gandalph

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

Congratulations Rick, That' s 6 minutes 45 seconds you'll remember forever.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ae-2016-018/ Extracted from the RAA Advice to members: "To fully examine the engine, RAAus is conducting a supervised engine tear down with officials from ATSB and Jabiru."

FT at the risk of being labeled a cry baby again, I will say that I find your post particularly offensive. Your suggestion that anyone would find cause to celebrate an accident that resulted in the death of fellow pilot is disgusting. I strongly urge you remove that post though I doubt that any slight and feeble spark of decency that you may still possess will overcome your need to be a complete and utter duckwit.

Powerin, I think there was a similarly quick notification after the aircraft (can't remember what breed) crashed into the sea and the it was discovered that there was a problem with primary control cable attachment or tension. Sorry about being vague about the details but I don't have time today to search back for more detail. Personally, I am very pleased that the RAA acted as quickly as they did in both cases to provide preliminary findings and so replace speculation with fact, even if at this early time they are not able to provide all the facts. I look forward to the result of the ATSB's investigation into this sad incident

Thanks HITC for your clearly explained exposition on the compromises and inconvenient truths we face when we fly. It was a delight to read and has been saved in my "useful flying stuff" folder.

That has been my experience as well. Although my ears did get singed by Rod over a query I made about the strength of some bonding on our aircraft that I thought wasn't too special, but it was sorted amicably and Jab have continued to provide me with excellent customer service whenever I've approached them.

It needs a bigger prop or it will over rev .

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2015/ar-2015-082/

Sly and Bex. Two words I wouldn't normally expect to see here!

Oh! if only I was rich enough to afford both a aircraft AND a pay TV subscription!

Ron, I think it would be wildly optimistic to think that the DAS would disclose, in an open Senate estimates committee hearing, CASA's intentions in relation to the instrument. That would be shooting from the hip and would be more the old CASA style that the new under Mr Skidmore. I think there will be quite a bit of negotiating done before we get to having the instrument withdrawn (or as is more likely, eased). On another but related matter, I see that the ATSB 10 year snapshot has been released. I expect there will be be some interesting reading there.

Probably Tiger Balm.

Oh to be a fly on the wall of that meeting!

Nice!

I understand that JJ but what was the manufacturer's certified MTOW? I think Kasper summed it up very well in post #4 when he said: The issue seems to hinge on whether the RAA acted on the information provided by the Australian importer/agent when RAA type acceptance was first sought, or whether the RAA was aware of the difference between the Manufacturers specified MTOW and MTOW information provided by the original applicant for RAA acceptance but chose to go with the information provided by the importer. Put simply: who provided the wrong information? Rumours abound about previous Tech Managers being told by a now departed Board member to either take direction from said Board member on technical matters well outside his sphere of competence, or pack their bags. Apochryphal or not? JJ, It might appear to you that I am being combative. Let me assure you that I'm not. You have been dealt a lousy hand and it stinks. I truly hope you can achieve some satisfactory resolution, but I also seriously doubt you will

Agreed. It was a very broad analogy.

Yep HITC, I think its a funny one liner too. and I've used it myself in other correspondence I just thought it was a bit out of place (not offensive but perhaps just a bit inconsiderate) in a thread about a colleague who just lost his life. Is it PC gone mad or just urging consideration for others in this one special circumstance? I am sorry if my post caused offence to anyone, that was not my intent.

JJ, If I decide to buy a second hand one tonne ute for my business and I take it to a mechanic who checks it over and he tells me that it is roadworthy; safe to drive and fit for purpose. I then take to the Road Traffic Authority and they check it and agree to register it. Some time later I get a letter from the RTA telling me that the information provided to them by the manufacturer of the ute was incorrect and that the ute cannot now be registered to carry originally specified load. Do I have a claim for negligence against my mechanic or against the RTA? Asmol, RE your post #90. Can I now sue the Mechanic if he now works for the RTA and was the person who signed the letter from the RTA advising me of the change in rego status? Or should I pursue the importer or their agent?

RobS2107, Perhaps your signature block is not appropriate in these circumstances? Funny almost anywhere else but not for this thread?

JJ I have to take issue with your use of the term "fraudently" in accusation that "In other words it was done fraudulently, illegaly, (sic) by the Tech Manager......." I quote from a Uni of Melbourne article: http://insights.unimelb.edu.au/vol12/07_Ferguson.html "While there is no definition of fraud in the Australian criminal code the Australian Fraud and Corruption Control standard defines fraud as: A dishonest activity causing actual potential financial loss to any person or entity ........ by employees or persons external to the entity whether or not deception is used at the time, immediately before or immediately following the activity. This also included the deliberate falsification, concealment, destruction or use of falsfied documentation used or intended for use for a normal business purposeor the improper use of information or position. In essence, the key elements of a fraud include a representation about a material point which is false and intentionally so, which is believed and acted upon by the victim to the victim’s damage ." So it seems to me that the allegation of fraud could lie against the entity that originally provided you with the information which you then provided to the RAA (if you believe that the information contained deliberate falsifications.) It seems to pivot on the words deliberate and intentional. You might want to get some legal advice before you decide at who you're aiming.

Hi Campbell, If my memory serves me correctly, MC was banned from this forum some time ago. I don't know about PA's status here. Are you implying that Asmol and Wings could be either MC or PA? If that's correct then perhaps, in the interests of transparency, they should declare their interest. If it's not correct, then I'm not sure about your claim that they've hijacked this forum. Something for the Moderators or site owner to look into perhaps?

Yes Turbs, I don't know if the families of Neville and John pursued any civil action after the inquest so I don't know if there was a "final agreement". While the Coroner might not have had detailed native knowledge of matters aeronautical, she would have had access to expert advice to provide her with guidance. One would hope that she availed herself of that expertise. It's always easy for people involved in these matters to assign motive to others but the Coroners scathing comments should leave no doubt about the value she placed on some of the evidence presented.

That is sooooooo cruel! But agonisingly true

Yep, wheel barrow wheels are bigger but I have some smaller barrows - like railway porters trolleys - and their tyre diameter is close-ish. Should be near enough to get an idea. It's more socially responsible to use that, rather than go and nick someone's Jab wheel. I know if I take a wheel off our Jab, my co-owner will get tetchy with me.