turboplanner

Note Dear Sir/ madam...Generic auto reply. I'd disagree with the statement that casa consulted with stakeholders tho, or was the original draft and subsequent call for depositions considerd " consulting"?

Yes it was, and it appears none of the submissions put up a compelling case, as in engines are NOT failing.

 

As I've previously mentioned, financial hardship, whether by an individual or the biggest corporation in the land is not taken into consideration against the risk of injury/fatality.

 

 

Right before Christmas where no one is contactable, in the real sense. Nev

True, but another equally plausible reason is people clearing their desks, doing the things they'd put off all year. Locally we're faced with a large flow of planning applications and decisions which the Council Officers made in the final days before Christmas.

The public comment period was over, there was enough time to make a safety decision (you never want to leave that ball in your court for any longer than days), they made the safety decision and they published it.

 

 

Why would the timing be curious FH?

 

 

So CASA wrote to those people, and asked them to comment?

 

If not, they are indirects.

 

 

I note your use of the word "effectively", but it works on the "direct" parties.

 

If the manufacturer were to solve the problem and issue a recall, it would all go away.

 

It's up to the manufacturer to solve the problem, not the Safety Authority, and it's up to the people affected to find a safe way to operate within the Limitations which highlight the risk possibilities in a very public way, making it a potential minefield.

 

 

Yes Camel, I'm aware of all that.

 

Given that the first multiple forced landings I looked at were in 2007, I don't have a problem with the timelines or actions, because I've been dealing with the same timelines for decades, and it even seems to me that some of the policies of other DIRD departments have flowed on to CASA in recent years.

 

One point here. This matter is between CASA and Jabiru the company, so I wouldn't expect CASA to have to explain their actions to others.

 

Regardless, the Instrument is in force and still there is very little understanding of the operational implications. That's where the discussion needs to be.

 

 

I was not under the impression I had promoted Rotax all. In fact I consider it irrelevant.

 

I have repeatedly referred to published RAA statistics, apparently one of the very few people to actually check the figures.

 

It's a fantasy to suggest that safety action should be based on a popular engine rather than evidence based issues.

 

 

Absolute rubbish FH. The Rotax name doesn't even need to be brought into the discussion for anyone with an objective mind who has been looking at the RAA reports for 7 to 10 years now.

 

Some people just like grasping at straws, and emotive red herrings like that have already been disposed of.

 

 

Once again, financial disadvantage, and we have seen multi-million dollar company closures, carries ZERO weight in safety matters. This is 2015.

 

 

Oscar, I'm happy for people to judge your "creative" tag by the anti-CASA comments made on the recent Jab threads.

 

 

Whatever adjective you like Oscar, there are plenty of them listed over the past month or so.

 

 

Very interesting statement of yours Oscar. When the family of someone injured or killed is looking around for co-defendants to sue, CASA is on record as having taken action on this trend for which my own first statistics start in 2007, around 7 years ago, and having been vilified for it.

 

And when they look at what the RAA actions are.....................????

 

 

The taxpayers, quite rightly in the opinion of the non-flying public are not going to spend their money doing the analysis you are describing. Might have in the DCA days, but today the money is not available, and the legal liabity if CASA research then make a mistake are huge, so DIRD are doing what all other authorities now do and throwing the cost of research, and the legal liability for failures directly on the people who wish to involve themselves in the risk.

 

 

Except the aviation industry as a whole, according to the Forsyth Report.

Which now appears to have disappeared beneath the waves

 

 

FH, I'd also add the word hysterical.

 

Some people have trouble with CASA, tens of thousands don't.

 

 

FT you've posted photos of two different Makes on the one thread. The media was giving detailed "Yak 18", the evening news says it flipped, so where does the Jab figure in this?

 

 

Wellcamp?

 

 

Nothing wrong with my payload. 370Lbs is more than enough for a solo flight and 4.5 hr endurance with VFR reserves, at 180mph. Or a 2 hour local junket with one of my kids.And that's exactly what they're worried about. But what about the Europa XS' on the register? Or J200's? Or Retired Racer's RV-9? They all have the ability to be operated over their legal MTOW, but they're registered RAAus.

Virtually every light GA aircraft is a compromise between full fuel or full passenger complement. That's why P&O is mandatory before a flight, but when someone starts using 70 kg per pax against the more typical 90+ for an Australian male, alarm bells start to ring, and it's interesting to see that after a couple of months of screaming at CASA, accusing them of being the new Stasi, we now see some posts which indicate they've been asleep at the wheel, so we now have some some balance.

 

It can be problematic for a regulator faced with claims and "proof" that an aircraft meets specifications, but owners and hirers who do manage to sneak these things through, and then overnight put on an extra 30 kg, and take their 110 kg mate for a cross country, should realise that even if they get it off the ground, if they lose control it's likely to be a criminal charge and a successful lawsuit regardles of the warning placard.

 

You are quite likely to get away with it for years if not caught in a CASA ramp check, but the unavoidable one is when all the overweight is sprawled around the crash site.

 

 

I know you have high safety ethics Camel, But I'm not sure that your target shouldn't have been RAA.

 

I seem to remember these aircraft being caught out by CASA as a result of a series of audits of RAA.

 

There was also an imitation Spitfire caught a after a fatality with the weight under-reported by a couple of hundred kg.

 

Some of these aircraft never met the specifications for RAA registration, and if they hadn't been registered CASA would not have been involved

 

Compared to the standards maintained for GA operations, a few people have been taking liberties within the RAA system.

 

CASA may be using a big stick now, but I've been looking at records on systemic failures as far bak as 2007 - 14 years of history.

 

CASA's current reactions, while stunning and surprising some people, may well be based on a few straws which broke the camel's back.

 

 

This thread hasn't been a cynical anything - that is the province of the other thread. This thread focuses on the instrument and its constaints.[/Quote]So did Andy's thread, but that didn't stop the stream of engine claims, anti-CASA hysteria, and hypotheticals.

Better study it a bit more jet.

 

 

I don't think CASA has the authority to impose controls on what the PIC decides to do in an emergency. So 5A is probably illegal IMHO.

Who knows, perhaps CASA have re-assumed liability on that one, but I wouldn't want to test it because if I killed someone on the ground, I would be sure of being charged with manslaughter and getting 6 1/2 years, since I knew about the Instrument.

There has been a cynical disregard for innocent passengers, students, and the general public on this thread.

 

 

So far there has been in excess of 125 pages of "discussion" on this issue - precisely NONE of which will have any influence on any outcome by CASA.1. We know there is a problem.

 

2. There is nothing that this forum or its members can do about it (unless you are employed high up by one of the parties)

 

3 Speculation helps nobody

 

4 Antagonism amongst members in this forum achieves nothing

 

5 Let the concerned parties (RAA/CASA/Jabiru/CAMIT) do their work to resolve this, or risk slowing progress due to continual interruptions by the many individual "interested parties". YOU ARE NOT ALONE, NOR ANY MORE SPECIAL/IMPORTANT THAN ANYONE ELSE.

Good points damkia, I think it is very significant that after I explained the potential outcomes of this Instrument, there was quite a long silence then a return to the raucous engine promotion. The implications for owners, pilots and FTFs are now at an elevated level, and there is virtually no understanding of this based on the posts.

 

 

It is possible to take a problem engine, redesign the basics and produce a successful design. Holden did this when they bought the Buick V 6.

 

The problem with just 30 engines is you need to be dyno testing and running to destruction more than that number to lnow you have a commercial product.

 

This is doubly critical if the original problem is intermittant.

 

Unless this is done you have a consumer issue if you start making reliability claims because you are just guessing.

 

This is not an engine thread, it's about a CASA decision, now in force, which, it seems to me, quite a few people have decided to push on as usual, disregarding the Instrument.

 

The nature of non prescriptive instruments is while nothing happens nothing happens. CASA don't have to come after you.

 

However it's also like musical chairs, when the next Jab goes in, the implications and costs may be huge.

 

I'm surprised this hasn't occured to anyone.

 

For example, do you think your PL insurance company will cover you if you sign off your own children and take them up.

 

Have you even spoken to your Insurance company to advise them of the increased liability to ser what effect this will have on your premium or whether the company will even take the risk?

 

 

Just someone making his own comments Yenn. Don't sit up late waiting for CASA to limit all GA aircraft.