NO INTENTIONAL SPINS Jabiru

[Mazda]

I'm with Facthunter on this one.

 

I haven't flown a Jab, I can't comment on that, but perhaps if it is not spin certified Qwerty can volunteer to be the test pilot!

 

Yes, anything beyond 60 degrees angle of bank is an aerobatic manoeuvre.

 

 

[HEON]

Surely ladies and gentlemen the fact is that the Body that gives us our authorty to fly rule is DONT SPIN

 

Either accept that rule or leave the control of that Body

 

No it's, no but's, no hair splitting!

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

You are all missing the point of the thread. Please read my question.

 

No, I am not a test pilot.

 

No, I am not looking for a loophole.

 

No, I have no query regarding aerodynamic stability of the Jab

 

No, I have no query regarding the strength of the Jab

 

No, I do not wish to flout rules

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

It seems there's actually two discussions going on here

 

1. Can we spin the Jab under RA-Aus?

 

Answer: no, because of the regs. Easy, clear, nobody's going out today to spin their Jab because we're all not stupid.

 

2. Is the placard worded wrongly?

 

My Answer: yes, because it leaves the manufacturer open to liability if someone does die in an unintentional spin.

 

Orion, yes if you spin and die you will be dead and not care what the placard said, but your family and Jabiru will care once the court case starts because there is inherent ambiguity in that statement. There is a potentially arguable implication that if you do spin it unintentionally then the aircraft will be able to handle it which leaves Jabiru open to potential liability.

 

There is definitely an arguable implication that, if you unintentionally enter a spin, then the aircraft will survive

 

If the manufacturers knew that there was absolutely no way ever that the aircraft could suvive a spin then the placard would probably say NO SPINS EVER ON RISK OF DEATH or something. But putting in the word 'intentional' leaves it open to argument should a court case ever arise on this matter

 

 

[facthunter]

Debate.

 

"Allow next three pages for comment on suitable violent death for Lawyers.". N

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

"Allow next three pages for comment on suitable violent death for Lawyers.". N

Oh please don't, when I'm eventually murdered I'd like to be surprised by the method used :big_grin:

 

 

[djpacro]

2. Is the placard worded wrongly? My Answer: yes, because it leaves the manufacturer open to liability if someone does die in an unintentional spin.

If the manufacturers knew that there was absolutely no way ever that the aircraft could suvive a spin then the placard would probably say NO SPINS EVER ON RISK OF DEATH or something.

The manufacturers don't have a choice on the wording to use in the placard - the regulations are very specific on the text to be used.

 

 

There is a potentially arguable implication that if you do spin it unintentionally then the aircraft will be able to handle it which leaves Jabiru open to potential liability.There is definitely an arguable implication that, if you unintentionally enter a spin, then the aircraft will survive

Yes, up to a point and subject to the pilot doing the right thing as the type should have undergone the limited spin testing required for certification. i.e. not the extensive spin testing required if spins were approved.I used the word "should" as some of these categories are self-certified by the manufacturer. Did they have the controls rigged so that pro-spin controls were at the extreme end of the tolerance and anti-spin controls were at the minimum end of the tolerances etc? At least in the case of the Cessna 162 the FAA took a keen interest (and they were doing the full spin test matrix) so I'm looking forward to spinning it when it is available here (assuming it will be approved for intentional spinning).

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

As I said in an earlier post, I have never done a spin, haven't had any sort of spin training (yet at least) and have no idea how a spin works aerodynamically (re stress on the airframe etc). I also have no idea about the testing etc that an aircraft undergoes during manufacture etc.

 

I'm just reading the placard the way a lawyer would likely read it if a court case occurred...

 

 

[facthunter]

Response.

 

Allow FOUR pages for....... N. Hasn't this conjecture gone on long enough. The safety aspect and responsibility are clear. The wording is prescribed almost. You are dealing with a world-wide beaurocracy with ICAO compliance and various conventions. Virtually all placarding is required for some safety related legalistic pretext. Nev

 

 

[Guest Orion]

Lots of words like "potentially" & "argueably" used here.

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of fantasy that litigation lawyers live in.

 

there's a world of difference between potentially and actually and at least in a court room a lot of $$ to bridge the gap.

 

and importantly who is going to run the arguement ? a family member ?

 

At some stage there needs to be some reality here.

 

If the sign says "no intentional spins" and you can't work out that that also must mean no UNintentional spins

 

then please keep out of the airspace that i'm in as i don't want to share it with someone who is obviously too stupid to remember to breathe.

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

I apologise if I have annoyed/offended anyone. I am a law student and tend to automatically think like one when it comes to things like this

 

 

[facthunter]

Message.

 

With all the to and frowing around this subject, I wouldn't like the essential message (that of safety) to be lost or confused. DS. I have a looong time friend (Lawyer) and he confessed to me a long time ago, that he had lost the ability to write an "ordinary, normal ' letter.. Beware

 

Nev..

 

 

[Spin]

. Hasn't this conjecture gone on long enough. The safety aspect and responsibility are clear. The wording is prescribed almost.

Been flogged to death I'd say, seems pretty clear that CASA, Jabiru, RAA etc don't want you spinning the thing. The rest is semantics.

 

 

[djpacro]

Some aircraft enter a spin very quickly in certain configurations. And, having entered a spin I doubt whether the average pilot could recover sufficiently fast ....

Agreed - the entry to a practice spin is often more docile than an unintentional (is it OK to use that word?) spin from a skidding turn. I usually manage to surprise instructor trainees and it is not uncommon to go around a couple of times before he/she initiates recovery action.

 

... I am a law student ...

certainly haven't annoyed me, always happy to debate with lawyers and CASA certification engineers. On the other hand some of my online posts probably unintentionally annoy others - I must put a warning placard in my signature.

[Guest Qwerty]

If the sign says "no intentional spins" and you can't work out that that also must mean no UNintentional spinsthen please keep out of the airspace that i'm in as i don't want to share it with someone who is obviously too stupid to remember to breathe.

Dear Orion

 

1. The whole point of this thread is to "work out" what the placard means. One thing it certainly does not mean is "that also must mean no UNintentional spins".

 

2. I think that you will find that I do not fall into the category of people that are to stupid to breathe. ( I am happy to take on that debate with anyone)

 

3. How did you come to the conclusion that "no intentional spins also must mean no UNintentional spins". If I may draw an analogy, Does it then follow that an instruction from you wife "Don't come home late, also neccessarily means come home late",.... exactly the same analysis with a similarly incongruent outcome.

 

Darky,

 

You keep it coming my little shark-in-the-making, and please don't shrink from what you are.

 

Cheers Qwerty

 

 

[farri]

You knowif you spin it and you die.

 

what the damn sign said won't be of any use to you at all.

 

you will still be dead.

 

The rules say don't intentionally spin, so don't

 

can't undertand all the hair splitting going on here.

Cause,we`re all playing the game.

 

Food for thought.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Guest Orion]

Qwerty

 

The whole point of this thread is that there is no point to this thread.

 

Spin, don't spin I personally don't give a rats.

 

Perhaps in hindsight "avoid spins" is a better interpretation than "no unintentional spins"

 

However its the same difference in the end and the debate is pointless

 

The "too stupid to remember to breathe" comment wasn't aimed at anyone at all, so perhaps you would be better served developing a thicker skin if you thought it was aimed at you.

 

 

 

[farri]

Hey guys,here`s a laugh and I quote from my Austflight Drifter owners manual.

 

In view of both seats, "No Smoking"

 

Ever tried smoking in a Drifter in flight,fortunately I don`t smoke,anyway.

 

Frank.

 

 

[GraemeK]

2. Is the placard worded wrongly?

My Answer: yes, because it leaves the manufacturer open to liability if someone does die in an unintentional spin.

IANAL and I'm no expert in aviation law, but not sure it does, because the labelling is mandated and approved by CASA (the placards are in the "CASA Approved" section of the POH).

 

In my industry (pharma, only marginally above lawyers, used car salesmen and estate agents in social acceptability ), labelling mandated by the regulator is your "get out of jail free card" when it comes to liability.

 

But I agree with the view that yes, you could probably safely spin one (the Jab test pilots did it over and over, the POH gives the recovery) - but you can't because RAAus, CASA and the POH say you can't. While at some stage I hope to do spin training in a suitably certified aircraft to improve my general flying skills I would hope never to get any closer than incipient spin in my normal flying (and I'd hope not to even get that far!).

 

EDIT: and to say "unintentional spins are prohibited" would be a nonsense!

 

 

[Al B]

Let's suppose they had a placard that said "ALL SPINS PROHIBITED - CERTAIN SPIN CONFIGURATIONS MAY BE UNRECOVERABLE" or something to that effect.

 

Joe Bloggs takes his J120 out one day and spins it, can't recover, and hits the ground. His widow hires a lawyer and they sue Jabiru for making an unsafe plane that won't recover from spins.

 

"Your honor, Mr Bloggs died when his aircraft didn't recover from a spin. He was an experienced pilot and had recovered from dozens of spins previously - the only difference was this time he was in a flawed aircraft. Jabiru knew this design was dangerous. The Jabiru company sold Mr Bloggs this aircraft even knowing that certain types of spins would be fatal. I believe if it weren't for the poor design of the J120 Mr Bloggs would still be with us today"

 

---

 

It kind of reminds me of the "Dangerous Dog" signs on fences. Is it better to warn people there is a dangerous dog? Or is it a bad idea to have the sign, because you are admitting you know the dog is dangerous?

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Perfect....just what I was looking for.

 

Does the placard say "No intentional smoking"

 

or

 

"No accidental smoking"

 

or

 

"No cigarette smoking"

 

the placard is clear and unambiguous

 

I take it that some on here would prefer the

 

"No intentional smoking" version??????

 

PS Orion, I have been told that I "have a hide like a rhinoceros over an ego that doesn't need it"

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Let's suppose they had a placard that said "ALL SPINS PROHIBITED - CERTAIN SPIN CONFIGURATIONS MAY BE UNRECOVERABLE" or something to that effect.Joe Bloggs takes his J120 out one day and spins it, can't recover, and hits the ground. His widow hires a lawyer and they sue Jabiru for making an unsafe plane that won't recover from spins.

 

"Your honor, Mr Bloggs died when his aircraft didn't recover from a spin. He was an experienced pilot and had recovered from dozens of spins previously - the only difference was this time he was in a flawed aircraft. Jabiru knew this design was dangerous. The Jabiru company sold Mr Bloggs this aircraft even knowing that certain types of spins would be fatal. I believe if it weren't for the poor design of the J120 Mr Bloggs would still be with us today"

 

It kind of reminds me of the "Dangerous Dog" signs on fences. Is it better to warn people there is a dangerous dog? Or is it a bad idea to have the sign, because you are admitting you know the dog is dangerous?

The problem is that (nearly) everything is arguable two ways

 

So, with the dangerous dog one, yes you're admitting that your dog is dangerous but the other person chose to take that risk and go where the dog was...

 

With your argument about the Jab, I can see where you're coming from (and it is a good argument) but then there's also the argument that Jab warned you saying that it may be impossible to recover from certain spins so it was partly the guys fault for flying it in a way that could get him into that problem - i.e. Jab did actually warn him, he chose to take the risk

 

As I said, everything is arguable two ways if you look at it in the right direction

 

Note that I am still a student so this is all just me thinking, no research has been done and no advice is being given

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Darky

 

I guess that my point is that "Spins prohibited" or "No spins" is clear concise and impossible to misunderstand whereas........

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

DarkyI guess that my point is that "Spins prohibited" or "No spins" is clear concise and impossible to misunderstand whereas........

Yes, and I agree

 

I would love to see a "No Intentional Smoking" sign though

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Your honor, Mr Bloggs died when his aircraft didn't recover from a spin. He was an experienced pilot and had recovered from dozens of spins previously - the only difference was this time he was in a flawed aircraft. Jabiru knew this design was dangerous. The Jabiru company sold Mr Bloggs this aircraft even knowing that certain types of spins would be fatal. I believe if it weren't for the poor design of the J120 Mr Bloggs would still be with us today"

---

 

It kind of reminds me of the "Dangerous Dog" signs on fences. Is it better to warn people there is a dangerous dog? Or is it a bad idea to have the sign, because you are admitting you know the dog is dangerous?

The early US Public Liability cases worked like that. I recall one where a husband and wife were on the way home bobtail in a Prime Mover in the wet, came round a corner too fast, and slid into a pole whereupon the fuel tank was fractured and the resulting fire killed both occupants.

 

Even though virtually all Prime Movers have side tanks, the lawyers for the family argued that if a tank had been constructed to fit inside the chassis (moulded in and around crossmembers, prop shaft, suspension and various other necessities) the fatality would not have occurred, and won from memory $9 million with punitive damages against the manufacturer of about $11 million.

 

Fortunately over time common sense has prevailed, and we are now trained (some of us) to work to official Codes and Standards based on cutting edge technology. The last timje I looked the Jab was rated about the same as other Recreational Aircraft, none of them approved for spinning.

 

On the dog part, I was involved in a couple of cases where our group were seen to be invoilved in a sport where there was a risk to the public, albeit very small. When the inevitable accidents did crop up we lost because the members hadf not warned the public there was a risk.

 

Following another twist, where the Promoter's defence was that he had warned the Public there was a risk, but had failed to comply with industry safe practice we had to change all the warning clauses across the country to show the sport was dangerous, but the spectators had the right to sue the Promoter for any negligence. This has now stood the test of time for about a decade and protects both the Promoter and the Public.

 

If I was a lawyer Darky, and acting for a victim, I'd search the web looking for the past history of the pilot and his/her attitude. This will often bring to light several "priors" which helps to shorten the arguments considerably, particularly when there is a jury involved