Admin Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Would you send your 15 year old daughter solo in one? I would as long as there was a very long runway, she had been well trained and she stayed in a circuit where she could easily land should anything go wrong. However, I would love to have J230 but don't have the money and if I did I would buy one today as long as Jabiru is understanding with any engine problems and they provide for free any enhancement to engine safety that comes out of the current situation, those J230D's are very nice 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Would you send your 15 year old daughter solo in one? Merv, if I'd been happy enough to send her up in one for all those hours while she gained appropriate training from an instructor that I trusted then I see no reason why I wouldn't allow her to continue. If her instructor said she was ready, then I would trust that she ready. I seem to recall my instructor nagging me: "Where would you put it down if the engine failed now?" He would pull the throttle on the way to the training area, on the way back from the training area, in the training area, on the turn downwind, 200ft in the air after takeoff etc, etc. But after what seemed like hundreds of hours he decided I was safe enough to go solo even with what must have been a very unreliable engine in that C150. I imagine you do the same to your poor students. Did you ever say to them: "You're ready to go solo but but not in the Jabiru we've been training in, it's just not safe?" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Go easy on him, he was just being circumspective. I've got no opinion as I'll be circumventing the issue..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 And what is the first rule of punting?, "Don't bet what you can't afford to lose", so they apparently think they can afford a Rotax, if they think they can afford to rebuild a Jab every couple of hundred hours. Hello rankamateur See on this thread -- There is mention of cost of the gear box overhaul. The overhaul interval looks like it has wheels on it, because the time is bit like an auction "Keeps on going up". We started 200 or 300hours now it is at 1000hours just wonder what is the true value. The other question, "How often are the hoses changed out and how much do these hoses cost." The original Rotax engine cost plus all these bits and pieces compared to the cost of the Jab engine, looks like there is a fairly even race. Regards KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Perhaps part of Jabiru's reliability issues come from not replacing the rubber components every 5 years? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Gandalph, yes I certainly do expect a high standard of proficiency in all sorts of " simulated" emergencys. They are however just that, simulations. We can't really know how an individual will react in any real life scenario. That's why we have to 'manage' the risk as bet we can. The reason I asked Nev that question was now that there is a clear safety concern been raised, we as instructors could be held liable should the worst case happen in a first or early solo. It could be argued that we failed to minimise the " known" risk by allowing solo in an aircraft that casa have raised issue with. I know the risk itself has not changed, but our exposure as instructors certainly has changed. At least until a clear retraction has been given I won't be soloing students in a jab. Not that I could anyway, out 170 is parked up with head a off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 if I'd been happy enough to send her up in one for all those hours while she gained appropriate training from an instructor that I trusted then I see no reason why I wouldn't allow her to continue I understand but here's the thing. One makes a decision based on one's knowledge at that time. If more information comes to light, one is free to change one's mind. One is free to change one's risk assessment even though the absolute risk has not changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I would as long as there was a very long runway, she had been well trained and she stayed in a circuit where she could easily land should anything go wrong. However, I would love to have J230 but don't have the money and if I did I would buy one today as long as Jabiru is understanding with any engine problems and they provide for free any enhancement to engine safety that comes out of the current situation, those J230D's are very nice So you have decided there may be a problem sending students solo cross-country. If Jabiru had backed its engines the way you suggest it would have gone bankrupt years ago. There is a tidy 100-hour J230 on my aerodrome for ~$100,000. I'm guessing the estate might seriously consider an offer of $25k tomorrow. Would you fly it home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Gandalph, yes I certainly do expect a high standard of proficiency in all sorts of " simulated" emergencys.They are however just that, simulations. We can't really know how an individual will react in any real life scenario. That's why we have to 'manage' the risk as bet we can. True, they were just simulations but my instructor used them to assess my capability and by doing that he was also assessing the risk which allowed him to make a judgement as to how best manage the risk. All that is simple risk assessment/management matrix stuff. As you say, no one can KNOW how someone will react, they have to form an opinion based on observation and other evidence. Otherwise nobody would ever go solo! The reason I asked Nev that question was now that there is a clear safety concern (I would say 'speculation' rather than 'concern' I have enough respect for you to not accuse you of inflating the issue by hyperbole.) been raised, we as instructors could be held liable should the worst case happen in a first or early solo. It could be argued that we failed to minimise the " known" risk by allowing solo in an aircraft that casa have raised issue with. I know the risk itself has not changed, but our exposure as instructors certainly has changed. But surely if an instructor (and I'm being hypothetical - not pointing at you - just so you and/or the Moderators don't get in a tizz) was aware of the risk before CASA belly-flopped into this particular cesspool, why would that instructor continue to instruct in that aircraft? If they were aware of risk, what has happened in the last 14 days do make the risk assessment change so dramatically? A letter from a bloke in Canberra? The text in blue is my response to Merv, not Merv's quote. Just clarifying 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 A j230 for 25k that would be a bargain. I would go for that. Yes I would fly it home after thorough inspection. Easily put a 912s in it and register it 19- 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Gandalph ,In a word..yes.. That letter could be used to prove that I have been negligent in my duty of care.. " Your honor, Mr Campbell was well aware of the higher than normal likelihood of an engine failure. The regulator proposed some pretty big restrictions on these engines. he KNEW that, and yet he still sent a 15 year old student solo with all the available information at hand pointing towards the engine not being suitable for the flight." 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Even tho the records show he was quite thorough in his training and assessment of the pilot before sending her solo, there were other options available at the time. he could have chosen NOT to send her in that aircraft.. MR campbell, why did you not insist she fly in the most reliable option available.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 A j230 for 25k that would be a bargain. I would go for that. Yes I would fly it home after thorough inspection. Easily put a 912s CAMit in it and register it 19- The queue starts to the left, please take a ticket and wait until called to the counter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Gandalph ,In a word..yes.. That letter could be used to prove that I have been negligent in my duty of care.. But wasn't our hypothetical instructor aware of that level of risk before the letter? And wasn't that same instructor sending his/her students solo before the letter while aware of the risk? I keep coming back to how does the publishing of the letter increase the level of risk? Is the sky REALLY falling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The level of risk is much easier to prove now, is my point. It 'may have ' always been there' but it would be difficult for me to argue now. I'm not being mella dramatic, it's a very real implication and ramification of the current drama. Instructors have been held accountable because of one entry in a students record, years later. I've experienced something similar, all be it from the raa and not a coroners court or legal proceeding. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The level of risk is much easier to prove now, is my point. It 'may have ' always been there' but it would be difficult for me to argue now.I'm not being mella dramatic, it's a very real implication and ramification of the current drama. Instructors have been held accountable because of one entry in a students record, years later. I've experienced something similar, all be it from the raa and not a coroners court or legal proceeding. You may be right. I hope our hypothetical instructor wasn't posting about the risk in public forums like this one over the last couple of years though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 The text in blue is my response to Merv, not Merv's quote. Just clarifying Process of discovery Gandalph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You may be right. I hope our hypothetical instructor wasn't posting about the risk in public forums like this one over the last couple of years though. His opinion doesn't matter, it's what is provable that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You can assess risk if you identify the factors at play and handle them appropriately. Insurance companies specialise in this. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 You may be right. I hope our hypothetical instructor wasn't posting about the risk in public forums like this one over the last couple of years though. You could probably say he was aware of elevated risk from his umits, but a lot of people are indicating they weren't, se with good reason because they haven't had any failures (and don't frequent all the sites discussing the subject.) CASA'S notification steps duty of care reqirement up to the new level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonRamsay Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Recreational Aviation is a dangerous past time and anyone, even a student, is required to accept the risk, even the fatal risk, or stay away from aircraft.The fact that the risk with a Jab engine is even better known or at least more widely known only make plausible deniability of awareness and acceptance of the risks *less* feasible. The above might be more convincing if Spencer a Ferrier said it but it is what I believe to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 CASA's notification is a blunt weapon of mass destruction designed to destroy RAA by taking down its biggest player and user group...it was ill thought out, ill implemented and we need to fight it like all hell 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 CASA's notification is a blunt weapon of mass destruction designed to destroy RAA by taking down its biggest player and user group...it was ill thought out, ill implemented and we need to fight it like all hell Jab is not the RAA biggest player.......1/3 of total numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Which statistic or fact are we referring to Maj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Recreational Aviation is a dangerous past time and anyone, even a student, is required to accept the risk, even the fatal risk, or stay away from aircraft.The fact that the risk with a Jab engine is even better known or at least more widely known only make plausible deniability of awareness and acceptance of the risks *less* feasible.The above might be more convincing if Spencer a Ferrier said it but it is what I believe to be the case. You're dreaming if you think the victim accepts negligence; or keen to get rid of your assets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts