Frankus1aust

look at all the cool warbirds that fit under 1500kg, most of these can be picked up for around the same cost of a top of the line JabiruTrue but to fly them you need a 1,500 KG gold bar collection. Somehow the camo paint job on the Jabbawocki doesn't quite do it.

 

 

 

In reality, GA aircraft are more expensive to maintain than the normal RAA fare. RAA would get a few on the register but the maintenance would need to be on the same lines as GA. So it is not a real saving or a cheap way to fly. It does however, give an option for many aircraft on Aviation Advertiser that are for sale for "Medical Issues" and keep older GA pilots in the air. Instituted sensibly it would be a benefit. However I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to arrive.

 

 

February 2017 | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Review of medical certification standards | Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Will they read it?

 

 

There is an adapter kit you can buy that will insert the signal going to the Gopro into the Headset line. Here is an example but bear in mind that not every Gopro camera has the same inputs. The digital input models need an extra adapter but I think you will still need this bit Pilot PA80GP GoPro Hero Audio Adapter | PA80GP | Australia.

 

 

In the right conditions the "heavy" could look like the Death Star?

 

Sorry..... Frivolous comment but after a hard day rescuing princesses..... ?

 

 

If you put the new Jab 6 cylinder engine in it you would get great performance. TBO if you do the maintenance is 1,000 hours. The local flying school has 3 x J160 and they LAME maintain them per schedule (2.2L engines) and replace the engines at 1,000 hrs. in 18,000 hours they have had one failure. On par with their Lycoming powered warriors.

 

 

A bit of a typo there (edited by mod)He was undiagnosed. As explained by Jaba above, he had a hyperglycaemic moment (blood sugar too high), not a hypoglycaemic (blood sugar too low) moment.

Thanks for that

 

 

Well surely if you have a hidden vice which flags an alert as far as operating machinery like an aeroplane, then it should be investigated by an appropriately qualified doctor to ensure that it is not something which affects your abilities in that respect?I guess what I'm saying is that there should be a medical standard to meet of some description. However I do sometimes get the vibe when reading commentary about "easing" private pilot medical standards (something I don't inherently object to as long as it is done sensibly) that there is a small community out there which would like to advocate for zero medical standards to meet, or a situation which would have the same effect like relating the aviation medical standard to that of a drivers licence, which in practical terms is virtually none at all.

 

It is hard to collect data on whether medical standards have or haven't prevented accidents because by default, pilots with significant medical problems are grounded until those problems are resolved, like I was early last year (and was allowed back flying again when it had been fixed). So under the current regime you'll never know whether they would've ended up being a statistic or not. A certain level of gastro incapacitations in commercial pilots contributes little knowledge to this topic because by default, the inherent risk of eating out by necessity in weird and wonderful slip ports is going to sometimes result in consumption of a dodgy vindaloo, but in a two-pilot aircraft this risk is mitigated by default.

 

My wife was recently driving behind a truck driver on the M1. He coasted to a stop right in the middle of the motorway. As a doctor she stopped behind him and walked to the driver's side to check whether he was ok. He'd gone into a diabetic coma which had been undiagnosed. From a risk-management perspective, that's not the sort of thing you want to happen in a single-pilot aircraft.

Just regarding the Diabetic coma and diagnosed diabetes, that doesn't quite make sense as from my understanding to have a "hypoglycemic moment", a person would have too much insulin and too low bloodsugar. That is normally a risk factor for type 1 diabetics injecting insulin. There is a wide spectrum of control with type 1. Some people have no trouble with maintaining reasonably stable blood sugars and some are unstable. I would suggest the truck driver was on insulin and unstable. There is a whole protocol flying with diabetes type 1 set by Avmed and though it is rather convoluted, it does allow type 1 diabetics to fly. All be it geared to the lowest common denominator.

 

 

Given the requirement to have an effective Safety Management System their appetite means nothing. A concerted effort by a wise group of members could easily force this process to be adopted.

I have written to AOPA, RAA and others on this and so far not had even a reply. Bearing in mind I am a secretary of an industry peak body (honorary) and know that governments only listen to peak representative bodies and then pressure the regulators to act in consultation. It will require a groundswell member movement. Power does not like to share.

 

 

Any proposed changes to regulations should be safety based and risk assessed. I can hear the groans, but honestly the only way to beat the creep in regulations is to baffle the authors with their own red tape.Step 1 - ask why the change is necessary? Not someone's pet thing or gut instinct, hard and verified statistics which are made available for review.

Step 2 - Identify affected parties and involve them in fixing the problem.

 

Step 3 - complete a proper hazard identification process, risk assess the hazards, develop mitigators for any significant hazards, then review them looking for hazards they may create.

 

Step 4 - plan the introduction of the changes - including training affected personnel and a post implementation review and refine/withdraw changes depending on the effectiveness.

 

This is very roughly the process required by a sound SMS. At best the work involved might make the rule changers think twice before putting pen to paper, worse case it might actually produce some good outcomes. Simply changing or introducing rules does not improve safety!

 

In other words, bury them in their own BS.

Great work! Step 1 could be also be run through an industry council (if one existed) to show industry support and qualification. An industry council BS filter could be a body made up from reps from the existing associations. Such an industry council would be a body of compatible magnitude to CASA as far as representative weight would be concerned and have more impact than any single entity. However I suspect there is not much appetite for a collective body among the associations.

 

 

Hi FrankusI must say I disagree with this philosophical approach.

 

I say there are no planes falling out of the sky owing to medical conditions what would have been predicted by imposing another layer of medical review... indeed the number of medical related issue over the past decade is statistically so small it almost doesn't count. I argue there is virtually no risk to mitigate that the current system does already do well, which is evident by the lack of incidents.

 

In my view your suggested approach is more likely to drive real medical conditions underground and not get treatment owing to fear someone will find out ... I think the whole medical review is a nonsense and counter productive. I think this new approach could ground a bunch of people that pose no threat to themselves our their pax.

 

In reality if I wake up tomorrow morning and feel unwell (lets say cold) I simply don't fly ... I do not require a medical examiner to tell me to do this and a medical examination done 12 months ago won't predict a future medical condition...

 

One is much better to have an open a relationship with one family doctor and manage ones own health issues.

 

Cheers

 

Vev

Yes that is true and I am referring to the "refer to refer to CASA Avmed board type issues" like type 1 diabetes and the more potentially problematic conditions. Vic Roads seem to have a way more sensible approach in that if a specialist in the condition says you're ok, then Vic Roads give you the license. No need to convene a Spanish Inquisition.

 

 

Welcome and Australia is a great place for a flying visit.

 

 

Where have I been? Living with Type 1 diabetes since my late teens. Never believing that CASA will acknowledge the advances in the management of this condition to the point of enabling me to fly GA.For many years I did not think I would ever fly at all. I am thankful for what RAAus has allowed me to do, but fearful that this never ending drive for more by some will result in restrictions most of us do not want to see.

 

Good for you for having PPL, but don't assume that is an option for all RAAus pilots. Also don't bother reffering to the "Drivers License Medical" crap because CASA seem determind to make sure that is not a viable option.

With you on the type 1. I also have a PPL all be it burdened with more Avmed conditions and procedure that would fit on a family sized dunny roll. The RAA license could allow for heavier and more sophisticated aircraft/flying environments but to keep things RAA simple, aircraft could fall into a broader version of the existing classifications, and the pilots could have suitable endorsements. We already have airspace limitations on experimental and some other classes so this would not be hard to develop a little further. So far, CASA Avmed has been RAA's friend and sent us lots of members who normally wouldn't have come over. Once here, they like it. Re CASA and Avmed, if you don't fight, you lose. I have a heavy vehicle license and type 1 diabetes. Vic Roads have been really good to deal with on the licence and I wish CASA would take a lesson from Vic Roads on how to balance risk and results. When a government organisation is being surpassed by Vic Roads in common sense, that tells me we are being massively over governed by an organisation needing reform.

 

 

Hi jonny,AvMed will most likely refer your application to their Complex Case Panel who may issue you with a Class 2 Medical subject to Audit. If so you will be required to submit a report from your medical specialist at specified periods e.g every tree months which may be a costly exercise unless your medico bulk bills.

 

If CASA proceeds down this path and issues you with a Class 2 medical then in the event of an incident/accident insurance coverage should be retained given CASA has issued you with a medical to fly.

 

Good luck

Thanks and yes, the complex panel issued me a cert last year after at least 6 months of parking the application. No bulk billing and plenty of tests. I would rather spend it on flying but I have at least confirmed I am as healthy as I think I am. I just hope they read all the data and not be obsessed with the one crossed box. I think this time it will be quicker. I'm sure they are not trying to be unreasonable but the template they are following was probably drawn up last century. For a pilot that doesn't cross any boxes on the new computer application finds the issuing of a class 2 pretty quick from what I can see.

 

 

Are there any owners of Jab SP6's out there who have had their aircraft 're-weighed' from 470kg TOW to 500 or 544 kg? Seems that these great little planes are extremely limited with loading and are therefore really a single seater with full fuel (85L tank behind seat) with an overnight bag. Any help would be appreciated.

I don't have a helpful answer but can you tell me i it has the same wings as the later model J 160? What is the difference between the SP5 and the other 55 reg models? Cheers - Frank

 

 

I won't hold my breath waiting for CASA to change the medical. Maybe 12 months or more,maybe before the next medical in 2 yrs?

My last medical took six months from application, and was a 12 months certificate with renewal based from the date of my application asking, for 12 months worth of data for reapplication. Bearing in mind they want you to submit the renewal 4 weeks early (for "special" cases), that gives me PIC privileges for 5 months before reapplication. Since my cert runs out start of Feb, that means I have to supply all the data at the time when all the medicos are on holidays. So I have to get in early. That means at best I have 5 months or less of data for them to evaluate when they really want 12 months. So with the short time frame data set I'm guessing they will extend my limitations for another 12 months and I will maybe get 8 months worth of viable C2 Med (with safety pilot limitations). Is this just a load of nonsensical BS or am I just being unreasonable?

 

 

Budget is around the $30k mark. I used to pay$5k per year for hangaring. Now that I am retired I was hoping for an aircraft that I could trailer home, if not a smaller aircraft that would cost less to hangar. Single seat would be OK, a project nearly complete or just needing some work would be good. Not sure that timber is my bag but either metal or composite would be suitable. I would prefer something that cruised over 100 knots. The sonex and Onex looked good, the Onex probably would cost a lot less to run.

Re trailering it home I know a guy selling an Aeropup and trailer for 30K and it is a great little 2 seat aircraft. Let me know if you want the number

 

 

Budget is around the $30k mark. I used to pay$5k per year for hangaring. Now that I am retired I was hoping for an aircraft that I could trailer home, if not a smaller aircraft that would cost less to hangar. Single seat would be OK, a project nearly complete or just needing some work would be good. Not sure that timber is my bag but either metal or composite would be suitable. I would prefer something that cruised over 100 knots. The sonex and Onex looked good, the Onex probably would cost a lot less to run.

I am a convert from GA and the Jabiru is worth a look. I know they have copped some not great press lately but you can pick up a Jabiru J160/170 or the earlier models for 30K or lower. (Maybe a little more for a J170). Assuming you get a good engine they are great value and really tough aircraft. There are some 6 cylinder 55 reg models around and they will do 120 knots. With appropriate covers they will standup ok if left outside. I know a few with 6000 hours of paddock flying school and still fly well. (Engine replacement at 1,000 hours and no problems).

 

 

[ATTACH=full]47441[/ATTACH] PhotoPS I have a rope tie down from the crankshaft to the ground.

Nice fabric job. All your own work?

 

 

Downloaded the document. 45 pages. Might as well make a start while we have some time

 

 

And yes..... Do the weight and balance. I know the performance is impressive but don't push your luck. Accident stats do none of us any favors.

 

 

Just another Aussie manufacturer story. The government pays "innovation nation" lip service but try getting any real help or support from them. With the exception of Aus-Trade who are great, the rest is a painful process (with a few exceptions). Took out a Jab today with a GA senior instructor relation as passenger. He was impressed with its performance and low fuel burn. Got him thinking.

 

 

Re programs, there is a great wealth of old aviation series on Youtube. Here's a starter from the 90's.

 

 

 

looks like the prop was spinning at the time of impact?

 

 

If I can comment on that Frank inverse square reduction from a point source is 6dB per doubling of distance and 3dB from a line source in ideal free-field conditions. This is the SPL propagation loss, in terms of perceived loudness approx 10dB represents a halving so yes it's a considerable reduction in loudness but not four times...One could have a degree of respect for the Greens if they actually never used things like petrol, coal-fired electricity or flew in aircraft. Or made noise.

As far as practical application is concerned, you are correct. The practical reality is the human ear is a very poor determiner of changes of volume. Of course, if a person has a particular dislike for a sound (techno, exhaust brakes, trail bikes or aircraft), no matter the relative dB level to the mean environmental noise, they will complain.