foxy

no no jetjr....i have no belief whatsoever that jab will be able to fix the problem... none at all...... if they had have been able to, we wouldnt be in the situation we are currently with their gazillian problems! i think you are correct.... single seat aircraft... not the fantastic trainer they were depicted as!

ok.... i dont have much of an idea when it comes to maintenance, however, i do know how qualified maintainers have to do the work for a training school, to all manuals as stipulated by the engine manufacturer... so any maintenance is done as put out by jabiru, therefor they have no merit in saying its the engineers fault for doing it wrong! As an owner of a jabiru that has had countless problems (some having been caused from the jabiru factory themselves), i believe i have a right to put my two bobs worth in, too. I am certainly not happy about what is happening from the draft.... HOWEVER....... i believe it needed to be done!!! There have been far too many issues ongoing, and not rectified. Jab wash their hands of an overhauled engine after 1 month, and of a brand new engine after 2 months!!! 2 months?????? Ridiculous! Finally something is being done about attempting to have this factory pony up and accept responsibility!

motz....2nd vote was in the 800-1000 bracket. soz. col..... unleaded was meant to say avgas... ran better on 98 than avgas

Yea i did motz. Sorry. Sapphire... I do realsie that. However... I have to say in the experience ive personally had.... It was running avgas that showed up a number of problems. Never had a problem with fouling with the 98 octane tho.....

when my 170 had the failure at 49 hours, it had been run religiously as how Jab specified it should be, when i picked it up. Avgas, maint done at correct times as told to me. Ive found that she ran a little smoother when running on 98 octane fuel than when she was run on unleaded. Im certainly not a Jab basher, I love my plane!! Ive always stood up in their defence quoting average ratios of varying aircraft types and engines, right through Oz, but even im getting to the stage where it just comes down to the question of what else can go wrong with this jab engine!!!

OMG!!!! Read Liz...... i voted for BOTH times i had engine problems!! Ok....so technically my Jab only lasted 49 hours when it had to go back to Bundy, get fiddled with and put back together again. Just putting in the extra note that it has had a second failure to U/S it again :(

hahaha. yyyyeeeeewww!!!!!! see......it IS cute!!!!!!! :)

scott, one thing that might help you learn it a bit better is to study the information, as though you were going to give the lectures yourself. i was never the best at 'study and retention' until i did my instructor rating. i thought i knew as much as there was needed to be known, until it came to a point where i had to be able to present it to a new student, who knew nothing from the beginning, and have them fully understand what it was i was teaching them. if you set out ur study sessions as though you were preparing to explain it to someone else, maybe this might help you learn a little better. even if just a few aspects at a time. hope that helps :) liz

tis a pretty one aint it howy!!!! good to hear u enjoyed the fight wayne :)

congrats solomon‼‼‼‼‼‼‼

Nev...... Because the raa dont have to have as high an aspect of ga pilots., does this mean to say that as instructors, we are well within our righrs to disregard complacency and safety??? We dont fly any different... There should be no reason that the training and checks for raa should be any different to ga. I hold both an raa instructor rating and a ppl.... I still had to teach and perform practise engine failures for raa, as well as perform a practise engine failure to pass my ppl.... Why is it ok to not worry about it? Its not going above ga..... It still needs to be done. As far as being the enforcer type....well if it means that the pilots i train will lead a long and safe flying career...then im happy to be that enforcer type.

Teckair.... The thing that I'm a little concerned about, is the fact that an instructor has chosen to walk away from a pilot, who may not be competent in an important safety aspect of their license. Regardless of whether or not they have been trained by another instructor and only come to you for a flight review..... You are an instructor!!!! Its your JOB to teach these people, already licensed or not, not only to fly an aeroplane. Its also your job, in their flight review, to ensure that they remain safe pilots. How can you justify just washing your hands of a pilot who may be in need of help to keep safe and current, just tell them to practise in their own time knowing full well they probably wont, and then allow them to take a pax, possibly have an engine failure and not be able to land safely because one instructor just couldnt be bothered making sure they fixed an issue that clearly needed fixing. Whdn you're on the stand at the coronors court..... What do you think the family and judge would think of the reasoning that you signed off a BFR even though the aspect that killed a pilot wasnt up to scratch... But you told him to go away and practise it himself.........

I suggest this thread be closed before its used against us.

Im in shock. Sorry guys but teckair, do your job or vacate the seat.

RIP :'(

awesome videos!!! He loves it!!!

David.... The first quote you questioned, i was referring to the instructors teaching students how to recognise the situation leading up to this possibly happening, and the recovery process, which will stop the aircraft getting to the situation where the stall/spin, can/will occur... Second, Why do you think that we aren't allowed to spin the aircraft?? teaching a full spin, or indeed unusual attitudes, can surely easily generate into a situation where excess load is put onto the aircraft. Unusual recovery, as I stated earlier, is a fantastic lesson for any pilot, as is spin recovery....these are offered to pilots..although note, they are not in the RAA syllabus are they? they are offered in the GA syllabus.... Third, How do I draw that conclusion?? well....when RAA stipulate that there is limit for us....and the aircraft manufacturers stipulate what is NOT to be done in those aircraft, surely...there must be a reason behind it, other than, 'just because we should say something'.... Yet we are being told that we are failing as instructors if we don't put he student into that situation? Doing things in an aircraft that aren't to be done, can, and has, put aircraft and pilots into very bad situations. I have seen an aircraft, with bolt holes having been sheered into an elongated shape, allowing forward and aft movement of the wing, owing to manouevers above the recommended.... Not something I'd like to see happen to a student or any pilot for that matter....

cfi...seriously?? Most, if not all of the aircraft on the RAA register clearly state that there is to be 'no intentional spinning'. Student pilots are taught the symptoms that can possibly lead to an incipient spin, and are taught the correct process to STOP that happening. Failed their duty as an instructor???? As far as I'm concerned, I've failed as an instructor if I was to put them or any other person who may fly the aircraft after me/them, into a possibly fatal situation, by loading that aircraft beyond its limits....once again...there are rules and limits for a reason. Surely you wouldn't put a student into that situation that could lead to them or others after being seriously, or even fatally injured??? Aircraft don't read regs?? No...but the pilot does, and the manufacturers of the aircraft do............

Regardless of the pilot holding a GA licence or not, the limitation still applies. (moderated as message quoted has been removed from view - Mod)

I think there is a point that's being missed here by some. As much as it was fantastic to see RA Aus being given some spotlight and publicity...the idea behind it is that the RA Aus wants to show the population of Australia, that flying is safe and fun. Even in the basic ultralight aircraft. This footage was not that of normal operations of the RAA. We in RAA are limited to turns of no more than 60 degrees. These rules are put in place for a reason. If RA Aus pilots break the rules by banking at above 60 degrees, which i believe certainly looks well over that in the footage, then they ARE breaking the rules. We may have our own governing body, but we still need to comply with CASA. They are the ones who we set it all out. Im sure everyone here can agree, that the less we give people out there who are anti RAA, or even anti aviation, more fuel to feed the fire, then the longer we will be allowed to operate. Training for unusual attitude recovery is definitely a good thing for any pilot to do....so long as it is in compliance with the standard of licensing, and aircraft that it is being done in. Noone here has said that the news clip was bad....just that it was bad to show a pilot of an RAAus aircraft, performing maneuvers above the licensing allowance for such. The aim of the game is to show that we're safe.......playing the 'watch what i can do in my aeroplane' card, for the news, wont necessarily breed safe pilots...if that's how they perceive RAA pilots can fly, thats what they will follow to do themselves when they are licensed.....

what apology are you waiting for CFI???? i fail to see a need for an apology........cant see anything written that would lead you to believe you are owed one????

I like the idea of putting the first stage of flap out after im on base, and have the aircraft set up at its base speed....in my 170, its 70knts on base, then trim for the pressure. Then once the flaps come down, even with forward pressure on the control column, i dont move the trim. If the trim is still 'nose up' for that previous 70 knts, u dont have to fight against the trim during the flare..... My 2 cents...... :D

awesome David!!!!!

good on him!!!!! i hope he gets it finished and gets to c it b flown.

what a tragic week for aviation. its sad to see a fatal aircraft accident, but horrible to have many in weeks.......condolences to all involved..