
Oscar
-
Posts
2,485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
67
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Posts posted by Oscar
-
-
So people buy an aircraft - a not cheap aircraft - that CAN enter a spin, and basically, if you do, then your only POH-recommended action results in an uncontrolled descent that will damage the aircraft.
Why do they pay that money?
-
There are two 'Bats, both in Australia. The Mk II is currently being re-engined from the original 582, and the new owner of that plus the mouldings (which are works of art, made in the USA) is I believe actively considering the possibility of going into some sort of production, but there's quite a way to go before that might happen.
However, the 'Bat is a very different beast to the Sapphire, particularly under the skin, where the production techniques required are several orders of magnitude more high-tech in order to handle the stresses of open aerobatic championship-level work and it would not be a cheap aircraft, in terms of $$ for kgs of aircraft, to produce. It's also -from pilot reports - a typically 'demanding' aircraft to fly, in that it's not something intended for relaxing cross-country work; George Markey's sole intent for the design was for something that one takes out on the weekends and does unlimited aerobatics in in 20-minute or so bursts to satisfy that urge. Pitts performance at a fraction of the cost of a Pitts was his basic premise - and the market for that turned out not to really exist.
-
An awful lot of fatalities in that accident list in just one model which is relatively new.
You have the situation where an aircraft is notorious for a fatality rate of roughly twice that of comparable aircraft and the statistics are out there to support that. The company that makes that aircraft proudly boasts that with the use of the 'chute, your chances (statistically) of being killed are about halved - or, put another way, by using the chute you bring yourself back to just an average chance of being killed. To me, that would make the presence of the big red handle in that particular aircraft far more of a 'primary safety' element than it would be in something that had a better history of incident survivability.
To put it another way, if you have a reasonable fear that the damn thing is more likely than most to kill you UNLESS you pull the big red handle, wouldn't you put that option on the front burner if things go pear-shaped? In a different aircraft, you might (probably would and should) look for all other options before deciding 'it's this, or nothing'. In say a Jab. 430, the nearby golf-course might have been a feasible option, knowing that the thing would almost certainly end up somewhat damaged but also knowing they offer pretty good secondary safety. In a Maule, it would possibly be no more worry than having run out of beer and stopping by the 18th hole to grab a few cans from the Clubhouse...
-
1
-
-
As idle rumination, not intended to inflame the ether (though even 'g'day can be taken the wrong way by some), I rather doubt that this pilot in this situation had much in the way of options other than the 'chute, and it's quite possibly a paradigm case of using one being the difference between a good outcome and a possibly very, very bad one.
Personally, I'm not enamoured of them BUT if I routinely flew over unlandable country, I'd seriously consider installing one. Preferably, I believe, to NOT be in a position where they are the resource of last recourse, and certainly, to me it's bad airmanship to wittingly put oneself in the situation where one is relying on the red handle if there are other sensible choices.
If one reads the ATSB report I referenced earlier, a pilot who: a) takes off in an aircraft that has already exhibited unusually high oil consumption the day before the flight; b) does not abide by the POH regarding the minimun recommended oil level for operation for topping-up before take-off, and c) flies for several hours with dropping oil pressure being reported without making a precautionary landing - indeed, overflying a suitable airfield when the reported oil pressure was seriously low, despite the POH instructions - and then elects to pull the handle rather than attempting a landing in a large, cleared, flat paddock - would (I suspect) have some discussion with his insurance company before they wrote out a cheque.
The 'chute doesn't save the aircraft from major damage; both the photos in the ATSB report and the media reports from the Lawson crash show that the Cirrus undercart does NOT withstand landing under the chute. You get to walk away from a wrecked aircraft. That's certainly better than NOT getting to walk away. Is it always the best possible outcome of a problem? HMMMM.
-
1
-
-
No worries oscar, was only replying to what you said, not the eyewitnesses.You did call a spiral a spin. Surprised that a cunning linguist such as yourself would make such an error;)
Cheers
-
Oscar, I don't want to be a nit picky bugga, but since when does 'if it started a spiral' that it means a stall and spin entry? Its either spinning or spiraling and if these things are notorious at not coming out of a spin, and it was in a spin, it would be spinning.
However, it's a moot point, but the pilot is around to tell the story, which is good. If you look at that area on Google Earth, there are pretty much zero Cirrus-friendly emergency landing spots; the pilot may have been merely doing a turn in the general direction of the nearby golf course before pulling the handle, I guess we'll find out eventually. Just looking at the general area, I can't see anywhere that I'd be comfortable in trying to land a Cirrus, the BRS was (I think) the only realistic option, and your idea that he may have been simply slowing up to pull the chute anyway is as plausible as any theory.
It does seem that at least some Cirrus pilots go for the handle even in apparently benign situations - like that bloke in late 2012 who ended up in the middle of a large flat paddock near Gilgandra that a lot of pilots would consider pretty much ideal. (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-154.aspx) If you look at the final report, there are several photos of the landing site, and it's fine wheat stubble for bloody miles in every direction. Does that say anything about the perception - if not the fact - that anything less than a large length of black tarmac is not the place they feel comfortable about trying to land the thing on?
Ummm.. Got any BAK books in your library?-
1
-
-
Latest ABC report says it was in Sayers Street Lawson; a check on Google Maps shows it ended up probably about 20 metres away from some serious HT lines. There is a golf course about 200 metres from where he ended up, but longest fairway appears to be about 300 metres. Those are some really, really lucky passengers. BRS was about 99% the only chance in the circumstances, which is different from saying that perhaps the circumstances should not have arisen and he shouldn't have been above serious tiger country without enough bug-out height. Katoomba Airport is about 11k away.
-
I heard somewhere that the Cirrus has a BRS as standard because it doesn't meet FAR spin recovery requirements, so if it 'started a spiral' and that means a stall and spin-entry, then pulling the red handle is the only way out. So, the pilot probably did the right thing in the circumstances, having first done a rather silly thing by taking off in it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Recovery and movement of aircraft other than sitting on their own wheels is something that needs to be done (where possible, obviously) with very considerable care and the input of expert knowledge.
I've been repairing over several years a Jab that played 'dead ants' after an EFATO; apart from the broken fin replacement, the major repair work was a result of inexpert recovery techniques, where lifting apparatus was allowed to load the airframe in ways it was never designed to handle, cracking the 'glass on the fuselage. And Jabs are bloody tough, so someone did something in a really ham-fisted way.
I've moved quite a few interesting aircraft in bits around the countryside on trucks / trailers, from a Victa from East Sale to Brisbane and back, to several Sea Furies, a Messerschmidt 262, A Kittyhawk, a Mosquito bomber, a Zero, my own Jab Sydney-Toowomba - Caloundra and return, bits of a B-25, Canberra bomber, Meteor, the Ultrabat Toowoomba - Bundaberg, some others I can't recall instantly. All without damage.
The critical thing for doing such movement is to make damn sure the loads are carried on bits of the aircraft that are designed to handle those loads. Often, you need a decent spreader bar to do the lifting, you cannot just throw a sling around something. Then, the tie-down points on the transport need careful consideration, as does the location of padding etc.
If all you are doing is removing a totalled aircraft from a difficult site e.g. to clear a busy airstrip, then time is of the essence and further damage is probably both unavoidable and basically collateral to the accident. However, if you have the 'luxury' of taking a bit of time, getting expert advice and if necessary fabricating stuff to do the job properly, you will save yourself later grief (aka money in repairs..).
-
3
-
-
All technically correct as alwaysBUT could way simpler answer
What if there was a cause of the breakage like leaking induction tubes, serious leaning and detonation or maybe just running too lean.
Bolting engine back together and running again will have the expected result.....same again.
As Oscar said no one said Jabiru did repairs and even if they did do they have skills to determine failure cause.
Supports the view that explanation for failures is critically important however often difficult, so data on engine operation becomes equally important......... were EGT and CHT being monitored?
Other point here is that isnt the first 50 hours after major work a common point in life for engines to fail?
The first is - as many have stated on the various Jab. engine problem threads - that it is VERY important to determine what was the actual CAUSE. There has been way too much conjecture derived from the RESULT (usually that the through-bolts are simply too weak, and for the original 5/16 bolts, that's a pretty fair conclusion, but it certainly isn't the whole story).
And the second point you make that should be inscribed on the wall of every repair shop (including Jabiru's own) is that bolting the engine back together and running again will - highly likely - have the same result. Unless one can accurately determine a manufacturing fault (e.g. bad batch of components) or an obvious installation fault, then failing to learn from the lessons of history - and all that..
-
1
-
-
InterestingMy 3300 solid was rebuilt by jab weeks before this was announced, took it back and had bolts replaced no probs. they did not do nor was it in the instructions for others (somewhere is a set of instructions) to do the studs as mentioned above, to do these means splitting case I think. New nuts are fitted
Suffice it to say that CAMit have completely re-engineered the whole bolt/stud/nuts and crankcase joining technique system; it may look similar from the outside but it most certainly isn't!
-
1
-
-
-
Well what about hearing from you in nearly every thread about CAMit? Is that not counted as ambush advertisement? I know engine reliability is an important issue and I appreciate all the serious discussion including your inputs in regards to CAMit's work but when someone makes a joke don't take it so serious.
-
-
1
-
-
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
-
Update for anyone interested:Went for a spin the other week and took the 120 up with a brand new motor (recon, I assume) fitted after it failed again, but on different head bolts, less than 12hrs after my incident and repair. Lucky for them they were only in circuits.
TT=844hrs before 2nd failure.
Hopefully this new reco won't suffer the same fate....
The necessity for forensic examination of damage is NOT some idle conceit of forum members, it is a necessary condition for understanding what has happened, what remedial action needs to be done and what lessons can be learned. Rather than simply throw out shallow commentary, would it not be in your OWN interests to help in the process of improving the engine you might, one day be flying behind over Corryong? The only insult here is one you give yourself by not (apparently) being bothered to find out all the relevant information before posting- and presenting that information so that others can contribute to the information-gathering process.
'recon, I assume'? Since you don't know, how is it that we are supposed to accept as completely accurate the rest of the information you have supplied concerning the operational history of the engine(s) concerned? You state that it's not your aircraft, so to be fair in your commentary, surely you should add the source(s) of your information regarding the actual condition, work etc. done on the engine(s) so forum members can evaluate the reliability of that information.
You are in a position to provide useful information to all Jabiru engine owners and users - including yourself. The end result of good information could be improvements in the engine that you - like many others - fly behind.
-
4
-
-
Phhht, if the Jab had a Camit engine it would be as close to VTOL as you could get.I heard Chuck Norris designed them.
Stick to your day job. CAMit engines are flying and turning in excellent results. All we have from you is some photos of crankcases..
-
Do Jabiru cylinders break? Laurie
-
So, one presumes, it would be a very necessary piece of knowledge to know the actual wing section and the characteristics of the stall behaviour before just deciding that 'it look the same as' and bunging on some vgs and expecting the results to be similar to that experienced on something else?
This is needed information; since becoming involved in RAA-class aviation I've noticed a worrying propensity on the part of some people to rely on 'what some bloke in the clubhouse told me' combined with the ever-present 'we don't need no engineers' syndrome - and way too much of that is treated as gospel because it comes from the mouths of apparent 'experts', some of whom are L2's venturing into areas in which they have no actual competence.
-
2
-
-
There's always room for improvements, but don't forget that the Seeker work was accomplished over a considerable period of time and effort and flown by an experienced (and qualified) Test pilot with all the necessary safety gear attached - especially a carefully-developed spin chute that had itself been tuned to the specific aircraft. Plus, a certified TAS probe to ensure that results were real.
It certainly appears that the use of vgs should be considered always as part of a 'system', where the various interactions of components that affect the aerodynamics are very carefully considered. As Dafydd has pointed out, it's not just all about the wing and separation being controlled in a more desirable way than many designs deliver. How and what the tail feathers do downstream of the airflow off the wings is important.
While pretty much all of the reporting on the 'aftermarket' attachment of vgs is generally positive, I suspect that there could be a world of difference between a conservative use of them to 'smooth out' nasty sudden separation characteristics and deciding that a large bucket of them and some glue can change your lead sled into a Piper Cub. I personally wonder - as a complete non-engineer - what structural effect on the wing spar loading you might get from considerably increasing the lift available outboard while the inboard section unloads. I'd be a tad unhappy (if only very briefly) if my strut-braced thingywot with a full load of fuel in the wing tanks decided to give up the outboard section when hauling out of a tight site because I was taking full advantage of my new 'stol' capability..
-
1
-
1
-
-
Libby dough is what NSW politicians seek to help their re-election campaign. Different animal entirely.
-
1
-
-
ABSOLUTELY not.... I'm just an amateur etymologist. Libido is, as we know, the hopeful stories we tell ourselves that we still have it, even if we can't catch them nowadays to prove it, lubido is what we have when we dally FAR too long amongst the containers of 10W-50 at Supercheap, pretending that we're just reading the specifications. Still, what I do in my own garage is MY bloody business, thank you kindly.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Good point Nev. Most of us don't notice a gradual deterioration, whether it's our eyesight, hearing or lubido. The vibration level is another one; without regular reference to another aircraft, who'd notice an increasingly out of balance prop?I tend to write numbers on my flightplan as the engine warms up. Could I monitor prop balance by comparing the wobbly scrawl with previous ones?
Apologies; back to my kennel now.
-
Er, the 6LXB in my boat had modern bearings.. and a 400K miles TBO for road use (or 40K hours for boat/auxiliary power use) - and it was legendary that trawlers would exceed that by 10 times or more, running on lard and kicks. I think the shaft alone weighed more than an installed 3300, though I could check - I still have one. When Cummins bought Gardner, they closed down the manufacturing facility, because they considered the engine too expensive to produce.
And that's the point: you can't expect - as you say - a cheap aero-engine to deliver that sort of reliability.
Light AC down in Lawson NSW
in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents
Posted
One has to ask whether the appeal of buying an aircraft that relies on a 'bang off and then crash' device for spin recovery is, in fact, a reflection on the purchasers. The 'Volvo Driver' analogy seems somewhat appropriate.
Perhaps it is the aeronautical equivalent of ABS brakes and stability control. As someone who grew up with and participated in a number of forms of motorsport, both of these are nice things to have for vegged-out everyday driving - but are NOT a substitute for proper training and control reactions, and I prefer to NOT have them on the vehicles I drive.
As a trained and approved RFS 'bush driver' - meaning I am approved to take a fire-fighting vehicle with other personnel on board into the serious bush, on tracks you would not ordinarily consider as passable unless a hardcore 4WD driver, I can state categorically that ABS is the last damn thing you want on the vehicle. The standard action from any RFS member with 'bush driver' training if required to work on steep country is to remove the ABS fuse if ABS is fitted - ABS intervention will cause complete loss of braking control on slippery downhill slopes.
A BRS-type system should be an additional level of safety available if NO OTHER means of remediation for a predictable situation is available - i.e. structural / control circuit failure. That the FAA allowed an aircraft manufacturer to sell what is, effectively, a sub-standard product with an add-on feature that ameliorates the effects of the lack of conformance to the required standard, is a serious question. That - as a result of the bi-lateral agreement with the USA, Australia has to accept this aircraft - is an issue that should also cause concern.