gandalph

Ah! Yes of course, But still available I'd have thought. Are dehydrator plugs worth the trouble & expense? Wouldn't sink plugs to block the exhaust pipes and an oily rag at the airbox inlet do the job? I'm nowhere needing something like that yet but it has got the grey cells percolating. Perhaps a fair way off topic for this thread though

Oscar, Why would you build dehydrator plugs when you can but them from the Skyshop or Aircraft Spruce. Too much time on your hands?????

I its ok Russ. It was a late in the day forum in joke. I was having a gentle dig at someone who believes the lack of forging is THE problem with jab engines.

So the end justifies the means?

Yes, but is the crankcase now made of forged alloy? If it's not we "know" it won't work.

Come on! That would NEVER happen!

Thanks Biggles. I was about to correct my post having just read the Coroners report, but you beat me to it. Another instance of the worth of scuttlebutt.

My memory is that some photo's of the scene showed the chute deployed. No reliable indication of whether it was deployed in flight (at what altitude?) or deployed as a result of the impact. I think the consensus, (ie scuttlebutt) at the time was that it was deployed, but too late in the emergency to do any good.

dlegg it's not the fumes but the fibres that may released in a fire that causes such concern. That's where the similarity to asbestos resides.

Kai, When you say " total absence of anything from the bundy mob", do you mean from Jabiru and CAMit. Or just Jab? If you haven't contacted Ian Bent @ CAMit it might be worth your while.

I flew one of the Goulburn Stings, either Neville Smith's or John Guthrie's, I don't remember which now. I flew to evaluate the aircraft type for a syndicate I was in that was looking to purchase an aircraft. My impressions were that it was delightful to fly. A little bit of tail wagging that is not uncommon in short coupled aircraft such as the sting but that wasn't disconcerting or difficult to manage. Once back on the ground I went over the both aircraft taking photographs and notes for the syndicate. I have to say that I came away less impressed than I had hoped. My overall impression of the build quality was that it was poor and for an aircraft that didn't have that many hours it was looking frayed around the edges with cracks appearing around the control surface hinge points and other placed on the fuselage where the glass seemed to be "working". My report to the syndicate was that it was not an aircraft that I could recommend we purchase. My personal opinion is that there are light aircraft, very light aircraft and flimsy aircraft. Delightful to fly, looked absolutely stunning but a bit too fragile for my liking. Akin to owning an early Alfa - Great fun but.......... I should emphasise that my syndicate was planning to purchase a new aircraft. I was not looking at the Goulburn aircraft with a view to purchasing either of them. They were not for sale but John (or Neville) had agreed to let my fly one of them for assessment of the type. No criticism is intended of the individual aircraft I flew or reported on or, of the owners and/or maintainers of those aircraft. I would not wish to cause any further distress to the families of John or Neville.

Frank, as you say p erhaps a way around that would be for all all proxy notifications to be lodged with a disinterested person, e.g. the public officer, who would register the proxy and then notify the person who you issued the proxy to that is would be available to collect at the meeting. If the proxy wasn't collected by the time the vote(s) were to be taken then the public officer would become the defacto proxy holder and vote as directed by you. A bit clumsy and it might take a bit more effort on the part of the proxy giver to make his/her wishes clear but perhaps worth considering. I don't like the idea of limiting the number of proxies a person can hold. That would seem to potentially stifle a members chance to cast a vote.

Thanks OK . Very pleasant.

Better minds than mine have argued that their decree exceeded their authority and that they should have restricted their action to that allowed by law. That argument is pointless now as the damage has been done. We now have to play the cards we've been dealt. Wow! 2 cliches in a row, time for a coffee or a glass of red.

I'm not the one making the assertion Turb, you are. I was just asking if you had some evidence to back yours up. I don't have any evidence other than posts from people here who say they made submissions. But that's not evidence, it's heresay. They might all be telling fibs. I don't know what was in those submissions other than what the posters alluded to here in these threads, so I can't judge if they were substantive or otherwise. Can you? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just inviting you to help us less fully folk here informed folk believe you might be right. It was an invitation, not a demand. I don't think I'm playing games, It wasn't me who called it fun.

"No substantive submissions appear to have been received." ? You have some evidence to back that assertion or is that simply your opinion, belief, guess? David posted earlier that you have made many valuable posts related to safety and I have seen many posts from you on a variety of matters where you put forward cogent arguments to support your opinions, but posts like the one quoted above do nothing for your credibility.

File 1991-46.pdf is the ACT Associations Incorporation Act 1991 and file 1991-36.pdf is the ACT Associations Regulations 1991. The Act was republished in May 2012 and is the current version while the Regulations was republished n June 2013 and is also the current version. Great bedtime reading for those of us suffering insomnia. Enjoy! 1991-46.pdf 1991-31.pdf 1991-46.pdf 1991-31.pdf 1991-46.pdf 1991-31.pdf

The Great Nanny does not have to explain himself he merely has to pronounce.

Fun. Hmmmmmm

Yeah, well good luck with that. You should understand that we live in a Nanny State and that Nanny knows what is best for us. The Great Nanny does not have to explain himself he merely has to pronounce. He who said he has been collecting statistics: " for which my own first statistics start in 2007, around 7 years ago" ,(post #43) now "doesn't place much store in statistics" (post #168) Which is it to be Turbs? Are the statistics, in which you now don't place much store, suggesting that the sky may not actually be falling? Seems like you're having a few bob each way. Credibility noun 1 plausibility, believability, acceptability, tenability, probability, likelihood, authority, authoritativeness, impressiveness, cogency, weight, validity, soundness; truth, veracity, faithfulness, fidelity, authenticity, accuracy, factualness. ANTONYMS implausibility.

Thery're a bit like comparing nectarines to peaches, they're related but not the same. As to how they're going.... it could be dangerous to ask that question in these troubled times. You could attract the attention of some seriously heavy players.

Anytime I can assist with those tricky words like NOT, you only have to ask.

Nope. I wasn't a party to that conversation so I'd only be guessing that it is highly unlikely that Ian would say such a thing - just like you were earlier. As for physics and reality - there you go making assumptions again, but to ease your mind, I get by. p.s. when I challenged your earlier assertion that you knew what wasn't said, I wasn't attacking you, I was simply expressing my doubt. I kinda knew what you meant, but I couldn't let you get away with saying it that way. Still friends?

Thanks KGW for picking up my error. My bad. I should've waited until after my second coffee before posting. Cheers