Powerin

In my little experience, yes. An out of balance tyre does cause a shudder as it slowly winds down after takeoff.

Insurers want to know their risk. You tell them what you've got, they assess the risk and charge a premium accordingly. If the worst happens and you need to make a claim you need to have the same stuff that you told the insurer about. Who knows, insuring a modified Jab engine might be cheaper! (sorry, couldn't resist)

I would be against this or any other privately run website being used for RAAus business. To do so would mean giving one operator a commercial advantage over others by handing them web traffic (traffic is money, even if you don't advertise). Any private website owner and administrator has complete control of their own website. They are able to see all the traffic and information on their website and who it comes from. You would have to trust any private operator not to disclose or manipulate confidential RAAus information that came through their website, especially voting information. I am not casting any aspersions on this or any other website in any way, but I would prefer RAAus business to stay in-house or be subject to a commercial arrangement with strict non disclosure agreements in place. On line voting is a great idea, but I believe there is still a significant proportion of members who are not computer savvy. How would you judge if a vote is accepted or rejected on line? By a simple majority? What if only 100 members voted on a particular proposal, would that count as law for all 10,000 of us? I'm all for letting people who bother to vote, or bother to turn up to a meeting, have a big say in the direction of any organisation. However, we really only have one universal way of communicating with the great majority of members that doesn't require any special equipment such as a computer...unfortunately that is snail mail. By the way, all minutes from Board or Member meetings are available on the RAAus website member portal. There will always be a lag because minutes need to be accepted as correct at the following meeting before they are made public.

Learning to fly is all about training your brain to do several new things at the same time. I always found during training when I had to concentrate on doing new things like radio calls or downwind checks it would always distract me from flying the plane. So I found it helpful to practice doing radio calls or checks such as downwind or forced landing checks while I was doing something else complicated in every day life. So make a radio call turning base while you are driving the car around a corner at the traffic lights. Do some downwind checks while you are parking the car in a tight spot. Sometimes I'd practice things while playing the piano or driving a truck in heavy traffic. Then these things quickly become second nature and it frees up your mind for the most important thing - learning to fly the aeroplane.

Sierras are certainly great to fly. I've never flown in a Brumby but have looked them over at Natfly. They are not as nicely finished as a Teccie but they look as though they are built tough. By all accounts I've heard they fly great. I have also heard about a few quality control and warranty issues with a couple Brumbies...nothing major though. The other aircraft at Natfly that I thought looked just as solid and well engineered as a Brumby was the Sling.

I don't know enough about the history of both organisations, but while joining the two together might seem to be more efficient I wonder about the logistics. To become more efficient you have to be able do the same combined jobs with less total staff and less combined resources. Each organisation has to have something to offer the other in terms of expertise and systems. From what I gather RAAus can barely handle the workload they have with the staff they employ now especially with the extra workload CASA has imposed recently. I'm willing to bet SAAA is the same. RAAus is only just now coming to grips with the 21st century and starting to put together computer systems for their core business of aircraft registration and pilot certification. This might become more efficient given a few years (simply digitizing paper records in a generic way as they are now is a start, but it's not the way ahead for real efficiency). With the large turnover of key staff in RAAus over recent years there could be a pretty large hole in our expertise as well. That's not to say the staff aren't doing a great job, but many are new to RAAus and probably need some time to come up to speed with RAAus operations. How would adding the SAAA business help RAAus? Or perhaps more to the point how would it help SAAA lumping it with RAAus as it stands at the moment. I believe things will get better within RAAus with the current leadership and some foresight, but at the moment I really can't see anything within RAAus that would be of value, in terms of increased efficiency to SAAA. Perhaps SAAA has some whizzbang systems in place that could help RAAus? I'm not trying to put down either organisation here, but RAAus has a lot of work to do getting it's own house in order after years of neglect before it can successfully partner with another organisation. I don't believe SAAA is a large enough organisation to be able to take on and help fix the problems within RAAus. With the cancelling of Ausfly this year, due it seems to manpower issues, it's possible SAAA has a few issues of its own as well.

There must be a lot of different pounds around! I get 1320 lbs = 598.741928 kg (1 pound = 0.45359237 kg) I'd tend to forgive a manufacturer for rounding that up to the 600kg LSA limit. The 335kg empty is pretty close.

I find it all a bit odd. As a potential aircraft buyer at some stage, who would quite like to buy Australian, what am I to think of a company (Jabiru) who continues to manufacture engines to a specification that is clearly coming up short? So much so that the very company that manufactures the engine (CAMit) is making their own improvements? I'm not sure what an HSE person is either, but if that's a person who does due diligence and researchs facts and evidence then I'm happy to be labelled as such. It is incorrect to say that there are many more Jabiru engines in Australia than other types. The RAAus register shows there are not. So therefore the apparent higher failure rate of Jab engines is real. A look at CASA and ATSB records show this to be the case. Exhaust valves may not know they are in a Jabiru engine, but the stats show something is causing them to fail on a regular basis. By all means defend Jabiru as having a great aircraft; as having to be one of the best value aircraft out there; as being a great Aussie success story against the odds. You can certainly defend the engine as being affordable, but there seems to be a downside to this affordability. You cannot defend the engine reliabilty on the evidence compared to many other common 4 stroke aero engines. CAMit has obviously realised this, the sooner Jab does the better for what is left of Australian manufacturing.

If you have a look at newspapers from around 100 years ago ( eg. Trove at the National Library ) you see that they complain about the same sort of things in the kids of their day that we do now. Young people never change it seems and neither do we old fogeys So, what's the answer to the cost of aviation? It will cost you about the same for a small, low tech, carburetted aero engine as it does for a hi tech mid sized car which includes a more powerful hi tech fuel injected engine. Aircraft are still mostly hand made (even if the parts are CNCed) so it is a good way of turning a few $1000 worth of metal or fibre and resin into a $50K airframe which has about the same complexity as a bicycle. Even rag and tube will cost you minimum $20K for a few bits of fabric and aluminium tube and a glorified 2 stroke outboard motor (or dare I say a snowmobile motor). Perhaps Bex will be the saviour with his new engine!

These are inaccurate statistic I know but it is probably a reasonable random sample. Here is the breakdown of airframe and engine hours (as stated by owners) in aircraft in the April magazine Member's Market and if they are different from each other (perhaps indicating a premature engine overhaul or failure). If the engine hours have not been state I have assumed they are the same as airframe if the airframe hours are given.... Jabirus or aircraft with Jab engines: Under 500hrs with same Airframe and Engine hours: 21 Over 500hrs same AF and Eng: 5 Hours not stated: 5 Engine hrs less than Airframe hrs or major work done under 500hrs: 4 (including cylinder heads and camshaft) Engine hrs less than AF hrs 500-1000hrs: 2 Top-end Overhaul under 500hrs: 2 Top-end Overhaul over 1000hrs: 1 (I assume a top-end at 1000hrs is normal) Total Jabirus: 40 Aircraft with Rotax 912: Under 500hrs same AF and Eng: 17 Over 500hrs same AF and Eng: 9 Hours not stated: 7 Engine hrs less than AF hrs under 500hrs: 0 Engine hrs less than AF hrs over 500hrs: 1 Engine hrs less than AF hrs over 1000hrs: 1 Engine less than airframe but not hours stated: 1 (stated near new engine in an older aircraft) Total Rotax 912: 36

Really? 12hrs? Was it another bolt failure? I try not to be a Jab knocker....perhaps more a Jab sceptic. But I have to say I'd be somewhat upset if that happened to my lawnmower, let alone a $15K aircraft engine.

Sorry Nev...I can't help myself disagreeing with this mantra again A thermostat could prevent premature engine failure. This has to be weighed against the risk of the thermostat failing and also causing engine failure. A valve train at least doubles engine complexity, but solves far more problems than it causes. Few would claim a two stroke engine is more reliable than a four stroke due to less complexity (diesels excepted).

Excuse my ignorance...but what's the history of not having any PPL license or GA rego fees? How did that come about? Is the cost recovered from Avgas excise or was it a moment of extraordinary sanity by some government in recognising that aviation was an important thing to encourage in a place as big as Australia?

Thanks for that Capt. It summed up well many of my thoughts and more. It is interesting that Jim stood up and presented us with some simple and easy to understand statistics and figures and then proceeded to give us one of the worst financial outcomes and predictions ever seen from RAAus. And yet when questions were asked for there were none. No angry response, just grim acceptance. He didn't sugar coat it and didn't have the answers, but gave us some plans for the future that they hoped might stem the flow. I think that is an object lesson in good governance and how to communicate well with members. It was in stark contrast to some of the stuff that has been dished out (or even not dished out) to us in the past. Tell us the truth, accept responsibility, plan for the future. Well done Jim!

Aside from CAMit there was one new aircraft exhibited at Natfly that I hadn't seen before.....the Topaz. A very neat and nicely finished little high wing composite.... http://www.ekolot.pl/en/offer/kr-030-topaz1/descryption.html

We would all like to go back to "simpler" times. I would love to go back to farming in the same times as the early days of the AUF when I could just load my cattle on a truck and take them to market (for example). Today our cattle are legally required to have expensive electronic ID tags. These tags are scanned all through the sale and production chain and cattle are randomly tested for chemical residues. The slightest chemical contamination or disease can be traced straight back to my farm and I am legally responsible for that contamination. Any chemicals I use on my cattle (for worms or lice etc) or on my crops that cattle might eat of course have to be exhaustively tested and approved. All chemical applications and weather conditions have to be recorded and are audited. Each chemical has a different active life (after which residues fall below a safe limit) which also has to be tracked and recorded. When the cattle are sold I fill in a legal form in triplicate to say my cattle are fit for sale and free from chemical residues. All this is expensive and time consuming. Hands up all those who would be more comfortable eating beef from the 1980s without the safeguards. Aviation is no different. We live in different times....

I know it's a minor thing, but it begs the question...if it is a legal requirement to carry a current VNC for the flight you were doing, why did you fly without one? And "Because I thought I could get away with it" is a perfectly valid and honest answer. We all do it from time to time I guess. However, the more I hear and read about the opposition to ramp checks at Natfly, the more I think that there's an uncomfortable amount of pilots trying to get away with stuff.

Nope...it just happened to involve an aircraft that you consider to be a wannabe. Do you really think the result would have been any different if a badly constructed Drifter had hit the ferris wheel? Indeed, the public and media outcry would probably have been a lot worse if a rag and tube had hit it. I suspect that the general public perception of an average rag and tube would be of a death trap waiting to happen. You and I know that's far from the truth, but unfortunately perception is what we have to deal with, not reality.

Yep. I agree. It's the way of the world at the moment. So surely part of the solution is to keep our heads down, makes a reasonable attempt to follow the existing rules and not draw attention to ourselves. We live in a age where the general public already regards aviation with some fear and trepidation, the media sensationalises every aviation incident, and everyone has a movie camera in their pocket which can spread even the smallest aviation incident around the world in seconds. As much as we might think so, a government regulator does not make new rules just for the fun of making our lives difficult (usually). It will be in response to deaths or perceived risk. Small aviation is treading on thin ice. Let's not jump up and down too much.

I suspect that the tightening of the rules (and more ramp checks) has little to do with RAA getting "greedy" or the advent of "wannabe GA" and a lot to do with the likes of the various revelations in the Old Bar accident report. The list of questionable things in everything from pilot training to aircraft certification was rather long. Even if they weren't directly the cause of that accident, some of them were an accident waiting to happen. If I was a CASA person my eyebrows would have been well and truly raised. Overhearing various stories at Natfly which went from how many unregistered aircraft and unlicensed pilots are flying around, to the inevitable grumbling about ramp checks, I think it's no wonder CASA are starting to rattle our cage. Take the accident at nearby Lake Hume where an unlicensed pilot flies an unregistered ultralight into controlled airspace, buzzes boats and then crashes. If that's the level of intelligence that's sharing the air with us then I, for one, don't mind there being a few more ramp checks.

Ramp check? Speed check? You need to have a *insert favourite road authority here* check on your truck to really see interesting interpretations of laws and rigorous applications of bureaucracy. If many are really staying away because of the fear of a ramp check then perhaps CASA has a point. The way to show CASA we are responsible and careful is surely to front up and pass your ramp check and then tell them "I told you so...RAA pilots are safe". It's no different from the standards you are expected to meet when you drive a motor vehicle.

Umm...they're not Jab engines.

Like any new engine or mod, I guess we'll have to give them 1000hrs before they can give useful feedback of any failures or shortcomings....unless they start failing sooner. Hearing about what CAMit have done you certainly feel a bit more confident.

Off topic for a CAMit engine thread (sorry), but from memory the Rotax iS has dual redundant ECUs, dual redundant electric fuel pumps, a dedicated direct drive alternator for the EFI system independent of the main electrical system and battery, plus an automatic switch-over to the main alternator if the EFI alternator fails, and if that fails too the battery can keep you going for a little while.

Oscar, I may have missed it (feel free to point me to the post number), but I don't get why you want to use both carby and EFI at the same time. Why use supplementary EFI to make up for the deficiencies of a carby when EFI is perfectly capable of doing it on its own? As mentioned above for redundancy you then use a carby or TBI as the throttle body and only supply the carby with fuel if EFI fails.