Aircraft Missing Near Katoomba

[Oscar]

Once the RAA found out it wasn't an engine failure they have good reason to celebrate.

Hate-filled, desperately obsessed, ignorant, devoid of any skerrick of decency, unfathomably disrespectful to the memory of someone who has contributed more to local aviation for his fellow aviators than you would achieve in ten lifetimes.

 

You really are an utter tw@t. And that, frankly, is the least of what could be said on a site with rules that require a civilised level of expression in comments. I personally don't think there is a rock sufficiently large that you could crawl back under, that would protect you from the wrath of those for whom Rod Hay was, by all repute, a mentor and guide for their journey into and through recreational aviation. I personally never met him, but wish I had - for it is the Rod Hays of this world who connect newcomers to the joy of flying.

 

No matter how young you might be or cynical about life, when some 'old geezer' with vast experience is enthusiastic to take you up and teach you what it means to be able to pilot an aircraft, if you have even the vaguest feelings about human interaction, that enthusiasm for flying will rub off. You would know that he (or she - there are plenty of wonderful 'grannies' out there who can show you flying at its finest), is doing it because of a love of being in the air. You would recognise that they are doing this not from any commercial need, but simply that they are keen to pass on their knowledge and their passion for flying.

 

But you, FT, have reduced all of this to a typical snide rant against Jabiru engines.

 

What a little tird you are.

 

 

[kgwilson]

From the preliminary report posted here it appears that the engine was running and based on the photos of the wreck the impact appeared to be at high speed. The high resilience of the Jabiru airframe also supports this. It will need to be established but I find it almost impossible to believe that such a respected, experienced and highly knowledgeable pilot who was flying circuits at his own airstrip could possibly have been in control at the time of the crash. Even if there was only partial power, if he was in control the result would more than likely have been far less severe.

 

 

[Hargraves]

Not having flown in the area but did visit Katoomba and the Three Sisters in my youth and its all tiger country.

Quite right sir I have only overflown their and their was no alterates from that strip that I could see then

 

 

[Keenaviator]

IF it was icing related there would be no evidence there. Nev

Damage to the propellor could indicate whether or not it was running - that is evidence.

 

 

[Teckair]

I can't see a post #64 - means it must be a troll, am I right?

Look again it's there, FT at his finest. But you are right it's a troll.

 

 

[Teckair]

Damage to the propellor could indicate whether or not it was running - that is evidence.

Not really a motor can run with reduced power due to carby ice.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Has anyone checked weather data for condioions that may be conducive to icing? seems a lower possibility with the conditions in NSW lately, but i havent checked data.

 

According to the abc he took off at mdday 27th feb, which on face value wouldnt indicate icing.

 

 

 

[dutchroll]

Damage to the propellor could indicate whether or not it was running - that is evidence.

 

Not really a motor can run with reduced power due to carby ice.

Both correct.

You can certainly have a partial failure or power loss for a number of reasons, but also the damage to the propeller can indicate roughly how much power it was producing if any at all.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not suggesting icing is related to this event. Merely that if icing caused a power loss after the ice has melted there is no evidence of it being there. If an engine is delivering power when the plane impacts the ground it will be reflected in the nature of the propeller damage. Therefore no need to dismantle the engine, if the propellor indicates it is still delivering power. If the Jabiru engine wasn't under a cloud would this have been mentioned at all? Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

A quick cheer to the moderator(s) for deleting # 64. Appreciated.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I'm not suggesting icing is related to this event. Merely that if icing caused a power loss after the ice has melted there is no evidence of it being there. If an engine is delivering power when the plane impacts the ground it will be reflected in the nature of the propeller damage. Therefore no need to dismantle the engine, if the propellor indicates it is still delivering power. If the Jabiru engine wasn't under a cloud would this have been mentioned at all? Nev

Not sure that would always be the case. Years ago I had a wooden jab prop and had a prop strike at just a bit above idle - blade broke off at the hub and departed scene. Had it hit going any faster I suspect it would have still broken at the hub and departed scene.

 

I think to try to decide any more than that you would have to pull the engine down and try to see what damage was done to the crankshaft.

 

I'm curious if the same would happen with the new composite prop I have - but i'm not going to try it.

 

 

[facthunter]

A wooden prop doesn't tell you a lot when it breaks apart and splinters It's also not considered to hurt the engine that much either. Usually a flange runout check is all that is needed, unless the engine hits a cliff face or a 3' tree stump. Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

A wooden prop doesn't tell you a lot when it breaks apart and splinters It's also not considered to hurt the engine that much either. Usually a flange runout check is all that is needed, unless the engine hits a cliff face or a 3' tree stump. Nev

In the case of jabiru they mandate a crankshaft replacement because in the past despite being ok on standard checking shafts later failed.

 

 

[facthunter]

Is that the case? Were they out of true or what? Cause of failure, later.? I must say it's news to me. Billet crankshaft normally not treated any differently from mainstream products. Nev

 

PS. Just adding a bit. A runout check indicates if it has been stressed beyond the elastic limit or sometimes it can be as a result of stress relieving in service. At a normal rebuild you would always check the shaft for runout and straightening is commonplace as is crack testing by various methods..

 

 

[dutchroll]

A wooden prop doesn't tell you a lot when it breaks apart and splinters It's also not considered to hurt the engine that much either. Usually a flange runout check is all that is needed, unless the engine hits a cliff face or a 3' tree stump. Nev

On the M14P, any significant prop strike involving any type of propeller can transmit substantial damage to the accessory drive shaft while not dramatically affecting the rest of the engine (including the crankshaft).

The problem is that if your accessory drive shaft later fails, the engine will stop.

 

 

[facthunter]

The CJ6 has a wooden prop and that's the reason why it can simply have another one fitted when someone forgets to lower the wheels. The particular prop doesn't damage the engine, but it's an UGLY looking prop. Accessory drive shafts have deliberate weaknesses built into them to protect other items. Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I don't know any more details of what the subsequent failures were. Just that when I had the prop strike and the engine went for a bulk strip jabiru told me they would replace the crankshaft because previously they had just tested them and returned them to service but had later problems.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's the easy way if the part is not expensive. There probably isn't the expertise out there to do a lot of it, and have quality control maintained. Some Lawn mowers get better looked after than some aero engines. Nev

 

 

[Roundsounds]

The CJ6 has a wooden prop and that's the reason why it can simply have another one fitted when someone forgets to lower the wheels. The particular prop doesn't damage the engine, but it's an UGLY looking prop. Accessory drive shafts have deliberate weaknesses built into them to protect other items. Nev

I'm pretty sure the stock CJ6s I've flown were fitted with a metal prop. The M14P powered versions may have a wooden fan though.

 

 

[jetjr]

If it were going to be stripped anyway, yes a new crank is probably wise but I think std prop strike check is run out ok and back to service.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I have never heard of anything less than a bulk strip for a prop strike. ( by that I mean a significant strike - usually meaning a stoppage relating to a strike. )

 

I know for certain that lycoming requires a bulk strip after a strike, jabiru requires it and I was of the impression that it was same for other types.

 

 

[jetjr]

Jab engine maint manual sect 9.28 says check runout. If less than 0.08 then ok

 

It does say it is prudent to bulk strip even if within runout specs and responsibility lies with owner

 

 

[facthunter]

I wouldn't think it applies to much more than a wood prop. Common sense should apply as to the nature of the stoppage If the engine ran without the prop it would overspeed generally and not be suitable because of that alone. High RPM overspeeds are usually scrap engine. If a dog ran through the prop and sent the blades flying and the throttle was closed quickly, the engine would be OK. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

I wouldn't think it applies to much more than a wood prop. Common sense should apply as to the nature of the stoppage If the engine ran without the prop it would overspeed generally and not be suitable because of that alone. High RPM overspeeds are usually scrap engine. If a dog ran through the prop and sent the blades flying and the throttle was closed quickly, the engine would be OK. Nev

Probably the dog would not be OK.