coljones Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2015L00974 Has anyone any updates? It is now becoming beyond tedious. Has it become like Iraq's WMD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Self Ceasing must mean extended indefinately. Why does a jabiru engine have to cause anything to change re signing a form for the passenger unless it's fitted to a school aircraft. Not their finest hour(s). Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Jabiru was heard to say "The CASA limitations are unfortunately still in place. Information we have received tells us that the on-going airworthiness department of CASA has no further issues with Jabiru. We are unsure of the reasons why the limitations are still in place. It would appear that the matter of lifting these restrictions may be held up by the legal department. We would of course like the limitations to be lifted as soon as possible. We continue to provide correspondence to CASA, Mr Warren Truss MP and our local members of parliament. The more correspondence they receive on the impact the limitations continue to have on owners and operators will assist. Correspondence can be sent to CASA, your local member, Mr Warren Truss MP at [email protected] and the Industry Complaints Commissioner CASA at[email protected]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEM Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Hi Col See "Jabiru 2016 update" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 29, 2016 Author Share Posted January 29, 2016 Hi ColSee "Jabiru 2016 update" thread. Yes, of course. The full letter in http://recreationalflying.com/threads/jabiru-2016-update.145712/ talks about the good stuff as well and deserves a read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 The latest Sport Pilot magazine has an article ( p59) explaining how Jabiru is not guilty as the numbers quoted by CASA do not support the CASA actions. Then the article is undermined by a statement about how the RAAus does not necessarily support the article. So what is the RAAus position? Does anybody know? I got the impression that RAAus is also hostile to Jabiru, but I hope this is wrong. Surely RAAus has some sort of position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 RAAus should have and keep an open mind, especially when the situation has moved to where the big powers have intervened and legal processes may become involved. It should be working to ensure a proper process is being carried out to protect it's members interests. I think it has done this to a reasonable extent. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billwoodmason Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Bruce I think RAA office have had more to do with assisting the regulator to impose sanctions from the outset - more than one of our board members have been outspoken about Jabiru(s) in this forum in the past (now all silent thank goodness). Anecdotally the Tech manager is anti Jab as well, also the CEO has made inappropriate comments in the past. You would think they would be actively supporting their membership by keeping Jabiru a strong brand in the marketplace seeing a large proportion would have trained in Jabirus (supporting Flying Schools) and what of the members who own Jabirus which make up a large part of RAA's fleet. I don't believe they have had their (members) best interests at heart which in my opinion should be their first responsibility. I for one am very disappointed in the outcome of this witch hunt. It should never have come to imposing sanctions. Improvements have been made to all versions of the motor in an ongoing process since inception and is easily demonstratable. All so unnecessary !!. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Bruce I think RAA office have had more to do with assisting the regulator to impose sanctions from the outset - more than one of our board members have been outspoken about Jabiru(s) in this forum in the past (now all silent thank goodness). Anecdotally the Tech manager is anti Jab as well, also the CEO has made inappropriate comments in the past.You would think they would be actively supporting their membership by keeping Jabiru a strong brand in the marketplace seeing a large proportion would have trained in Jabirus (supporting Flying Schools) and what of the members who own Jabirus which make up a large part of RAA's fleet. I don't believe they have had their (members) best interests at heart which in my opinion should be their first responsibility. I for one am very disappointed in the outcome of this witch hunt. It should never have come to imposing sanctions. Improvements have been made to all versions of the motor in an ongoing process since inception and is easily demonstratable. All so unnecessary !!. Why don't you investigate further Bill, you too Bruce? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 as if bill and bruce are going to get an answer my solicitor wrote to both raaus and cassa re my plane they both passed the buck and I have that in writing my plane was sighned out as air worthy how come new windscreen new legs new rudder peddles new under carriage new engine frame new return fuel line as in rotax installation manual new fuel gasculator were required to make it safe or was the lame that inspected it to fussy neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 as if bill and bruce are going to get an answer my solicitor wrote to both raaus and cassa re my plane they both passed the buck and I have that in writingmy plane was sighned out as air worthy how come new windscreen new legs new rudder peddles new under carriage new engine frame new return fuel line as in rotax installation manual new fuel gasculator were required to make it safe or was the lame that inspected it to fussy neil The Magistrate finalised that one for you Storchy, and neither RAA, not CASA are likely to interfere with his decision any time soon, and for that matter you don't need his hand on your shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 but it would not have happened the way it did had the great enforcers off rules and regulations got off their backsides and enforced their own rules and regulation so according to you I have to sit back and bloody well watch while other pilots die not likely should my writings bring knowledge as to what does happen what is happening not like some who speculate failure by the powers at the top to listen to be told that's bad luck repair plane and don't make waves don't go down well with me neil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I got an answer from Don Ramsay and now I am satisfied that RAAus has done the right thing and complained in writing and in person to CASA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 When forming an opinion of substance on this matter one should be well informed on technical and other aspects of the Jabiru "experience". No room for prejudice or outright condemnation if we are looking for a just and reasonable outcome, for all concerned.. There's been plenty of shooting from the hip and comment based on how you FEEL about it and a bit of wishful thinking about the nature of an aero engine in the real world. The RAAus should not just come out and support Jabiru Per se. It should argue for an honest and open process which is based on sound evidence . CASA don't have the expertise and have relied on dodgy statistics instead and been shown to have done so, but they cannot admit to being wrong. Nev 4 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Its not about supporting Jabiru, there is serious cultural changes needed there and this has been pushed for some time. By succession of RAA people. The barrow they can push is that the action from CASA is hurting owners and has no chance at achieving a result. There needed to be a process that ensured a result. This is just a@#e covering hurting plenty with no ability to influence. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billwoodmason Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 From the moment CASA became involved the outcome was inevitable - they do not negotiate. Whoever made contact with CASA on this issue would have had a fair idea of what would ensue. The unanswered question is "What was their real motivation"?. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 At best, well intentioned do gooder, and it goes downhill from there. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 At best, well intentioned do gooder, and it goes downhill from there. Nev Nev, I believe it was a bit more serious than that. I have seen a copy of correspondence TO CASA, reproduced BY CASA, that indicated some very, very serious axe-grinding and stirring up taking place - and given the antipathy of certain people in high places in CASA to Recreational and Sport aviation, that was grist to their mill. HOWEVER - there is absolutely no value in now chasing those who prodded the tiger; they had no power to direct the action that CASA took. They may have handed CASA the ammunition, but the aim and firing, was CASA's alone. Long-time forum members will have a pretty good idea of the heat of the debate that raged well prior to the CASA action, with some people shouting for caution while others sought Jabiru's blood. People were temporarily /permanently banned from this site over their comments and some valuable members simply quit contributing altogether in disgust. In the long run, none of that made the slightest difference to what transpired, and revisiting that ground is a fruitless exercise. What has been done, cannot be undone: the egg has been scrambled and it appears that it cannot be unscrambled -that is the nature of such an event and an entirely forseeable consequence of the agitation placed before CASA for 'action'. We are now in the fifteenth month of operation of an 'Instrument' originally slated for 6 months of operation. Can anybody realistically point to an improvement in safety as a result ? Are Jabiru-powered aircraft suddenly no longer being involved in accidents that caused fatals / injuries / damage to third-party people or property compared to their previous record - because their previous record is pretty damn good for all of those points. And before certain people - and we know who they will be - claim that 'potential' safety issues have been averted - the actual statistics for one of the longest-serving ( and certainly hugely the most numerous of the Australian-manufactured RAA-class aircraft) do NOT support any conclusion being drawn that Jabiru-powered aircraft have, from their power-plant, a high likely incidence of fatalities / injuries / damage to property. The argument that 'potential' outcomes from engine failures 'might have been worse' - is a complete BS argument. Jab. engines have failed, for sure - but the result of that has been in almost all cases, a bent aircraft - not wholesale devastation of life, limb and property. The 'potential' argument is complete manure: there is 25 years of data to the contrary. Other than having driven Australia's most successful - by a vast margin - aircraft manufacturer and its only manufacturer of certificated / certified engines to the brink of extinction, ripped out the guts from the majority of the Recreational Aviation training facilities and de-valued at least one-third of the Rec. Av. fleet - what has CASA's Instrument achieved? 1 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 The saddest part for me is that by creating fear and doubt, CASA will have dramatically reduced usage or Jabiru engined aircraft. I expect the next round of data will be the accident count (not by hours flown) and there will be a dramatic reduction in incidents. By this CASA and supporters will crow safety benefits. No schools damaged, lucky they acted. Its the whole absurdity of preventing non existant risk. Always looks like a sucess. Safe skies are empty skies 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 And the a/holes sitting back saying what a good boy am I. Won't be forgotten whatever the future holds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 RAA are right in the mix here, from day one. To this point, they have been trying to recage the tiger that they helped unleash. The "data" they passed on, was poorly analysed, poorly set out, and one or 2 within RAA, were hell bent on causing pain. I would think, RAA, did not expect the severity of the casa action, and in the manner it was implimented. I've said it before......."out" those names, the ones cowering in the shadows, that ignited this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Russ, I sincerely believe that only one on the RAA Board was 'in the mix' - and he's no longer with us. The current CEO doesn't have the expertise in aviation to be a 'player' - though he's made some damn stupid statements and the previous one was as useful as teats on a Bull. But - apart from the personal satisfaction of being able to beat the cr@p out of some people that have bought pain - it won't change the situation to know who they were. What we have here - is a SITUATION - and that is caused ultimately by CASA. What we need is a Senate Inquiry - and thanks to the current political BS, we may not get that. The bast@rds in CASA that bought this into being, may once again escape. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 i wona know who the snake/s were............i wona inflict misery on the barst*rd/s...........i wona drop a building block on their roof from 20k ft, i wona attend their funeral and tip 20 tonne concrete on their grave/s.............i just wona 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 This won't end nicely. Apart from the obvious - it would be alleged 2 current board members in a meeting with Truss!! Now trust us we only need 7 members reps, by numbers elected by SE Australia by numbers only. Ultimately the members will decide at the upcoming meeting - should they decide to vote. I just hope members give serious consideration to this proposal, it is their choise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Is that an underhanded attempt to push the current attempt at constitutional change. If it is then I call cheap shot. 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