Jab down in Wentworth 2 Jan 23.

[trailer]

A more recent image showing water encroachment around Wentworth aerodrome.

[facthunter]

CASA don't investigate Accidents. AN INDEPENDENT Body ATSB, does. It's budget limits what it does. RAAus can't investigate with any credibility either as CASA can make it live or die and RAAus also has sponsors in the aviation Game who could be seen as affecting it's impartiality.. RAAus would have to be beholden to no one and not an active player to be impartial.  IF it controls us It cannot advocate for individual pilots who after all it takes some responsibility for their performance. You can't hunt with the Hound's and run with the Foxes.  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

trailer, is the black stuff surrounding the airfield water? 

[Garfly]

Anxious that my steed and/or myself might appear in a thread like this some day,

I'd like to say a word for this plane and pilot (pending due process): blameless.

[Bruce Tuncks]

OME, I once watched a Jabiru 2.2 take off in formation with a cessna 150. The Jabiru left the runway much quicker and climbed much faster.

Well I think it was a 150...  it was a cessna for sure.

[planedriver]

10 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

OME, I once watched a Jabiru 2.2 take off in formation with a cessna 150. The Jabiru left the runway much quicker and climbed much faster.

Well I think it was a 150...  it was a cessna for sure.

Hey Bruce.

Time to come clean mate.

Are you a journo for the general run-o-the-mill meeja ? 😂

[turboplanner]

 

9 minutes ago, planedriver said:

Hey Bruce.

Time to come clean mate.

Are you a journo for the general run-o-the-mill meeja ? 😂

I 've though for a long time he was a Rupert plant.

Edited January 4, 2023 by turboplanner

[trailer]

37 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

trailer, is the black stuff surrounding the airfield water? 

Yes, it peaked last week. Apparently road works and levy reinforcement were required to prevent airfield inundation, that was second info hand though.

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

It has been said this aircraft had only been flown twice in the previous 12 months. Why? If that is true, why the pilot flew in the heat with a passenger in a direction/height that would result in a tree landing if the engine failed is probably the more important question. Alot of RAAus accidents are the result of poor decisions.   

There are plenty of things that could have gone wrong if this aircraft had only been flown twice in the last 12 months. Even water in the fuel could have been an issue. Electrical issues sometimes only manifest themselves after the engine has been run for a while. Initially everything works fine and then corrosion on contacts may initially not have any effect but after a while the resistance builds especially if there is minor arcing leading to the connection failing. Insulation breaks down with age and/or becomes brittle especially near joins. Given the age and lack of use of this aircraft this is a distinct possibility. Crud in the fuel, varnish in the carb from dried fuel loosening and clogging jets etc.

 

A different scenario but an example of what can happen is after the flood a Mooney had water right over the wing roots and the cabin floor was awash. Everything under water was removed and replaced with new or refurbished or meticulously dismantled, cleaned and replaced. After the test flight went well, it ran like a bucket of bolts next start. There was still water in the fuel after the tanks had been completely drained. It was found some of the drain straws between ribs were clogged with the last sloshing compound allowing water build up behind the rib. Then the timing went awry. Both mags were sent away for overhaul as there was some internal corrosion. Then the engine would not idle. The fuel control unit was corroded, the battery failed, new ones installed and the starter motor crapped out so a new one has just been installed. Most of the instruments required repair. Luckily the aircraft is owned by an instrument LAME. None of these things were under water but were a consequence of the flood. There were a number of other things as well.

[RFguy]

does the ATSB have court of law style compel-to-answer style powers ? 

[old man emu]

4 minutes ago, RFguy said:

does the ATSB have court of law style compel-to-answer style powers ? 

The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act), allows the ATSB to investigate transport safety matters in the aviation, marine and rail transport modes within the Australian Government's constitutional jurisdiction and, to release transport safety information, including investigation reports that detail the findings and significant factors that led to a particular transport safety occurrence. ATSB Transport Safety Investigators exercise statutory powers delegated by the Chief Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the TSI Act. These powers allow ATSB investigators to interview anyone involved directly or indirectly in a transport safety occurrence.[16] A comprehensive regime of provisions within the TSI Act is in place to maintain the confidentiality of, and legal protection for, a range of sensitive safety information gathered by ATSB investigators.

 

TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION ACT 2003 - SECT 32

ATSB may require persons to attend and answer questions etc.

             (1)  Where the ATSB considers it necessary to do so for the purposes of an investigation, the ATSB may:

                     (a)  require a person to attend before the ATSB and answer questions put by any person relating to matters relevant to the investigation; or

                     (b)  require a person to produce specified evidential material to the ATSB.

 

TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION ACT 2003 - SECT 47

Self-incrimination not an excuse

             (1)  A person is not excused from answering a question or producing evidential material in response to a requirement under this Part on the ground that the answer, or the production of the material, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.

             (2)  However, if the person is an individual, then:

                     (a)  the answer or the production of the material; and

                     (b)  any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect result of the answer or the production of the material;

are not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings.

[jackc]

11 minutes ago, RFguy said:

does the ATSB have court of law style compel-to-answer style powers ? 

My question would be…..can they force you to incriminate yourself?  Much questioning in a Court has 2 answers, YES or NO.  

[jackc]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Why join a discussion trying to get better causeal outcomes with a post like that? You've left a trail of social media posts a mile high saying much the same; we understand, but those who want to make improvements are going to need reports of mistakes made.

 

If you're in an official position and you're at an operation, you have a job to do, and it's not chattering with every talking head that comes along and tells you what should be done. I've done that job many times. You have to focus on getting the information you need before you lose the chance. I got a massive breakthrough once just sitting with a local family with a noise meter, giving them the readings minute by minute. No one know I was there, or they would have backed off the engines etc. We got real time data and found out it wasn't car noise causing the problems that were going to close down the track.

 

I would rather have an RAA staffer take photos of non compliant aircrft, contact the owner and get him to bring it up to scratch withinm an agreed time than have anothe drop kick in an unmarked, unregistered, they can't catch me pos beat up a boat load of people then fall into the water setting off an Australia-wide Audit which took out 20 or 30 flyers permanently.

 

IF I am a member of an organisation that has questionable authority and enforcement over  its members by way of penalties.  Then I would question many outcomes integrity of any of its  findings.  History of RAA unfortunately has some history on this.  Politics of like organisations is becoming a big problem these days. 

The RAA structure alone makes me think that. 

I begin to think one of the biggest mistakes  I have ever made is become involved in forums, in recent times.   The modern World of Forums and social media has become infected with dobbing, information mining snitches  who play big daddy Policeman?  And because some are part of organisational hierarchies……they know it all.  As far as RAA generally, I think its US and THEM.  No doubt there are good people who are communicable and ethical, in an honest way in the organisation, one day I may get to meet them. 

 

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, jackc said:

IF I am a member of an organisation that has questionable authority and enforcement over  its members by way of penalties.  Then I would question many outcomes integrity of any of its  findings.  History of RAA unfortunately has some history on this.  Politics of like organisations is becoming a big problem these days. 

The RAA structure alone makes me think that. 

I begin to think one of the biggest mistakes  I have ever made is become involved in forums, in recent times.   The modern World of Forums and social media has become infected with dobbing, information mining snitches  who play big daddy Policeman?  And because some are part of organisational hierarchies……they know it all.  As far as RAA generally, I think its US and THEM.  No doubt there are good people who are communicable and ethical, in an honest way in the organisation, one day I may get to meet them. 

 

The RAA structure is a Limited Company, so it's virtually the opposite of all the things you mention. It's not an Incorporated Association; the members voted to move FROM an Incorporated Association TO a Limited Company. 

 

I would say that RAA is not what you're describing but is well isolated from Social Media; it's not bound to take any notice of what's printed on social media, it desn't have officials out in the States to dob to, it's quite benign.

[facthunter]

Well said. I don't blame you at all. . Nev

[RFguy]

Hi Peter
Well, if you know something that could be useful to future safe (er) operation of aircraft, I'd encourage you to write to the technical manager at RAAus with any useful information . 

-glen

[jackc]

Turbs, You don’t  move in the coalface circles I do, being more hierarchical than I am , you probably do not hear many things real World things that go on at lower levels. 

Nothing wrong with that 🙂.  Make no mistake RAA probably has a dartboard in their lunch room with my ugly face on it, full of darts.  They probably clean it off each week to make room for another lot of darts.  I bet IF the members want to change the structure back to what it once was, it would happen overnight? 

Any way, we all DO have a choice 🙂. GO VH.

I feel sad I have dragged this so far off topic at the expense of a poor unfortunate Jabiru pilot’s crash.  I hope he gets  help needed, to get back in the air and not be driven away by criticism.  

[jackc]

Its a shame its too hot here to fly this week as density altitude is not my friend,  or I would be in the sky. Maybe next week, I hope 🙂 

[facthunter]

RFGuy I don't know about that. All along I've been thinking "what IF it was ME in that Jabiru" and even(shock horror) what IF I owned a Jabiru.? I've already confessed to flying them and defying death obviously in a state of ignorance.  Nev

Edited January 4, 2023 by facthunter

[jackc]

Many people I spoke to criticised  my purchase of the ‘Super Bin Chicken’  but I have copped that all my life when buying cars etc.  I am very mindful of situational awareness on take off and flying in general, given the Jabiru reputation.  

Soon this year, I need to make my mind up on ordering a new Gen4 engine and just put it in, and be done with it. Having fun flying does not come cheap, who cares as I am not far off EOL anyway 🙂 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, jackc said:

My question would be…..can they force you to incriminate yourself?  Much questioning in a Court has 2 answers, YES or NO.  

See OME's above post

 

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

OME, I once watched a Jabiru 2.2 take off in formation with a cessna 150. The Jabiru left the runway much quicker and climbed much faster.

Well I think it was a 150...  it was a cessna for sure.

Jabs have always climbed at substantially more ft/second than the bottom levels of the GA.

When it's a hot day though the early wings don't lift well so Jab introduced the J170 for the northern part of Australia.

Edited January 4, 2023 by turboplanner

[facthunter]

Is there no empathy left here?  People have feelings  A blokes lost his aeroplane and this poster obviously knows him.   Plenty of contributors have got away  with worse. Your comment to me is not that flash, either. Nev

[jackc]

31 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Jabs have always climbed at substantially more ft/second than the bottom levels of the GA.

When it's a hot day though the early wings don't lift well so Jab introduced the J170 for the northern part of Australia.

Could it be that the Jabiru suffered a lot of sink just after take off by flying over water/swamp? 

[BrendAn]

Just now, facthunter said:

Is there no empathy left here?  People have feelings  A blokes lost his aeroplane and this poster obviously knows him.   Plenty of contributors have got away  with worse. Your comment to me is not that flash, either. Nev

I removed the personal advice. Sorry that was childish. But I did not read any bad comments about that accident. We are allowed to talk about it