JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[turboplanner]

"Just the way it is" doenst make it right, good or acceptable...

I didn't say it did, I didn't intimate it did, but sometimes you have to face the reality........unless you are prepared to forget about whining on forums and get a meeting with the appropriate Federal Minister, get the message across to his advisers, get the Minister to raise it at the annual State Ministers Conference, and get them all to agree to the fix and then stick with it against opposition and get it into law (in the case of the semi trailer driver, slightly different path for the pilot).

Come back when you've done it and I'll send you the price of a beer.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The "Optimistic" is possibly right for my post #219 Doctor, but I was thinking about the several THOUSAND recreational pilots in RA and GA who learn, study, practice and stay out of trouble for their entire flying lives.

 

 

[Oscar]

State governments do not have any control over aviation. Suggesting that one needs to consider State Ministers is an evident failure to understand the mechanics of aviation regulation. What happened at the Black Stump 1/4 mile Oval track is completely irrelevant.

 

 

[turboplanner]

State governments do not have any control over aviation. Suggesting that one starts lobbying State Ministers is an evident failure to understand the mechanics of aviation regulation. What happened at the Black Stump 1/4 mile Oval track is completely irrelevant.

Read the post Oscar; I qualified the pathway based on earlier posts.

 

 

[Oscar]

Yep, fine, whatever. But if you had any realistic idea of how to deal with Federal legislators, you would NOT be burbling on about state governments, that's just a nonsense in the realpolitic world..

 

 

[turboplanner]

We were talking about two similar situations an unfair semi trailer driver situation which is controlled st State level, and, I' Lloyd make it simpler for you, on the case of the unfair pilot situation, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENT.

 

However, I'm reasonably confident that we will not be congratulating one of the dissidents for his huge and welcome success in changing the law.

 

 

[Aldo]

You know what I fly my Jab wherever I want, I don't fly to Archerfield as that is one place they have said I can't, if I have to go to AF I take the 182. Everywhere else I just fly the Jab no one has ever questioned me and I make sure that I'm 1000 above populated areas (as is the requirement for all aircraft) so no biggie. All the to and fro here is for nothing the instrument (for me) hasn't changed anything.

 

Aldo

 

 

[Geoff13]

You know what I fly my Jab wherever I want, I don't fly to Archerfield as that is one place they have said I can't, if I have to go to AF I take the 182. Everywhere else I just fly the Jab no one has ever questioned me and I make sure that I'm 1000 above populated areas (as is the requirement for all aircraft) so no biggie. All the to and fro here is for nothing the instrument (for me) hasn't changed anything.Aldo

The instrument has changed a lot of things for FTF's and owner's who were relying on income from FTF's and having their aircraft's online to help fund their flying.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Since Jabiru have NO recorded fatalities from forced landings, the statement that 'the next forced landing could have been a fatal' - while absolutely correct in logic - is extremely contradicted by statistics from 25 years of operation. That is one of the most fatuous comments regarding genuine aviation safety I have ever witnessed.If CASA had been genuinely looking at 'fatalities', as the highest level of concern as a safety issue, it would have grounded many other types of aircraft based on the statistical evidence before it even looked at Jabiru.

 

For one, Ross Millard would still be alive.

Sorry Oscar but your response continues the falsehood that is repeated throughout this entire thread that the only fatality's likely were to paticipants of the sport who, other than when students, are "informed"

 

I personally don't believe that CASA gives all that much concern wise to informed participants, but rather is very worried that a plane might force land on a soccer field due engine failure and kill some kid kicking a soccer ball.

 

The restrictions that the instrument apply are all about mitigating the risk to uninvolved joe public..... Flying over a built up area, is no less safe to me the PIC than flying over rainforest.....

 

While I agree that the same statistics you've quoted in your post suggest that the likelihood of an innocent bystander being impacted is very small it is, imho, the reason for the instrument restrictions.

 

Andy

 

 

[jetjr]

Shows poor assessment of actual risk, just because something could happen doesnt make it likely. There are well understood methods of assessing this risk. I doubt any would result in justified risk to soccer team or preschools

 

This extreme adversion to risks not realised will surely see all aviation stopped.

 

 

[DrZoos]

I would think that perhaps CASA uses something remotely similar to this , if not a printed version, a mental version, and irrespective of our view, they have placed Jabiru in the highly likely or medium likelihood category which they deem unacceptable.

 

For whatever reason they have increased their perception of its chances of occurring and it wont be till Jabiru or its owners can shift it down the likelihood that the instrument will be changed.

 

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

TP has provided over the years plenty of examples of legal outcomes where the risk was low yet the award of damages was such that low wasn't low enough....... To use the soccerfield example, a few years back it occurred in Brisbane, from memory, whether there was or wasn't a kid on the field at the time wasn't something as PIC that you could mitigate against, so you must mitigate against the things that would put you in that situation of needing to land on that field in the 1st place.....

 

 

[jetjr]

Dr Z the chart ive seen plenty but that doesnt one make sense. Thats also the absurd WHS mentality that sees safety plateau and cost and difficulty rise exponentially chasing ghosts considered safty risks.

 

The point of the original chart is that a rare event that DEFINITELY results in death or injury is a high risk -some reason there.

 

Being certificated, or not, or RAA does not make an event more likely. Remember a fair quantity of Jabiru engined aircraft ARE fully certificated, a fair majority are ASTM certified and factory built. Info suggests these two groups are over represented in failures as the bulk are 4 cyl used in training.

 

Most that are uncert are experimental and operate under many restrictions and could have all sorts of modifications.

 

The point might be missed that the frequency of engine failure causing landing in built up areas is so small as to be insignificant. Probably well below fuel, medical or other problems.

 

Jabiru can never remove any doubt that an engine might fail, neither can any other maker. Similarly CASA can never now suggest they are happy that risk has reduced. They dont even have a metric or a data package upon which to measure it.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Jetr I think CASA strongly disagree with you...they do think RAA makes an event more likely and they do think certification makes events less likely.. The Jabiru instrument clearly indicates they think Jabirus have a higher likelihood...

 

Whilst i disagree with the Jabiru instrument and how it was imposed ....i think its clear CASA look at it this way and until you can somehow convince them that the frequency or likelihood has been or can be lowered, they have boxed themselves into a position where they cant remove it without either looking incompetent or reckless should an event happen. If an accident does happen of this nature, its a lawyers dream down the track should CASA remove it without significant change...because it either makes CASA look negligent or incompetent. Either way it will make their approach to safety look inconsistent at best.

 

My point was not to argue they would/should use this approach or to argue about risk modelling, but simply to highlight how i think they are currently viewing it... I think they have elevated the likelihood and until you convince them those chances have been reduced your pushing stuff uphill..

 

Nothing has changed in the severity of injury, so if they are making a case for elevated risk, then it has to be based on a likely frequency of occurrence basis.

 

 

[jetjr]

Maybe they do think this way, they also think all pilots are criminals yet to be discovered, who knows

 

They are both incorrect. If they are viewing risk that way its wrong and can easily be called on that por risk management strategy. Similar to other impact assessments they have conducted......atsb??

 

Following this rational there is no way to correct or reinstate previous position.

 

They can assess whatever they like, restrict or limit and leave that in place forever. Id suggest these limitations could be instore for all small aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This matter is complicated by the situation that the CASA action is a response, because RAA, the self administrator didn't act when it became aware of issues.

 

I'd be very careful about jumping to conclusions about who was negligent.

 

 

[facthunter]

Anything is possible if they don't answer to anyone and just proclaim a restriction. Why would anyone with a modicom of brains invest in anything they have anything to do with? Fight them and they will give you a hard time from then on. They have done it before. Nev

 

 

[Russ]

"Turn the other cheek" "Assume the position" DON'T EVER , call them to account....................phew, it's mind blowing

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah well, if nothing happens, nothing happens, but if something does it will all come into focus.

 

 

[gandalph]

Crikey Turbs, many more posts like #244 & you might have to change your name to Turgidplanner!

 

 

[facthunter]

But when will this happen?. The excitement is stressing me out. A few others might be more affected than me. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I really wouldn't want half a dozen people killed, just so you could see the legal wheels in motion.

 

 

[facthunter]

Is that what we are looking at? I really wouldn't have thought so. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Sorry Oscar but your response continues the falsehood that is repeated throughout this entire thread that the only fatality's likely were to paticipants of the sport who, other than when students, are "informed"I personally don't believe that CASA gives all that much concern wise to informed participants, but rather is very worried that a plane might force land on a soccer field due engine failure and kill some kid kicking a soccer ball.

The restrictions that the instrument apply are all about mitigating the risk to uninvolved joe public..... Flying over a built up area, is no less safe to me the PIC than flying over rainforest.....

 

While I agree that the same statistics you've quoted in your post suggest that the likelihood of an innocent bystander being impacted is very small it is, imho, the reason for the instrument restrictions.

 

Andy

Andy, it is logically correct to say that it is a fallacy that the only fatalities likely were to participants. Any time that any aircraft flies over a populated area in a situation where it cannot glide clear of the 'population', there is a risk of engine failure causing the aircraft to descend and impact the 'population'. HOWEVER, the statistics of ultralight aviation in Australia demonstrates that the actual number of cases of fatality/injury to 'non-participants' since the introduction of 95.10 and forward - is zero.

 

As a member of 'uninvolved joe public', by comparison to being killed by an ultralight crashing , you have a demonstrated greater likelihood of being killed as the result of a Police high-speed chase. Or a petrol-tanker crashing in your neighbourhood. Or being taken by a shark. Or Salmonella poisoning. Or walking down a street when a drunk, aggro moron decides he wants to take a swing at you.

 

Pilots have been putting down following engine failures for ever, in populated areas. The golf course next to Bankstown has had quite a number of unintended arrivals. The closest we have come to a really serious mass 'uninvolved joe public' fatality from engine failure, AFAIK, was the Mig-15 out of Canberra. Yet Warbird (or quasi-Warbird) 'Jet Adventure' flights are still allowed out of major regional airports, over populated areas.

 

The 'Soccer Field' incident you cite, is the Runcorn incident: which was caused by fuel starvation. I would accept that this is a demonstration of the greater risk that a Jabiru-engined aircraft poses WHEN - and ONLY WHEN - it can be proven that other brands of engines can continue to function without fuel. However, I have noted from the CASA 'data', that that incident was counted as an 'engine malfunction'.

 

The restrictions generally imposed on RAA-class aircraft have worked very well to ensure that there have been NO fatals or injures to 'joe public' to date. For CASA to take a comparison between two brands of engine of which NEITHER have any history of causing fatality / injury to the general public and say one is 'more likely' than the other to cause such results, is completely unjustified.

 

 

[Oscar]

This matter is complicated by the situation that the CASA action is a response, because RAA, the self administrator didn't act when it became aware of issues.I'd be very careful about jumping to conclusions about who was negligent.

You have never before been very careful about jumping to conclusions about who was negligent, Turbs; indeed you have cleared high buildings in a single bound.

 

How many of the trucks/buses/ whatever that you have sold have been implicated in fatal/serious accidents?