gandalph Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Nice try Oscar but you haven't included any jabs in your list. Are you perhaps distorting the numbers? Are you TP's brother? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Oscar, I also see crashing into people or people injured/killed as a result of a fire as low potential, however an increasing number of Jabirus registered VH have been flying at City Airports where virtually any engine failure will create this potential. It's one thing for a Cessna 172, with decades of reliability to cause a fatality on the ground, but an aircraft with a safety limitation based on past statistics is a forseeable risk, and as such, protection of people on the ground becomes imperative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Nice try Oscar but you haven't included any jabs in your list. Are you perhaps distorting the numbers?Are you TP's brother? I couldn't find any non-RAA Jabs amongst the (admittedly quick) search I did, that were qualified by Merv's description. My point was, that there are non-RAA aircraft crashing into heavily-populated areas, and even despite the sorts of comments from the Mayor of the area following the Chelsea crash (that Moorrabbin should not be used for training, even though that crash had zero to do with training), we have seen no action from CASA. If we are to do a comparison of RAA and non-RAA that fits Merv's qualification, then that's a different issue. However, I do believe that Merv's post does not advance the calm discussion of the relevant issues for the thread topic, though it is certainly worthy of a 'threats to Recreational Aviation' - type thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 So now ATSB numbers are "just numbers"?? SeriouslyNo one is saying there isnt an issue except those owning rotax, they fail in equal numbers as Jabiru. Be ready for it. Jabiru have plenty more incidents and thats what needs attention no Jetjr........lets look at the above....some pretty interesting stuff you've put forth there !..... "So now ATSB numbers are "just numbers" ?? "....ah no....most are the result of actual incidents or accidents reported to the ATSB. Unlike CASA ATSB is a bit more fussy about the figurers they state. "No one is saying there isn't an issue except those owning Rotax".......ah no again......mostly it's Jab owners/ operators who are saying there is no issue isn't it ?...... " They (Rotaxs) fail in equal numbers as Jabiru".......ah no again, try pulling the other leg it may make a squeaking sound. "Jabiru have plenty more incidents and that's what needs attention no ".............ah yes.... correct !... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Oscar, I also see crashing into people or people injured/killed as a result of a fire as low potential, however an increasing number of Jabirus registered VH have been flying at City Airports where virtually any engine failure will create this potential.It's one thing for a Cessna 172, with decades of reliability to cause a fatality on the ground, but an aircraft with a safety limitation based on past statistics is a forseeable risk, and as such, protection of people on the ground becomes imperative. Actually, Turbs, I'm not so sure you can use the C172 as the paradigm of safety/reliability. I suggest you have a look at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20LSA%20Accidents.pdf&ei=w7OoVIWTMJC48gX3yoH4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGbNVJyj_byvBwqwrQ1HVpBgsPnHw&sig2=PBiajUDhIdXs8Z3YVQ1jcg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc. In that study, the overall accident rate (per 100K hours flown) was 3.5 for Jabiru and 5.8 for C172. Accidents /100 registrations was 1.9 for Jabiru and 9.7 for C 172. Fatals/100K hours was zero for Jabiru and .6 for C172. Only C 172's built since 1997 were included in the C172 figures. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Only C 172's built since 1997 were included in the C172 figures That would comprise less than 5% of C172's on the Australian register, happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Just off the top of my head, I think that probably Brumby and Bristell in Australia would be ok, but those well below the line on a comparison basis would include Savannah, Tecnam, Morgan, Evektor, Colyaer, Skyfox, Alpi, Murphy, VANS, Lightwing, Eurofox, Fisher. What a load of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Gandalph, just what are you trying to achieve on this site? You told us you were an officer of the court in NSW for a number of years., but this behaviour is disgraceful.I pointed a new poster, who seemed to be confused by some of the nonsensical bandying of statistics, to the Authority who introduced the Limitation, and has the evidence based statistics. Ah Turbop, wrong again! Best be checking check you facts - or perhaps your source. But what the duck does my occupation have to do with anything? Why does it cause you so much concern? What if I was a middle manager in the trucking game ? , or a Sydney harbour ferry captain? or a taxi driver or......... what does it matter? Get over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 If you are going to compare deaths Per whatever with another aircraft type, those carrying more will expect to score more. Statistics MUST be interpreted. .A Cessna would expect to have a service life many times that of an ultralight I would think in general terms, so I wonder why the older ones are not included if we are considering training aircraft.Nev 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I rekin 4...5 of you guys should start a thread .....maybe " gloves off " heading, then go your hardest to and fro, with each other.....then just maybe this thread might contain some worthwhile comments. It's just another "bashathon" going on here. Conflicting egoes, views...and just plain shyte. 9 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Posted on the earlier thread but may answer in part a recent question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/AVDALSR088-1_Piston_Offset.pdf Engineering Report: AVDALSR088-1 17th Sept 2013 4 Service History At the time of writing: - The Jabiru 2200 engine has been in production for over 20 years in various configurations. - Approximately 7,000 Jabiru engines of various models have been manufactured. - It is estimated that around 500 engines have exceeded 1,000 hours TIS. - Annual fleet hours are estimated at in excess of 20,000 hours. Of 7000 engines it is estimated 500 exceeded 1000 TIS. One in 14; 7%. (How many of the other 6500 are still going?) How many of the 500 "successful" engines got to 1000 hours without having the heads off, inspected, replaced? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- jetjr, numbers for you. facthunter, facts for you. What do you make of them? Reassuring? Yes/No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Oscar, I don"t doubt what you are saying because there would be more CFIT/Nav/cross country involvement with the 172. I was just thinking of engine failures only, for this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 If you are going to compare deaths Per whatever with another aircraft type, those carrying more will expect to score more. Statistics MUST be interpreted. .A Cessna would expect to have a service life many times that of an ultralight I would think in general terms, so I wonder why the older ones are not included if we are considering training aircraft.Nev Nev, I have no idea why older 172's were NOT included, that wasn't explained, other than I assume to keep some sort of numerical consistency with the 'seven year' period of LSA aircraft used for the comparison. I would not expect any significant difference for older 172's; I'm certainly not personally aware that older 172's have any notable structural failure rate, though some models of the engines used in 172's are - I believe - less reliable than others. I am sure you have a far, far better idea of that than I! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Oscar, I don"t doubt what you are saying because there would be more CFIT/Nav/cross country involvement with the 172. I was just thinking of engine failures only, for this discussion. OK, fair enough - but to pursue that point to a more definitive conclusion - how many RAA aircraft altogether, let alone Jabirus, (which I believe was where you were driving with this point) have in fact ended up amongst the crowded populace as a result of engine failure? We can discount the Runcorn one as engine failure; there was a Jab. that 'diverted' into the trees on a golf course (at Mildura, I think?). An Edge 912 (from memory) ended up in someone's front yard, as did an AAK (Hornet??), though in that case a non-suburban front yard and I'm not sure whether the cause has been explained. The general operational restrictions that apply to RAA aircraft have, on balance, done a pretty fair job of protecting the 'innocent ground-based bystanders'. Has there been ANY instance of injury or worse to a non-participant from any RAA aircraft operation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Our low stall speed requirement should aid in this respect. Not carrying uninformed passengers too should be noted. Flying over areas of no landing opportunity such as treed slopes in remote areas and heavily built up areas or oceans, in any single engine piston aircraft concerns me. It's just a bad idea trusting your engine that much, in principle. The first 300 feet on take-of is extremely critical unless you have an area to drop on that is suitable. Nev 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Low stall speed and low kinetic energy - the very basis of the regulations that apply to 'recreational-class aircraft.' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I feel it has been more luck than good management that one has not ended up in a back yard, which is probably exactly what CASA thinks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 The public liability status has changed with the limitation, and has become much more problematic. It doesn't matter if no rec aircraft has ever killed someone on the ground, someone has made a decision to let them keep flying, and is legally responsible for that decision, so it's natural they would be very cautious about the possibility. If one does kill someone on the ground the question is going to be "You knew there was a safety issue. yet you allowed them to keep flying, why didn't you ground them?" You can't wait for someone to be killed before you act any more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Maj, as often the case, youve missed the points I raised. The ATSB report states clearly engine failure rates for Jabiru are similar to Rotax, argue all you like. Ornis stated it was just numbers interpreted by clever people, rules me out, its in writing and graphs for the dummies. You actually agree with me it seems Those one eyed Rotax fans thinking otherwise are simply living in fairy land. Report from US shows Jabiru as one of safest airframes, this agrees with Oscrs claim TP, if your saying we need to reduce risk to zero through restriction and limitation, we will mostly be grounded soon and even then one day someone will be injured on the ground by RAA aircraft. Its a question of when if there is any risk at all. Remove all risk means not flying 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 And around the circle goes. You have a situation to learn to live with it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It's a beauty of a day... Let's go flying!! Yes it was a great day - very hot, for Sydney, threatened thunder, lightning off to the south and east but flying a Foxbat out around The Oaks for an hour was therapeutic and fun. Jabiru time during the week. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Good onya col! Yea very warm. Nice storm came through and cooled things tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru7252 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Well, it's been awful here. I fly out of Gawler, SA and the only activity has been water bombers, about eight in the air continuously landing, taking on 3000 litres of water and then dumping it on the fires. Spectacular but so sad as well. Quite a crowd had gathered to watch the activities. I might manage to get into the air this weekend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 The ATSB report states clearly engine failure rates for Jabiru are similar to Rotax, argue all you like. Ornis stated it was just numbers interpreted by clever people I didn't say it was "just numbers interpreted by clever people." I said, "Clever people can do clever things with numbers." And words, for that matter. People use numbers to "prove" fluoridation doesn't work, which is contrary to most parents' experience. People use numbers to "prove" there is no global warming, but have no explanation how the ratio of a powerful greenhouse gas can be increased substantially with no increase in energy retained by the Earth. People use numbers to "prove" the poor are not getting poorer while the rich are getting richer, which is contrary to direct observation that more people now are forced to rent from the rich rather than buy a home (for example). If a pilot wants to buy a new aircraft can he buy a Jabiru and operate it according to Jabiru and have some confidence in the engine - which is what we are really talking about - as he would have if he bought (say) a new Tecnam or Flight Design CTLS with a Rotax engine? YES/NO. I don't believe the numbers you cling to prove Jabiru engines are as reliable and safe as Rotax. In the end, due to insufficient incontrovertible data, the matter of Jabiru engine reliability becomes a matter of judgement. CASA has made a judgement. I agree with it. You don't. We both own and fly a Jabiru. I put a CAE in mine, you put your family in yours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEM Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Hi all According to Australian Flying magazine 22 December "The limitations have yet to be registered with the Australian Government Office of Parliamentary Counsel, and will not be officially enforced until they are"." Does anyone know what this organisation is or if they have yet registered the limitations. Is GOPC just another name for Comlaw who dated their version 22 December? Curious 1 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