gandalph

As did Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Fiat, BMC, Jaguar, Rolls Royce (car division) etc. etc. etc... Could the problem be more one of business management than scale of production? Getting a bit off topic here - that's unusual!

This could be fun.....

Living on the ragged edge there Guernsey!

My Good Lady Wife and I use Graphic Converter on our Macs. http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/ There's a free trial available without any features crippled as in most "free trials" The only minor annoyance is a 5-10 second delay while the free version starts.The paid version is about 39 Euro whatever that converts to these days. Worth a look. GLW is NOT computer savy and she manages to do what she needs with it - mostly re-sizing. Next door neighbour is a professional IT and Mac Geek and he can get it to do almost everything except make the coffee.

And on final for 37 , 27 & 22! No safe undershoot area at all. Too many tigers too close to those approaches

Erratic love & passion pretty well sums it up!

Thanks Asmol. That's very sad news. A great blow for aviation innovation.

Has that been confirmed Asmol? News reports said it was a Hornet's Nest plane registered to Jeremy but do we know for sure who was in it?

Best birthday wishes Phil from one amiable old fart to another.

Who's getting cranky Russ? You surely don't believe FT?

Sorry that you perceive it to be a word game. Your choice. I'm happy to remain unconvinced. So at last we have both achieved happiness. That will confuse FT even further. Of course the instrument has stuck. Was there ever any doubt it would. Has it run, or nearly run it's course? We should know next month

No.

True but we are discussing engines in RAA aircraft in particular - the majority of which are not certified - not even the supposed gold standard of R**** (mustn't mention names!)

Well to be fair it was you who reminded us not very long ago about the title of this thread. I was merely keeping the conversation relevant. I don't want t get too cuddly so I'll reserve my decision on whether I agree with you on that. I'll give it some more thought overnight. Now you're shifting the terms around again to suit your hypothesis. We are not talking about cars and their regulatory environment is not as analagous as you would like us to believe. There is no performance requirement for RAA engines. We did agree on that. I'm happy to acknowledge your claim to have experience/expertise in the MV industry and I can't challenge your claim to have had a lot to do with road safety acts at the turn of the century, I was out of that sphere by then, but I think you place too much reliance on your experience there, and try too hard to translate that to the aviation sphere. I'm sure you do this for all the right reasons but I remain unconvinced by many of your arguments.

FT you don't have what it takes to get me hot. I'm pretty sure it's not rage you're feeling mate but I'm open minded, so what ever gives you your solitary pleasure is ok so long as you don't go into details about it.

You are a funny bloke FT. You keep pushing for something when there's nothing there. But least you've downgraded your cross examination theme from "have acting illegally" to " have they done the right or wrong thing." I continue to wonder why what I think is so important to you. I'd like to say I'm flattered, but I'm not. Your peculiar questions and posts make it very difficult for me (can't speak for others here)to take you seriously. "Maintain the rage"? Against who? Against what? ROFLMAO! What are you on about? Or perhaps I should ask: What are you on? BTW that's more funny peculiar than funny Ha Ha.

Yes Oscar but the discussion was in relation performance standards for engine performance rather than performance standards for airframe performance. But, as you say, the notion that a manufacturer could set a performance standard for their airframe without reference to the performance standards set by the relevant regulatory authorities is a nonsense.

True Camel, and I apologise if my use of the term Airworthiness Directive (AD) has confused anybody but I would point out that not all RAA aircraft are LSA's

John, I'd suggest that one of the the reasons that CASA didn't take the AD route is that there has been little of no forensic investigation into the root cause(s) of engine failures in RAA aircraft either Jabiru or other makes. I'll insert the caveat here that CAMit has been conducting for some considerable time, exhaustive investigations into the root causes of jabiru failures and developing modification to address those causes they have identified. I do not include them in my criticism above . I may well be doing RAA's techies a grave disservice by suggesting that their analysis of engine failure goes no deeper than the discovery that an engine had dropped a valve or broken a through bolt or shed a prop etc. Before people rise up from their beds shouting (again) "that's not the RAA's job" let me say I agree, in part. But if the aircraft was GA reg, the regulator would want to know what caused the valve to drop, what caused the through bolt to break etc. That way it could fullfil its role as safety regulator by issuing an AD to either inspect i.e "look for these warning signs" and/or fix the following identified faults. To support my assertion, I cannot recall any GA incident investigated and reported in the crash comic where the conclusion was that, to paraphrase: "the engine stopped and the plane crashed" It is my opinion that the RAA, as delegated sub-regulator - if you like- should be bringing pressure to bear on the engine manufacturers to conduct those forensic in depth investigations or asking big brother (CASA) to apply that pressure. Or else we should be seeking funding from government to allow RAA to develop those skills and conduct those investigations. CASA couldn't/didn't issue and AD because they didn't/don't know what the problem(s) are. So they felt, for whatever reasons (and we don't want to re-start that bushfire on here. That's now history and unchangeable) that they had to take some form of action. In the current case CASA seems to have had a bob each way shouting "We don't believe Jabirus have been doing as well as we think they should compared to...... um, er, AND we don't know what the problem is but we wish someone would tell us what it is, AND we think it is so serious thatis causes such immediate danger to someone (not entirely sure who, but we'll work on that one) that we're going to stop people flying with these engines unless they sign a bit of paper saying they're ok with it. AND you , or someone else , had better fix whatever it that's causing whatever it is that's worrying us AND then tell us so we can see if we agree and save face". (Note to TP: I don't really think that's exactly what they said. I was paraphrasing and taking just a little bit of a literary license there) Note to FT: None of what I've said above can or should be construed as me saying that CASA has acted illegally.

Dessicator plugs?

Turbs, Without wishing to relight the fires of dissent. You talk about government removing a standard - putting aside for the moment the fact, now agreed, that there is not, and was not and standard set by government- and go on to say that a manufacturer can choose any specification it likes, as long as it meets the standard. What standard? There is a circularity to your proposition and it simply doesn't gel. I'm sure that Jabiru won't agree that it doesn't meet the specifications it set and therefore doesn't meet it's standards. So we seem to be left with the proposition that an agency responsible to the federal government and controlled whether directly or indirectly by that government appears to have formed the opinion that a particular make of engine (at present that's Jabiru) doesn't meet an industry standard that doesn't exist, or that the agency has formulated a standard but has declined or neglected to publish or publicise that standard and then acted unilaterally against a manufacturer because of its belief that this "standard" has been breached. If I have understood the thrust of many of the posters here, that is a serious point of contention. And for the benefit of FT. None of what I've said above can or should be construed as me saying that CASA has acted illegally.

"Performance standards" were your words TP not mine. (post# 793) However I'm glad to see that we can at last agree on something: There is no performance standard - published, notional or otherwise, that Jabiru engines have breached. Perhaps the discussion can move on from there.

FT you really are a goose! Like your appellation, you are nought but a destructive vortex of wind. I won't make comment about the reference to Lucilia cuprina in your name as the Mods might think I'm being disrespectful. Just in case you didn't understand what I said earlier , let me try again: Gandy, (that's me) doesn't have to "admit that CASA hasn't broken the law" because, (now FT are you paying attention to this bit?) Gandy (that's me) has not offered an opinion on whether CASA has broken the law. If you (that's not me) have, rattling around somewhere in that noggin of yours, the idea that Gandy (that's still me. Are you getting the hang of this yet?) has said that CASA has broken the law then (and this bit is important too, FT) You are WRONG. I (Gandy) would really like you to bump the needle onto the next track. I wonder, have I made that too complicated for you? Would you like me to use words that are not as big? Are you moving on? Don't bother sending a postcard.

Has it FT? Are you saying it has? I haven't and I don't understand why you keep trying the same old stunt of trying to to put words into my mouth. You tried it in#765 and I replied in #772. It didn't work there and it hasn't worked here. Nothing has changed Mate, including your tactics of stirring the poo. Do you have anything of value to add the the thread?

And the Performance Standard that Jabiru has breached is?