risky_airways Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 What is more of an issue here which hasn't been mentioned is the perception of unsafe practices that people will have of the RAA operation at Archerfield. Yes this has been the second crash with this aircraft but they have also had another making three incidents. The pilot used his training, skill and a huge amount of good luck to manoeuvre the aircraft to a successful landing (any landing you can walk away from is supposed to be OK, right?) but really, is their operating regime flawed? For instance, using mogas in an aircraft where weather conditions could increase the risk of carby icing or was it a case of having too much air in the tanks? Comments locally at Archerfield seem to support the later, so was proper flight planning carried out to ensure enough fuel carried for flight and reserves? Don, what "unsafe practises" do you speak of? The Archerfield operation is no tin pot hobby farm 1 flight a week school from west of the range! It is a commercial operation and provides many in the industry a start. It would have t be the biggest RAAus school in the country, by far. I'm sure that they've done very well indeed keeping the failure rate down to just that with thousands more hours/sectors flown in jabiru's than anybody else in recent history?? Have you got any proof/evidence of your claim, or is your ego writing cheques your body can't cash!.... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Don, what "unsafe practises" do you speak of? The Archerfield operation is no tin pot hobby farm 1 flight a week school from west of the range! It is a commercial operation and provides many in the industry a start. It would have t be the biggest RAAus school in the country, by far. I'm sure that they've done very well indeed keeping the failure rate down to just that with thousands more hours/sectors flown in jabiru's than anybody else in recent history??Have you got any proof/evidence of your claim, or is your ego writing cheques your body can't cash!.... Flying RAAus aircraft over built up areas where there is no emergency landing area available is an unsafe practice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Oscar sounds educatedThat cannot be debated He likes to tickle the nerve Of the famous forumite Merv He does like his Jabs He says CAMits are fab Our knowledge compared to his, pales His vocabulary never fails Makes me wonder what he is sellin Is his last name really Llewellyn? Oscar your probably a nice bloke This post is meant to be a joke SD - I'm truly flattered! Should I turn my cap around and get some bling? Heck, maybe I could pass for er, um, 60 in a dimly-lit nightclub. A whole new interesting world beckons! 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Flying RAAus aircraft over built up areas where there is no emergency landing area available is an unsafe practice. Flying is an unsafe practice - as the old lady said: "If God had meant us to fly, He'd never have given us the railways!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Flying RAAus aircraft over built up areas where there is no emergency landing area available is an unsafe practice. Agree in principle, but you could make this argument for any aircraft - not just RAAus. As you are aware, height is a factor in this argument, but because of the overlying CTA steps - most VFR lighties have to traverse many miles of 'unsafe' terrain around major cities. As well, maintaining VMC requires lighties to usually remain below the cloud base, which limits the gliding distance and the choice of emergency landing areas. If we think about these 2 factors - it gives CASA's rules, (for RAAus at least), a bit of support. happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 If it is DL it should be banned like many other unsafe practices. It's a lot safer than smoking, drinking, over-eating and many other lifestyle practices, but it's small enough to become an easy target with great political points, and very expensive now if you have an accident because you were negligent (and remember negligence is negligence even though you didn't intend to forget to put fuel in, do a flight plan. It certainly doesn't need loose cannons chirping from the Biggles era when so many other exciting pastimes were eradicated. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Agree in principle, but you could make this argument for any aircraft - not just RAAus. Maybe but which one do you think is most likely to have an engine failure a Cessna or a Jabiru? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 So tell me ....I'm not getting any of Mr Lewellyns (Oscar ?) dribble because he's on my ignore list. Am I missing anything ??. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Well if he is on your ignore list, I'd assume you were missing a bit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 You really think so............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Maybe but which one do you think is most likely to have an engine failure a Cessna or a Jabiru? Given that there are far more Lyconentals and Cessna's in the world, and they've been around for a whole lot longer and flown in total many more thousands of hours/ miles/ kilometers than Jabiru's, I'd hazard a guess and say Cessna. Was that really what you meant to ask? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Given that there are far more Lyconentals and Cessna's in the world, and they've been around for a whole lot longer and flown in total many more thousands of hours/ miles/ kilometers than Jabiru's, I'd hazard a guess and say Cessna.Was that really what you meant to ask? I agree I should not have had to spell that out, it follows on from a comment made about post 257. It seems some people do not understand the differences between RAAus and GA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I haven't flown out of Archerfield for a long time but when I did, it was piloting a Piper Archer powered by a o-360 Lycoming. I don't mind admitting it but I did not feel 100 percent comfortable flying over the various suburbs. Not many places to land with a engine out. It was a calculated risk and I assessed the risk and to me it was and still would be risk worth doing. I would do the same if I was flying behind a 912. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I would do the same if I was flying behind a 912. For me it would depend on who had been using and maintaining the 912, I have had one stop on me. I don't feel safe without having some sort of emergency landing option. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Maybe but which one do you think is most likely to have an engine failure a Cessna or a Jabiru? Can only go on ones' own experience. 12,000 hrs behind Continentals & Lycomings for 2 total engine failures v's 800 hrs behind Jabirus for 3 engine losses. And my choice to fly Bass Strait is.........? 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 For me it would depend on who had been using and maintaining the 912, I have had one stop on me. I don't feel safe without having some sort of emergency landing option. If somebody put a gun to my head and said you must fly a single engine over water or tiger country or what ever but you can choose the engine. I would choose a brand new Lycoming o-320 with about 300 hours TT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Brand new with 300 hours Dazza? I've got a brand new car you could buy if you like it only has 270 000 Kms Anyway I guess you meant a late model lyc I'm just in a silly mood again (I know I shouldn't use the word again if it is a constant state.) 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Brand new with 300 hours Dazza?I've got a brand new car you could buy if you like it only has 270 000 Kms Anyway I guess you meant a late model lyc I'm just in a silly mood again (I know I shouldn't use the word again if it is a constant state.) Yup, I mean brand new engine from the factory. Not rebuilt/ zero timed. The 300 hours, is make sure she is reliable and running fine ( history). I wouldn't like a brand new engine with 5 hours on her. She needs to be ran in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Yup, I mean brand new engine from the factory. Not rebuilt/ zero timed. The 300 hours, is make sure she is reliable and running fine ( history). I wouldn't like a brand new engine with 5 hours on her. She needs to be ran in. Why is everything " brand new " these days . When I was a lad everything was just "new" . Sorry dazz , it's just that things are a bit quite here at the moment . Bob 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunlopdangler Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Don, what "unsafe practises" do you speak of? The Archerfield operation is no tin pot hobby farm 1 flight a week school from west of the range! It is a commercial operation and provides many in the industry a start. It would have t be the biggest RAAus school in the country, by far. I'm sure that they've done very well indeed keeping the failure rate down to just that with thousands more hours/sectors flown in jabiru's than anybody else in recent history??Have you got any proof/evidence of your claim, or is your ego writing cheques your body can't cash!.... Risky, I did not accuse Pathfinder of unsafe practices but a PERCEPTION.. read my post in its entirety and don't take things out of context.. At no time did I claim anything, I was asking if there was something about the operation that needed closer scrutiny. IT would be a big disappointment if Pathfinder themselves weren't self auditing to find ways to mitigate the risk so far presenting itself. I have absolutely no affiliation with any flying school east or west of the great divide, so I don't have to prove anything.. but with my many thousands of hours of flying experience, I can see where there could've be an issue, even if it was using MOGAS on the day . I am voicing my concern and have every right to do that!! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Dazza wants to get over the 'infancy failure' period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVOCET Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 So tell me ....I'm not getting any of Mr Lewellyns (Oscar ?) dribble because he's on my ignore list. Am I missing anything ??. Yep, a good laugh ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Dazza wants to get over the 'infancy failure' period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 I feel some people are getting confused between RAA and VH registration. The only difference between my aircraft registered in RAA and a VH registered one is TSOed instruments and LAME maintained. The only reason I registered it with RAA was the savings in maintenace costs [and getting older the class 1 or 2 may become a hurdle in the future] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 and LAME maintained. The only reason I registered it with RAA was the savings in maintenace costs Yep that's part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now