cooperplace Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 so do we know the cause of the crash yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It was a #19 regoed plane it only reflects badly on the RAA's air worthiness standard. Obviously, if you build a plane from less than robust parts you are really forcing the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 so do we know the cause of the crash yet? Yep but not at liberty to post on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It was a #19 regoed plane it only reflects badly on the RAA's air worthiness standard. Obviously, if you build a plane from less than robust parts you are really forcing the issue. Garbage. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It was a #19 regoed plane it only reflects badly on the RAA's air worthiness standard. Obviously, if you build a plane from less than robust parts you are really forcing the issue. Ok FT I'll take the bait. Which airworthiness standard(s) did it not meet? Which less than robust parts were used in it's construction? If your posts (particularly post# 55) are to have any credibility you should disclose to the group your inside knowledge of this incident and the construction of this particular aircraft. Otherwise you (and the rest of us) would be better off if you spread your bovine bum bombs on your garden, not here. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 gandy.........ignor him mate, most here have worked out he's just a stirrer. ( hope they have )......anybody actually know if he has aviation credentials anyway, probably hasn't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 gandy.........ignor him mate, most here have worked out he's just a stirrer. ( hope they have )......anybody actually know if he has aviation credentials anyway, probably hasn't. Yep. Right on all points Russ. Just for info, the rear attachment lugs shown in post # 41 were all from certified aircraft that were VH registered. The same design and construction was used in Jab's non certified aircraft. Can't say for certain they still use that method on the wet wings, but as the design passed CASA's airworthiness standards then perhaps FT owes RAA and by implication, Jabiru, apology. Fat chance! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Dear Admin, As we have requested - please change the title to something that reflects the actual known circumstances of the incident. Ie: Jabiru has forced landing cause under investigation. This is a fairness issue. And not a form of censorship. Even if it was not a well known manufacturer will ongoing issues with CASA, which it could be interpreted as unwarranted. The continued misrepresentation of issues with Jabiru or any other manufacturer, does a great disservice to us all as sport pilots and to RAAus and this very forum site. Also unfairly targets owners of Jabiru aircraft and the value of their aircraft. We have been previously been told to not be too political due to ability to be sued- the same goes for this issue. And is far more relevant to our sport. Think of all of us, our sport, our aircraft, our RAAus and your precious website. Then think about Jabiru, all they have done for our expanding sport. The title smells of witch hunt. And it portrays us all very badly. 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 ... the rear attachment lugs shown in post # 41 were all from certified aircraft that were VH registered. The same design and construction was used in Jab's non certified aircraft... The best aircraft engineering is always a compromise between lightness and strength. Why would anyone complain if the wing attachement isn't strong enough to resist a crash? You want the structure to soak up impacts so the people inside suffer less Gs. Jabirus seem to have it about right. When any large transport crashes at speed you usually get confetti; any large bits were probably built too heavy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 well here you go..........an extract from a "PM" to me....... "I doubt that he will ever fly his aircraft because I get the impression that he's too scared to fly in anything less certified than a 737. I'm told that most who meet him, avoid him thereafter." Ol mate FT.............trouble maker, and that's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greybeard Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 What makes anyone think that the content of an internet forum has any influence or bearing on anything apart from the ego's of the participants? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 That's not what most think these days. It's replacing other forms of "propaganda" more, all the time Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Yep but not at liberty to post on here. no hints? are you saying that it definitely wasn't a fault with the aircraft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 no hints? are you saying that it definitely wasn't a fault with the aircraft? There are no certainties in life but I was told the same as post 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 There are no certainties in life but I was told the same as post 12. Which, adding a little journalistic spin, basically in a roundabout way alluded to the possibility that it may have allegedly been the result of pilot error. I agree the title is a tad innapropriate but has anyone actually hit the report button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 All the title needs to fix it is a Question Mark? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 An inference would still be there. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 .......I agree the title is a tad innapropriate but has anyone actually hit the report button? Good point SDQDI. Done. Lets see if that gets a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Dear Admin,As we have requested - please change the title to something that reflects the actual known circumstances of the incident. Ie: Jabiru has forced landing cause under investigation. This is a fairness issue. And not a form of censorship. Even if it was not a well known manufacturer will ongoing issues with CASA, which it could be interpreted as unwarranted. The continued misrepresentation of issues with Jabiru or any other manufacturer, does a great disservice to us all as sport pilots and to RAAus and this very forum site. Also unfairly targets owners of Jabiru aircraft and the value of their aircraft. We have been previously been told to not be too political due to ability to be sued- the same goes for this issue. And is far more relevant to our sport. Think of all of us, our sport, our aircraft, our RAAus and your precious website. Then think about Jabiru, all they have done for our expanding sport. The title smells of witch hunt. And it portrays us all very badly. How do you think the Cessna Corporation feels every time that a journalist writes a headline "Cessna Crashlands in Cessnock" or something similar, when in most cases it is anything but a Cessna. They would consider that a witchhunt against their brand too, if they read Australian newspapers and watched Australian TV news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nong Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 So when does ASMOL apologise to everyone associated with the wonderful project called Jabiru? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 AMSOL apologise not likely. The way he reports on every issue you would almost think he works for another manufacturer or works for Channel 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I dont think Amsol needs to apologise about the title,,as i think there is A LARGE number of pilots that fly behind an engine with the name of jabiru on it {some have no real choice as training aircraft where they fly have them installed] That be they good or be they not have real spincter flucuations at the slightest change in note as they fly ,,,BECAUSE of their past record ,,an undeniably bad one at that ,,,,,,,,And past performance speaks for it,s self don,t you think?................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!! Putting sh|t on Australian companies like Jabiru is the bloody reason every consumer product we buy in Australia is made overseas, and our own people are scratching around for work. Jabiru might not be the best engine manufacturer in the world, but I can take you to a cairn at Camden Airport that is a memorial to a group of people who lost their lives because a big American aero engine manufacturer failed to pass on critical engine build specification to the aviation world. If you hate Jabirus, please, for the sake of Australia's future economic sovereignty, refrain from puttin sh|t on them. Old Man Emu PS: ASMOL is the commercial name for a brand of asthma control drug. So I suppose you could say that the person on this forum using that screen name is a whinging wheezer - OME 1 6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asmol Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Okay people you have had your fun and games including personal attacks at both my screen name (which yes, is a drug that keeps me alive on a daily basis) and on my avatar which looks nothing like me and is one I just picked off the Internet because I don't own a plane that I can proudly display a picture of. Now it's time for these half a dozen people who keep complaining to move on, I don't write the headlines that report all of these issues on a weekly basis and as they say don't shoot the messenger! I only have to look through a lot of the banter on this website to come to the very solid understanding that there is a definite problem with jabiru engines. Anybody could come to this same result as I could just by looking through the posts on this very website, looking through the RA-Aus website and finally looking at the CASA website where the Australian government have seen fit to make every passenger who is flying behind one of these engines sign a waiver form and impose other numerous restrictions on aircraft using these engines. I don't know of any other activity, industry or pastime in Australia where the government have imposed a requirement that people must sign a declaration admitting that they could very well get killed flying behind one of these engines. This is the sole justification I need for the heading I chose for this thread. To me personally it does not matter, I have never flown in a jabiru aircraft and from what I have seen I never will. I have said it before and I will say it again that every single time one of these plane crashes regardless of type or cause comes up in the headlines it is one less chance for me to be allowed to continue my flight training when they come to the attention of my other half. Each and every time it becomes harder for me to say that I would like to go out to the airport and do a few more lessons because every time I get the same feedback about these death traps. Stop having crashes and we won't have headlines like this and a whole lot of people like myself will be able to continue flying without needing a divorce to do so ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Thank you to the Mods or Admin for changing the thread name to something more appropriate and much less News-Of-The-Worldy. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now