Vev

What a great headline ... I wish we could say the same for light aircraft.

Just one of the lessons here about reducing deaths has come from more transparency, proactivity and cooperation ... may be we could all benefit from more timely release of information regarding RAA accidents, so that, we as individuals, can at least improve awareness and take steps to make our flying safer.

Cheers

Vev

2012 the safest year for flying since 1945

Flying on a commercial jetliner has never been safer. Yesterday marked four years since the most recent fatal crash in the United States, a span unmatched there since propeller planes gave way to the jet age more than half a century ago. Worldwide, last year was the safest since 1945, with 23 deadly accidents and 475 fatalities, according to the Aviation Safety Network, an accident researcher. That was fewer than half the 1,147 deaths in 42 crashes in the year 2000. In the last five years, the death risk for passengers in the US has been one in 45 million flights, according to professor of statistics Arnold Barnett at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There are many reasons for this. Planes and engines have become more reliable. Advanced navigation and warning technology has sharply reduced once-common accidents such as mid-air collisions or crashes into mountains in poor visibility. Regulators, pilots and airlines now share much more information about flying hazards, with the goal of preventing accidents rather than just reacting to them. And when crashes do occur, passengers are now more likely to survive. "The lessons of accidents used to be written in blood, where you had to have an accident, and you had to kill people to change procedures, or policy, or training," said Deborah Hersman, the chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). "That's not the case anymore. We have a much more pro-active approach to safety." The grounding of the Boeing 787 fleet last month illustrates this new era of caution. The last time a fleet was grounded was 1979, after a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 crashed shortly after take-off at O'Hare Airport in Chicago, killing 273 people. The 787s, by contrast, were grounded after two episodes involving smoking batteries in which no one was hurt and no planes were lost. [NYT] [The Straits Times] [The Business Times]

I feel the meeting ended with an attitude of lets try and work together and that some of the previous posts here doesn't really reflect the true 'feeling' that was present at the meeting at the end. I suppose it is just the nature of communicating in writing compared to have been there.

Many thanks for reporting your thoughts on the outcome.

Whilst I didn't attend the meeting, I have been, like most, very interested in seeing how all of this would end. Over the past months members have had the chance to make their concerns heard and yesterday formally register their disappointment and desires to move our association forward into a better place.

I read a President Lincoln speech the other day and he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" ... whist he was talking about much lofter issues than good governance of the RAA, it still ,never the less, remains truism for all groups, parties and associations.

I think the members have now arrived at a fork in the road, that is, we can bring down the house and start again, as some have suggested, or we can rebuild the one we have. I'm in the later camp of rebuilding and working with what we had started 30 years ago and make it better.

I think its time to be constructive and do all that we can to help and encourage those that have genuinely steeped up to the plate to rebuild.... it's easy to be critical and find fault but this is of low value input, the enduring value comes from positive input and support.

Your reported view of "lets try and work together" is just what we all need now ... lets hope that all, if not most, can work to that ethos for here on out and make OUR association the best it can be.

Cheers'

Vev

Wow. Yiour the first person ive seen operating these .. How are the acft going?

They are fun to fly ... they jump off the ground ... next time you escape Nowra and head South come for a fly with me.

What's happened to the 0-200D ? ( Continental).. They were made brand new. Lightened version of the older model. Nev

Cheers

Vev

David: Talking about Jab engines. We operate Jabs in the flying school where I work and I own a J160. We often get soft pots and there is no way we could pull heads off every time that happens. Sometimes a hard run will return compression and sometimes not. We just have to take our chances.

I don't think one needs to pull a head off every time you find a soft pot but you do need to investigate why.

In the example you have used about compression going up after a hard run, it could still mean there is a serious problem. I have seen on a number of Jab engines rings stuck in their groves owing to carbon build up, often from burnt oil as opposed to blow by from combustion. The burnt oil can also often be seen on the underside of the piston crown, which is a sure sign of over heating. If a stuck ring is left unchecked it can cause ring breakage, bore scoring and piston ring land break up and of course an engine failure. I still maintain you need to find out what is wrong and simply not take chances.

Cheers

Vev

Vev, that is exactly how we found the "soft" cylinder in our J160 at 160 hours.

In my experience I have found the pull-thru very useful and a part of my pre-flight safety procedure .. whilst it won't tell you what is wrong it allows you to investigate.

9/10 times pulling the top end off a soft pot will save your wallet heaps.. it will also, in all probability, prevent a catastrophic failure in flight.

Cheers

Vev

With hydraulic lifters they "hide" a problem till it's bigger. Nev.

Cheers

Vev

Whoohoo.....mine's on the list.

I'm still grounded, I'm sooo over this!

The lack of any transparency or indication of when is very frustrating and even more so when I see others get renewals and in shorter time... I'm just waiting for them to ask for more stuff they already have and lost.

Cheers

Vev

I watched this video today and thought it worth sharing ... a simple question and answered simply well I thought.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1772099407

Cheers

Vev

Strictly speaking EP oils are only needed on hypoid bevel gears. An oil meeting GL-5 would be ok Thicker oils may not be needed and may only cause a bit more oil drag . It's not a critical lube situation, but don't expect an engine oil to do it. Nev

Cheers

Vev

It the guys at Brumby in Cowra .. Talk to Phil or Paul.

cheers

Vev

I saw this on the Jabiru site regarding US accident rates in LSA's... it looks like the old Jab has less accidents than some may suggest according to this data?

http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/LSA_AccidentChart.pdf

Cheers

vev

Hi Phil,

I can't comment about your experience in your industry .. however in my industry, being the oil biz, most products and basically all engine lubes are made to meet or exceed an agreed spec and tested to industry agreed test programmes.

There are some smaller oil or additive companies that do make some claims that are hard to pin down as they are not measured against recognised test programmes... some work some don't.

Whilst I can sense your scepticism ... a formal recommendation by a major oil company (not a sales rep or some good intentioned retailer) is underpinned with millions of dollars and thousands of hours of testing. There may well be better products out there that may work well or even better, however it's a game of Russian Roulette to try something not recommended, approved or tested .. believe me I have seen the other side of the "when things go wrong".

If I was given a clean sheet to design a new lube for a specific aircraft engine I suspect it would look a little different, however if you wanted the same lube to be backward compatible with other products and tolerate top ups and work in 85% of all aero engines and also meet the OEM performance requirements, you may not end up with something not a lot different. Often you can improve the performance of a lube very simply but then make it fail in another area when you chemically push it over the edge ... there is a lot of balance to get a lube to meet all the performance requirements.... I often see this happen when people put their own additives into a lube and unwittingly damage another performance characteristic.

Whilst the perception that aero lubes have not progressed is not true either ... new additives, better more stable base oil and better manufacturing and test programmes has improved old formulations a long way.

As for testing, suggesting an air cooled motorcycle caught in traffic test as a good proof of product performance is not something I would want to use to risk anyones life on for an aero lube. Testing is done by dedicated people following exact recognised processes which gets repeated over and over again before any field tested can be considered ... bwt, this also includes test progrmmes to make sure motorcycles lubes can tolerate traffic jams, albeit we don't park motorcycles in traffic but we do simulate it at first then do the field trials in the real world. However just making a motorcycle lubes not thermally crack in traffic is just one performance issue ... making it shear stable to work in the gearbox, not allow the clutch to slip, clean the engine, hold soot in suspension to get caught in the filter, not turn into foam, provide corrosion protection, absorb acids, maintain viscosity, give proper anti-wear protection etc etc are just a few and all are important.

I agree there is always room to improve and develop new technology ... this is evolutionary process and people are always looking at the next new piece of technology, it will come, but it takes many years to get this over the line safely.

In terms of aero engine lubes selection for myself ... I only trust what is approved and recommended by major oil companies and the OEMs... however I will select a multigrade over a mono grade if it is approved.

Multigrades can do all that a monos can but a monos can't multitask as well.

Cheers

Vev

Guys,

You really need to be careful when comparing Aviation octanes to Mogas ... Mogas measured differently to aviation fuels. You also need to be aware that US Mogas is also reported differently to Aust mogas.

A very rough but simple conversion +\- a few octane :

US mogas to Aus mogas add 5 octane

Avgas to Aust Mogas add 10 octane

This is not exact but will give you a feel for the magnitude

As for using automotive engine lubes or additive packs ... There is so much complex chemistry behind designing an engine lube, you will be playing Russian roulette by departing from the manufactures spec. .. Just don't do it. If a major oil company recommends a product you can be assured its has been careful designed and tested to do the job and meet all the OEM performance specs.

Cheers

Vev

Please be careful with bold statements about private use and hire and reward.Please find me the regulation that says you can't use an on condition engine in a flying school? If that was the case then most 2-stroke Thrusters and similar would be grounded given their 300? hour TBO.

 

I also understand that GA aircraft can be used on-condition for awk or flying school operations but not in Charter category.

 

If someone definitively knows if this is incorrect please say so or forever hold your peace!

Hi Error,

May I ask you to turn your question around 180 deg.. can you demonstrate where in the Reg it says you can run on condition in a flying school for reward in RAA?.

cheers

Vev

Hiya Vev,. . . . . .Sorry to be a nitpicking git, BUT ( oh dear, he's going to be anyway. . . . sigh . . .)

 

You're talking about TBR ( time before rebuild, ) and using the wrong initials. TBO actually means ( or it does when I have to do it ) T - ime B - efore O - my God, that's going to cost a $hitload of bucks . . . sob . . . . . ( or was it, Overhaul. . . . I dunno, my brain hurts. . . )

 

Phil

LoL ... No problems mate ... I should have used the right words for the acronym.

TBO = Time Before Overhaul = 5hitload of bucks as you put it so well.

Cheers

Vev

i,m confused Vev... what do u mean by çalendar life?

Rotax engines have a use by date, i.e. 10, 12 years etc this depends on the model. They also have a TBO time before rebuild.

Lets say you have an engine that has a TBO of 1500 hours but has only done 800 hours in use ... but it 15 years old and has a 12 year calendar life.

The question is can you continue to run this engine past its calendar life or not and is there any limitations, that is, private or airwork?

Cheers

Vev

The overhaul is due whenever either the calendar life expires or the hours limit is reached (whichever is reached first)The routine servicing is the same - due at 100 hours or 12 months whichever is first.

Cheers

 

John

So you are saying there is no option to run a Rotax engine on condition beyond its calendar life despite how many TBO hours it has in the bank be it private or hire?

Cheers

Vev

If a 912 is still running very well and inside TBO, say 800 hrs .. what is the importance of TTIS as it reachers its calendar life?

Can this engine be used in a hire and reward situation or is it now limited to private use or is it all over and ready for an overhaul?

Cheers

Vev

Spark Plug Maintenance ... some good info on this video from the EAA on how to service them properly and increase the life of your aviation spark plugs.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2050031304001

Cheers

Vev

The best way of preventing maintenance errors is the military way.But is wouldnt work due to cost in the civilian arena. Ie- Technician does the job & signs that he/she has completed the task IAW a section of the maintenance manual , Progressive inspectors - inspects the work of the techo then if satified, they sign off the job . If it is a critical maintenance task eg- Flight control job.The a 3rd person inspects the job .Known as a independant inspector. With up to 3 different peeps inspecting a maintenance task.Having said all this- Working on airliners ,choppers or fast jets.The jobs are bigger & more involved than your run of the mill LSA or cessna type. Getting a second guy to look over your work is a great idea.They may find something that you have missed.

http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/KIyYK9oz9Go&autoplay=1&showinfo=0

It's a catch 22. If you dont bring in your a/c for maintenance you will be flying dangerously and if you do, then you can be flying dangerously by mistakes made in the maintenance. This danger factor can be multiplied by 4 if the a/c is amature homebuilt and maintained by owner. Homebuilt a/c produce 4 times more fatalities. [statistics obained from reliable source]

Great if you can share these statistics ... sounds a bit high

Cheers

Vev

Thanks Ian, looking fwd to it back up and running again ... However, firstly, enjoy the family and catch some fish.

Cheers

vev

Hi IB,

Happy New Year

Just wondering how you are going getting your Pemet site functioning again?

Lot of people is missing your sensible approach

Cheers

Vev

I listend to the attached re air accidents/incidents after aircraft have undergone maintenance ... some good messages about the extra care required in undertaking a proper a test flight after maintenance.

It's a bit long but worth the investment in time to get things right while you are still on the ground.

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=2016238711001

Cheers

Vev