DonRamsay

Initially, I kind of thought that way as well Col. But, I'm betting, as Mazda has, that on a probability basis it is so unlikely to suffer overheating as to make a coolant temp gauge unnecessary. The same judgement has been applied to come to the decision to not have an oil temp gauge, an oil pressure gauge or ammeter things that were once features of any well instrumented vehicle. Mazda, wisely, does recognise a much more likely issue - the very real possibility that you could have a slow leak in a tyre. Mazda manages this risk with its Tyre Pressure Monitoring System. I'm comfortable with that risk management strategy. Don

Admin - surely this one has run its course? Time to say goodbye?

I agree with the concept that you shouldn't have to be a flight engineer to fly a Jabiru engined aircraft. I know it isn't strictly relevant but my newish Mazda doesn't even have a temperature gauge in the dash. Mazda are confident that their engine does not need constant monitoring for over temp by the driver. There is a warning light of course. The thought that you should be monitoring (and recording) 6 x CHT & EGT as well as oil temp and pressure, etc. suggests to to me that we are dealing with a prototype not a mature product. And after all this time it should be a mature product.

XIa Xia - Certificate of design patent? My mandarin is not that good (as you can see).

Now children . . . . play nice!

China was the country being discussed but I take your point. I should say that travelling through China for three weeks covering 8,500 kms and eating pretty well everything served up I never got as much as indigestion. The only people in our group who got sick in China were a couple who chose to eat in a western style hamburger restaurant. The atmosphere in Northern China is far more dangerous than the food. Smog in Beijing was foul on three days out of four. We had a wonderful time and I would recommend to anyone spending time in China and get an understanding of the people (like people you meet all over the world) and the politics (nowhere near as invasive as some people think it might be.) You'll see more guns in the USA than you'll ever see on the streets in China.

I think you'll find that bex's country is Australia and just resides/works in China. There is no doubt that a lot of cheap crap comes out of China but not everything that comes from China is of poor quality and I understand bex's irritation in the suggestion that nothing that's made in China can be any good. There are major Western-designed products manufactured in China to Western quality control standards including iPads and iPhones. We've seen this before. Once everything that came from Japan was crap "cheap Japanese junk" and then, over time, they went on to lead the word in Quality Assurance systems. Then came Taiwan and then Korea. All have gone through the cheap knock-off stage to producing real quality. But, if you want cheap stuff they can do that for you. I still avoid food stuffs from China because I don't believe their QC is good enough and there have been examples of criminal actions like the terrible formica in baby formula a few years ago. But, we can do ourselves a favour by judging quality as a matter of fact not prejudice.

What we are "enjoying"is the result of many, many years of member apathy. Many on the Board were returned unopposed year after year and, in the case of Tasmania, decade after decade. In my view they began to think that they were RA-Aus as opposed to Turbo's (correct) view that the Members are RA-Aus. So, the Board unfettered by the democratic process did what they liked. Appointed Steve Tizzard on a whim without a proper recruitment and interview process and we had four years of stagnation particularly with regard to Information Systems and the Ops and Tech Manuals. The answer to more members was more staff and costs rose and membership fees went up. In February last year the old stagers were brought to account by the members in the extraordinary General Meeting at Queanbeyan. They got the message from the members, loud and clear "Enough!" That piece of member activism was followed up by better election results at the last AGM and we now have a Board majority that are looking forward and working hard to drag RA-Aus into the 21st Century. We have, imho, the most competent Board Executive that RA-Aus has had in the last ten years. Voting closes at 4 pm today and I hope everyone has exercised their democratic responsibility to find out who the candidates are, ask around to find out who could do the job, and vote! Time will tell but the new CEO, Michael Linke, is showing signs that he is able to get things done and high on the list is the clean up and modernisation of the re-registration and membership renewal processes. That of course means real online renewals and not the faux online renewals we presently have. The new CEO must find himself in, to quote Maverick, a "target rich environment".

Acro, it is more than remotely possible that bexr had his tongue firmly in cheek when appearing to advise avoiding VW aero motor. Would have perhaps been better to include a :cheezy grin:bexr?

Nice looking aircraft for sure. Depends a bit on what engine you put in it. I think a lot of them (home builts) have VW based engines. Atec Faeta is a very slippery carbon fibre aircraft that gets along smartly on 80HP but fairly rips with a 100 hp. Agent is Dexter Burkill up near Denman/Scone. Depends a bit on how important re-sale is in both time and money terms. A more mainstream aircraft is probably easier to sell.

I thought the "Intelligent design" crack would have got me to that warmer clime. To be fair, as I also mentioned that Gary does seek and take advice from aeronautical engineers when he needs to - including from the proprietor of Brumby. I can't really comment on Morgans as I've never been in one. They seem to be either loved or loathed.

Ahh, they had some help from the Almighty! That explains a lot.

Mike, that is in fact the only way you will get a satisfactory solution to the difficulty in complying due to your remote location. Darren has been known to bite but it is rarely fatal. He is also very keen to help members sort their real problems and yours is very real. A number of people expressed concern about whether the AN meant that both check inspections had to be done by people independent (i.e. not involved in doing the job). As a result of people talking to the Tech Manager, he has now released a slightly revised version of the AN that makes it crystal clear that the person who did the work plus one independent person who has at least L1 can be the two required inspections. The AN requires that two inspections be done after assembly. As far as I know this is standard practice in signing off a construction or initial assembly. If the control systems have not been altered since original assembly they should not need inspecting now. Surely? The AN then requires that subsequent to assembly, *if* the control system is altered it must be inspected by two people one of whom was not involved in doing the work. To me this is just sensible safe work practice. If it creates problems for you, you must talk to Darren and get him to help you solve the issues.

I love my Tecnam Sierra for its user friendliness. Parts are expensive and of course have to come from Italy. Don't know the Brumby 600 or 610 just had a casual look at them at Natfly a few times. Reputation of manufacturer was tarnished to some extent with the poor customer relations with the 610. Manufacturer is the opposite of the Morgans in that he is highly qualified in Aviation engineering. Terms and has high level CASA approvals. I liked the Sling quite a lot but have not flown in one. Build quality looked good to me and was commented on very favourably to me by somebody who really knows what a well built aircraft looks like. Value for money looks rally good. Serviceability looks great with an excellent engine bay layout. I also like the BRM Bristell a great deal Sort of the Mercedes Benz of LSA aircraft. Beautifully finished and a delight to fly. Not cheap but not cheaply made either.

sfGnome, If only they knew . . . I was typing at the same time as you. Just took me a while to press the post button

Shags, I have both a mini and the full size iPad and have used them both on the ground and in the air. The mini is a clear winner for me in the cockpit. We have a RAM mount that allows it to be secured for takeoff and landing (as is the requirement) and provides a better line of sight compared to on your knee (dock). At home, planning a flight the bigger the screen the better, so I use the full size iPad for that but the mini would be OK. In general terms and for all non-aviation uses, I prefer the mini. I wouldn't buy another full size one. The iPhone is OK for a desperation backup being vastly superior to nothing! I bought the version with access to the mobile phone network and also a DUAL XGPS because of the greater reliability for GPS + GLONASS.

If it is a type certified aircraft (not LSA) you could buy a Jab from the factory and register it 24 and then get the CAR 21M authority to swap out the Jab engine for a Rotax. Pretty pricey exercise . . .

I think most of the statements people have made here included the "if" word or it was at least implied in the discussion.

I have on a many occasions agreed with the widely held, reasonable view that Jabiru airframes are as good as any on the market. I'd go further and say that for Australian conditions, I believe the J230 is the best aircraft on the market. I've also mentioned that I've flown a J160 with a Rotax 100hp 912 and it was a pure delight. I did my XC Navs in that aircraft immediately after the conversion. There is a very clear distinction from all I read that the Jabiru airframe is exemplary. My big disappointment with the engines is that they could be brilliant, especially the six if Jabiru would commit to the engineering fixes. It is just a matter of engineering - nothing insoluable here.

I've just rushed through the 5 or 6 pages of posts since my last one. Amazingly intense debate going on considering we really know nothing other than what has been reported in the press. And let's face it, the Courier bloody Mail? Could be the worst newspaper in Australia. . . One brief phone call today to a 100% reliable source gave me information we've all been guessing at: The Jabiru did not run out of fuel. That was all I asked and am happy to let the investigation run its proper course and until it has we will not have an authoritative reason for the Jab engine giving up in flight. I also enquired about the CEO's statement from a different source but not directly with the CEO - not wanting to distract him from useful work. I have no doubt in my mind he was misquoted to jazz the story up much as was reported by Andy @ Coffs. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. My personal risk management strategy with regard to Jabiru engines is not based on a definitive study. It is based on my judgement and experience and the not so surprising conclusion I reach is that I seriously doubt that Jabiru engines are as reliable as Rotax. My choice, please feel free to do your own risk assessment and determine your own risk strategy. I also think it more likely than not that a Rotax engine over 2,000 hours would cost less than a Jabiru engine(s) over the same period despite the higher purchase price and expensive parts. It would also result in less down time due to checks and adjustments and at best partial overhauls every 500 hours or so. The private letter I wrote was to one Board Member who is a L2 and CFI and a successful operator of Jab engines and eminently capable of coming to his own conclusions. My urging was that the investigation needed to have the same vigour as if a report was being prepared for the Coroner for a multiple fatality accident. Too often we get fed that an engine failure in flight is no big deal you just land the aircraft. My contention is that we've been lucky not to have more fatalities during forced landings. No doubt some of that luck we have made for ourselves with the Pilot: • having had good enough and recent training; • not having panicked; • having chosen a landing site well; • having had a suitable landing site within reach; • having not received a rude surprise in the form of windshear or hidden objects or mobile objects (people, cows, ‘roos, tractors, etc.) when they’re just a few hundred feet from the ground and committed to landing; and, • have been well protected by the airframe (Jabiru). but, luck will run out.

My perception of Jab engine reliability was perhaps warped by my CFI's (also L2) four jab engines that didn't make TBO. After that experienced he put a Rotax in his J160 and what a delight it was. Expensive up front but probably not in the long run. If Jabiru offered a Rotax engine option they would be unbeatable in the Aussie market and perhaps around the world.

The thing that stumps me about Jabiru is that you could buy a brand new factory built aircraft and be expected to set up the cooling so as to not damage the engine. This is true even for LSA where no changes are supposed to be made to the aircraft without the manufacturer's written approval. Jabiru engines may cost less than Rotax to but but if you look at the whole of life costs over say 2,000 hours it would be hard to see that the Jab engine is cheaper or has the same availability as the Rotax. On the question of engine failures in the air, it is fine for good pilots to boast about how they can get a plane down anywhere any time but most RA-Aus pilots are, I'm guessing, relatively low hour pilots who fly low hours each year, perhaps in the range 25 to 50 hours p.a. Chances are that they are just an average amateur pilot and that their next forced landing will be their first real one and that they could just possibly mess it up. No pilot can guarantee that in a forced landing situation, without power, they are going to get it down and be able to walk away. There are just too many potential unseeables if you are at 300 feet and committed to a landing site. It would not be at all difficult to hit something in the grass that causes the aircraft to invert on the ground or for a large animal to invade your chosen field or to come a cropper on unseen power lines. Yes, we should always be conscious of a potential engine failure but I don't think for one moment that it is a no worries situation or she'll be apples. Every forced landing is a potential fatality. Every mid air engine failure is also a potential fatality and should be investigated with that degree of seriousness - as if a Coroner was asking for a report.

If as it seems, the Jab engine stopped due to fuel starvation, the joke was on me - and I was the one relating the joke. Happy to give you support on the Ford cars. :-) As regards Rotax, I have good reason to believe a sensibly maintained Rotax 912 will make it to and probably well beyond its TBO of 2,000 hours. From what I've seen I would not have that level of confidence in any Jabiru engine. I'm not saying that Rotax engines never fail but I have reasons to suspect my chances of never losing an engine in flight are better with a Rotax than a Jabiru. My concern though and what I wrote about was the fact that even though there no serious injuries to people in the aircraft or on the ground, the incident should be treated no less seriously than a double fatality with the potential to have killed or injured many on the ground. Clearly, the skill and judgement of the pilot plus a measure of good luck went the pilot's way but it could have been extremely serious. IF, I repeat, *If* the forced landing had been required due to a design fault in the engine or substandard components or sub standard manufacturing then the manufacturer would deserve to be taken to task by CASA and required to rectify such faults. Nothing too illogical there? Every member of RAA is entitled to ask a Board Member a question or make a polite suggestion. Not hard to find their email address in the Magazine. Feel free to write what you like about anything that concerns you. As for defamation Frank, it requires that the statement is both unkind and untrue. If it is my opinion, it can not be untrue. It may be technically wrong but it is truly my opinion. As a member of RAA you are entitled by the Constitution to go to Canberra and ask to see anything that they have on file.

Very understandable. An accident like that must be truly traumatic and allowances should be made, also, some of us might br good at writing reports and some very good at designing and building unique, innovative aircraft.

Cheap inkjet will do the job as Avocet said. Make sure it is AirPrint compatible but pretty well all are these days. As usual you'll pay more for the ink than he printer. I use Google Earth on a 23" screen at home for route planning and a check on OzRunways. We have an iPad mini in the plane and I have the Dual XGPS160 for overkill. Backup is my full size iPad 3 3G in my flight bag. (Two subscriptions). And then there is OzRunways on my phone - not a first choice but would be way better than nothing!