facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 With the requirement to certify a particular engine , or aircraft, you have no way of upgrading it as the system currently stands. It has inertia built into it. You are stuck in time. Nev
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 That's right FH, but dump that system, set a Design Regulation which specifies minimum performance, and for the manufacturer the sky is the limit and he has total control; easy!
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Yes THAT system has to go. IF an engine doesn't perform the engine time to inspection is reduced. Exactly the same in principle of any airframe part.
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Yes THAT system has to go. IF an engine doesn't perform the engine time to inspection is reduced. Exactly the same in principle of any airframe part. The lawsuits are going to decide that in the end where someone is hurt, but to minimise injuries the Recall system we have in the automotive section works very well, with manufacturers usually cleaning up the issue ahead of any government interference.
BPN Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Would it be at all possible to return this thread to its purpose? While I believe that Hiluxes have been designed in collaboration with the Chiropractic Association to maximise their profits and I have had far too many experiences with vehicalicidal 'Roos, neither of these fascinating topics of debate have the slightest to do with the CASA instrument regarding Jabiru engines. Lighten up Oscar , enjoy the diversity, this has been and is a fascinating study of "chinese whispers" Just shows how we can all get side tracked from the main event.
ianboag Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 This is a simplification I agree, but you can extract the forced landings by model from the ATSB reports, and I'd suggest the results will not indicate any need to be limiting those operations. Me - I am just talking about things as they are, not as they might be in a more sensible (as defined by who) world. Jabiru have a TC. If CASA think that's wrong then they should revoke it. Then CASA could explain which bits of the TC hoops it failed. Otherwise CASA should just shut up .... 3
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 They are not restricted in the mods they make many resist the recall system, seeing it as a loss of face. The media don't help there. The recall is the responsible thing to do.. Turbs the Lawyers ruined the US light aircraft scene for years. They have never fully recovered. They have many more lawyers per person than any place in the world by far, and I don't see it making the US a better place to do business in.. RAAus is not a public transport system . Nor does money get made from it's activities apart from the training required, and maintenance and supply of parts?aircraft. IF there is any section of aviation where rules can be minimised it HAS to be ours The RAAus. Nev
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 That may well be what would happen in NZ which is still operating on a prescriptive basis. Governments here have been working their way out of prescriptive action for a few decades, even closing down some departments, no longer having inspectors etc. It's self management of safety these days, and as I said previously CASA have been very clever with how they've managed this. This way it's all up to the people who make money outof/enjoy the sport to fix the problem.
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 They are not restricted in the mods they make many resist the recall system, seeing it as a loss of face. I'm not aware of any who have resisted except vaguely one recently. When you see the penalties involved when the government does step in with a FORCED recall, you can see why.
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Better flight training (because these planes need a fair it of skill to handle in less than near calm conditions, and handle engine failures, and flight management/planning. The rest is fiddling at the edges. nothing major needed. More knowledge and less appearing to do something. We can't dumb down the flying skills and expect to get away with it. At least have it as an option for those who are aware they need it. Nev
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Turbs the Lawyers ruined the US light aircraft scene for years. They have never fully recovered. I think that was PRODUCT liability which I understand is yet to be tested by the High Court in Australia, but would knock out many manufacturers if it was endorsed. RAAus is not a public transport system . Nor does money get made from it's activities apart from the training required, and maintenance and supply of parts?aircraft. IF there is any section of aviation where rules can be minimised it HAS to be ours The RAAus. Nev Even doing something for fun, you can't injure or kill someone without severe financial penalties these days, even if you don't mean to. That's just the way it is now.
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You keep saying the last part. Do you fully understand the philosophy of RAAus? or are you trying to import another standard from somewhere else? Tobacco kills thousands and alcohol and drugs too. Over 10,000 die by misadventure and errors in Australian hospitals annually. Let's get real with all of this. How many suicide? The deaths in U/L aviation are miniscule and don't involve 3rd part people often. Nev 2 3
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You keep saying the last part. Do you fully understand the philosophy of RAAus? or are you trying to import another standard from somewhere else? Tobacco kills thousands and alcohol and drugs too. Over 10,000 die by misadventure and errors in Australian hospitals annually. Let's get real with all of this. How many suicide? The deaths in U/L aviation are miniscule and don't involve 3rd part people often. Nev And you keep avoiding reading up on your obligations based on the laws of today. Yes, I understand the philosophy of RAA - keep it simple, keep it affordable. I administered speedway for eight years and we had exactly the same beliefs - it is non-commercial and we are only in it for the affordable sport. But we had a bad run of luck, or everyone who was injured knew which lawyer to call, and I had a baptism of fire, and quickly learned all about my obligations. You should too. I even decided to get out of the transport business, and take up a quiet profession like farming for meat, and found out all about HACCP, traceability, and the fact that four million Australians were hospitalised every year. I quickly zipped back to transport. Even the find raising sausage sizzles had to be either dumped, or conducted with duty of care, so no one is exempt, regardless of how simple a life they want.
jetjr Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Great world we have created where a charitable fund raising effort is cancelled due to fear of legal action 2
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Great world we have created where a charitable fund raising effort is cancelled due to fear of legal action Our generation didn't; it's just that the negligent ones are starting to pay. If you are poisoned or otherwise injured by someone's negligence your costs are going to be paid by the negligent whether they are a giant corporation or an individual.
frank marriott Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Alan Stick with trucks, unqualified legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it - nil. 1 6
Camel Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Those who fear the legal system most are possibly doing something wrong ! I'd like to think that if it's done right with reasonable care and precaution that there would be very little to fear. If we feared all the legal possibilities we would not leave the house and not let anyone on the property. 1
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 AlanStick with trucks, unqualified legal advice is worth exactly what you paid for it - nil. It isn't legal advice. I learned to live with the system years ago. The good thing about it is that it bites the ones who ignore their obligations. 1 1
Old Koreelah Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 ...Japanese have been one of the world's best marketers.A typical model may have available to the country of destination four engine sizes, two manual transmissions, two automatic transmissions, a variety of suspensions, two axle standards, a variety of wheel and tyre sizes, two cabs with options... ... That's quite interesting Turbs, but you haven't addressed the issue I raised: many of the vehicles Australians are driving at speed were originally designed as farm trucks and delivery vehicles. All the add-ons and options don't change that.
Russ Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Seeing we are way off topic, how is this.....aren't Rotax engines limited to ?? Max hrs before TBO, and or ?? Yrs in service. Just asking.
Guest Ornis Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Current Rotax 4-stroke: 15 years or 2000 hours for commercial use but on condition for private use, 3000 hours or whatever...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 That's quite interesting Turbs, but you haven't addressed the issue I raised: many of the vehicles Australians are driving at speed were originally designed as farm trucks and delivery vehicles. All the add-ons and options don't change that. Well we were talking about light commercials and not trucks, and in their early days, before export from Japan really started they were designed for on-road use, in the urban areas at slow speed and on winding country roads, so they already had some handling ability. The utes I had experience with were designed specifically for Australian roads, and when the trial units were landed in Australia they stayed in Engineering hands until the ride, handling and durability were all up to GM Australian standards. The add ons and options I talked about were not accessories, but driveline and component modules which go together to make a unique ute for the country of destination. Technically they are all different vehicles and will perform and handle quite differently. I'm not sure if you've driven US vehicles, but the utes which go to the US get that floating ride that americans love and the utes which were sold here had the Australian ride we are used to in Commodores and Falcons, plus shock absorber performance for Australian conditions, which usually involves bringing vehicles in without shock absorbers and retrofitting Australian units. Australian market tyres were also tested on the Australian tested and developed driveline which by now included gas shocks and anti roll torsion bars, and wide-track axles. Roll Centres may be changed for additional cornering stability. The Utes have access to a dedicated Proving Ground and also go out in groups on and off-road in test runs which might involve Melbourne to Darwin and back through Queensland. When you buy them from the showroom they have the Australian handling we all expect. 2
dazza 38 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 As most know, I work in western Qld. As I have mentioned previously,my company car is a Toyota V8 Landcruiser ute, I carry a big load at times. Our Utes dont have any stock suspension. They normaly have heavy duty suspension with extra GVM. We would rather have bigger utes made in the USA like F250 fords or GMC Silverados or Chevy Sierra's. We dont say to much to our bosses or we will end up with $hity small trucks like Hino or Isuzu. Cab overs. We drive a lot if kays during the day sometimes. I sometimes drive more than 500 kays a day. QLD is a big state and we like our comfort.
David Isaac Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Dazza, Do you also do the rear brake mod which converts the in disk handbrake to a driveshaft hand brake. My V8TD GXL Troopy has most of the mods you refer to. I hear the mines are dropping the 70 series because Toyota will not / cannot upgrade them to 5 star Ancap.
jetboy Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Seeing we are way off topic, how is this.....aren't Rotax engines limited to ?? Max hrs before TBO, and or ?? Yrs in service.Just asking. In NZ , microlights with a manufacturers flight manual requiring engine maintenance in accordance with the manufacturers instructions, must follow those instructions, including overhaul at TBO hrs or years and replacement of parts such as hoses etc (5yrs?). There is no "on condition" program for Rotax engines so they cannot be run in private ops in the manner which GA aircraft are allowed. This info straight from the RAANZ horses mouth at their last seminar. Not everybody in the room was happy to hear. In addition, you will see that manufacturers operation limitations are much the same as the CASA instrument applies to Jabs: 1
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