Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/04/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Yep! combination conductive/anti oxidisation is the ultimate goal but even petroleum jelly/grease will do the job - the aim is to preserve a good connection for as long as possible..
  2. 1 point
    I suspect the accident rate will infact rise over the coming years. The addition of technology into the cockpit will further reduce the general handling skills of pilots and introduce unnecessary distractions. A pilot should be comfortable in getting into their aircraft and flying it without the aid of written checklists or by reference to any flight instruments. This includes all phases of VFR flight and manoeuvres. Im not saying technology makes flying dangerous, it’s the lack of underlying handling skills and lack of training in prioritisation of tasks. The number of videos I’ve seen of pilots looking for traffic on their chosen EFB instead of looking outside, one memorable one was determined to find the traffic on their EFB while their non pilot pax looked outside and spotted the traffic immediately.
  3. 1 point
    Well actually he’s not quite as statistically out as you first surmise. If you recall CASA used figures ( dodgy I admit but they used these in their imposing restrictions and repeated the broad estimations to the senate estimate hearing. These were: 40 engine failures or major mechanical problems and this equated to 2.6 per 10000 hours of flight. Their total figures for rotax were 1.5 per 10000 hours and LyCon at 0.8. On these figures the imposed the restrictions as they stated that they considered anything over 1.0 unacceptable - but oddly did not impose any on Rotax. But when the figures were pulled out under FOI laws and were looked at it turned out that only about 12 (as best I recall) were real problems all the others were fuel issues, other non engine component failures and several were flights into controlled airspace without clearance! etc (as we are all pretty much aware) So the real jab numbers went down to approximately a third of the published numbers (12/40) so in fact it was a bit over a third of 2.6 - let’s say 0.8 or 0.9! On a par with LyCon (if the numbers were correct - which they undoubtedly were NOT Because CASA got them without them from the RAAAus without them being carefully acquired. But still they clearly were NO WHERE near the figures CASA used. Why were they believed by CASA - a huge observer bias where they happily ignored the events happening with other engines and noisily beat their chests about the jab ones. The LyCon figures are more likely to be correct being mostly GA where things are reported more accurately, but just like the Jab numbers being probably wrong so were the Rotax figuresbut CASA were happy to use them because they appeared to show Jabs in a bad light. So all up we have no correct numbers but clearly the jab figures are no where as bad as people claimed and on the figures available actually yep- they are broadly comparable to LyCons and Rotaxes.
  4. 1 point
    I remember a sad accident 7 years ago involving a Thorpe T18 that broke up inflight , wake turbulence may have been a factor , something to think about , I was watching a A380 a few weeks ago with beautifully vortex contrails visible and it was amazing how quick they descended from 30, 0000 plus to around 5, 000 or so , hard to judge height accurately but it was a huge descent very rapidly. Thorpe accident report https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=150966
  5. 1 point
    Spacey, you forgot to mention the Hirth is little-admired, because it mostly converts gobs of fuel into lots of noise.
  6. 1 point
    Crickey Skip, it's been decades since any substances altered my mind! Seems that, in an effort to be economical with words, I have been less than clear. I wasn't saying the Jab engine is as reliable as the big three. I was saying it's not far behind and compares favourably with many, especially lots of cheaper engines. I suspect many rec. airframes have to make comprises in structural robustness to accommodate the weight of the Rotax. I'm a fan of the Jab engine for several reasons, including its simplicity. Without it my little plane would be handicapped with a low-powered, hand-started VW derivative.
  7. 1 point
    Wasn't there a display somewhere where they wouldn't bring it out because it was raining?
  8. 1 point
    The Jabiru airframe is among the most rigorously-tested and safest there is. Their engines are among the most reliable, as well as being the lightest and cheapest in their class. If you want the (perceived) extra reliablity of Lycoming, Continental or Rotax, you'd have to pay double or more. Ova to you...
  9. 1 point
    RIP It would be a good idea to leave any speculation to the gossipers and not bring it into this forum. Another sad day for aviation not to mention friends, family and the people who have to attend these tragic incidents. 
  10. 1 point
    Nothing is ever " at owners risk". There will always be a vulturous lawyer and an easily manipulated widow when these things go pear shaped. It's amazing how the law so easily removes all fault from the dead victim and transfers it the living - especially if the living have deep pockets or are perceived to have deep pockets.
×
×
  • Create New...