REastwood

Hi Bex,

 

Are you flying into Goolwa or driving past? There is someone here 7 days a week, some days are busy, others quiet. But if you are coming past drop into the office area and have a chat.

 

Richard.

 

 

I know a guy who flew P51D Mustangs in the 50's, was an instructor, worked for the DCA and is still flying in his 80's, I don't know how many thousands of hours he has flown but he had his first single engine engine failure only recently. You really never know when it will happen!

 

 

I went from about 90 hours RA-Aus (with a brand new Instructor rating) to GA after an engine failure in a Jabiru. I certainly found the weight of the controls and the view out the front difficult in the beginning, but with correct use of trim (three "turns" of up trim on short final) and the correct seat height it became a lot easier. I pretty much went PPL, NVFR, CIR in the space of 60 hours so it was a steep learning curve and I still shudder at the gulf of training between RA-Aus and GA. But the Cessna 172 is a great aircraft to travel in, very reliable, 2 people, nearly full tanks, luggage and two fold up bikes in the back, IFR approach into Essendon on a cloudy day - priceless!

 

 

I once had an aircraft call "joining mid-field cross wind" while I and another aircraft were doing circuits. I was just airborne, and in my mental map had the calling aircraft directly above me and a little over half a circuit in front. On turning downwind (and calling such, with no reply) I completed some checks and was looking for the traffic to follow on downwind when I suddenly saw an aircraft coming from my left on a direct collision course. The plane was starting to bank left to join mid downwind and the other pilot would not have been able to see me under his upturned wing. I took immediate and abrupt evasive action and the collision was avoided. This was the plane that called "joining" over a minute earlier and was a student pilot with instructor on board.

A "joining" call at the time of joining, or a response to my "turning downwind" call or the other pilot looking up the downwind leg could have avoided the near tragedy. I now always visually check to the left when joining downwind, something that was not taught in ab-initio training.

Certainly the student pilot or instructor should have made a response to your "turning downwind" call, obviously not listening. But it also may have been appropriate on your part not to turn downwind until you had the location of the other aircraft established, extend upwind or crosswind until you are sure. Watch the youtube videos of the F16 C150 and the Sabreliner C172 midairs, See and Avoid is extremely difficult, correct and targeted use of the radio should be used and if you are not certain of the position of another aircraft in the vicinity don't just keep on doing what you are doing, and if you do make a call i.e. "Aircraft joining midfield cross wind please advice when you are on downwind." but get no response then it is probably safe to assume that they are not listening so stay clear until you either hear a response or you can verify their position visually.

 

There is no hard and fast rule of when or when not to make a call, it is "to avoid the possibility of a collision (CAR166)", too many calls will block or override other transmissions so is not safe, too few will not alert other pilots in the vicinity so is not safe, and not listening or acting upon another transmission is also not safe. The correct use of the radio is an integral part of being a pilot and as much effort as you put into getting your landings right or other flight manoeuvres you should put into getting your calls right. Just as in landings, every situation is different, for what radio calls to make and listening and acting upon them.

 

 

After reading all the posts here I noticed that the most important use of the radio has not been mentioned, that is the LISTEN. Everybody goes on about what CALLS to make but what about listening? If you take CAR166 and the CAAP and remember that listening is the most important thing then it makes a lot of sense. So you make a call 10nm inbound (not "inbound" to overfly, you are either inbound or you are going to overfly but thats another topic) people in the vicinity of that aerodrome who are listening will hear the call and should, if there is a risk of collision, make a call, i.e. "Coldstream traffic, Cessna ABC 10 miles to the North, inbound, expect circuit at 05" with a response of "ABC, Tecnam 1234 downwind 34 for circuits". Thus letting the inbound aircraft know that an aircraft is doing circuits and to keep an eye out for them. If the inbound aircraft is coming from the North and you are departing South then there is no risk of collision and no real need to make a call.

 

Joining the circuit. You should call a minute or so before joining the circuit so that those listening will be able to respond if there is a possibility of collision, i.e. inbound aircraft calls joining downwind 34 and you are on crosswind 34 about to turn downwind, NOT if you are taxiing to the runup bay.

 

Taxiing for the runway. You should call that you are taxiing to the runway so that those who are listening will be able to respond if there is a possibility of collision, i.e. if you are on final to runway 34 then you can call to let them know. This is also why you should NEVER make an unsolicited Final call, I have seen it happen too many times where a person makes the taxiing call at the same time a person makes an unsolicited final call (making calls and not listening) so neither are any wiser as to each others location. Then the taxiing aircraft will make a call to enter the runway just as the other aircraft makes an unsolicited call that they are on short final and before you know it you have a collision about to happen. The aircraft in the circuit should be listening and when a person makes a taxiing call THEN you can respond to that call because you were listening and give your position.

 

And so on with the other recommended calls as per the CAAP.

 

If you are doing circuits and really feel the desperate need to say something then the safest call is the Base call with intentions. If you call Downwind you may over transmit another aircraft calling joining downwind, if you call Final you can over transmit someone taxiing for or entering the runway. Remember, the key to safe use of the radio is to make the recommended "trigger" calls and listen! Do not turn the volume down so you can talk to the student or passenger (the number of times I've seen this!), don't just make rote calls, think, transmit then listen.

 

 

Also, everybody needs to remember that you are all bound by THE rules (CAR, CASR, CAO etc) and that RA-Aus operates under various EXEMPTIONS from those rules (CAO 95.55, 95.10 etc) so there isn't really a rule for GA and a rule for RA-Aus. As pilots you need to at least read THE rules as they do actually apply to you. If there is an exemption to that rule contained in a CAO pertinent to your aircraft then that exemption applies to that rule. So have a read through the AIP at least.

 

 

From what I gleaned from the various emails, postings etc. from both OzR and AvPlan was that no one wanted to sponsor AVA, then OzR became the first sponsor, then AVA (with still no sponsors or even bookings for stalls) asked OzR if they could cough up more money and so for roughly a $60,000 investment AVA offered in return exclusivity (which shouldn't be a problem as no one else has even signed up for a trade stand yet so it doesn't look like any of your competitors are even coming). OzR agreed on the proviso that if anybody did want to sponsor then OzR would drop back to either a major or normal sponsor depending on how many other sponsors came in.

 

So if AvPlan (who as it seems hadn't even booked a stall at this stage) wanted to, they could have easily approached AVA and offered to become a sponsor. The question is why didn't they? Why did they launch a social media campaign saying they had been excluded from an event to which they hadn't even committed to going?

 

Anyway, it looks like it's been a steep learning curve for quite a few people and OzR looks like they will distribute the money elsewhere in a more quieter fashion which in the end may be the better way to do it.

 

 

After a relatively quick (2 hours) search of the regulations, all I could find to determine VFR conditions and if it is legal to take off for Day VFR is as follows;

 

1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track

 

If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.

 

2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)

 

3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.

 

4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.

 

For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?

 

Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.

 

 

OH&S has prevented a lot of accidents: mainly certain people getting accidentally sued (because they were seen to be "doing something") and I suspect a lot of workers have lost their jobs due to the rapid increase in the cost of building anything these days, so therefore accidents have been prevented. Remember empty workplaces are safe workplaces.

 

 

Eastwood hey? I know a QF Capt same name, related?:-)

Possibly, my brother is a Type Rating Examiner/Check Training Captain for QF.

 

 

Good story -:) still fly behind a Jab engine?

Nope! Got my PPL, NVFR and IR not that long afterwards and bought a Cessna 172.

 

 

Just seeing how people have coped with a real engine failure in flight. No other reason.

1. First how did you initially cope with it. Example was it total shock or initial disbelief with the engine going quiet, for the first say 5 - 10 seconds.
    
    
   
2. What height were you at – did you have a pax onboard
    
    
    
   
3. How long was your glide time do you think, from failure to the wheels on ground.
    
    
    
   
4. Did you have to find a paddock or were you over the strip and back to the runway.
    
    
    
   
5. Did your training provide “sufficient real life experience” on how to deal with it?
    
    
    
   
6. How was the outcome – e.g. no damage or damage to the aircraft.
    
    
    
   
7. What would you advise to change in initial training of engine failures (if any).
    
    
    
   
8. What did YOU stuff up - e.g. wind direction / trouble checks / wrong glide speed / changed paddocks from your initial choice and why?
    
    
    
   
9. Did you come in to fast (or a bit to height) or did or did you come in to slow to stretch the glide at the last minute.
    
    
    
   
10. Did you know what stopped the engine initally when it shut down or try to restart?
     
     
     
    
11. What would you have done differently in hindsight.
     
     
     
    
12. What did you drink that night! – beer / scotch / wine (and of course how many)
     
    

 

 

I was about 3000' AMSL (about 1600 AGL) just below the clouds on my way to Port Augusta in a Jabiru 230D, the engine started running rough so I immediately pulled the carry heat but to no effect, the engine stopped dead. Being already primed for a problem I checked fuel, mags and a restart but when I pushed the starter the prop didn't move at all!

 

1. As the engine was running rough I was focused on the engine so when it stopped dead the was only a moment hesitation before going through the checks.

 

2. 3000' AMSL (1600 AGL) no pax.

 

3. It felt like about a minute but was more like 4 min in real terms.

 

4. I had been taught to always select a couple of areas just in case, the first, while clear was sloping and I was too high, the second was flat but with a crop of wheat, it was the second one I ended up in.

 

5. I think so, the main thing going through my mind was "do not stall it in, go through a fence if you have to" when I was lined up in the paddock all I could see was a tree in the way, but I figured better to hit it slowly than stall and hit the ground fast!

 

6. The mains touched down first but the crop caused a lot of drag which forced the front to dig into the soft soil causing the aircraft to flip. Aircraft was damaged (wing, empanage, fin) and I had a small bruise from the seat belt (which at least gave the two ambulances, three fire trucks and 2 police cars something to do :-)

 

7. In all the training I did it was always "look for a paddock" but since doing further training in GA I have been taught to also look for roads - long driveways, etc. as landing on a firmer surface if available can prevent a flip.

 

8. I didn't activate the epirb before landing, I had it ready but things happened a bit fast and I worried about the antenna getting in the way.

 

9. Came in full flap (electric, so put full flap on then turn off master at about 50') I remember touching down just above the stall what I did not know was just how a crop (probably only a a few weeks from harvest) would grab the wheels and just how disconcerting being upside down can be, it took me probably 10 seconds to realise to push with my legs to be able to unbuckle the seat belt.

 

10. No idea, I knew it was catastrophic as the starter motor couldn't budge it.

 

11. There was a nice flat dirt road with no trees not far from where I landed, I wish I had gone for that.

 

12. Can't remember! I remember asking the channel 7 chopper pilot if he could give me a lift back! I had to wait a couple of hours for my wife to come and pick me up from the local police station, at least she didn't berate me all the way home!

 

A couple of other memories... apparently they heard my May Day at Parafield FTA but they thought it was just a student giving a dummy call but had accidentally pushed the PTT button as my voice was so calm!!!!

 

I found it hard to find a phone number to call to say I was on the ground OK, cancel the May Day as the radio was unoperative.

 

Unfortunately channel 7 chopper also heard the May Day and came to the scene. I didn't want any mis-reporting so refused to comment, I remember the reporter telling me "don't worry, I'll tell you what to say", I was shocked more by that than the crash!

 

I was speaking to a gentleman who has been flying for over 60 years and he had his first engine failure (in a single engine aircraft) in his Victa only a few months ago, so basically you need to always be ready and practised because you can never know if or when it will happen.

 

 

Are those 13 hours all dual GA hour ?how many RA hours or/and endorsements do you have before doing the GA training ?

Atm, i got about 35 dual and 5 solo RA hours without any endorsements . I know it really depends on individual but still would like to have more ideas to see how far away from my PPL . thanks

I had approx 55 hours dual & 80 solo (25 RA-Aus cert, 11 Navs, 15 RA-Aus instructor rating + 1 year solo flying in various aircraft), so I had done a fair bit of flying before going for my PPL. I'm not sure what the minimums are these days but you need to make sure of two things: 1. The GA school you use will recognise your hours in RA-Aus and 2. The RA-Aus school you are with are covering the required subjects correctly and fully - especially NAVS, i.e. TAFS, LSALT, Alternates, Low Level (500') navigation etc.

 

With regards to actual flying, the biggest issue I had going from a Jabiru 230/Sportstar type aircraft to a Cessna 172 was the flair. The weight of the controls and the view out the front made for some re-assesment of my landing technique, but once I sorted that out it also made the lighter aircraft landings better :-). After getting my PPL I went on to get my NVFR and CIR (now just IR) and after doing all that I realised just how lacking my RA-Aus training was regarding VFR navigation.

 

Re: the 13 hours, yes, that was all dual and all navigation, i.e. Navs into and out of CTA, low level navs (500'), 2 hours on instruments, dead reckoning and rectifying unknown position. The flight test consisted of two parts, aircraft handling (stalls, turns, EFATO, price. landing etc. etc.)and navs.

 

 

Hi, did mine with Gary Pullman at Murray Bridge, took about 13 hours with Controlled Airspace. Used the Bob Tait PPL book for the exam. All pretty straight forward.

 

 

Thanks for that. It's really useful to think about these things.I'm really in no position to spend much money at the moment (as outlined above). So what actually interests me right at this moment is figuring out the whys behind things. The whole maintenance costs thing is all over the place. I get one person saying they usually have $600 annuals. I tried to figure out what it might cost given the "market rate" for C172 hire and I came out to somewhere between $5k-$10k. And then I get someone saying that $10,000 is an underestimate for the costs of an annual as it's more like $15k-$20k and most places loose money off private hire. This huge variation is _confusing_ to say the least.

 

Let's say it really is $20k per annual/100hourly. Where does that money go? Clearly there is the labour costs. But many people give examples of equipment costs and talk about "aviation grade". But in so many situations "aviation grade" equipment seems to just mean 50 year old technology which has a short lifetime compared to what is possible using modern materials. Yet you pay a premium for that "grade". But it's not actually clear to me that this would explain the majority of such a high cost. One day I may get to the bottom of this, but at the moment it's all totally opaque.

 

My personality cannot help but pursue questions like, why is this the case, and is there a better way? There are so many different things to ask these questions of here and there is a factorial more opinions out there, all wildly different.

You might want to consider also that the "Cost" of hiring is also about how much they want to hire the aircraft out, i.e. "I don't mind hiring mine out as long as I make a lot of money out of it, so I'll charge $300/hour", or "I need to hire my aircraft out so I'll charge $160/hr."

 

 

What exactly stops 152s getting to TBO? Are you saying something else writes off the plane apart from the engine?

No, especially in training (dual and solo) the C172 engine doesn't need to work as hard as the C150 engine, therefore it is under a lot less stress and lasts longer.

Regarding maintenance costs, to a large degree you can pay as much as you want. If you take your C172 to "U Bute Aircraft Maintenance" at Archerfield and tell them you want it in perfect condition then the annual could easily cost $15K to $20K because they will do absolutely everything to it, and it could take months. If you can find a good LAME that knows the aircraft, that knows what is required, whats not required, and (very importantly) what to look for on that particular model so as to prevent problems occurring AND you assist/prepare the aircraft yourself then you will be able to maintain a good, airworthy aircraft for between $1000 to $3000 per year tops. Of course if you want to put in a Garmin Avionics stack with STEC autopilot then that will cost a lot (but that is not really maintenance).

 

As for load and performance of a C172M compared to a J430 then here are some numbers;

 

Cessna 172M:

 

Empty weight (varies between 610 to 650 kg depending on equipment etc)

 

MTOW: 1043 kg

 

Fuel: 182L usable

 

Fuel Burn: (cruise at 75% power, leaned correctly):30 L/hr

 

Cruise speed: (75% power 8000') 118kn TAS

 

Engine: Lycoming O320-E2D: TBO 2000 hours (can be run "on condition" with many (>90%) running to approx 3000 hours - one in the US currently >4500 hours. 150hp can run on 91 Unleaded (Petersens STC)

 

Due to it's greater weight and aluminium construction the Cessna is a lot more comfortable to fly in bumpy conditions.

 

Jabiru J430:

 

Empty weight: (varies between 330 and 360kg depending on equipment, repairs etc)

 

MTOW: 700kg

 

Fuel: 135L usable

 

Fuel Burn: (Cruise at 2850 rpm):22 - 26L/hr

 

Cruise Speed: (2850rpm, 8000'):124kn TAS

 

Engine: Jabiru 3300.

 

The Jabiru is of course a fibreglass/composite construction and is built to a weight. The question you have to ask yourself is which one do you feel comfortable flying? My personal opinion is (obviously) the Cessna. I had a Jabiru 230 (brand new) and while I did a bit of touring in the Jabiru it did have it's issues. I prefer the Cessna because the engine is a lot more reliable, the airframe is more endurable (and if needs be, better to repair) and is a lot more comfortable over long trips than the Jabiru.

 

 

Hi aplund,

 

Congrats on the PPL, I started with RA-Aus then after an issue with a Jabiru I went to GA - PPL, NVFR, IR and bought a C172M and never looked back. A couple of notes regarding some questions above;

 

Why a C172 and not a 152? Especially for training a C172 will last a lot longer (engine wise) than a 152. Family had a flying school back in the 70's and initially had 152's, none got to TBO, not good in hot weather etc. Went to 172's and cost of maintenance dropped nearly by half. My Cessna has done nearly 11,000 hours but the previous owner rebuilt the wings, tailplane, rudder, new firewall, paint job etc so passed the SIDS with total cost $3000 (over two annuals). It has the MOGAS STC so with Fuel, maintenance, insurance, hangarage etc on 75 hours/year it costs me $130/hour to fly. I paid $45,000 for it (Two years of hire&fly) and did a lot of my training in it. It has nearly paid for itself in 5 years.

 

With regard to RA-Aus conversion, I see they have changed to rules, it used to be no minimum hours unless it was for a Low Performance Aircraft (<55knots) but now it is 5 hours with 1 hour PIC. If your ultimate goal is to own an aircraft then do the sums. There are good Pipers/Cessnas/Other (Piels, Aeronca, beechcraft etc) aircraft out there for $25K-$60 while Tecnams, Evektors, CT etc can be $40K above that. $40,000 pays for a lot of fuel and maintenance. With maintenance, there is no reason why a 100 hourly should cost $5000. Under the CASA regulations there are a lot of things you can do yourself and prepare the aircraft for inspection, reducing the cost considerably. If you just take your aircraft to a LAME, drop it off and pick it up when it is all finished then yes, it will cost a lot. Also look at Experimental aircraft, there are some wonderful planes out there and the cost of ownership is less than certified aircraft.

 

Think about what you would like to do - touring, day trips away, sunny day flying, bush strips, etc. then look at buying an aircraft that is best suited to that task (the Cessna 172 will do all these things easily but of course I'm biased!).

 

 

One of the big problems with CASA and Airshows is that you provide them with the Risk Assessment, insurance, proposed routines etc three months before the show, but you will not get approval (or not) until the Friday night before the show starts on Saturday. The chance of financial disaster is too great to take that risk.

 

 

... find that lawsuits for negligence is usually for something you forgot to do, like put a cover over, or barrier around a trench, provide a sefty harness for the hayshed,put the guard back on the post driver etc.

And here is the core of the problem - IT'S A TRENCH! - look where you are going, stop playing Pokemon, get the earphones out of your ears and pay attention to what you are doing. Haysheds and post drivers/hole diggers are dangerous - pay attention when using them! This country and it's legal system has to stop shifting the blame from the person who made the mistake of falling in the trench to the person who, apparently, made a "mistake" by not covering a trench.

 

Today, with the Falls fron Heights legislation set at 2 metres without railing or a harness, you couldn't take the risk doing that.

It's a matter of not putting someone at risk of an accident.

This is why the cost of building a house has nearly doubled, because of stupid legislation like this. When will people realise that EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS A RISK!!! Stop trying to reduce risk to zero, there will always be people who cannot recognise, or choose to ignore, risk and society should not have to protect these people (at huge cost). This is the heart of the aviation issues in Australia, CASA want Risk/Blame free flying which is killing aviation. People will always make mistakes, have accidents, be stupid etc. Society cannot afford to protect these people 100%, sure we shouldn't go too far the other way and have live wires dangling from street poles either, as always a balance should be found, but societies are notoriously bad at getting this right.

 

 

The girl was judged to be the innocent party otherwise there may have been a partial judgement or a settlement out of court.She might have been stupid in your opinion, but that wasn't the way it was judged, and the way it was judged is in line with previous cases, including one where a plant operator was killed in Melbourne decades ago because his employer gave him a machine with defective brakes.

These sort of cases are putting the blame exactly where it belongs, and sure they're dangerous for the people who don't want to carry out their duty of care, but the beauty of the system is they are the ones who pay.

The point M61A1 I think is making is that its the Judgement - i.e. the Judges, that are screwing up this country by laying blame 100% on employers. It may be in line with previous cases but that doesn't make it right.

 

Not knowing the details of this incident my comments will be generic:- The only way that an employer can be fully responsible for the accident is if the employee was forced or coerced into operating the machinery, i.e. employee: "I'm not riding that quad, it's dangerous!", employer: "If you don't then you are fired!".

 

The legal system has to balance "Duty of Care" with "Duty of responsibility", the employee or private citizen also has a "Duty of Care" to act responsibly and show care for their own wellbeing. If we keep going down this path of blaming everything on the Corporate/Employer/Wealthy entity and nothing on the individual/employee/poor then no one will want to employ people, no one will build/construct/manufacture anything and the companies and wealthy will all move to a country that has some common sense.

 

 

Here's how the Jabiru engine should be operated in my opinion....1. Use 150 C as your redline, that is the hottest cylinder. Watch the CHT's carefully, especially on the ground. Be especially watchful on windy days taxying with a tailwind, when the hottest cylinder may change.

 

2. Climb initially at full throttle, then at about 1000 ft throttle back and go into cruise-climb at 80 knots.

 

3. It the CHT ever approaches 150 then lower the nose and let the speed go up to 90 knots and throttle back to level flight or very small climb until it cools down. This means climb in steps on a hot day.

 

4. If none of the above work to keep it cool then report a fault. The cooling needs modifying.

 

5. Remember the standard Jabiru CHT under-reads on a hot day.

 

6. Bear in mind there is a recording CHT in this plane and if you disregard this stuff you will have to pay for a new engine.

 

7. Don't ever do what I did and run the engine hard on the ground.

But the Jabiru POH clearly states that you can run the engine CONTINUOUSLY at 180 C - So, if engines are failing because they are run according to the POH then there is a problem. Why doesn't Jabiru change the POH accordingly?

 

 

The RAA Training syllabus requires the pilot to follow the Pilot Operating Handbook for the aircraft. The POH for the Jabiru - Pre-flight Inspections Step 1 Engine requires Check oil and Pull through engine checking compression of each cylinder and listening for any odd noises. If not conducted then the pilot is in breach of the POH and not adhering to the RAA standards requiring the pilot to follow the aircraft POH.And as far as being 2016 - Jabiru have made improvement to the engines with improved through bolts and valves as well as a move to roller cams to eliminate identified failure modes. Withstanding a long history of engines with a wide range of configuration since 1992 the ATSB report has not found a problem with the latest spec through bolts or roller cam valve train. Even using ATSB's figures at least 20% of the Jabiru engines in service have the larger 7/16 through bolt. So obviously not all Jabiru engines are the same.

 

Operating within the manufacturers limitations and following their specified maintenance schedule and procedures is absolutely a requirement for ongoing successful operations.

I notice that the Jabiru 230D POH still says that the CONTINUOUS Maximum cylinder head temp for the 6 cylinder is 356 deg F (180 C) yet I was told by one of the tech guys inside Jabiru that it should NEVER go over 270 F (132 C). How can Jabiru tell you "you ran the cylinders too hot, that's why your engine failed" yet it never exceeded the MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS values specified in the POH LIMITATIONS section (3.7 of 230D POH), so which part of the POH should we follow and which part should we ignore?

 

 

From the Ops Maual, section 2.07...an aeroplane flight review (AFR) conducted in a single engine aeroplane with a MTOW less than 1500KG, is accepted as meeting the requirements of paragraph 5.f. A copy of the AFR statement from the pilot’s logbook is to be forwarded to RA-Aus Headquarters. The statement should include the pilot’s name, type of flight conducted, name and signature of the examiner and the date of the AFR.

 

Para 5f deals with CAsA-issued endorsements, like a CSU, retractable, seaplane etc, which also meet the requirements for a BFR.

This is not true! (unless the Ops Manager has decided to follow the rules) There are a lot of things in GA that count as a Flight Review according to the CASR's, CAO's and CAR's but the Ops Manager picks and chooses which ones they think are acceptable for a BFR. The sole reason I gave up my membership in RA-Aus was the fact that the Ops Manager enforced their opinion and not the rules. The rules are clear but as soon as they say "thats my interpretation of the rules and my interpretation is all that counts", well I told them where to stick it!.

 

 

Yes, I didn't pick that up Mick, possibly wrong type of harness buckle.

Factory Jabiru only 10 months old, if it was the wrong type of buckle then Jabiru are fitting the wrong ones at the factory.

 

 

When you go upside-down, the disorientation confuses you for a short while but I found I couldn't actually release my seatbelt in the J230 until I relieved the pressure by pushing with my legs. It took me about a minute to sort out up from down and which way to push, I'm very glad that there was no fire!