Oscar

To revert for a moment to an earlier part of this thread.. I would ask those who hearken back to the AUF as a paradigm of supporting a simple, affordable regime vs. an apparent vision of RAA chasing a complex, 'heavy' flying machine milieu: where would you place - on a scale of 1:10 for gratuitous empire-building - the AUF push through the HORSCOTS Inquiry of 1987 for increased weight and height limitations for 95:10 aircraft, with a trade-off of increased regulatory authority? Those with no knowledge of this, might want to look at: https://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/students/horscots_1987_PP3A.pdf

Nev - you may well be correct, though what is 'particular' about Jerusalem Bay beyond the fact that it is part of the Kuringai National Park I cannot think, and I know it like the back of my hand. It is a lovely place - I have anchored there nearing hundreds of times - but there is no natural feature that is outstanding by comparison with anywhere else on Cowan Creek, and absolutely no man-made features at all. I have no issues with Sydney Seaplanes wanting to provide visitors here with a deep appreciation of the wonderful area that is the Kuringai National Park - I think it is almost a wonder of the modern world that such an area can be found in such close proximity to a city of 2M people. I used to, whenever possible, take my visiting international friends on a cruise on my boat around Pittwater and into the KNP and without exception their reaction to the immense change from the urban sprawl to the graceful peace of that area was amazing to them and a matter of national pride to me. I think that many, many visitors to Sydney have come away from a Sydney Seaplanes flight in the KNP with deep affection for the beauty of the area - and that is an admirable achievement, they are to be applauded for that. BUT - the laws of physics are not modified by emotion. There will be an ATSB investigation and pending that it is probably a good time to suspend supposition of the circumstances of this sad occurrence.

Some further information has emerged in a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, that I believe raises some issues. "The aircraft took off in a north-easterly direction, followed by a turn to the north-west, then a subsequent right hand turn prior to impact," Nat Nagy, an executive director of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said. It seems to me that that flight path - if one places it over a picture of the topography - is inimical to the basic concepts of minimisation of risk in the case of an EFATO. The initial turn to the north-west was towards steeply rising ground with absolutely no area for a safe forced landing ahead other than perhaps the water, which was crowded with boats at the time and from reports and video evidence, done at around 200 feet or so. That there was room to initiate a turn to the right surely suggests that the previous left-turn had been quite tight. Beavers have without doubt an almost legendary capability, but I wonder what margin of safety for an EFATO was left in this case? I think it would not be outside the realm of possibility for an expert investigator to match up flight performance against the topography to make such an evaluation.

In any Easterly, we would always anchor off the East side of the mouth of Jerusalem Bay, as close as prudent to the East side of the bay, where (if you look at the topography) there is a high and steep escarpment. In anything with an Easterly component, most of Jerusalem Bay has become useless as an anchorage, due to the sedimentary run-off from the Northern Freeway out of Hornsby. I have had personal experience of being dragged on anchor almost onto the upper end of Jerusalem Bay, several times, when the wind changed to a moderate Easterly. Makes for a disturbed night. An aircraft taking off from Cottage Point and then turning left for a run up Jerusalem Bay rather than right to head for the open area of Broken Bay past the mouth of the Hawkesbury would suddenly run into the rapidly descending and slowing air of the curl-over from the Eastern escarpment. Thus both dropping the turn options due to the tight terrain limits and also reducing airspeed - particularly when suddenly encountering downwind conditions. I would imagine that the situation for the pilot was therefore having to make what equates to a low and slow final turn into a downwind with a significant descending vertical component rather than into wind with a reasonably constant vertical component with no options to alter course due to the proximity of the hills around. I do not have any experience that would allow me to make a judgement as to whether a float-equipped Beaver has the power to simply pull it out of such a situation. There is such a thing as a 'danger envelope' - determined by airspeed, height, power and load etc. Maneouvering area has to be added to this. I believe that only an intimate knowledge of the local area wind patterns under all circumstances would provide a pilot with the necessary information to make judgement of where NOT to go at a given moment of time and low height. I can say with some certainty, that the wind at Cottage Point at T/O, would NOT be a reliable indicator of local conditions based on conscious experience from around 1952 through to at least 2002. I doubt that the wind has changed characteristics in the last 15 years. As nomadpete suggested above, this was most likely a case where all the holes in the Swiss cheese lined up against the pilot. Sometimes, we should be ready to accept that 'shit happens'. It hurts us all as aviators when it does, and I agree that any useful information that MIGHT prevent a recurrence should be exposed - but Fate is Fate, in the ultimate reckoning.

Once again, this is not intended to be, even obliquely, any commentary on the pilot skills or judgement. I have more than 20 years experience of sailing all the damn time in things ranging from an A-class racing catamaran to a 10-metre racing yacht and a 24-foot 'family yacht' - on which I and my children spent nearly 10 years enjoying NY Eve-plus, in that area. I was at Hallets Beach (the next bay around from Cottage point) BEFORE I was born (don't ask, Mother with a couple of glasses of Scotch as source). I have enjoyed NY Eve more than 10 times at Refuge Bay, and there are hundreds of boats everywhere around that area for NY Eve, it's almost magical.. The wind patterns in that area, are something that you cannot understand (let alone predict) unless you have years of experience of every situation. Intuition, or even 'common sense', just do not apply. An example: the entrance to Refuge Bay - which is just east of Cottage Point. See: Google Maps > Refuge Bay Look at the map in Satellite View for a better understanding of the topography. If you look at the topography, you would expect the mid-point between the headlands to be the area of true wind. In fact, (and I have sailed that area literally hundreds of times), it is invariably a circle of dead air; in order to pass it, one adjusts one's track either to the West or the East close to the headlands depending on your desired track and the prevailing wind. Sail into the middle and you will stall in the water and slowly go through 360, or more. The cleanest track for a T/O from Cottage Point is to head around 075 -080 for the wider area of the upper end of Broken Bay. From a T/O from Cottage Point, turning left into a valley that swiftly narrows and is surrounded by higher land from the north (in particular), invites encountering descending air, tumbling over the steep terrain and possibly inverting its direction due to curl-over the high-points. As an RFS person, I am very well experienced in judging wind direction from terrain features, and I have first-person experience of planning back-burns against the prevailing wind with reference to the local terrain. With all respect to the competency of the pilot in this instance, I believe that it is impossible to get a comprehensive knowledge of the intricacies of the local wind patterns around that area by just a few minutes per flight. I personally would not fly anything there below around 500 feet, even with my knowledge of the area.

The impenetrable suggestion that RAA somehow 'conspired' to exacerbate the Jabiru situation ( if indeed that is WHAT is being suggested; I find it hard to determine what has been suggested, in the dogged resistance to providing any sort of 'evidence', or even a hint, of 'facts') is a load of hogwash. A general indication of the efforts RAA made to try to get CASA to listen to sense, is contained in the following: https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/response-to-dr-aleck-june-2016-jabiru-instrument.pdf. That is a very considered and careful letter; earier responses by RAA, in particular by Michael Moncke, were considerably stronger in their denunciation of the CASA action. They are discoverable. Those who tend to place any credence in KP's uttering, should perhaps avail themselves of the opportunity to seek a response from Jabiru regarding whether it feels it was in any way 'let down' by RAA action. If in doubt, it is always a good idea to seek out the information from a reputable source, and Jabiru management (Rod Stiff or Sue Woods) would fall into that category. In the interests of further information, KP should provide us all with a detailed explanation of what action his organisation would have taken in the situation that RAA was placed? It is not justified to simply throw out accusations of 'not good enough', without at least providing an outline of what WOULD have been good enough. There can be no possible legal consequences of expressing one's own view of what was required, and that would at least present to us a picture of the proficiency and realistic understanding of what we could expect from ELAAA. Over to you, Keith, to lay your cards on the table.

I grew up sailing that area - from Bobbin Head, all around the Broken Bay / Cowan Creek / Smiths Creek and Pittwater area, for more than 60 years. The following is NOT in any way intended to be even supposition about anything of the circumstances. It is NOT an area to be low and slow in anything; all the land surrounding the water rises very steeply from the water, until you get well into Broken Bay itself , at least opposite the mouth of the Hawkesbury river - almost a sort of mini-Fjord topography. The wind changes direction as it flows around the steep land; if competing in yacht racing, the knowledge of how the wind changes according to the land mass intervention is critical knowledge for your racing tactics. A quick look at Google Maps in Earth View of Cottage Point will give you an appreciation of the local terrain. There used to be a 'seaplane' operation running Beavers from under Barranjoey Point. I do not recall any incidents from that operation. However, in 1998 a 185E went in near Berowra Waters Inn, with the loss of five lives and a Nomad also went in near there in 1987 after clipping a power line on a flight to the BWI, fortunately with no injuries. Jerusalem Bay is directly north of the Cottage Point Inn, whereas the quickest flight path back to Rose Bay would have taken the plane ENE heading for Broken Bay. I do not know the prevailing wind at the time of T/O, but unless it was significant from the West, the T/O would have been roughly on a heading of about, maybe, 065/075. It is somewhat unlikely that Jerusalem Bay would have been under the 'most efficient' flight path. .

So, presumably, this has in no way affected RAA? PS the word you were scratching for, is 'take'.

I'm still here, Keith, though I couldn't be bothered to take a whole lot of notice.. But seriously: the ELAAAAAAAAA was supposed to be all the go some - what - 15 months ago? It seems to be spinning its wheels in a boggy patch.

More A's in the LAAA.

And you had to down-rate the front springs with the Chevy... it was about 150 lbs lighter (for a 327) than the Jag. 6

I've worked on a number of different Cits; from DS19 to CX22. Owned two Alfetta 1800s and a GTV2000 - not that bad to work on, though quirky. Bleeding the clutch slave cylinder was an exercise in frustration. And the Dellorto's were not as nice as the earlier Webers on the original GTV. Also owned and worked on an XJ12L, the first model, with the four carbies. Fantastic tourer, though boiled from heat sink if you slowed below about 110k in anything over 30C ambient. Got as low as 5 MPG economy when giving it the wellie.. If you removed the exhaust tubes from the boot-mounted a/c unit and blocked off the exits into the saloon, you could run a boot-full of beer almost frozen...

Anybody who has worked on Citroens has tried to forget them, but it requires a major effort of will and a lot of expensive alcahol. Despite which, I would gladly own a Deux Chevaux. In Black and Maroon, obviously.

Nev - all very good points, and to my knowledge, absolutely correct. There was a damn good reason why CAMit did NOT go to the hydraulic tappets, and in fact produced a kit to revert hydraulic lifters engines to solid lifters. CAMit also produced revised rocker geometry to reduce sideways loading on the valve stems with a much better valve lash adjustment arrangement, but sadly that is no longer available. As for the flywheel attachment: Jabiru changed to 'Nordloc' washers and removed the Loctite securing, some 12 or more months ago. I believe that was a significant improvement and I have made that change on my engine; it's not difficult to do, if you are a competent mechanic, and I'd recommend it to all Jab. engine owners. You need to clean out the threads in the flange with a good-quality tap - not a Bunnings special! One of the major issues for Jab. engines is that the flywheel flange on the crankshaft is small, and if any tension is lost on the flywheel bolts - thus reducing clamping pressure - they will hammer in the threads and expand them because the area of steel around the bolt-threads is marginal. The change from 5/16 bolts to 3/8 bolts, and dowelling - simply shifted the potential failure area from the bolts to the flange. Again, CAMit - just before its demise - had come up with a better arrangement for clamping, but that involved a change to the rear end of the crankshaft. I have no idea of what changes in this area may have been made to the Gen 4 engine but hopefully it has been addressed.

Certainly worked for Air America...

Neither James Packer nor Warwick Fairfax have intruded into aircraft manufacture.. fortunately for us..

And life goes on...

Downunder: we understand your excitement! BUT: to keep faith with our thousands of committed customers, we announced recently on our Facebook site the fact that we have a few issues to resolve. Bluetooth connectivity for the 12-speaker sound system and cup-holder locations are both priority safety issues, I am sure you will agree, and we won't compromise on safety!. Our 'customer-family' deserves no less! Also, our external-graphics designer has been grounded by his parents for refusing to eat his mashed broccoli; however we have contacted the FAA and they've authorised an exemption to the MTOW limits for a supplementary supply of Pokemon-GO ( I think it is called) credits, so we expect an early resolution of this critical factor. I am sure that any aircraft manufacturer that is pushing the limits to provide such a new and wonderful product has had some difficulties - but we believe in our vision of the future. Send us $200, and we can accelerate your position on the production queue...

The fantasy aero market is certainly providing a lot of employment for CAD experts and PR spin merchants.. But Wait- there's more! It could become the saviour of agriculture - more organic fertiiser is produced than can be extruded by all the Bulls in the world, it seems. AND - it's electronically delivered! Zero carbon footprint! Perhaps, it's time I unveiled the revolutionary, amazing, two-place home-build twin-jet VTOL LSA-class amphibious carplane that was secretly developed by ex-NASA scientists employed by a Nigerian Prince, that cruises at 350 knots on 4 litres/hour of hyper-energised (pat. pending) potato peelings. Range: 1200 NM at 75% power. The super-efficient 51% home-build time of two weekends is achieved by the ground-breaking application of 'tab-and-fold' construction and a Bunnings hot-melt glue gun. Projected cost to complete the 'fast-build' kit, is $99.95 ( ex-GST). Metallic paint, an extra $10. We are now into 'beatup' testing phase; the first 200 orders will receive - entirely free! - a full-leather interior and a full glass panel, with the optional BRS available for $39.95. Just send me your bank account details and we have a business relationship.

Has all the verisimilitude of 'Hotshots'. And by the sound, used the same music director...

What is a CUB? A Completely Unbearable Bastard?

This is just the sort of advertisement for Recreational Aviation that we DO NOT need. Feeds the idea in the minds of the general populace that Recreational Aviators have money to burn, to buy toys that blast across the countryside. As much as I never want to elevate (little aviation-related pun, there..) the profile of Pauline Hanson, her use of a J230 as a 'business tool' I think did us a lot of good - though we haven't, as a community, capitalised on it. She has used it very effectively as a 'tool' to meet her 'mission' requirements - and as a 'tool', a J230 is around the cost of a top-of-the line Landcruiser. Very few people consider even a top-of-the-line Landcruiser to be no more worthy of respect than any 'rich kid's toy'. It's a bloody 'tool' (except in Toorak, or Newport) - albeit a rather well-equipped and finished one. But it's no Bentley Bentayaga... In my (rapidly diminishing, I have to admit) dream of the position Recreational Aviators might occupy in the minds of the general community, we would be considered as intelligent, serious, socially-conscious NORMAL members of our community who quietly get about our aerial activities with minimal intrusion on the general community. Who as a national group, bring in to islotaded communities not just tourism, but in fraught times, are a front-line force of volunteers for search-and-rescue operations and medical emergency support (which of course happens, but do we get any good publicity from it?). Things such as the Blackshape Prime - a total, utter wank of an aircraft - are, to me, akin to Jetskis. Interesting, that on their website (Blackshape Prime - PLA Aviation Services) you get no detailed performance figures, just a VNe ( if you actually look at it) of 164 kts. No stall speed, no t/o or landing roll.. Just a lot of PR BS with fancy photographs, frankly. Anybody who buys one of these, is not likely to be an educated Recreational aviator. And - they are dead likely to be really pissed off when a Wittman Tailwind blasts past them..

Bruce: When we were considering options for the fin and rudder replacement for my ST1, I had the unique opportunity of sitting down over dinner with Dafydd Llewellyn - who did the aerodynamic development work on the original LSA55,. and Alan Kerr, who did all the structural work. If we'd had Rod Stiff there, it would have been the 'Holy Trinity' of Jab. initial development. It cost me cooking dinner.. We discussed the options; at one point, Alan said: 'you could extend the tailcone - and I am not joking.' I've known Alan for far too long to even think he was joking..but Alan's practical skills as a 'glass technician are so far above mine (not every aero-engineer is a desk-jockey..) that I was not confident to go that far. As a compromise, we agreed that a UL 450fin and rudder - as used on the J120 - was a fair bet. Rod Stiff agreed, and commented somethiong on the lines of: 'It would make a better aeroplane of it' - and dug out the suitable bits from the back of his shed and supplied them at mate's rates. Thank you to Rod - he can be difficult to get on with, but he does LOVE his aircraft. The difference in area between the LSA55 fin and rudder and the UL450/J120, is great. Here's a comparison piccy of the 'original' and 'new' rudder: and one of the fin area comparison: And one of the replacement, when in undercoat for the complete repaint we did: I think you can see: not a trivial area increase! SO: limit load testing was absolutely necessary, and it's not a trivial exercise ether, unless you have the factory equipment ready-to-hand. This is our 'backyard' test set-up, as approved by Alan Kerr, in operation: You can see the loads and deflections in some of the official Jab website videos. THEN: if you did such a radical mod, you'd need to to stability testing for the optimum dihedral, and spin tests, for which one of these would be a rather good idea: That's an early shot before the actuation mechanism was installed: And the damn test pilot - WUSS! - wants a pilot's door 'dropoff' system, just in case it doesn't work!. Talk about a ninny - it has been used in emergency by Keith Englesman on the Whitney Boomerang test run, and it worked, and the test pilot made it himself.. No sense of adventure...

Bruce: Mike Borgelt's comments above are good advice in my opinion. If I were doing this, I would certainly clad the foam in several layers of 100-120 gsm glass - for several reasons, and the least of these is: you won't get anything that will securely adhere the foam to the fin. About your best alternative would be wrapping the foam in strips of aluminium tape, carried at least 50-75mm aft of the end of the foam. However, if I may add a few ideas.. Whatever you end up with, should NOT introduce any form of 'step' between the foam and the fin. If it does, there will very likely be flow separation over the 'lift' side of the fin causing it to prematurely stall, and your rudder become no more than a drag device.. not very efficient, and very non-linear in response to small rudder inputs. If you add the foam as the former, then add the glass skin (obviously, using PVA blue on the fin for separation..), then when if has all gone off, glue the resultant mod. to the fin with epoxy only on the 'extension' of the glass beyond the foam, you can remove the whole lot with a heat gun. Or, perhaps, use aluminium tape, which is very thin and sticks like sh!t to a blanket to a degreased surface. If you were to use duct tape to attach the mod.: from experience, the adhesive tends to go very soft at around 30C ambient. There may be higher-performance versions.. If you choose to use duct tape as the attachment medium - may I suggest: test fly in nothing more than about 20C ambient. FWIW: the 'limit load' on an LSA55 fin+rudder, is about 72 kgs. at a moment of around 800 mm above the fuselage cone ( I'd have to look up the test we did on my aircraft to be sure of that figure, but it's in the ballpark). The fin does bend - a little - at limit load.

Oh, the curse of fat fingers and poor glasses: Indicated Airspeed is, of course, IAS - Not AIS... and is what you get on the ASI arcs..