Jaba-who

I’m told the twin jab can climb on one engine at max weight at sea level and climb on one engine (at below max weight but I forget what they weight was) to 8000 ft. Also has docile asymmetrical characteristics because the engines are so close to the centreline.

But still only one engine. The whole idea is the have two engines.

Somehow a long winded reply from me disappeared into the ether and I won’t have time to repeat it all but the crux was: The NDIS is $3billion underfunded in forward estimates and is being narrowed in its scope to deal with the unexpected huge take up. Theres no big wad of money going anywhere for funding anything outside of the narrowing range of defined disability. It doesn’t cover middle duration potentially curable medical issues of the type that AF takes people to the cities for. Even Rehab for stroke is not something that is a one size fits all and highly specialised modern stroke rehab is by the same limitations I mentioned before limited to big cities. Sub-optimal broad treatment is like everything else ( shopping, banking and entertainment) something regional people accept if they want to maintain jobs and family in the regions.

No one is making them to sell. Not here in Oz or in South Africa. I’ve been keeping an eye on the happenings because I’m pretty keen to get one when they become available. Jabiru In South Africa have the most experience and still trying to sort out issues with vibrations. Stiffy has told me to hang in there for a while yet. As stated there is nothing stopping anyone with a amateur build VH 230 or 430 pulling it apart and making a twin now but they would be on their own - Jabiru wouldn’t back them up and it would require a AP to approve the new special Cof A and no AP would be that silly while Jabiru themselves say no.

I read somewhere that CASA had said it was going to be open from ?19th August - the date was not a certain it just sticks in my mind. But haven’t heard or seen anything. Maybe a delay or maybe was never a date cast in stone. Or maybe like a lot of CASA releases was just a thought bubble that never went anywhere.

I’ve been incommunicado for a few weeks. Interesting to see where this has thread has gone. Sorry to disappoint you though Turbs (and Tuncks) this issue of decentralised and limited specialists in regional areas is never going to change. There has been millions spent by health departments and specialist colleges to do it but has met with failure because: 1: you can’t train specialists in the regions because you need mentors there to teach them and you need caseload to learn on (which is not in the bush it’s in the cities) 2:you can’t them to move there once they’ve qualified because they now have kids in school and spouse in a job and they can’t just be uprooted. There’s no prospect of tertiary education for the kids and limited advancement in the speciality for the doctor. 3: there’s not enough caseload to have an income nor enough to keep up your skills as a specialist. 4: patients get poor ( out of date or inexperienced) care from a specialist who sees one case a year of some illness compared to the specialist in the city who sees 100 a year. The reality is that transfer systems from the regions to the cities for medical care are here to stay. ( I’m a specialist in a regional centre and a director of a specialist department and spend significant amount of time trying to get specialists to come here to work and it’s often impossible)

At one stage Bankstown had a fee for pushing an aircraft out of the hangar and another to push it back in. they bundled those under “movement fee”. Normal people defined aircraft movements as being under their own power, taxying etc. but the owners considered any time the aircraft was moving, even being pushed through the door as a movement.

Deleted. Already answered by others.

That’s not the point of this bit of the discussion. If CASA wants to retain credibility they can’t say “This activity is 7 times more dangerous than that, therefore we are going do something!” If they are going to justify doing anything then they need to be truthful about why they are doing it. Because it’s “ 7 times more risky” is almost certainly a falsehood. By all means if CASA has truthful data that justifies the action then do it. But don’t make up non-sensical data to justify an unproven position.

“Statistical significance” is an entity that has nothing to do with cultural or personal or societal significance. A persons death in an accident is significant - to them, their relatives etc etc. but in terms of determining whether one persons death in the other million people (or whatever number it is) who die today in the world and whether that one persons death can be used to prevent others etc is dependant in its “statistical significance.” One in how many?, how many were caused by the same thing, how many were caused by similar but different etc etc etc. ”Significance” is has many meanings.

Mmm what does any of that mean? You can take action that does not disaffect anyone or you can knee-jerk react and throw everyone into chaos and then “justify” it with made up rationale. Deriving a likelihood of a future event ( and assigning a numerical value to it) can only truthfully be based on the statistics of past events. You can’t just make guesses about what you perceive to be risky and place a numerical likelihood on it causing some future event. Plenty of people perceive things to be risky and demand things be done to mitigate the tick, yet we never actually see events happen from it. I see it everyday with “crusaders of causes” in the medical world. You can say “I perceive this to be a risk of some problem happening” but until it happens it’s just conjecture. You certainly can’t say it is 7 times more dangerous than something else purely based on cogitating over possible complexities and generating fallacious numbers to match them. That is in fact is “somebodies method”. I forget who the name is but it’s a psychological trick that is used by people to make it look as if they know what they are talking about. The basic principle is you must convert a general principle into a number even if you have no source of or evidence to support that number. Numbers equal certainty. That gives the impression you actually have solid evidence. Next - Then you must make sure that number is not a round number because round numbers seem fake but unusual numbers seem likely to be real. So 7 sounds more real than 10 times. Its even better if the number has a decimal place because that increases the perception of accuracy. So I disagree absolutely with you that it is reasonable for CASA to look at complexities in isolation of past events and come up with a number of 7 times the risk compared to another private flight. It is just statistical absurdity!

As someone who deals in stats (and trying to see through dodgy ones frequently), on a daily basis I too am pretty cynical about this announcement. How does two crashes in 10 years get morphed into any useable statistic. It’s just noise in the background from a statistical point of view. This is clearly CASA just grabbing at dodgy figures and throwing them out in the media to hopefully blind everyone to their knee jerk reaction. Sounds like like the jabiru engine fiasco all over again.

Who knows what the medical service they were going to was for. Just cos they has Juv. rheumatoid doesn’t mean the service they were going to was related to that. And even if it was could have been anything from further tests ( of many possible types) to getting physio assessment, to assessment by a surgeon for joint surgery ( of the JR affected joints, to specialists in a number of fields where JR can be a cause or contribute to other system disorders. there are plenty of limitations on telemedicine that are make face to face assessments still the gold standard.

That’s not the indicated change. ( if it is to happen) Any aircraft can go over the 600 kg. Its just that certified aircraft in that range will still have to LAME maintained. Home built in that range will be as per current arrangement. But just remember CASAs mindset is that primary group they are aiming at is current GA owner pilots who own a GA aircraft who no longer can hold a medical will be able to re-register their own aircraft in RAAus and downgrade their licence and continue to fly the aircraft they have owned for ever and are used to. They will not have to transition to a new aircraft because stats show transitioning is most dangerous time for high hour pilots. This was the argument pitched to CASA. Most will have been LAME maintained and continue as such. It it is likely at some point the aircraft will be returned to the GA register when the current owner quits flying and new owner wants a GA aircraft. So to stop poorly maintained aircraft going back into the VH pool they have to be LAME. Maintained. That was never going to happen with home builds so is not needed. The others who who start off new with new plastic fantastic or other modern go-fast machine were thought to be in minority and would be an acceptable trade off. Not sure their logic ever “held much water. “

We’ve all seen CASAs public consultation before. Have your decision made beforehand. Put out a statement saying “Have your say! But you must do it by tomorrow.” then send it to as few people as possible and if possible send it to stakeholders whose position is likely to agree with your predetermined outcome. then announce your decision stating you “consulted widely!”

Unfortunately that does not in itself address the issue because: 1. It’s about flying over built up areas not CTA ( in particular Jandacot YPJT ) which is what the question asks ) which are two different things. You can have built up areas outside of CTA and be covered by this CAR and have non built up areas inside CTA which it doesn’t. I have to admit I am not familiar with the layout of the surrounding areas at YPJT. There may or may not be non-built up routes that could give access. Bearing in mind that a published VFR route may not be clear of built up areas, so just cos it’s a published VFR route doesn’t mean it’s covered by the CAR either. 2. It’s the broad CAR to which there are endless exceptions and if you really want to cover it all (?and this applies to every damn topic anyone might need info on) you have to go through the whole lot from CAOs through the CASRs right down to the CAAPs ( if there are any in the topic) to find all the exemptions and specific sections etc. Its all way too hard for most people to go through it all. For it what it’s worth - and I do agree with 440032 - everyone will have a different opinion - but since I’ve been involved with several RAA pilots and their aircraft getting in and out of Class C I will add another 2 cents worth. Broadly speaking - the aircraft has to meet standards and the pilot has to meet standards. The aircraft standard is the same standard as if it was a VH. That is - same instruments and all required maintenance ( certain instruments and that they are calibrated etc) done. In class D that means no transponder needed ( Class C yes ) Now a further complication - if the route in and out takes you over built up areas then it must meet further requirements. It usually related just to type of engine. Needs authorisation. Pilot - Need CASA licence and the factors needed to exercise its privileges ( ie: RPL or above and a current medical suitable for it and a current AFR. ) OK - there are some Very specific exceptions to that but they are not relevant in this thread. But you also need a RAAus certificate to fly the aircraft ( anywhere). So broadly if you fit all these criteria then yes it’s definitely do-able.

I doubt you can find any statistics to back up that statement.

I’m using the term “recreational” in it’s broadest sense - meaning any pilot with any form of licence or certificate who is flying any form of aircraft but for enjoyment without commercial reward.

Yep. The problem of entrapment is real and was major component of a complete disaster with a member of my SAAA chapter a few years ago. RV that flipped over and entrapped by canopy being in contact with ground. Upside down with multiple injuries for prolonged period. Caused a number of complex physiological changes. When he was extracted finally the effects already in place coupled with the reversion to the horizontal position caused a cardiac arrest. Resuscitated “successfully” but all the issues left him with significant permanent problems.

Interesting but sadly irrelevant to Australia. CASA continues to stand its ground and maintain that planes fly in Australian skies under a different set of laws of physics here and it doesn’t matter what happens anywhere else in the world “what CASA says goes” here and they ain’t saying anything new about any thing recreational pilots would like.

The problem is that probes can go “out of linear” at times. Usually just before they fail properly. The probe may be close to the real temp at lower ( non operating temps) and then go significantly out as the temps rise. As failures tend to be high resistance failures the temp error is usually the opposite - with the temp going high rather than low. But I have had a couple over the years do the opposite and read low. Replaced the probes and got back to real temps again.

For owner maintenance there’s no issue with the MR forms being copied. The serial numbers are only if importance for LAME workshop tracking so the MR in the plane can be compared back to the copy kept in the big green book from which the first one was torn. At most you might want to cross out the serial number and write “not applicable” across it. But even that is overkill. As long as you fill in all the details appropriately the serial number is superfluous unless the copy in the LAME’s big green book is also filled in at the time of issuing.

But hard to point it at the rear cylinders while it’s flying.

Something that was said along the way was that the intent was no aircraft can be re-weighed or re-certified to meet any new weight. They would have to be within the weight category as they stood. The principle being that if you’d flown your old C152 for decades and converted to RAAus ( say for lost medical etc) that the a/c simply was changed as it stood to RAAus. This allowed people to fly what they were used to and not have to buy and/or convert to something else at unobtainable cost etc. Of course that was the first rush feel-good principle which seems to have been pushed into the background with the later noises about higher weights STILL requiring GA type medicals. There was a statement somewhere I read that the intent was you could not up-weight something previously certified at a lower weight nor to strip seats out of etc to down-weight an a/c to squeeze it into a lower weight category.

The one from a couple or several months ago. Have no idea what it’s formal title was. Was publically available as a series of videos ( about 3 spanning several hours IIR) with representations made by people from GA, ?airlines, AOPA, SAAA, the aforementioned two blokes from RAAus and maybe was some others. I forget exactly as they didn’t really concern me. Everyone else was quite polished and presented factual information. The RAAus guys flustered and obfuscated. ( and misrepresented the facts ) Basically stated that all the rules that apply to everyone else should not apply to RAAus because the aircraft in RAAus are ALL extremely simple and basic with no complex systems. Which Has been later pointed out by just about everyone with any interest to be quite false as many of the same aircraft are used in both GA and RAAus.