Powerin

Off topic: Alan, the permission you would need to copy this is from the publisher of the magazine as they hold the copyright of the content. Always be very careful when copying stuff from any copyrighted source...especially onto a public forum like this. The penalties for copyright breech are ridiculously severe if a copyright owner decided to be nasty. Copying small snippets for purposes of review are allowable. Note also that everything on this site, including what everybody posts, is copyrighted as well, unless you specifically indicate you are retaining ownership of what you post. Again, be careful what you cut, paste and copy.

Nah...no hammer blow...it's been an interesting debate. My basic point is that I feel it was a fair election, run correctly according to the rules, and the rules outline a commonly used election method in Australia. By-Law 12 has far worse consequences than By-Law 8.....

My research indicates that the usage of the term "One member - one vote" does not refer to the method of voting but rather to the principle of every member having an equal vote. It is often used in the context of electoral boundaries and number of voters within electoral divisions. In the RAA constitution it is also used in this context as this section of the constitution goes on to describe how the regions vote.

OK, look at Bylaw 8 again. Middo won the first position outright so there was no need to distribute preferences from Col. We have now satisfied paragraph 1 & 2 of the bylaw. Now the final part comes into play: If there is more than one vacancy for a Board Member in a Region, following the election of a candidate in accordance with para (2) above, that candidate shall be excluded from further voting and their votes distributed according to first preferences (if any). The counting of votes for the second vacancy shall proceed in the same manner described above. (emphasis mine). Middo's votes were distributed in accordance with the bold text above. From the constitution: Part I - Preliminary 1. Interpretation Throughout this Constitution and By-laws, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions and abbreviations will apply: ...... “RA-Aus” - Recreational Aviation Australia ...... Each member had one vote for each board member elected. That's what would have also happened if we had two separate elections. So I see the intent of the constitution as being satisfied. However if you interpret it differently then it must be ambiguous and perhaps it should be changed. EDIT: Ah....I just got it. So Turbo, you are arguing that "one member - one vote" implies that there can only be a first past the post voting system and that any sort of preferential voting system involves more than one vote per member? Interesting. What's the definition of one vote? One ballot paper with one name written on it? Can it be one ballot paper with several marks on it? Or is several marks on a ballot paper considered several votes? I had always thought that filling in one ballot paper would be considered one vote, no matter how many names and preferences were on it.

Thanks Col. Commiserations to yourself and congratulations to those elected. I know I should let this go but: Turbo, (1) In what way do you see Bylaw 8 as being invalid? (2) The vote counting, as far as I can tell, was carried out in accordance with Bylaw 8,which you quoted above, AND also in accordance with the optional preferential voting system for more than one position in the document Col linked to above. I wasn't making it up....post 33 was just my clumsy attempt to make the process easier to understand.

This is exactly what happened! We each got 2 votes, one for each position available. As Don said, it was two elections in one. I'll try again....IF Middo had not come out as a clear winner (over 50%), THEN the lowest candidate's (Col in this case) preferences would have been distributed and the winner of the FIRST election is decided. In this case Middo did win a majority so distributing of preferences was not necessary. Either way, Middo is in... he is out of the picture, now we forget about him. It is now a two horse race between the two remaining candidates for the other position. So we start again, have a second election, and count ALL the votes again. We ignore Middo....on the ballots papers that have him as number one we cross his name out and see who out of the other two candidates the voters wanted. When Middo's votes were counted again and distributed between Mick and Col it was NOT a distribution of preferences, it was the start of counting for the second election for the other position.

That's what I was trying to say back in post #18, but Don made it so much simpler

Good point DJP...must admit I hadn't thought of it that way. But preferential still gives people a second bite of the cherry, which should theoretically make the majority of people the happiest with who gets in.

If the candidates were mates that wouldn't have anything to do with it would it? WE are the ones that vote for our preferences....the candidates have no control of where the voters put preferences, mates or not. They can't stack the votes. They didn't issue "How to Vote" cards, the choice was entirely ours. There weren't two clear winners because if all of Middos voters put had Col as their choice for the OTHER position (not the second position...big difference) then by far the majority of people would have wanted Col as their other board member. In effect we were actually putting two number 1 votes on our ballot papers because we were voting for two positions on the one ballot paper. I think you're right about how it would work for four candidates, but we had three. I know a lot of people hate the preferential system, but I like it. Yes, it can be complicated to understand, but it is the fairest way. Let's say we have three candidates in an election. Tom gets 34 votes, Dick gets 33 votes and Harry gets 33 votes. In a "first past the post" system Tom wins. But 66% (by far the majority) of people voted against Tom and yet he won. The preferential system gives you a chance to vote for someone else if your guy or girl doesn't get in.

This was vote for two positions. I think most of us would have put our choices for the two positions by voting 1 and 2 for our preferred candidates. Middo won the first position outright with more than 50% of the vote. You have to then count the second choices on Middos voting papers otherwise 199 voter's second choice (ie for the second position) wouldn't count.

On the one hand it is a useful by-law as it gives the board the power to reject someone with a reputation of being a reckless pilot, for example, or perhaps a violent criminal record and that's probably good for all of us. But it also has huge potential for abuse if members of the board have an axe to grind. As always, there is a big responsibility for us members to vote for the right people to serve on the board....and remove them if they don't perform. Also, don't forget to vote for or against the proposed changes to the constitution, one of which, if passed, will limit the power of the board to make unannounced changes to existing by-laws.

I would guess this is the rule they are using....note that it says "board" so my interpretation would be it needs a board vote to refuse membership. No membership - no fly. That's a pretty powerful by-law. Once you are actually a member the constitution provides for an appeals process before you can be kicked out.

Apparently announced at Oshkosh.... 1/4 scale model

Rules of the Air - Rule 1: If it is not too windy, it will be too wet to fly today. Rule 2: If it is not too windy or too wet, it will be too unstable to fly today. Rule 3: If it is not too windy, too wet or too unstable, it will be too cold to fly today. Rule 4: If it is not too windy, too wet, too unstable or too cold, the visibility will be too low to fly today. Rule 5: If it is not too windy, too wet, too unstable, too cold or too murky to fly today, the aircraft will be unserviceable. Rule 6: If it is calm, dry, stable, warm and clear today, and the aircraft is serviceable, you will have unbreakable commitments elsewhere.

This got me to thinking (a dangerous thing)....it is often claimed that Jabs fail more often because of poor maintenance. Why would this be the case with Jabs more than other engines? In Nev's EA Falcon crossthreading example above, I would consider that a design fault. Why? Because the design made it possible for a regular maintenance item to fail often because of human factors. Two examples from agriculture: regularly maintained greaseable ball bearings generally last longer than sealed bearings, they wear gracefully and rarely fail catastrophically. Sealed bearings have a limited life and often fail by completely falling apart. So why are sealed bearings mostly used on agricultural machines? Because they require no maintenance. They generally last longer because humans forget, or neglect to grease bearings, or use dirty grease, or don't clean the grease nipple before greasing. Human Factors. Back in the day agricultural machines had no guards. Shafts, pulleys and belts were out in the open ready to take the fingers, limbs or life of the careless farmer. So it was decided to fit guards AND for extra safety make them very hard to remove. This didn't work. Why? Because when the time came to inspect or repair the component under the guard, it took so long to remove the guard that farmers rarely bothered to put it back on. Nowadays safety guards are very easy to open and are usually hinged and secured with a clip. Human Factors. Is this one of Jabiru's problems? As an aside, I am constantly surprised at how difficult it is to actually access the engine of many aircraft. Tecnams (and probably many others) at least have a hinged top cowl that is secured by a couple clips. Giving the engine a quick once over for loose wires/cables, oil/coolant leaks, exhaust springs etc at every preflight is a matter of a couple minutes. How many engines under a screwed on cowl get a look over at every preflight inspection?

Yes, good points Col. I really hope Jabiru has the expertise to make the authoritative reviews. Perhaps they do. I have no qualifications to judge the merits of either engine. I just dislike it when the claim is made that it's all just Ford/Holden or Aussie bashing. It's not. Many here arrive at their opinions via a lot of experience, research and reading -some anecdotal, some authoritative, not via brand loyalty.

I know this is not going to sway the protagonists either way.....but I agree it is not a Holden vs Ford thing. I don't have an axe to grind, I don't own either. I have mostly flown 912 Rotaxes in my training....but that means nothing. These Rotaxes have had plenty of maintenance issues that have grounded them, one has had a forced landing from loss of coolant. Rotaxes fail too! No arguments! But I were to make a purchasing decision both of my feet would be firmly in the Rotax camp.....IF I could afford one. You pay for the privilege. As Turbo has said, whether you look at Pilots Notes in the RAA mag, or the Airworthiness section of Flight Safety mag, Jab engines feature highly...Rotax do not. And for the same old issues. It is incorrect to say that is because there are so many more Jabs. My conservative estimate from the RAA register is that the ratio of 4 stroke Rotaxes to Jabs is 6 to 7. Worldwide Rotax is king (queen?). On top of that let's just have a look at the last few engine ADs from Rotax and Jab. From Rotax we have some potentially serious defects such as crankshaft faults. However, they were not actual faults which caused actual failures but *potential* faults found through inconsistencies in a rigorous quality control system. This suggests to me a mature product whose basic design is very sound. On the other hand Jabiru is *still* mucking around with some very basic engine parameters, such as compression ratio, to fix *actual* faults...and their fix is to change their base design by sticking some washers/shims under the cylinders? But this one seals the deal for me from the Jab AD about the new 12 point nuts/though bolts. This is a direct quote: "Normal aircraft practice is to ensure that a minimum of around 1.5 threads project through the nut, however in this case that is not necessary." So here we have Jabiru, in an attempt to fix another basic problem, advising owners fitting the 12 point nuts that it is not necessary to follow normal aircraft practice?? Sorry....this simple statement just screams out to me a company making it up as it goes along, rather than making informed engineering decisions. I really hope they get it together and produce a trustworthy powerplant for their good, solid, no-nonsense airframe. Rant over....

http://www.sensenich.com/

Depends on your point of view...

Well, Rod Stiff *did* make cane harvesters...

I'm not sure a lowly farmer would get much of a hearing in the hallowed halls of CASA As DJP et al have already pointed out, CASA is purely a safety authority and there is nothing in their charter which says they need to nurture aviation....just make it safe. The FAA in the USA was set up differently....but if you look at the FAA's mission statements they only mention safety too. The reason I mentioned it is that the fairness and integrity, professionalism, ethics and lack of bias mentioned in the CASA values statement seem to be conspicuously absent in this case.

The accident report is here. This is the synopsis: And for those that don't read the pdf in the above link the aircraft wasn't a Jab, but an Arion Lightning with a Jab motor of course. It only had done a few hours since completion of the kit. As far as I can tell the kit builder would have been the one that fitted the prop extension that came adrift.

As is standard practice these days for organisations, CASA have a Vision Statement, Mission Statement and Values statement. Perhaps someone might like to remind some CASA people of these statements...especially this one: We act at all times with fairness and integrity. We maintain the highest levels of professionalism and act with high ethical standards and without bias. We make balanced judgements which are risk based and evidence driven. We act innovatively and with flexibility to meet our responsibilities.

As far as I understand it that is exactly right. If you want to get even more technical the AoA of the horizontal stab will change with the pitching moment until it reaches a new equilibrium with wherever the pilot has put the elevator (and maintained it with trim...sorry Nev ) If you want to directly change the angle of attack of a wing I guess you need to fly a trike. I think you left out an important part which is the basis of this discussion: stick forward-houses get bigger, stick back-houses get smaller, stick further back-houses get bigger again really fast! Perhaps if the Air France or Colgan pilots had a better understanding of AoA and the "stick further back" bit they might be alive today?

For myself (still a student), I think knowledge of angle of attack helped me no end. Flying becomes a bit more intuitive if you know why something happens. But that's just me...I like knowing how things work. If I were an instructor (if I can be so bold) the first lesson would be to take a student in a car, travel down the highway at 100km/h, and get them to stick their arm out the window and experience how much lift they can get just by holding their flat hand at different angles to the airflow (it's amazing how much force there is in 100km/h air). Then show them how the elevator does exactly the same thing for a wing....vary the angle of the wing into the oncoming airflow.