01rmb

The size of the cash/asset reserves are irrelevant unless there is a strategy and business plan defining what the reserves should be. Too little and there is the risk of not being able to pay bills/liabilities, too much and the members are paying too much for the services they receive. If operational costs exceed operational revenues then the reserves are just being depleted and measures should be taken to address this. If reserves are used to reduce operational costs in future years then that could be a good investment in the future running of the business. The talk of legal cases being the reason for the reserve needs to be addressed in the business case and adequately allowed for in the insurance coverage as well as the reserves rather than retain and build up reserves “just in case”. A lawyer would be better qualified to comment but in my experience in another high risk recreational industry where legal cases are fairly common - the instructing and certifying bodies needs to demonstrate that the course curriculum and standards are appropriate, the instructor/examiner needs to demonstrate that they have followed the curriculum and standards (no more – no less) and the participants need to demonstrate that they acted within the privileges allowed in the standards. If all is met with no negligence as a reasonable person would, then there is no case. Having been intimately involved in a coronial case where this was tested, the civil case was closed without issue because each party was able to demonstrate they complied with the standards and test of what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances. Insurance should be used to manage the liability risks and pay the legal costs required to demonstrate this in court. Holding a reserve just in case of legal action is self insurance and generally a doubtful practice unless there is a strong case for it and intimate knowledge of what may happen. If the board is not confident in the pilot certifying or aircraft licensing process/standards then it needs to address this rather than just squirrel money away just in case somebody were to take RA-Aus to court. The business plan should address all of (and more): · What should the reserves be $1m or $10m? · How much insurance should be held? · What are the incomes and expenses for the business and how do you make sure incomes are higher than expenses? · How should RA-Aus invest the reserves in better systems, building, airfield or hanger? Operationally, the RA-Aus administration team needs to take care of the systems, process and standards to deliver on the strategy and business plan whilst working within the income/expense constraints. As I asked earlier – who does the CEO and board work for? It was a rhetorical question; I know the answer was the members. It is obvious this has not been the case for a number of years and there have been some genuine attempts recently at fixing this with new appointments but the fact that RA-Aus is a member association should never be lost on the CEO and individual.

Seems to be a bit of an over reaction to me but it aligns with the anti Jabiru sentiment within RA Aus and some members of the board as displayed by the CEO's press statement following the recent forced landing of an aircraft (that had nothing to do with the engine) vowing to sort out the problems with Jabiru. Why nothing from Jabiru and nothing from CASA (they have registered Jabiru and Jabiru powered aircraft)? And if it is so critical, why not email me rather the AD rather than put it on a web site which has no reason for me to go to . We are all keen to improve safety so sure check it at the next service but why before next flight? Are we going to have this every time somebody finds some minor problem? It isn't a conspiracy if they are actually out to get you!!

The Jabiru is a great aircraft. The engine works well but has quite fine tolerances that can cause problems if they are exceeded. Exhaust valves, through bolts and piston rings seem to have the biggest problems possibly related to heat/cooling, oil contamination and fuel related causes. Proper maintenance, vigilance and servicing seems to be the key to prevent or pick up most of these problems. Some people have no problems, some have a few problems and a few have lots of problems. It would be great if there were no problems whatsoever but everything is made to fit within a set of compromises of price, weight and reliability. I believe that a few key things go a long way to avoiding the majority of problems. With better investigation of the actual cause of the problems somebody may even be able to prove it.

The key issue for me is - who does the RA-Aus CEO work for? If not for the members then who? If the CEO is not engaging and listening to the people he works for then how does he know if he is doing the right thing? If he works for the board, then how do they engage with the members? If the CEO is making decisions then maybe he would be better served to know what the people in the organisation he is meant to be representing actually want. The new email circulars are a great way to send information out and the surveys are an attempt to gather information but it is only on a specific topic and potentially has a biased agenda. A forum like this and even better one on the RA AUS web site would provide a critical source of member's issues, desires and general sentiment. Times have changed and RA-Aus needs to move on. Forums and social media are way more accurate mechanisms to engage with the people who each have an opinion on what matters to them rather than have a board representative that was voted in by only a few members and may not have any contact with anyone outside his personal circle of friends. Surely this forum or one specifically set up for the purpose would get a far better representation than the current board concept.

The kit is sold by Jabiru. If I recall correctly it is about $200. It is a simple install to replace one of the existing mags (keep for a spare). The only problem I have had with cold starts is when the choke cable was loose and not adding choke when needed.

Like most things - you get what you pay for...

I can not fault the Funkwerk - it has been extremely good to use. I got mine here http://store.swiftavionics.com.au/funkwerk-atr833-vhfoled-transceiver/

I have swapped my MicroAir 760 transceiver over to a Funkwerk ATR833-OLED radio-intercom and added a Funkwerk TRT800H-OLED Mode-S transponder-encoder. The radio has a built in intercom but I kept the PS ENGINEERING PM500EX intercom unit. http://www.funkeavionics.de/17.html It works great and is easy to use with both the transceiver and transponder using similar user interface. The transceiver also has memories that you can program with actual descriptions which makes it easy to switch between frequencies. They fit in a standard 2.25" instrument panel hole. The OLED lighting is very clear and is very easy to read. The Funkwerk transceiver and transponder are vastly superior quality to the MicroAir units. Great german engineering. If you hunt around I got mine at a great price locally.

Under the new Part 61 flight flight crew training and licensing regulation http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_101937 Who can conduct a flight review? A flight instructor with a grade 1 or 2 training endorsement can conduct an aircraft class or type rating flight review for an aircraft they are authorised to fly. A flight instructor with a training endorsement for a rating can conduct a flight review for that rating. Simulator instructors can also conduct flight reviews in flight simulation training devices approved for that purpose. CASA can authorise a person to conduct a flight review. For example, there might be a special situation where there is no flight instructor with the right authorisations available and there is a specific operational need for the review to be undertaken. A pilot conducting a flight review must be authorised to fly the type of aircraft being used for the flight review. If the review is for an operational rating, the pilot must also be authorised to conduct training for that rating.

The Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate limits you to one passenger. The Class 2 allows you to carry more than one passenger. I understand the flight review just has to be an instructor. Likewise the endorsements for controlled airspace and controlled aerodromes can be issued by an instructor after undergoing aeronautical knowledge examination for the endorsement and completing the flight training. Who is doing the instruction for those? Don't know yet but am hoping that a suitable GA school sees the opportunity and does it without screwing the RA Aus crowd or a RA Aus instructor adds GA instructor qualifications to allow them to do it. The RPL is just a paperwork exercise but the endorsements and flight review are the problem if the GA instructors are not going to play ball. Forms below to transition from RA Aus to RPL with endorsements and flight review http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-1ra.pdf http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-1re.pdf http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-9fr.pdf http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/fcl/form61-9pic.pdf

rhysmcc has got everything I feel is needed in a regular email update. There is currently no communication on the web site and little of what is really going on and what is being done to solve problems in the monthly magazine.

I was curious about the AFR/BFR question. According to the new Flight Crew Licensing a flight review is required every 24 months for aircraft class and type ratings Aircraft class rating: every 24 months Aircraft type rating: every 24 months Private instrument flight rules rating: every 24 months Night visual flight rules rating: every 24 months Low level rating: every 12 months. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100191/rr61_aircraft_class_ratings_fs2.pdf On the original question, I would figure it is okay to do the flight review in a CASA or RAA registration aircraft if it is considered to be of the same type. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100191/rr61_aircraft_type_rating_fs.pdf 61.800 Limitations on exercise of privileges of pilot type ratings—flight review (1) The holder of a pilot type rating is authorised to exercise the privileges of the rating as the pilot in command of an aircraft only if the holder has, within the previous 24 months, successfully completed a flight review for the rating in accordance with subregulation (2). (2) For subregulation (1), the flight review must be conducted in: (a) an aircraft of the type covered by the rating; or (b) an approved flight simulator for that type of aircraft. (3) The holder is taken to meet the requirements of subregulation (1) if the holder: (a) has passed a flight test for the rating within the previous 24 months; or (b) has successfully completed an operator proficiency check that covers operations in the aircraft type within the previous 24 months; or ....

It was nothing to do with the engine. It was a fuel starvation issue - with an amount of fuel left in a wing tank when the aircraft is flown with that wing low. Like Nat King Cole said - "Straighten up and fly right".

And this is the problem. The manufacturer complies with the standards but the standards don't reflect the environment and thus problems are occurring. Run the engines at full power within specification is proven to not be a problem - but in real life usage incidents are occurring. It could be fixed with a 'better' engine design (but how given the limitations), maybe a different fuel choice, possibly an additive to remove the problem, handling practices that help alleviate the idling time or maybe a different maintenance practice/schedule to accommodate the consequences of the design, fuel and actual usage. Jabiru went some way there with changing the recommended oil change schedule due to contamination of the oil from the left over lead in the fuel. A 300 hour head removal and valve clean is dramatic but it may be needed if there is a certain level of idling time when avgas is used. Certainly better than a forced landing in a suburban street... Problems are not occurring for everyone and that is the point - what are the differences that are causing problems? And I don't believe it is just user maintenance or poor handling at fault!

It was cylinder 4 of a 3300. Cylinder 3 was well on the way but all the other heads were fouled as well but without valve problems. Compression dropped quickly and started to not idle as smooth as it normally does. Cleaning the heads and replacing the valves sorted it out. The use of the aircraft typically requires a bit of idling due to the nature of the airport which requires a fairly long taxi before and after flight exasperating the problem. A number of other aircraft at the site had similar issues which were solved by running mogas. This is my explanation on lead fouling from earlier http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/another-engine-failure.118777/page-2#post-429839. Fouling can occur around the plugs and only cause the engine to run rough but it does also occur around the exhaust valves as well. With engines with lower design tolerances it won't make much of a difference but with the Jabiru engine's critical fine tolerances it makes a big difference and quickly. This is why I feel that the typical engine tests where the engine is run at full power does not take into account the real world usage and is hiding some operational issues that are only getting picked up on the fields.

I have raised this before (see http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/another-engine-failure.118777/page-3#post-431173). In my case, if not for being picked up during the 300 hr service I would have had a full engine failure, possibly in flight, due to the exhaust valve stem breaking off inside the cylinder. The problem was traced to burning of the exhaust valve and stem as a result of lead fouling from avgas preventing a proper seal of the valve. This inhibited cooling of the exhaust valve leading to the valve being burnt away exposing the valve stem to the combustion heat which within a few more hours would have broken off. I would not have expected CHT to pick up this problem only EGT. Identified, fixed and no longer using avgas with no further issue.

It appears that Michael Linke was quoted as saying that there were "safety concerns about Jabirus" and that "they had written to CASA about this particular type of aircraft so we've advised them that crashes have happened once too often" rather than the reporter simply misinterpreting safety as being "one crash is a crash too often" so I stand by what I said and I believe he overstepped the mark and the board should pull him back in line. Not slanderous but certainly denigrating and as the representative of the organisation I am a member of as a pilot and an aircraft owner of the type that is being commented on, I expect better of him in his public presentation of the recreational aircraft industry he represents.

Which is all why he should have just said "we are investigating the cause and will make comment following a full investigation". As a lawyer he should know better... For me - he needs to make a statement clarify his position because I am very unimpressed by his reported actions in publicly denigrating and devaluing my aircraft and I question his ability to do the job if this is how he operates. He represents the recreational aviation industry to the public, including pilots and manufacturers and he needs to get it right.

Yes - my original comment was too brief, I was just trying to communicate that Oscar's earlier point about the weather conditions was not being picked up on and that carby icing was not being considered a possibility in this discussion as opposed to the mantra that jabiru engines are always to blame. To make it worse our new CEO managed to make a hash of it in the press and went off half cocked by blaming the aircraft manufacturer without all the evidence being analysed. As I clarified later - it was not just the cold being considered but also the dew point and the humidity plus the likely throttle position that could lead one to believe that carby icing was a possibility especially since the engine ran smoothly later when tested.

We probably get a bit lazy here in Queensland with thinking about carby icing because it is generally warm but maybe (and we need the true cause to be known to be sure) this is a lesson that you can not ever be complacent with anything when you are flying.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/pilots/download/carburettor_icing_chart.pdf I was being brief and just saying it was cold. A full analysis considering the dew point and humidity conditions as quoted by Oscar plus the fact he would have been on a decent from 1500' (another 3 degrees cooler) on a final approach descending with an idling engine (he was less than 4nm from the threshold) - he would have been in the serious carby icing conditions at all power settings according to the attached CASA carburettor icing chart.

On the subject of fuel starvation - before everyone totally buries the pilot for flying with empty tanks - at that time of day with the early morning cool temperature on a 3 mile final decent I would think that carby icing could be a possibility. It still should be a manageable situation.

As is the case with a lot of what is reported in the press, people jump to conclusions way too early and get it way too wrong way too often. I am disappointed that our new RAAus CEO has dropped Jabiru in the deep end and held their head under water by bad mouthing them in the media after only a few weeks in the job. He has not done Jabiru or any Jabiru owner any good by trashing them in public rather than dealing with any possible problem with engine reliability in private. Personally I would like to see him sort out the administrative mess that is the aircraft registration system before running around saying things in the papers especially if as in this case it was factually incorrect to blame the aircraft.

I got a H3R Halon Fire Extinguisher A344T from SkyShop Australia for $225. I only had to provide the aircraft rego and the name of a friendly lame 2. He didn't need to install it. It sits behind my seat in handy reach. Not cheap but there is nothing like halon if I need to stop smoke!

I am and the other aircraft are using Shell 98 with no issues. I understand that some of the earlier tanks and possibly fuel lines were not suited to mogas so you would need to confirm. It is a pain having to fill up with jerry cans but it sure beats the problems and expense that were being experienced when using avgas.