Jaba-who

And that's exactly why you can't make out the important details. The rules are stupid! It is exceedingly common to hear the first and last words clipped because so many people cannot coordinate the button press or release with their speech. It is a fact that many people press ( or release) and talk ( or stop talking) at what they feel is the same instant but actually cut off part of the transmission. Swapping the word "traffic" or "All stations" or anything else to have it first and last and the location being the second and second last word would make a huge difference but the boffins in CASA live in ivory towers with ideal background noise and pilot coordination. Another issue is that it's even more common is to hear speech volume and enunciation drift off or the rate of delivery increase as the transmission progresses. but that's another issue.

There are a long list of places who will supply it. I have bought it from at least four different places over the years. I have no particular allegiance to any and I just google Tefzel wire Australia when I need it.

There’s a dynon forum - go to the dynonavionics website then support then forums. I have found it gets responses very quickly both from other users and from the dynon tech staff. Usually get overnight answers.

I do a mag ( ignition coil on the jab) check on both start up and shut down. The rationale also being that if I do a check at the end then I’ve got no pressure and heaps of time to sort out the problem. If you find it when you are running up you often have time pressure and pressure to convince yourself it’s not as bad as it seems. Also things do go wrong while it’s on the ground. had a distributor fill up with water when I washed the aircraft )(after a successful shutdown check). Don’t know for sure how it got there but it did. But point being it ran “fine” on one distributor on tacking to run up bay, till I checked it at the pre take off check. So I wouldn’t be following your mates “completely at odds with the rest of the world” advice.

Like many of the rules we are forced to operate under, they don’t stand up to scrutiny. But CASA are a law unto themselves and laws and/or their interpretation of them are not required to be practical or make sense.

Not sure to what situation you are referring but assuming it was answering my post immediately before yours about doing your own maintenance for GA experimental. Nope not at all. Only if you want to have it certified for IFR.

Yep that's correct. . The school and a named person ( owner of the school usually), and specific aircraft ( registration is specified as part of the instrument of exemption) carry the exemption. ( The instruments are available on the internet for anyone to see ( I don't have the link but I did go through them all last year after a similar discussion on this or another forum. There are perhaps three or four schools who hold an exemption. Most are in class D but there is at least one I remember was in Class C ( Townsville) Students only get the exemption while they are students of the said school using the schools aircaft. As best I recall they were also required to hold a Class 2 medical though I may be wrong in that bit. Once the student gets their licence they again are unable to fly in that controlled airspace. There was a notice put out last year to possibly make a change so that the same pilot could continue to hire the same aircraft after they attain their RPC but as best I know it never went any further and I haven't heard anything more about it. There is no capacity to fly any other aircraft, either in the same airspace nor to fly the same aircraft to another controlled airspace.

If it’s registered in experimental GA and you built it yourself you can do your own maintenance. the costs of maintenance are then minimal. Oil, filters etc and a couple of weekends.

RPL ( and all GA licences) only have initial costs and then is perpetual at no cost. The medical cost can vary from 4 yearly down to 1 yearly depending on age and state of health. As far as flying RAAus aircraft on RPL- nope. Cant fly an RAAUS registered aircraft on ANY GA licence (RPL right up to ATPL or even a military licence). As far as the law is concerned in an RAAUS aircraft no other licence counts only the RAAUS certificate. Its totally stupid - we have 3 jab 230-430 types in my cohort of 3 flying mates. 2 are GA registered and 1 is RAUS. They are exactly the same except for the numbers on one and letters on the other 2. The owner of the RAAus one has a PPL as well. The owners of the others have PPL licences. One of us can legally fly all three, the other two of us can only legally fly 2 of them. Go figure!

I know several CPLs who fly angel flights but they are not flying as CPLs for a living as such. Plenty of people who basically fly for fun but have gone on to get CPL either for the personal achievement or to just fly the occasional job for local aero club or for a local charter company. They fly for AF with no real effect on anything else. Also CPL hours are limited but additional hours as Private flying are not affected and vice versa. You can fly your max hours in the job and then go get in your RV etc and go private flying for as long as you want. And the private hours don’t limit your work hours.

I know you mean well but it’s highly counterproductive implying CSF patients having acute life threatening illness AT THE time of the flight. This is the type of misinformation CASA use and have used in public statements to add weight to their arguement to limit CSF. They have said or implied that the pilots are not medically trained and therefore get overwhelmed in decision making, by the perception of medical imperitive to complete the flight immediately. There may be a bit of truth to this as both accidents involved pushing on in bad weather, AFAIK. But in reality the patients are stable, and usually if they are delayed a day or even more, oftentimes, it doesn’t change the medical outcome as long as the service at the other end can flex around short delay. But typical of CASA they have gone off with red herrings and plan to impose maintenance, licensing etc etc all of which have nothing to do with the two accidents that started this. They also infer they are only giving conditions that country people deserve, ie not allowing less than charter standard aircraft and personnel. On the surface sounds right, but they happily ignore that such a charter service is not available currently and will not, in the future, be able to take up the slack. They are in effect stating “only the best service or no service!” I would reckon that CSF pilots might need to get some training on assessing whether to go-or-no-go and that part of this should include proper education on the relative non-urgency of the flight ( i would go as far as saying that the end medical services could also do with some training in understanding the constraints of weather and flexibility for patients travelling great distances. (Some of our services already take this into account but some don’t) This extra training for pilots could easily be included in the signing up process for CSF and not impose an onerous burden on anyone.

For what it’s worth the general cause of death in these types of crash - ie minimal or no impact damage to the airframe- is the internal organs keep travelling at descent speed while the “enclosing body” ( muscles, skeleton etc ) stop suddenly. The organs rip off their attachments on the back to the internal chest and abdominal wall. These includes the heart and great vessels. I recall a few years back seeing a post-mortem report and photos of a couple who were in an R22 that got carb icing and the Pilot was too slow to react. Aircraft impacted upright and looked completely intact except for splayed skids. The crew were sitting upright in their seats, pilot hands on controls. just like they’d decided to have a sleep. Anyway postmortem results were that all their internal organs were now compacted into the pelvis and torn off stumps of arteries and trachea were hanging suspended in chests. Anatomically complete internal chaos despite a completely normal external appearance.

Che??

None of these patients is critically ill. If they are they don’t fit the criteria for AF. They would be transported by RFDS or emergency services or aerial ambulance etc. These patients are stable patients who are usually going for follow up check ups, for tests or scans etc not available in their own communities etc. They are the sort of patient who could take the bus, taxi or private car to a local doctors office or hospital outpatients clinic if such a thing existed in their community. To make out or imply that AF performs a medical activity for critically ill patients is incorrect. But thats not not to imply that AF doesn’t do a real and needed job. They certainly do, as transport to a facility is just as important as the service at the facility.

They may be working on refusing to cover it because of the potentially alleged illegal actions of the driver. ( exceeding fatigue times ) I’ve got a couple of mates who have had insurance claims refused on claims that work had some illegal element in it which negated the contract. They never actually had proof but just said they believed there were issues (while the insurers hunted for excuses to not pay out). In both cases they had to sue the insurers who eventually admitted there were no grounds for not paying out but took several years to get to that point. The insurers I think hope that a lot of claimants will just give up. In this case though I would have thought government is probably going to keep on at it.

I’d guess he’s that far back to help balance the weight of the two engines so far forward.

Plus it might be fine if you live in a big city and never travel out of it. But plenty of us need something that will tow a trailer or horse float, will at the drop of a hat have to drive to nearby towns and frequently travel to not-so-nearby towns. And with lots lots of people moving to satellite towns outside the big cities and commuting if you want to go down to the local hardware shop etc there’s probably not going to be s fleet of them in your neck of the woods. They’ll all be in the city.

We are at a statistical advantage ( not much but maybe a little) A few years back a study got done in the USA to statistically look at outcomes from life threatening illness when people prayed for the patients. I forget who did the study or how good it's methodology was but the outcome showed a small worse outcome for those who were prayed for vs those who weren't. As a result it never got cited much after that but you can bet if it was the other way round we would never hear the end of it. The outcome difference was barely borderline statistically significant which means that it was highly possible the outcome was just a reflection of coincidence ( which in reality is what it probably really was) but it was on the wrong side of curve for any theist to claim anything positive for their argument. The outcome gives a little tongue in cheek ammo for skeptics though.

Yep I agree entirely. Imaginary friends who are ascribed great powers to save a life after the problem occurred but we're unable to prevent the disaster in the first place leaves a bit to be desired. Would have made far more sense to invoke his powers and make the aircraft run on air or for fuel to materialise out of air or glide to the destination no matter how far away. Then the rest of us might actually start to think there might be something in this god story. But as it is - life spared by virtue of a solid airframe seems to be the most likely explanation.

It’s confirmed - Aircraft ran out of fuel. Jabiru have just put a post on their Facebook page ( I tried to cut and paste but doesn’t want to work. ) aircraft had had insufficient fuel for the flight. They have the aircraft wreck at Jabiru.

No aircraft have reliable fuel gauges - that’s why pilots should have type specific training in fuel management.

No aircraft have reliable fuel gauges - that’s why pilots should have type specific training in fuel management.

That’s not completely correct. Most times -yes. I have been in an aircraft where we were doing phase 1 testing and did an inadvertent test to see how long it could last on Just the header tank. During run ups etc got distracted by ATC and missed the “Fuel taps -all ON” At 21 minutes it gave a few short sharp splutters that lasted over a period of a minute it so. Took me that long to realize what I’d done. ( or rather not done) On another cross country flight - not my aircraft. I was pax and the PIC was a one tank On one tank off guy and he forgot. I’m a “leave em all in all the time” guy so I didn’t even think about it. Anyway wevwere bootling along and it stopped dead with no warning. Fortunately we were at high cruising height and had heaps of time to trouble shoot and fixed it before we’d lost 500 ft. So i’d agree with you that splutters are the norm but not always.

The same inaccuracy exists for all jab models. I found when I used to dip the tanks the problem of long thin tanks with a small dihedral and the filler hole being out wide meant that the tanks dipped dry till they had some significant amount in them ( can’t recall what it was but about 25 litres seems to stick in mind). And then if you put any weight/pressure on the wing you could change the dip significantly. If it was anything other than dead level you got significant difference between wings. Attempts to turn it and measure again don’t work. And if you move the aircraft at all there is no certainty it will “settle” at the same inclination when you stop. Even giving the wing a rock it often settles out completely differently. In the end I gave up dipping and use the sight glass.

There is no requirement to dip the tanks. You have to be able to make a visual determination of the fuel available and if it’s a model with sight glass gauges then that fits the requirements. But even sight glasses don’t work in turbulence, flying uncoordinated etc. in anything but still air they slosh around and you can’t see it properly. when I built mine I actually installed epoxy plugs in the sight glass then drilled out a 1/64 hole to slow the sloshing.