gandalph

A bit snipey & tetchy even for you TP. Bad day at the office?

Oscar, I believe that there was an instance of structural failure of a Jab Airframe (in Europe) either last year or the year before where, if my memory hasn't failed me, it was determined that the pilot got involved in severe convective turbulence and the wings detached from the fuselage. Pilot error or bad luck? Who knows, but we do know that thunderstorms have pulled much larger airframes apart so it's a bit hard even for jabbarats to blame that one on Jabiru.

Thanks John, Last year I produced for my amusement and enlightenment a spreadsheet that identified ATSB Jab related incidents & accidents as reported on their website with the data reportedly used by CASA. It was interesting to compare the ASTB's data with the "data" used by CASA to justify their restriction on Jabiru engines. The data did not match. I know. Everyone is amazed!

Interesting Ian, is that the RAN being overprotective or is there some other reason? The satellite pic seems to show two very well maintained strips. Did they forget to build perimeter fences to keep the animals mentioned in the ERSA out?

Jaspers brush? If MotzMerv is still about he might be able to provide some details . Or you could try seeking permission to use the Jervis Bay strip. If you don't ask the answer will always be No.

Yeah, but when the wings fell off.........

What? Here? Go on! Git away! On a side note it's pretty obvious, after forensically reviewing the video in Kaspers post #1, that the pilot had the poor thing overloaded to blazes what with the pallet load of cement bags and the bulker bag full of heaven knows what. That and all the other things noted by pmcarthy and the poor wee thing would have glided like one of those bags of cement.

The urge to turn back can be sudden and almost uncontrollable as can be the urge to memorialize. Should we perhaps wait for the emotions of the event to settle a little before considering OME's proposal?

What? Tecnams? Nah, still plenty of them around.

ATSB calls the Jab one forced landing in their summary, (see summary below - the bolding and underlining were added by me) and categorises it as an accident. They don't call it a crash. No word from them on the Tecnam incident/accident/occurrence yet. FT's determination to emotively label every incident involving a Jabiru as a crash brings only heat to the discussion but sheds no light. I'm suggesting is that we wait for ATSB to conduct the autopsy and determine the cause(s) rather than have the "experts" here decide the cause. I think we would be better congratulating the pilots of the Jab and the Tecnam on their piloting skills for getting their aircraft on the ground safely than jumping to conclusions about either incident. Summary The ATSB is investigating an engine failure involving a Jabiru J430, VH-SZQ, 56 km WNW of Oakey Airport, Queensland on 19 November 2015. During cruise, the engine failed and the pilot conducted a forced landing onto a road resulting in substantial damage. As part of the investigation the ATSB will interview the pilot, gather maintenance information and additional information as required. A report will be released in several months. ASTB Back in the day when language was used politely, gentlemen perspired but ladies felt the heat; Cars broke down but Rolls Royces failed to proceed. Perhaps Jabirus crash while other brands have in flight anomalies.

Maybe, but we won't know yet until we get more details so I'd prefer to stick with the ATSB's far less emotive language for now.

Very pleasing to see you say that. But you still haven't said why you think factory built or experimental might be relevant though.

Do you see that as relevant? Can you explain why it might be relevant to this incident? Not stirring, I'm genuinely curious as to why you think it might be a relevant actor in this incident. I see that you are labelling it as a "crash" while the ATSB stubbornly calls it a forced landing, but what would they know about anything?

As does the Tecnam crew. Good results all round. It will be interesting and hopefully informative to get some solid information on the causes of both incidents

I don't know, Dick. Perhaps we should wait and see what an investigation of the cause reveals. What's the weather like up in Toowoomba? It's a bit too hot here for me to be jumping to conclusions, but perhaps that's the only exercise available to some people.....

Thanks for updating me on that Kyle. The ones I've used didn't have that capability, but then I bought the last one several years ago and technology has obviously advanced since then. I might have to revisit and re-assess my options.

Most dashcams record in a loop mode recording a sequence of relatively short intervals before recording over the older files. They use use inertia sensors to detect a collision and then switch to "safe mode and record for a few minutes saving that file to a protected area on the card. So if you'd need to determine the maximum recording time available before your particular cam starts over-recording the earlier files. Potholes in the sky and/or firm arrivals might move the camera to "crash mode"

Frank, I think most people have given up on the idea of explaining anything at all to FT.

Do we know the cause of the engine failure yet? we should be congratulating the pilot for his competent handling of a critical incident. We should then wait for some FACTS to emerge rather than speculate on the cause.

Ah well there's the problem. You can see in the photo there's an obviously factory built tail tie down hanging down behind the plane. It must have been sucked into the factory built inlet system causing the factory built engine to give up the factory built ghost.

Why is it highly relevant? I'd have thought the facts relevant to the INCIDENT are: The engine failed to produce power while the aircraft was in flight. The cause of that failure to produce power is as yet undetermined or undisclosed to this forum. The engine was maintained by an as yet undisclosed person or organisation to a standard as yet undisclosed to this forum. The engine had run a number of hours as yet undisclosed to this forum. Everything else regarding the incident is, as far as this groups knowledge is concerned, an assumption and remains so until someone with the further FACTS chooses to disclose them to this forum. Not that that's likely to stop the loony fringe from speculating as usual.

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/pilotkidfunju3

Yep. You're right. Dyslexic fingers!

Doc, whether it's ability or reasons..... or potential; motivation; opportunity or any number of other appropriate nouns, I don't think that substituting any them significantly changes the point I was trying to make. Statistically there are more men than women on the earth. The ratio is somewhere between 1.1 or 1.2 to 1 depending on which source you accept. Though the 2012 census has 102,300 more females than males in Australia (11.4 million females vs 11.3 million males) so why isn't that ratio reflected in more of our society? I don't have the answer to that but I suspect it involves a mix of culture, traditional role modelling, psyche and a host of other things that are beyond my ken. I think the point that Adele took umbrage at was that if you didn't specify your gender, the form on the website assumed that you were male. That presumption is almost certainly a reflection of the gender make up of the Association's membership. Perhaps we should be asking WHY the Association needs to know our gender? It's about as relevant to our flying as our hair colour!