Nobody

FFS!!! We have enough CASA rules without making up more fictional ones. Which part of the CASA rules says what you have said above?

They didnt completely leave out the VW engines. They are there in figure 2 with 4 reported failures for "Volkswagen" and 2 for "Revmaster". They did make the point that failures by engines other than the major 4 makers(Jabiru, Rotax, Lycoming and Continential) only represent about 6% of the failures and so wernt included in the detailed analysis.

Flying an aircraft to a flyin for the purposes of display is not a commercial operation under CASR206 that I linked to above. Taking a stock of bolts to sell at the flyin would be.

JEM, Do you have a link to the Jabiru response? I cant see anything on their website under news.

Jetjr, The difficulty with comparing by serial number/model is that it may not necessarily represent the full state of the engine. Jabiru have issued changes to throughbolts and lifters and these may have been applied to engines in the field. The other thing is that there are potentially some configurations that do not have a large number of samples out in the field. Comparing by manufacturer isnt perfect but I can understand why the ATSB have done that.

I think that we need to be careful to not invent rules that dont exist. Have a read of CASR 206. Nothing in it prevents a plumber from flying out to a site with his tools. There is nothing stopping you from returning from a feild day with your purchases. The rules arnt great but they arn't as restrictive as some here believe. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s206.html

Perhaps we need three. One pro jabiru, one anti jabiru and one to actually discuss the issue?

'Oscar, I am not sure where you get the 1/1000 hours for safe fatigue life. AC 23-13 is a useful discussion of what the FAA requires of manufacturers for fatigue approval and testing. The safe fatigue life is whatever the manufacturer determines from calculations, analysis and test and is the life at which a component should be replaced. When a structure gets to the end of its "safe life" using the factors in AC23-13 there is a 99.97777% chance that the part will not have a detectable fatigue crack. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac23-13A.pdf

Kasper I am not wrong. I might not be expressing myself clearly but on this point I am right. I will try to explain again. If you want to look at the failure rates over 1000. Under the current regime you get 19 failures which is the sum of all of the values added up. If you replace all of the through bolts in the fleet at 500 hours, based on the above graph you would expect to get 7 failures. But in the next 500 hours, ( the 500 between 500 and 1000) you will also get another 7 failures. You need to add these two numbers together to get a comparable value to the number of failures over a 1000 hour period which is 14 failures versus 19. What you are saying is that replacing the bolts at 500 hour you get the 7 failure sin teh first 500 and then no further failures in the next 500 hours which is not logical based on the graphs provided.

Kasper, Bolt replacement at 500 hours doesn't get rid of 2/3 of the failures but more like 25%. You need to allow for the fact that the replaced bolts(without design changes) fail too. For example in the above graph in there are 7 failures less than 500 hours and 19 failures at less than 1000 hours. If you replace the through bolts at 500 hours in then it is logical that in the time between 500 and 1000 hours you will get another 7 failures for a total of 14 failures to get to the 1000 hours. Therefore the failure rate has dropped form 19 to 14 or a reduction of 5/19=26%. Edited slightly to fix a few typos.

Kasper and BLA82, Just tone it down a little. Turing what could be a useful discussion into a slanging match wont lead anywhere. The report, if the data in it is accurate, isn't good for Jabiru but the report may not tell the full story either. Kasper, You suggest that placing a life limit on the components that fail is a suitable outcome but given the failures in the histogram below wouldn't that mean that the through bolts would need to be replaced every 100 to 200 hours give or take to be reasonably certain. Is that realistic? Edit, My post #6 above referenced figure 10 but it is now too late to go back and edit it. . It should have been figure 6 on page 15.

The report isnt catergorical but it appears to include Rotax 2 strokes, see the bottom of page 5. Have a look at figure 10 in the report. It gives a breakdown of the failures by type of failure and engine. The only areas in that table where the Jabiru performs better than the Rotax as in "Corrosion" and "Other Technical Failure mechanism". The other interesting graph is figure 5. It shows that RAAus is much safer than VH registered across both Rotax and Jabiru. Real trend or lack or reporting???? GIGO???? (Garbage in Garbage out)

In some instances. In others the insurance is for when the work is done not when the claim is made. If you do work in 2015 and then is 2016 someone makes a claim against you it may be against the policy you had in place at the time or it may be your current one. The overall point I guess I am making is that if you take out the insurance as a L2 to protect yourself you get to confirm the details.

Zoos, I dont want to get into the nitty gritty of the arguments about maintenance releases/forms I wonder if this way could work out for you. 1. Approach a good aviation insurance broker and get a quote for the appropriate insurance that you think necessary. 2. Approach the club and see if they would reimburse you the cost of this insurance if you did the maintenance work on the club aircraft. Point out to them that you are still donating the time/use of tools/skills etc. If they wont pay then perhaps let someone else take the risk. This might work out ok and gives you a degree of control over the situation. I have never liked relying on other peoples insurance as you often don't know the cover limits, exclusions and excess limits that apply. By having your own insurance you have the control plus you also know that the policy has been paid and is current. Imagine the situation that the club folds, the aircraft are sold and then there is an issue with the new owner. The club may no longer exist and so you may have issues with making a claim. The other aspect is the excess. For instance in many engineering professional indemnity policies they have high excesses ($50k+). While this may be OK for a company that has to then write this loss off a against other projects or a club that has a revenue stream from operating aircraft, you as an individual serving just one club as a volunteer may want a much lower excess.

If you wanted to build a modern glider from a kit rather than design completely from scratch the HP24 is probably your only option at this time. See details at the link below https://www.facebook.com/HP-24-Sailplane-Project-200931354951/

Sorry col, my grasp of the english language isnt complete despite my pilot licence professing me to be an expert in it. Perhaps thats why I ended up an engineer.... What I am trying to imply is that the difference in stall speed between a jabiru and an rv7 means that the approach speed is faster making them generally a little bit harder to handle. You have to be that little bit more precise to do a successful landing.

Don, I kind of disagree that stall speed change are not able to be felt by most pilots. They are able to perceive the changes but don't necessarily attribute that to increased stall speed. It may only be a few knots but the change is quite marked. An RV7 has a stall speed of 49 knots and it lands a lot faster than a jabiru.

There is a difference between flying commercially and "hire and reward". A flying school cant rent a home built to the holder of a PPL.

Here is and extract from ASTM F23389-06 outlining the durability testing requirements. In a 2000 hour overhaul time you need to do 166 hours at full power (5 minutes in every hour plus 183 hours at cruise power. so a total test is at least 349 hours. Not sure where the 200 hour comes from.

A homebuilt or owner maintained RAAus cant be used for hire and reward. I don't know if invoicing yourself thing would fall into this category but it might limit which aircraft you can choose to use. Perhaps a call to RAAus. Talk to a good accountant. The better way is for the business to own the aircraft and you pay for the time you use it for personal use. That way the costs associated with maintaining currency and training are covered by the business.

So why dont you register your aircraft with CASA in the primary catergory at the higher weight get an RPL and go for it? https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c07.pdf

Jetfr and Don, what would you propose as the limits for a RAAus aircraft? There has to be a limit somewhere. 600kg is so only an issue if the manufacturers design to a much higher limit and then try tons ll an aircraft in Australia or the USA without doing a redesign. For a start 150 l is a bit over the top for a rotax 912. That would have to be about 9 hours.

This was posted on another aviation forum and gives some insight into the extent of the problems with RAAUS registrations. https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-10136.pdf

From the Coroners Report Linked to above

Pretty depressing footage looking at all the damage. There must be a lot of broken hearts today. It would be good to hear from anyone who has been out there if any of the aircraft tied down outside survived. How were they tied down and what lead to their survival? Also did any of the buildings survive and how were they constructed. This might be useful for others in the future.