Oscar

Hopefully, there is no sentient organism on the Planet that actually reads your posts - let alone considers them to be viable information.

One 'chute deployment was a result of the dealer demonstrator pilot showing off the stall characteristics over Lawson NSW to a prospective customer, and it going pear-shaped. You might like to look at the photos at: Light plane deploys parachute to make 'soft' landing in front yard to see how close to a power pole it ended up... See also: Investigation: AO-2014-083 - Loss of control involving a Cirrus SR22, N802DK, near Katoomba, NSW on 10 May 2014

For an owner's appreciation of the situation that this pilot faced in just maintaining control of the aircraft, the following is instructive reading: Cirrus SR20 (and a bit about the SR22) Since he is an owner and a CFI, I personally believe his appreciation of the aircraft is probably worth attention, in particular comments on the handling characteristics.

Luck, for sure - but he also had one of the statistically most occupant-safe airframes available, going for him. If you have consciously chosen your safety over ultimate price/performance and it saves your hide in an accident - is that luck, or good judgement?

Nev: I'm not trying to be a smart$rse here, nor an impromptu crash investigator, but I have had a very decent opportunity to examine a Jabiru that played dead ants.. I would hazard a guess that it hit with some forward velocity, but not a lot, and an attitude of around 200 degrees from normal, possibly a bit more. The separation of the engine from the firewall suggests to me that the brunt of the impact was taken by the engine; knowing the fin structure fairly well, I'll take a bet that it hit with almost no forward motion, as once the fin spar has been fractured, there is very little structure to resist a sliding impact. I agree with your assessment of the seat-belt restraint capability in the case of a completely vertical impact ( and that's why I intend to put a full six-point harness in my own Jab.) Some forward component would have acted as, essentially, a 'belt-pre-tensioner'. Personally, I believe that a lap-sash arrangement is pretty damn poor restraint; in a forward crash, it twists the spine and neck. My glider flying and car racing all shared four-five-six point harnesses, and though I've never had to utilise their capability, I've seen in my car racing days,some pretty damn huge crashes up close and personal, and the belt arrangement is a huge component of survival. However: proper belt locating structure is also critical. In the case of the Goulburn Sting crash (an aircraft which in my opinion has the occupant safety of a razor--wire entanglement within a crate of broken glass), the shoulder restraints for the four-point harnesses tore out of their substrate, in a crash that was demonstrably a low-angle contact with the ground. While the disintegration of the airframe around the occupants was horrific to see, the failure of the shoulder-belt restraints just on their own, would quite possibly have resulted in serious/fatal injuries even if the rest of the cabin structure had reasonably withstood the impact.

Sr, you have to be Tasmanian to wear more than one Akubra at a time... ( it's a Mainland joke..)

Sr, years ago I worked for a significant Australian organisation that had representatives in both Washington and London. Both were mates of mine; the Washington appointee returned for a de-briefing, and over a beer, I asked him what he'd learned about US culture. He was a smoker - like me. He explained that using the Aussie term for asking if one could beg the gift of a cigarette in Aussie: 'can I bum a fag off you?" was absolutely NOT a good approach in the USA.

Actually, a CAE engine could be substituted for a certificated engine IF a Part 21M engineer is satisfied that AMOC exists. That would require a considerable amount of testing to JAR 22H - for which the planning and the infrastructure development was all in place, when CASA lowered the boom. If someone - such as Paul Phelan - ever gets hold of the whole story, it will come out that the CASA action has taken the most successful Australian aircraft manufacturer AND the only Australian manufacturer of certificated/certified aero engines to the very brink of extinction, for claimed but absolutely UNPROVEN 'safety outcomes'. Thanks only to the declaration of a DD election, a mooted Senate Inquiry into the whole affair will never happen - I strongly suspect - and CASA will yet again walk away from the searchlight of its modus operandi. Experienced CASA-watchers will see that once again, an organisation that has so far surpassed its current operational culture use-by date that it can't be seen with the Hubble telescope has been able, by obfuscation, procrastination and finely-calculated bastardy, to escape the censure it so mightily deserves. They won't. Every component of an engine is part of a system and without an entirely systematic approach to analysis, design and manufacture, any 'weak link' approach to the rectification of problems only moves the weak link to another part of the system. HOWEVER - eventually, the removal of weak links to the point where the 'usual' operational condition is ameliorated, is a good start - but it's not going to be the best answer, just an acceptable one.

If you look at the differences with the CAMit 'core rebuild' engine, you will see that CAMit changed the entire system of crankcase joining, locating spigots (removed entirely, the through bolts do the locating), through bolts and nuts and cylinder bases subtly but very effectively, some years ago. The resonance issue was understood and addressed by CAMit with those changes.

Yep - though it is generally considered good form to arrive with the wheels pointing down...

Jaba, there were LSA55 models fully factory built - the ST1 and ST3, and sold as fully-certificated aircraft. My own St1 has manufacturer's plate ST1 00001, and was the 'official' 50th airframe Jabiru produced ( there were some experimentals that I think were not actually numbered and probably did not every leave the factory, at least in the condition they were originally built.) It was reputedly the first VH-reg. Jab sold, though since it spent some time as a factory mule for the 2200 engine development, it is possible a slightly later airframe technically was sold before mine left the factory.

Yes, the wires would have taken some of the energy and I agree, how much I couldn't guess, but it's still a lot of energy dissipated in a very short space of time.

kasper: to quote Alan Kerr, who has had a great amount of input into the structural justification of Jabirus, 'anything is repairable - but whether it's worth it, is the question.' As someone who has spent several years repairing a written-off (overturned) Jabiru, I think I have a bit of insight into this question. Jabs. have a low-tech composite structure; you do not need laboratory-grade inspection techniques to determine whether the structure has suffered damage, as with aircraft with a carbon-fibre structure. Standard, ambient-temperature cure repair techniques ( e.g. a 12:1 scarf ratio for joining skins), is a completely acceptable repair. The fin replacement is a simple task: the old fin is removed from the tail-cone using a heat-gun. I would put the condition of the wing-attachment cross members, the 'A-pillars' and the lift-strut attachment points as the critical elements, along with the amount of damage to the ply firewall substrate. I'd toss the wings; the old solid-foam ones are completely repairable unless the spar is damaged, but the later ones with fuel tanks, are a more sophisticated structure. Probably, line-ball as an insurance risk. I'll bet London to a Brick it'll be written-off, but that's not the same as saying it'll never fly again!

SrPilot - may I draw your attention to the photos referenced in: Small aircraft crashworthiness, post #88? I understand that the site of this particular crash has somewhat of a reputation for wind shear. At the best of times, it's going to be hard for almost any pilot to anticipate exactly where that may affect the approach, so while it's logical to say it was a case of pilot error, I suggest that this one MAY be one of those that has to be put down to bad luck. For this aircraft to hit power lines and be flipped, it has converted an approach speed of around 55-60 kts. into vertical energy almost instantaneously. That's a vertical velocity of (rounded), about 100 ft/sec. I don't have the maths ability, but I THINK that equates to a free-fall from about 200 feet. ( Those who do have the necessary maths. ability, please correct me.) Assume a minimum likely height of the powerline to be 15 feet. The disposition of the bits, indicates almost zero forward velocity on impact. Talk about extreme S(T)OL capability... and, as they say, any landing you can hop away from, is a good one.

Good point re the problems for owners of Certificated... this would be a VERY good time for the MARAP to get real, with a blanket approval process for the change-over.

That makes sense as a way for CASA to get out of the situation while everybody is looking at other matters (like Elections!), and gets the possibility of a Senate Inquiry off its back. Presumably, Jabiru will come out with a definition of 'compliant with latest mods.' - the latest release of the Engine Maintenance Manual should be adequate for that but I haven't studied it. You would certainly want to be absolutely sure your log-books are 100% ticketty-boo on the exact status of the engine before assuming you can fly without restriction as per the CASA notice.

Very good photo of the damage here: Ultralight pilot’s miracle escape near Manilla A pretty good advertisement for very tight seatbelt and tough occupant protection.

CB, I have no interest in pursuing this conversation. Although I have been signed out and re-checked a number of times on fully-developed ( 3 turns minimum) spins, I do not enjoy aerobatics; my first loop was undertaken within the first 3 hours of my starting flying training and was noted as 'slow over the top' - and I have had no interest in getting better. So, let me say absolutely - yours is quite obviously bigger than mine. I unreservedly accept this. And, in the spirit of stopping this confrontational debate, let me state that the Cirrus SR22 is the most wonderful aircraft ever to grace the skies.

Was down to Camden this morning.. the water in Picton was at least a metre high over the road past the sportsground; I nipped around the back of Coles etc. so couldn't see the evidence down at the junction of Picton Road and the main street, but 2 metres sounds about right to me for there. There's a brand-new batch of apartment-style buildings just past the sportsground where the poor buggers who recently moved in must surely be absolutely not enjoying their first year of tenancy.. Heading into Camden, the water had been over the top of the fences down near the roundabout by the Equestrian centre.

CB - there have been a number of discussions on this forum of the goods and bads of relying on BRS for recovery of flight situations which other aircraft routinely recover from using standard techniques. However, if you are happy to buy, fly and feed an expensive aircraft that offers a high degree of safety at the cost of disposing of it in recoverable situations, then good fortune to you. There is nothing I would say is wrong in your decision. Personally, I believe that the flight performance standards requiring specific ability to recover from unusual (but common) flight attitudes using standard techniques are a realistic safety measure. Good to know, however, that by the US statistical basis you use, Jabirus are the safest airframe around.

With respect: a decline in fatals, is not necessarily a decline in accidents. It may just mean that Cirrus are training people to pull the big red handle more often. That would be everything to do with an amelioration of RESULTS of the basic faults of the aircraft, rather than an improvement to its inherent faults.

Please excuse me for being cynical, but without authenticated and reliable statistics, I find it hard to believe that an aircraft that has been notorious for its accident rate has suddenly turned into the 'safest', given its considerable history. I would like something more definitive than 'I read it somewhere'.

CB - could you provide a reference for the statement that Cirrus have the GA lowest accident rate?

Don't Unzeddurs call them Chilly Willies? That's not likely to be a chilly willie... and obviously, a case of no route, no ride home...

Surely, a sentient population would not allow an FT to GET to middle-age? Aussies are notoriously easy-going, but an FT is well off the end of the bell-curve for tolerance.