rick-p

I love bush lawyers they make my job worthwhile and financially rewarding.

Ozzie, if that is a photo of your head in the last post...please go ahead and offer it !!

Terry,just spend a bit extra and fit a Rotax engine.If you go for a cheap alternative you may well end up with "a lightwing with no engine" at 100' agl after takeoff.The only problem I've personally had was the flywheel bolts shearing on startup (I was lucky,one bloke I know had it happen at altitude).It was a saw blade spinning at 2800rpm and made a mess.There have been other problems with our 2 club Jabirus including cylinder through bolt failure,dropped valve,broken conrod,excessive oil use caused by overheating/excessive wear from factory economy kit.Our club sold its last Jab just over 2 years ago and bought a Foxbat.The Foxbat has done over 700 hours in our ownership with a 100hp Rotax 912S and has never had a spanner on it apart from scheduled maintenance.The actual time on the engine is 1080 hours and it runs like new.TBO of 1500 hours looks very acheivable.I have NOT seen a Jabiru engine reach TBO without major maintenance.

That's not crazy it's INSANE. Imagine what it must do to your unborn children!

Hey I would have love to have gone but because of the presence of a number of Mexicans I held grave concern for the possibility of the pigs flying, go figure.

First clue, this is not anaeronautical riddle.

Rick-p

You are 100% spot on, it is a real classic!

Rick-p

Obviously the video clip is of a radio controlled model of a Jabiru as isn't performing aerobatics illegal in such an aircraft?

Rick-p

Hi Yenn,

Did you sort the problem?

I would at a pinch also go with wheel alignment.

I had an incident occur a few years ago in the Skyfox.

I was doing a fast taxi up to the other end of the strip and as I slowed down a bit the old girl started to ground loop.

This was a first for me as I had never ground looped in a Skyfox previously despite all the fan fair from the experts that it was a very easy plane to ground loop.

It really did take me by supprise as nothing I did to stop it worked.

Thank God my strip is very wide from fence to fence.

Anyway the end result was that I came to rest with one of the main gear wheels resting right in the middle of one of the tyres I use as a marker on the strip.

Well you can't imagine the difficulty I had in lifting the old girl on my own and trying to then move it over the tyre.

Please don't anyone say why didn't you taxi it out of the tyre, please think about what the end result would have been if I had have done that.

Anyway once the plane was out of the tyre I couldn't see anything wrong looking at it close up but I did what I always do and as I was taught to do by Greg McG that is when you do your pre flight always after your checks move away from the aircraft and look at the big picture.

As I said I did this and very quickly spotted the problem.

It was the wheel alignment.

A bungie hadn't broken but somehow on one side of it's attachment had slipped and slightly lengthened hence allowing that wheel's angle relative to the ground to be less thus altering the camber and efectively the wheel had less toe in.

This allowed the aircraft to ground loop to that side.

And of course,you guessed it it was on the near side so it was further effected by the weight of the pilot with no passenger to act as a counter weight on the farside.

Regards,

Rick-p

Heon, me thinks that if one takes the time to read something and in doing so finds it so that they wish to comment on that which they have read you can rest assured that there will be others who will read with interest that person's comments. Therefore, one would beg to differ from that of your observation, as they, the interested reader, believe that that which has been addressed is still worth commenting on.

Rick-p

Hi John,

All you have said I feel is correct, to a point, but there is so much more.

You and I both know that it wasn't the engine failure itself, on it's own that was the cause of death of the pilot and passenger, it was just a factor in a chain of events that led to their deaths.

On the other hand we don't know why the aircraft impacted the ground in the manner it did which such resulted in the death of the 2 occupants.

To attempt to ascertain this without a full and precise physical investigation of all facts and circumstances which would include a full airframe and mechanical examination is not possible and any comment would only be conjecture regardless of the credentials of the theorist.

In the report under recomendations the Coroner stated that "the inquest has been concerned with the manner of death that is how the deaths happend".

Yes the engine failed but that in itself didn't cause it to fall out of the sky, did it?

It was still flying to the point where it actually crashed.

It hadn't broken up mid air.

The engine failed and it was flown into the ground, why?

Isn't that what the Coroner should be attempting to determine ie the manner of deaths, how the deaths happend or more properly why?

As said hereinbefore the engine failure was just part of the sequence of events which led to the very sad demise of these people.

If you read the report closely then you will see that the Coroner and I do not mean any disrespect to her, had a mind set that "ultra lights" in general were flimsy, unsafe ill-maintained toys, not real aircraft, with non proven engines, which really does fly in the face of the truth.

Bad publicity breeds contempt.

Pilot error, or however you call it, in all forms of aviation is the biggest killer of all not aircraft failure, whether it be mechanical or airframe.

In the present matter one must ask themself why the pilot did not deploy the BRS (the same by any other name), the answer is obvious he believed that they would get on the ground safely.

Yes, I know conjecture but a reasonable assumption.

This is exactly what a lot of the Coroner's report is made up of, that is assumptions, but not always reasonable because of an ill-conceived view in the matter of "ultra lights'.

The point I'm attempting to make here is that the Coroner's findings in my view would have best served the spirit of the legislation and the public at large if it had just been found that the engine failed for whatever reason and due to the then ensuing events, which such were not capable of being determined accurately by the Court without the producton of solid facts and circumstances, the pilot and passenger met their demise when there aircraft impacted the ground.

It was never proved to be a maintenance issue and there was no referal to the DPP.

There is no real point in getting too emotional over the report because as you quoted in your post the Coroner's court is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself in any manner it considers appropriate which in turn means that any finding of that court may be subject to a level of scrutiny above that of the traditional Courts, if it is felt warranted in all the circumstances.

Like everyone else who submits posts in these forums we are all entitled to our opinion and to have our say and the above is my opinion which such is I feel informed.

Regards,

Rick-p

If it helps anyone I just use a DELCOR calcium battery with the appropriate specifications successfully for years.

Rick-p

Postscipt!

Nev you are just too damn polite.

I've read it and all I can say is in my 25yrs in the legal profession I have never read so much crap based almost totally on conjecture and miss information.

What happend to the good old facts and circumstances rule.

Unfortunantely the rules of evidence basically don't apply to a Coronial inquest and if the Coroner see's fit any submission maybe admitted.

It's almost as though the players were involved in a witch hunt to apease the poor families of the victims but why make us all victims for the sake of a knee jerk reaction to a very sad and unfortunate happening.

I think as we get older we have a tendancy to tolerate fools less and less and we now know where all the fools work.

Freedom of speach remember they have spoken and now have I.

Rick-p

There's plenty for you now rick :)Want faster and heavy FLY GA! When the high speed faster machines do come in they will increase costs anyway.

 

Cause why would CASA say ok you guys have these machines under your registration that have been maintained by highly professional engineers, and now write them off as being owner maintained lol.

 

Animosity, this is a democracy where by people are afforded free speech.

 

Mike

First, yes everybody is entitled to freedom of speech but what is said by one party to another or many must be based on fact and correct circumstance not a knee jerk statement.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, only state the obvious.

If pilot/owners want heavier machines I'm sure that they know that there will be a further cost factor to that of flying a 150 kilo all up minimum machine as isn't that already the case with the cost of registration at this time with the RAA?

Also, please, do you really think that the RAA will allow for maintenance on such machines formerly GA to be maintained solely by someone with nil experiance and qualifications?

Even at this time if you have a certified aircraft (factory built) registered RAA and use it for training it has to be professionally maintained.

As Ian put it you can't stop change but can stop progress, or words to that effect, I can't return to his post whilst I'm typing this reply so I hope that I'm basically correct in my quote.

How would you like to return to the days of no flying over roads or above 300 feet?

Some it would seem would be ok with this so if we revert to the dark dim old days that would be change but in no way progress.

Progress is moving forward not sideways or backwards.

Progress benefits all because it doesn't destroy what already exists it enhances it giving more people access to it (whatever the animal is).

There are the cowboys in any organisation but I would hazard in the case of the present RAA registered machines to say that 99% of these aircraft are for all intents and purposes maintained by very qualified people whether they are owners or Level 2's including LAME's and AME's.

RAA pilots/owner have a passion, for flying their machines, unequal to any other group of aviators they fly for fun not money and they have little pressure upon them to cut corners because they well and trully know that it is their ar.e in a sling if they do, which in a lot of cases also includes their spouse and issue.

Also I don't think a lot are thinking of faster machines in this equation we already have those.

What a lot I believe are thinking is that with the increase in weight the graceful old girls of yesteryear which are no more than big ultra lights may well be capable of registration with the RAA.

They are the rag and tube brigade of yesteryear with speeds of around 100 knts and just fun to fly and be cared for like a good woman.

Quite a number of these aircraft have had some of the present RAA aircraft designed after them.

Anyway the point I make in all of this is don't knock or stop progress but always question change as such may not be progress only retrograde.

There is always someone who who will disagree with you and it's not the fact that they have disagreed that you need to examine it is why and what real effect if they get what they want will it have on my own position.

Regards,

Rick-p

It was said"It's very simple, some of us like to eat steak and others are happy with sausages.

The world would be a very boring place if everyone in it wanted only the same thing."

 

Yep!

 

If you want a good steak go to the Steakhouse restaurant for sausages go to the RAA BBQ.

 

and

 

to fly the Lancair go GA for Thruster stick with RAA.

 

I believe that all arguments re safety, passenger, useful payload and range can be met at 600kg. For more there is the option of GA.

 

I also argue that if RAA were to go to 750 kgs it should only be for new aircraft. That way by the time the heavier RAA aircraft become ageing aircraft RAA will have accumulated the necessary experience in maintaining these machines to a satisfactory standard.

 

RAA would thus avoid the challenges imposed by a sudden influx of old and in some cases very old ex GA aircraft.

 

dem's my thoughts

 

Davidh

David,

Yes in my view you are right to a point but that point fails when you say go to the Steakhouse as I believe that the RAA is already the steakhouse and will continue to be the staekhouse in the future.

All that which you say about safety issues etc are correct but what we have now with the system we fly under will evolve and no one can stop that happening.

There would obviously be varying requirements for the increased weight categories as there is now and those wishing to fly heavy would be governed by these additional requirements.

Rick-p

It's Ironic, all the people that were against AUF type flying for years are all now on board trying to take over and control the scene. we don't need a weight increase just go and fly GA

 

Mike

One wonders why people make such off hand remarks when they don't know who in fact really want's change, making comments such as this achieve nothing more than animosity because 99% of the time the comment is so far off centre it's well and truly in the rough.

It's like the assumption people make when someone is deemed guilty by association.

For one I have been a staunch supporter of the RAA (AUF) for years and have no real interest in anything other than flying and if this can be done safely any any aircraft within my means and desires under the banner of the RAA I'm all for it.

Rick-p

PS WE ALL HAVE TO CRAWL BEFORE WE WALK

Ok this is probably going to light a few fires but could everyone or anyone out there please give me some good reasons as to why we NEED or why we WANT a weight increase? What is it going to give us that we don't already have? (Do we really want a heap of very old aeroplanes being let in?) How is it going to increase our enjoyment? I'm not saying I'm against it but I just don't really see what we have to gain from it.Adam

 

It's very simple, some of us like to eat steak and others are happy with sausages.

 

The world would be a very boring place if everyone in it wanted only the same thing.

 

Personally I think that it would be very well received by the certain Aviator's if the weight limit was increased to 1000kg's. Of course that's just my view, I'm entitled to still have a view, arn't I?

 

Rick-p

In my day it was called LSD

Unbelievable.

Obviously it is true that there is no substitute for power.

A change of undies would have been in order!:ah_oh:

We keep on calling it a licence, which it is not,(as Crezzi points out). We are most likely, ahead of the world, with what we have here, so if we are, then that explains it.

British Aviation is notoriously hide-bound. Don't forget the British invented beaurocracy, and I thought the Indians perfected it, but you have got to differentiate between beaurocracy and administrative corruption to make that judgement. Appreciate what you have, all the more. Nev..

Nev you hit the nail on the head again.:hittinghead:

How much is it worth to save just (1) life by being informed?

At what cost do we draw the line?

Information (fact and circumstances) is the key to learning and without it we are the mushrooms.

I started out with an OS Pixie single channel, I think that I still have it somewhere in the shed.

Anyone out there go back that far.

I have a number of models, Bearcat MRM, Ryan STA MRM, Zero MRM, Gemini and about 8 or 9 other Aeroflight models, Skylane, Old Time with Saito 80 (I think) and another with a 65, a number of gliders and about 10 or 12 other home made jobs.

There is also a number of kits of varying types.

As for engines, numerous.

Hi-Tech, Futaba, Sanwa and JR.

The list goes on.

I have been radio control modelling for the best part of 45 years now.

The greatest hobby going I believe.

The skills some of the radio control builders of scale models have is pure art.

Regards,

Rick-p

Remember mate it was that mutual friend of ours that taught me to fly and even up to now I think that he is with me from time to time especially when the going has got tough.

HPD it was a thought only at the time and I think in all the circumstances landing as we did was in fact the safest option.

I most certainly did not want to be the first to park a Skyfox in the terminal or worst still hit an RPT.

Regards,

Rick-p

Oh by the way I'm selling the old girl, a sad day but she has to go as I really have no room now.

Greg was with me when I first picked her up and flew home from Mackay.

We flew up together in his ill fated Fox.

On the way up we decided to land on one of the beaches and as we were about to touch down we saw what we first thought was a log roll into our path.

We aborted and went around for a look.

It was no log but a quite large salt water croc.

Discretion being the order of the day we then kept going to Koumala (if thats how you spell it).

Jones'y put us up for the night and we did the test flying the next day.

The next day the strip was pretty damp but with a lot of Kitfox King antics and big tyres we made short work of the takeoffs and landings.

We did a few circuits in her and then Greg flew on my wing all the way to Rocky where he left to fly home to Bluff and me to Biloela.

There was a fair x-wind at home so I landed at Thangool and pressed Peter Loveday into flying the new toy home for me.

Peter is an experienced Skyfox person.

No drama, a couple of orientation circuits and we headed home for a perfect landing.

Fly safe friend.

Rick

Hi MMerv,

It had the caps lock on and I was just to lazy to change it.

14 kts on an average day but on a good day now thats another story, not more than 25 kts and you will just scrape it in.

Though, watch your wing tip as it is only a few inches off the ground.

Got caught at Gladstone a few years ago with no where else to go so I know for a fact that it can do it with the sock straight out.

A little frightening but when there is no backdoor the job has to get done head on.

We thought about landing accross the runway but decided that the powers to be may not have liked that.

Regards,

Rick