Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just noticed one of the incident reports quoted earlier in this thread. My club sold this Foxbat to its current owner about 13 months ago. This aircraft was fitted with the Rotax 912 fuel injected eng

With all the posts knocking Jabiru's reliability in the past, I feel his comment was just a bit tongue in cheek, not to be taken seriously. Lighten up and accept it for what it is. Hopefully

Off The top of my head The last few serious incidents. Heck field Rotax failed to make enough power on takeoff South east of Melbourne (I think) Rotax powered coolant leak into cabin cr

Posted Images

1 minute ago, red750 said:

This one is getting lots of TV coverage. On Sunrise this morning.

 Clearly showing the aircraft as 24-8182 with Sydney Flying Academy titles .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intermittent muffler blockage is hard to diagnose unless you have some awareness of the possibilities. It's usually a detached "something" like a baffle. Loss of power with extra quietness from the exhaust note are signs and the muffler rattles if you shake it (when it's off).. The engine will get hotter quickly as well. It happened occasionally with GA types . CO poisoning with old mufflers leaking into heater muffs is possible too. Muffler condition is quite an important safety issue.. Nev

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, yampy said:


That would be a recipe for disaster and should  never happen . A increase to 1500’ would place any V1 traffic in direct conflict with any inbound Sydney traffic landing on 34L or 34R  which , in a 3degree approach path would be at 1500’ on passing the Eastern shoreline of Botany Bay . The same separation situation exists for the LOE too with landing aircraft on 16R  in particular  where presently there is only 1000’ separation with the LL of CTR of 2500’. 

Really? not even another 500ft? - cant say I am along this rout every day or even every month but when I have been using it, every commercial aircraft was far far above me. Perhaps I just been lucky. 

 

I see your point for a few NM each side of the Botany Bay approach but down to 500 ft all the way from Long Reef to Maroubra ?? and 1500 ft clearance for extended period over heavily built up areas just doesn't feel right to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only reason this route is available is because you aren't over built up areas. You are over water.. It's not an issue of where planes normally go, it's where they might have to go if they go around or lose an engine  or have a hydraulic failure etc after take off. Nev

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder which lane they were flying. There is Victor One, and there is also the western Sydney light aircraft lane which crosses south- north to behind Camden then cuts north east over housing suburbs to come out somewhere near Brisbane Water

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yampy said:

 Clearly showing the aircraft as 24-8182 with Sydney Flying Academy titles .

 

This was a very active flight school trainer. I heard it on the Radio at Bankstown regularly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Really? not even another 500ft? - cant say I am along this rout every day or even every month but when I have been using it, every commercial aircraft was far far above me. Perhaps I just been lucky. 

 

I see your point for a few NM each side of the Botany Bay approach but down to 500 ft all the way from Long Reef to Maroubra ?? and 1500 ft clearance for extended period over heavily built up areas just doesn't feel right to me.

No not even another 500’ . You were suggesting an additional 1000’ in your original post and I was replying  to that suggestion , however , another 500’ would breach all separation requirements between V1 traffic and incoming Sydney arrivals using RW 34L and 34R on crossing the extended centrelines . It is possible to see airliners far above when on VI , they are probably outbound from SYD and climbing to the North and East of the airport at the time , but a heavy airliner just 1000’ above you looks pretty big .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point being made is that Victor 1 could be 1000' for most of its length and drop to 500' for the approach paths. Surely this would improve options for anyone encountering problems while transiting V1. It is only a few years ago when someone ended up in the sea and drowned. All the training in the world and wearing life jackets does not cover all the possibilities of a water landing.

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

I think the point being made is that Victor 1 could be 1000' for most of its length and drop to 500' for the approach paths.

hmmm - it IS so? 1000 V1 North (up to South Head) and 500 only from South Head to Bundeena?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JEM said:

iIRC a continual power loss issue ina rotax powered Alpha suspected to be a fuel flow issue turned out to be a blocked muffler

I had that experience...Took me a while to diagnose because it was intermittent and difficult to reproduce the fault on the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking the condition and security of internal baffles is an item in CASA schedule 5. Visual inspection, tapping the exhaust with a soft mallet, any L2, LAME or AME would be on it.

Edited by Thruster88
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

. Still why not all the way to at least Maroubra ?

1000 instead of 500 from SH to Maroubra does not change anything - anyway you have to ditch there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I suppose they're protecting the approach to RWY 25. The VTC indicates a 4 mile final from the coast just north of Maroubra to the threshold. (And 5 to 6 miles from RWY 34L/R to the coast and V1)

If 25 is in use it's a pretty constant landing stream (in normal times)over the coast just south of Bondi.  You'd think that wake turbulence would be the scariest issue, passing underneath all that.

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Garfly said:

And I suppose they're protecting the approach to RWY 25. The VTC indicates a 4 mile final from the coast just north of Maroubra to the threshold. (And 5.5nm from RWY 14 to the coast and V1)

If 25 is in use it's a pretty constant landing stream (in normal times)over the coast just south of Bondi.  You'd think that wake turbulence would be the scariest issue, passing underneath all that.

You are spot on there Garfly . The ERSA clearly makes a point of the wake turbulence risk . At the end of the day it’s all about risk mitigation .

David 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've now edited that post because I'd meant to say the 34 threshold at YSSY rather than the 14 one.

(which is more like 1200nm from the coast 😉 

Edited by Garfly
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have lived on Rainbow Street, Randwick, RIGHT UNDER the 25 path , and when it was active, mainly in winter,  we would from time to time, experience "wild weather" in otherwise clear conditions. 

 

I used to put it down to wake turbulence falling. 

 

As for the FOXBAT :   

 

I was reading something in a USA forum, based on an FAA CO study, suggesting  that when high hour users replace their 912 at something like 1200-1500 hours, that they have been keeping the old exhaust/muffler and only replacing the engine.

 

Many believe the lifespan of the rotax muffler is only 1000 hours and they fall apart after that.....

 

-glen

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on previous comments a check of the muffler system should be done during maintenance checks and especially if some loss of power is discovered and then it can't be replicated later. A few whacks with a rubber mallet should give an indication of loose baffles. As T88 says any Lame/Ame would be on to it. What do Rotax have to say given this does not seem to be that rare?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the engine issue could be anything including fuel exhaustion, the two previous failures could possibly point to an initial issue of dirty fuel, cleaning the system out afterwards, but not replacing the fuel filter with a new one.

 

Not all filters are up to the standard we are used to with Ryco filters where you can usually blow the filter out with an air hose and go back to as new performance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel Filters - I am a big fan of Hengst - specifically H103WK (integrated 90 degree spout) & H102WK straight.

 

Both filters have

  • same dimensions & filtration using a fine gauze (no pleated paper in these) 8 mm in/out spouts - seem to fit up to 100 mm ID fuel line.
  • light weight and leak proof
  • sealed clear "bodies" so you can see any material build up
  • are almost indestructible
  • cost effective
  • can be "serviced" (cleaned out) but why would you?

I have been using  Hengst fuel filters for over 10 years without any issues. I always carry a couple of spares but have never had to use one away from home. I filter all my fuel into the tank, consequently rarely see anything in my on board filters.

 

There are variose importers into Au - phone around for the best price

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SplitS said:

Anyone else notice a trend with Rotax power aircraft.

They should have been flying a Jabiru. 🍿

Why would you say that?

 

The RAA Occurrance Review for the forst half of 2020 lists 25 accidents and 54 incidents - is it a trend in that volume?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...