Jaba-who

Just received from jabiru. Have a look at the link as well. Has a lot of detailed information. Hello Jabiru Fleet, Update on CASA limitations We have been notified that CASA will be replacing the instrument that expires on the 30th of June with an instrument that places no limitations on Jabiru powered aircraft compliant with maintenance procedures, Service Bulletins and Letters and with no modifications. It is heartening to see recognition by CASA of the issues faced which are beyond our control and the steps taken by Jabiru to deal with the issues within our control. It has also been heartening to see the dramatic increase in compliance to Service Bulletins/Letters and maintenance procedures. This combined with our Jabiru engine training workshops has resulted in fewer incidents and puts us well ahead of Rotax for reliability, the standard by which CASA based their aggressive initial actions. It is disappointing however that CASA have still retained an Acceptance of Risk Statement within the limitations for non-compliant aircraft as the signing of this provides no enhancement to the reliability of these engines and is still damaging to our business. We will continue to work for and with our owners and operators to strengthen and grow the Jabiru Fleet. We have weathered the storm - it is now onwards and upwards for the Jabiru Fleet. Please see the below link for your information. https://gallery.mailchimp.com/380eb6fb927f7f05a141b8b5e/files/Jabiru_Engine_Reliability_Analysis_Report_2_.pdf Happy Landings Rodney Stiff Personally I can't see this being too unfair. The principle being that if the engine is brought up to latest specs and maintained as per manufacturer then it won't be restricted. If the engine is changed or not maintained properly then it is not. While I'd like to say we should be left alone to take our own risks I think this is the best we are likely to be offered. You would be hard pressed to find an engine manufacturer in any other field ( automotive or boating eg. ) who would be held accountable or held to a warranty etc. for anything when the engine is not maintained by qualified mechanics and/or is changed by the user.

Yeah me too but that ain't never gonna happen.

If less than the majority are unhappy then that's democracy. As long as its the smaller half - thats what democracy is. Should one group of voters have some undemocratic sway over the result because they are near to almost half. What about the MORE than half who are happy. There's always going to be someone unhappy. Surely it should always be the group who are less than the majority lose the election regardless.

I'd take all that with a very large grain of salt. Remember the media in Britain was/is almost exclusively pro-Bremain and have continued that mindset since.

I think run off elections are mostly for different reasons. They are for general elections to turn multi-candidate elections into final one on one events and produce a two party preferred type system. We get around it by having preferences which count as second and third votes when your first vote is lost on a losing candidate. This referendum was already a run-off as there were only two choices. Which was an advantage over some of our biased pre-outcome determined waste of time and money's. Ours have been "decide between two sensible options but.... to choose option B you must have it in a form that we know you will not accept." Thus the referendums were doomed to fail. As for requiring a big majority for a change - that's pretty standard in many constitutions (clubs, companies or entities as well as countries). And amounts vary from 2/3's to 3/4ss. It always strikes me as odd that effectively a person voting to maintain the status quo has more votes than someone wanting to change something. If a 2/3 majority is required then the "no" voter has twice the vote power and if its 3/4 then they have 3 times the vote power. Seems very odd to me. But even though I can't see it being an issue for us - I think democracy is about the majority ruling. Not an arbitrary magic number that gives some people more say than others. so 50.0000001 should win.

Ms Hansen isn't a tasmanian. I think to get it more accurate you would have to say a tasmanian (I don't actually know of a prominant tasmanian (not saying there aren't any just that I don't know any tasmanian politicians) Still I guess if the majority want it. Then that's their call.

I have no real knowledge of the real reasons or implications of the Brexit (and couldn't care less either). But the wars thing has been touted by a few people over the last few days but I seem to remember some that have been conveniently forgotten (or equally conveniently not called "war" even though people were killing each left right and centre). Some were in communist annexed countries who wanted to join the rest of Europe (Hungary, Czechoslovakia) Greece in the late 40s and early 50s There was a war in those two countries that were in/still are the EU (Northern Ireland and England) And I don't know was was who in the Croatia, Albania, Bosnia stoush but since NATO (or the UN) were dropping bombs and the other guys were firing artillery back you would have to call that a war, unless it just was useful not to attach labels or go there. The other thing I seemed to get out of the snippets I saw was the "stay in" mob seemed to be basing their desire on money and the "get out" pundits were basically saying they wanted a lifestyle they chose for themselves. Regardless of whether its good or bad in the long run that was always going to be the final decider. Half the smaller countries of the world have moribund economies but being in charge of their own destines is paramount. (and is an ideal encouraged by the rest of the world)

Mmm. I used to think that about insurance companies but a number of events over the last few years have made me think otherwise. Weather events in south east Queensland in past few years have caused more than twice the cost to insurance companies as events in my neck of the woods ( far North Queensland). Most insurers will now not cover property in far north Queensland because of the weather risk. No problems getting insurance in Brisbane.

We had planned to do the same but ended up not setting foot in it. Had so much to see and was made feel so welcome everywhere by everyone we met , Americans and foreigners, that the plan got forgotten. The Americans love Aussies.

Talk to jabiru. They are the best source of information.

Bit off topic but is about aircraft buried under stuff. I went to a lecture at Oshkosh put on by one of the team who extracted a P38 "Glacier Girl" from a glacier in Greenland. She had been landed on the ice near the end of WW 2 along with a number of others when they ran out of fuel. The airframes were intact and basically undamaged on landing and they gradually just melted their way into the ice. The team expected that since the airframes were undisturbed during their entombment they would extract one completely undamaged. Sadly the movement of ice over the years had ground the parts to bits. They found one part that was completely undamaged. Every other part had suffered compression, grinding or bending damage. But they still restored it at huge cost.

No that's not correct. You have to remmber that these were first sold in Australia to Australian rules and then they were later sent off into the rest of the world. In Australia the sequence was: All models of every size were initially sold only as kits. No factory builds at all. Then they ventured into offering fully built aircraft. Initially ( as best I recall ) the 160 size series was the first fully built series. The 2/4 series were only offered as kits. Then they started to make factory builds but they only ( and still only) build two seaters ie 230/50 because in Australia you cannot register a 4 seater in the recreational category. It has to be in the experimental general register and this ( a the time) was fairly limited to amateur home-build. So you can buy every model as a kit but the 230/50 can also be bought ready made. I guess you could probably buy a 230/50 and buy the seats as an after market and turn it into a 4 series. Not sure how easy it would be to register it though.

There would be the option for owners of old engines to send their engines back to jabiru to have them overhauled and upgraded. Or continue with the limitation if they want to avoid the cost. As much as that irks it is probably going to be the option that gives CASA the option with the least amount of liability.

Sorry but that's completely untrue. While the aviation rules may be fine the local bylaws may still get you. At one time there was a basic legal position that your right of access to your property did not define how that right to access was achieved. Car, motorbike, truck, boat plane or helicopter. Anything was fair game. But in the 1980s and 1990s various state governments enacted laws that gave power of exclusion over activities by landholders that to some degree by deceit included that right to access. They gave right of making bylaws to limit negative effects on neighbours and this came to include the right of access by means which carry undue effect on the neighbour. So the local governments were given rights to limit things you might do which might make life intolerable to your neighbours such as burning rubbish in a backyard incinerator, starting your lawnmower at 5:30 am on a Sunday morning or making a hellish lot of noise or risking damage to a neighbour by landing or taking off in a Plane. So if you had a silent aircraft you might be fine because you could argue that you didn't make life intolerable and you were following the aviation laws. But since planes aren't silent ....... Not all councils have local by-laws about this and some do. But you can bet that even if they don't that one complaint from a neighbour and they will have a bylaw as quick as they can. As several people have said make peace with the neighbours as a priority.

I actually bought one ( well actually got two) there. One of the many many merchandisers sold fold up chairs that were designed for taking in light aircraft. Weigh 600 grams. I bought two and take them with me on our fly ins etc. There were quite a few big fold up ones for sale there ( standard camp folding arm chair types) but these are a bit smaller and no arm rests but otherwise just great for stashing in the plane.

Yep Keith I agree entirely. I walked kms and kms every day. But as a bit of a jokey aside. They hire out bicycles and wheel chairs and the biggest number of mobility scooters I have ever seen in one place - sad indictment of the health status of the average American. They have a very well run system of buses and trolley carts as well. But yes you will walk heaps.

http://myinforms.com/.../35681077-light-aircraft-hits.../ Just read this on Aust Pilots Lounge on Facebook Sounds like pilot ok. Hit power lines on approach.

For what it's worth I had a chat with Ron Cook ( torii tours) about hybrid tours with time at Oshkosh and time off doing my own thing in an RV around the mid and Wild West. Seems he's happy to accomodate any plans. As far as Oshkosh goes though regardless of how you get there I would recommend being there for the whole week. When I went in 2014 I actually found stuff on the final Sunday that I had not managed to see the rest of the week even though I went there every day. It really does deserve a full week.

Just to add some weight to the idea. I'm keen as well. I have spoken to a number of people over the years who have expressed similar wishes that they could get a big map from the WACs. I think there would be a market for these.

The other option is doing a Torii Tours trip ( I went with them 2014 and have no links or financial interest in their company ) but it made the whole thing really easy. Pay the money up front and everything is done for you except buying the entry tickets. I did the short trip - 8 days and it cost about $4k. There's longer ones where they take you to other aviation places around the USA. Flights, accom, transfers, a tour " guide" who didn't do much ( and didn't need to do much) but was there in case of probs. only extra cost was into the airfield etc. if you join EAA then the whole week entry and joining was only a bit under $200 if I recall. I thought it was good value for money. Just make sure you get an air con room. Hang the extra expense it's well worth it. I thought the Uni accom was a great idea. Lots of people with aviation in their blood there to meet. Lots of Americans stay there as well as lots of overseas people. I met a real good Ol' boy from Louisiana named "Bubba" - I thought that was only a name they had in movies :-) Food was as good as a average to good hotel restuarant - you really only eat breakfast there. Believe me you will only be in the room for sleeping - there's a least 3 night air displays ( I mean REAL night displays not just early evening in day light. Planes , helicopters flying in the dark with pyrotechnics strobes and fully lit up airframes doing aeros etc and night entertainment music, movies, lectures etc. every night. you won't spend any time in the room except to sleep so you don't want to go for any expensive upmarket hotel when all you need is a bed. I'm looking at going again in 2017 but looking at making it a kickstart to a touring trip of the Midwest and west. So probably won't do the torii tours next time. But I will look at it. Might still be worthwhile. But if you are doing a straight airshow trip it's well worth considering.

Garfly wrote - " ....snip ....And Jaba, I was surprised by your comment that our ATC system actually has more problems than either the US or Europe (despite our [presumed] close adherence to ICAO rules). Can you tell us what data that's based on? ...snip..." Actually I was referring to the whole accident, incident, deaths, crashes (and just about about everything you can think of related to flying.) not specifically ATC events. (That data is freely available and CASA have even put it out themselves within the recent past year.) when you look at the stats of just about everything bad related to aviation Australia shows up pretty poorly compared to the US and I think in the last couple of years is getting worse. As far to Europe goes we have a higher accident and incident rate though some would suggest thats because general aviation is screwed so badly (rules and costs) in Europe that low time pilots now constitute a very small part of the flying population. In relation to ATC my comments were to suggest that despite strict ATC terminologies and requirements here in Oz we actually have those poorer overall stats rate. As far as specific ATC stuff goes, in relation to language which was what we were talking about in that part of the thread - etc. At one time we were allowed to use a lot of local terminologies and slang. After a few incidents (including one here in my home town where a low time GFPT pilot (who is a friend of mine) had an altercation with an inbound 747, CASA came out with the edict that local terminologies and non-standard phrases could no longer be used. I have no idea if it decreased the actual incidence of same sort of dramas but anecdotally they still seem to happen despite the rules. But in US they DO have lower incidents/accidents than us and they do use heaps of their "own" style of traffic talk that is way looser than ours. And it's certainly not ICAO standard terminolgies. so our use of strict comms techniques can't really be helping. We are now required to use very strict Terminologies ( and ATC get pretty finicky if you don't - I had an ATC repeat requests a couple of times for me to say the exact words last weekend. ) and yet many of these strict terminologies don't rally seem to either make sense nor add anything to the safety of aviation. Silly stuff like "Behind the landing 737, line up. Behind" As if you'd line up up anywhere else except behind. That's just the only thing I can think of at the moment but there are plenty of others.

Yep I agree Nathan. Intuitively you would think that would be be accompanied by a higher incidence of problems. The bizarre thing is that their incidence of problems is way less than ours. And then consider the US situation where the use of read backs etc is similarly low AND they use a huge amount of unintelligible ( to me) slang and somewhat good-ol'-boy pilot talk. Again you'd think it would lead to more problems but we know that US is much safer to fly in the Oz.

While in the ideal world you wouldnt return it, don't forget you are already replacing the oil every 25 hours anyway. ( jabiru rules for oil changes) and really that minuscule bit that flows back into the engine is just the same as the oil that's already in the engine ( which has pretty much the same amount of water impurities and volatiles in it as the oil that makes it into the oil condenser unit. ) In mine it would probably be less because my oil temps are always too low to burn or vapourize off much. So yep while the purists would say it's got bad stuff in it and shouldn't be returned the practical reality is it's almost certainly irrelevant.

It sounds like someone has mixed a few rules and guidelines from various sources together. The major fuel companies will not sell you a "cracked" drum. That's their own internal rules ( at least I think they are internal. Maybe there are laws that dictate to fuel companies but I think they don't apply to the receiver only the provider). I have bought many drums of fuel all over Aus and many providers won't sell you anything less than the full drum. And you have to buy the metal drum itself as well! Have had some who ask you to inspect the lock wire and tag on the drum and sign that it was sealed when you take possession of it. I have flown off and left half drums of fuel and the metalwork a number of times knowing that someone is going to get a heap of free fuel to run their motor bike or old station ute etc and then split the drum open for a horse trough. Some will sell you part drums but usually not. If several planes are together it's common to split the drum and the cost. I have managed to be on the opposite end a few ( very few) times and get the occasional bit of fuel that someone left in a drum. Always with the word something like " you can have this - fuel cheap or free - but it's at your own risk." Usually they will give you a history of how long it's been there etc. but I never believed it. Certainly it is Bush GA folklore/guidelines not to use opened drums of fuel with uncertain history. It's not just water either that can be in there. I've heard of half full drums becoming a repository for drained tanks on all sorts of engines. Fuel ages as well and breaks down and if you can't vouch for the age of the fuel it may be suspect. I used to sneaky look around and see how other drums were stored. If they were standing upright in the open then I wouldn't accept opened drum fuel even for free. That's how water gets sucked into them at night when the drum cools and sucks water that's pooled on the top of the drum down the thread of the cap. If they were all laying on their sides I'd feel better about it. So I think it's someone has misinterpreted the general rules/guidelines for drivers and also the fuel company self rules and assumed it is a law.

There's a lot of emotional overlay in some of these posts - "radio has its drawbacks and situations where it can fail so it's crap" - " you should be looking because "see and be seen" is the saviour of VFR flying etc" After nearly twenty years of group flying on treks round Australia with as many as 15 aircraft in company and anything up to 10 aircraft in the circuit of non-towered small airports at the same time I can tell you that to rely on just one or the other is asking for disaster when there are lots of aircraft around. None of the previously mentioned are reliable 100 % of the time and every available resource must be used to its maximal availability. And I have to say that at times the least reliable is the eyeball. I have lost count of the number of times we had aircraft in contact, within a mile or two of each other with ongoing radio commentary about positions and and have the small aircraft or helicopter to blend into ground or cloud and literally can disappear in front of your eyes. Equally when most aircraft have lots of visual dead zones there is a further worry when lots of aircraft converge, climb or descend into each other's space. Equally radio chatter is the worst cause of radio failure. Too many callers talking for too long. Talking about inconsequential stuff while the real important staff is prevented from broadcasting. Humans have a very high propensity for wanting single solutions for problems and when it doesn't work or there is a rare or uncommon scenario it can fail they claim it is useless. We need to take everything that's available and use it all while not disregarding something and while being knowledgable enough to know when the modality may fail and work around it.