Chird65

Yeah, you can sit there and blame the economy, or you can survey and analyse the situation and find the precise causes

To dispose of assets under circumstance where it is done to avoid paying liabilities anticipated is not Playing the Game. Like trading while insolvent. Nev

Example in our case. Pilot has an accident and a 3rd party is affected. 3rd party goes after the Estate (Pilot could be still alive). If the Trust was set up to protect the spouses and children's assets before the accident then it was not primarily set-up to avoid this liability.

... family trusts with the idea that this put your assets beyond litigants reach....Is there any case history on whether this works?

No, check the various prisons.I think it's a serious criminal offence to hide or reduce assets.

So long as the trust was set up correctly, so it protected the individual Beneficiaries and not just the one person, there is no Criminal Intent.

Once the medically unfit ex-GA pilots convince RAAus / CASA to go to 750kg, and we start registering all the ancient corrosion clunkers with their dinosaur engines, the Ultralight, Recreational, Small GA aircraft will have all the problems, costs and governmental interference that the former GA pilots were trying to get away from.Naturally the next thing they will want will be controlled airspace, night VMC and IFR.Might as well create a commercial endorsement and start carrying a paying passenger (or two after not too long)

 

The only good thing is that it will leave an opening to restart an Ultralight movement.

 

ps, anyone know how to get that 'strike through' to work?

Once the medically unfit ex-GA pilots convince RAAus / CASA to go to 750kg, and we start registering all the ancient corrosion clunkers with their dinosaur engines, the Ultralight, Recreational, Small GA aircraft will have all the problems, costs and governmental interference that the former GA pilots were trying to get away from.Naturally the next thing they will want will be controlled airspace, night VMC and IFR.

Might as well create a commercial endorsement and start carrying a paying passenger (or two after not too long)

 

The only good thing is that it will leave an opening to restart an Ultralight movement.

 

ps, anyone know how to get that 'strike through' to work?

and a link to the flight

... Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'...OME

PART VI--DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

Though I got to say this was never very "Humorous" just plain painful.

... Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'...OME

PART VI--DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

Though I got to say this was never very "Humorous" just plain painful.

I personally like an electronic format.

For those that have limited internet speed I am guessing that you have real slow mail as well. The option is there to purchase the magazine and it costs less than my fast broadband per month.

I have looked at living away from major centres and all those extra costs are what have stopped me so far. I feel for you but wonder what the alternative could have been!

..., because with current technology a small part of the Sahara would power all of Europe, but for vehicles you need much more concentrated energy and it has to be portable. Nev

For those who don't receive the RA-AUS newsletter:

Does electronic attendance count for the board and if so; Why not for the membership?

Chris

I don't know about that specifically but full cost recovery when they can spend as much as they see fit, and you have no control whatever in their policies or structure and efficiency, is a disaster.'THOSE WHO PAY MUST HAVE A SAY" or no deal. Nev

Got to love that they intend to have in place before the responses are due back.

"in order to update the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations 1995 with the new fees by the 31 March 2015"

"Responses should be received by COB 23 April 2015"

Good luck fighting the relatives of the 15 years old girl who augers in.

• Does this mean that you are not going to train in any Jabiru?
   
   
  
• Are your students suddenly going to auger in because you are not there?
   
   
  
• Are you going to get an under age person to sign a waiver?
   
   
  
• Do you only have girl students?
   
   
  

I think you would be better off saying what you intend to do and why, rather than peppering your posts with florid terms. pass on your though patterns and leave it to others to assess their risk.

I agree that there is a case to be answered but that goes both ways and as others have mentioned the actual raw data and statistics should be produced by CASA. I would suggest that if I was going to be dragged to court then I would have a similar waiver for all risk based activities. I would have training similar to large companies that students/hirers and staff would have to complete that points out the risks and their requirements to be safe.

This is about risk management and only training and access to all data can allow someone to assess if they are comfortable.

Chris

...I cannot imagine anyone in this forum to accept that there car engine have to have the heads pulled off every couple of hundred hours to ensure the engine does not stop. So why are you accepting this in an engine aircraft?.

I agree; why do I need maintenance every 100 hours as compared to 15,000 km - why does one need an engineer as compared to a TAFE qualification. But that is what it is and we can not compare the two.

I disagree that there is a she'll be right attitude. Most of the Pro Jabiru supporters want to know the actual raw figures as well as the statistics that show there is a "extraordinary high rate" and growing trend of failures. Also, the safety outcome required is not achieved by punishing the operators of the aircraft.

Those that have had engine problems, rightly, have had a wakeup call and have adjusted there concept of risk. Some choose not to fly Jabirus, some choose to try to get to the bottom of issues and others choose to tell as many as they can of their perceived risk.

I for one want to see some confirmation of the issues from both CASA and Jabiru. That way I get two opposing views and can then try to make my own decision on the risk. At this point I do not have that information.

Chris

They are wildly inaccurate statements, you won't see 1000 planes removed from the registry or 3000 members leaving.Flying schools/clubs will still be able to use Jabirus and owners can continue flying them.

Talk about hysterical over reactions.

I can't fly out of busy airports as that would be over populated areas;

I can't go Solo from anywhere;

I can't determine if this is a real safety issue or not.

The interview needs to be in context not grabbing bites then commenting.

TP have a listen http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/11/bst_20141120_0836.mp3straight off the bat, he waffles on about loosing $130,000 from cancelled regos

I just read this thread and enjoyed it!

Sorry didn't mean to lead you anywhere.....

But I got the answer I was looking for. i have always assumed MTBF "could" be less than TBO.

thanks for your thoughtful reply.

It would be extremely difficulty to set standards with any certainty for low-volume aircraft engine production. ...In answer to your questions:

 

• Should we expect no failures before TBO? TBO should be set, and adjusted to try to achieve this.
   
   
  
• Should the MTBF be reported by RAA or ATSB to give a better yardstick on products? No, because the causes are way too diverse and the operations vary way too much under RAA regulations
   
   
  

Sorry for the typo chird. I meant to say I have had 3 thru bolt failures. So 10% of the reported cases.One was explained, one was out of the blue on a high hour engine, the third just recently at 300 hrs post top end overhaul. My suspicion is it's related to the flywheel failure 80 hours ago.

Chris

In all the talk about the CASA action and reliability in general the term TBO - Time Between Overhaul is used and if a failure happens before this we feel cheated. is the term MTBF - Mean Time Between Failures a better measure for reliability. The vendor may not like to show this in their marketing but it would be more insightful for operators.

I base this on a comment I read elsewhere;

"Given that term,

TBO

, stands for time between overhauls, I would state that this term relates to the

end of life failure modes

. This interval relates to the time when wear-out of items start to occur. The MTBF [mean time between failure] term relates to the probabilistic condition of failure. That is,

MTBF is related to the number of chance failures in a given period of operation

. The probabilistic situation is one that failure could occur at any time during the operating period or not occur at all where end of life failures are predictable at a specific space and time. The TBO value has no direct relation to the chance failure rate as its function is to determine the time to renew the unit from wear-out failure modes."

What are the thoughts on this;

• Should we expect no failures before TBO or;
   
   
  
• Should the MTBF be reported by RAA or ATSB to give a better yardstick on products?
   
   
  

Chris

Well, 10% if them did. According to those numbers. Mind you one hasnt been reported yet (to jab) as its the basis of legal action which I cant comment on.

Though I agree too many, and the figures may not represent the actual numbers.

Doug, if they have been put in with the recommended loctite you can't "just" replace them. It's a big job, and there is a danger that you might break one trying to get it out.

Nice to see a summary of changes as well.

...As I see it we generally have no means to measure AGL. Bigger aircraft have radalt's (radar altimeters) that rely on on a radar bounce from he earths surface. Altimeters and most GPS only measure ASL....