Oscar

When you buy an aircraft either used or new, you are really buying the engine first, that's the important bit that keeps you in the air ultimately ....................Maj....

Well, that pearl of wisdom will come as a shock to glider pilots.

 

 

Yes, I was being a bit cheeky, and of course you are correct - structural failure was probably not a significant cause of early crashes, but lack of proper training and a host of other reasons to do with human factors (in general) was the primary culprit. I doubt there was sufficient competent investigation done to sort out mechanical issues from pilot error in those days, unless it was blindingly obvious. However, AUF certainly pushed hard for an upgrade to the limitations on ultralights so that proper training could be carried out and more sensible operating restrictions so flying in a better safety envelope could be done.

 

My point is more that there are many people who want - and are prepared to pay for - the performance, safety and capability of more expensive machines. These have evolved and become more the 'norm' than some sort of aberration of the whole idea of 'cheap aviation'; I don't believe that the sector has 'lost its way' as some proclaim, but has perhaps developed divergent paths that are ever-widening and the regulations designed to cover the operational envelope for the 'bigger, faster' etc. aircraft are really no longer appropriate to the whole ethos of the 'just flit around having fun' brigade. I think we have passed beyond the point where a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime works.

 

 

Has been discussed before, is to do with curing temps of the fibreglass, when new the 40 deg lomit is importantIll also say performance is pretty ordinary and temps do get out of control and they dont want to climb much.

The rough conditions only really come into play after midday mostly and can calm down by 1800 so leave early, fly high and slow down in descents in these bad times. There sure are days when i washed i hadnt decided to fly

The minimum quoted Glass Transition temperature for lc3600 cured at 25C ( i.e. fairly much ambient for Jabirus since the minimum construction temp is normally quoted at 24C) is 50C, so there's a fair bit of margin there. Certainly it's the reason why nothing other than white is acceptable on the upper surfaces. Perhaps Jabiru are becoming very conservative (and they have always been reasonably conservative in all their performance claims, relying on only properly conducted tests to required flight test specifications), but I'd not be surprised if the reason has more to do with maintaining an acceptable climb performance than simply structural reasons.

 

 

This seems to be another reprise of a hoary old argument that's been going around for yonks.

 

RAA evolved from the AUF and the HORSCOT enquiry was the chief motivator for that. The reason for the HORSCOT enquiry was the safety record of ultralight aviation, with the single-seater, ludicrously light weight and height (and to a degree, I suspect also) area restrictions that applied. The AUF fought for better aircraft and more sensible restrictions on use, so that (for a start) actual flight training could be accomplished using 2-seat aircraft.

 

The quid pro quo for heavier, more capable and less restricted aircraft was quite obviously going to be more regulation. That is a sine qua non of our society. As soon as you move from the 'If I want to kill myself, it's my damn business' of having an unregistered paddock-basher on your own place to interacting with public space, you have to accept greater regulation. (and let's not get into the philosophical argument of whether one has the right to even kill oneself in private without doing harm to others, since Church, State and the medical profession will all call your right invalid. Oh, and be sure you've done your BAS before you take leave of the mortal coil.)

 

RAA-class aircraft in Australia (and we rather led the way there) evolved along with the new regime, with manufacturers such as Lightwing, Jabiru, Skyfox et al. coming into being. These are all competent aircraft with varying degrees of capability and safety far removed from a plastic chair suspended under an umbrella powered by a chainsaw engine. You can go places in them and carry more than a copy of your will in your back pocket to assist those who have to recover your body.

 

The market success of these aircraft says quite simply that there are people who wanted the greater capability, safety etc. That's human nature for you. The goggomobile - a cheap and nasty but basically capable means of transporting people across the terrain, is no more and there are no modern equivalents. If there were a market for it, I imagine BMW would still make the Isetta 600, but it seems to be doing ok with a range of cars that start, (I think) from around $50k and go to what - $250k +?)

 

Perhaps it is time for a break-away group to secede from the RAA and go back to the string-and-glad-wrap days. Good luck to you; having done an extensive rebuild on a Thruster and found, to my horror, that it featured componentry that I would not put in a Mirror dinghy, I shan't be joining you. I support the right of the individual to do as he or she pleases as longs as it harms nobody else - and for that reason, I would rather see this class of (using the term loosely) aircraft entirely distinguished from RAA. Perhaps that itself should be inverted, and the 450kg+, two-seater aircraft be re-designated as 'Light Aviation', so that the safety record of one class of aircraft can be classed as 'Recreational' and live with the possibility of being lumped as a 'Dangerous Recreational Activity' with the regulatory freedom, restricted areas of operation and insurance negation that will likely result.

 

Perhaps, if CASA can be induced to accept some changes in thinking, the RPL plus an RAA-style owner-maintenance regime can sort out the anomalies of the wide disparity in types and cost of small aircraft. That might break the apparent nexus of having to have minimal aircraft and competent aircraft forced to share one bed.

 

 

and from the J160POH:Extrapolation outside the boundaries of the Take-Off Distance Table is not permitted. When the outside air temperature and/or pressure height is below the lowest range included in the table, the aircraft performance shall be assumed to be no better than that appropriate to this lowest range. The performance information is not valid when the outside air temperature and/or pressure height exceeds the maximum values for which this information is scheduled.

 

The chart only goes up to 38*

 

So i think its "implied" in the 160 POH, then "stated" in the 170 POH for clarification. If extrapolation is not allowed, then above 38* sounds like a no-go.

Well, thanks for that. Most interesting; no such climatic limitation statement appears in the J120 POH. The ambient temp. limit for the 170 suggests some sort of structural reason, whereas the statements for the 160 seem to me to be more a 'this table of performance is only valid between these limits', rather than a specific injunction that the thing can't be flown if ambient exceeds 38C. Certainly worth finding out more information if you are a 170 owner, for sure!r

 

 

Sadly can't fly jabirus in temps above 40degC. In the POH, we'll is in the LSA models and early 170's. Savannah loves the hot weather. Claims a bit less, down from 1000 ft/min to about 700 when it's 42degC.

I do not see this limitation in either the J120 or J160 POH, can you please provide the wording of this limitation in the POHs you referenced?

 

 

Ok....the engine is now back together, fired up beautifully, did the required ground run ups, then took to the air and the required air stuff was done.She,s singing like a canary, temps and all that......perfect.

Friend, long time pilot, on board with lame, says sweet as.

 

I,m a happy chapy, pity about the weather tho, winds/rain etc looks like it,s set in for some time.

 

Oscar......yes have touched base with Ian, it,s now the "waiting game" re his engine, let,s see.

Russ - sounds good!. Hope the 'touch base' with Ian was productive; he's the most knowledgeable and the straightest shooter I've ever come across re Jab. engines and the amount of work he puts into researching the problems is amazing. He kept a watchful eye over us when we were rebuilding our engine at his place and we asked every dumb question re how things worked you could imagine (plus made and then recitifed many dumb rookie-Jab-engine-builder's mistakes, as the guys there set our feet on the right path), and he didn't just say 'do it this way', but took us off to his computer many times and showed us the drawings, FE analysis etc. and explained the whole 'effect chain' of mods. He doesn't throw a band-aid at a problem but chases every rabbit down every burrow and everything he tries, he personally flies first in his J230 before anybody else gets to use them. He's an aerobatics nut so you can petty much assume that he gives them a decent workout, too.

 

 

For a high RoC starting with nearly zero inertia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLYhW6ZB4bI. And when the string breaks, you push over REALLY hard and don't do a damn thing with either stick or rudder until you have airspeed and 1g back on the bum, then you start thinking about your options. Any winch-rated glider pilot has to be trained to recover from a cable break at any height in the launch, and the only thing that one gets is bruised knuckles from jamming the stick into the panel..

 

 

Amendment! Just recognised your 160 is 24-reg, so CAMit mods are not allowable, which is a real pity. Unless it's a C model, which means that a Part 21M aero-engineer could sign them off, but your timing is probably just too soon for the CAMit mods to have the test results in to the satisfaction of any Part 21M engineer to sign them off, other than the select few who actually have worked with CAMit.

 

FWIW, our little ST1 rebuild includes a partial CAMit-upgraded engine and as a 55-reg aircraft we can have those mods signed off by a Part 21M engineer and we have the luxury of access to two who know Jabirus, Jabiru engines and CAMit's mods in great depth. We rebuilt our engine at CAMit but held off on the 'new' CAMit-improved heads until they have the requisite ticks of approval, which are in progress. Our strategy is to fly, with due attention to CHTs, on the old (thick-finned! ) heads until we can easily move to the new heads, so it'd be a fair representation to say we are using a 'half--way house' approach and realising the 'capital' we have in our current heads. Yes, we recognise that we have to fly with strict attention to CHTs etc. and we'll be installing CHT and EGT probes on all cylinders to ensure that happens.

 

We have decided that it's more cost-effective to put a couple of hundred hours on our 'old' heads with careful flying, to be able to later bolt-on CAMit's improved heads when they have the necessary ticks of approval. We aren't even considering the possibility of transplanting to the 'Chinese' engine later on, because we believe - on the evidence of having damn well seen and talked through the CAMit developments with the man who is developing them - they are simply a better option. We do have some reason to sustain our belief in this, but that won't be confirmed until the release version of the 'Chinese' engine is available for inspection. That is rumored to be quite soon now.

 

Bottom line: if I were in your position, I'd firstly: contact CAMit and discuss the engine, and secondly: decide what is the best economic path for your engine work. Just a refurbish of your engine, if it isn't seriously compromised, may give you a couple of years of flying reasonably cheaply while you can await the real-time results of CAMit's developments vs purchasing a new Jabiru 'Chinese' engine. A 160 is a very couth way of flying distance in Aus. conditions.

 

 

At around 350hrs I noticed a softness in 2 cyls, especially when cold, but improved a lot when hot, but still soft. Performance was a tad down generally.I,m glad we have done this exercise, couple of minor defects showed up as well, ( oil seepage underside 1mag ....internal seal was defecting, 2heads were just beginning to leak at the head/cyl joint, could see where the joint was indenting into the head surface in a small area.....hence poor sealing, thereby leaking. Suspect air leakage into inlet tube at the joint chamber of the carby.....those 4 inlet tubes carby to engine. )

Combustion chambers indicated lean mix even the 2 good chambers, so upgrade carby jets to current specs.

 

Overall, she was good, yea I,m looking forward to some really big trips, the 160 is really comfy, great endurance, strong, has proven to me it handles those "ugly times" just great. After sales service......excellent.

 

Yes......I love me 160.

Russ, I don't want to be alarmist here, but if you have obvious evidence of lean running then it's possible you've been running at least some cylinders overtemp (if you have chts on all cylinders, then you will obviously know about that) and just maybe some detonation. Either will have potentially serious consequences for a Jab. motor down the line and it'd be a damn shame for you to do the work and not get a decent life out of the thing afterwards.

 

Can I suggest that, if you can afford the time, contacting CAMit to see if it's worth sending your heads there for inspection, measuring and if they are ok, installing the inhibitor mod? CAMit has a laser-measuring machine that checks all over the heads so if there's any warpage it'll show up, (I think). If 'twere me, I'd get the valve guides (especially the exhaust valve guides) checked and possibly replaced and seriously consider throwing in the new CAMit rocker gear, it's a really nice upgrade.

 

A chat to Ian Bent is really worth it, he can give you the full information about what to be wary of with Jab. engines that may have gotten too hot, right down to potential case-sealing issues, and he absolutely knows the 'chain of circumstances' that can happen to a Jab. engine from use. As with all close-tolerance 'systems', a problem that is apparently isolated to one area of that 'system' can have what might be called 'collateral effects', and Ian and his people know every one of them. On the theory that forewarned is forearmed and that the time to discover you've not noticed some other 'downstream' problem is not when you've a vast way out in the boonies where even a relatively minor issue could be way more expensive than when it's found at home, I'd reckon that 20 minutes on the phone is cheap insurance.

 

 

So is relying on a newspaper article to derive the notion that we have the facts. ;)

So is relying on the newspaper article equally justification to assume that the engine was the problem?

 

 

Oscar while I agree that this accident can't be blamed on the engine I think that after you have had an engine out landing due to "faulty valve" (if it was switched off that makes my argument void) if it was blocked by dirty fuel or similar don't you think it would be wise to treat it as "possibly unreliable" (nothing to do with the engine itself but if it stopped with a blocked valve what's stopping it getting blocked again as soon as you have taken off? Maybe the failed take off saved a bigger disaster later?)I guess what I'm trying to say is if I was a pax in this case I would hope that I wouldn't get back into that plane until the fuel had been drained and fresh fuel put in (putting the beach take off aside for the minute) as I would consider the engine unreliable till that was done (nothing to do with jab problems but just on the fuel situation alone.)

 

As I mentioned earlier if the valve was turned off then all this dribble I've just written is null and void:duck for cover:

I completely agree - I would not have remotely considered attempting that take-off in the circumstances , and cleaning a blocked valve beggars the question of what caused the problem? Short of discovering a faulty valve component and replacing that - and doing some testing to see if the fuel flow remained correct, for which we have no evidence - I consider the PIC to be a nitwit. However, if one has identified a fault in the fuel supply chain, has apparently rectified that problem and the (downstream) engine itself is functioning correctly post that rectification, for a third party to state that the engine itself is a potential problem is simply not supported by the chain of circumstances. What I object to is the assertion that in all cases of the propellor ceasing to turn on a Jabiru, the problem has to be a fault of the engine.

 

I share with many others the belief that Jabiru-spec. engines are less robust than is desirable, and in rebuilding ours we have incorporated a number of improvements to the standard engine purely because we believe they are better than the standard items in a Jabiru-spec. engine. However, I consider that deriving a 'suspect engine' condition from an engine stoppage due to fuel delivery problems is a bridge way too far and a complete abrogation of responsible commentary.

 

 

Oscar, my comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry

No offense taken, sport. It's a phrase I use myself - and usually supportive of the person who uttered it rather than as a point to combat. Yes, I tend to hit the end of my chain at the bovine manure spread by the Major in regard to Jabirus; if we as a group accept that there should be freedom of commentary, I do tend to take it as a right to counter the incessant flow of ignorant vitriol from that poster. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

 

 

Mate you must have read a different post. I can't see Maj bashing jabs here? He sai a " possible suspect engine" . Pointing out the airmanship failings on display here seems to me to be almost a given.This thread is not a jab bash. Please don't make it so. The failings on dislay are

Much more important than a jabiru plug. Your points are very valid regarding jabiru, but perhaps another thread would be the go?

At what point do you consider the 'possible suspect engine' to be a factor? The videos referenced show the engine running prior to the attempt to take-off absolutely faultlessly; the NZ TV video explicitly states that a faulty fuel valve was the problem. This accident was a total stuff-up on the part of the PIC; bringing the reliability of the engine into question is an expression of an entrenched attitude towards Jabiru engines that is completely not proven by the circumstances. Provide me with any evidence that the phrase ' a possible suspect engine' is justified in this case and I will acknowledge the point.

 

 

Don't hold mate tell us how you really feel.

I'm trying to be polite....

 

Nobody with any reasonable intelligence suggests Jabirus are perfect in all respects. Neither are (perhaps were, in the current circumstances) Holden Commodores or Ford Falcons - but they do/did a damn good job on average of hauling around a huge number of Australians. Without Jabiru, the RAA scene here would not have expanded to anything like its current size. Jabiru are the most successful in terms of numbers (and probably revenue) of any Australian aircraft manufacturer, ever. In terms of international sales, there is simply NO contender within an exponential level of success. Jabirus don't kill people from poor aerodymanic or structural faults; go look at the fatality statistics for the Lancair 340/360 range for a comparison of just how bad a 'popular' aircraft can be. Jabirus soldier on with their original MTOWs unquestioned - see Sting and Pipistrel for comparison. Jabirus are certificated to known standards; ask Ibis owners whether that matters.

 

Am I an blind, devoted Jabiru acolyte? Rod Stiff currently has my guts scheduled for garters on his dart-board for reporting what I consider to be a defect condition. It's not a problem in normal service, but in consultation with with the two aero-engineers who know early Jabirus best, my co-owner and I have made modifications to address that issue. We're anal-retentive, but we're prepared to put in the work to change something with which we aren't happy.

 

There is NO perfect aeroplane, nor is there any perfect aero engine. The combination of Aerobus and Rolls-Royce nearly killed 300+ people on a Qantas flight. This, on one aircraft that cost way more than the total earnings of the entire existence of Jabiru.

 

I have no problem with people exposing problems they have had with Jabirus - indeed, I take notice and factor that into my approach to returning our Jab. to service. What I do not consider reasonable is an entrenched bigotry that is expressed in slighting commentary that is utterly devoid of factual and truthful content and is - frequently observably - wildly incorrect. That this commentator is a member of the RAA Board is in my opinion a matter of serious concern; we need objective and informed people on the RAA Board rather than people who inhabit a universe of their own making.

 

 

Well this guy did everything wrong...he's got the police on site , if he needed more beach as he obviously did , have the coppers clear the beach of all the public, which would allow the pilot full use of all the beach, for a safer attempt. If its too late and the tide has already taken too much beach, then park it, for another try tomorrow .And if your using an unfamiliar beach for what really is a test- flight with a possible still suspect Powerplant, you certainly don't load two rear passengers. You get off the beach with only the pilot on board and pick up the others elsewhere if you have to.

A very bad case and example of getthereitis in my opinion, and absolutely no brownie points awarded here at all !.........Maj....

Since when did a J200 carry four people? Since it had a RAANZ registration and that is limited to two passengers, it is ipso facto a two-seater. I think we all recognise and defer to your encyclopaedic knowledge of Jabiru deficiencies, but you would engender greater credibility by actually demonstrating a basic knowledge of the things. Or, indeed, bothering to check your facts. At no point in any of the video evidence is there any suggestion that there were four people aboard; presumably you have powers of observation and conclusion that escapes we lesser mortals.

 

Possible still suspect powerplant? As far as I am aware, the fuel delivery system up to the engine-mounted fuel pump is not part of the powerplant, but obviously I should defer to your greater knowledge. I guess that in your world, a Jabiru engine failing to run with zero fuel supply is just another example of Jabiru's failure to produce reliable engines; no doubt Rotaxes operate perfectly with zero fuel delivery. In the several videos referenced, there was absolutely no indication that the engine was running other than sweetly.

 

That the take-off attempt had just about everything wrong that one could factor in, is undeniable. Even allowing for the foreshortening effect of telephoto lenses, it seems obvious that a tight turn left within around 2-300 metres of the lift-off point would have been necessary. I seriously doubt that the insurance company for this aircraft will be paying out on the basis that 'Sh!t happens, here's your money'. It's an easy job to remove a Jabiru from an unviable take-off site.

 

Classic case of an accident that was predicated before the PIC hit the starter.

 

 

Submissions can be made at:http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions.aspx

Here is my submission its my opinion only and im sure things will not be agreed . I only had 40 min to write it so its better then nothing.

I might have used slightly more circumspect language (a message such as: 'the organisation has recklessly squandered its corporate intellectual capital' means the same thing to a lot of people as: 'it's driven out everybody who can walk and chew gum at the same time'.. which was what the Morris review more or less stated upfront) - but the points are clear, unambiguous, the response needed is laid out - and I certainly don't disagree with the problem or response statements! The thing is - if enough people are saying essentially the same thing, even if in different tones, the impact becomes magnified because it can be seen to extend widely. There's absolutely no harm in diversity of approach if a bulk of people are on the same message - in fact, that reinforces the impression on the Minister that this is a sector-wide issue that needs his attention.

 

Well done, that man!

 

 

A lot of RAA-class aircraft are required to carry a permanent and prominent reminder of the emphasis on reducing liability, in the form of the placard that stares one in the face saying:

 

WARNING

 

PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK

 

THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT

 

CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.

 

While this is informative - it provides a warning to any occupant who may not be aware of the standards under which the aircraft operates and thereby make an 'informed' decision about flying in that aircraft, it is per se NOT in any way effective in improving the actual safety of the aircraft concerned. It may be useful in reducing the incidence of injury or worse to 'innocent bystanders' but it has precisely zero effect on the aerodynamic, structural, equipment reliability or maintenance standard of the aircraft.

 

If you are required to have this placard displayed, failure to do so incurs the same penalty as failure to maintain the aircraft properly.

 

If that doesn't tell you where CASA's priorities lie, I can't think of a better example.

 

 

Oscar why dont you post your submission here so that people have a basis for what your suggesting as a decent submission. . At least it might give people a taste of what to write rather then having a go at people who might see it as an insurmountable task or above them. If you are as familiar with how this works as you suggest it cant hurt.

I can't - because what I have been contributing to isn't my submission!. It's being prepared by an aero-engineer and CFI of a FTF operating in Sydney; I've been assisting with contact information, format and presentation advice etc. because that's what I can most usefully provide. That work has actually been going on since before Truss announced the review, with meetings with some senior and fairly influential members of the government, and it's reasonably important that one person coordinates the effort so that the message isn't diluted or scrambled by well-intentioned by not properly co-ordinated 'support' material.

 

There's no one magic formula for format and content - but what I've suggested above has generally worked well. It first got me before the House of Representatives Select Committee on Road Safety as a 'private' (i.e. non-institutional) witness in 1973, and following that general line has been successful in getting to the ear of Ministers of several other Departments on other later occasions and with some success in obtaining changes - small changes perhaps, but important to the group I was aligned with at the time. I can only vouch for what has worked for me.

 

The overarching point I am trying to make here is: just generally being annoyed at CASA won't change anything. Select the issue, or issues, that are a burr under your saddle, research the situation so you have a cogent and sound argument for the change you think should be made, and then assemble a submission that engages the Minister's attention (and crudely stated, this means outlining why the suggested change would be good for him as the Minister, not just the sector!), provides him with the ammunition that he needs to demand answers from CASA and also provides him with a ready way of assessing that CASA's response is valid and reasonable.

 

There are plenty of people with knowledge, experience and ability to help prepare a decent submission within the aviation community; if you're unsure of how to proceed but have a desire to contribute, try bouncing some ideas off those around you in that community. I suspect that you'll find that just by talking things over with a few like-minded people, you'll start to see a path emerge.

 

 

He lost primary votes in his own electorate last election, against a trend. Don't expect a lot You are right on the money with your CASA comments Chocs. They are much worse than when it was the DCA. Nev

We have had five Ministers in succession who have had no interest in aviation: Anderson, Truss, Vaile, Albanese, and now Truss again. The last Minister who had a genuine interest in trying to do something useful was Sharpe - and he DID try, bringing in people from the sector outside of CASA to review and significantly re-write parts of the legislation (incidentally, on their own time and at their own expense). He was booted because of his political indiscretions, not his lack of will to make changes and Anderson was his successor. Anderson, let it be remembered, gave away regional airstrips to Councils as his parting gift to Australian Aviation.. which surely shows how little regard for the future of the sector HE had. An act of unmitigated bastadry, in my view. Under Anderson, the malignant forces within CASA were able to entrench themselves and build a fiefdom that continues today.

 

While Truss may well be thicker than two short planks on edge (though by all accounts he is a fundamentally decent person), if the sector doesn't at least TRY to engage his attention, then it has itself to blame as much as the 'system' for the future of the sector. We cannot expect Truss to osmotically gain an understanding of the problems that beset the sector and the central role of CASA in exacerbating those problems.

 

Remember also that any Ministerial office runs through a network of Ministerial 'advisors' - staff - and NOT public servants - who filter everything going to the Minister. These people are political animals first and subject experts , not at all. Their job is simply to make the Minister politically attractive, and they don't give a flying, fur-lined intercontinental f%%k about the effects of the Minister's actions beyond the political consequences. I speak from long personal experience of Ministerial staff dating back to the time of Jim Killen as Minister for Defence.

 

If you are convinced that no amount of effort to try to change things is worth it - then fine for you, but don't just sit on the sidelines and carp about how bad life is. You've given up the fight before it started and you are disqualified from being taken seriously. Unrealistic hope of change is certainly a recipe for frustration and annoyance, but if you aren't prepared to at least lend a hand in trying to achieve change, then you have no legitimacy to continue whingeing about the lack of progress. If you want change - then damn well assemble a decent submission and give it a go, or at the very least, support those who are making the effort.

 

 

It is a good idea to make a submission and I have done that via SAAA. But it is unreasonable to expect anything to happen.CASA take no notice of politicians or ministers.CASA is a Ministerial responsibility. While I totally agree that CASA has an entrenched culture of managing to avoid taking notice of its Minister, it cannot do so if the Minister 'insists'. What it is extremely adept at doing is sidestepping/derailing the Ministerial directive or simply not responding in a timely fashion; there is (rather a LOT!) of stuff started in the Sharpe era that is still completely unresolved..

 

If pushed enough they say it is a safety issue. Absolutely correct, and highly effective in the case of any Minister not sufficiently motivated to demand CASA justify the argument. Any successful submission needs to anticipate that response and present itself in such a way that it cannot be proffered as a reason for not taking action. CASA has intruded in areas of operation that have absolutely no reasonable justification on 'safety' grounds, so submissions need to cut that argument off at the knees by reasoned and forceful argument(s).

 

Politicians take no notice of constituents, unless they see an advantage in it. Again, absolutely correct - submissions have to generate sufficient momentum in terms of political will that a Minister actively wants the change to happen. If that were not a skill verging on art, there would be almost no place in the scheme of things for lobbyists. However, the fact that they exist says that change is possible, if difficult.. I've been there and managed it in a small way, in regard to achieving decent representation for motorcyclists on the rule-setting authorities (though I have to admit getting 10 thousand motorcyclists to Canberra to confront the Minister of the day helped considerably..)

 

There would be no advantage to a politician locking horns with CASA, because if there was the slightest chance CASA would say the pollie was downgrading safety. It's their theme song; a submission has to pre-emptively strike it down as an acceptable response. Nothing less than that has a chance of success.

 

CASA is a self perpetuating body charged with keeping aviation safe. the easiest way to do that is to stop all flying, except airlines. It's hard to argue with that as a generalisation - but if it was the only possible outcome, we'd still be in the same situation we were at the time of the HORSCOT enquiry. It requires commitment, time and effort, but it is possible. Even Archilles had a vulnerability, but the knife has to be sharp and the thrust accurate and deadly.

 

They seem to be continuously changing the rules and yet, when we get the new rule it is still the old one with meaningless changes, which are to make sure they are not responsible. Bruce Byron managed to rid CASA of the head of Legal at the time, because he understood just how much that position had managed to block any decent progress. However, he didn't last long enough to get the job done properly. MacCormick has simply rolled over. As Sun Tzu said: 'know your enemy'.

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for change.

Only a few weeks left to make submissions with evidence rather than whinge.

There are some people getting on in a very determined way, doing just that: contacting people in the industry, compiling evidence, presenting the case.

 

The more information we can provide to the Truss review, the better the chance of having some effect. However, submissions need to consider the realpolitic of what will make an impression. They need to follow three major principles: firstly, engage the political will for change; secondly, provide the evidence of what change is needed in a reasonably concise and understandable format; and thirdly, provide some sort of metric by which a Ministerial office can determine that the Departmental response actually addresses the metric and not just slides around it.

 

Engaging the political will is critical. One needs to demonstrate that fundamentally, there is either (or preferably both of), a politically good outcome likely to result, or alternatively that a politically bad outcome will result if the change is not embraced. For RAA-class aircraft, arguments on the lines of 'we are all jolly good chaps, leave us alone', or 'we have the right to fly around without all this crap', won't get anywhere. We need to show, or at least postulate convincingly, that RAA activities have social/economic value. I think there are several good lines of argument that can be advanced here, including that the whole of light aviation helps to reduce the disadvantages seen in living in regional communities, that it can be a highly important element in the support of regional and remote communities, that it promotes the supply of expertise beyond the major industrialised areas, that is is an integral part of the economic fabric of some rural industries etc. Put shortly, it is essential that the Minister concerned can see 'value' in pursuing the proposed course of action.

 

Providing evidence in a concise and understandable format is also necessary. Politicians have a limited attention-span (sometimes by nature, oft-times by the circumstances of office) and whatever is presented has to be not just a generalised whinge but a realistic summary of what the problem is, what effect the problem has and sufficient authenticity to be convincing. If one takes the time to read the HORSCOT report, you can see the direct result of decent and detailed evidence leading (in particular) to the radical changes in MTOW that allowed recreational-class aircraft to evolve from single-seat devices limited to 500' AGL out in the boonies, to the effective aircraft we have today.

 

Finally, providing a metric or metrics by which the Minister etc. can evaluate what actual action/s has/have been taken on the part of the authority to address the issue/s presented is very important, to stop the endless round of the authority concerned replying to a Ministerial direction to 'do something about this' by either just meddling around the edges or deflecting the whole idea on the grounds (in CASA's case) of 'would adversely affect safety', or something similar. Trying to secure something relatively unmeasurable such as 'improved facilities will stimulate the growth of the sector' are open to a thousand obfuscating responses. Some sort of metric demands a specific response to that metric.

 

If we believe that changes are necessary - and I don't think we are, as a group, incorrect in that, then this is a chance to start the ball rolling.

 

 

I have seen stuff omitted by Reg 35 engineers in the past - the full set of all the requirements is a good checklist. We have always been required to provide proof i.e. show conformance with the requirements.A major repair so I wouldn't expect to get away with a quick reference to the handful of requirements which would apply to a small change. Been a few years since I have dealt with CASA engineering but I have had similar over the top paperwork requirements in my younger days and I soon learnt that it is much easier to write "yes" in the compliance box of everything with a brief reason for it (substantiating data when appropriate) rather than try to explain why something is not applicable.

Indeed, the appropriate response covers structural and aerodynamic matters. However, the underlying issue is that CASA as the regulatory body should have the capability to assess an EO for completeness in terms of its effect on the compliance of an aircraft to its certification standard and request any additional justification that might be missing; by requiring that a statement of compliance with a complete standard be supplied where whole sections of that standard are completely irrelevant to the EO's effect, is an utter nonsense. It is driving CAR35 engineers out of the business because they simply don't have the time to devote to this minutiae of no value to their clients - and without them the bottom-end of RAA and GA will not be able to function. CASA has become - starting with the Dick Smith as Chairman debacle - the aeronautical employer of last resort for the bottom of the barrel engineers that can't find employment in the commercial arena. The good aero-engineers of yesteryear that were in CAA/DOT left long ago and the oversight of the industry and sport is massively the poorer for that.

 

Now we are left with the completely inept making the rules to ensure their own future, from the very top down. The Truss 'review' needs to be assured that 1) aviation, even at RAA level, is a socially valuable resource; and 2) that CASA's role should be to promote the activity by developing an effective regulatory environment rather than one predicated purely on saving its own and its Minister's backside. Let's forget the socio-political horse manure and get on board with providing the Truss review with the ammunition and the incentive to drill, bore and ream CASA into something that actually serves its constituency rather than itself .

 

 

As interesting as this rambling and sometimes ranting socio-political discussion has been in revealing the personal agendas of various posters, where has anything relating to the title of the thread gone?

 

If I can drag the thread back to the original idea... having just transcribed all of BCAR S to a spreadsheet for my CAR35 (or Part 104 M??) engineer to complete for submission to CASA so the repairs and modifications to my aircraft will be approved, I have realised that CASA's new regime is so fixated on ensuring it can not be held responsible for anything that it has devolved the onus of 'proof' onto the CAR35 engineers, so it requires a complete response to ALL the requirements of BCAR S for ANY mod to an BCAR S compliant aircraft. That has elevated the workload on the CAR35 engineer by a factor of around 8 for a typical. small mod./repair.

 

The only evident reason for this is that the current crop of CASA engineers tasked with approving work on aircraft have so little knowledge of the applicable rules/requirements, that the applicants have to supply a complete response to every element in the certification standard - over 170 of them by my estimation. Thus we have to provide a response to the currency of the compass deviation placard in the case of replacing the fin and rudder on a fibreglass aircraft!

 

CASA is tasked by legislation with the safety of everything that flies and the people under whatever is flying. Whether that is or is not realistic is a moot point - but how CASA is discharging its task certainly IS. There is ample evidence to carry the argument that CASA is loading the industry/sport unreasonably with requirements that are designed first and foremost to reduce its own liability.

 

Instead of ranting about the general condition of society/which political party is to blame, this thread would serve a more useful purpose if it were to concentrate on the cost/effectiveness of CASA requirements to actually achieve 'safety'. That is the stuff to provide to Warren Truss in his review - not ranting dogma about 'greens/bludgers/wages/labour contracts' and all the other complete and utter bullsh#t nonsence that has overtaken this thread.

 

 

For reasonable security, it's not just the strip itself but the immediate adjacent area in case of EFATO. I can get a strip of suitable length for my aircraft into my farm - but an EFATO at 50-100' AGL puts me into trees. Wedderburn is a considerably longer strip, but has the same problems... and it has bitten people, really hard.

 

I'd love to have my own strip, but I just don't have enough trust in any reciprocating powerplant. And I don't have enough faith in any gods.