turboplanner Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 They're not behaving badly when you hire them and they win FH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Big call.......... Give CAE a call, just in case they haven't forged their crank cases . ( personally , whatever they've designed,tested,proven......that's good enough for me ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Yes, but is the crankcase now made of forged alloy? If it's not we "know" it won't work. I believe it's made of alloy manufactured by the real people who signed the release note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 They're not behaving badly when you hire them and they win FH So the end justifies the means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 I Big call.......... Give CAE a call, just in case they haven't forged their crank cases. ( personally , whatever they've designed,tested,proven......that's good enough for me ) its ok Russ. It was a late in the day forum in joke. I was having a gentle dig at someone who believes the lack of forging is THE problem with jab engines. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan4321 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Thanks everyone - seems under the restrictions there is no problem at all operating out of the Sunshine Coast Airport - big relief. If anyone tells me otherwise I guess it really is not logical based on the wording and the geography of the airport and its surrounds (as there is plentiful landing areas on a glide). I think I will keep the Jab 3300 engine in the J400 I am buying as well as it has about 300 hours theoretically left in it. Would be a shame to have to swap it out prematurely if I'm okay operating from my home airport using this existing engine. The CAE engine seems to be go when it comes time to overhaul on this one, however I don't see what sort of announcement would make much difference from the RAA as Oscar has mentioned... "There should be an announcement from RAA fairly shortly that will clarify the situation re CAE engines being used in controlled airspace." The CAMit company has no restrictions at all with their engines so swapping out a Jab engine would definitely wipe any restrictions. I guess maybe there is an announcement that if certain approved changes are made to the Jab engines with CAMit replacement parts, then this will deem them worthy again maybe. We can only hope :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Ryan I'm not 100% sure but I think in a factory built 24 registered jab you can't change to a camit without a jab approval (or maybe an engineers sign off) which makes it hard to retain the 24 registration. Someone might know the fine details of e24 rego but I know with 19 reg you aren't allowed into CTA without written approval from CASA so while 19 allows you to put in a CAMit with no regulatory hassles you won't be free to enter CTA. And with 24 rego changing to a CAMit isn't so easy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan4321 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Ryan I'm not 100% sure but I think in a factory built 24 registered jab you can't change to a camit without a jab approval (or maybe an engineers sign off) which makes it hard to retain the 24 registration. Someone might know the fine details of e24 rego but I know with 19 reg you aren't allowed into CTA without written approval from CASA so while 19 allows you to put in a CAMit with no regulatory hassles you won't be free to enter CTA. And with 24 rego changing to a CAMit isn't so easy. Luckily I am switching to RPL and the J400 is already VH registered. So I think this will be okay and an easier process to change over ? If you can let me know what you think in this situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 So the end justifies the means? Never, but an Association I'm a member of was a party to a VCAT case (which as Kaz has pointed out is not a Court, in conjunction with the local Council against an Applicant who had been fined for a Prohibited Use and wanted to overturn the fine and continue the Use. The Council's solicitor told us it was an easy case, since the Use was prohibited it shouldn't take more than a few hours. My President was unable to attend the Hearing, so I was representing the Association The Applicant hired a Senior Council from a country town, an uncouth brute who started proceedings by saying "Mr Chairman, I ask that Mr Turbo be excluded from this case, since he is not authorised to represent the application. After some frantic texting under the desk, I was able to assure the Member, that an authorisation in writing would be with the VCAT administration within a few minutes. The member called a break and the ruled that as Vice President I had the power to authorise myself. The Council lawyer chuckled and said he could try whatever he liked, but he had no chance. I drew comfort from these even after the brute summed my evidence up as "hyperbowl". He was from the Country. At the end of day 2 the SC asked leave to discuss a legal definition between the lawyers and the Member only. The Member suggested I would only be bored, and I was sucked in by that. The Use had involved the chipping of wooden pallets which had reached their use by date, a simple enough description, since we all know what a pallet is. When they returned, it appears that the term "broken pallet" (which was part of the Prohibited Use), was causing some confusion, so the description should be changed to an "Inominate Use (a Use without a name), which of course was not prohibited, and the Member ruled the Applicant could continue what he was doing, and I was soundly beaten. Now I don't know if this was an "end justifies the means" situation, but I very quickly put the contact details of this magician in my database for future use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Oscar, the info I saw from CASA indicated a core rebuilt WAS a CAE not Jabiru any longer If it recieved a CAE plate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Here’s a hypothetical for Sunshine Airport (shown below) For this purpose, we’ll ignore the fact that CASA have two definitions of populous areas, and we’ll assume that CASR137.145 is the only and current regulation for manned aircraft. “[ “populous area”, in relation to flight by an aeroplane means an area where, if the aeroplane’s engine failed, the aeroplane would not be able to glide safely clear of any occupied building.]” I’ll introduce a twist, but something which will be quite common. I have no knowledge of aircraft or flying, but a friend arranges a local flight at Sunshine Airport with a friend of his, and we share the cost. Before we get in, the pilot shows me the warning plaque, and also points out that this engine has some more limitations, and reads me the CASA limitation with a straight face and without “but it’s bullsh!t” at the end. The pilot takes off, confident that I can’t sue him if there’s an accident and confident there are plenty of places to land if there’s an engine failure. On late downwind for 36 the engine fails and the pilot elects to land on 36. Under the stress, he pulls full flap at his normal point and sinks over the golf course, tries to land on it and slams off the end into trees which are 152 metres short of a row of houses. I suffer a broken neck, and become a quadriplegic, requiring remodelling of my house to cater for a trolley, 24 hour care for the rest of my life, and an income to support and educate my three children. I am going to need about $7 million dollars to cover these costs. So I sue the pilot, the aircraft owner, the FTF for negligent in failing to comply with a CASA instrument. I allege that the row of houses were “occupied buildings”, and the accident demonstrated that the aircraft was not able to glide clear of them. I claim that “area” means region, or tract, and “tract” means “a region or expanse of indefinite extent and shape, so when the engine failed we were within the area of the occupied buildings and so were over a “populous area” illegally. We didn’t necessary have to crash into a building to qualify a populous area, we just had to fall short of any nearby building to qualify. Using the definition of “occupy as “take up” or “fill”, and the word “Building” as against the Planning definition “dwelling”, then if the pilot had glided short of a hayshed, I would have used the same argument. I also sue the pilot’s Instructor and CFI for negligence on the grounds that they failed to train the pilot to the point where he could successfully pull off a forced landing, using the well-known precaution of only applying full flap once he had reached the threshold. So far in the threads relating to CASA’s action, most people have focused directly on the mechanical aspects and the rights or wrongs of CASA’s actions, but only Motz seems to have identified the complexity of the issues now faced. As I said before, this is a hypothetical, and the definition of “populous area” is not necessarily correct, and this by no means is legal advice, but if this definition is applicable and current, it doesn’t say much for CASA that it wasn’t referenced, it doesn’t say much for them if it is that vague, and it doesn’t say much for them that they show a different definition elsewhere. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Iits ok Russ. It was a late in the day forum in joke. I was having a gentle dig at someone who believes the lack of forging is THE problem with jab engines. All's cool mate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Oscar, the info I saw from CASA indicated a core rebuilt WAS a CAE not Jabiru any longerIf it recieved a CAE plate Yep, if it has a CAE plate and not just a CAE 'supplementary' plate plus a Jabiru 'primary' plate (as it were), then it's a CAE engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Thats what i mean, a supplementary plated engine was the basis for the email from CASA widely circulated regarding CAE NOT being subject to limitations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 jj, I don't think that is correct - a supplementary-plated engine is still legally a Jabiru engine, not a CAMit engine. It might be a bit like 'grandfather's axe', with six new handles and a new head over time, but it's still 'grandfather's axe'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Luckily I am switching to RPL and the J400 is already VH registered. So I think this will be okay and an easier process to change over ? If you can let me know what you think in this situation I don't know enough about VH registration Ryan but be careful because I would think if it was VH (not VH experimental) it would be similar to our 24 rego and you wouldn't be able to swap for a CAMit with jumping through some potentially expensive hoops. VH experimental would be fine. Maybe someone with some knowledge of the VH system could comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I don't know enough about VH registration Ryan but be careful because I would think if it was VH (not VH experimental) it would be similar to our 24 rego and you wouldn't be able to swap for a CAMit with jumping through some potentially expensive hoops. VH experimental would be fine.Maybe someone with some knowledge of the VH system could comment? You are wrong in your assumptions !!! He said J400 and were only ever a kit aircraft and 4 seat so VH experimental !! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Thanks camel, it's obvious I am not a jab officianado 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan4321 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Thanks so much. Off topic I guess, but I am waiting for my level 2 medical (1st one, ie. Not renewal) and I have been told it is under review by a medical accessor due to comments on the medical that I have IGA Nephropathy (chronic inflammatory condition of the kidneys). Should I be worried about rejection due to this as I would have thought it was only conditions which pose a threat of incapacitation, not something which 'can' slowly reduce kidney function over many many years (Likely never to affect me if I am not overweight/unhealthy). I am also only 31 with perfect kidney function. Would be interested to know anyone's thoughts. This could be the stumbling block to purchasing my J400. If if were rejected is there an avenue for dispute? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 There IS theoretically. Now the Avmed chief has been replaced, more sanity will surely prevail there. The class 2 is your only hope . RPL is tick all boxes so you are past that point. A good DAME is helpful. Talk to AOPA . We all should be members as they can advocate for you without fear of retribution. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Ryan, this topic is worth a thread of its own. My opinion is that it would be a disgraceful thing to deny a license to anybody with a condition like yours. The only sane prohibition should be for conditions which would cause a sudden ( less than a flight time) loss of capacity. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Oscar, i will chase down again but it was quite clear that with a new CAE core, it could now be classed as new engine make. It was advised to alter aircraft data in records being no longer Jabiru powered. That was VH regd. The eminent CASA dept indicated that as only ancillary parts were kept and with the supplementary datalate issued by CAE This was the preceeding discussion to getting email recently circulated confirming separation of new and new core CAE engines from limitations imposed Probably a good question for tech man in RAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Why aren't all registered jab owners getting that email ??? ....bewilds me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Because it has nothing to do with Jabiru Was sourced privately Very few have CAE engines of any sort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Thanks so much.Off topic I guess, but I am waiting for my level 2 medical (1st one, ie. Not renewal) and I have been told it is under review by a medical accessor due to comments on the medical that I have IGA Nephropathy (chronic inflammatory condition of the kidneys). Should I be worried about rejection due to this as I would have thought it was only conditions which pose a threat of incapacitation, not something which 'can' slowly reduce kidney function over many many years (Likely never to affect me if I am not overweight/unhealthy). I am also only 31 with perfect kidney function. Would be interested to know anyone's thoughts. This could be the stumbling block to purchasing my J400. If if were rejected is there an avenue for dispute? Ryan, purchasing VH experimental, maintenance has to be done by a LAME unless you have built a similar aircraft and have completed the SAAA maintenance procedures course. Best to talk to a LAME before you purchase anything. Tom 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