turboplanner

GA piloots do not have to operate in the same way that RAAus pilots are supposed to. It would be impossible to appoint a pilot to control the field. Where RAAus got the idea from i have no idea and I have never seen it used, even when CASA are in attendance, but it could be said that RAAus should enforce it, or better still romove the requirement

Every week I thank my lucky stars for the professional training I received.

Not any more - it appears I'm not going to get the Blanik, and there's no point in taking his drawing instruments if they aren't precious to him.

I did have an unusual experience a couple of weeks ago. One of my friends posted "imminently dying, love to all my friends". He'd had kidney problems for years. It was an eerie, but very rewarding experience for us to be able to say goodbye while he was still alive.

Bugger. it can be a very windy area up there.

If you relied on that, and knew what you were doing, and you killed me, I'd get both of you for manslaughter, not that I could spend the money.

Because crimes cut across all the little exemptions the politicians have build for themselves, that one usually brings them around to taking responsibility.

Yes - and anybody who rides in the glider does so at their own risk, because it's experimental (and carries the placards, warnings etc) - and I'm not worth sueing.

specify nothing specifically ............. but, encompass the whole thing (an unknown things) in a performance requirement that has to be achieved - yuck

If you have a passenger you may have missed the last 30 years of precedent cases, training and explanations following the beginning of the end of prescriptive legislation by governments in Australia, because you have certain duties of care to your passenger so some study would be in order.

If solo, Andy's question really related to the people operating the airfield, and I'm mindful of Kaz's comments about getting into details and into a situation which could constitute legal advice, but, for example if my radio was not transmitting to the point of being intelligible, which in some cases has been alleged against glider pilot, and someone was hurt as a result and someone was hurt there could be consequences and so on.

When you read the Donoghue vs Stevenson case it becomes clear that you can't make up a checklist of 17 or so items, but really have to live the principles every hour of the day.

Turbo notes the deafening silence from Ratso, and apologises for his thoughtless joke about the gnomes; he actually lovingly washed each one individually, and placed them back in the foyer ready for a new load of Minties, and.......

If you're correct (and I'm not suggesting that you're not). Then if CASA was to launch an investigation into the common failure points of the J2200 engine either on it's own motion or in response to a request from the RAA, wouldn't they, if they're only going to look at the "what" not the "why", limit their investigation to determining whether the engines and all their component parts are still being manufactured to the design standards they were built to when the J2200 gained certification? I would've thought that the "what" is obvious. Surely it's the "why" that's important. If the RAA (and by that I mean not just the Organisation but us, the members) hopes to gain anything out of petitioning CASA to "do something" they/we need to provide a wealth of in-depth accurate and intellectually rigourous reporting on the cause(s) of the failures. If CASA decides develop new standards or raise the bar, surely they need to understand why the existing standards are insufficient. Simply saying that through bolts break and should therefore be made stronger isn't improving the engineering standard, it's just spackling over the cracks. Is that spending the taxpayers money wisely?From what I've seen, Ian Bent is going to great lengths to identify and understand the root causes of the failures and use that information to improve the engineering and design of his engine. I imagine that when/if he seeks certification for his engine all that information will be provided to CASA as justification for the changes. So I suppose Ian is doing what the RAA is asking CASA to do. Investigate. The expense must be horrendous. I sure hope he gains adequate rewards for his efforts.

 

And before the crabs (not you Turbs) respond to that bit of bait I should assert that I have no financial interest in either Jabiru or CAMit, though I wouldn't mind buying shares in CAMit if Ian was offering..... I do have shares in a Jab and I am very keen to have it fit on the "no problems" side of the ledger.

I'm not sure that CASA would "launch an investigation"

There would be procedures to ensure an engine remained as certified, however a certified engine can still have problems which could result in safety issues.

The reason the Government doesn't get involved in the "why" is that it would cost money, and if they decided they knew why and issued instructions to modify, for example, timing, camshaft gear etc. they would then bear the liability costs if their design failed.

To give you an example of how things operate within the same government department CASA belongs to, the government specifies performance requirements for vehicle braking, and performance requirements for some of the key systems. It's up to the manufacturer to design his system with the components of his choice. If the manufacturer has a series of brake failures, he hasn't met the performance standard so the government just sanctions him until he does. They don't start getting into a discussion of how brand X valve is better than brand Y valve which is having all the failures - they just make him spend his own money on design and testing until he can show he meets the standard.

So if the issue WAS through bolts, I couldn't see CASA telling someone to make them bigger as you say, but would expect a broader performance requirement, which would allow the manufacturer to continue to use the same bolts if he found the cause was not in fact undersize bolts, but excessive intermittent forces which he could prevent by action X.

A government might develop new standards if the existing standard was obviously inadequate, for example where statistics showed that a significant number of people were dying from head injuries in side collisions a government may introduce a requirement for head protection in those incidents to a performance standard, and a manufacturer may respond by using an airbag design, or body structure - its up to him.

I've seen speculation/claims on what some engine manufacturers are going to do, but I've seen no tested-in-service (and I mean hundreds of engines over thousands of hours) examples from the people making the claims, and after several decades of experience with the manufacturing and operations of many engines by some of the world's best builders I like to wait for that result before getting excited. I'm not saying someone who is diligently working will not be able to achieve success right out of the box - Phil Irving/Jack Brabham/Repco/GM did, I'm just pointing out that designing and building an engine is an incredibly complex process.

But in the end if it all goes south doesn't the final responsibility rest with the pic? If he is landing at a new strip and prangs because of holes etc wasn't his responsibility to check beforehand and the same with accidents above non towered aerodromes doesn't it come back to who was doing the right things ie proper circuits giving way to those that have right of way etc and who was doing the wrong thing?I know when I was doing my nav training we flew over lake keepit and they had someone on the radio to answer our ten mile call and inform us of their glider whereabouts which was helpful.

On the one had you have prescriptive legislation - the PIC is prescribed to have certain responsibilities - RAA/CASA can come after you with sanctions if you contravene these.

On the other hand, you can't hand off a tort as a property owner, airfield manager, FTF owner/manager/CFI etc. so you have a duty of care to ensure the safe operation of the airfield.

And as you mentioned we have air legislation which has to be complied with by all.

He wasn't looking for a nothing will go wrong guarantee, he was being very reasonable.

Still not quiet getting number 2 turbs, Andy was asking if GA pilots have requirements to have a duty pilot. I don't quiet see the connection to a dodgy airstrip next to a pub?

In my example there was an airstrip clearly visible as such with no white crosses and no one apparently in charge of its safety.

In my last post, I tried to get closer to what he was asking, but in the way you've framed it the answer might be:

GA pilots have whatever responsibilities are laid out in aviation legislation (ensuring they are landing on an ALA specification etc)

But they also have a duty of care obligation, as do the owners of the land, lessees etc. clubs etc, and don't expect that to be specified or outlined by the Federal or State Governments any time soon because they all backed out of prescriptive legislation which would leave them liable for any injuries or deaths some decades ago.

OR what Kaz says

Just thinking on it a bit more, you're asking an interesting question, I don't think we would know the ones that did have someone in control for the day unless they identified themselves.

Just taking into account a Council Airfield.

If you want to hire the tennis courts, hall, etc you need to nominate the responsible person or body, so it would be no different with the Council airfield, and there is the Shire of Berrigan case as a precedent.

Anyone leasing an airfield would have a similar liability.

The person you are asking about would need to be appointed by these people, or would be the owner of a private strip for example.

So I think (but don't know) that if you were by yourself then it would be all of the above who would need to have protected themselves by having a safety policy in place.

And I think (but don't know) that if you had a passenger it would be a different ball game and you would form part or the above group in the chain of responsibility.

For most airfields you've probably touched on a missing link.

I think he still fancies you though.

And you're the internet's best stirrer, particularly when people are upset.

GA pilots have the same liabilities on the same strips - there's really no difference.

Could you give examples of the first turbs and clarify the second i.e. GA requirements for same.

2. XXXXXXXX, NSW Clearly defined airstrip right next to the pub, no crosses, no contact information, including at the pub. Crab holes on the strip in the touch down area big enough to take a nose wheel or complete main, holes hidden by overgrown grass.

Two answers:

(a) I've seen it done very responsibly

(b) I've seen owners and operators who couldn't give a stuff

Let me run this by others......has anyone ever seen a duty pilot elected to control operations at a common use airfield? I've personally never seen it but then don't operate at places where you can be number 6 to land....... I wonder if CASA GA recreational flyers have the same obligations on them, and if so has anyone ever seen that occur? I can understand a CFI having some control when students aplenty in the air but really? for other times?Seems to me that once signed off and provided with the certificate/license then flying for the main is a pretty solitary occupation (and probably one of the reasons I like it!) so don't really see a bunch of folk walking the airfield poking around here and there looking for someone to be king for a day!

 

See the start of the 4.01 above

 

Andy

RAA still doesn't have an SMS Andy, and that leaves them wide open, it might seem quaint and a really fun thing to have an airfield with no one in charge, but there's no defence if something goes wrong, and a couple have gone wrong this year.

Model Aircraft fields don't operate without at least one safety person on deck, so there's a missing link. Nothing happens while nothing happens, but eventually something will.

Admin Ian - Are you sure you cannot install an "Ignore Thread" button? This one is just becoming a bashing club Vs a Supporters club. Sadly, it would seem that it occurs at every opportunity that Jabiru is mentioned in any thread.I got the "Murder of Crows" joke. I just don't get this one.

 

Please, an "Ignore Thread" option......

There is some very valuable information in this thread; why would you want to walk away from that?

.....brumby yard, and get all the latest gossip about the plan to import numbered boats for the Murrumbidgee cruises which Turbo has modelled on the Rhine Cruises.

"We don't need engines" Turbo said "there's too many snags in the big M, so all we need is a couple of horses and some rope, and we'll just turn the cruise boats round and round.

"That will take care of the scenery, particularly when Const Doubtfire is cleaning up the river front near the pub, and we'll just feed everyone stubbies and the cheapest steak we can get."

"What are we going to do about Ratso?" asked Aholt.

"I'm mortified that I upset him" said Turbo, "so I offered to wash every one of his pottery gnomes, all three dozen"

"Won't that take days?" asked Ahlot

"Ordinarily yes, they are filthy replied Turbo with a grin "But they're all done; I threw them all in the back of the ute and drove through the Wagga East truck wash..............

Impossible, no manufacturer does, may as well shut the company down overnight if you did that.

Eaton Transmissions - free rebuild at 600,000 km because of a known and bulletined issue.

Cummins Engines - new pistons on ten trucks in a fleet after providing a powerpoinmt presentation on exactly what the failure was, how many hundred engines were affected, and the replacement programme.

I have never hidden component failures from customers, and have never had one cancel an order or fail to order a new truck because of an issue.

Surely you've heard of Service Bulletins?

Merv, the failures may be well " documented" or recorded but certainly not well investigated. What seems to be documented is the basic fact that an engine stopped because a through bolt failed, or a valve head dropped, or etc etc. what doesn't seem to be happening is an in depth investigation of WHY those events occurred. And until either the RAA or CASA undertake an in depth forensic investigation into each incident we won't get any further than we are now which is a very superficial understanding of the incidents. We certainly won't progress while ever we continue to get most of our exercise by jumping to conclusions in forum threads like this one.

In this way they are steering clear of liability.

It's then up to the manufacturer to spend his money rather than the taxpayers' to find the "why" and then correct it so it either doesn't happen again, or meets the new standard (New standards, or lifting the bar often occurs after a major accident or run of accidents.

We don't need to know the why, unless it relates to a part we service or assemble - we just need to know the issue has been fixed. Many car recalls work this way; one scared the hell out of me when the service manager let me in on the secret that tow bar welds had been fracturing, and caravans coming loose and making their way into paddocks.

NEWS ITEM (AND REQUEST FROM THE ESCAPEES)

http://www.theage.com.au/national/cowra-breakout-survivor-pays-his-respects-20140803-zzzlr.html

When Turbo told Nobushi about this visitor, he said "He THINK he is rast, but of course the group of which I am a member was at the Canowindra BNS on the night and didn't get back to camp for another week. We certainly were chased by a property owner with a shotgun, but that had nothing to do with the breakout.

"I remember young Murakami" he said "I told him to get into the nearest ditch when the shooting started, because life was more important than death, and I'm pleased to see he listened to me.

"Please don't tell him we escaped from the camp and now live a Broadbeach, because we were supposed to go back to Nippon and be ridiculed for surviving; that's how screwed up they were in those days, but now they just dye their hair orange)

...........................Ratso's littlest gnome's nose at Rattus Haus

In spite of his down to earth blokesy image he portrays here, he is an out and out social poser, always parking the white Bentley in the parking spot reserved for VIP guests (like Turbo), growing ivy up the wall of, let's face it, a remodelled woolshed, having his suits made in London, smoking cigars (well actually the same one for the past fourteen years - it is put away as soon as you get out of sight), speaks like the Queen, has a similar wave, and........................

Anyone have the statistics on how many people have died in engine failures involving Rotax and Jabiru engines?Remember there is no question that's stupid it's only the answer that is.

If you don't believe me have a look at most of the answers in these threads involving engine failures or the conclusion that everyone jumps to, oh it's a Jabiru that out landed that would be right, the engine would have failed.

 

Think about it this thread has turned into a morbid product bashing vehicle, let the experts deal with the problem stop trying to impress all and sundry with ones knowledge as there are only a couple who use this medium who really do have any expertise in these matters.

 

I act on fact and circumstance only not supposition and hearsay and any discussion based on that which appears in the newspaper I say is nothing more than hearsay.

 

That's my 2 bob's worth and if you don't know what a bob is go and ask someone over the age of 60.

 

And I don't apologize to anyone for my comments.

Rick, you're doing what you are arguing against; on this occasion there was an excellent explanati0n given directly by the pilot on national television. He covered the event from the time the engine started to run rough, and he did a great job of explaining what happened.

Since there are six of you, plus other posters that seem to think these stories are being made up, I'll make an effort to complete a summary of the other half of Pilot Notes reports on engine failures, so everyone can see the factual RAA report results, and that will take all the "bashing" out of it.