Camel

Having owned Jabs and a Sportstar you will find the Sportstar very responsive, easy to fly, short take off and landing and a joy to fly. The drawback for Sportstars is they are hot while taxiing or stationary and limited baggage space, the Jab is a good touring aircraft and has plenty of space.

Th This is totally ridiculous, I hold a current PPL and a RAA instructor rating, have owned a trike, a Cessna 172, 2 x J230 and a Sportstar. I love RAA aircraft as they are a pleasure to maintain and fly. I would NEVER own a GA plane again as the maintenance is a nightmare as I am a motor mechanic I felt unsafe after some LAME's had performed work, they are thirsty on fuel and I mostly flew two up, I very seldom carried four. Hangarage for a larger plane is expensive. I'm pretty sure when the membership of RAA increased dramatically it was because GA pilots joined to enjoy self maintenance and driver licence medical. This is how it should be for non commercial flying. Don't forget the RAA pilot certificate is equivalent to an RPL so you can fly GA planes !

This statement adds absolutely nothing as one was very experienced the other was even more experienced instructor, making comments like this sounds like you want to bring the organisation down, I find these comment unproductive. Yes high performance planes can hurt people but low performance planes are also dangerous in the wrong hands. Low performance have a smaller flight range if that's a fair way to put it. E.g 30 knot stall 50 knots flat out that is a 20 knot flight range, high performance e.g 40 knot stall and 100 knots cruise and that is a 60 knot flight range. The high performance aircraft will be safer in some conditions and with some pilots. This is a well know fact and it is part of the danger of low performance ultralights and I have heard it referred to as a small flight envelope, the danger becomes very apparent in gusty conditions.

The VFG has plenty of info. http://www.vfrg.com.au/pre-flight-planning/meteorology/services/

As merely a different way of looking at things, my thoughts are and would not be surprised if statistics support this, low hour pilots are always at risk, pilots without current flying that is only fly after a months break are more at risk and those who should fly with an instructor to get them up to speed on a different aircraft but choose to think they can handle it ! I believe pilots who fly regular and can choose the better days a less likely to come to grief unless they come complacent or overconfident. A recent over a month without flying I found myself not being able to put the plane down where I wanted it and resulted in two go a rounds as my strip requires a landing at the correct point. My remedy is when any pilot has a long break or does not fly regular they should have a few flights with an instructor, compete in aero club comps or fly with an experienced buddy. Old aviation sayings are very true too, There are old pilots and bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots !

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/jabiru-pistion-pin-offsett.11234/

Saw him on TV this morning and was not impressed, I think he needs to get interested in other peoples opinions as well as he is not really trying to make things better, he wants more controlled airspace ! He blames CASA, Fact is there are more accidents in controlled airspace ! And that is not always directly related to the increase in traffic, when pilots communicate on CTAF they get better situational awareness ! His comments were misleading and not representing a true method of increasing safety. His National Airspace Reform in 2003 was terrible. The only part I liked is when he picked on W. Truss, as I'm well and truly over his lack of interest in real issues !

The Morgan Sierra and the Cougar are great aircraft to fly, I have over 60 hours in them and like them very much, the characteristic i.e High cruise speed, low stall speed and great handling makes them an easy and safe plane to fly, I'm sure any first flight in any home built is dangerous as I'm sure anyone knowledgeable in aviation would be aware of. The Morgans have castoring nose wheel and is difficult for some pilots and students to master, also with any aircraft with fuselage tank the weight and balance is very critical. The Morgan aircraft are safe, strong and great handling.

AD (airworthy directive) are issued for certified aircraft not LSA. Service letter or Bullentines for LSA, From Jabiru website. LSA Owner/Operator Responsibilities The following responsibilities for the owner/operator of a LSA listed are prescribed in the ASTM standard F2295: Each owner/operator of a LSA shall read and comply with the maintenance and continued airworthiness information and instructions provided by the manufacturer. Each owner/operator of a LSA shall be responsible for providing the manufacturer with current contact information where the manufacturer may send the owner/operator supplemental notification bulletins. The owner/operator of a LSA shall be responsible for notifying the manufacturer of any safety of flight issue or significant service difficulty upon discovery. The owner/operator of a LSA shall be responsible for complying with all manufacturer issued notices of corrective action and for complying with all applicable aviation authority regulations in regard to maintaining the airworthiness of the LSA. An owner of a LSA shall ensure that any needed corrective action be completed as specified in a notice, or by the next scheduled annual inspection. Should an owner/operator not comply with any mandatory service requirement, the LSA shall be considered not in compliance with applicable ASTM standards and may be subject to regulatory action by the presiding aviation authority.

All the communication I have had with CASA is they have been trying to cover themselves, NO response from D.A.S , NO response other than standard letter from Minister even after several letters and phone calls, Pass on to Deputy from PM after letter then no response, CASA Industry Complaints Commission sticking up for CASA, Still awaiting FOI ! I have been made aware CASA have failed to make representation to Jabiru by cancelation of visits, The fact this is an Australia only Limitation is RIDICULOUS. My correspond to date has been shared with RAA and some other correspondence has been shared with me from others, I believe there is a serious case for interested parties to get answers. The FOI put in for was a run around and doubt very much it will be supplied, this is due to be supplied end of this month ! Everything rides on the FOI and whether CASA ends the Limitation, but either way there will be some serious explaining to do as to date no explanation is satisfactory. This is for the benefit for those who are interested ONLY ! Watch Keith's comment re Jabiru https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC9uoVIUeTwNC6FiD4_QIzQA/videos. He sums it up very well.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/92_1.pdf IMPORTANT The information in this publication is advisory only. There is no legal requirement to observe the details set out in this publication. The Civil Aviation Regulations set out the legal requirements that must be complied with in relation to the subject matter of this publication. There may be a number of ways of ensuring that the requirements of the Civil Aviation Regulations are met. This publication sets out methods that may be used and which experience has shown should, in the majority of cases, ensure compliance with the Regulations. However, before using the information in this publication the user should always read the Civil Aviation Regulations listed in the reference section below to ensure that he or she complies with the legal obligations of the Regulations. PURPOSE Civil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.” Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator. These guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command: (a) has sound piloting skills; and (b) displays sound airmanship. CANCELLATION This is the second issue of CAAP 92-1, and supersedes CAAP 92-1(0). REFERENCES This publication should be read in conjunction with: Civil Aviation Regulations 92 (1), 93, 233 and 235; Civil Aviation Orders; and the Aeronautical Information Publication.

I think the Speed had In-Flight Adjustable props which were affected by the CASA enforcement of no ASTM on those props therefore the "E" was required for experimental.

1.1 Previously, aircraft with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 5,700 kg engaged in private, aerial work or charter operations were permitted to operate from places other than licensed aerodromes. Such places had to be authorised by the Authority under Civil Aviation Regulation CAR 89. Details of the requirements for fixed wing aeroplanes were set out in Section 6 of the Aerodrome and Ground Aids (AGA 6) section of the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and the requirements for helicopters were set out in AGA 7. These places were known as “Authorised Landing Areas”. 1.2 On 9 August 1991, CAR 89 was omitted and CAR 92(1) was amended by Statutory Rule 91/247, to allow pilots engaged in other than regular public transport operations to determine suitable places for the operation of their aircraft. Such a place is now called an “Aircraft Landing Area”, which may be an aeroplane landing area for fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter landing area for hover aircraft. AGA 6 and AGA 7 were cancelled on 12 December 1991. 2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN AIRCRAFT LANDING AREA 2.1 There is no requirement to seek CASA sanction for the establishment of an Aircraft Landing Area. Unless specifically requested by the owner, the Authority will not normally inspect an Aircraft Landing Area, or publish its information in the AIP. 2.2 CAR 92(1) puts the responsibility on the pilot to ensure that the place is suitable for use as an aerodrome; and having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), that the aircraft can land at, or take- off from, the place in safety. 2.3 Were an Aircraft Landing Area is provided by a person other than the pilot, then as far as the Authority is concerned, it would still be the pilot’s responsibility to ensure that the facility provided is suitable for the intended aircraft operations. AIRCRAFT LANDING AREAS 1. INTRODUCTION

Aftermarket sun visors. http://www.vicdrive.co.uk/extras.html#Sun%20Visors

Thanks Maj for your piece, I had the pleasure of meeting Rob at Natfly and rang and spoke to him about an aircraft he built, he was the most helpful and considerate fellow aviator and thorough gentleman. He will be sadly missed

Hey Phil, I wonder if he used the throttle as the brake ?

There is no problem getting endorsement, why do you think there is a problem ? I had a certified Sportstar with IFA, it is in another fly school now or if you built your plane there is no problem doing in your plane, I also know of a IFA in another certified and a LSA used in schools. If you built your plane and want AP endorsement or want to know where a school plane is PM me. The performance of an adjustable prop is a great advantage, short take off and fast cruising at optimum power settings, but the initial cost is hard to justify,

Quote. ....I am at 68-70 kts on short final to landing, with full flaps. I am having a very difficult time keeping the nose on the centerline just before touchdown. Fresno jab, At this point are you moving ailerons or just holding the flare ? The reason I ask is the J230 suffers Adverse Yaw so if you are moving ailerons around side to side the nose will go side to side. The best method is hold aileron to suit wind condition and use rudder for direction control and flare to reduce speed and touch mains first. Many GA pilot forget the Adverse Yaw and get comfortable on the footrests, there is plenty about adverse yaw and well worth a read, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_yaw.

Well put Nong, I believe you are correct and every lesson whether good or bad is more knowledge and an experience you may not have done on your own. I have been with instructors that I have been glad to get out of the plane but they taught me something, every lesson is a bonus and using different instructors is also good. I have had instructors going off for the way I was taught to do things, now I just ask how do you want me to do it then do it their way and at the end decide what's the better way. I have been called a "woss" for being too cautious but some of those people have met with accidents and are no longer around, their mistakes were simple but they ignored the risk, or should I say took too many risks !

Just another point, most GA pilots tend to round out high on approach to land and because of the heavier weight of GA planes it doesn't effect as much as light aircraft, it is important to round out as low as possible in light aircraft and it does make a difference.

I approach at 70 knots in gusty conditions but 60 - 65 in normal conditions. I think 70 is a little fast in good conditions and below 60 need to be very careful as control is not as effective at low speeds as mentioned already, 55 is a short field speed and probably not for low hour pilots. I think your problems are related to speed. Slow down late downwind and get 1st stage of flap, on base establish 65 knots, on final keep 65 knots and adjust height with power and more flap as required, when you round out at around 15-20 feet do not worry about speed any more just focus on power, runway and flare.

As an old motor mechanic and having worked on many VW and Subaru, and owned five VW vehicles and one Suby, I was chating to a young VW enthusiast also a mechanic, I described to him the Jabiru through bolt set up and how it held the case halves together, he was less than impressed and said "there was a lot of banging around those cylinders holding those halves together". He thought the halves should be bolted as well and I agree, this would help take load off those pots trying to hold the case together !

Looks like corrosion has started, I'm surprised. I also wonder how old it is and whether it is a hangared aircraft.

If you use ozrunways and carry out of date maps just write on them " not for operational purposes " and I'm sure that is quite alright.

The right thing to do is at a Hot Rod show, send your best vehicle technical advisors and answer questions to help people on how to build legal safe machines and in aviation have a CASA stand where people can get advice and recommendations from CASA technical people on how to satisfy legal and safety requirements, but CASA are too incapable for this sort of action, they want to show how important they are, look at what the imbeciles have done to Jabiru ! They have done un-repairable damage, there is nothing nice to say about CASA absolutely nothing !