Oscar

Are you sure?... http://knitting.about.com/od/knittingsafety/a/knittingrsi.htmOr can you imagine this...

 

"43 Year old seriously injured during knitting accident. Today a man was left with serious eye injuries whilst taking part in the "Dangerous Recreational Activity" of knitting. The needles, which did not meet current regulations, have been seized by KASA (Knitting And Sewing Authority) and are awaiting a Coroners report. It is unclear at this time what exactly happened but a witness declared, "he was knitting close to last light and it looked like he was holding the needles incorrectly!". Authorities will be looking into training methods for recreational knitters."

This is a prime example of why operating an RAA-class aircraft (even though this one was NOT an RAA-class aircraft but a VH-experimental reg. Glassair) needs to strive to avoid being classified as a 'Dangerous Recreational Activity'.

While the possible attraction of a softening of the rules and regulations affecting us from such a classification ( including a possible retraction on the part of CASA attention to merely ensuring that we can't harm the general, non-involved public by making sure we don't fly anywhere where we can crash on them) presents itself - think of the alternatives:

You might have to have any passenger sign a form that they understand and accept the risks of flying in your aircraft, for every flight;

You may not be able to take any passenger deemed to be 'legally incapable' of a responsible decision to fly with you aloft, with possible criminal penalties should you take such a passenger aloft;

Your hull insurance is likely to be either drastically more expensive / not available / declared not liable for payout in flying circumstances;

ditto your Public Liability insurance;

Your recourse to legal remedy in that case of an accident for which the responsibility is palpably that of some provider of goods or services may be reduced / removed.

The community appreciai0n of the value of recreational aviation to the community is reduced ('they're just a pack of death-defying loonies') and support for the retention of local community airstrips is reduced;

Commercial / governmental / quasi-governmental sponsorship of / assistance to all forms of recreational aviation is diminished;

Local authorities are encouraged in applying greater restriction on recreational aviation activity in their area of control.

I'm sure I've missed a lot in that list, but it's a start.

We have vastly more to lose than to gain by being relegated to the classification of a 'Dangerous Recreational Activity.'

The administrators/moderators of any forum have the right to remove any post - that I accept. However, since I did not introduce anything that was sub judice, hearsay, privileged in law, outside the public domain or personal opinion, I reiterate that what was contained in my original post was information germane to the operation of an aircraft in a condition outside of its approved weight limits and some background on the circumstances relating to how one such aircraft achieved registration with the RAA. There are owners of aircraft who - right now - have found that they are in breach of the limits if they operate their aircraft at the weight limits which (I presume) are contained in their POH and appear on their aircraft's placards. Some have had their registration suspended until the approved weight limit placard is affixed to their aircraft - and (also presumably) their POHs amended). Other cases will no doubt follow.

Too passionate? What level of passionate is appropriate for the death of an individual due to being in an aircraft in which he would not have been had the proper weight limit been applied? If you had purchased a vehicle on the reasonable belief that it was approved for six passengers, one of your family had then died in a crash, and then you had been informed that actually, it was only approved to carry four so the other two were not in reality supposed to have been in there , just the paperwork had been stuffed up - would you be content to say 'oh, well, shit happens?' (This is in no way a personal attack, but a genuine question pertaining to what limits we deem appropriate to the passage of information, for the general consumption of forum members).

Let me make another point: if the ultimate defence for failure to observe rules and regulations for the certification/registration/operation of [RAA-class] aircraft is that 'flying [one of these] is an inherently dangerous activity', then what legal power does any of these rules and regulations have? If, in the ultimate legal position, you have taken it upon yourself to engage in an 'inherently dangerous activity' and hence your belief that by adhering to the rules and regulations you have been employing falsely a judgement that the obvious risk involved was acceptably low was rendered legally invalid - would you fly?

The Moderators thought it best to remove it

Oscar said:[/url]↑

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a small aside: while the owners and operators of many imported RAA-class aircraft may be apprehensive about what might happen to their weight limits, the same cannot be said for the owners and operators of our dear old, home-grown, stalwart of the recreational aviation scene: Jabirus (and no, I don't work for Jabiru, I just part-own one). They can confidently plan to continue as always, flying and training etc. in their aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oscar, I thought I saw an earlier post from you where you quoted a NSW Coroner's assessment of evidence given at the Smith/Guthrie Sting crash inquest but I don't seem to be able to find it. Did you withdraw the post for some reason? Can you repost it?

 

 

 

 

 

I am quite strongly aggrieved at this censorship without reason(s) being supplied. I believe that the information I gave - especially since the current situation prime facie appears to replicate the earlier situation of a weight substantiation being invalid according to the requirements that have to be met, by the same aircraft importer - is a valid piece of information for the owner/operators of those aircraft. If this site practices censorship without appropriate reason, then it is, frankly, of limited use to forum members.

Incidentally - your avatar: are you a previous owner of that aircraft? I ask, because I am now a part-owner of it!

As a small aside: while the owners and operators of many imported RAA-class aircraft may be apprehensive about what might happen to their weight limits, the same cannot be said for the owners and operators of our dear old, home-grown, stalwart of the recreational aviation scene: Jabirus (and no, I don't work for Jabiru, I just part-own one). They can confidently plan to continue as always, flying and training etc. in their aircraft.

With the 'good old Jab.', what you get is what is advertised on the box. Actually, a bit more than that, on which I will elaborate further. Yes, a Jab is somewhat of a 'fleet owner' level Commodore or Falcon; yes there are continuing problems with the (2200, particularly) engines. However, Jabirus are designed to meet the Australian ultralight rules, and anybody who has studied the development of those rules will fairly quickly realise that in this country we were a bit ahead of the game internationally in some areas - weight limits being one of those.

Jab. airframes are, if nothing else, tough little buggers. They are well-suited to Australian conditions. If you fly beyond gliding distance of a decent airfield and have a problem that forces you down, a Jab. is arguably the safest aircraft in the RAA class in which to have an 'eventful' landing. They are all over the place like a contagious rash yet the serious injury/fatal rate from accidents is remarkably low, even though they share the general trend of small aircraft accidents in rather often ending up with their legs waving in the air. They get pushed through fences but the structure mitigates the risk of you being decapitated by barbed wire. They get dumped into cane fields, stump-strewn paddocks, beaches, flopped down in the midst of trees.. and mostly the occupants get out shaken but remarkably intact, the aircraft is repaired and life goes on.

Why? Quite simply, the more realistic Australian weight limits allow for a more rugged airframe that still delivers competitive performance - both in terms of real flying in Australian conditions and crash-worthiness. It's worth thinking about.

The 'Llewellyn modification' Blaniks were the only ones left in the world flying after the original grounding, as they had major strengthening work done to the mainspar, attachment carry-through and tailplane that took their service life out to 12,000 hours. There is a German mod. being spruiked that allows a grounded Blanik to go to its 4,000-hour service life. The 'Llewellyn mod' is still available and the first 'new' Blanik to be done in many years re-commenced flying last year.

Was one of the few remaining Blaniks still flying anywhere in the world, by the picture of the rescue efforts - and they are a tough aircraft, so very unlucky as well as extremely sad that it became a fatal. Condolences to all concerned

Bob, hi - yes, Rod Stiff has taken a personal interest in her resuscitation and has already provided a new (J120) fin and rudder (at a most generous price, I must add - for which we thank him) for the project - he believes she will be a better machine with the larger tail area. I've also had some very useful conversations with various members of Jabiru central staff, who have helped with shaping our preferred course for the wing work, and sticking with original wings has MTOW vs useable load benefit. Many people don't realise how much development work Jaubiru have done over the years on their airframes! - yet the original was really a remarkably good device straight out of the box and can still hold its head high amongst the fancy-pants imports.

Hi all.

I'm part of a 2-person syndicate that acquired the original ST1 - serial number #0001 - as a damaged aircraft which we want to get back in the air. It had an EFATO and ended up, like some Jabs, with the wheels pointing skywards.

ST1 #o001. 1 has a bit of Jab history: not only the first VH-reg Jab, but also a test mule for the 2200 engine development. Her wings were damaged; we acquired her with two replacement wings BUT one is an original series wing, the other a later wing that has different aileron (longer) and flap (shorter) lengths and a different fuselage attachment set-up . We can use either but we need a matching wing to the one we use.

So we're looking for solid-foam core wing(s). We need either: an early-series (1/4", low mount wing attachment points on the root rib) starboard wing OR a later-series (5/16", high-mount wing attachment points) port wing.

The spacing between the fuselage attachment points needs to be 570mm centre-to-centre.

Lightly-damaged wings (e.g. hail damage, hangar rash, attack by fence-post) are acceptable provided the mainspar and lift-strut attachment point is not damaged - subject to inspection. Such wings may have been an insurance write-off - we expect to have to undertake some repair / restoration work.

If anyone knows of any early wings sitting forlornly in someone's hangar or shed, we'd dearly love to hear about them. If you could call Richard on: 02 4889 8116, I'll pass on an email contact so we can converse further.

We are determined that good 'ol #0001 will fly again - any help would be very, very welcome!