DrZoos

If the ATSB go directly to Rotax and Jabiru they will find out who's buying parts/engines. Shouldn't be too hard to build a detailed picture of what happening. All this stuff is tracked fairly precisely these days.

To take this a step further they should then go to the people who bought the parts and ask exactly what happened and why they needed the parts. Perhaps a list of precise questions that have to be returned with a stat declaration. Ask specifically did they have an engine failure. Then if they did, ask exactly what happened.

That way we will also know the answer to whether the failures are not being reported.

One wonders whether the engine manufacturer should be obliged to do this and file a report regardless of whether the pilot filed a report or not. Seems like a reasonable step to require them to do so. RAAus should also require mandatory recording of these issues and they should be doing the above every 12 months

. It also follows that the larger the fleet of aircraft e.g Cessna 150 or Jabiru then the greater numbers will statistically have more recorded incidents.. .

Yet as a proportion of accidents relative to other LSA aircraft based on each 100,000 flight hours they have come out roses.

So some of the questions that arise are:

Are Aussies a bunch of story tellers who embellish certain stories based on incorrect information

Or are the statistics wrong. Is there a major error in whats being reported as the cause of accidents and the brand of the plane involved in accidents. Perhaps they have lots of engine failures and nearly all are landed without accident and not reported.... Seems very unlikely, but could be the case...

Or is Australia a statistically significantly different population based on some variable like temperature, lack of maintenance, differing regulations or practices etc etc

As on face value it seems that what the alleged "j bashers" say is not backed up by the statistics. And even if the engine fails are not being recorded accurately, or they are being landed safely, then they are still a safe aircraft even with these alleged or real failures, compared to others. As they are being flown and landed safer then all other brands other the cessna with or without engine powered landings.

Whilst this probably raises more questions then it answers, it does indeed place some doubt as to the accuracy of the alleged anecdotal stories about a particular brands safety. Because the stats on a way bigger population then us, just dont support the stories / opinions / ?facts? Are the stories being embellished and exaggerated or are the numbers just plain wrong and unrepresentative of Australia.

Anyone thats dabbled in the study of statistics will know how incredibly difficult it is to have the results as wrong as some people suggest they might be.

Have you read http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdf

Seems to indicate perhaps they are not as bad as they are said to be. Im not saying either as i dont know. But you would think the statistics might reflect any major pattern??

In reading this one thing is obvious. Pilot error is the most significant factor, and RLOC are very significant.

65% off all accidents RLOC

Leaves 35% off accidents attributable to other factors....

And apparently landing speed is the major contributor to RLOC

Any factors in ourpopulation would be so statistically insignificant they wouldnt sway these stats by more then a minimal amount.

Just spoke with him and mentioned all the above. He said its still very much Beta, and this is exactly the feedback he wants and needs

He has added a back button, made changes to most the questions mentioned above. He did say the use of certain words eg such as roughly equal to are specifically designed so that they didnt rote learn. They had to make the link between roughly and exactly to be able to answer the question rather then just remember its exactly. In any case he has listened to all feedback and made the suggested changes so far. He said it will be a few weeks before its edited. Its still in the data input stage. But all feedback, negative and positive is welcomed by him.

I prob jumped the gun a bit posting it in here, but i thought it looked great so far... without going into detail

Lol lets hope those 12 you got wrong dont happen while your flying....

Try this out and see what you think - its still under development by a guy i know but looks pretty good for practice exams and checking gaps in knowledge. Its not endorsed in any way and there may still be errors in it but it looks pretty good so far

http://www.pilotpracticeexams.com

Hi all anyone know what the new prices are.

Also how much are the 2 nd hand ones going for at say 1200 hrs.