Jaba-who

Broadly I agree with you. Couple of points that I disagree. AGL: I agree it should be AMSL but Currently anyone with an iPad and OzRunways can read AGL with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Radar AltImeters have been around for ages and are available but extremely expensive. But there’s no need for a rad-alt if you are able to accept a small degree of error in the GPS altimeter. GPS Altitudes are Probably within the limits required. ( with the ground elevation data loaded ) I’m not sure about Avplan but I’d be surprised if it didn’t have it either. The point of this though is that it’s another imposition of cost. A grand for an iPad that needs updating every say 4 years, a subscription to OzRunways, maybe they’ll dictate a backup iPad as well and an external GPS antenna. Maybe a SIM card etc for on the on the fly updates. All a not insignificant cost. Step backs in negotiations as a result of the huge negative responses are not cast in stone. They have suggested they will look at modifications but at no point are they either required to look at less onerous proposals nor are they required to actually implement any less onerous versions. My experience with bureaucracies is that the pushback must be maintained at the level of and against the first level of proposals all the way down to no change until the final proposal is solidly cast in stone. The slightest relaxation of the defence position will be grasped and some intermediate level will be put forward as a compromise or a “win-win” position but will soon be used as stepping stone to re-approach the original proposal. That’s Negotiation 101!

Ummm no. As much as I dislike the system and feel I am as highly qualified in some aspects of my specialty that pertain to aviation medicine I have to disagree there. The doctors in AvMed who set the standards by which the clerks copy and tick the boxes are real doctors. However their qualifications are in a branch of medicine that is somewhat esoteric, whose basis is heavily slanted toward the rigours of military aviation and whose parameters of “normal” often err on the side of an over abundance of caution. The principle being “Safety! to the point that we throw out anyone who might possibly have even a minimal risk because there’s plenty more where they came from. “ Their concern over the desires and aspirations of the individual who wants to undertake the far less risky recreational jolly in a weekend are a big fat “zero” As such the doctors set up a set of check lists, whose box ticking can be done by an underling, but they are still the ones who make the final decisions when a pilot appeals because the boxes contain crosses instead of ticks. The problem is they are out of touch with reality and the levels of fitness actually required and have decreed crosses where many in the real world of managing these patients every day would say that a tick is more appropriate.

I don’t think there’s a problem as you perceive. As far as CASA is concerned a pilot has two qualifications - one an aeronautical licence the other a medical certificate. They are seperate things and a person can have either alone but you must have both to exercise the privileges in the aeronautic licence. The issue of an NZ or any other country pilot coming to Aus is already covered. You must have an aeronautic licence that is acceptable to CASA and you must have a medical equivalent to the Australian medical required for what you want to do here. It will almost certainly require a trip to a local doctor to get a local medical.

That is the real issue here Yenn. here is a new rule carrying considerable cost ( In sorry SplitS but this is not negligible cost. It’s yet another imposition that adds to the other unnecessary costs like ASICs and medicals, and the necessary costs like insurance, hangarage and fuel etc that gradually squeeze people out bit by bit. To someone who is eg. on a pension, flying their beloved ol’ home built, on cheapest fuel they can buy and paying for hangarage by doing odd jobs and mowing around the airport the requirement to spend a grand extra to fly is a major imposition. Even more painful if they fly in an area with very little or no RPT (the area ASA are wanting to designate class E is not just around airports where the RPT descend but essentially the whole east coast between airports even where no RPT ever fly. This is not being nasty SplitS, and please take this with the non-judgemental spirit it’s meant, but your sentiments also carries a bit of impression that it doesn’t affect yourself so as far as you see it doesn’t affect anyone else. This is ASA/CASA’s modus operandi. Divide and conquer. Recreational aviators need to always try to see things from everyone’s point of view, especially those who might be affected by something we personally are not. It’s amazing how quickly these things end up being turned on us after the original target is shot down! I don’t know where you are based but I see this potentially directly affecting a very large number of RAAus pilots who live on the east coast. (Doesn’t affect me at all (yet) - I’m GA and have an allowable transponder set up and a disposable income to buy a new ADSB in or out so I’m not complaining on my own behalf (directly) I’m not whinging for my own position rather for my fellow aviators who are impacted here in North Queensland and for the lead in issue this creates - see next bit! The second really important part of it is, here is a new rule being instituted with no case made for its need apart from the hoary chestnut of “enhancing safety and if you question it you must be against safety and therefore you are dismissible”. No case for why it’s needed but it has restrictions placed on those with the least capacity to respond. The real question is that this smacks of a lead in restriction that once established will be the precedent for something else. I don’t know what but I can see this being the pre-emptor further restrictive airspace rules - like suddenly Class E will see RAAus have same restrictions as current Class D and C. The rules about AGL ( vs MSL) clearly require more technology to establish AGL position. Once that’s in law there’s another cost that might get sprung into RAAus as well. This sounds like it’s part of an agenda. There’s no reasonable reason for it otherwise.

Ok The answer here is in the details. ( That link doesn’t work - actually just web service that allows you to fill in PDFs online without having the expensive Adobe or similar version - but no matter it’s not relevant ) I was looking at the legislation from 2018. I assumed it was the latest but maybe the 2021 version has changed. but The kicker is your line that says “2. a truck licence. “. So the legislation says a medical suitable for a class 2,3, or 5 ( with passenger carrying privileges) Vehicle licence. So that immediately means truck ( the classes are outlined in another of the linked publications) licence of one sort another. So by inference a DL9 for a pilot licence will have to be one where you see a doctor and that is also stated in the article attached to the original post. still better than the Australian Class 2 basic but not as easy or self determined as an Aust RAAUS or a US Basic medical.

I am not in NZ and only going by the rules I found by googling so may be ( and will happily accept if I’m an) wrong. But the DL9 is not just a stand in line at the traffic office eye test. Nor is it a self certification. I’ve read the relevant stuff from the NZ government DL9 guidelines for medical practitioners ( downloadable file 133 pages) A real drivers DL9 is a formal medical examination that can only be conducted by a doctor, an (qualified) optometrist, a qualified nurse practitioner or a registered nurse working within a current scope of practice. (According to the Act ) The pilot DL9 sounds like it has to be done by a doctor. Seems like that is the only additional restriction compared to a drivers DL9 but that’s just how it’s written in the publication provided. Might not be absolute. The standard ( private driver (Class 1 drivers licence) vs Commercial drivers licence ( Class 2-5) is surprisingly not that different. Essentially all the same fairly severe medical conditions preclude both and the differences are in just how stable some conditions have to be to maintain the class 2,3,4 or 5 components. For example. The difference between private and commercial having had a mini-stroke is a few months of stability. (In Australia you will be lucky ever to get your pilot medical back at all. ) The age limitations in NZ are: Age less than 40 it is required every 5 years Age 40 - 75 ( oops I forget this exactly -could be 70) required every 2 years Age over 70/5 every 1 year.

After going through both Aust and NZ standards my opinion FWIW, is the New NZ standard is somewhere between the Australian Basic Class 2 and the US Basic Medical. Not that far ahead of the Australian Basic Class 2 but enough to make a difference to some pilots. I have gleaned the following comparisons & differences. Medical : NZ (DL9 medical): Basic drivers licence medical with NO use of conditions to further limit gaining a medical. Aust: Commercial licence standard with overriding conditions that can fail the medical even if pass it for an actual vehicle licence ( I know at least one pilot who has and uses a commercial vehicle licence but has been denied a class 2 basic due to the conditions) NZ: The doctor decides if the pilot is fit to fly. There is actually a section on the medical form where the doctor gives his/her opinion. Aust: AvMed decides if the pilot is fit to fly. The doctor carries no weight, and is merely a box ticker who looks to see if the pilot reaches predetermined levels and in practical terms passes that information to AvMed. The doctor has no capacity to give an opinion or adjust the conditions which generate a “pass”. ( Even specialists are overridden by the AvMed doctors in every level of licence) For both the time intervals are the same. The costs are similar. My opinion: Clearly the medical component is the thing that effects more pilots, particularly given our aging pilot population. The US ( and our own RAAus medical system) has proved that medicals (beyond those for people with really severe conditions such as uncontrolled epilepsy, some cardiac and psychiatric conditions), are actually, in practical terms, unnecessary for pilots. The NZ new system is clearly a step toward the US and is to be applauded from that position. It is clearly more lenient than the Australian Class 2 basic which by virtue of the added “conditional” limitations has blocked a lot of pilots. I know of pilots who now fly without a medical ( and have done so for years) because the Class 2 Basic is closed off to them due to “conditions” and it is not time-practical or cost effective to get a class 2. Privileges of each: For most pilots these are comparable but for some pilots it will make a difference and in most cases the Australian medical is more restrictive than the NZ. The only “better” situation in Australia is aircraft weight. ( I forget the exact MTOW but these are close enough) Australian is about 8000kg and the NZ is about 2500 kg. For the rest the NZ situation is either better than the Australian or same. NZ exercising of endorsements Acrobatics: NZ - yes but only when solo above 3000 ft Aust - No. Night VFR: NZ - Yes but only within 25 nm of a lit airport Aust - No Instruments - No in both Passenger numbers - 5 in both Engine types - piston both. For most people the differences are minimal or not going to change their flying. It’s also interesting that all NZ Recreational licences ( now equivalent to Aust RPL) will automatically be granted a PPL. My own opinion is that this removing of multiple licences that cover essentially similar privileges is also a good thing. Streamlining and simplifying makes a lot of sense when trying to set up things like medicals and limitations.

I’m assuming you are referring to the urban legend about the US space program spending millions to develop a pen that would work in zero gravity but the russians just used a pencil. Just as a bit of interesting side info: I heard that it’s apocryphal and that no one, not even the Russians, used a pencil because pencils give off microscopic fine powder of graphite into the air when used. In zero gravity the graphite powder floats about in the “air” in the capsule environment and shorts out electrical equipment. Can’t vouch for the veracity of this but gives an interesting twist on the urban legend.

That’s very useful to know. I had a look at the webpage of the device after the first posting above and was thinking that despite the cost it might still be worthwhile if it makes making the labels quicker. But sounds like back to my old method.

Without being boring same answer as before. They are not always short, ( but short doesn’t mean they can’t be convoluted and impossible to follow), they are loomed, they are not always obvious, and there are lots and lots of them. Your statement might be reasonable if it was an accurate description but it is just not correct. If one wire disconnects OK it won't be an issue but it is not helpful especially when multiple wires are disconnected. Even following a spark plug lead that came off the distributor can be a one second job with a label on it and a half hour job with out it. Eg: Ok -let’s make that 2 leads pop off or are taken off the distributor To correctly reconnect them (:in a jabiru especially) will require removal of the ram air ducts so you can follow the lead all the way to the cylinder, [that may require removal of the bottom cowl in some aircraft ( I have seen a couple where the removal of the front cap screw holding the ram ducts needed the bottom cowl removed,] cutting all the zip ties of all the wires in the loom to follow and ensure you have the right lead, then check again, then run the engine and if it there’s a problem recheck it all etc etc. or simply pick up the dislocated ends, read the label and reinsert it onto the distributer, followed by repeat for the second lead. Same applies to 6 CHT leads, 6 EGTs, an oil pressure sender wire, a back up CHT sender wire, the multiple wires to the regulator, solenoids, master relay, Amp high and low shunt sender, fuel flow sensor wires, Radio wires that go directly to the battery, hard wired strobe light wires. To say they are short and obvious is not a factual representation of the state of engine bay in many aircraft these days.

But the point here is that if any of those 61 forget to contact CASA AND EVERY owner of the thousands of RAAus and LSA owners don’t contact Jabiru or CASA ( which they will because they are mot required to ) then the very small number of the VH aircraft become meaningless in the mix. But to get back to my concern - it’s not the statistical validity or lack of it I don’t care about reporting a crack if I find one - it’s the fact that if I forget to tell CASA I had NO cracks or if I do tell them but my response gets lost along the chain through CASA then given the Strict Liability function of just about all aviation law then I will be guilty of an “aviation crime.” Without mitigation. That’s what I said right from the start but everyone seems to have missed that.

Nope. That is choosing the wrong type of statistical analysis for this situation. Statistically speaking it is not possible to produce a valid bell curve from a single event. You must have some cases above and below the mean so that a gradient can be made to find the standard deviations etc. A single case can only produce a linear spike on the x axis. No statistical capacity to produce a bell curve. That’s assuming a true single case event and in the entire history of jabiru ( some 30 years) this appears to be the only event ever reported. so the single event happened in an aircraft with just over 8500 hrs. ( According to JSB042-1) Not 4000 hours - that’s the arbitrary selected hours by Jabiru to make the inspections. But Ok - Assuming other cases (?which there is no evidence ) enough to produce a bell curve - there is a reasonable chance the approach to zero line in this fictitious curve may be so flat below 4000 hours that it reaches the near zero Y axis line and therefore for all intends and purposes is zero. ( In this type of statistical analysis you can’t have less than an integer value of 1 case - you can’t have say 0.5 aircraft having fractured control rods. It has to be 1 or 2 or 3 etc. ) So it is entirely possible, in fact probable that there are zero cases below 4000 hrs.

Actually now I reread the applicability paragraph they do not include any of the J200 or J400 series aircraft which make up almost all of the current VH fleet. The models named are all those old types like ULs, STs, etc etc. And then only to certified models. So maybe this applies to very few or no aircraft anyway.

Nope you miss the point. there is no problem with a mandatory report of finding a crack when one is found. The AD requires owners to report when NO crack is found and that is mandatory. There is no requirement in the SB to report that NO Defect has been found when doing the inspection. The manufacturer will NOT be reporting to CASA that owners have not reported when NO crack is found. The only people who stand to get into trouble and ? be fined and held accountable is owners of VH Aircraft who don’t report that they have NOT found a crack.

Nope - too much extrapolation to non-relevant scenarios. There are only 65 Jabiru’s on the VH register. They form a statistically irrelevant cohort in the overall fleet across RAAus, LSA and GA. Any figures collected from them will be irrelevant to the overall statistics and interpretation of those statistics.

Hi Blue Nope mine wasn’t the one that it happened in. That was a training aircraft somewhere in ?NSW that had about ?8500 hours in it. Atherton is a nice airport. Grass strip, no landing fees. Can be a bit gnarly at the northern end in a cross wind. Pleasant aviation community there.

Actually it’s not usual and it’s never happened before as far as I am aware. I have not seen another AD in 25 years of doing maintenance and owning aircraft where AD inspections must be reported to CASA that NO DEFECT has been found. The AD being complied with gets written in the aircraft (and engine log book if applicable) maintenance log book. That’s the bit I interpret as being a problem. It says the results of the inspection must be reported, which I read as even when no crack is found.

That’s not the point Turbs. The inspection which I have done severally times now since the SB came out takes about 30 seconds. what is the problem is that if I forget to report to CASA that I did the inspection, and found nothing, then next time I go flying I have breached this AD and have committed a crime.

What???? No evidence of ANY and you even looked at some and there was no evidence of any but still saying “yeah there probably are quite a few cracked below the 4000 hours. “ Someone will take this post and say “yeah, some guy on a forum said yep there’s quite a few of them so yeah CASA should be clamping down in bloody Jabirus again! “ No wonder Jab owners feel like a threatened species. For what it’s worth, where I am there about half a dozen Jabs and I’ve not heard of anyone having the problem. For a touch of reality. CASA have had over a year since the original SB was put out by Jabiru. Since then, if you go by the wording of the PAD, there has not been any or another incidence of this problem. The report clearly says there has been one case which we can take to be the original case. Now the way I read it, it is a requirement for essentially all Jabirus, depending on how you interpret the convoluted Applicability paragraph. But that’s not the problem. I have no issue with it being part of the 100 hourly. It’s bugger all as far as an inspection goes. But I’m left not being sure about the reporting paragraph. “2. Report the results of the inspection to CASA via the Defect Report System.” It seems to me that once the inspection is done, then this AD requires me to report to CASA the outcome of the inspection, whether a crack is found or not. So every year, assuming no problem is found I still have to report to CASA and if I don’t then I am in breach the AD. I stand to be fined or have punitive action taken against me for not reporting that I have not got a problem. I’ve never come across any AD in over 25 years of flying where I am required to report to CASA when there is nothing wrong with an aircraft. What’s going on here?

Not true anymore I’m afraid. add 1 skyview or any of the many EFIS/EMS now available at cheapish prices to your aircraft and you can have 20 - 30 wires going through your firewall. As soon as you loom up wires (especially the EGT and CHT wires or any wires that are similar size) you lose identity of every one of them. One breaks and you have to pull the entire loom apart to identify just one wire and which cylinder etc it’s off. Been there done that! The colour code system seems a lot of trouble - write ( or laser print in English on a bit of paper under clear heat shrink.) Same fire risk.

Seems the original quest was for something that was fire/flame resistant. None of these ( except maybe the use of coloured Tefzel - which is available. ) But doesn’t really provide a foolproof easy labelling system ( since you need a copy of the code with you. Inevitably you have a problem at a far off strip and you end up without your code book or you end up in a loom with multiple wires of the same colour etc ) Frankly I don’t know of one either but I decided to take the risk and just label things in English properly - use short bits of clear heat shrink with a laser printer printed (size 8 font) paper strip under it. The short bit of heat shrink might be flammable but in the grand scheme of things the heat shrink bits are about a couple of cm long so the risk is small but the gain in labelling immense. Have completely rewired my Jabiru multiple times and worked on parts of the wiring etc many times. And when it comes to working on it easily you really need every wire labelled at both ends with a text label. No need then for codes and records. If someone produced a heat resistant heat shrink equivalent I’d use it in a flash but so far not found anything that works as well as a printed label under clear heat shrink.

Last time the RAAus insurance was raised on this forum I looked at it and read the actual schedule. As best I recall the maximum payout for a single incident for personal injury was $250,000. The stated $10M in the headings of the cover is for non-personal injury stuff - structures, other aircraft etc. so in this case the RAAus member might be left in financial trouble.

Wow. Does this mean CASA are going to do the same as they did to Jabiru a few years back? Somehow I doubt it.

OzRunways has them shown. I just checked and there’s a number that come up through the outback in areas that are outside any VNC. Though I have to say that I haven’t checked if there are more that haven’t shown up.

Lakeland Downs in FNQ Early Dry season, grass was a bit long but OK, and all brown. Landed a bit fast and had the original Jabiru brakes so not much use. Suddenly I was in among a huge mob of wallabies that had merged into the grass and suddenly they were going in all directions. Suddenly out the other side of the mob. No idea how I managed to avoid hitting any of them.