Oscar

Oops, that jogged my memory, it was the Foka 5 I wanted to fly, the 4 was the original development model for the 5, I think?

 

 

Come now, Turbs - not vilified, surely? Ridiculed, I can understand.

 

 

This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.....

Fortunately for the future of recreational aviation in Australia, the RAA Board has a more intelligent view of the CASA action

 

 

I didn't like the Boomerangs all-flying tail.Kaz

Loved the Boomer - though flying it has left me with an ineradicable (it seems) propensity to sideslip every approach! (Brakes? - what brakes?). First single-seater was an Arrow, thence to the Boomer which was like going from an Austin 7 to a Healey 100/4.. From the Boomer to a Pilatus B4 (YAWN), then to a Club Astir (yawn) and a Club Libelle ( whatever..) Next up, an IS29D2 ( YOWZA!!), then a race-prepared Hornet ( This Sucker SMOKES), then a quick 300k once-only flight in a Libelle 201B, which I would have adopted/married/had its children, it was so NICE to fly. I never got to try a Foka 4, which I would have crawled over broken glass to fly. They had a reputation of being just the most delightful thing to fly, perfectly balanced in every aspect.

 

 

Anybody who thinks this action is simply about Jabiru and CASA suddenly awakening to a 'situation' is being naive. Dick Smith as Chairman rammed through many changes; as a result, CASA lost a large number of its best technical people and what was left became increasingly focussed on self-preservation; CASA legal office waged a major power campaign within the organisation and other areas became a series of warring fiefdoms operating largely behind their own fortifications.

 

When Bruce Byron was appointed as CEO, he spent many months consulting at a face-to-face level with the industry; it was not unknown for Byron to materialise at an aviation organisation and sit down and talk to the people there about their problems and CASA. As a result, the entrenched power bases in some cases joined forces to directly oppose and negate things Byron wanted to achieve. It got so bad that some of those were removed from office (and the premises) summarily when an email specifically inciting 'rebellion' against Byron was circulated internally, but reached Byron's office.

 

The timing of this latest CASA action is far too coincidental with the appointment of a new DAS - Mark Skidmore - who appears to not share the entrenched antipathy towards Sport Aviation ( or perhaps more accurately, any non-CASA directly controlled aviation activity) than did McCormick and his fellow seat-warmer Farquharson. The phrase 'indecent haste' has been applied and should resonate with those who can see beyond their focus on Jabiru. If there had been a history of CASA interacting with Jabiru to address 'problems' that had consistently been rebuffed, then one could perhaps agree that CASA could have become exasperated and forced into the position it has taken; however that is not the case.

 

There is no history of audit - finding - remedial requirement being enunciated - remedial requirement being ignored that provides a decently transparent trail that justifies this action. Nor is there simple evidence of failure to comply with a known standard by Jabiru that would justify a sudden and un-signalled clamp-down. We have other areas of activity where the danger (including concerning numbers of fatalities) happen - e.g. quad-bike accidents, where the regulator has been consulting with the industry for a decent period of time without suddenly resorting to an ill-considered response.

 

This is an action which sets a precedent that creates a serious threat to sports aviation across the board.

 

 

From memory, there have been three fatals - all apparently stall/spin incidents - with S 26's in the last about three years, with two of them ending up on surburban streets. I think that represents about 10% of the Australian fleet?

 

 

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

Which was accepted by the Court in the case of Noel Campbell v Rodney Victor Hay [2013] NSWDC 11

 

 

FH, I'd also add the word hysterical.Some people have trouble with CASA, tens of thousands don't.

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

 

 

All this Auster talk finally got David out of his cave!You mentioned a C-185. I am currently sitting at YQDI waiting for the air to get less lumpy, and there is one parked here. A seriously heavy-duty item with a largish engine.

Fond memories of sitting on the floor (hanging on to sweet bugger-all) in the back of a stripped-out 'newspaper taxi' C-185 being flown by a Qantas Captain out of Moorabbin while he engaged in a mock-dog-fight with his cousin in a Cherokee 6, in the days when such shenanigans in the TZ would not get officially noticed... If I could get sufficient competence in power flying to be able to do half-decently by a C185, I would die a happy man.

 

 

If you have the fine pitch prop on the Auster J1B or N you can get off in less than 150 metres. They were a real STOL aircraft in their day.

With a bit of breeze on the nose and lots of (current) Tug pilot experience, I think you could get them in in a bit less than that... provided the brakes were absolutely on the mark, which is, I believe, a bit of an oxymoron for Austers. My brother had a J1B and used to land on one of the taxiways beside de Havilland's shed at Bankstown when he commuted from Mittagong strip, until the local CFI's complained to the Tower that he was giving a bad example to students who seemed to get the idea that the runways were completely optional.. He had to put down on a croppie strip on Razorback to clean the plugs one time; after he had tied down and gone to work, one of the de Hav. workers came into the design office and asked him if he'd like the bits of tree removed from the rh leg...

 

 

Hmm, I need to be careful on this one... A local to me. email me for more info; I'll not put it on any public forum. Suffice it to say he's known in the local aviation community.

 

 

Aha, different Helmut - which is a good thing.

 

 

Helmut - last name, please?

 

 

There is a story ( possibly apocryphal, though I heard it from a reputable source) that Max flew an Auster to visit Nestor Slepchev at Nestor's own field, which I understand was very short. Nestor was apparently rather taken aback that he'd gotten in ok, and then told him he'd never get it out. Max thanked him for the advice but said he'd 'have a go', and proceeded to leave with as much fuss as he'd arrived - none at all..

 

 

Thin end of the wedge? I and I'm sure you, have just received a CASA email detailing a warning about Rotax engines failing in flight. Does this mean that CASA are about to inflict the same grief on Rotax owners that they have already saddled us Jabiru owners with? I've been following these discussions with interest and overall have noted one thing CASA have right; the old saying "United we stand, divided we fall" instead of standing together as a community of like minded enthusiasts, there is so much divisiveness that we are making CASA's apparent intention of destroying Sport Aviation easy! I find that incredibly disappointing.

Would this be a reaction by CASA to the ATSB figures showing an upsurge of problems with Rotax engines in 2013?

 

 

It does get new CAE data plate so is not a Jabiru anymore

This is in writing from CASA now Ive heard.

CASA has supplied confirmation in writing that: the CAMIT engine is not subject to the operational limitations described in 292/14, as this engine is not manufactured by a person under licence from, or under a contract with Jabiru.

 

 

Where the 'logic' behind the CASA action is full of holes, is that the entire argument fundamentally hinges on 'potential' harm, and one thing that is very obvious from the statistics is that Jabiru has an extremely good record in that area.

 

Whether you wish to argue that that is a result of safer flying practices because of a heightened apprehension of the possibility of failure, or better occupant protection which is in part a result of additional airframe robustness available to the manufacturer by utilising the weight advantage of the engine, doesn't really matter: the fact is, that on fatality statistics alone, many other recreational aircraft have a demonstrated history of lesser safety than Jabiru.

 

Anybody who doesn't realise that there are really serious potential consequences for the entire recreational fleet from this action, is not thinking the issues through.

 

 

Ian Boag has reported on doing a 912 swap ( and I believe he got his 912 at a 'good' price), as $40k-plus and a hell of a lot more work and vastly more frustration than he'd anticipated.

 

 

He's your brother. Talk to him!

Um.. we were never that close...

 

 

http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdfThis is the article that will cause some headaches for CASA.

DON'T MENTION THE WAR! Especially, don't introduce an article that shows a Rotax-powered aircraft sitting in someone's surburban backyard following an engine failure, FFS!.

 

 

Gandalph, this is not about CAMit, it's about de-railing the outbreak of any commentary that isn't vituperative towards Jabiru. Get with the programme here!

 

 

Trying to get Rod to see anybody else's POV is like trying to get a fish to ride a bicycle... but that doesn't excuse CASA for playing a dirty game. Part of this saga has to do with internal CASA politics and to use Jab. owners and operators as cannon-fodder is an inexcusable abuse of power. The extension of the limitation to experimental aircraft is a clear contravention of CASA's own regulations; neither side is going to come out oif this looking at all good, and in the meantime, the collateral damage is already bad and could get far worse.

 

 

That's what I think I remember from doing our engine at CAMit - 24 ft/lbs. But, we were doing the complete assembly in somewhat of a hurry so I certainly wouldn't put 2-bob on that being authoritative...

 

 

Ah, my bad reading! I'm stuck in the groove of Imperial (for torque) - force of old habits. I saw 50 and snapped into 50-ft/lbs. I agree, 50 NM shouldn't raise a sweat on the threads.

 

 

Ornis - the belt-drive alternator doesn't have a primary effect on the flywheel attachment per se, but it does provide some harmonic balancing to the crank which somewhat reduces the oscillating forces on the flywheel, so you might consider it as a 'secondary effect' improvement. (As an additional 'value-added' for the CAMit alternator, the use of a standard automotive-type regulator will give you a far more reliable voltage delivery, which you'd appreciate if you run an iPad/iPhone off a cabin-power outlet or want to run a LiFePo4 battery - neither of which I'd be keen to consider with the standard Jab alternator set-up.)

 

I wouldn't be too eager to pull the capscrews to 'shit-all' tight, as there isn't a huge amount of metal round the threads in the crank and if you raise the end of the threads you'll actually reduce the friction grip between the flywheel and the crank. I don't have the CAMit assembly manual for CAE engines here with me at the moment to check (it's a more useful document than the Jab Manual) so I can't check what CAMit uses for cap-screw tension. It's a gamer person than I who'd try to second-guess Ian, he's done an awful lot of work on those engines..

 

Was your core assembled or was it just the components? If it was assembled then you probably haven't seen the new CAMit through bolts in the flesh, as it were, which is a pity - they are far more reassuring than the Jab ones.