are out of touch with current DIRD (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) policies. DIRD is as astute at distancing itself from activities which attract unnecessary duty of care, as other departments, so don't expect them to start re-employing engineers to do comparative testing while the manufacturers carry this responsibility.

Having said that, I previously posted published RAA figures over 59 months for engine failure from the two main manufacturers covering engine failures which resulted in forced landings/where the aircraft got down but could not have taken off, and these were:

Jabiru

Exhaust valve/valve 12

Through Bolt 17

Seized/Con Rod/Catastrophic 5

TOTAL 34

Rotax 912 series

Engine failure unspecified 1

Circlip 1

Oil Pressure 1

TOTAL 3

I did not include forced landings from things like:

Spark plug fell out

Oil leakage around filter

Carbs overflowing

I see those as relating to servicing standards

Names, rego and location removed, date is there.

Ah!! No Professional Engineers there.

On the other hand, one report which has been bandied around here, and includes issues which were not engine failures/forced landings sounds like it has been collated by a baker's assistant, but to get to the bottom of all this, the question is where this came from and who instigated it.

I believe the data is already public, it is the compiling of this data used is what matters.

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE - an act of kindness

On a bitterly cold winter's day several weeks ago in Northern British Columbia, a RCMP constable on patrol came across a Motorcyclist, who was swathed in protective clothing and helmet, stalled by the roadside.

"What's the matter?" asked the Policeman.

"Carburettor's frozen," was the terse reply.

"Piss on it. That'll thaw it out."

"I can't." said the biker.

"OK, watch me closely and I'll show you." The constable promptly warmed the carburettor as promised.

The bike started and the rider drove off, waving.

A few days later, the detachment office received a note of thanks from the Father of the motorbike rider.

It began: "On behalf of my daughter Jill....."

.......used it to order pizzas for all the local cops, four cases of oranges for the footy team, new uniforms for the marching girls, and two tonnes of confetti for the Council Meeting. This set off a chain of events which.....

Oops

..........bugger all.

"You've been trained well Comrade" said Madge, who had also taken a vow of silence, and was to be seen these days mostly in prayer for ......

............grass don't live heah!, when...................

That's called Human Factors; you probably won't ever do it again after that fright, but worth thinking through the process to try to find what made you do it second by second. Sometimes it relates to another piece of machinery you use, sometimes the feel, sometimes your attention wasn't 100% on the landing etc.