Oscar

RAA responded to a demand from CASA for data - and we don't know the terms of that request, though by some of the entries on the CASA list, it was very likely for ALL 'incident' reports pertaining to Jabiru aircraft over the specific period, since a heap of entries on the CASA spreadsheet have ZERO relevance to engine problems). RAA was given an almost impossible deadline for the supply of data by CASA: I know for a fact that at least one member of the Board tasked with assembling the data demanded by CASA was working on it at well after 1.00 a.m. - I have emails to prove it. However: it does not matter WHO supplied raw data: what matters is how that data was assembled and used by CASA. The old adage: 'lies, damned lies and statistics' applies. RAA has consistently - from the first - maintained that CASA did NOT undertake proper analysis of the raw data it had compiled and simple examination of the basic CASA spreadsheet shows this to be palpably correct. Barry O'Sullivan is not a fool - indeed, far from it. If he confronted CASA with the actual spreadsheet - and it is HIGHLY likely he did - and asked them to justify its value as evidence to support its action, CASA would be so far up the proverbial creek as to have its testicles between two large bricks accelerating to conjunction at an increasing rate.

Um - translation??? I only do English, a bit of French, a smattering of Italian and about 30 words of Latin. And no Facebook manglish.

Probably a seriously good procedure. Ask Bob McGillivray about the fun one has when snapping a quill shaft on a B-25 on take-off, at an airshow....

The two-speed centrifugal supercharged R-2600's in the B25 (amongst others) was a pretty formidable device, providing the quill shaft didn't break...

My brother was out in the training area off Morrabbin, in a Chippie, practising solo spins..... got one well-developed ( around 5 turns, I think) and noticed some aircraft around him! Three RAAF Dakotas, serenely flying in loose formation through the training area, no radio calls... Brother went between them (pure luck), ended spin, returned to Morrabbin for a change of underwear and some new batteries for his Pacemaker... Glider training: a minimum of three turns (observed by an Instructor) in a fully-developed spin before we got our X-country rating. Always a bit of fun for those of us on the ground, watching to see who could pull off the recovery in style vs those who kicked it out with extreme prejudice.

I've seen the immaculately restored NASM FW190F-8 as it was being rolled out of the Silver Hill restoration facility, and also the stored (and unrestored) pressurised FW190 high-altitude variant ( can't remember its model number) down the back of the silver Hill warehouse complex. Stunning aircraft and rather more imposing on the ground that any Merlin-engined Spitfire, it (certainly appeared to, anyway) swung a really BIG prop. Would absolutely love to see one flying here.

Aha - obviously, a temporary glitch, quickly fixed. Incidentally, it has been pointed out to me that I may appear to have some personal axe to grind with Mr. Coates, and/or have inadvertantly cast aspertions against him. I wish it to be known that I certainly do not have anything personally against Mr. Coates and I most certainly would not wish anybody to draw the conclusion that I am in any way suggesting that Mr. Coates has acted improperly, unethically or dishonestly.

Hey, we are already a bit fraught with China re their Islands developments - do you want to completely turn them to enemies?

JabJoe: for some reason, the link to the copy of the Coroner's Findings on the Smith Guthrie deaths ( the Goulburn Sting crash) that was available on this site (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi45JC_04_LAhVDp5QKHaBEDkMQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recreationalflying.com%2Fimages%2FSmith%2520and%2520Guthrie%2520Finding%2520-%2520Final.doc&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&bvm=bv.114733917,d.dGo ) seems to be not working, which is a pity as it contained some possibly pertinent background information for you, relating to the validity of information presented by MC including to RAA.. However - should you decide to run hard with this matter and engage Spencer Ferrier, I can provide a contact for Spencer who has a lot of extremely useful information that might cut short the time required to assemble a comprehensive overview of both the broad issues and some of the detailed issues that may be extremely pertinent to the case. This person is very well-known to Spencer, (they worked together on the rewrite of parts of the CASRs for some years). As an expert witness in the Smith-Guthrie case, he assembled a detailed examination of the situation which I am reasonably sure he would be willing to brief Spencer about, and can also indicate other sources of specific information germane to your situation. He is more likely to be willing to discuss these matters with Spencer than any other legal beagle. If you choose to pursue the matter through Spencer, PM me and I will provide you the contact name. I won't disclose this publicly.

As, a side issue entirely - and of no help to JabJoe, though perhaps he might appreciate a wry laugh right now to stop from going nuts at the apparent insanity of his situation: If you think all of this is convoluted as a result of international; agreements, think what is going to happen when the ICON seaplane tries to be registered as an LSA.. It has an 'exemption' from the LSA standard - which has been 'accepted' by various Airworthiness Authorities - issued by the FAA to allow it to fly AS an LSA but above the LSA MTOW. But the ASTM standard is NOT a 'national airworthiness authority certification standard' acceptable to ICAO signatory nations - it is a sort of 'accepted de-facto standard', that (if I am not mistaken, has been 'accepted' by individual airworthiness Authorities). It's not 'reciprocally' accepted between ICAO members in the same terms as Type Certificates. SO: I think the situation is: in the USA, an Icon can fly as a LSA-certified aircraft with the 'special dispensation' of the FAA. HOWEVER: that means that it does not comply with the ASTM standard, and since the FAA is not the 'issuing airworthiness authority' for LSA aircraft - even ones manufactured in the USA - I can't see how the 'dispensation' can carry over outside the FAA jurisdication. Either: ASTM will need to change the standard OR individual Airworthiness Authorities will have to specifically adopt the same 'dispensation' . And I don't see CASA suddenly deciding it will take some responsibility for LSA aircraft when it is off 'scot-free', as it were, at the moment....

JabJoe: I believe that kaspers explanation of why the 'letter' from the Czech LAA is an invalid basis for RAA to raise the MTOW beyond that in the Czech Republic Type Certificate is completely accurate. In the Goulburn Sting action taken against RAA and joined with CASA, the point kasper has made was a major legal argument since an almost identical set of circumstances was present. It is actually the nature of the reciprocal agreements between ICAO signatory authorities that takes precedence, as I understand it, which is why CASA required RAA to 'pull back' to the actual Certificated weight from the manufacturer's country in the Audit. However, I suspect it may take a Spencer Ferrier to disentangle all of this - there may be someone in Shine Lawyers who also has the expertise.

JabJoe: You might find it useful to examine the differences in the Flight Manuals for (what I presume is) your aircraft published on-line by mcp.com.au and Fantasy Air UK. Both cite the Type Certificate number : Type Certificate LAA Czech Republic No.05/2000 from October 17.2000. Google: Type certificate allegro 2000 Both APPEAR to be the product of the manufacturer, with presumably some details changed according to the re-publisher. The mcp.com.au quotes MTOW as 520 kgs. The Fantasy Air UK quotes the MTOW as 450. How the same Type Certificate could have alternate MTOWs seems strange; your research may determine how this could be the case.

JabJoe: I think you may be confusing with Ferrier Hodgson, the people who do, I think, receiverships and that sort of thing - Spencer Ferrier is an individual and a very well respected lawyer in Aviation matters: http://www.ferrierlaw.com.au/our-lawyers.php

kasper: being 'polite' about M. C.'s business practices is necessary in the face of the possibility of legal action, but for the sake of the health, welfare and financial safety of his customers, it is extremely difficult to remain silent. However, they of course have the discretion to accept any figures that MC may publish with complete personal confidence. It's their choice. And everything in your post #7, I would endorse. And if MC was selling the Sydney Harbour Bridge, I wouldn't drive across it - but that's just my prejudice. I have NO REASON to hold that opinion...

Additional: if the OP POH is the 'Australian' edition, produced by the importer, then if it is consistent with the Goulburn Sting case, it is not worth squat as an evidentiary document. The 'Australian' POH for the Goulburn Sting crash was a central point for the Court case: it indicated a stall speed for the lower MTOW of the certificated model, which if followed faithfully by the pilot(s) -- both Sting owners and careful, conservative pilots and great friends who trusted each other completely), very possibly contributed hugely to the crash being fatal rather than survivable.

The first problem in this particular saga, was that the aircraft, unless privately imported, was associated in this country with Michael Coates. It is not by a very long way the only aircraft that suffers this major affliction and if you look carefully at those that had their MTOW reduced in the CASA Audit, those imported and distributed by Coates are well (some might suggest, over) represented. The non-LSA Stings are amongst these. As kasper has stated, the Czech 'certifying Authority' ( its equivalent of RAA), had an upper weight limit applied for any aircraft it certificated of 450 kgs. Under ICAO reciprocal rights agreements, the certification conditions of the issuing ICAO-signatory Authority, of which EASA is one and CASA another, are required to be accepted by other ICAO authorities. Had the Court case for the Goulburn Sting crash proceeded, the nature, validity and authenticity of supplementary data that was supplied to RAA to justify an MTOW increase over that specified in the Certificate of Airworthiness for the specific aircraft, would have become public knowledge. That, in turn, might provide the OP with some additional guidance as to just where he might direct his efforts at legal remedies for the situation in which he finds himself (through no fault of his own, and in the face of having undertaken pretty much all the 'due diligence' that anybody could expect). Again, as kasper says - the RAA has some questions to answer in terms of having accepted supplementary information supplied by the importer without extensive 'diligence' as to its validity. In hindsight, the RAA Technical Manager at the time should -perhaps - have weighed the reliability of the source of that information and been alerted to undertake an exceptional level of diligence on the documentation. That would be, I suspect, an argument that could be presented in Court. To be reasonable towards the RAA Technical Manager at the time, the level of 'diligence' required to verify the supplementary documentation supplied would have been at the forensic level. That WAS undertaken in preparation of evidence for the Sting crash case and those privy to that are well aware of the 'problems' with the documentation. Without reference to any particular aircraft, and I stress that, I would suggest that if documentation supplied to RAA to support an 'Australian' MTOW limit (and I speak here theoretically, of course) supplied to RAA that a specific aircraft was flight tested in Czechoslovakia for compliance with standards when it was by record resident in Australia,, RAA should have repudiated the submissed documentation. That the Technical Manager at the time did not dig forensically into the validity of data supplied to him to establish a reliable Australian MTOW, is the cause of information being supplied to the OP regarding the MTOW applicable to his aircraft - but we might be wise to be a little circumspect in apportioning the quantity of blame for that. We might also want to examine the 'culture' enforced within RAA at the time to determine whether the Technical Manager at the time was encouraged or left free to undertake proper diligence, or indeed directed to accept whatever 'evidence' was supplied. RAA has indeed some answer to provide - and these might tarnish some fairly lofty reputations. However, if I were the OP, I'd be looking beyond RAA for culpability for the MTOW clusterfaark. And I'd be contacting Spencer Ferrier.

The possibility that Skidmore has been set-up is very far from fantastic, or the product of an over-heated imagination. It is worth reading the section entitled 'Palace Revolution' ( and about the preceeding half page at least) in: http://proaviation.com.au/2014/02/22/proaviations-submission-to-the-asrr/ [/url]

It was obvious that Skidmore had not been taken through the data by his staff, because he claimed that the Runcorn out-of-fuel incident 'would have been removed' from the raw data set before it was compiled into the CASA list - and it wasn't. ( see CASA PULSE NO 2434 in the data sheet. Also duplicate entries counted in the total: see CASA Pulse No.s 2314 and 2315, and two with no PULSE No., no accurate date, both 05/14, both listed as 'top spring washer failure'. I wonder if there was blistering on the paint in Skidmore's office when he had the 'list' presented for his inspection?

Depending on what damage there is to the 55-reg Jab., I may have some bits that might help, including a 'second-series' starboard wing (high, 1/4 mount wing attachment bolts, the longer aileron/shorter flap iteration), and what I think is an SK/SP port wing (lower, 5/16 wing attachment bolts.) Both in serviceable nick, I think (minor cosmetics needed..) Also some other bits and pieces, mainly 'glass work. Would need careful measurement to see if any of my stuff is useful: Jabiru can no longer supply the first pattern LSA55 wings, they don't have the mould anymore! Not useful if they have full insurance but if it's a case of getting it back in the air at low cost, could be a help: someone PM me if they have queries.

To quote Jake Blues: 'Jesus H Tap-Dancing Christ'. I guess I'll have to get back in the line of those queuing to bash the buggery of of Murphy to let those at The Oaks in in front. They have that right.

Have you sought professional advice for this? Or are you just using 'aroused' in a slightly broader context than the normal 'let's get it on' context?

Wow, I'm glad I don't have to refuel in those conditions! I reckon I'd be checking myself for nylon undies that could produce static before I went near the fuel can... As for your queries: there's a whole lot of stuff relating to fuel vapourisation temps ( and pressures, incidentally) that influence the issue. There was a long letter in Sport Pilot some years ago by Dafydd Llewellyn that goes into the various permutations of RON, MON and vapour pressure - I don't have a copy but someone else here might be able to point you at it. Just quietly: that fuel that spec.d out at 98 ULP at the refinery gate, by the time it's two weeks old from distribution delays and 2,000 feet higher, is probably less than 95... If you can get the engine to start and run, then the pressure drop in the venturi of the carby will cool it rapidly - that's why you get icing even when it's say 15C ambient, in high humidity conditions. And by using the boost pump, you increase the fuel pressure and lower the vapourisation potential AHEAD of the mechanical pump, so it can still draw fuel. (as air pressure drops, vapourisation will occur at increasingly lower temps). With a purely gravity-fed system, you don't get any extra fuel pressure ahead of the mechanical pump, obviously - but the vapour bubbles stay in the fuel in the tank. HOWEVER: if you have wing tanks BUT a collector sump that's lower than the mechanical fuel pump ( e.g. for Jabs.) - then you don't have a purely gravity-fed system. As a side-note, but one possibly worth considering: the fuel delivery performance through all of the constrictions ( fuel lines, filters etc.) may well be significantly different if your engine is sucking rather than being pressure-fed. That complete idiot who flew his brand-new CAMit engined Jabiru onto a beach in N.Z. and then spectacularly stuffed up his subsequent take-off: there was a kink in his fuel delivery line. If tested using the boost pump, it quite possibly delivered adequate fuel flow because the pressure in the line would open it up: but when it's being sucked by the mechanical pump, it will close down and restrict the fuel delivery. Failing paper filters could do the same; they should be bloody well outlawed and Gascolators be mandatory.

How Neil THINKS an engine should be installed, is completely irrelevant. He evidently does not understand the (legal, and important) distinction between 'powerplant' and 'installation'. For certificated aircraft, the performance of the aircraft is a matter for the certification authority to certify that it meets whatever certification standards are applicable: such things as fuel flow testing, cooling, climb performance etc. are all specified. They have to be tested by an approved test pilot under specified conditions Further, whatever standards apply to installation have to be met and approved, and there's a whole raft relating to fuel systems. I don't have a copy of the relevant ASTM standard(s) for manufacturer certifying (since I have no interest in LSA-certified aircraft I'm not about to swell ASTM's coffers by buying a copy of their bloody expensive requirements!) but they are, generally, based on 'common ground' with such authorities as FAA, CAA, (isn't it wonderful how the Poms STILL don't bother to put their nationality into the headings of their authorities, because, after all, the rest of the world KNOWS who is the top dog..), EASA. So you can bet that 'installation' doesn't just say: 'Do what the engine manufacturer says', but requires performance testing and compliance with relevant standards. For 'Experimental', for either nominally 'certificated-class' aircraft ( let's say, a VANS RV6 etc.) OR ELSA, for variants of LSA-certified aircraft, it really comes down to 'prove by hours flown'. If you have a fuel system based on a chain of tiny buckets delivering fuel into a hopper over the engine, it's not 'non-compliant' - but you'll have to fly off a lot of hours before you'll get signed-off to fly into CTA, I suspect. Now, the engine manufacturer's requirements for certain conditions may well affect its guarantee status, liability status in case of failure etc.. You can put a Lycoming in what you like, how you like - but unless the installation has been 'approved' by Lycoming, (over and above any Certificating Authority testing compliance requirements) you have no warranty and Lycoming won't have a bar ( little fuel system-related pun there - did you notice?) of accepting any liability - for anything. I imagine that Rotax has the odd lawyer or two on hand to defend them against claims in the case that the installation does not perform as per their requirements. The engine installation manual is highly likely to be an excellent 'best practice' guide. However, if anyone is going to 'name planes' that have been certified under LSA rules as being 'non-compliant' for installation, if it were me I'd pick my targets very, very carefully to ensure that they don't have deeper pockets than you have - because you are accusing the aircraft manufacturer of having failed to meet the applicable ASTM standards, and that could get expensive, quickly.

Oh, crap for all concerned. We had a similar one about three weeks ago here near Mittagong, limbs torn from healthy trees all around the farm, one prime condition Grey Box simply snapped in half about 10 metres above the ground, where the trunk was at least 250 mm diameter. I was watching stringy-barks that are maybe 25 metres plus in height being whipped for something like 15 metres either side of their normal position as if they were wheat stalks. Incredibly bad luck for to thing to hit aircraft; the intense pressures seem to be a bit like buckshot lumps within the general 'blast' area - it looked all around here as if specific trees had been 'targeted' to be stomped while others quite nearby were undamaged. But all that pressure coming down has to go somewhere and stuff gets swept away as if it's been hit with the world's biggest leaf-blower. Commiserations to all who have damaged aircraft / facilities.

Firstly, I do not believe the '7-bar' or higher pressures for any electrical pump, bar some extremely exotic racing types, or for diesels. However, I am happy to be proven wrong there. HOWEVER: having a fuel pressure gauge is an important diagnostic tool for fuel delivery system check -though you need to have the intelligence to analyse the reporting. Of course, this presumes that you have a properly set-up fuel delivery system, and a properly engineered fuel pressure reporting system. The two key functions of a 'boost pump' are: as a back-up to failure of the mechanical primary pump, AND as a means to overcome vapourisation. For the latter, the boost pump has to be at the LOWEST part of the fuel delivery system. If it is NOT, then your fuel delivery system is deficient. How does this work? BEFORE starting the engine ( and therefore having the mechanical fuel pump active) - you engage the boost pump and see what pressure it delivers to the system. IF that is within limits, then you can 'tick-off' that the boost pump is working. THEN, you start the engine, turn OFF the boost pump, and watch the fuel pressure gauge. If that remains within limits after a short period - (say 30 seconds, as the oil temps come up), you have both the main and boost pumps operating as required, and no apparent fuel vapourisation problems. If there is a significant drop out of fuel pressure limits with just the mechanical pump in operation, EITHER you have: a mechanical fuel pump issue OR vapourisation that has de-primed the mechanical fuel pump.. Nobody intelligent takes off if they have to rely on a boost-pump that hasn't been checked for operation for full-fuel delivery to the engine. No matter whether you are out the back of Oodnadatta or somewhere within Turbs's conscienceness.