dazza 38 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. I honestly couldnt tell you IRT the hand brake being changed, we did have one roll down a hill after the hand brake failed. I always leave mine in gear when parked. Yup true about the 5 star Ancap. Most cruisers are being replaced with the Hilux. But we (in my job role ) need the cruiser for its towing capabilities . I did read that Toyota cannot retrofit the cruiser with the goodies to make it 5 star Ancap and sometime in 2016 they will stop being made. This is only efffects the 79 series, the 200 series wagons are fine. Toyota have said, just replace the cruiser with our Hilux. Yeah , well we would kill the Hilux in our line of work. 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. Here's a little reading for you Frank: http://www.echo.net.au/2014/08/pilot-charged-manslaughter-ewingar-crash/
frank marriott Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Here's a little reading for you Frank: http://www.echo.net.au/2014/08/pilot-charged-manslaughter-ewingar-crash/ Don't make the mistake that no one else has had experience in law - but its not a pissing contest so I'll leave it at that, other then the observation that you display a very pessimistic view of the system, which is fine, but preaching your opinion as fact is a bit over the top, to me anyway. Relevance of that article is zero. 3
gandalph Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Clearly Hilux's should not be flown over populated areas and should not be flown above 80 kmh. I once had an old International Harvester flat top that was presumably specc'd for Australia. The engine used to stop without warning in summer and I never felt comfortable doing more than 100 in that. Should CASA have banned that? 1
David Isaac Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Clearly Hilux's should not be flown over populated areas and should not be flown above 80 kmh.I once had an old International Harvester flat top that was presumably specc'd for Australia. The engine used to stop without warning in summer and I never felt comfortable doing more than 100 in that. Should CASA have banned that? ROFLMAO ... 1
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I do not have a pessimistic view of the system at all. I have about 6,000 calculations out there on the roads, any of which could bite me at any time, but I'm very comfortable that I researched the risks and operated on a go/no go method on each of those occasions. I just don't think it's fair that people should take to the air without any information on what they face if they make a mistake. I also don't think it's fair that they don't know how to insure themselves. These are simple things to do, yet there's massive resistance to making them aware of their obligations. 1 1
jetjr Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Theres a big difference between making a mistake or an accident and being negligent. It appears your equalising the risk of an accident whilst flying low and fast amongst powerlines and water with a Jabiru powered aircraft stopping and injuring innocent bystanders. Thats what the instrument (and this topic) is about. 4
facthunter Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 New Cockpit placard. Pilot error causes most aeroplane accidents . Please sign the waver accepting that if you fly with one on board you may die. Statistics prove that nearly ALL crashed aeroplanes had a pilot at the controls. Nev 1 2 6
David Isaac Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Theres a big difference between making a mistake or an accident and being negligent.It appears your equalising the risk of an accident whilst flying low and fast amongst powerlines and water with a Jabiru powered aircraft stopping and injuring innocent bystanders. Thats what the instrument (and this topic) is about. The problem is Jetjr, that while there is an 'accepted ' inherent risk in flying, CASA by their actions have implied there is a 'greater' inherent risk in flying Jabiru engined aircraft. That has been established by the regulator requiring additional signed paperwork for flying aircraft fitted with J engines. This has the potential for opportunistic liability claims, perhaps not so easily achieved otherwise. 1
jetjr Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I have issues believing that because CASA say so, that a real extra risk is present or ever existed. Even from a legal standpoint. I also have problems believing that a signed waiver will protect anyone from real risk. Your correct regarding potential legal approaches, and thats why limitation adds burden to owners and operators with no safety outcomes. 1
Oscar Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Relevance of that article is zero. He didn't say it was relevant, Frank - just reading. It's the vibe of the thing... 1
Oscar Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 If we are to accept (and I do give some credence to Turb's point that it potentially opens up a new battlefront in the war between the legal profession and the operators of aircraft since lawyers will try on anything in order to win a case) that there is any validity at all to the argument that 'over-representation' in statistics should be taken as justification for the imposition of restrictions, then I believe that there should be deep concern by many aircraft operators as to where they might be placed in the case of a serious accident. In fact, CASA has placed itself in an extremely vulnerable position and once a few people in CASA start to consider the flow-on implications of what it has done, I suspect it will be scrambling to cover its derriere. It has taken one factor in crash statistics - engine failure - and made a determination that, for reasons of 'safety', limitations on operation should be imposed on a particular engine that is 'over-represented' in the statistics. Let's, for the sake of this discussion, put the question of the accuracy of those figures aside and look at the philosophy of the imposition of the limitations. CASA's argument is that Jabiru-engined aircraft have a greater than average potential for injury/fatality of passengers, solo student pilots and people below the flight path. As it happens, that potential has absolutely not been realised in 25 years of Jabiru aircraft / engine operations. We can rule out the 'danger to people below the flight path' as a problem, since it has yet to happen for recreational (and I believe also GA light, though some accidents have come perilously close) operation. However, we cannot ignore fatalities/serious injury to aircraft operators/passengers. I believe that we can rule out CFIT accidents as obviously not airframe/engine induced. However, there is a large area of aerodynamic / structural deficiencies that have lead to fatalities / serious injuries in some aircraft that are well outside the 'statistical average'. Ironically, Jabiru aircraft are probably the 'gold standard' in terms of occupant safety, with a seriously good statistical base for that calculation. I do not need to identify makes and models of RAA / GA light aircraft that figure too prominently in the fatality/serious injury statistics, we know them. Since CASA has determined to make an example of Jabiru for its engine statistics in the name of 'safety', how well could it stand up in Court if it does not make at the least similar determinations for specific makes/models of aircraft that have a demonstrated - not potential - fatality/injury rate that is greater than the 'gold standard'? Someone in CASA Legal is going - eventually - to recognise just how far out on a limb CASA has placed itself if it does not apply the precedent it has created to other aircraft, where the statistics are incontrovertible. Therefore, we would be silly to imagine (or gloat over, if that floats your boat) the fact that Jabiru has been singled out for attention is a good thing: this action is so transparently the thin edge of a wedge that anybody with a functioning intelligence should be able to see that it bodes extremely badly for the future of Recreational aviation (at the least). 1 11
facthunter Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 They are not good at correcting errors and what has happened is out there is forever on the record and a part of history. Earlier on I advocated not going down the legal path, because I hoped some sanity would prevail. I don't see any other way to address this if CASA stay with their current position which is a dangerous precedent, and should be challenged. Nev 3
Guest Ornis Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Does anyone have any idea what Jabiru will or might do? Besides waiting for CASA to capitulate after a volley of comments from a handful of disaffected?
gandalph Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Does anyone have any idea what Jabiru will or might do?Besides waiting for CASA to capitulate after a volley of comments from a handful of disaffected? Best be ringing Rod and asking him. Anything else is, like most of this thread, speculation or wishful thinking.
jetjr Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Been said a few times, Jabiru dont have to do anything. Its owners who are under pressure. Jabiru can Change engine choice Make significant changes and pacify CASA Come out with new engine Sell out or close doors 1
facthunter Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 None of which is reasonable, necessary or likely to happen This has the potential to.. Put Jabiru and CAMit out of business' Make Jabiru aircraft close to worthless Remove all practical and existing means of rectifying the suggested problems Make all engines that could be fitted to any RAAus aircraft potentially subject to an ill defined standard of reliability in a section of aviation which is "special" in that it is truly recreational and available to people who are enthusiasts and do not carry more than one passenger who is clearly defined as being informed of the risks involved with being carried on the aircraft and is willing to accept the lowered standard of regulation applying. Logically have a flow on to warbirds, experimental and other non mainstream (certified) operations ...Nev 3
turboplanner Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 He didn't say it was relevant, Frank - just reading. It's the vibe of the thing... I see it gave you a good laugh Oscar. My comment followed some "denial" posts - "not leave the house" and so on, and the relevance is: 1. A person knew or ought to have known that there was a requirement not to fly below 500 feet 2. He flew below 500 feet, and a passenger was killed 3. He has been charged with manslaughter I stress that at this point he has only been charged, not convicted. The case hasn't been heard, we don't know the details, and we don't know the results. In December, some new requirements were introduced by CASA.
turboplanner Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Theres a big difference between making a mistake or an accident and being negligent. It seems to me you're using the word "negligent' here in the context of culpable negligence, as in someone who knows that what they are doing is wrong. It seems to me that you are implying that if you make a mistake, or have an accident, that's not negligence, however if you have a read of Donoghue V Stevenson, it's clear that the manufacturer/supplier had no deliberate intent to make the buyer ill. Not understanding the difference could be putting you at risk, so I would strongly recommend you go and see a PL lawyer, to get a detailed explanation which could change your life. It appears your equalising the risk of an accident whilst flying low and fast amongst powerlines and water with a Jabiru powered aircraft stopping and injuring innocent bystanders. No I'm not, I'm only talking generalities; forget powerlines, forget the word Jabiru, I'm just talking about what can happen if you are not complying with a regulation and something goes wrong, whether you deliberately didn't comply or accidentally didn't comply. I'm saying that CASA has introduced some new restrictions, and people don't seem to be comprehending that we have a different ball game which is more complicated than it used to be, and more difficult to protect ourselves from financial risk. I understand your line that the risk of an engine failure is no different than it was before, but that's a different subject. None of the information I'm posting on this thread is legal advice, and anyone is free to disagree with it and I've stressed several times on this forum the importance of going to see a Public Liability specialist lawyer to get advice. 1
turboplanner Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 If we are to accept (and I do give some credence to Turb's point that it potentially opens up a new battlefront in the war between the legal profession and the operators of aircraft since lawyers will try on anything in order to win a case) that there is any validity at all to the argument that 'over-representation' in statistics should be taken as justification for the imposition of restrictions, then I believe that there should be deep concern by many aircraft operators as to where they might be placed in the case of a serious accident.In fact, CASA has placed itself in an extremely vulnerable position and once a few people in CASA start to consider the flow-on implications of what it has done, I suspect it will be scrambling to cover its derriere. It has taken one factor in crash statistics - engine failure - and made a determination that, for reasons of 'safety', limitations on operation should be imposed on a particular engine that is 'over-represented' in the statistics. Let's, for the sake of this discussion, put the question of the accuracy of those figures aside and look at the philosophy of the imposition of the limitations. CASA's argument is that Jabiru-engined aircraft have a greater than average potential for injury/fatality of passengers, solo student pilots and people below the flight path. As it happens, that potential has absolutely not been realised in 25 years of Jabiru aircraft / engine operations. We can rule out the 'danger to people below the flight path' as a problem, since it has yet to happen for recreational (and I believe also GA light, though some accidents have come perilously close) operation. However, we cannot ignore fatalities/serious injury to aircraft operators/passengers. I believe that we can rule out CFIT accidents as obviously not airframe/engine induced. However, there is a large area of aerodynamic / structural deficiencies that have lead to fatalities / serious injuries in some aircraft that are well outside the 'statistical average'. Ironically, Jabiru aircraft are probably the 'gold standard' in terms of occupant safety, with a seriously good statistical base for that calculation. I do not need to identify makes and models of RAA / GA light aircraft that figure too prominently in the fatality/serious injury statistics, we know them. Since CASA has determined to make an example of Jabiru for its engine statistics in the name of 'safety', how well could it stand up in Court if it does not make at the least similar determinations for specific makes/models of aircraft that have a demonstrated - not potential - fatality/injury rate that is greater than the 'gold standard'? Someone in CASA Legal is going - eventually - to recognise just how far out on a limb CASA has placed itself if it does not apply the precedent it has created to other aircraft, where the statistics are incontrovertible. Therefore, we would be silly to imagine (or gloat over, if that floats your boat) the fact that Jabiru has been singled out for attention is a good thing: this action is so transparently the thin edge of a wedge that anybody with a functioning intelligence should be able to see that it bodes extremely badly for the future of Recreational aviation (at the least). While nothing happens, nothing happens, but when a crash does occur it's a bit like having lit a bonfire with a can of petrol, there's a big "WOOF", and the can comes back up the stream to the can of petrol. If CASA make a mistake in a regulation or directive with fatal results, then I'd agree they will have some problems. If they approach safety with a different policy than yours, I'd suggest no one will worry too much. The current situation you describe is also a little like the guy who's been pulled over by police for speeding and argues with the cop about all the others who are speeding. No one has the resources to address every aspect of their operation, so they target what the CAN handle. The statistics and "gold standard" you talk about are interesting, but the statistics we've seen published are all over the place, some incorporating RPT level hours, and where there should be identical figures coming out of RAA, CASA, and ATSB there are not, so until we get to that point your suggestion of a cutoff level based on statistics is meaningless, and I'd suggest the three bodies are going to plead lack of funding to give you what you want.
Guest Ornis Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 CASA's action - at long last - isn't about punishing owners. It's about changing Jabiru. If the engines are better in future, buyers are better off in future. There is a problem with Jabiru engines. It's not CASA's fault. Blaming CASA is like blaming John Snow for the 1854 cholera outbreak in London, not the water pump: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak Furthermore, many people didn't want the truth, they wanted the water - that killed them. Sure it's inconvenient for operators based at aerodromes in populated areas, but once CASA made a judgement it's unthinkable it could allow aircraft to takeoff there. Yes, the likelihood of a crash is small, but it exists, and if a Jabiru did come down the public is interested only in the consequences not the statistics. It seems to me CASA would have liked to ground Jabiru but settled for a compromise: warn people the reliability of Jabiru engines is unacceptable to CASA. Take it or leave it. Personally I wouldn't fly in a Jabiru-powered aircraft and I shudder to think I put my family and friends in one. And as turboplanner keeps trying to get through, the lawyers might make you wish the forced landing had killed you. They'd still clean out your estate, though.
jetjr Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 TP now your talking about someone deliberately breaking regs How is that relevant? Debate here is around absurdity of the regs not if we follow them or not. So CASA now doesnt have the funds to prepare data upon which to deliver consistant regulation? Are you suggesting they recieve more funding to do it correctly? id suggest even CASA wouldnt be brave enough to make that claim. The Jabiru debarcle hasnt cost them much. Didnt even spend man hours reviewing data or it seems reading responses didnt burn much time either. The meeting with Jabiru before announcement was cancelled. The risk management section must have been too busy to run through safety outcome scenarios. Acting director sure didnt spend much time looking at cost, complexity, consitancy and communications process. Forsyth report is stuffed in bottom drawer somewhere, remains unread too Few seem to be discussing the massive effect that this will have on future investment in Aus aviation. Who would spend time developing or certifying products for AU market if it can be withdrawn or similarly limited. Most know confidence drives risk and investment.
jetjr Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 and here we are back at the start Ornis The action is DIRECTLY punishing owners and not much else Dont know how else to explain it Jabiru engines are not Ebola as you are trying to imply How can a legal claim do more damage now than last year if we are following all the regs including limitations. Why if you dont fly Jabirus do you come here to comment? 4
DGL Fox Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Because jetjr we live in a free country where everyone is entitled to an opinion whether it be informed or not ..you just need to ignore the crap.. David 3
Guest Ornis Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Why if you dont fly Jabirus do you come here to comment? Ah, but I did fly a Jabiru and I know a great deal about them. So it's my duty to try to bring you to your senses... And of course, do my utmost to see Stiff doesn't wriggle of the hook...
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