gandalph

Oh Ornis! Do you have stats to back up your "10 times catastrophic mechanical engine failure rate" claim? Or is that just more of your Kiwi hyperbole? That barrow you keep pushing must be getting very heavy by now. Why not take a break!

Yair's.....

No, I assumed the role of investigator, who, I'd hope, would be a person with some reasonable level of technical skills and qualifications and certainly not at the junior level. I'd also expect that as an investigator I'd be a "disinterested" person in the same way that a Magistrate is supposed to be disinterested in the cases he/she hears. I would expect the Director of CASA would NOT conduct or even head such an investigation. I'd expect the Director to be fully and and competently briefed on the issue and I'd further expect that a range of options would be put to the Director. We don't know if the latter was done but there is widespread belief that the outgoing Director saw a golden opportunity to leave a warm steaming turd on the incoming Directors desk. The avoidance of any fatalities an very high goal. In most activities the aim is surely harm/risk minimisation which (should) pursue by rigorous risk assessment and management. If, as you claim CASA's role is the aim is to avoid any fatalities their inspectors should be in the field as we speak, removing the propellors from the entire RAA fleet. Re Tiger airways: I believe there was far more substantiated evidence for CASA's action in that case. I also believe that ANSETT came close to enjoying the same fate but escaped by the skin of their teeth. The justification for the Jabiru injunction is much more tenuous and hardly analogous to those events

My experience is that the higher the Court the sillier the rulings.

You directed the question to Nev but I'll have a go at answering it. I would have asked my sister organisation, the Australian Transportation SAFETY Bureau, if they had any data relevant to the information provided to CASA by the RAA that I should consider and that might expand my understanding of the issue. I would have gone back to the RAA and asked for complete details of the incidents listed in their spreadsheet. As a caveat, we don't know whether the RAA simply provided a bare bones summary of accidents/incidents relating to Jabiru powered craft or whether they supplied, as supplementary data, copies of member's incident reports and copies of RAA's investigations into those reports. I rather suspect that given the impossibly tight timeframe allowed by CASA for the RAA to provide information to CASA that the RAA Board and staff did their best and slammed together a spreadsheet expecting (wrongly) that CASA would exercise due diligence and cross check the RAA with their records and cull the flat tyre; fuel starvation; carb icing; comms failures ets from the data to be considered. I think that the RAA believed that the spreadsheet they provided was PRELIMINARY information and that they would be allowed sufficient time to refine and elaborate on the first flush information provided. That additional information from ATSB and RAA might have allowed me to form an opinion as to whether there WAS a problem with Jabiru engines. If I was to form an opinion that there was a problem with the mechanical integrity of Jabiru engines then I might draft a carefully worded detailing the results of my investigation and justifying any action I might propose for the (then) rabidly anti-RAA Director to include in any direction to the fleet to alleviate the problem(s) identified by my thorough and rigorous investigation. I would not have sat back and said: "WOW! 40 failures per year! I'd better tell Mr F he can ground the fleet and drop the incoming Director in it with one fell swoop."

EXACTLY! that's all they appeared to do. They do not appear to have queried, verified or otherwise examined the data reported with anything like a questioning mind. They appeared to have taken the lazy way out. The CASA mindset appears to be:1. An that engine stops (for any reason) = an engine that has failed 2 A forced landing for any reason = an engine failure.. I did NOT say that there were ATSB reports included in the CASA spreadsheet I DID suggest that a search of the ATSB database would provide reports on incidents that appeared, ( ie: could be cross referenced to incidents) in the CASA spreadsheet and that the causes noted in the ATSB reports did NOT tally with the CASA reported causes. Are you being deliberately thick?

Then you wouldn't know if it was a question. rhetorical |rɪˈtɒrɪk(ə)l| adjective 2 (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information. ESL?

I must disagree. If you search the ATSB database you will find many reports prepared by ATSB on RAA aircraft incident/Accidents. Exactly! And the "Causes" as listed on the CASA spreadsheet do not tally well with causes specified in the reports by ATSB. It's not hard to determine which of the CASA incidents are reported by ATSB & vice versa. Perhaps ATSB has a more forensic nature than either RAA or CASA when determining causes of failures. I make no suggestion as to where the stimuli might have emanated. Again - I haven't named any names and I have not suggested publicly that Mrs Ungermann or Mr Poole were the instigators. I simply restate my belief that CASA officials did not display the rigourous analysis of the information one should expect of public officials when they decided to act on the information; that their lack of diligence action in promulgating the original restriction was was therefore ill considered and irresponsible.

Surely it would depend on the REASON the warriors or 172's were "falling out of the skies" (to use your hyperbolic language) If you, not you particularly TP but interested people in general , were to take the data in the spreadsheet provided by CASA relating to Jabiru incidents (difficult now that CASA has realised they have made yet another significant administrative error and taken the relevant document down) and cross check it with ATSB reports covering the same period you would see that the data do not match. That could raise a couple of questions in people with open minds: 1.Could that be because the ATSB actually investigates incident and accidents and provides an assessment of the CAUSE of the incident/accident whereas CASA appears to have taken the slackers way out and jerked their knees in response to some very dubious external stimuli? 2. Is it legitimate for CASA to determine that fuel starvation or carburettor icing or incorrect component assembly or incorrect maintenance should be classified as an engine failure? p.s. Those were rhetorical questions

That's not a video Bex Notice the "Play" arrow is pointing the wrong way

Dunno, They might have been Republicans seeking refugee status..... or maybe infiltrating......

Doc, do you think there might be some causal link between the decline in Jab powered aircraft visiting strips in populated areas and the limitations CASA has imposed on Jab powered aircraft? Or am I jumping to conclusions thinking that after only 13 months we might reasonably expect to see something like you report?

Damn lucky that Delta have gun control rules for their staff eh Gnu? Do we know if they were Democrats or Republicans?

AIARC? FB Groups? retart WW3? What are you trying to say man?

Send Oscar a PM. I believe he made one for his Jab.

Lots of good information here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=c5fb7e48d279e7e8b2e2cfe49ab223da Kitplanes magazine also has a regular section on electrics for aircraft

Bugger! That's me banished to the netherworld then.

No No, Gandalph is a friend to the Hobbits (and large flightless birds).

Well done! Than man! And he's even misspelled " nothing" just to antagonise Dazza! Double brownie points to you Sir!

Oh Turbs! I've always found you to be an engaging bloke in your own particular way. (I nearly wrote peculiar, but I worried that you would take offense)

Manpad. Man Portable Air Defense System

"Possibly find them" ??? Blimey Turbs! It seems from that statement that even you are now harbouring doubt that there are "valid issues listed in the instrument"

OFF TOPIC! Away with you to the Black Site for that post Bex

Well, personally I prefer quality documentaries and that's why I don't browse the shopping channels. I prefer some topics here and that's why I don't browse some others but I do scan the list, particularly the What's new" list to see if there's anything I might be interested in. It's the same when I go into a book shop, I browse the titles to see what piques my interest. I don't have to read each book or even read every summary to decide whats interesting and what's rubbish. If I go to a particular interest forum such as this one I read the topics that interest me and leave the other. Sometimes I get it wrong and get suckered into a rubbish thread but extricating myself is easy. A concern that I have with Ian's proposed draft list of what might be shoved over to the black site: If a new site was created, the forums could possibly be: Politics Sport What about aviation related sport or sport that aviators are also interested in? Religion Sex Good luck keeping that out of posts! Culture Why? Laws There's been heaps of interesting and useful discussion here about legal matters. How would the Mods decide what stays and what goes? Technology Really? Why? Cars Yep Bikes Yep But lots of guys & gals here enjoy their cars and bikes In the news Why Jokes. You must be joking! Other Well now, there's a can of worms. Could mean anything. By all means, start another site called "life , the Universe and everything" but be gentle with what you censor on this site please Ian. Lots of us like it just the way it is.

Ian, I understand your reasoning for wanting to keep the site focused around recreational flying but if you, or the moderators, start moving "off topic" threads or posts to another site then you'd be introducing a form of censorship that I think many of us here would not welcome or appreciate. I see this site as being somewhat analogous to free to air TV. There are 50 or so channels and thousands of programs available for me to watch if I want to. But owning a TV set does not require that I watch everything that is broadcast. Just as with this site, I can pick and choose, sample some, reject some. I follow some posters whose opinions I trust and respect and ignore or quickly pass over others I don't. Hell I can even turn the TV off, or not log in here for a while if the looney fringe has got me too riled. The great majority of us here are smart enough to be able to identify the trolls and agenda pushers and we can we can either ignore or discount their views as we see fit. We really don't need you or the Mods acting as our Mum and doing that for us. Australia has enough "nannies" making decisions for us, please don't fall into the trap of becoming yet another one. To have someone else deciding what I can read is a retrograde step. I'm not yet in the nursing home and I am still capable of deciding what I want to follow and what I don't. Please don't take that freedom away from us. Save yourself some work and let the users do their own censoring. That's my two cents worth but you can have it for free.