Powerin

Thinking aloud and perhaps ranting a bit...... I wonder is it time to call an end to the RAAus experiment? It is becoming apparent to me that for an organisation the size of RAAus to succeed it needs the full support and oversight of its members. But it's also obvious that the majority of members, like flyerme, absolutely don't want to get involved in all this Association stuff, they just want to fly. There are those of us here, some of whom have posted in this thread, who don't mind getting involved in the politics, voting in elections and generally taking a keen interest in the running of RAAus. We are in the minority. For most RAAus is the necessary evil you have to put up with to fly. And that's fair enough! I'm not criticizing you. I don't give a rats about my "Auto Club" (NRMA). I have never voted in one of their elections. I don't care, as long as someone turns up to fix my car when I phone the number. So, given that the majority of members just want to fly, don't want to get involved, and don't want to vote in these pesky elections for people they don't know (like me with the NRMA), can an organisation as big as the RAAus, with popularly elected volunteer directors, ever work? It's not working now. I'm well aware of the wonderful history of the RAAus and the AUF before it. But maybe it's time that the grass roots guys go off and perhaps join with the HGFA, fly 300ft above the paddocks and enjoy the freedoms they fought for. And then the rest of us get absorbed into the evil empire. I don't know. Just putting it out there for discussion. Over to you....

Well said Nev. I have to say it...if we were able to see the financials, as is our right as members, and required by the constitution, then we would actually know how much of our funds run the show and how much CASA actually contributes....

There's a lot of maybe's and what if's in your post rick. I've always tried to stick to facts and figures as I don't have much real life experience. At my airport, to my small personal knowledge, there has been one recent Rotax forced landing from coolant loss and a recent Jabiru forced landing where the engine seized so hard that the prop bolts nearly sheared...or so I heard. So it's 50/50 in my limited experience. But you only have to read though this forum to get the impression that Jabiru engines have had real and endemic problems. The research some of us have done with the limited facts available seem to bear this out. As shown above...over 50 Jabiru faults were reported to CASA in the last 5 years as compared to none from Rotax. In both GA and RAAus registers I have found there are not that many more Jab engines than Rotax...about 4 to 3 if you only count 4 strokes. Why say all this? Because I want Jabiru to fix the problems. I want Jabiru to succeed. They have a potentially great cost effective product. We have lost too many manufacturing companies and engineering expertise in Oz. Jabiru is the biggest competition for Rotax. They keep Rotax on their toes (as do the likes of ULpower and others). It would be worse for all of us if Rotax became the monopoly light aviation engine manufacturer. Jabiru isn't going to succeed by sweeping problems under the carpet....and blindly defending them out of pure brand loyalty isn't going to help either. Perhaps they are busy producing a beautiful new fuel injected engine that will take the world by storm as we speak!

Biggles, the following numbers are not always accurate figures but based on reasonable assumptions I have made based on several hours research of aircraft registers: On the VH register there are 28 Jabiru aircraft and a probable total of 142 Jab engines. I assume some of these are certified engines. There is a probable total of 235 Rotax engines. Again, some of these Rotaxes would be certified...for instance there are 12 Tecnams on the register that would be certified....3 of these are twin engine. Many of both engine types would be installed in experimental airframes and therefore are not necessarily LAME maintained. The above engine numbers are based on a simple keyword search of the CASA register, and looking at 50 or so records confirms they are aircraft which you would expect to have Jab or Rotax engines. On the RAAus register there are 755 Jabiru aircraft and possibly another 100-200 engines in other airframes. I have counted 690 aircraft which I could reasonably assume would have 4-stroke Rotaxes in them and there are perhaps another 100 more than that. The RAAus register does not show engine types, but obviously nearly all the Jab airframes have Jab engines and there a plenty of types you know will have a 4s Rotax. Most of the rest on the register would be 2 stroke Rotaxes. As far as I know there are no (publicly available) records kept on RAA engine failures other than the research Turbo has done in the RAAus magazine Pilot Notes shown above and the figures I posted here. I try hard to present accurate figures and not to be a Jab basher. When I sit down and do the research, I just can't escape the fact that Jab engines are over-represented in faults/failures. On the other hand you don't find many faults for the Jab airframe. When you search the web for Rotax faults, especially the 4 strokes, it's hard to find many. The prominent one I can think of is the crank failure in the fatal Sting accident that is the subject of recent legal action.

The only bias I showed in the above post was choosing 2010 as the year to highlight. I chose it because it had the highest number of Jab reports so I could get more meaningful idea of the causes. As a comparison, in 2009 there were 2 through bolts and 2 exhaust valves out of 7 reports. In 2008 there were no through bolt incidents. I started the above research with the full intention of reporting all the Rotax faults as well. I was surprised to find that there were none. Nev, you would think that might be the case, however when I said above that the majority of Jabiru reports were from RAAus registered aircraft I meant over 90%. They are specifically described as such. For instance 21/23 in 2010 and 7/7 in 2009. The reason I made mention of that fact was in reply to Geoff's ponderings above as to whether VH registered Jabs were under-represented in engine failure numbers given the more rigorous maintenance regime. The facts may show this to be the case.

CASA has Service Difficulties and Defect Reports (SDRs) downloadable as CSV files from their website. You can open these in a spreadsheet. From the last 5 years of reports in the piston engine SDRs the number of Jabiru engines faults/failures reported to CASA were: 2012 - 2 reports out of a total of 98 reports for all piston engines. 2011 - 18 reports out of 161. 2010 - 23 reports out of 130. 2009 - 7 reports out of 117. 2008 - 8 reports out of 121. As a percentage around 9% of all piston engine defects reported in the past 5 years were Jabiru. According to the notes in each report the majority of these were RAAus registered. The vast majority of faults were, unfortunately, the usual suspects: seizure, cylinder cracked, bolts and valve breakages. Only a very few were minor faults such as an incorrect dipstick. Looking closer at one year's reports, in 2010 there were 23 Jab, 34 Continental, 1 Franklin, 67 Lycoming, 1 Pratt and Whitney, and 4 Unknown. The major cause of Jabiru faults was broken through bolts - 10 out of the 23 reports. The major cause of Continental faults was cracked cylinders - 10 out of the 34 reports. I couldn't really see any major cause of faults in the Lycomings with a pretty wide spread of causes. At the risk of being labelled a Jab basher and Rotax fanboi....for whatever reason, there were no Rotax reports in the past 5 years. That doesn't mean there were none I guess, just none reported. For interest sake I also looked at the "Aircraft under 5700kg" category reports for 2011. These also showed a trend for Jabiru engine faults. The recreational aircraft reported were: 20 Jabiru - 16 of these were engine related. 1 Sonex - Jabiru engine - engine fault 2 Sportstars - airframe 1 Foxcon Terrier - airframe 5 Tecnams - 4 airframe and 1 throttle cable.

The real total solar eclipse is on November 14th in Cairns!

I have flown three Eaglets, one had a hand brake the others toe brakes. Toe brakes may be an option? I didn't mind either way.

Just never, ever, ever make a call in the third person (such as saying Drifter XXXX "turns" base instead of "turning" base). It's not against the regulations but it should be!

Now you know. Doesn't everybody?

Pity about the last planet... But yes, use a mnemonic or action that you can remember, it's not much use if you can't remember what the letters stand for. For downwind I don't use one, I trace a path through the cockpit with my hand checking things as my hand passes them. That's just me.

For pre-takeoff I like CIGARS: Controls - full and free Instruments - Alt set, temps and pressures green or coming up Gas - Fuel sufficient, fullest tank or both, pump on, pressure good. Airframe (or Attitude) - Flaps and trim set for take-off Runups Security - hatches and harnesses secure.

The area between Albury and Wagga Wagga, NSW, was frequented by the bushranger Mad Dan Morgan. There are a few points of interest including Morgans Lookout near the town of Walla Walla which would be a nice spot to take a car rally to. To the west of Walla is the little town of Brocklesby which is where two RAAF Avro Ansons on a training flight collided in mid air and became locked together. The aircraft, still locked together, were successfully landed in a paddock a few km out of Brocklesby. There is a marker showing where this happened. The two aircraft originated from the RAAF base at Forest Hill next to Wagga Wagga airport which has a little museum you can visit. Albury's main aviation claim to fame is when the town's people answered a call on the local ABC radio station to bring their cars to Albury racecourse and light up a makeshift runway for the Dutch (KLM DC-2) entrant in the 1934 London to Melbourne air race which had become lost in bad weather. The DC-2 found Albury and successfully landed on the racecourse. The City of Albury used to have a static DC-2 mounted on pylons at the airport entrance as a memorial...but it has since been taken down due to its bad condition. It now sits lonely and forlorn in a corner of the airport while debate rages as to whether it's worth the cost of restoring it to static display condition. I hope that gives you a few ideas.

There are some statistics on this tutorial page. I'll let others decide if they provide any meaningful information.

Depends on your definition of grass roots. Today's rag and tubes seem to be a world apart from the original rudimentary frame with a plastic stackable chair for a seat. Maybe it isn't as risky any more. A Drifter probably has a better stress rating than most LSAs. But the perception is still there and the perceptions of non-flying loved ones are often a big factor in what a person flies. Again, I have nothing but admiration for grass roots pilots. But it seems some grass roots people have a big chip on their shoulder towards the higher end of ultralight aviation. Apologies again for the thread drift.

Good points again....but that's not what I was saying. I have nothing against microlights, I've enjoyed it when I've ridden in one. I admire the ultralight pioneers and what they have done for aviation. It just seemed to me that you were saying that if people don't want to fly microlights then they should pay through the nose and fly GA. What I'm saying is surely there is room for affordable light sport flying as well?

Fair point. But, with respect, that's a bit like saying that unless you can afford a Mercedes Benz OR you are willing to take the extra risk riding a motorcycle then you shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads. Is the joy of flying only reserved for the rich or the intrepid (or more importantly their families) that are happy to take on the risk of grass roots flying? Apologies for the thread drift.

That may be true Win, but I really don't care if it is a plastic fantastic, or made of balsa wood and tissue paper, if it is sold to me as complete aircraft by a manufacturer I expect it to have been built to a certain standard by qualified personnel...the same as any car or truck or tractor I might buy. If you build it yourself, or buy from a home builder then the onus is on you to make sure it is built to a standard you are comfortable with. I understand the wish of some to get back to the grass roots upon which the RAAus was founded, but there are others of us who still want affordable flying but are not comfortable with the level of risk that bare bones grass roots flying seems to involve.

I take all the comments here on board and totally agree that it's a RAAus stuff up and terribly unfair to the aircraft that have been grounded after previously being approved. However, as a potential future aircraft buyer, I would hope that any "factory built" aircraft that I bought would at least conform to some sort of standard. I'm sure the Colombians or the Slovenians build fine aircraft, but I know nothing of their standards, how would I know for sure unless someone here in Australia has given it the once over and approved it? I would think a Jabiru buyer in Colombia would expect the same from their aircraft approval authority. We are seeing a lot of aircraft now being assembled here and sold as factory built, some of which were previously available as kits. The reason, of course, is to be able to get these aircraft into schools, which is good for future sales prospects. Getting them into schools is potentially lucrative. Are these aircraft being built, or assembled, by qualified people? LAMEs? Even if they are just having the wings bolted on, are they being bolted on by someone with a calibrated torque wrench, or someone with a rattle gun? Are the weights and balances something that has been properly tested? I'm really sorry to pick on one aircraft and I'm sure the design of it in kit form is fine. But witch-hunt or not, and with the greatest of respect to Slarti and other owners, the quality of manufacture revealed in the ferris-wheel accident aircraft was not up to a standard I would accept in any machine I purchased, let alone one I would go up in the air with. I think the industry needs a bit of closer scrutiny.

I was wondering why the camshafts were geared 1:1 but then I saw it was powered by compressed air...a two stroke V12!

Welcome to the start of an exciting journey!

Correct me if I'm wrong. Yes, absolutely crappy and arrogant airmanship, carefully planned to jump the circuit cue and get on the ground fast. They obviously knew they were being smart****s as they kept quiet. But I can't see that it would be reportable would it? There is no *legal* requirement to use the active runway, the correct radio calls were made for a straight in, and presumably since they were using non-active 22 there would have been no circuit traffic for 22 to give way to or conflict with. Can you report stupidity if no laws have been broken...or is there a law that they broke?

Be interesting to hear a review from your mate on the low wing Motz!

Patents were originally created to encourage innovation by giving inventors/creators a monopoly, for a limited time, to give them a chance to make some money and recover costs. It was for the benefit of society that patents were allowed to expire which encouraged competition and improvement on the original idea. These days patents (especially software patents) are used as money making tools in themselves. They are bought, sold and traded, often by investment companies whose sole purpose is to use them as legal weapons to make money and stifle competition and innovation.

Sorry, not correct.... In the end, the above is decided by a court if a copyright owner thinks your use is not fair. Not saying I agree with it. Just saying be careful.