01rmb

Don - I agreed with DWF - to add to his comments in my opinion the constitution is in need of improvement in the following areas. Clause 6 - to include space craft in the constitution is ridiculous - Was this somebodies idea of a joke because it really can't be taken seriously? Clause 14 - The lack of the right of appeal for membership rejection is not fair and reasonable given the CEO can reject the application. Don, your comments on the CEO being able to recommended to not approve an application and to be agreed by the board is lost in the translation of the constitution drafting. The constitution gives the Directors the ability to delegate the actions to the CEO so it is then the CEO that is able to reject an application and the Company that writes to the applicant - Nothing about the application being referred to the board where they must agree on the decision. Your interpretation of the constitution may well be interpreted different by someone else in power in the future. Clause 17 - Missing the dispute resolution process. Relying on a legal definition of procedural fairness is not adequate.Your comment that RAAus is not a copper is not reflected in the constitution which gives the Company the right to discipline and remove a member - with no right of appeal. Member's Charter - A number of points including the drafting of this document looks to be cobbled together from different documents and lacks structure and consistency. Referring to draft constitution rather than the constitution requires this to be rewritten as if it were to be attached to the final constitution. The member must act with integrity but RAAus and staff has no requirement to do so. The Staff accountabilities section focusses on a member providing feedback as long as it is not harsh or non-constructive feedback. It has nothing on staff being accountable for doing their job as required other than what a member can expect of RAAus in the expectations section. The Communication section identifies that RAAus will communicate via social media channels but the current facebook site is purely marketing and the CEO and board are unwilling to participate in a widely used recreational aviation forum (the occasional board member does so as an individual). The feedback received from this forum would appear to generally be open and honest and of benefit to the development of an acceptable constitution so why ignore it.

I am still on the fence based on the supporting documents of the constitution not being complete with less than 3 weeks to the special general meeting. Without the dispute resolution and disciplinary policy and procedures referred to in clause 17 the constitution can't be considered complete and the vote is premature until it is properly considered by the members. Why fix it later when it should be right before being voted on by the members. The one reason we are members of RAAus is to fly (and maybe register an aircraft). Without the disciplinary document there is no explanation of what reasons and how a member could be disciplined and lose their flying privileges, change aircraft registration or how to appeal a decision if it is deemed to not be fair. Ian's experience is a case in point. Also, whilst the constitution has now been updated so the directors must provide a reason for the rejection of an application to become a member there is no appeal process to have the application reviewed if rejected. While some people feel the comments are directed at the current board and whilst the current people may be good, this may not be the case in the future and a smaller board can much more easily lose the plot putting members flying and aircraft ownership benefits at risk. All we have as members are the rights in the constitution, policies and operations/technical manuals to protect what we need to fly. Relying on a special meeting to overthrow a disfunctional board should not be required to fix a problem that can be avoided by having good policy and management oversight ensrigned in the key constitutional, policy and operational documents. How can we vote yes to something that is not complete when your ability to fly and value of a member's aircraft are at risk based on the say of whatever CEO and/or directors and the interpretation of procedural fairness in the future may be? The constitution should not be pushed through just so it can be completed by the May meeting.

Don and Tony - thank you for participating in the discussions on the proposed RAA constitution. I believe this is of great assistance to members to consult and gain support for the proposed changes. I wish more of the board would openly participate to assist members consultation. It is not a matter that the proposed constitution document is just better than the current, the proposed document needs to be acceptable and in the best interests of the members. It is far better to get it right than implement a new constitution that has issues for RAA and members and try to fix it up later. Time is tight before the vote in a few weeks when there are areas that need to be addressed to reach the final copy to vote on. My major concern with the proposed constitution and it may be accommodated in other documents such as the member's charter and disciplinary processes (and if so it should be referenced and presented together) is the approval, discipline and removal of membership. The explanation in the supporting notes refers to a fair and equitable disciplinary process with open and fair reporting BUT the constitution allows the board to reject a membership application without explanation or expel a member under the dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures for cause that has not been defined. These need to be addressed much better and ensure independent right of appeal to ensure the stated fairness. This is a critical area of concern since I must be a member of RAA in order to utilise the rights of the pilot certificate and be allowed to fly an RAA registered aircraft. With no membership I can't fly or use the aircraft I own so any disciplinary action that puts my flying privileges at risk needs to be right and not just left to an expectation of 'fairness'.

Why does Recreational Aviation Australia not participate in an online forum to openly discuss ideas and issues? At the general meeting in Bundaberg I asked why the new web site did not accommodate a forum or use an existing forum for the RAA board and administration to participate in discussing issues with members. There was no interest. Occasionally this forum is frequented by the odd board member and sometimes they communicate what is happening within RAA although they regularly point out they aren't speaking for the board (although the position they would take is obvious when they sit in a board meeting). Sure, not all RAA members are on this forum but set up an official RAA section here and linked to the new web site will allow better consultation and interaction with the membership than without one. RAA is going through the biggest change in many years with the development of a new constitution and the CEO and board are relying on email (an occasional fly in and a badly proofed draft) to consult with members. They are trying to convince members to that they should support it but any suggestions need to be forwarded to the CEO with no ability for open discussion. The ability to openly discuss points of view or the formal position of the board and administration and the feeling and sentiment of members would greatly benefit understanding of what is happening across the wide membership base far better than a simple email or turning up to a fly in. Especially considering the new constitution is advocating for the removal of regional board representation. Why not use the technology available for consultation of RAA with members? It is great that the occasional board member does openly participate in this forum but it should be far more formalised with an official position taken.

Frank In my opinion after having just completed the RPL transfer along with the CTA and CTR was that they are not that different. My goal was to be able to access CTA/CTR if needed in my own aircraft but as a bonus be able to hire a 172 if I wanted to take more passengers. I already had a medical and ARN from learning out of Archerfield. I applied direct to CASA and got the license issued but needed to do the flight review and CTA/CTR endorsements but also the radio and nav so I would not have any restrictions if I hired a 172. CASA wouldn't issue me the radio endorsement because I had not done the English test. Laughable since all I did to get the English test passed was walk in and ask for the english test and they gave me the paper after taking my money. Doing time in a different heavier aircraft just needed a couple of flights to get used to it - no different to any other change of aircraft. The CTA and CTR was not that different since I learned to fly out of Archerfield - with a couple of flights into C and D airfields to get used to the ATC was all that was needed. A few hours on instruments was handy but not difficult. The biggest difference was the attitude of the GA instructors who had an air of superiority and elitism about them. After doing several flights with the RAA school who was in partnership with the GA school - The GA school kept changing the rules and requiring more flights and more theory tests. They made me do the full PPL theory test because they could then be sure all my theory was up to scratch. They also made me redo a radio theory test again because they thought the one I had done was not good enough - got 90% on their exam without studying. The GA instructor on the flight review made me do every single skill including cross country flight with diversions and lost flight procedures. It was a total of 2 flights and 6 hours. For what was meant to be a straight forward flight review and a couple of endorsements they made it very difficult. They just kept changing the rules and increasing the requirements - In the end I should have walked away but I just wanted to finish it. But really at the end of the day the only difference in flying skills and knowledge was a couple of flights into a C and D class airspace and airfields along with some time on instruments.

Though I am not sure a few litres of fuel qualifies to start a fire the size of Hiroshima. There was fuel in one of the tanks but it was not getting to the engine and fuel starvation does not count as an engine failure. By way of explanation - The Jabiru J160, J170 and J230 fuel tanks are set up with a small 5l header tank behind the seats or sound curtain fed from two 67.5l wing tanks. Total fuel is 140l with 135 useable. The wing fuel line is connected to one end of each of the wing tanks. If one wing is continuously held low, or flying out of balance, then when fuel drops below the fuel line there will be fuel still in the tank but it will be below the fuel line and not able to be transferred to the header tank. Also remember the wings are not level due to the dihedral so there is a natural low point at the wing root where the fuel line is anyway. When the fuel in the other tank is completely used and all the fuel in the header tank is completely used the engine is starved of fuel whilst there is still a small amount of fuel in the other wing tank being held away from the fuel line. The J170 would be running about 15l per hour so the 5l tank would last for 20 minutes on it's own. The aircraft needs to be flown with the ball not balanced for quite some time to not equalise the tanks or feed the header tank and the 'high' wing would need to have been completely drained and the header tank completely drained before running out of fuel. If you took off with low tanks and flew out of balance continuously then yes you can still have fuel onboard but not going to the engine. Remember what they say - straighten up and fly right...

One of the guys on the airfield I am at now was the person who recovered the aircraft and was the independent mechanic to inspect the #4 engine. His comments, repeated only last weekend, was the engine fired up and ran perfectly, as soon as they put fuel in it... I understood at the time (but I was not directly involved so only second hand) the avgas fuel problem for #2 and #3 was investigated by the fuel depots on site and whilst the lead content was 'within limits' it was at the high end but enough to cause the problems observed across the multiple aircraft, flight schools and owners.

Oscar - that is them. The first which happened in 2013 which whilst considered an engine failure came about as the result of incorrect maintenance. The only problem found with #2 and #3 was the lead fouling of the heads and valves. Switching to mogas resolved the problem - well except for #4 of course... The other aircraft affected across the airfield (a number of Cessna 172s etc.) had fouling issues so not just limited to Jabirus although my own also suffered from the fouling issues. Most of the aircraft just suffered from poor starting, black smoke and less than optimum performance.

The Jabiru engine incidents I know of and one of which is referred to by Bats are: J170 - flight training - engine failure due to incorrect installation of gudgen pin circlip following top end overhaul resulting in piston /valve failure - forced landing in open field J170 - flight training - lead fouling of exhaust valves leading to rough engine running - returned to airfield J170 - second aircraft with same problem as above on same day and same outcome - flight training - lead fouling of exhaust valves leading to rough engine running - returned to airfield J170 - flight training - took off with minimum fuel and with out of balance flight on approach to airfield the engine suffered fuel starvation and forced landing in a sports field I believe all the incidents above are recorded in RAA, CASA and probably the ATSB figures (can't be sure because they are not opening the raw figures up for interpretation). Whether they should be considered a 'failure' of the engine, poor maintenance, poor operation or poor fuel choice is how you and the authorities interpret the data and failure information. The 2 'engine failures' above due to lead valve fouling were from the use of Avgas. The two incidents were picked up before a full failure occurred but were recorded with RAA and subsequently CASA and ATSB. The instructor was rightly being cautious and aborted the flight to have the aircraft inspected by the LAME. At the time a large number of other aircraft on the airfield also had lead fouling issues - mainly plugs which needed to be cleaned. Due to the nature of the airfield used, the LAME opinion is that Jabiru engines will run too cool on taxi to and from runway and idling power for holding and landings the engines will build up lead on the head and valves leading to poor sealing and heat dispersal from the valves which will lead to valve failure if the head and valves are not cleaned somewhere in the 400-700 hours range. Mogas will run much cleaner but has a lower octane and is closer to the minimum required to avoid detonation but the fuel needs to be fresh to ensure it has not degraded below the minimum octane level. Each fuel has it's strengths and weaknesses - refer to Jabiru fuel guide. I personally use FRESH 98 mogas as I do not like the effect of lead.

The RAA Training syllabus requires the pilot to follow the Pilot Operating Handbook for the aircraft. The POH for the Jabiru - Pre-flight Inspections Step 1 Engine requires Check oil and Pull through engine checking compression of each cylinder and listening for any odd noises. If not conducted then the pilot is in breach of the POH and not adhering to the RAA standards requiring the pilot to follow the aircraft POH. And as far as being 2016 - Jabiru have made improvement to the engines with improved through bolts and valves as well as a move to roller cams to eliminate identified failure modes. Withstanding a long history of engines with a wide range of configuration since 1992 the ATSB report has not found a problem with the latest spec through bolts or roller cam valve train. Even using ATSB's figures at least 20% of the Jabiru engines in service have the larger 7/16 through bolt. So obviously not all Jabiru engines are the same. Operating within the manufacturers limitations and following their specified maintenance schedule and procedures is absolutely a requirement for ongoing successful operations.

I have just been going through the Jabiru engine maintenance manual checking for something else and found as part of the engine installation section 9.27 step 26, following the initial test flight, to "Check Head bolt tensions torqued per Table 10". Additionally, as per Special Maintenance sections 8.11 and 8.12 the head bolt tensions should be re-torqued at the 10 and 25 hour inspections. So the answer to your question is the engine head tensions should be checked after the first flight, 5 hours if solid lifter, 10 hours and 25 hours and then at each 50 hour inspection - not wait until 5 hours for the initial check. My experience is that the bottom bolts (where the failure occurred) need tensioning as the engine is run in. If head bolt tensions had not been checked since the engine has been shipped several years ago or after the initial flight then you can not eliminate a poor seal on the heads having led to the failure even if there is a recess on the sealing face.

Apologies - you obviously feel that it is a manufacturing flaw. I only comment because I am learning too and keen to find out as much as possible. I agree a pull through should pick up poor compression but maybe it isn't able to pick up a slight lack of sealing on the head but which is enough for the combustion gases to leak out. The Jabiru manual does call for a 10 hour special maintenance check (5 hours for a solid lifter) which requires a re-torque of the cylinder head bolts so no, not between 5 and 10 hours. Although Jabiru emphasises - For a new aircraft or one equipped with a new or overhauled engine the first few hours of operation are critical. During this time the engine must be monitored carefully in operation and during maintenance. This engine has been sitting around for several years and the Jabiru manual says an engine in storage needs to be reinhibited and inspected for corrosion every 90 days. The obvious signs of cylinder corrosion in this cylinder highlights an inherent problem prior to the test flights. Was the engine turned over to move the pistons during storage? What is the condition of the other cylinders? Not eliminating the possibility of a hot spot and localised heating you could be right. Jabiru would be far more knowledgeable to advise.

Oscar - At home now and I can see what you were looking at. I would say that is just rust. Scotty - It is possible there was tension at some stage but to me the molten metal over the cylinder-head sealing face would indicate to me it wasn't properly sealing and the head body and cooling fin just melted with the combustion. That is a lot of metal that has disappeared. Was the head tensioned prior to being run after the time in storage? How was compression on prop pull through prior to each of the flights? I am not a mechanic and am only going off what I have seen with my engine and what I saw in Bundaberg when I did the Jabiru engine course.

Oscar - are you talking about the silver between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock? It looks to me to be molten aluminium from the head. And my guess is the head was not properly tensioned to the cylinder face causing the hole and the burning across the face of the head cooling fin.

At the general meeting in Bundaberg I went a long way out of my way to attend and see what was going on and to hear what the the CEO, President and board had to say on the draft constitution and the other issue going on in RAAus. I found only one board member who was keen to engage in a discussion and the other board members off to one side in private discussion with each other. During the meeting, I asked a couple of questions regarding the proposed changes to the constitution, raised the need to be cautious of a board who nominates their replacements since it could form a bias against the broader member base and the potential of RAAus to engage with members better it was brushed off. I even tried after the meeting to have a chat with the president to say how I thought he was doing a good job and he blew me off so he could escape the room to have a beer with the other board members. The lack of desire of the board to engage in open discussion with their members and get direct feedback via a forum such as this site or on the RAAus site only encourages apathy. Kudos to Don to participate on this forum but why is it necessary to put somebody down when a they express their concern about the proposed constitutional changes. Hardly inspiring or encouraging of feedback and debate. I very much want RAAus to prosper and I tried to take an interest but I came away very disappointed with what I saw.

I just got a response to my email from Senator Barry O'Sullivan's Chief of Staff advising that despite the time limitations of the Senate Estimates last week, they are intent on continuing the discussions with CASA over the Jabiru restrictions to get the issue resolved. They have a briefing scheduled with CASA in two weeks time so hopefully CASA will finally be held to account for their actions, the data used to justify the restrictions and why it is a blanket restriction on all Jabiru engines regardless of age, version, use or maintenance standard. This is the most positive thing to happen since this whole saga started well over a year ago.

I have used Novus #2 on my windscreen to remove some small scratches with perfect results. https://www.novuspolish.com/fine_scratch_remover.html

Not being on the ground at Ballina I had to look it up myself since I didn't know they had a seperate atc frequency on the ground. I have been down that way a few times as it is nice to go to Evans Head. Nice spot and a F111 on display as a bonus. There can be a bit of chatter with Casino, Lismore, Ballina and Evans Head on the same ctaf but the times I have been down that way it has not been too bad. Once I have had a virgin RPT be a little shy with comms and whilst I was traveling north up the coast. I was holding to the south to let him take off but no response from him. I ended having to relay my intentions via atc.

124.2 is correct for the ctaf. 124.3 is shown in ersa as the ground frequency for Brisbane centre whilst 120.3 is the area frequency for Brisbane centre (in the air). The change of the bne cen ground frequency from 124.3 to 126.05 looks to provide better separation from the ctaf frequency.

Jabiru installed a Dynon D10 EMS in my aircraft on the right hand side of the panel with full CHT, EGT, oil temp, oil pressure, fuel level and fuel flow and tacho. They removed the analog tacho and the engine gauges. It is a neat installation and does a great job of monitoring the engine with history recording function. They did say they were looking at some of the MGL instruments but were waiting for some more information.

You are aware that 24 registered aircraft are allowed and are currently operating in controlled airspace. You don't even need a transponder for class D. And nearly 1,000 RAAus pilots have been trained in controlled airspace (mostly Class D). Once trained these same pilots are restricted from continuing to operate from those same airfields until they cross over and get a RPL/PPL with minimal extra training - really only some time under the hood and fly into a class C airspace and airport for good measure. Why not just have an additional 600-1500 class managed by RAAus and a CTA access endorsement for pilots with additional requirements (where necessary) that does not need to reflect on the other aircraft classes or pilots not interested in going into class C/D airspace? Maybe (and I don't think it is necessary) stricter medical, additional training and appropriate costs being applied to just those that are in that class and wanting those privileges. Additional revenue from additional pilots and aircraft will help offset the current costs. If you only fly rag and tube then there should be no additional costs or medical/other requirements. Separate the costs to the specific privileges where the costs are not reflective of the use. No need for rag and tube to pay the same costs as a higher class if the costs to support each are not the same. Given that many of the services provided by CASA and Air Services are already funded by airlines (really the public flying passengers) and through the taxes on avgas all those using avgas in RAAus are already paying for something they can't use. Where additional costs are necessary to cover services used then the user of those services should pay (reasonable costs).

I am all for improving safety - the key is to drive positive behaviours. Encouraging people to pull up bad behaviours and helping educate others of what they should be doing safer. So now it's time to back up the safety launch with the elimination of bad practices that are leading to accidents and deaths. It does not work if people are undertaking and encouraging unsafe behaviour and breaches of regulations such as low level flights and incorrect circuit procedures.

When you are consciously thinking - "keep right", "turn right on roundabouts" etc it is okay driving on the opposite side than what you are used to - as long as you have not overstressed your mental capacity and ability to maintain the rational thought process. The danger comes when you are distracted as the result of an emergency when rational thought is replaced by the programmed automated response. I know of cases where people driving in the foreign country have ended up crossing into oncoming traffic as a result of you have a problem such as a tyre bursting because the instinctive response was to pull left (as you do in Australia) . Same with flying - you need to train the muscles to react instinctively during an emergency. The problem comes when the response is different in different aircraft and you are constantly changing. If the response is the same then there is no problem but if the response is different then problems or delays may occur which could have catastrophic consequences. Hence why most systems, especially those needed in an emergency, should be standardised. No problem for most of the time but for low time pilots with limited experience it could be a concern in an emergency where an automated response is necessary. The more experience you have and better familiarity with the aircraft the more automated the response becomes and the problem becomes less of an issue since you are more able to adapt to the different environments.

When you are consciously thinking - "keep right", "turn right on roundabouts" etc it is okay driving on the opposite side than what you are used to - as long as you have not overstressed your mental capacity and ability to maintain the rational thought process. The danger comes when you are distracted as the result of an emergency when rational thought is replaced by the programmed automated response. I know of cases where people driving in the foreign country have ended up crossing into oncoming traffic as a result of you have a problem such as a tyre bursting because the instinctive response was to pull left (as you do in Australia) . Same with flying - you need to train the muscles to react instinctively during an emergency. The problem comes when the response is different in different aircraft and you are constantly changing. If the response is the same then there is no problem but if the response is different then problems or delays may occur which could have catastrophic consequences. Hence why most systems, especially those needed in an emergency, should be standardised. No problem for most of the time but for low time pilots with limited experience it could be a concern in an emergency where an automated response is necessary. The more experience you have and better familiarity with the aircraft the more automated the response becomes and the problem becomes less of an issue since you are more able to adapt to the different environments.

I saw someone take off from Caboolture a couple of weekends ago do a right hand turn at 200ft over the highway before shooting off downwind at 400ft (and it was not a low performance aircraft). My comment was 'there goes a future fatal crash...' Rules that are trying to keep people from having a problem too close to the ground to recover from and killing themselves and their passengers. should not be waved away with an optimistic shrug of the shoulders. With the current death rate of 1 a month it makes sense to do the right thing and give yourself plenty of room above the ground especially when doing a slow turn close to the ground when taking off or landing. So no - I would not consider a circuit, turn onto cross wind or turn onto finals at a low height good airmanship nor a good example to set for other pilots. It is a risk you just don't have to take. A 500ft circuit is okay for a low performance aircraft as defined as ultralights and rotary wing with a maximum speed of approximately 55KT. There is however something wrong and illegal about turning final at 200ft, as shown in the AIP ENR, RA-Aus Operations Manual and CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 extracts below. AIP ENR 41.1 Circuit Information 41.1.4 During the initial climb-out the turn onto crosswind should be made appropriate to the performance of the aircraft, but in any case not less than 500FT (CAR 166A(2)(f)), so as to be at circuit height when turning downwind. 41.3 Circuit Height 41.3.1 When operating at non-controlled aerodromes, the following circuit heights are recommended: High performance - includes jets and many turbo-prop air- craft, above approximately 150KT, 1,500FT AGL; Medium performance - includes most piston engine aircraft, between approximately 55KT and 150KT, 1,000FT AGL; Low performance - ultralights and rotary wing with a maximum speed of approximately 55KT, 500FT AGL (Refer to diagram at 48.5). 48.5 Circuit Entry 48.5.6 When on the final leg, confirm the runway is clear for landing. The turn onto final approach should be completed by a distance and height that is common to the operations at the particular aerodrome and commensurate with the speed flown in the circuit for the aircraft type. In any case, the turn onto final should be completed by not less than 500FT above aerodrome elevation. This should allow sufficient time for pilots to ensure the runway is clear for landing. It will also allow for the majority of aircraft to be stabilised for the approach and landing. RA-AUS Operations Manual LOW LEVEL ENDORSEMENT (LL) 9. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as pilot in command below 500FT AGL unless: a. the aeroplane is operated in accordance with the requirements set out in CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55, under “Provisions relating to flight height limitations”; and b. holds a RA-Aus Low Level (LL) Endorsement. CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 (more or less say the same thing) Provisions relating to flight height limitations 8.1 An aeroplane, to which this Order applies, may be flown at a height of less than 500 feet above ground level, or 300 feet in the case of a powered parachute, if: (a) the aeroplane is flying in the course of actually taking off or landing; or (b) the aeroplane is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or Federal Register of Legislative Instruments F2011L00615 Page 9 of 10 pages © the owner or occupier (including the Crown) of the land, or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight to take place at such a height; or (d) the pilot of the aeroplane is engaged in flying training and the aeroplane is flying over a part of a flying training area over which CASA has, under subregulation 141 (1) of CAR 1988, authorised low flying. 8.2 Except when taking off or landing, an aeroplane flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level, or 300 feet in the case of a powered parachute, must be at a distance of at least 100 metres horizontally from: (a) a public road; or (b) a person other than a person associated with the operation of the aeroplane; or © a dwelling, except with the permission of the owner or occupier. 8.3 When taking off or landing, an aeroplane flown at a height lower than 500 feet above ground level, or 300 feet in the case of a powered parachute, must, during the take-off or landing, maintain a horizontal distance from a place or person referred to in subparagraph 8.2 (a), (b) or © that may be less than 100 metres but is: (a) enough to avoid endangering any person or causing damage to any property; and (b) as far as possible from such a place or person, having regard to carrying out a safe take-off or landing.