Oscar

Yep, Merv, Team RAA.. Feck Yeah...

 

 

I will rest easy knowing at least, finally, someone, somewhere is trying to fix the problem.

Merv - commiseration.

 

It would appear, from the comments of Andy and Don, that the CEO is 'off the hook' in regard to an official RAA jihad against Jabiru. Now, I would hope that an official comment from said CEO that the comment reported was false will be forthcoming, but even without that it looks as if your peaceful nights are off the agenda - again. I'd like to say that I share your pain - but we both know that that would be a continuance of bullsh1T, wouldn't we? Still, chin up, me old China, maybe one day it will happen. If the Heavens are warming up - as we are informed - than Hell will be experiencing a significant drop in its ambient. Possibly even enough to induce Carby ice?

 

 

Who needs brumby parts? Anyway, we cant all use parts from supercheap.

Merv: help will soon be at hand for your parts-supply envy problem! Bunnings have a buy policy that basically says to China: 'send 20 containers of anything'. I reckon you can confidently expect that there will be Brumby parts shelf on Aisle 24, stuck between the Pool Cleaner equipment and the 16-burner Barbeques, (and with the caveat of the fact that the ACTUAL part you need is not there - it never bloody is at Bunnings) - you'll be jake! And Selleys will have 'Brumby in a tube' parts anyway, very soon.

 

 

The private letter I wrote was to one Board Member who is a L2 and CFI and a successful operator of Jab engines and eminently capable of coming to his own conclusions. My urging was that the investigation needed to have the same vigour as if a report was being prepared for the Coroner for a multiple fatality accident. Too often we get fed that an engine failure in flight is no big deal you just land the aircraft.

Don, if the said Board Member is who I think you may mean (SEQ-based) then I reckon you couldn't have made a better choice.

 

And I absolutely support the idea that far more in-depth investigation of engine failure (and let's broaden that to ALL engine failures, the maker's name alone doesn't keep the prop turning) is way overdue. If we had a base of comprehensive information about the genuine causes of the failure, rather than just a cursory note about the failed component, we would have good picture of what needs to be done to improve matters. I believe that picture would include not only 'component' susceptibility to failure but also a far more informative picture of other areas that can lead, in a chain of circumstances, to a failure.

 

At the moment, about all we have are a few 'boxes' into which the causes - and in many cases, the real cause(s) are not discovered, all that is known is the effect - get placed. We are all aware that those 'boxes' have increasingly become more widely separated, with one camp shouting incessantly 'component failure' and the other tending to re-buff with 'maintenance / operation' when it is rarely the case that you can make such a clear separation.

 

Without going into chapter and verse here, because it is both a vexed and also a highly complex matter, suffice it to say that the lack of comprehensive information serves nobody well, or even possibly at all. It gives rise to competing accusations and 'conclusions' that are jumped at, sometimes from a great distance and with a huge amount of vigor. Apart from keeping some aviation sites bubbling along with arguments, I don't see it improving things.

 

 

Well, I say not a day too soon...maybe we finally have a CEO with a pair hey?

Hallejulah! Testosterone is WAY, WAY more important than intellect, especially when lives, incomes and progress is considered. Shut down those 2,000 or so Jabiru owner/operators. Obliterate about 2/3rds of the RAA fleet. Excise the foundation stone of the Australian LSA industry. Oh, and by the way, you will be getting your Brumby parts from China in future..good luck with that..

 

 

Oh dear. I guess the text in this scan was Photoshopped to include the reported comments from Michael Linke. Damn neat job, I have to admit, as an industrial user of Photoshop.

 

 

You are tying yourself up in knots Oscar drawing conclusions of your own which go way beyond what I remember seeing.

Fair enough, Turbs. I presume you had a hardcopy of the Courier Mail to support your side of the debate?

 

 

Can you tell us where he said this?

No, I cannot, I have only the report on this thread. I did say 'it seems', and if no such statement was ever made, then obviously my comment is not based on fact. If the reported comment is either the imagination of a reporter OR of the poster of that information, then I unreservedly apologise to the CEO - and am very happy that no such statement was, in fact, made. The specifics of the reputed statement suggest more than just a complete fabrication on the part of a reporter.

 

HOWEVER: if there is any truth in the post made on this thread, I stand by my comment. Leaving aside any issues about whether IN FACT, Jabirus have a statistically damning rate of 'crashes' ( and for that to be correct, we need the total hours flown for the breed vs. 'accidents' that are NOT pilot error - and on that score, injury/fatal results need to be considered), the proposition that the most populous aircraft brand being flown under RAA auspices has been branded as 'unsafe' by the CEO of RAA, has a huge reflection on RAA operations.

 

Just think about this: an in-depth 'investigation' by a tabloid reporter takes this alleged statement as proof that RAA is condoning the operation of a majority of its aircraft despite it admitting that they are 'unsafe'. Where does that leave we RAA aircraft owner/operators? Up a certain creek, and sans paddles.

 

Is that what you seek? That RAA should be excised from the scene as some sort of 'outlaw' operation, promoting/accepting the use of 'unsafe' devices? How many regional airports continue to exist because of RAA operation? How many FTFs, L2's, manufacturers exist on RAA activity alone? How many people fly under RAA auspices?

 

 

Agreed FT, but when RAAus finally gets our registration records computerised it should be a doddle for someone to extract quite useful statistics.

Trouble there is, at the moment (as far as I know) what is being done is scanning the paper docs. Unless they're using a very sophisticated OCR programme to turn those into text (and in my experience, OCR is extremely haphazard at recognising text unless it's all in one font, which it won't be), that makes the records unsearchable. So - apart from the fact that with the scanned records available, actual human reading of the records to extract information can be outsourced from the RAA HQ, actually getting a specific piece of information from the records remains a highly labour-intensive task.

 

What is desperately needed is for RAA to get the records into a database with a sensible field structure AND using normalised vocabulary. To a degree, applying Google search algorithms to a data source can produce impressive results, but you really need very advanced data mining techniques to get anything like reliable search results.

 

 

As is the case with a lot of what is reported in the press, people jump to conclusions way too early and get it way too wrong way too often.I am disappointed that our new RAAus CEO has dropped Jabiru in the deep end and held their head under water by bad mouthing them in the media after only a few weeks in the job. He has not done Jabiru or any Jabiru owner any good by trashing them in public rather than dealing with any possible problem with engine reliability in private.

Personally I would like to see him sort out the administrative mess that is the aircraft registration system before running around saying things in the papers especially if as in this case it was factually incorrect to blame the aircraft.

This is a bad look, on any inspection of it. The new CEO has - it seems - shot his mouth off and managed to simultaneously make himself look rather foolish, while also conveying to the readers of the article that one of the most populous aircraft in the RAA fleet has 'serious' safety issues. I have no idea of the depth of knowledge he may have of aviation in general and RAA operation specifically, but I do not recall that being highlighted in the commentary when he was appointed. Prima facie, that seems to be fairly well up there on the scale of two shots to the foot without pausing to re-load.

 

 

Let's not turn the RAA into a make work project.

So it's a better option to rely on hearsay and 'urban wisdom'?

 

 

Why?

Er, because the sun moves north? Happens every year, I think...

 

 

Yes, that's the chart I checked up on before making that comment. There's nothing we appear to know that suggests that it was icing and not fuel, but the conditions certainly put the thing pretty much smack in the middle of the worst-case scenario for icing, if the chart is to be believed.

 

 

To use a very simplistic example: let's say that 'X' died from heart failure, while consuming a meal of potted quail and artichokes.

 

The facts that 'X' had a BMI of 38, had run up three flights of stairs immediately prior to dinner, was a 50-cigarettes-a-day person, had a cholesterol level of 15 and had just had a major, major row with his spouse prior to sitting down to dinner, goes unrecorded.

 

Ban potted quail. It's pretty damn obvious, isn't it?

 

 

Merv - totally agree. I can't effectively read the gauges in a 160 even with my bi-focals when strapped in, BUT I can read the log book with the last full fill time and the hours run since then and calculate at a conservative fuel burn and work out by mental arithmetic roughly how much fuel SHOULD be in there. Unless there is a leak in the fuel delivery system, it's pretty bloody basic as to whether you have the requisite fuel for a planned trip.

 

 

I'll do my best Oscar. Thanks Nev

Nev - hope this gets to you in time before you leave:

 

1) If you're seeking a place to stay in Bundy, the Big4 Cane Caravan OPark is excellent (apart from the bloody resident Koel..). And:

 

2) go to : http://www.grunskesbytheriver.com.au/and get some Bundy local Banana prawns for your evening meal. Cook then how you like them best, magic on a stick.

 

 

OK, Patrick's question is fair, but smacks of conspiracy theory.

 

The popularity of RAA aircraft in Australia is - I believe - in no small way due to the fact that Jabiru commenced to produce an affordable, decent-handling, intrinsically safe and competent aircraft some 25 years ago. No other aircraft ever produced in Australia has the international sales success that Jabiru have achieved. No other Australian manufacturer has produced an aircraft engine with decent international sales.

 

In terms of Jabiru's achievements - can I point out that Cessna have FAILED to produce an LSA-class aircraft, and pulled out of the market. Piper didn't even try to produce their own, picked up a European mini-manufacturer product, FAILED to make it a viable LSA-class aircraft. Bombadier has never even bothered, nor has Boeing, Airbus Industries, Tupolev...

 

Yes, perhaps it's reasonable to query whether RAA is overawed by Jabiru. I don't personally see it; if one has that conception, it would be useful to us all to provide any tangible evidence for it. Without presenting a viable case for the assertion, it remains in the area of 'tin hats necessary, and there was a third shooter on the grassy knoll' area.

 

Jabirus are not perfect - no aircraft is. But on balance, they offer a damn good opportunity for people to commit aviation without taking stupid risks at a pretty good dollar/hour of enjoyment ratio. There may well be statistically better aircraft out there, I'm damn sure there are plenty worse.

 

 

Might work if you get unbiased people who have real experience at troubleshooting. I'm dropping in at CAMit in about 5 weeks. Today is my last day on this computer for 7 weeks Nev

Nev - hope you have a great trip. I think we'd all like a report on your CAMit visit - I know some people are finding my enthusiasm for what they are doing to be somewhat tiresome and the more reports, the more balanced the picture will be for everyone.

 

 

I was wondering why there was no fire when the wing got ripped off.Good bit of planning to not have any fuel on board when doing an out landing.

 

I wrote a letter this morning to a Board a Member saying enough with Jab engines!

 

Casually wipes egg off face . . .

If Don's letter managed to get the Board to devote some resources (or even just press-gang some experienced say L2's/L4's into helping) assemble the facts behind Jabiru engine failures, I'd certainly support it.

 

What is almost universally (it seems) reported, is the nature of the failure ( through-bolts snapping, valve heads dropping off etc.) - and following that, a heap of comments appear that jump to an immediate conclusion that usually reflects a commonly-held opinion. What is almost never reported is the actual cause of the failure - and that may be a complex set of circumstances including a sequence of events that, when taken and considered in their entirety, would paint a far more comprehensive picture of why the failure happened.

 

If we routinely had such complete information, it would be highly probable that a lot of chaff would be sorted from the wheat and everybody - including Jabiru - would have a far better picture of problem areas. However, this is really worth a thread on its own, rather than being hashed through here

 

 

HITC, it was a tongue-in-cheek joke... it is critically important (though technically not difficult) to use the correct laminate with the correct weave orientation, the correct scarfing ratio, the correct prep, application conditions and post-application temp. control etc. And to make test coupons and test the buggers..

 

However, all of that is manageable for a Jab. airframe without having an extensive facility, just a decently set-up one, IF you do the job properly. That is the underlying point I was hinting at. In the early days of Jabiru, Rod Stiff would fly out to (at least some) crashes, e.g. beach overturns and do things up to and including replacement/significant repairs to the fin ( I believe) on the spot. When we replaced the fin on our ST1 with a UL450 fin (and rudder), I made up a fancy adjustable jig specifically for that purpose, and have tested the resultant new fin to limit load condition, duplicating the factory test load condition exactly (well, actually, slightly exceeding it).

 

The point is, that if you have a composite airframe that has been, for example, post-cured to high temp under very exacting conditions of manufacture in order to meet the strength requirements for certification, you can't effectively repair it unless you can duplicate the factory manufacturing conditions. If you don't have access to such a facility, then pretty much the only possible repair is by replacement.

 

 

More or less correct - I do what the guy who did the stuff to certify the airframe tells me to do. Then I test it to meet the requirements he gives me for testing. Then he writes an EO.

 

 

:victory:Iisnt it great ! That's all you need to specialise in jab rebuilds !

 

Well, that and the instructions from the guy who did the structural validation of the airframe, did the factory builds for some years, runs a CASA-approved 'glass shop... oh, and having held a DoT 'glass repair approval (and a CoA issuing approval) probably means I have a wee bit of prior experience. But nothing beats taking test coupons and having them meet the requirements.

 

 

At 7.30 this morning, in Brisbane it was 9.8C and 72% humidity, dew point 5C. Descent power....

 

 

Well, dang - and here's me, with an ice-cream container, a paddlepop stick, a litre of LC3600 and some e-glass all ready to go...

 

 

Update channel 7 , 6 o'clock news. Aircraft flew to Nth Stradbroke Is only. On the return leg to Archerfield, the engine failed . Also they said that it will not be rebuilt. I guess 2 crashes in a year is enough.

Anybody know the Insurance company? I specialise in rebuilding totalled Jabs.....