Jaba-who

Mataranka springs (NT)  The strip has big clump of trees jutting into the runway at the  threshold. It used to be a single mango tree but gradually got more trees growing up with it. 
The strip has a bend in it to accomodate the trees. 
Edit: I notice on google earth now the end closest to the resort itself seems to be a car park now so maybe they’ve extended it away  from the mango tree now. 

14 hours ago, onetrack said:

It looks a bit faked to me. What is holding the drones in position, horizontally? The high pressure of water leaving a fire hose usually takes 3 blokes, bracing themselves, to hold the hose steady - either that, or a solid hose support arrangement.

 

The weight of the water in the vertical section of those hoses would be huge - more than any drone could support. I can't see this "Drone firefighting", happening any time soon.

 

For fire observation and water guidance purposes - Yes. But for actually handling the water weight, and pressure required - No.

After seeing this video I had a look at other similar stuff and maybe there is something to it. There’s some similar stuff coming out of Europe. 
There’s another video of same Chinese drone test with the drones on the ground and people working around them. Theyre actually huge for a drone. Looks like about maybe just under 3 metres across. The hose is also fairly small diameter nothing like a normal fire hose.  so the weight of water in the hose may not be that much, especially if the pump on the ground is providing a lot of pressure to drive it up.

The recoil is another thing though. I’d guess there’s some limit to the mass of water that can be directed laterally. Wouldn’t take much to overcome the lateral positional stability of the drone.  
I’d guess they could increase the stability by making some of the rotors vertical and push in the opposite direction. 

They seem OK for external fascia and cladding fires. I have some doubts about fighting fires internally in the building through windows though. 
 

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

I moved from GA to RA to keep my flying affordable and so I built my own aircraft which I do not insure.  I rarely take passengers but always point out the warning placard to them that they fly at their own risk. What sort of defence this would have in a lawsuit I have no idea but I suspect very little. 

 

 

Yep your suspicion is correct. 
You can get passengers essentially the legal reality is you can and should advise passengers of the factual state of the aircraft - its home made, it’s maintained to the best of your ability but you aren’t a qualified LAME and the rules say it doesn’t have to be maintained to the same standards as a commercial aircraft. ( All this being stated on the placard you point out is enough) and that you are a recreational pilot with limited experience compared to a commercial pilot. then have them sign an acknowledgement they have understood it. This is not and can never be construed as them signing away any right to seek redress if there’s an accident. It merely is for you to show the person understood the situation and consented to take the risk. 
That does carry some weight on its own. But the issue is that it may not be “on its own”.  
 

Consenting to take a risk is only valid IF everything you tell the passenger is as it actually is. If you do something negligent (or illegal) then that may negate the informed consent to take the risk. So say you tell the passenger the aircraft is carefully maintained but the accident is deemed to have been caused by an error you made in maintenance then you may  have been negligent and your passenger, had they been made aware of your negligence, would have chosen not to fly with you. 
Or if your piloting or decision making on the day was suspect then the passenger may say that you acted unsafely and had you advised them beforehand that you were going to act that way they would not have gone up with you. 
 

The likelihood of finding something negligent is actually very high and any good lawyer for the passenger would not take long to find something to call negligent. And people (even experts) have a tendency to find events that lead to a bad outcome as being negligent,  compared to the same event but which by good luck the outcome is good.
There’s been a number of medical studies where they showed various experts multiple scenarios with different outcomes but unknown to the subjects they were the same cases changed enough to hide that fact but with the same management pathway. Consistently across studies it’s been shown that bad outcomes were associated with an 80% likelihood of the experts finding negligence where if the outcome was good then almost the same 80% deemed the management to be within the normal standard of care. 
 

I’m same as you. Rarely fly with anyone else except my wife. Very occasionally go with another pilot who also flies home builds so they are fully aware of the risk and they’ve all retired too. So no future loss of income to contend with. 
Also I have resolved to Never fly with a high earning professional. Very occasionally fly with my wife’s teenage children and for first time in about a decade took some other friends kids on a one off ten minute flight a few weeks back.  
I do carry $10M third party insurance but resisted the insurer recommendation to lift it to $20M last premium. 
 

But I have to admit it’s way less stressful to just not take anyone flying. 

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

For every entertainer who makes it to the top, there are heaps who get nowhere. No one is "Forced" to pay entertainers. It's completely voluntary and often booked out. That's from someone who's never gone to any  but I believe in choice and a vital entertainment Industry. They express aspirations of the common people and thrive in healthy societies, but not in repressive ones.  Nev

Not true at all. Entertainers thrive extremely well in repressive societies as long as they toe and represent the oppressors position.
China being a major example. Dancers, actors and singers were on a rung only just below the politburo. But if they failed to endorse the party line they disappeared. 
 

No one is forced to pay most of the professions listed earlier either. And even  professions that are “essential” are often remunerated quite poorly for the essential components of their trade but make proportionately much more for elective non-necessary parts. 

On 31/10/2020 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

Gosh those guys earn ridiculous amounts. They have a government backed monopoly as well as a closed shop as well as the ability to prevent new people entering the trade. How they got or deserve this largess is a mystery to me. If electricians had the same deal then they would all be millionaires too.

Mostly not correct though Bruce.  The real ridiculous earners are singers, entertainers and movie stars.  If not a single one of them existed the world and everyone in it would not be an iota any worse off. 

5 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Hi Jaba - Just remember:

 

• It is in the interest of the insurgence company to "up the anti"/escalate your anxiety/insecurity ie they want you to pay  the highest possible premiums that they can squeeze out of you - it all means bigger profits for them. In the final assessment, it is your perception of risk (not theirs)  that you might/should want to insure for.
• From a cost effective perspective you will probably never have enough insurance - there will always be that situation where it was not quit good enough.
• I am not sure, but I think insurance is probably the only product/service you will pay (dearly) for, that neither you or the provider, want to get delivered/pay out on.

While you are correct to some degree  about the insurers wanting to up the ante,  the reasons they do are not just to increase profit but also are based on real previous case actuarial experience. 

Whats  really scary is how people who are not even involved with the crash are now able to sue for stress and psychological hurt. The parents of the girl in the crash mentioned are suing for $1.5M for psychological distress etc and they weren’t involved, weren’t even  in the country  and could not possibly have been consulted to give their informed consent for their adult daughter to go in the flight. But they are suing as well. 
Even though it’s something everyone hopes will not  be payed out, if it’s needed you really, really want to hope it’s going to be enough to cover the almost open ended claims that get awarded. 

I think you are right that there is always a small potential that any amount will never be enough, but as you go higher the risk of a claim going “blue sky”  ( ie being so high it outstrips your cover) get less  and less until it’s no longer sensible to pay premiums for it. 

However it’s also clear is that  if your insurance cover is blindingly obviously too low you are just wasting your money paying the premium. If you are told to pay $20M and your insurance only pays $250K or only pays $10M you are going to be bankrupt till you die of old age either way. 
The difference in premiums from $10M to $20M isn’t that much, surprisingly. 
 

15 hours ago, Downunder said:

Does it need to be topped up?

Does the RAA 3rd party really fall short of what's required?

 

From the RAA site....

 

The cover has an indemnity limit of up to $10,000,000 for liability arising from third party property damage or bodily injury including a sub-limit of up to $250,000 for liability arising from injuries to passengers (including student pilots). Depending on individual circumstances, you may require more than the limits described above, so you may need to maintain additional individual insurance.

I think it probably is OK for the average recreational pilot if it covers up to the full 10 million. But if I understand the wording as stated there is only $250k for passenger injury. Since that’s the most likely cause of a claim and claims for injury or death can be huge it doesn’t sound like it’s suitable to me. But I’m only going by what what’s been said . 
Currently the GA insurers and brokers are saying for a 4 seat aircraft you should have $20million cover. Based on past history of events I guess.

So I’d guess that for 2 seats yep $10mill sounds OK. But $250k doesn’t. 

I would reckon you want to ask every passenger what they make a year before taking them flying. 

Here’s a scenario. 
You decide to take an acquaintance flying. 
He’s a 35 year old orthopaedic surgeon. He’s in private practice and last year he personally ( taxable income ) made $1,000,000. ( This is currently lower end income for a busy orthopaedic surgeon. If he’s a plastic surgeon double it, if he’s a general surgeon maybe a little less. ) 

He has a 35 year old wife and three young young kids under 5. 
He expects to work till age 65. 
You crash and he dies or is left such that he needs lifelong 24 hour care. 
The family will sue you, that’s a given, these days. The findings go against as well. That’s pretty much a given these days as well. 
Even to cover his lost income, without covering on going medical expenses etc if he needs care, Inflation, etc you are looking at $20million. 

Is $250k enough -no way. Not even to cover lost lifelong income for a tradie. 

Is $10mill enough -  depends. 
 

16 hours ago, RFguy said:

I think we're all well trained to know to avoid kindergartens.  We try to land on airstrips or as near as possible to like  an airstrip.

I cannot think of any recent history of aircraft going down and injuring persons and property in build up areas.

Certainly there have been some well documented ones on some of the busy city alternates-- bankstown, moorabin, essendon...

 

 

 

Yep. I suspect you are correct here. As best I recall when ever  aviation Representative bodies have taken CASA to task about some overly intrusive stance about safety of innocent bystanders on the ground the oft quoted number of deaths and injuries Of bystanders from recreational aircraft is “zero”.  Even deaths from GA and airlines is probably zero as well. 
 

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

Don't ever forget, either (and this applies to any form of insurance) - if you under-insure an item (say, for 2/3rds its true assessed value), trying to save money on premiums - then if you have a claimable "insurance event" (i.e. - a prang with moderate damage), the insurance company is entitled to only pay out 2/3rds of the cost of the repairs, as they will state the overall insurance coverage was only for 2/3rds of the full value, so that also means only a 2/3rds payout on repairs.

It goes further than that as well. 
The insurer will have a fixed percentage or value of damage at which they write off the aircraft. If you underinsured at say 2/3 of the value then the threshold for writing off the aircraft is equally lower.
 

So you do some relatively minor damage but it reaches the artificially low threshold and it triggers a write off and a payout. The entire airframe now becomes the property of the insurer, even the “rest of the airframe that’s in good condition”. There is always a clause in the contract that stipulates the entire aircraft is their property so they can sell it off to try to recoup some of their losses. 
 

If you want to keep it to rebuild it or extract that you-beaut glass cockpit etc you will have to use some of that payout to buy back the good bits of what you thought was your own property. 
 

2 hours ago, NT5224 said:

 As a Top End aviator I must correct Jaba Who. Either he is wrong or I have been conducting my fuel reduction burns at the wrong time for many years..

 

Fire smoke is a problem  for aviators in the north  from May until October, our 'Dry season'. You dont hear Northerners talking about 'summer' or 'winter'. 

 

Downunder is on the mark. Turbulence is a huge issue and of course wet season thunderstorms. Early morning flight is most advisable. Fly high enough and those extra couple of degrees make no difference to your engine.  But as he says the thermals will ultimately get you and make  descent and landing  miserable. Temperature in the far north doesnt change much year round, but humidity does so carby icing can also be an issue on descent.

 

Alan  

Obviously I have been completely mistaken the  multiple  times I have flown into Darwin  later in the year. Equally wrong the multiple trips around other parts of the top end I’ve done including three within the the last couple of months ago. (though have to admit I was a bit east in the gulf this time). Must have been my eyesight. 
 

the smoke wasn’t too bad this time though there were fires  along the gulf closer to borooloola and was a good one where  I was flying over Mornington island.  Also must have been wrong the times I had to fly the helicopter at tree top height in September so I could see which way was up. Funny thing was when we flew in May -July my eyes  worked really well. No haze at all then. Seasonal cataracts I guess. 
 

in my mistaken observation I’ve been wrong about the smoke haze that builds up every year I’ve flown there since about 2000 in About September - October. 
sometimes starting about July  if the  wet had finished early.  
 

oh well clearly my eyesight is getting too bad to fly any more. 

The other problem is smoke. The entire north gets blanketed in hazy smoke. 
Flying in the north of Oz is almost IFR to ground level after about October.

1 hour ago, Downunder said:

I'm keen to get into Woomera and spend a night or two in the town.

Anyone got in?

 

We tried about 3 years ago. Can’t recall who I wrote and spoke to but it all got too hard. Basically as best I recall they didn’t say “ No” but they made it so difficult that we bypassed it.  

7 hours ago, Student Pilot said:

Not in Australia Jerry, they go out of their way to exclude GA, even making large airspace exclusions going out to areas that might only be used a couple of times a year. A good example is trying to get clearance to transit Williamtown coastal, if they do decide to let you through they make it as hard as possible. Don't expect it to change anytime soon, aviation is only going backwards in Australia driven by a Federal government with an anti GA bent and CASA who it seems want to get all aircraft out of the air.

Yep seems to be getting harder. 
it’s a shame because it never used to be that way. 
About 2003 or 4 we did a flying safari around Queensland and flew into Oakey with about ten aircraft ( including 3 helicopters). A planned trip and we got to have a go in the Blackhawk simulators, saw the army aviation museum  and got treated to a guided tour of the place. 
probably never happen again. 
 

I’ve also flown into Williamtown in an R44 But admittedly I made a  “I REQUIRE  entry and landing NOW! “ call and they had no choice.  (Extreme severe weather front coming through with 60 knot gusts making flying uncontrollable)  I got lucky and there was another guy who worked at and was  landing at the time at the civilian rescue service in the other side of the field and I got welcomed and somewhere to store the R44 till the next day when the front had gone through. 

2 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

IMO a “good” pilot is one who doesn't take unnecessary risks.
Flying, for humans, is dangerous enough as it is. Why make it more so?
That said, there are pilots whose jobs are to take those risks. They're called “test pilots”. Read anything by or about them and you'll quickly find the lengths they go to, to minimize the risks they must take and the mechanisms and procedures they put in place to protect themselves when a risk becomes a reality.
Pilots who do risky stuff (like flying a trike 6 inches over the surface of a lake) are, IMO, NOT “good pilots”. Those who do risky stuff with passengers on board are, again IMO, “bad pilots”.
I wouldn't presume to judge the pilot in the video by looking at one video. But what happened to him also happened to me. It wasn't risk taking. It was loss of focus on a critical flight parameter ... pilot error.

Yep. In my case - the same. Not while doing something inherently riskier just pilot error in combination with the dreaded “human factors”. 
 

However, not to let Jonas off the hook completely, his other videos show some aspects of flying I’d consider risky and showing evidence of not being a good pilot. 
But his capabilities shouldn’t be judged necessarily on this event which I would argue doesn’t represent a departure from normal ( albeit not ideal) piloting. 
 

22 minutes ago, Student Pilot said:

He said the problem was not watching his airspeed so he stalled. It is important to know all the other pointers to airspeed, safe flight without an airspeed indicator is possible.

Nope sorry but I disagree - short short  final is not the same as flying at altitude. forget “other signs” those are for when you are thousands of feet.

 I once had a hard landing where I dinged  my jabiru up. Pretty much  the same scenario with slight differences. After a long day flying I was tired. Coming into my home strip, in my mind the plane was already in the hangar and I was having a beer with the rest of the guys who’s been flying that day. Wind was down the runway at the far end windsock but a bit gnarly  and crosswind / rolling over the trees on the left at the near threshold. Came in full flaps and slow ( for the windsock at the far end) when I should been faster and crosswind configured for the near end. 

Had the inevitable roller which either slammed me into the ground or changed the airflow over the wing to a stall pattern and I dropped like a brick instantly and bounced from about two metres high. I  powered on but all too late -  torque turned the aircraft and stalled and dropped a wing. Back onto the ground but going sideways. Pulled off the power as I was now pointed  at  the same trees Rolled off the now leading main wheel. Wing tip and prop hit the ground. All over. 
 

But my point is that it happened so fast that there were no warning signs of going too slow apart from the view outside and gauge which  I wasn’t watching.  When you are teetering on the edge of too slow and something happens (like a downward roller of wind) you cross the low speed line way before the other signs of anything going wrong start to happen. And even if it did, your reaction time and the time for an action to take effect are too slow to help. 
Short final is all about being on the numbers before the event, not looking for secondary signs that can’t help you anyway. 

According to the video he was flying and the girlfriend was not. 

I enjoy his you tube channel though I am in two minds about whether he is a “good” pilot. They do a lot of risky stuff  - well riskier stuff than I would do - eg pumpkin dive bombing an old caravan, landing and taking off on a snow covered mountain top in near IMC visibility and a lot of gravel bar etc landings that don’t appear to have been checked out properly first.

I accept some of the stuff he does is legal there - low level flight apparently is legal in the USA - but still a lot is pretty risky. 

But as I said  though I do enjoy watching his channel though. 

5 hours ago, SSCBD said:

FT A lot of CSU's are being fitted to RAA  LSA aircraft these days specifically with Rotax engines. My Question is why I cant see any on GEN4 engines. 

And as I stated - the performance increase Quoted by  - Airmaster Propellers CSU state that:

 

Performance tests have shown up to:

• 33% shorter ground roll

• 10% better climb than fixed pitch prop

• 20% improvement in cruise and economy

Also provided was an Endorsement Specifically  J430 which is the 4 seat VH version

 

Sohrab Ghasimi - Jabiru J430There were some significant improvements in performance as follows: 20-30% reduction in ground roll, Higher climb rate, Smoother running and an increase of cruise speed to of 15 - 20%.

PDF from Airmaster of above information.

http://www.gap.aero/pdf/airmaster/Airmaster_propeller-systems-332-420.pdf

 

 

SO if you operate in say far nth QLD and tight strips in a Jab 230 for example - and you had the money WHY NOT Have the extra performance. 

 

 

 

 

Don’t need it! 
(Definitely Don’t need it at the cost of no warranty ) 

Getting back to your original question. “Why don’t Jabiru offer them as an option”. 

Simple -

Jabiru already support several propellers models/ brands because they have trialled them and feel confident that they will not induce increased loads on the Engines components  ( in particular the fly wheel and the associated bolts.)  

To trial other brands takes time and money and may have very little or no financial return for them. They offer a product that works well  for most people out of the box. 
There are so many other brands of propellor available and so many more that will become available in the future that it would be an endless costly exercise to try to test and endorse them all. 

If an owner wants to change the already reasonable propellor for something Jabiru have not trialled, and have no control over, then quite reasonably Jabiru says you do it at your own risk.  

Exact same reason why if you bought a new car that works fine and you decide you want to change engine components for parts made by another manufacturer. You would never expect the car manufacturer to offer and endorse someone else’s brands engine components. 
 

On 7/19/2020 at 8:26 AM, Bruce Tuncks said:

There is a new WD40 dry teflon lube in a spray can which I have been using, but I like the idea of teflon powder in isopropyl alcohol better... or maybe molybdenum disulphate powder. The moly only has the dawback of being black but at least you would know its there. I am planning to try this with alcohol hand-sanitiser as the carrier.

Some attention is warranted I reckon. A small amount of play can give a lot of aileron play. The technique I have been shown is to squeeze the hinge tight again with heavy pliers then clean and lubricate.

I have heard of aileron hinges being replaced and think this is overkill.

I spoke to Jabiru (Jamie Cook) about increased play in the hinge pins. His advice was NOT to compress the hinge “rings”.  That will weaken the ring. 
The advice to fix the play was to make a slightest  bend in the pin about 10 -15 mm from the end and then go to the other end and make a similar bend in the opposite direction. 

That fixed the issue. 

With the new Basic Class 2 you probably wouldn't even need RAA as a backup. The only medical difference between the two really is RAAus is essentially a self-declaration after asking yourself "Are you medically fit to drive anything?" whereas the Basic Class 2 is your GP assessing you against the AustRoads Commercial licence standards, which aren't that hard to meet, realistically...And you need to pay CAsA $10 for the privilege...

 

FWIW, my opinion is if you can't meet the Austroads standards, you should be asking yourself if you are really fit to fly at all.

The Basic Class 2 requires you to unconditionally meet the commercial license standards, which is not as straightforward as you describe. It is strict enough that CASA had to specifically exempt glasses and hearing aids, and strict enough that if you do not meet the standard for a Basic Class 2 you might still be able to get a normal Class 2.

 

The Basic Class 2 has 2 advantages:

• It is cheaper and easier to get
  
• You might be able to find a doctor who will fudge the standards, and CASA will look the other way because all the responsibility falls on the doctor.
  

Not any more!

CASA have started to send out the letters revoking class 2 basics!

Mate of mine here in Cairns, just got the letter from CASA a fortnight ago basically saying “We have reviewed your class 2 basic medical and you aren’t suitable for a Basic Class 2. If you want to dispute it you have 14 days to respond”. he had a class 2 till a year or so ago. I think he He has a commercial drivers licence. Certainly is fit and well now, works heavy manual work but had a medical condition in the way distant past that required CASA approvals about. Despite no issues now the ancient history has stripped the basic class 2 off him.

Implication in the letter is that many people who shouldn’t have got medicals are using the

Class 2 as a loophole but they (CASA) are working through them to weed out people.

Not able to comment on the specific flight mentioned but when I was a flight physician on our local helicopter in the 1990s through to 2005 we flew to hospitals for a huge range of reasons.

Not just trauma From motor vehicle accidents. We transferred sick patients whose condition was too severe or just not covered for management by the small facility. Anything from pregnancy complications to heart attacks or strokes to psychiatric emergencies. Also picked up lost ( and found) bush walkers with not much wrong with them but needing a good medical exam before letting them go home.

so I guess the example posted could be anything.

I have held for a long time that this person is probably acting for 'Big Pharma" and definitely NOT in our interests. The fact that TGA has, over the past few years, acted to firstly remove Pethadine from its legitimate place as a strong (and strictly by prescription) analgesic and secondly to severely limit access to codiene and that the Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, has supported this is damning evidence of a set-up. Codiene is a cheap, effective generic which has been supplanted by Oxycontin and Endone, both of which are patented and bring their producers huge profits.If in doubt about this then consider that I was casually offered 8 Oxycontin tabs, quite casually, by a dentist following a recernt tooth extraction. When you consider Oxycontin, Endone and codeine in overdose statistics, which is of greater potential to do harm?

sorry but you are factually wrong on most of your points there.

As a daily prescriber of pethidine, oxycodone and occasional codeine I can state (at the level of a court accepted legal expert) on the use and pharmacology of all and your statements don’t accord with fact.

too much complex pharmacology involved to explain here though I’d be happy to discuss it elsewhere.

BRS's are expensive and have to be repacked another large expense. However if your wing's have fallen off you would be happy you spent the money. As long as you had not exceeded the vne for chute deployment which would happen very very quickly. There are plenty of cases where the chute simply rips off.

If you are flying European rubbish metal spin machines they might be a good idea you do however have to be high enough for them to work. If you are flying a Jabiru your touch down speed is going to be about the speed off a ballistic chute anyway, with an almost unspinable aircraft your not going to be in a stall spin situation. Properly designed LSA do not need BRS. The cheapest option is wear your own chute glider style and modify the doors to come off. Something would have to be really wrong for you to want to leave the protection of a Jabiru cockpit.

the other thing is retrofitting a parachute to something not designed fit it. I spoke with either Jamie Cook or Rod Stiff ( can’t remember which) specifically about retrofitting one to a Jab 430.

they advised they had no idea where or how to install nor where to attach the lines and that you can’t just plug em on anywhere. Needs lots of testing and trials to find the positions that won’t just rip the fuselage apart when it deploys. And they haven’t done any testing. You’d have to do it with your own aircraft and first trial could well be the end of it. So even if you’d like to it’s pretty much impossible with a jabiru anyway.

Bit hard to tell. Can you take another photo in focus.

it looks a bit like a retained nut housing that’s been opened up and lost the nut.

but then it appears to have some sort of film covering the hole where the screw goes through. So that would negate the first suggestion.

But as I said it’s s but hard to tell.

Never seen a clip like this on any Jabiru engine. I have no idea what it would be used for.

Jaba who. I have posted before somewhere on this site about one of the early Cirrus recovery schute landings.

The plane came down in a dam and the wheels of course hardly slowed the descent when they hit the water, then the whole underside of the plane hit the water and stopped dead.

Result the pilot had severe spinal compression injuries. That would not have happened if the wheels had hit hard earth and started the crumpling of undercarriage and wings.

Ok That’s one.

Though my first thought is there must have been something else other than just the explanation given involved.

There’s been several water “ landings” that I’m aware of ( including the one videod from both inside and outside the aircraft near Hawaii ) where the impact was quite benign.

Any other factors that could explain the discrepancy of outcome?