Chird65

Add my vote to the Economy. I can't afford to fly that is economic. I live in hope that one day things will line up and flying will move up the list.

Correct, but if there is no Liability nor any intended Liability then protecting others Assets is playing the game. 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.

Not giving advice but; 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.

Seems yes; Highlight text click on Insert button (The one 4 to the right of smiley ) Click on strike through

Seems yes; Highlight text click on Insert button (The one 4 to the right of smiley ) Click on strike through

and a link to the flight

Actually it still does PART VI--DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE Though I got to say this was never very "Humorous" just plain painful.

Actually it still does 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!

With Electricity it is always "Current" technology. ;-)

I note that only the executive are going to physically be there. Does electronic attendance count for the board and if so; Why not for the membership? Chris

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"

Merv, 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

Rolf, comparing cars engines to aeroplane engines never works. 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

So lets say I am a student; 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.

Which then would not be available for Safety programs or operational costs to monitor everything. Thus less safety.

Don't get confused it's just oldtimers......

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.

Thanks for your take; so if I understand what your saying is we should expect no failures due to "wearing" out components before TBO?

All good; it just didn't read that way. Could be my reading as well. 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

35 / 3,665 = 0.0095497954 or 1% Though I agree too many, and the figures may not represent the actual numbers.

What type of Loctite are they using. Are the proper tools being used to undo the Loctite'd bolts?

Nice to see a summary of changes as well.

Someone with better electronics skills could up the power on this... http://lea.hamradio.si/~s53mv/avionics/raltalk.html (Low-power (30mW) FM-CW precision radar altimeter, 700ft range, 1/4ft resolution.)