Jaba-who

I'm wondering why you have discounted a jab 230. Seem to fit most of yourrequirements

 

RAAus registerable

 

You can get an RAAus pilot certificate easier than ppl and your medical issues will be less

 

600 kg max weight

 

Cabin is big enough for most bigger guys

 

Tricycle gear so you don't need a tail dragger endorsement

 

You can build it yourself and get to do ongoing maintenance (I think) I'm not really as sure of RAAus rules as I am with experimental)

 

Only negative I see is the trailerable capacity. I don't know how significant that requirement is for you.

 

 

I'd agree with Kyle C.

 

I have nothing but good things to say about QBE

 

I pranged a plane in 2009. Fixed and flying again in 3 months. All paid without problem complaint or question by QBE.

 

But if I can give any advice - go through a broker. They can get better deals, get clauses and extras thrown in. And can advise you on pitfalls etc.

 

 

Hi Old K - you are mixing systems.

 

Air services was going to give or heavily subsidize everybody new ADSB equipment rather than simply maintain -not upgrade- the NDB system. They offered a one time subsidy and along with the absolute statement that at some time in the near future the NDB system would be closed down and then all operators would have to go to ADSB (at their own cost if they don't take the offer now). In one of the admittedly few misjudgments that aviation consumer groups like AOPA have made along the way they bowed to pressure from the old grizzled pilots who loved their NDBs over new tangled gizmos the offer was rejected.

 

And now we are getting the first murmurings and official statements coming out of all aircraft having to have ADSB in the next couple of years - at our own cost just as predicted :-(

 

 

Mmm latest scuttlebutt from the aviation fraternity in Croydon where aircraft was based.

 

Pilot landed on a good road (not entirely legal but safe enough) out west to deliver machinery parts to workers. Taxied off road then along a track to where the machinery was. Then instead of taxying back to safe wide road pilot fired up and attempted to take off from the bush track. On climb struck a tree and crashed killing self and son ( son was ok enough to help workers dig father out of crash but not long after deteriorated and died)

 

No engine problem heard by workers. Just struck tree and crashed.

 

And people wonder why the authorities try to micromanage and restrict us.

 

 

It was fairly beat up - especially given that at the time of the show all flying R44s have had the tanks replaced so airing it achieved no real gain except they gave the impression nothing had been done and have decreased the likelihood of victims getting legal redress because the show has produced an environment where Robinson will argue they can not get a fair and unbiased trial.

 

I didn't hear it said but I have spoken to number of non aviation people said they believed the report had stated that "EVERY" R 44 that had ever crashed in Australua had had a post impact fire which is completely wrong. But thats the impression they have given the general public. There actually have been very few percentage of the crashes have had a post impact fire. I am not sure but I understand the incidence of post impact fires is not worse than other helicopters - what is different is that the fires that have occurred have been in / from less destructive impacts than most of the fires in other helicopters. So what might have been otherwise survivable was not. It's still a problem - not saying its not but it did have a large amount of appealing to the emotional viewer.

 

R22 s are not subject to the same problem and its probably because the cause seems to actually be the main rotor gear box breaking up and rupturing the tanks. Not the tanks as such. The R22 rotor blades are so much lighter and they buckle and bend with impact and the forces are not transmitted down to the gear box in the same way. The gear boxes usually stay in the frame.

 

 

Yep welcome to the world.

 

I live at Cairns. Pay a fortune for a hangar space there.

 

And then I get fees to land as well. Until recently I also got air services changes.

 

You just have to think of them as different services. If you park and never take off/land you'd still pay same fee for parking and no landing fees. If you could magically take off without parking (or trailered your aircraft in from home each time you took off) you'd still get landing fees without the parking. As far as the airport is concerned they are different fees for different things.

 

 

"It's about decision making, judgement and reflexes and older people in many cases retain all three." I can't understand why this subject is being regurgitated without any evidence to go on.

Sadly that's now being shown to be wrong. Even if it were true "In many cases retain" also means "in the rest they don't retain". "Many" then becomes a proportional argument not an absolute. And it now appears that "many" is actually "very few".

 

The evidence is mounting now at an astonishing rate and from widespread sources. As the population ages the significance of understanding age related cognitive degeneration has become medically and socially (and economically) more important and huge amounts of research are now being done and published. We are now using technology (functional MRI and PET scanning) to measure brain activity when people undertake repetitive tasks, new tasks and assess situations that are familiar, new and illusory. And the outcomes are scary, especially as I am getting older as well. :-(

 

When we test reflex timings, cognitive interpretation, spinal arc times and flash image interpretation (and a whole array of things) after age about 43 EVERY human being has degraded responses. The loss is then logarithmic as age advances. Now I am not saying that there are not individuals who have lost LESS than others. There are but the majority, by far and away follow a pattern of loss which is testable and predictable. And coupled to that is the loss of the ability to interpret that the deficits exist. Often the greater the loss the less the individual is capable (or willing) to accept the loss exists. Sort of like the brain decides it needs to hide the loss from itself lest it all be too depressing..

 

It has been repeatedly shown that if the situation that is before a person is familiar (and true) they are able to rely on memory, habit and training. The problem arises when the response is required rapidly (to prevent degeneration of the situation) or the situation is unusual, or is unfamiliar or changes rapidly or requires interpretation or contains any scope of illusion that can be misinterpreted. There is a direct correlation with age and decreasing capacity to "work on the fly". That ability does vary with some being better able to do it but like all natural systems there is a bell-curve in response and the majority fall into the big part of the bell and only a small number fall into the upper part of the bell curve . Sadly the sorts of tasks we are talking about , flying and coping with the rigors of flying require the person to be in that upper edge of the bell curve. Although I haven't seen studies looking specifically at testing elderly pilots, there is no reason to assume that persons with an interest in aviation or lifelong pilots are some how self selected to be in the group who are found only in the upper part of the bell curve.

 

I often see elderly whose relatives say to me "Granny is so alert and with-it. She lives independently and is as good as she was when she was 50/60/70 "

 

In reality - When Granny is in her home environment with everything going smoothly Granny is fine. But when anything changes Granny is not fine. Granny comes into hospital and falls apart because she is in an unfamiliar surroundings.

 

I have found numerous stories of elderly pilots who managed to survive (just and amazingly), despite all around them cringing when they saw so-and-so was dragging his bug smasher out of the hangar.

 

They include the hugely experienced 80 year old who went to sleep and flew through Melbourne controlled airspace on auto-pilot and woke up when he exited the other side and ATC saved the day, the 70 year old who finished his home built after 10 years and crashed it on not only its first flight, but then again on its first flight after he repaired it! His families intervention and illness finally stopped him having another go.

 

The 80 year old who suffered a number of heavy landings and dubious in-flight issues, and who only stopped because his arthritis stopped him getting into his plane. We all have seen or heard the stories and thought some-one should stop him, but what can you do?

 

Its an issue we find hard to approach because living to a ripe old age and being healthy enough (bodily not necessarily cognitively) to undertake lots of activities previously limited to the young is now common. But unfortunately nature never intended us to do it and the activities are increasingly those which require the same cognition we had when were young. As I said previously, in our headlong rush to not appear age-ist we have forgotten there are immutable laws of nature.

 

I have no answer nor am I putting forward one. When I'm older and happy buzzing around the paddock I don't want someone stopping me either. But that doesn't mean we should pretend there isn't an issue.

 

 

We seem to be talking about multiple different situations here and fusing them into a one practice to suit all.

 

These are completely different situations

 

CTAF calls

 

FIA Boundary calls

 

Random calls within boundaries

 

Some are suggesting or wanting to do what are currently legal requirements anyway. ie CTAF calls prior to and within 10 miles of a non-towered airstrip.

 

Some are wanting do other things that are sort of fair enough but not required (but are common practice by RPT. ie calls on FIA as well as CTAF prior to entry into CTAF areas)

 

Some are wanting to do things (and been taught apparently ) that (while not strictly "illegal") are advised against doing. (ie Making calls at boundaries, making random calls at random times etc)

 

I can't echo TBs advice strongly enough. The rules are all available in publications by Air Services available on the internet for free, they are pretty straightforward and supersede all the discussion on the thread.

 

 

Ok I'll bite on the first part of the statement.

 

Sadly, (sadly for me too as I get older), age has lots to do with lots of things. Even accidents that involve elderly pilots, drivers, boat skippers etc.

 

in my job I see elderly people every day who have lost the reflexes, the ability to respond rapidly to changes, the ability to interpret out of the ordinary events and generate adequate cerebral responses and then the capacity to rapidly enact physical responses. Generally these are people who cope very well when all the usual things happen. It falls apart most when things go unexpectedly awry.

 

It's a fact of life I'm afraid that as we age we are not able to do the things we used to be able to. In our headlong tumble not to be age-ist it's an elephant in the room no one wants to admit is real.

 

The common threads in this are:

 

When tested properly EVERY elderly person loses the capability at some rate -some faster than others.

 

As a general principle the more cognitive the loss is, the less aware of it the person is.

 

 

The old requirement was to do as suggested above. That is make radio calls on changes of area (FIA) boundaries including location height tracking etc etc.

 

this was changed in I guess maybe early 2000s and dropped as a requirement. This was followed not long after with specific requests for people to actually stop the old procedures and change to the new ones. It was not just a request but basically a demand. Although they did say that if there was a specific reason for making the broadcast at some specific time then it was fair enough.

 

Statistically they looked at our and the USA stats (where they already didnt make these calls)and concluded that those locations we are talking about we're so far removed from other traffic and the risks of collision so low that the calls were pointless.

 

The reason being that as frequencies were becoming more congested the radio calls just cluttered up the band. The calls blocked or over transmitted other stations whose calls were more appropriate and did little or nothing for actual safety. At the boundaries traffic can be on two different frequencies and as rare as it to have two aircraft in the same bit of sky out there they may be on different frequencies anyway.

 

So not only do the rules say not to transmit the calls but ATC don't want you to either and it has a noted detrimental effect and no statistical positive effect.

 

I wouldnt bother buying a CD - the rate that Air Services Changes the rules it would be out of date by the time it arrived in the mail. All the correct stuff is in the ERSA or the VFR guide which can be down loaded free from the air services website.

 

 

Sign of the times I'm afraid. In fact most airports charge fees. It's pretty uncommon for airports not to charge. I've been doing yearly weeklong travelling tours of multiple stops with my aero club for over ten years and its always followed by months of bills straggling in. Most times it's not much really and is irksome more than financially straining. Funny that we can spend $100 on fuel to get there $100 an hour on cost/maintenance etc etc and then get annoyed at a bill for $10 from an airport that costs money to exits for our convenience. I'm not pointing fingers cos I feel exactly the same way. But it's part of the human psyche I guess.

 

Most have discounted fees if you are doing circuits.

 

The extract says "parking free" not landings free. So they are consistent. Lots of airports charge for landings AND also charge for parking overnight. Some charge for parking on hard standing but not if you park on the grass etc etc.

 

Some charge if you land at all but others not if you buy fuel or stay overnight and pay parking fees etc. All sorts of combinations.

 

Many use Avdata pty ltd to collect their fees and Avdata Often get it wrong. They use CASA flight plans for billing and I have had bills for places I planned to go but didn't due to weather etc. also they monitor recorded information and if someone uses your call sign you get the bill. Had that happen before my aircraft had even been built! Or they mid-interpret call signs.

 

In their defence though they never complain if you contact them and say it wasn't me.

 

 

I've got nearly a1000 hrs in command in robinsons.

 

Legally You can basically land anywhere that you have permission from the owner of the land and if the pilot in command feels (reasonably) it is safe to land. Some town by-laws might have rules against it but they are not CaSA so wouldn't /couldn't prosecute you under aviation laws only town planning laws which are long and complex civil law suit stuff. So chances are you won't get issues for a one off landing if it is aviationally safe.

 

The fact an accident happened doesn't mean it was not safe.

 

With regard the comments about survivability etc.

 

Robinsons have a high survivability if they impact vertically. Skid and seat impact attenuation is very good. But not if the airframe impacts on its side or worse inverted. They are unsurvivable from only a few feet if inverted ( but this applies all helicopters and all helicopters can invert or more commonly partial roll in the space of only a few feet especially with a blade strike because the transmission rips out of the airframe and rapidly changes the centre of balance.

 

I'm afraid the blades don't depart outward either. A common scenario is the advancing blade swings inward and downward and impacts the airframe.(all helicopters not just robinsons) If the blade hits just about anything they crumple and bend because they are actually quite thin structurally especially robinsons.

 

 

Just to throw in a comment on thread two contained in the overall thread.

 

Regarding white composites.

 

It's not as simple as you think.

 

Some modern composites can cope with the heat of being painted any colour. Vinyl esters tend to be more temp stable than the epoxy or polyester.

 

Some epoxies are made highly stable by post-curing (a heating process done after initial curing). As proof of this the cowls of jabs get very hot when the engine is run but you don't see the cowls drooping all over the place every time they are used.

 

You really have to find out about the composite used, how it's been manufactured and what recommendations the manufacturer has.

 

 

But to play devils advocate, last time I was talking about this with a R44 owner it was not possible get hold of the bladders for retrofitting. They were not actually available due to limited numbers being made.

 

There is a time frame by which the fitting has to be done but since there isn't a source of the part required that time frame has been extended.

 

 

That should be "maybe frictions work better". Damn auto correct. :-(

 

 

I agree about some creative editing but there is obviously some real looking footage of the H300 in real looking situations and also the "forward looking" video was taken from some aircraft (and I guess it was from an era before unmanned aircraftbwith good cameras) so I think it probably was a real low level jolly done at a time when there was less rules or where someone felt they could get away with it.

 

Some of the footage looks a bit suspect with hair being gently blown in odd directions etc

 

I have no time in Hughes 300 (but about 1000 hrs in robinsons) and in Robbie's at least you can fly with the cyclic between your knees to get hands free for very short periods. I would never do it in a bank like this guy nor be waving outside. But maybe the fractions work better on a Hughes 300.

 

 

Not necessarily. I went through a divorce settlement recently. I got to keep my plane The secret is to always have a debt on your aircraft that matches the value of it. That way they don't want it.

 

 

I am just canvassing any list members who have either bought or sold a j430 in the last year.

 

I'm in the difficult position of needing get a value on my 5year old J430 - marital disaster - I don't want to sell it to find out what it's worth just get an idea of a value for asset pool calculation.

 

Gauging a likely value is difficult for many reasons including age, hours incident history maintsined by me not a LAME etc using ads in mags is not helpful. Problem is there are lots of ads in various magazines but they are what people are asking not what they are getting. Some are still for sale after a year or more.

 

I have had it nominally valued at a distance by jabiru but the wife does not accept the valuation because the guys at jabiru are friends of mine. The local auctioneer /valuer has admitted he has no idea what it's worth as he's never valued a home built plane in the experimental class before. (I had to explain what it all meant) he was initially going to use the value of a Cessna 172 as a guide.

 

So my question is - what real actual price have people been selling or buying a j430 for? Answer off list if you'd prefer. [email protected]

 

 

I wish!

 

 

Yep still have the plane :-)

 

Had long previously parted with boat and helicopter. More recently parted with wife But still have managed to hang onto the Jabiru. (but not much else)

 

Sapphire - doesn't seem to be much sanity left though :-(

 

 

A boat is hole in the water you throw money into

 

A plane is a hole in the air you throw money into

 

A helicopter is a hole which actively sucks the money out of your hands as you hold it up

 

A wife ( and her divorce lawyer) actively turn you upside down, go through your pockets and then vacuum everything out of every crease and fold before throwing you into one of those aforementioned holes

 

Sadly have now been the proud owner of every one of the above :-(.

 

 

Thanks to the guys from townsviller flyers for hosting the event and the warm welcome given to those of us from Cairns, innisfail & Tully who went down. a great weekend.

 

There is some footage on our SAAA facebook page. Www.facebook.com/SAAA34FNQ and also my page. search John Martin and go to the one with the jabiru in the icon.

 

Thanks again

 

 

What amazes me is how much inertia is left in those blades after the initial strike. He slammed into the ground and skidded for some time bounced and then still enough inertia in the rotors to take off again.

 

Looking at some more and thinking about it. In his pullup he initiated a left turn - which in a clockwise rotating rotor usually requires dropping the collective as well as a big boot of left pedal. (sort of an ANTI-torque turn ) so when he dropped out of the turn I recken he had bugger all power and it just couldn't spool up quick enough to resist the very rapid descent. I agree with someone earlier who said he was going too fast to get into a vortex ring.

 

Hope they survived! Anyone know the outcome?

 

 

Quote"The blade pitch looks wrong to me, maybe it's just my eyes but it appears as if something isn't right or is broken!"

 

Big problem with watching a video is you get lots of distortions due to frame/ shutter rate artifacts etc. So what might appear as something on video might not have been even present in the real event.

 

The second sequence just before impact shows what appears to be a marked coning angle ( blades lifting up at the tips) suggesting pulling pitch but it's not a huge amount.

 

But beyond that I'd be reluctant to say much more than that he didn't flare which is the usual preceding event before pulling pitch and over pitching.

 

All very odd.

 

 

Exactly the opposite. You want your doctor to earn enough that he can pay to go on his own to non drug company sponsored conferences. And to subscribe to peer reviewed journals not freebie glossies from the drug companies.