gandalph

That's disappointing Russ, The True Blue Goo seller at the Murrumbateman Field day assured me that it had been "tried and tested in ultralight aircraft tyres and worked perfectly". (his words - not mine) He also claimed that it was the only Goo insert approved by RAA for use in U/L aircraft tyres. However, that was a salesman talking, and user experience outranks sales talk every time. I had planned to buy a bottle and build a test rig using one of my old barrow wheels fitted with a tyre and tube made, it would seem, from cheese, to test its efficacy and see what out of balance problems might appear. I have a mate who enjoys building Heath Robinson devices, so I might still go ahead with that idea and report back.

Aha! Pturb'd. A new verb for when Turbs explains where we've got it wrong. I like it. I expect I'll be using it a lot though.

Perfect!

"Momdel" & "Sones" FT? Did you get so excited that your fingers couldn't keep up with your brain? More room in the cockpit looks good though. I wonder how much impact it will have. In their performance? The Sonex gives Great performance and great value for the money. They've impressed me for a long time and if/when I get the our jab sorted and flying I might have a late midlife crisis and build one. Maybe. If the Minister for War and finance agrees.....

Yep. A lame attempt at humour on my part. No offence meant to either Neil or Bex.

Explains a lot!

Well, my patrician pen pal, at the risk of plunging into pedantry and possibly peeing you off, I'd postulate that you postited that piffle when you posted them. I picked on them principally because I prefer pfacts to pfantasy.

No, you should've prefaced it with a disclaimer that the numbers posited in your post were based on emotion, unsupported & unfounded assumption and hyperbole, rather than logic or reason. Really Turbs, not your best essay!

Fair enough. But if they are confidential why do you keep dropping hints about them? Turbs, It smacks of a primary school age boy shouting "I've got a secret but I'm not going to tell you what it is" with a strong " Nya Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah!, with tongue poked out" component. It doesn't further the discussion. Turbs, let me assure you that I am not sitting back and waiting. Your sources have mislead you. As for ringing Lee at CASA. Thank you for that advice but, sadly, I don't have any confidence that he would give me other than the company line if I contacted him at his desk and I wouldn't want to put him in a compromising position by contacting him privately.

Well that's a disappointing response Turbs. If you have useful credible information why not share it? I agree that we should not pin all our hopes on Senator O'Sullivan fixing everything for us, he is after all, a politician and while our agenda and needs/wants might align in part with his agenda, it would be foolhardy of us to believe that his goals and ours are identical. But I see no harm in fully briefing him on our side of the argument. I would be much more comfortable if his forthcoming meeting with Messrs Skidmore and Aleck was conducted other than behind closed doors.

So are you implying that the CASA intervention was initiated not by individuals but by one (or more) organisations? That would suggest only 3 possible initiators: RAA; CASA; ATSB. If I've got the sequence roughly correct CASA asked/required/directed RAA to provide details of engine related incidents involving Jabiru powered aircraft and gave the association an impossibly short time to respond - hence the "Every Incident" spreadsheet. That would suggest that the RAA was not the instigator. CASA also sought information from the ATSB. We're not sure where in the timeline that occurred but as CASA makes reference in one document relevant to the FOI request to "seeking information from ATSB" (not a direct quote but a paraphrase) but CASA is being coy about the specifics of that request. So we could assume with some degree of confidence that the ATSB was not the initiator. That leaves CASA as the initiator, but it's unlikely that they would have acted on their own motion unless there had been a serious incident that was of a high enough profile to spur CASA into action. There is no such incident listed on the spreadsheet. There was no Pel-Air equivalent recorded. They had to have been prompted to act by , if not an organisation, then by somebody or several somebodies. That suggests to me, and to others I have discussed this with, that CASA was lobbied to act by individuals for reasons best known to them and their associates. There is no argument from me that CASA should act when provided with credible information that an aircraft type or class, engine or operator is unsafe and poses an unacceptable risk to the community. My argument has always been that the information provided by whoever was not given the careful and diligent scrutiny that must be expected and is required of a publicly funded Authority responsible for Civil Aviation Safety. If you have information that supports a contrary view, then I am sure that many here would urge you to share it.

Naming those who started this is of little value now and is just another diversionary tactic that you employ so well and so often. Many of us who have a direct stake in this stoush have a very clear understanding of who started it and it's interesting that those who barked loudest before CASA stepped in (some would say stepped in it) have gone very quiet of late. Could it be that they have come to the realisation, much too late in their game, that although having let the genie out of the bottle, they no longer control it? Very few believe that CASA acted on their own motion. I know that many would like to blame a couple of people who moved out of RAA and into CASA. I, for one, don't think that those two gentlemen started this, I believe they simply ran with it when the baton was passed to them. However, their lack of diligence in disinterestedly assessing the information passed to them may cost them more than just their credibility within the aviation community as I expect CASA will need to find some scapegoats if they are to successfully untangle themselves from this.

Well it's a Rotax with half as many strokes as a proper engine needs, but I suppose the prop has half as many blades as seems proper, so maybe it all gels. So it's a blue head. So what? I'm married to a red head. Both can be cantankerous little things though one is more reliable than the other. and NO! I'm not going to say which is witch.

A wee bit.

Mike, The rumour mill has a retired Aero engineer somewhere near Toowoomba close to finishing converting a Blanik sailplane to be self launching, powered by a 503 Rotax driving a single bladed self feathering prop. I believe he has studied it all very thoroughly and is satisfied that his proposed setup will give him the greatest efficiency.

10 kg heavier Roger? Jabiru list their 3300 @ 83.5kg and Camit list their 3300 @ 82.4kg. Where is the extra weight in the Camit. Not doubting your figures, just asking.

Oscar said: ↑ Everybody - and seriously - email O'Sullivan, congratulate him for opening this up to proper inspection. Done.

Turbs, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner was approached and her response was, and here I'm paraphrasing: "We've looked into it and it all looks fine and above board to us." It was a bit like asking Victoria Police to investigate Police shootings. A bit like peeing in your pants, it gives you a warm feeling but it still stinks. There are investigations and there are "investigations".

And there are others, I'll hold my hand up for that as well, who understand that CASA doessn't have that role; that forensic investigation of engine failures; component failures; structural failures should be forensically investigated by the manufacturer (if they have the expertise), and or by the regulator, (in our case the RAA) if it has the expertise. Then reports to CASA/ATSB might contain much more informative and accurate information than a one line comment in a spreadsheet that an engine ran failed/ran roughly/ lost power..... What CASA could have - SHOULD have- done is what you, I and many others here have done and that is looked a little deeply into the information on the infamous spreadsheet and they would have arrived, as we did, at a very different number. That would have given them the opportunity, if they were of a mind to, consider appropriate action and perhaps arrive at a different and more sensible a outcome. To simply (and lazily) tally up the number of cells in a spreadsheet column and arrive at the magical number of 46 engine failures is, as some of us non-flat earthers on this site saying, simply unprofessional but more importantly negligent.

Oscar, You're being silly! Keep it up and you're likely to be kept in after class, or worse, expelled. Again.

NO NO NO! People, and I count myself firmly among them, have been saying that CASA should have tested the EVIDENCE presented to them, before they acted as they did. Just as the DHSS tested the evidence that there WAS a problem with the salad vegies before they acted. There is a BIG difference between the way CASA acted and the way DHSS acted. Your analogy is not valid.

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

Highwing, It is always harder, and takes much longer to stuff the genie back into the bottle than to let it out.

Possibly, Turbs, but if the snake catcher had been a CASA acting Section Head, then all of that breed of snakes would have been banned indefinitely.