DonRamsay

David, I saw an email that a certain kit provider sent out and although I of course couldn't see who else got a copy, it is not unreasonable to presume all his customers for whom he had a current email address were on the list. In all probability your test has been passed.

Perhaps your placard should be expanded by the addition of words like "I refuse to have anyone check my work on critical flight controls" just before "you fly at your own risk". Seriously though, imagine your public statements here being presented in a court case against your estate? I say "your estate" because few people survive a controls failure in flight. Your insurer may well have been placed in a very handy position to deny cover - leaving your estate to cough up. It would also be handy evidence for any plaintiff(s) to claim large sums for negligence. Robinsm, If I were you, I would be asking ADMIN to delete all your posts on this matter. I agree 100% Perhaps the one that prompted this reminder of the Regs to be published by RAA? And in those cases perhaps the pilot and his passenger were saved by the second inspection? On the contrary, what is being asked is that you don't just rely on one person to get everything perfect. Surely, a second set of eyes will increase level of safety for you, your passengers and anyone you overfly? How can that be a bad thing?

There is no additional cost imposed here if you can find a L1 Pilot who is prepared to have a look at your flight controls if you have done work on them and then sign off the work as OK. What is being advocated is a safe system of work and I can't see it as overkill (perhaps not the best choice of words) or demeaning - just good practice. Robinsm, can you really say you could never make a mistake that somebody else would pick up? If the answer to that is "true"then you are, in my experience, unique. This instruction is clearly directed at the rest of us who can and do make mistakes despite being meticulously careful.

Old K, If you have an accident due to faulty flight controls, chances are the insurer will be less of a concern than being refused entry at the Pearly Gates by St Peter.

It has always been the policy of RAA and its various OPs and Tech Managers to publish information about safety issues that could cause a repeat of a fatality. They do that rather than wait the two years for the Coroner to get around to considering the accident. In this case, Darren has acted very quickly indeed and it is easier for us to guess that there is a link from the accident to the AD/AN especially when he says "Recent investigations have identified potential areas of concern relating to the integrity of primary flight controls". But, wisely, he doesn't refer to a particular accident before the full investigation has been finalised. So, perhaps we should also be a little circumspect in referencing, publicly, a particular accident?

No worries KGW and thanks for the explanation. Your post added important and helpful information regarding what is in the Jab manual and must have put beyond doubt that this is not a new requirement imposed by RA-Aus but a long standing Jabiru requirement that most of us have been happily unaware of but was our responsibility to know (if we fly Jabiru). I had noticed that when I went looking for the May 2014 Jab Maint Manual and did nothing about it. I just checked and found two more that didn't work and have now reported them all to RA-Aus to get them fixed or removed. Wish I'd done that when I first discovered them.

When our small syndicate of three acquired our Tecnam, there was an immediate meeting of minds as to who would get to maintain our aircraft - we all enthusiastically agreed that we would only allow a respected L2 to work on our aircraft. We also agreed that one of the three of us would be the primary overseer of maintenance to ensure nothing was missed. So far, that's working very well. However, we each have a responsibility to ensure the aircraft is airworthy before the wheels leave the ground when we are PIC.

KGW, as you know, I have already pleaded guilty to not having read the manual in detail but when provoked did read 2.2 To my understanding of the English language it is quite clear. If that is not new then there have been, in all likelihood, a lot of people doing the wrong thing perhaps without knowing that. Any aspersions or innuendos as to Jabiru's reason for section 2.2 are my own supposition and probably not helpful. As we haven't seen the soon to be released RAA Tech Manual, we can't know what part RAA had in the composition of 2.2 If as you say this is along standing instruction by Jabiru then it is not something dreamed up by the current Tech Manager or related to the new Tech Manual.

Oscar I agree with most of what you write. However, I believe Jabiru are the authority when it comes to how their engines are maintained and who can do it and not just for warranty issues. Mostly this will affect 19 registered aircraft and 24 not used for flight training. What I am concerned about is that people may still believe that ignorance of the rules is an excuse. Another undesirable possibility is maintenance done and not recorded in the log book. And if the AD situation is not great then there are all the regs that RAA do not have an exemption for. Classic of these is the requirement to have your pitot/IAS/ALT/VSI/transponder checked/calibrated ever two years. Few RAA pilots I talk to have any notion that this is a requirement that applies to them.

I'm afraid you may be reading this the way you want it to be. I've now talked with Darren Barnfield, the Tech Manager, and he assures me that the statement in section 2.2 is the overriding instruction. If you are still in doubt I would urge you to ring Jabiru for a clarification. Jabiru's intent is pretty clear. They seem to think that all (most of?) the problems with their engines stem from poor maintenance done by amateurs. They want to bar amateurs and require professionals. Hard to read it any other way. If in doubt, read it restrictively and get clarification from the source - the Jabiru Factory.

Col, is this something you could fix for us once you are elected to the Board? I'm sure you would attract considerable support if you were an advocate for transit through CTA. Imagine how frustrating it must be for pilots who train, fly solo and then are awarded a Pilot Cert at Coffs and then, as soon as they get their Pilot Cert, they are no longer allowed to fly into or even out of Coffs? Makes no sense to me.

I could also benefit greatly with transit of CTA. I don't think I need to land at Controlled airports like Bankstown. But transit of Williamtown, Coffs, Coolangatta, Nowra etc would avoid having to fly over longer and less desirable country. I believe CTA is not that far away for RA-Aus even without a Class 2 medical. Of course you would need to have a properly equipped aircraft and have done the training and passed the tests. CASA is in print as having said the Pilot Cert and RPL are equivalent. Well, they will be equivalent when the Pilot Cert includes at least a CTA transit Endorsement.

OK Frank, I had relied on a reliable source who turns out to have been . . . reliable. Anyone doubting my original post please have a look at the new manual section 2.2 where you will find the crystal clear direction from Jabiru regarding who can work on Jabiru engines. It as Deborah has quoted above. Perhaps the Jabiru Manual could have been better constructed so as not to leave any doubt? No BS - just the facts. Ignore the direction from Jabiru as you wish and at your own risk. Still, this Jabiru stuff is a side issue. The main game is that you need to know about the aircraft *you* fly. You need to have systems in place so that you have the knowledge and act on it. Misreading the manual could prove very costly.

Can't SAAA look after their Lycs and Contis if they build the aircraft?

Like a few have said above, I'd be interested in picking up an RPL but would not give up my RA Membership, Pilot Cert or RA aircraft. But, it would be fun to occasionally fly a Piper or some of the GA Experimental stuff. The RPL drivers licence medical has been totally screwed by the CASA AvMed people who resent it totally as it may do there DAME mates out of very lucrative business and AvMed people the power of life and death over private aviators flying careers. As also mentioned above, the RPL medical is more difficult than a Class 2 unless you are in top medical condition and could breeze through a Class 2. It is in no way suitable for anyone who wants to fly with a less than Class 2 standard medical condition.

Lycoming and Continental probably feel a bit more confident that their engines will not fail in service when provided normal care. Perhaps Jabiru actually believe their "improper maintenance" theory?

That is the bit I was referring to as "startling". I wonder if it will affect future sales of Jab engines for people who like to maintain the aircraft that they built? In the past you often hear of Jabiru blaming "improper maintenance" for premature engine failures. Looks like, to a casual observer, that Jabiru are trying to ban all amatuer mechanics from touching their engines. Wonder what excuse they could use then? The two authorities on this are the current (soon to be replaced) RA-Aus Tech Manual (Section 4.0 Annex A) and the aforementioned Jabiru Maintenance Manual. RA-Aus may allow more but is overruled by the manufacturer's maintenance manual.

The generalisation that "ignorance is no excuse in law" holds here as it does, well, generally. Based on the Objects of RA-Aus, there may be an obligation for RA-Aus to inform its members but it is in no way a legal obligation. The legal obligation remains with us as PIC. Think of how CASA informs all pilots (GA & RA) of such things - put it on their website and hope somebody can be bothered looking and has the bloodhound instincts to find it. I know our Tech Manager, Darren Barnfield, is looking to improve both the RA-Aus website and possibly sending out email notices but there are, believe it or not, still plenty of RA-Aus members who don't have an email address or don't have their current email address on file at RA-Aus. Sounds like a good idea to me. That gets around any privacy issues and thoughts of spam. I'll mention it to Darren and see what he thinks is possible. Perhaps what would be even better is a RSS service that lets us know if anything has changed on the RA-Aus website Ops or Tech or even financial or social. Can't argue with that. So, each of us needs to solve that problem for ourselves. Easy for me with the Tecnam Bulletins, more difficult for others. However you do it, you owe it to yourself to do it. Unfortunately, while we might reach a quite a few RA-Aus pilots through this thread, there are still quite a few who will remain blissfully ignorant - at their peril. And then there will others, particularly owner/builders who think, e.g. that Jabiru is being unreasonable and just covering their butts and ignore the new requirements. "I've maintained by Jab engine for 10 years, why should I hand it over to an L2 now?" One thing that is very difficult to combat is ignorance, apathy and arrogance - particularly if it is all three together!

Deborah, Yes, that could be it. I have to admit that, while I'm aware of it, as I don't go too close to Jabiru engined aircraft, I haven't actually read it. No, the owner is not an authorised person unless (in Australia) they also happen to be a LAME and/or a L2 and I think there may even be a requirement to have done the factory course. The factory course on its own does not make you an "authorised person".

When we acquired our Tecnam Sierra P2002, I got onto the Tecnam website and subscribed to their AN/AD service. With that I am reliably informed (in both English and Italian ) of ADs. Recently, I became aware that RA-Aus had put on their website a new "Airworthiness Alert" relating to Bowden Cable Bulkhead nuts (see attached). This is a "do it before next flight" kind of Notice so pretty serious stuff. While that one doesn't affect me personally, I wondered if the Notice would be seen by all the people who should act on the advice. The fact is that, as the aircraft operator/owner (& builder?) we are responsible for making ourselves aware of this sort of stuff. While it is good to have a service like that provided by Tecnam and even the RA-Aus website, it is our responsibility to ourselves and our passengers - not to mention the people we fly over and our insurers - to make ourselves aware and act as required. If we don't do this then, apart from the human cost, we could find our insurance in danger, CASA on our case and even manslaughter charges by the Police. Do we all feel we have this under control? As a bit of a test of the information flow, Jabiru have made a major revision to their Maintenance Manual (May 2014). Amongst other things it makes it illegal for most owners to touch their Jab engines. There are various restrictions relating to factory training and L2/LAME status before you can take a spanner to a Jab engine. Are Jab owners aware of this significant reduction of their rights to service and maintain their Jab engine? I would not be surprised if many Jab owners, especially homebuilt Jab owners are unaware of or comply with this startling new requirement. Bowden Cable bulkhead nuts bulletin 21072014.pdf Bowden Cable bulkhead nuts bulletin 21072014.pdf Bowden Cable bulkhead nuts bulletin 21072014.pdf

FT, A member is a member and entitled to benefits RA-Aus can throw their way when it doesn't involve a cross-subsidy and in this case could actually help to reduce the costs for RA aircraft members. Kaz, I'm reliably informed this is being looked at and is likely to eventuate in the not too distant future.

We are fundamentally accrual accounting but on an annual basis. As you say we don't smooth costs or revenues across the year. Smoothing makes for more useful management accounts and makes month to month reports more comparable and year to date meaningful guide to full year.

Rick (and Rob), I still contend that the ownership of RA-Aus is in the hands of the members. Not just one member - this is a democracy. If you don't like things the way they are you need to become political. What I mean by "political" is that you have to build support for your ideas on how things should go. You need in ordinary language to campaign for the changes you wish to see. A number of people who read this section of RecFlying and who agreed that things were not as they should be did just that and in the last two or three years, that disparate group have campaigned for and had 25 amendments to the RA-Aus Constitution put to the members at Annual General Meetings. Some of those changes were opposed by the Board of the day and some supported. None were initiated by the Board just by ordinary members who cared and were prepared to work for change. Out of that has come, I believe, some positive changes. Firstly, the Board was brought to account for poor governance at the EGM in February 2013 and promised to do a lot better. Instead of just the one meeting of members each year (the AGM) we now have a second one in conjunction with Natfly. It is likely more members can get to the Natfly General Meeting than can get to the AGMs. We now get the opportunity to have items added to the AGM Agenda; we will get the full Annual Financial Statements at least 3 weeks before the AGM not a one page summary during the AGM as happened at the 2012 AGM and formal Notices can now be sent by email. RA-Aus is where it is today because of the overwhelming apathy of most members: - "don't want to be involved in politics just want to fly" - and then those members are disappointed that RA-Aus has gone a direction they are not happy about. Plenty are prepared to say they don't like the way RA-Aus went but what have they done to have it go a different way? So, for example, Eugene Reid has been on the Board for something like 25 years. For most of that time he was elected or returned unopposed. For much of that time he was President or on the Executive. He was the prime mover in having Steve Tizzard gifted the job of CEO (and look how well that turned out). He was a prime mover in having MTOW lifted to where it is today, in having the height restriction lifted to 10,000 feet. If you don't like those things what are you doing about getting some other Taswiegan elected instead. The fact that you don't live in Tassie is no excuse - if you want change you have to get off your butt and do something about it not whinge after it has happened. There are two kinds of people - those who wonder what just happened and those who make things happen.

In the July edition of SportPilot (page 42) there is advice that the Annual General Meeting will be held at Lethbridge Airpark (YLED) on Saturday 18th October at 2 p.m. This follows on from the 2102 AGM at Heck Field on the Gold Coast and the 2013 AGM at Narromine in NSW. While the last two have made for reasonable access from SE Queensland and most of NSW this one at Lethbridge will make it easier for members from Victorian, South Australia and NSW/ACT and even Tassie to attend. There will be a BBQ after the AGM and a chance to meet informally with the Board Members and especially, the new Board Members taking up their positions. I'm planning to fly in myself and catch up with many Recreational Flyers. No doubt there will be further information about flying into, and accommodation at, Lethbridge coming from RA-Aus/Lethbridge before the event. The early notice from Board Secretary, Tony King, is to allow members time to ask for items to be included in the Agenda. Only matters on the Agenda can be actioned at the AGM. You will get the Annual Financial Statements and the President's and Secretary's reports well in advance of the AGM. There is an item on the Agenda (Item 8) that allows for Questions from the floor but, if you want the best, most considered response it would pay you to send your questions in to Secretary Tony King well before the AGM.

Fortunately for RA-Aus, those days are behind us. Action by the members who have taken an interest and voted has resulted in a quality Board and about to get better.