Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jaba-who last won the day on April 9

Jaba-who had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,135 Excellent

About Jaba-who

  • Rank
    Well-known member

More Information

  • Aircraft
    Jabiru 430
  • Location
    Cairns, Atherton
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. But hard to point it at the rear cylinders while it’s flying.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. What does this mean “Amateur build”? Do you mean “Experimental Amateur Build” ( AKA GA (VH amateur build) because that’s what exists now. Or Do you mean RAAus “Amateur” Build - Is this an actual official term. I’m not sure that it is ( although I am happy to be proved wrong on this) If my recollection of official terms is correct I am not sure that he has given any new information but maybe used weasel words in the hope no one notices he is referring to something else to save face. But regardless, until he can show actual written information from CASA it’s still just one blokes opinion. We know those are a dime a dozen and CASA edicts are only solid when they are written into law. I don’t know who’s who in the hierarchy and who you are referring to but if it’s one of the two Bozos who presented themselves so ineptly at the senate enquire I wouldn’t put much weight on the reply you mentioned. My opinion was that were out of their league and hoped no one would notice.
  7. I reckon the “old AUF” is gone, deaf and buried and that’s what CASA wants. Realistically we already know that recreational aviation is the province of old codgers who “remember the days when ....” SAAA have tried to get young people involved and to fill the gaps of the depleting numbers etc. with basically no success. I’ve been personally involved with this and we have seen no real influx. Australian kids ( sure there’s a very few exceptions but not enough to make a difference) don’t want to spend years building when they have endless other instantaneous entertainment. They don’t want rag and tube when they know that technology is way way way more advanced than that. And everyone is now so risk averse they won’t get into something that might actually hurt them. I think ink those who want the old rag and tube days have to just make the most of their own time to fly and give up pining for a return of the good ol’ days.
  8. Sorry Nev but I think you are talking about ancient history and is now probably irrelevant. The unintended consequence and one of the few GA factors that CASA has taken any notice of has been the revelation of severe future LAME shortage. This was driven by the airline industry maintenance side, not RAAus, who will be very adversely affected by future lack of LAMEs. Basically LAMEs get their apprenticeships through the GA LAME system). So when this was pointed out by those groups involved CASA has backed down. As for reversal back to VH - I’d stick my neck out and say “ not a hope! “ It’s already a case that VH registered ex-certified experimentals are stuck as experimental and can’t go back. In the old days you could, and there were a number of certifieds that were converted to experimental ( Cessnas with diesel engines, some rebuilds, even some warbirds before the limited category came out) and they were prohibited from going back to certified category. It’s basically also a world wide phenomenon (in places that have similar experimental type systems. ) Given its over-conservative attitude on everything I’d suggest it’s unlikely CASA will stick its neck out on returning to potential paying passenger use something that has been maintained by a home handyman.
  9. My understanding is that this was nothing to do with RAAus but a demand from the other aviation stakeholders.
  10. I’ve seen a CASA release which as much as it was just waffle about likely principles involved said exactly that - that certified aircraft would still require LAME maintenance. This was not any sort of of official edict ( as we know and the article is saying this has not been released and is now not actually on the agenda to be even discussed.) Any mention of “deals “ is obviously premature. It actually seems to me that releases by RAAus governance about the “progress” being made are probably optimistic overtures to placate the masses.
  11. The demeanour of the article seems to imply that CASA are not likely to, and never have said they would, allow CTA ENTRY without increased medical to a Class 2 or variant. And CASA have stated that increased MTOW will most likely include maintenance by LAME, only at least for certain classes of those up-weighted aircraft. (E.g. certified a/c that fit the weights). Makes one wonder that, if they do make these new rules - is CASA going to apply those restrictions to all in RAAus or have yet another divided hierarchy within the group ( to further divide and conquer? perhaps) on top of the already divided levels between RAAus and GA recreational flying. Given that either one will be destructive on the broad group it could go either way and have the ( likely?) desired effect.
  12. I honestly think the days of considering RAAus being rag and tube are gone. RAAus is now the home of plastic fantastics and relative high techs with just a small niche area for the rag and tube. As each year passes the number of rag and tubes will further decrease. But regardless of how many there are, for all intends and purposes they are irrelevant to this issue.
  13. https://aopa.com.au/increased-mtow-and-access-to-cta-for-raaus-when/?fbclid=IwAR1NbEXRRn9yozdSpa7CFb55l8bm_qgnLB9PSsx1DGULHQ1YhEpL3_jSQQA Well worth a read! AOPA magazine article that suggests the optimistic outlook that RAAus weight increases and CTA access are not far off, in actual fact, continues to probably be just wishful thinking. Essentially, direct approaches to CASA by AOPA appear to have resulted in only denials that the subject is close and that discussions are not even on any agendas for the rest of this year. The article requests CASA to be more upfront and truthfully divulge where the issue is at. But I wouldn’t hold my breath!
  14. Jaba-who


  15. The sentiment that Robbos are overly risky is just the helicopter version of the knockers who say Jabiru’s are risky. The actual fact is that given the numbers in service and the hours flown they are actually pretty safe. This is especially the case given so many of those hours are generated in the highly risky mustering environment. Yep, they are not as safe as some fixed wings or driving a car, but the overall stats aren’t as bad as some people make out. I have just under a 1000 hours in command in R22 and R44 and never had a major problem.
  • Create New...