Icarus

Here is a tutorial on turbulence. http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/safety/wind_shear.html#turb_speed

Very interesting scale

Very severe turbulence is said to be above 1.5g

The point is that the wings wont snap off at 4.1 g and -2.1g

The aircraft are tested up to 7-10 g.

look up aircraft wing testing , you will see tons of concrete bags on the wings and other methods.

watching the g meter should give you confidence that those bumps are not even remotely close to the category limits and even further from the actual structural limits. { unless you start to exceed Vno in extreme turbulence ie thunderstorms ,but lets not go there!}

Gday Shafs.

I went for a quick TIF a couple weeks ago at Lismore. Jab 170. first time in light aircraft .Did this to see if I still want to learn to fly before spending the $$ on licence.

Warm day about 30*

Little wind.

Very similar bumps to your video.'

I asked the instructor why so bumpy up here , he replied 'thermal hot air rising, would be smoother above them clouds.' or similar remarks.

Was not too worried ,but it did take a bit of the fun out of it.

Not sure if the glass panel in the aircraft has a G meter ? ask the instructor .

If so you could have a look at that from time to time.

These aircraft will stay intact up to about 7-10 G. at MTOW even with the design category at + 3.8 - 1.52

I reckon even the biggest bumps would maybe hit 2 G

I have seen airband radios with 50+ watts but not sure if this is legal.

looks like ground coms can go up to 25w but cant find a limit for aeronautical stations.

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00581

enjoy

This thread reminds me of a question I have been trying to find a definitive answer to.

What is the maximum tx power for VHF air band am .

I do recall seeing 5w for hand held and 25w for in aircraft , Correct?

Yeah they miss the point.

A good analogy is fishing.

Why go fishing when you can go and buy the fish?

I have learnt so much about electronics, radio , antennas etc, and met some great people. We are all nerds at heart , some just show it more than others.

Nice work Robbo.

Ive been pretty slack on the Ham radio scene recently. Only use my Kenwood ThF7e for listening to air traffic! good practice for CTA as im near Coolangatta .[ Murwillumbah]

ISS is in the list of things to do in radio for sure.

Brendan. VK2 FXXX

Hi guys.

Does the new RPL [H] allow a person to gain a helicopter licence in 20 hours + 5 hours solo .

I realise this is the minimum time.

RPL [H] would allow flight of a mosquito XE but not the turbine version XET?

Turbine version would require PPL[H] correct?

Seems to me the new licence could substantially cut down the cost of gaining a heli licence.

at minimum $500 per hour cutting say hours down to 30 instead of PPL[H] 50 hours?

well you can do the math.

I have tried CASA site and seems the rules are the same for RPL H and RPL A

Thanks

Brendan

Sorry Frank. That was supposed to be in a quote box. you will notice the at the end but not at the beginning of the intended quoted text! oooooops

I was under the impression you could not go far away from your starting field on an RPL except as part of your training - ie as a training nav. Flights around your starting field were when ever you wanted but travelling further was restricted.Is that correct?

Cheers

Yep ,fly away after 5 hours nav training ,also controlled airspace! more pax, above 10000 ft with medical! who needs PPL

all your questions should be answered in this 4 page doc

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100191/rr61_rpl_fs.pdf

One point I would like to make is that the original explanatory statement did say that CASA was aware of a number of engine failures and other reliability issues.

they also state in those notes that CASA was aware of 46 reported mechanical failures or in flight occurrences during 2014 ........

Here is a link to the explanatory notes ,might be worth a read to recap.

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01806/Explanatory%20Statement/Text

Surely, if the engine was successfully restarted, the stoppage should not be classified as a 'failure?'

Did Jabiru try the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? If not why?

I have sighted information supplied by CASA, citing the data they have used justifying the imposition of the restriction. They claim that there were 142 'engine failures' recorded in their data set. These resulted in '86 forced/precautionary landings'.Presumably, in 56 cases of an 'engine failure', those 'engine failures' did NOT result in a 'forced/precautionary' landing.

 

American Air Traffic Controllers claim that they have a 100% success rate, since they have never left anybody up there. According to CASA's figures, Jabiru have a significantly greater success rate - 56 of the 142 engine failures CASA claims to be documented, did NOT result in a forced/precautionary landing.

 

It would seem, therefore, that Jabiru engines can sustain an 'engine failure', yet the aircraft can keep flying to its predetermined destination in very nearly 40% (actually, 39.436%) of all occurrences of 'engine failure'.

 

I, for one, would like to see CASA explain how it tabulates engine 'failures'.

If CASA suspect that there was an under -reporting of the number of engine failures, they would probably use any figures they could, to justify the audit and obtain the Jabiru factory engine failure figures.

If jabiru Factory Figures are found to be substantially higher than CASA/ RAA/ATSB figures, then there is a problem.

Non reporting pilots may receive a nice reminder letter of their obligations to report.

Jabiru wont want the figures released, and CASA may be obliging because the deal is .co-operate or we release the figures.

Or {humour me here} CASA may be protecting Jabiru by not releasing the real factory figure because they are taking the Forsyth report seriously!

Or. CASA is protecting themselves from scrutiny because the evidence to start action is even weaker than first thought. [ seems to be most favoured theory here]

I reckon Russ is on the money.

Might be a combination of all above.

The factory figure is the number I want to see.

Oscar .

I read your post [3 times] and appreciate the effort.

1. ALL standards for aeronautical safety have acceptance of a 'failure' figure. TBO's are initially set by performance against a standard developed by an Airworthiness Authority ( e.g. EASA, ASTM , FAA, BCAA etc.) and then modified in the light of operational experience. Jabiru engines have been certificated/certified against those standards.

The data to back this up seems to be the contentious issue ie mystery data.

2. The CASA action was based on a 'metric' that has absolutely NO acceptance nor rationale, in any International/national standard. 'Not as good as Rotax' is NOT a Standard - it is a qualitative judgement and the use of it as a de facto 'Standard was NEVER communicated to Jabiru as a potential reason for act.ion - let alone was Jabiru warned that such a metric might be applied.

aprox 1/2 [whatever the figure is] the Australian RAA , GA exp fleet is Jabiru powered. They appear { again the mystery data} to be stopping too often, as perceived by many in RAA ,the aviation industry and CASA . If 1/2 the fleet can be trusted and the other half can't ,then we need to rectify the lesser half..

Might not be standard , might not have been communicated, but can you see the reasoning? Again clumsy CASA at work.

3. When the CASA action was applied, there was NO indication of what remediation action by Jabiru would lift the restrictions. 'Until we feel happy about it' is NOT a valid definition of acceptable action, nor is it anything by which Jabiru could be expected to direct any action towards

I believe the action was taken ie the instrument. purely as a preventative measure. CASA did not know at the time what needed to be done . ie what the specific problem with the engines is. there-fore ,how can they ask for a specific action or remediation? They asked for [or demanded?] Jabirus co-operation in an audit of procedures, tear down reports, etc . that was the specific action requested, so they could then determine the required remediation, if any?

The instrument was a measure taken to make sure a] people still get to fly the Jabs. b] pax and students are aware of possibly higher than usual chance of engine failure so they can make an informed decision to fly. c ] the PIC does not put themselves in a situation where they may have to land in a suburban street.

I think that is a reasonable thing to do in the situation. Perfect ? No .

The remedial action it appears has now been decided. test the engine again ,and it better meet spec. [ There is Jabirus monetary penalty?!]

4. 'Safety' is not a metric - it is a quality in the Aristotlean sense, or in the more prosaic sense, an 'outcome'. 'Incidents' are NOT necessarily 'outcomes'. Having a fall from a step-ladder is an 'incident' - but being killed or injured as a result of that fall, is an 'outcome' in the safety sense. It happens to be a FACT that Jabiru in-flight engine failures, in terms of outcomes of death/injury, are in this country - the subject of the CASA action - fewer than the 'standard' used by CASA to justify its action. All automotive conversions, Lycomings, Continentals, and I am afraid Rotaxes of either two or four-stroke operation, have WORSE safety outcomes than Jabiru engine failures. Yet, CASA has not moved against them in a similar fashion as it has towards Jabiru engines. If Jabiru engines 'do not make the grade' as decided by CASA - can you suggest why other engines with worse safety outcomes are NOT being subject to similar 'preventive' safety restrictions?

I suspect In Jabirus case the airframe has saved the day on a few occasions.

engine failures are not desirable ,whatever the outcome.

The other makes are not perceived to be quitting at the current time. perhaps in the past they were ie Rotax . The current admin cannot change how that was handled. Nor should they apply the same solutions now, if they think that those previous solutions were inadequate.

Just because someone has not died in a jab engine failure accident does not mean that CASA should ignore or pretend there is no issue.

People have been injured in Jabiru EFATO and Engine outs Im sure. That should be enough to warrant a closer look?

There seems to be a fixation of fatalities as a benchmark. How a about using incidents as a benchmark ,reduce those to reduce injuries ,,damage and fatalities

5. The CASA action has relied on a statement of statistics that have not been made transparent - and that, indeed, CASA is resisting all efforts to be made transparent. Surely, that alone should make those who support the validity of the CASA action rather more than unsettled? If right is on your side, why would you HIDE the evidence?

Is there a standard to go by other than fatalities? injuries, close calls?Remember ,we are measuring engine failure not fatalities Reduce the incidents ,reduce the odds of a fatality. Even if it has not happened yet. How many is too many ? 12?45? more than another type? 1 that kills someone? 45 that only injure a few?

CASA is the authority to make that call. If they are abusing that power of authority to intimidate , threaten ,influence etc then I agree that needs to be stopped.

Is that happening in this case? I indicated earlier I accept that it probably is.

Goodnight all.

Brendan

Jabiru HAVE acted. There have been numerous service bulletins, modifications and upgrades to their engines since they first built their first engine. I'm not sure what else they could have done. The flippant answer is "get it right, right from the start" but that's a complete impossibility. No engine in any form of transport has ever been the final best design right from the start. I remember when Rotax was a name spoken with shaking head and shudders of disbelief that anyone would dare fly behind one. My how they have changed with development and without having restrictions put on them.So who defines what form "should have acted" should have taken.

 

CASAs actions were started without evidence and in every other part of our society you just cannot do that!!!

 

They should never have stepped in until their evidence was more than rumblings of discontent from a part of the industry. It defies the current allowable nature of all actions by authorities in our society EXCEPT it seems in CASAs sphere of influence.

 

What they should have done was, having become aware of murmurings of discontent, was actually got the data first. Once they had data they could make sensible decisions.

 

I suspect that had they got the data first they would not have acted as they did.

Pretty persuasive arguments.

I accept that this is probably more a casa vendetta more than anything else.(I was wrong)

I better have my wits about me when dealing with them in future.

thanks for the heads up.

Yes Roundsounds, come to the dark side my friend. The new young green socialist party meets at Nimbin on Friday night. Mr Gnu will be guest speaker.

Good evening Bruce.

Well argued Brendan. I wish I had your faith in bureaucrats.Once I asked what qualifications one of them had and I was howled down by people ( on this site ) who said that it was unfair to ask. As far as I know, they have neither the qualifications nor experience to justify the extreme power they wield.

Just suppose CASA officials are not appropriately expert , ( have another read of Oscar's comments)... would you really say they should not be held to account? Or at least exposed ?

Of course they should be held to account, expert or not. but they also cant be expected to do their job properly with the fear of personal litigation hanging over their heads.

They would just sit at their desk on their hands fearing any investigation or instrument they enact ,with whatever proof ,could result in losing their house etc.

It would be aviation anarchy:naughty:

I believe 1 or 2 CASA employees have been pushed to resign over the instrument. Probably for the clumsy way the instrument was started and for not getting some better data. It looks bad for CASA if they start these actions with weak data at best. So those 2 were held to account for that.

Who decides the experts are experts? the experts?

Good evening to you Mr Gnu

I am guessing that the appropriate legislation allows CASA to take /start investigations, instruments without hard fact/ data etc.

I am speculating / guessing / pondering etc what the legislation allows ,having not read it.

I am not saying this is how it should be , but how I believe it is

Edit: Don't make me read the legislation ,please!

Geez jaba-who .

398kg .I see why keen on extra 60kg. imagine the crap that could go in the back:punk:

I see time and time again on this site the conspiracy theorists spouting that the CASA is trying to bring down Jabiru and also recreational aviation Australia.

For whatever reasons they may believe.

I am trying to show a different perspective ,as I believe the anti CASA sentiment that seems to be ingrained here is skewing the argument all Jabirus way.

Im not up on CASA Legislation , I can only assume that somewhere in it gives CASA the ability to act even if it Suspects there are issues.

This is a Safety authority. Safety should be No1. If CASA perceives there is a problem, then they are obligated to act. Data or no data, proof or no proof , suspicion or complaint . they must do all they can to identify and correct safety issues.

Therefore they clumsily decided to use the data they have as a reason to haul Jabiru over the coals. I doubt they legally even need any data to do what they have done.

I doubt they believe the jab engine failure data RAA have is correct.[ given RAA admin history]They probably cant say so ,as that would undermine their decision to enact RAA as authority.

Everybody knows Jab engines had/have issues, why shouldn't CASA know?

If the public , RAA ,GA and everybody else sees the problem, of course CASA will seize any DATA flawed or not to help justify taking action.

The argument is not all about saving the general public from falling Jab powered planes, as we know this is almost 0% .

It is also about protecting the young/older pilot on his first solo, or the new owner about to take his mrs up for the 1st time, the flight school taking off over bankstown etc.

Jabiru and RAA have had their heads buried in the sand for too long over the issue and CASA has said Enough.

Time to investigate further ,and while we do ,we will put an instrument in place just to be sure everyone is as safe as we can make them WITHOUT grounding all Jabiru powered aircraft.

So in short: I don't believe CASA need data to do what they have done, especially data they don't trust. They can act on , reports, complaints, suspicion, perception, whatever.

Thay also don't need to wait for someone to die in a Jab powered AC before acting.

It seems to be this point you guys don't like, accept or believe.

I don't expect to change your minds on this, I just want to try to get people to open the other eye just a little.

I accept my opinions expressed above may be way off base and incorrect and I appreciate the lack of personal attack , especially being new here and not even licenced pilot yet.

Brendan

So CASA should use fatalities as engine failure data.

CASA should trust RAA data on engine failures [12 I believe not related to fuel ,maintenance etc]

Jab engines have no problem and CASA should leave them alone

CASA should not try to protect the people flying the things.

somebody should die due to a jab engine failure before CASA should act

Ok I think Ive got it now.

Ok .

Cant CASA say that the instrument ends when they are satisfied with Jabirus hoop jumping?

They could let the instrument end ,at the end of this month, and say they are happy with the audit /hoop jumps etc. then back away slowly.

They could also state that they are trying to stop potential accidents that may injure/kill the public ,pilots,students , pax etc.[ which the instrument illudes to]

The fact nobody has died in a jab powered AC cant be used to defend engine failures can it?

I suspect CASA felt they had to do something . If a Jab fell on to a house /school etc , then how much face would CASA be trying to save.[ surely they knew of the issues and did nothing?]

At least with an Australian manufacturer they can help? go to the factory and suggest things etc.

If it was an overseas manufacturer what could they do? Put restrictions on the engine use and that's it?!

I don't know if the aviation legislation requires CASA to have hard numbers before taking actions of this nature. Or if they have to wait till the numbers start to accumulate before they take action?

In my view taking action before something catastrophic happens is better than waiting till after the event.

Should they have done nothing? or gone about it differently?

Anyway , Rod seems like a nice bloke, hope they come out the other end stronger and wiser for it.

the 160hp ul power would fix the take off half of that problem

Can you get better brakes?

Have you got a link to that chart , I could never seem to find it.