Aldo

David You miss the point risk assessments are objective (logical) not subjective (emotional) so if you are going to use the risk assessment procedure then you will arrive at the same conclusion I have. If one aircraft that is/was powered by a Rotax engine has had a fatality in an engine failure situation then by nature of the risk assessment process it is automatically in a higher category the lowest it can ever be is a yellow (medium) E1 position on the matrix. The difference here is we are talking about Jab airframes and engines as a combination, if Rotax had an airframe that was as good as a Jab the outcome may be different. I'm happy that you are happy. Aldo

David You like the rest of us here are entitled to an opinion and I respect that, but now you have brought risk assessments into the equation. I do know a little about risk assessments I have been in oil & gas for about the last 30 years and they in the last 10 years have made an art form out of risk assessments, you almost need one to take a crap. So if we use the risk assessment matrix (which is the most commonly used these days) we would do the following. 1. Identify any hazards 2. Give those hazards a consequence and likelihood rating to give a location on the matrix 3. If possible put control measures in place to lower the risk to be happy to continue the job (flight) Based on the above Hazard - Engine failure Likelihood of this happening (now based on available data and I have not researched this) I will use the latest that has been posted on this site as this is the best data I can find easily. (Investigations by RAA & Jabiru found that some of the so called "Inflight Occurrences" included fuel starvation and other maintenance related problems. Of the 46 incidents there were 12 that required forced landing due to complete or partial engine failure and that was in 93,000 flights totaling 43,000 flying hours. So that provides a statistic which is 0.0129% chance of an engine failure requiring forced landing per flight or 0.028% chance per flying hour) posted by KGWilson today. Selections from the Australian standards and WHS documents are as follows Almost certain >80% Likely >50-80% Possible > 15-50% Unlikely >5-15% Rare <5% Based on the above I would therefore consider the likelihood to be rare (0.028%/flying hour). That gives me a position in column E I then look at the consequence of that hazard so once again I look for information that would assist me in finding what the consequences are if this hazard were to occur Considering all the data that I have seen and the fact that Jabiru airframes are considered one of the safest in the world and there have been no deaths (that I know of) from engine failures in Jabiru aircraft I select a consequence rating from the following. 1. Fatality 2. Serious Injury 3. LTI - Lost time 4. MTI - Medical case 5. FAI - First aid case Therefore considering the data I have I would select serious injury placing me on line 2 This gives me a likelihood/consequence position on the risk matrix of a green E2 Doesn't get much safer than that I have attached a photo of the risk matrix for those of you that are interested. Aldo

Nev You are as usual correct, there is some place coastal NSW north of Sydney doing the conversions. Aldo

David I'm not sure how much time you've spent behind a Jab 3300 engine or for that matter behind a Rotax engine I've spent considerable time behind both (more in the 3300) as well as Lycomings and continentals the only engine failure I have had is behind a Lycoming. All engines require maintenance and management and if you do the required maintenance and manage the engine correctly it should perform as required. Granted I do more maintenance (and I don't touch it myself, professionals only) on my 3300 than what is recommended and it costs me about $10/hour more to operate, it hasn't let me down yet (that's not to say it won't happen today) but after all it is an engine and failure can happen anytime. All engines are mechanical and all can fail, if one is dumb enough to fly over country in a single where you don't have an escape route then you are well on your way to becoming a statistic. If you want a different engine there are suitable options available (can't do it in a 24 reg though) CAMIT 3300 by all accounts it appears to be more reliable and requires less maintenance than the J3300 The IO-335 I believe has also been used as a replacement. Rotax don't make a suitable alternative (as far as I'm aware) So unless you have way more information and knowledge than a lot of people (and there are some very intelligent people) who comment here, give the Jab Vs Rotax a break it has been done to death Aldo

Shags The first thing you need to do is really assess what type of flying you are going to be doing there is no point owning an aircraft for the sake of owning one that doesn't suit your objective. Do you Want to just keep your hand in and have a flit around the sky for an hour a couple of times a week maybe a 100 NM trip (lots of people go a lot further than this) - can't beat a drifter Want to do some 1-3 hour (80 - 200 NM) trips with wife (or passenger) include beach, bush strips camping etc - Savannah is a good choice (ugliest looking aeroplane I've ever seen but people I know that own one swear by them) Want to do some 1-5 hour (100 - 500 NM) trips with wife and plenty of luggage space (you will need it) - can't go past a J230 (for all the negative publicity they get they are best in class). Take your time selecting one. Aldo

Bull I don't always agree with what you say (for no other reason than I look at things from a different perspective or what is relevant to me) but I do read and take on board your point of view. I hope you are feeling a little better with things than you were this morning, hope you have a good weekend. Aldo

Commonly known as John Wayne toilet paper, rough, tough and don't take s#$t from no-one

Oscar As always a very precise and comprehensive post, point 5 though, if what Camel is saying above is true (and I have no reason to believe that it's not) is becoming a bit of a two way street CASA wont release the data that brought the instrument into force and Jabiru are objecting to the release of information under the FOI act. If the data that CASA acted upon is flawed (and I believe it is) why would Jabiru be objecting to the release of that data. It doesn't make sense from either point of view For the record I do own a J230 so I have a vested interest in the eventual outcome.

Welcome I expect that's all we will hear then, the Wallabies aren't capable of buying a game in the foreseeable future. Aldo

M61A1 Currency is always going to be a problem as this is recreation and as such we are (generally) only able to do the recreational activities as resources, time and weather permit. I don't know how to solve that problem but checks may help, but here we arrive at the catch 22 situation "if I had the spare cash to complete the checks I would have had the cash to remain current" I for one don't want to see rec aviation out of reach for anyone but I would also like to see a very much reduced incident/accident rate. One way may be have an endorsement/rating for non instructors (with sufficient currency, experience and total hours) to conduct a proficiency check, I'm sure there would be enough experienced pilots around that would give up a Saturday or Sunday to help out their fellow pilots, (no doubt this will open another whole can of worms) the solutions seem to always just out of reach. As I said before I'm just throwing ideas out there. Aldo

K Man I've never flown the 160 (so I may be totally off the mark) but I do have a lot of hours in the 230. One thing I have found is that the sooner I have the nose wheel off the ground the better directional control you have in all conditions during takeoff. I believe this is due to the design of the nose wheel steering and the very short arm on the steering linkage and the rudder is obviously the correct size for the design, the more speed you gain the less input is required. Yes this will slightly increase your takeoff distance but not to any significant amount. I'm certainly happy to be contradicted by people who know more about aerodynamics than me but this technique works for me and I do take off in xwinds at limit on a regular basis. Aldo

I agree but this is what I'm saying is the head space you are in because you want to not because you have to and if this doesn't change the thing you want to do may not be available for you to do. If everyone treated their flying hobby like a job i.e. if I don't do this correctly I won't have a job and I won't be able to pay the mortgage the entire thought process changes (human factors is essentially the thought process around something you do). I'm by no means an expert on anything just throwing out ideas to address a continuing problem. Aldo

Happy I'm not an advocate of additional regulation and over the 25+ years I've been flying I've seen a fair bit of change some good some not so good, but you make my point exactly, would I think I need a check flight probably not I would just wait until my next BFR I do agree with your comments regarding culture. Aldo

I've now managed to get through all 16 pages on this thread and found lots of comments I agree with and some I don't, one thing I have noticed is the number of people that continue to talk about flying as their hobby, I wonder if this is part of the problem. I wonder if because people see flying as their hobby, subconsciously they do not give it the full attention and due diligence needed. I will use myself as an example. I have over 200 hours so far this year, 60 of those in what I consider higher performance GA singles (145kts+), 20 hrs twin (170kts) 12 of which have been ICUS IF, the remainder in my J230. Considering the above I do get to fly in all conditions and I do consider myself current, I try to maintain +- 50 feet of my chosen altitude, I try to maintain +- 0.5NM of my track and I do evaluate every flight to attempt to ascertain what I could have done better. I treat flying the same was as I treat my job. So again considering the above I believe I fly pretty well (but do I and how do I know one way or the other), the answer is I don't. I dropped by the aero club (where I hire one of the GA singles I fly, retractable CSU) to have a social chat with the CFI yesterday morning, during that conversation he told me that the new club policy around hiring aircraft was that they require a check flight every 6 months, now the little voice in the back of my head says hang on a minute I've done over 200 hrs in 6 months why do I need a check flight, you're just looking for some extra cash for the club, then the real part of my brain kicks in and says this is how I will know if I'm flying well or not. I have no issue with the check flight requirement and if GA is starting to look at the stats and say maybe we should be doing proficiency checks every 6 months then maybe RAA should look at the same process. Yes it will cost me some extra cash (and I'm not a millionaire) but it may well be a way to increase our knowledge improve our airmanship and lower the accident toll, it may keep me alive. I know I will get a lot of negative comments around RAA is supposed to be a cheap, affordable form of aviation and all the proficiency checks will do is increase my costs. I see it as a way for RAA to be pro-active in addressing the negative impact of an ever increasing death toll. You can preach safety till the cows come home and it won't change a thing. Training, knowledge and reviews of our airmanship, motor skills (flying) and the way we approach flying will promote safety more than anything else. Aldo

Pretty scary post really, rudder authority occurs well before you leave the ground in a normal take off.

Training, currency (hours per week), good maintenance and adherence to the rules. Pretty simple really and will go a long way to ensuring your safety, not a total guarantee but a very good start.

Very probably the same as the amount of landings! If you're going to practice xwind landings I would assume there would be a xwind on takeoff. That said I think limit xwind take offs are more difficult than limit xwind landings

All Flying is not dangerous but it is a very exacting pastime, experienced pilots don't normally end up rolled up in a ball on take off, this may be one of the rare mechanical failures that happen from time to time. Amsol Feel very sorry for you if your wife is the one who dictates what hobbies you pursue, mine fly's aeroplanes. Condolences to the family and friends.

Gareth Certainly not tall poppy syndrome from me I don't subscribe to that either, I don't have any issue with your opinion of Smith and I did ask for opinions but you don't know me from a bar of soap, I just don't like people telling lies to suit their own purposes.

Yenn I think if you start to do a little research on Dick Smith you will find he is not as patriotic as he likes to make out, one such article (published by Steve Creedy) in the Australian Smith suggests that to remain in the airline game QANTAS should move everything it can to China how is this good for Australia and how does it benefit Australian workers and how is that patriotic? Part of my business is manufacturing equipment and I have all our equipment made in Australia might cost me a little more but I'm supporting Australia, I also take my holidays in Australia supporting Australians that's what I call patriotic not just talking about it. Aldo

Found this interesting article in the Australian link below (if you don't have a subscription to the Australian you will only get one chance to read it). Pilots, victims’ families call for change as planes fly blind http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pilots-victims-families-call-for-change-as-planes-fly-blind/story-e6frg6nf-1227375264970 Dick Smith (and before I go any further, I'm no fan of Dick Smith) complaining about air traffic control services, if my memory serves me correctly it was Dick Smith who was the architect of removing all of the flight service offices as a cost saving measure when he was in charge at CASA which in effect led to all VFR aircraft becoming see and avoid. This led to a lot of FSO's losing their jobs and the introduction to the system of as Smith calls it "the blind calling the blind" The FSO's provided an excellent service both in the air and on the ground (you could walk up to the office get the latest weather, they would translate it for you if needed, get a coffee etc etc) it also provided a pathway for guys going to busier ATC areas. A couple of excerpts from the article. Welcome back to the real world you created DICK 1. "Cruising at 400 knots in private jet luxury at 37,000 feet in his “pocket rocket”, an elegant Cessna Citation, businessman and aviator Dick Smith receives the comforting voice and instructions of air traffic control in Brisbane, directing his every move and keeping him and his three charges on board out of danger". "But passing down through 8500 feet on the way to Ballina on the NSW north coast, air traffic control leaves the plane to its fate. The rules dictate air traffic control can no longer direct it below that altitude. The aircraft and its four souls are on their own in “uncontrolled airspace”." This is not quite true ATC updates IFR aircraft with other IFR aircraft and will pass on VFR aircraft details if they know they are there, Smith once again manipulating the truth to suit his own purposes. 2. "Smith changes radio frequencies so that a system he calls “the blind calling in the blind” comes into play: pilots of different aircraft talk to each other to try to work out their relative positions and maintain separation". Gee we do that every day The article then goes on about the crash of a Cheyenne on a flight from Sydney to Benalla it was 15NM off track and crashed into a mountain, Smiths comments below "The air traffic controllers ignored the warnings and did not inform the pilot — possibly, according to an investigation report, because they wrongly assumed the pilot was tracking to another navigation point". "Smith says he suspects the controllers knew that, once it flew below controlled airspace, they would have no authority to direct the aircraft anyway". What an absolute crock any pilot at night in IFR conditions who didn't listen to ATC shouldn't be flying and I don't know one who wouldn't listen. I have uploaded a pdf of the article for those who want to read the lot What do you think? Be warned don't let Dick Smith anywhere near Recreational Aviation. Aldo Dick Smith - Cruising at 400 knots in private jet luxury.pdf Dick Smith - Cruising at 400 knots in private jet luxury.pdf Dick Smith - Cruising at 400 knots in private jet luxury.pdf

What are you saying there J7252?

Geoff Nothing like hot spent shells to get you to change sides. Interesting I'm right handed with one handed things (eg writing) and left handed with all things two handed (eg cricket) I learned to fly GA so left hand on the control column and own a Jab (centre stick) so right handed control I found it a little difficult initially when changing to the Jab but now it comes as second nature and I swap from the Jab to GA on a regular basis and it just happens as with all things keep doing it and it will become second nature. Aldo

Nev But like most self made people it is their way or the highway. It's not that I don't respect his business ability or his ability to fly almost anything I just don't like people who manipulate the truth to suit their own agenda's and he is very good at that. Aldo

Oscar I have to agree, I believe the downward spiral of CASA began with Dick Smith, lots of people lost jobs because of his ideas and I believe flying is less safe because of his ideas. My opinion only, I'm not a fan and particularly with his take on the 210 crash in the Barrington Tops, his interview on seven absolute rubbish. Aldo