David Isaac

There isn't any that any un-aviation educated person can treat like a modern car. If they are not prepared to accept that and educate themselves then they should stay out of the skies before they kill someone. I have ZERO tolerance for that kind of ignorant arrogance when there is ample opportunity to educate themselves. If you want to fly then bloody well learn about what you are flying. An aeroplane is NOT a car that you can just run into the ground ... and some 20 - 30 year old don't even get their cars serviced.

Good one, one of the few of us that survived the 'bullet proof' age (I didn't go to PNG though). For Nev that was a loooong time ago ROFLMAO.

So true Nev. My old CFI used to say there was a real lack of education and practical operational knowledge on engines demonstrated by FTFs and pilots. He used to say to me that I was an exception because of my background with building boat racing engines and my child hood growing up with a very knowledgeable father who was a motor mechanic most of his life. I have often wondered why engine operational education is so poorly managed by FTFs (GA and RAA), but perhaps not all FTFs. Trevor Bange's mob seem to have a good run with Jabs up in Qld, so perhaps there is a good educational and operational regime. Then again Motz who is a respected CFI has had major problems. How many of us have seen pilots who wouldn't even know what a 'soft pull through' was or pilots who have flooded a C172 ... really one of the most basic engines out there ... and yet sit there grinding the starter until the battery is flat. Or Pilots on injected engines who cant follow simple starting instructions and again flatten batteries because of it. Or pilots who have no clue on how to clear plugs on a mag check, or manage mixtures badly and foul plugs or exceed EGTs by over leaning, or don't alter speed and climb angle when the temps rise, or don't allow an engine the proper warm up time, or rev the guts out of stone cold engine, or do run ups NOT facing into wind ... and on and on I could go. So my question to FIs is ... What engine principles and operational training is part of the training syllabus and how well is it implemented. It seems to me that Rotax have spoiled many operators because the 912 has been designed and built to be almost 'foolproof'; which is fine if you can afford one.

FT it had a cylinder head refurbishment only 200 hrs ago, perhaps it should have had a 'Top' overhaul.

It is quite bizzare how you can watch such a video as this and feel quite nostalgic about a large piece of high tech aluminium; maybe because I flew many hours as a passenger in OGG.

I agree Tubz, There is no way that CASA will prescribe a 'Top overhaul' hours and neither should they. It is clearly the manufacturers responsibility to specify the need and frequency of specific overhaul items in order for any engine to reach its stated TBO. Even the humble 0-200 and 0-320/360 and most others have a requirement that stated TBOs cannot be achieved unless a 'Top' is carried out between certain hrs. Even the humble 1930s designed Gipsy Major (still flying today) requires a 'Top' at around 400 hrs and a TBO of only 1500 hrs (the longest TBO in its day). People have unrealistic expectations on Aero engines and these unreasonable expectations seem to be dominant in the RAA fraternity. It is entirely appropriate for an engine manufacturer to require certain specific checks and maintenance at stated hrs in order for an engine to get anywhere near its stated TBO. Why would anyone in their right mind fly an aircraft when an engine has a soft pull through on one or two cylinders (without further checks) knowing a particular engine has a weakness in that area e.g. Jabiru, they are just inviting a stoppage airborne. I speculate that if pilots were better engine educated we would have less Jabiru engine failures and that most issues would be picked up with appropriate maintenance and preflights.

Ha ha Tim, 200 copies will be gone in a flash, probably on this forum alone. Well done buddy.

It's VH Andy, have to use a LAME not an L2.

What years were you there Potts?

Get your own LAME to look at the aircraft and logbooks as has been advised. Sadly for Jab owners this is a buyers market, good for buyers of course. Personally I think Jabs would be good potential purchases at the moment. They will eventually fix this problem, or just buy one at the right price and fit a CAE engine and you are laughing.

He didn't have that much time, the BRS capsized the aircraft, his raft wasn't even fully inflated when he got into it. The aircarft impacted at :52 seconds and was capsized at :27 seconds. That is only 30 seconds to get out. That is BS if there had been 4 POB, that would have been a major safety issue. I would say Cirrus have some serious disconnection thinking top do in these circumstances ... BUT still better than ditching at 80 knots I guess. I would say that if the BRS had disconnected there is no reason the AC wouldn't have remained floating for some time. Being a Cirrus it would be relatively airtight and the door opens above the wing.

I had always thought they were supposed to auto release when they unloaded from ground/water impact. The failure to release was noted in the C162 spin certification testing incident where the test pilot actiavted the BRS due to an uncontrolled spin; the 162 landed ok under the BRS but was destroyed because the chute dragged the aircraft some distance to destruction.

Just let them slide ... you give them a life of their own when you respond.

If you dumb buggas just ignored his stirring comments, no one would notice ..... Duh.

YES ... it really needs to be sorted out professionally for RAAus. Training should be available even if just to increase your awareness and skill set. It does NOT necessarily mean you intend to use/do it (LL that is).

If its MTOW is so limited, I'd be worried about its structural adequacy.

Looks like Cessna copy, apart from the flap actuators.

The risk I was pointing out is the rollover risk of a bubble style canopy on a low wing regardless of the UC config. But to Nev's point, the risk of rollover is enhanced on a tricycle config for an off field landing. The tail wheel would be a safer alternative for an emergency landing.

This is a Frank bailey Javelin, single seat powered by a Rotax 447.This was preceded by a wire brace Mustang of lighter construction and with no pod. Both have single surface wings.

Yes, but NOT the LSA ones to which the ASTM standard applies.

Well I better get my Javelin flying then Tim, the Frank Bailey Mustang and Javelin were single seaters and allegedly preceded the thruster.

That demonstration is BS. The plexiglass wasn't installed in a frame that braced the edge. At least demonstrate a plexiglass in frame to at least NOT misrepresent a demonstration.

It is funny that instinctive preference. Having flown many hours in the Citabria and many in the big Cessnas, I seem to have a natural preference to stick in right hand, throttle on the left. This was interesting when I started flying Austers where initially I preferred to fly them from the right seat for that reason. I adapted ok though.

I agree Sam, Poor taste and pathetic actually. Turbo has put up untold posts on safety matters across a broad spectrum on this forum over the years, I don't see him as biased on this Jabiru issue. It is just that what he is saying is not liked by a few ... and that is just the way it is. Challenge him as you will on his merits, but at least behave like adults please.

Therein lies the problem ... a major problem IMHO. Upside down in a paddock in the middle of nowhere ... very bad. Upside down anywhere and fire ... very very bad. I don't like low wings with lifting canopies for that single hazard.