Oscar

And that, coming from one of the chief banner-carriers waving flags against Jabiru?. You must love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...

Well, Oscar's aircraft was first registered as a 95.55 machine, certificated under BCAR S. To maintain that status, JUST the FLYING test section that requires a response is somewhere in the order of 260 individual statements of compliance, each one requiring comment in every box that, for each requirement, is: Means of Compliance > Who will Recommend Compliance> Who will find Compliance > Remarks. Most of those boxes will be 'N/A' response but there must be a damn response in every box! So, for instance, for S23 - Load Distribution Limits, you get the following: 'Means of Compliance': 'No change'. 'Who will recommend Compliance": 'N/A' Who will find Compliance': 'N/A'. 'Comments': 'CG limits are not affected. Compliance is shown at the Existing CG limits, as applicable.' One Compliance box down, about 259 to go... And 'Who will Recommend Compliance' will be an ex-CAR35 engineer, and 'Who will find Compliance' will be a Part 21 M engineer. And - this is NOT a requirement from RAA, but from CASA, who certificated the thing.

That looks to me to be a classic JAP-engined Moggie, playing at being a speedway bike, on bitumen... We see the modern equivalent, the Bombadier Can-Am trike, all the time around here now. The difference is, of course, that in the Moggie, you could keep your sandwiches out of the bug-splats.

I would suggest that the question of the ultimate number of Board members required to effectively direct RAA operations, could be more positively determined by examination of what expertise is needed on the Board. Simply picking a number out of a hat, seems counter-productive. I have worked for a number of organisations that had various management structures, ranging from government authorities to major private enterprise companies well above the SME boundary, and there is NO 'ideal size' for a governance structure. The nature of the organisation and the requirement for governance skills, should be the determinant. BHP Billiton has a Board of 11 members; so does J P Morgan Chase Bank. Hancock Prospecting appears to have four. Rio Tinto has 14. The Rothschilds Group appears to have 16. CASA has 6. The NRL has 8. Pick a Number!. OR: look at the realistic requirements for expertise in governance appropriate to the RAA, and seek to fill that with the best people prepared to serve.

I just don't have the time to peas around with a discussion that could get me carrotted. I could construct an exstrawbarerrily tart response, but it would take too long, since punnets are the slowest form of wheat.

In the spirit of Ian Baker's May Moritorium, I'll accept without registering a complaint, your description of Gandalph as a 'monster'. I am sure that in that same spirit, you will accept my description of you as 'the human herdline'.

Ian - and this is a properly serious and not intended to be combative post: which is more important for the future of RAA: having a 'decent amount of directors' or 'having an amount of decent directors'? This is NOT a matter of semantics, it is a really, really serious question. Look, RAA has in the past had - for example - to thrust into the position of Treasurer, a Board member who (I believe) is understood to have not had much experience at running the finances of what is, effectively, a SME - and I believe he would rather NOT have been ever placed in that position, so I am not picking any fight with him. The Board has at times been placed in the position of having to fill round holes with square pegs because it has had a membership selected - let's be realistic - often based on the general opinion of local members as to the general 'good bloke' nature of candidates, rather than having the opportunity to select from a range of candidates capable of delivering solid and professional performance in specific roles. Well-managed enterprises generally (and there are some serious exceptions!) have a 'guidance and policy' group - be it a Board, Council, whatever - that collectively bring a high level of expertise to that role. The enterprise understands what skills are needed and appoints accordingly. What it does NOT do, is hold a plebiscite for all positions and then tries to assemble a coherent guidance group from what it gets. There may well be a role for say, a 'shareholder representative' member, who IS appointed by shareholder vote. That is appropriate for 'check and balance' purposes - but a serious enterprise needs expert guidance. As it happens, RAA has fortuitously garnered unto its Board, a pretty darn good group - the best in ages. I will state that I believe that this is in large part due to the fact that 'good' people with a high-level of management skills, who ordinarily would have more than enough on their plate just conducting their day jobs - have seen the necessity to either stand up to be counted or watch RAA founder. The current Board appears to me to be more cohesive and competent than we have had in RAA ever. By definition, they are proposing that some of their number will no longer be required. To me, that seems to be honest in intention; those who are left WILL be judged on their performance in the fullness of time and discarded by the membership if found to be wanting. The RESULTS of the previous composition of the Board, was demonstrably found to be wanting. I fail to see how perpetuation of an evidently less than competent structure could be held up as a paradigm example.

Anjum - you might want to review this thread: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/incident-13-may-15.136397/ and think about if you want to keep the aux. pump on all the time! It's the only time I've personally heard of such an occurrence, but those repco pumps in the early Jabs. (e.g. LSA55) should have been replaced some time ago, as they can't handle aromatics anyway - but Geoff's pump was obviously pretty new.

This is a serious thread, so if you wish to persist in being berry silly, you can jam it.

Ian, obviously I don't know the metrics. Yes, you are technically correct - I believe - that there is no OTHER venue that publishes as many opinions of RAA members. However, it is an invalid assumption that the issues being debated here do encompass the widest cross-section of RAA members' opinions/concerns - because we all have simply NO WAY of gauging those. But you may be able to prove your point following the vote on this issue. There are how many ( you would have the figure, surely?) active participants in this thread? What is the approximate spread of 'Pro' and 'Anti' positions by those participants? If the vote to be had reflects that spread reasonably well, then you certainly have a representative cross-section of the' interested' RAA participants. But then comes the crunch - if the total of all votes turns out to be only a relatively low percentage of total RAA members, I believe that that would be indicative of what percentage of the RAA membership IS concerned, vs. what percentage of the membership simply couldn't give a damn as long as they can continue to legally fly their aircraft. Let's see what transpires.

You are just raisin objections, no grape issue here..

To someone who is currently not affected by all of this - not being a current member - but is certainly 'interested' in that I wish to return to an effective, competent RAA, this seems to me to be getting down to a battle of wills between those who want to have the Association ( or whatever) run according to their precepts of what they feel is 'right' in the grand scheme of things ( Life, the Universe, etc.) and those who want RAA to just get on with the job(s) it has to perform competently, professionally and efficiently. I cannot see that there is any real question of it being a case for applying the old 'if it ain't broke' principle - it WAS, by any objective measure, broke. 'Good Governance' is a qualitative statement, and it is obvious that there are contrary opinions as to what represents 'Good'. I believe that 'Good' can be better measured by outcomes than by postulating possible scenarios within which 'Bad' MIGHT occur. That 'Bad' DID occur under the old (current) Constitution, is indisputable. RAA had not only the Registration debacle, from which the outfall and severe disadvantage to some members remains to be sorted - and some of which will never be redressed. RAA had evident problems with its financial management, a kerfuffle with Insurance, the complete failure to progress the Operations Manual ( wasn't it - that Tizzard was paid a considerable amount of money as CEO for several years to sort out, and failed completely to progress in any way?), the questionable 'SMS' project that seems to have produced nothing, though I may be wrong there and a period where the Board seemed to be monstrously dysfunctional - to be polite. I believe that significant progress has been made by the current Board and just as a general principle, I am far more disposed towards supporting proposals for change intended to promote good management of the RAA's essential functions put forward by those who have gained my confidence than supporting concerns that appear to be rooted in a fear of 'the worst'. When that fear seems to suggest that maintenance of the status quo is more desirable than change, I cannot but look at what the status quo historically produced and be very, very unimpressed with that as an argument. I particularly endorse the removal of geographical qualifications to be elected to the Board as being in any way productive. I believe that Board elections based on a statement of requirements for expertise in essential areas of RAA operation and voting for the candidate best suited to fill that requirement, would be a major improvement. We only have to look at any Australian government to see what happens when Ministerial functions have to be discharged by people elected on a geographical basis are selected to run 'the business of Government' on the basis - it would seem at times - of little more than being able to more or less spell some of the key words pertaining to their Ministry. I would like to see a competent, professional and above all workable Board, capable of getting on with the job. I believe there is potential for RAA members to vote 'locally' on 'regional representatives', who become both gate-keepers of local matters affecting local members, who absolutely have a role to play in informing/alerting the Board to matters at a local level that affect/require RAA action as a whole to get results, and who are also able to be the 'on-the-spot' representatives for the RAA in general to their local community - but who can be relied upon to be consistent with RAA policy. That does not mean that those local representatives would be in any way barred from agitating for changes that reflect the wishes of their 'electorate' - but they would do so in accordance with whatever methodology is enshrined in the RAA organisational document (Constitution, or whatever). The bunfight ( I almost used the words 'current bunfight' here, but levity is inappropriate) must have the SASAO laughing like open drains. Against that, of course is the fact that quite obviously, this forum is frankly NOT 'the largest cross-section of RAA members anywhere: it encompasses but a tiny fraction of RAA members. It IS serving as a valuable arena for debate, and that function is admirable - but let's not start to suggest, please, that it can be taken as a statistically valid sample of RAA members - that would be shot down in flames by any statistician.

Frank - the LSA55 was the first 'production' model of Jabirus (with variants including the St1 and St3, the SK and SP) , and all with the solid foam wings and fuselage tank arrangement - yes, the forerunners of the J120. I believe the LSA55 model number came from a combination of Light Sport Aircraft and the 95.55 rego. status, though I have to admit that is an assumption on my part.

Anjum - the electric fuel pump is also there to overcome problems of vapour lock in a system which is not full gravity feed - as in the LSA55. The check sequence recommended to me by a CASA-approved Test pilot is: prior to starting the engine, turn on the electric fuel pump and check the fuel pressure reading ( it should be around 4 psi.) Then, turn OFF the electric pump and start the engine and check the fuel pressure reading for the mechanical pump alone (should be about the same). Then, when you do your run-up and mag. drop check, turn on the electric pump again prior to the run-up as part of your standard procedure, so you don't forget it.

When only about 10% of members actually vote for Board members, why would you assume that 'galloping apathy' is not the normal for RAA members?

Since I am not currently a member of RAA - though I have been and intend to be again - I haven't really followed this debate closely. Nor do I have any strong opinions towards either the 'For' or 'Against' sides. However, it seems to me that objectivity has been somewhat lost in emotional debate. Coming from the outside, as it were, I get the feeling that the 'For' side is pushing to try to make the RAA more effective and efficient in the discharge of its primary functions and the 'Against' side is deeply concerned that in some way, the democratic rights of members is threatened. To me, RAA has two very distinct and separable functions. The first - as far as I am concerned - is the discharge of its delegated function to administer the regulations that apply to aircraft on the RAA register, flown by pilots with an RAA Certificate. I am not deeply conversant with all of the regulations that RAA administers, but AFAIK, the vast majority of those are imposed NOT by RAA, but by CASA ( and quite a few are dictated by concurrence with ICAO requirements). There is NO element of administering the regulations imposed on RAA that is 'democratic'. To take one current hot topic elsewhere: MTOW for RAA-registered aircraft is NOT a matter of a 'democratic' decision - it is mandated. Even if every one of the 10K membership voted for an increased MTOW - it would not happen as a result of that vote. What I - as an aircraft owner and operator - would want to see as an absolute PRIMARY function discharged by RAA , is compliance with the regulations so that I am flying a legal aircraft, with legal qualifications as the PIC, for the most cost-effective price for my membership. Let's be perfectly clear on this point: I DO NOT want to have to pay a premium for the management of an organisation (of whatever form) for the discharge of the regulatory functions, just so it has a 'democratic' management. Frankly, I don't care if RAA management is run by a bunch of Hottentots, as long as my aircraft rego and my PIC qualifications are legal. In my opinion, the secondary role of RAA is to undertake what may loosely be termed 'the advancement of member interests'. I don't discount that role: we need representation against such things as closure of airfields, access to airspace etc., and perhaps there is an element of democratic principle in achieving that. RAA members may quite legitimately feel a desire to have input into where the efforts should be directed. I haven't done the sums, but my feeling is that (from the numbers of members who actually vote for Board members) the vast majority of RAA members do not give a flying continental fur-lined f$ck about democracy in the management of RAA. If we can look beyond the circle-jerk of people complaining about a lack of democratic process and look at the numbers of RAA members who actually engage in a 'democratic process' ( i.e. by voting for Board members), it is very clear to me that should CASA follow-up the RPL line with an equivalent regime for owner-maintenance, RAA would very likely lose about 80% of its membership to an organisation which is the absolute antithesis of 'democratic'. The highly 'democratic' Board of not many years ago - resulted in a monumental cluster-f$ck for registrations that remains a problem for many aircraft owners. I have absolutely no sympathy for nor empathy with those who are aggrieved that their 'democratic rights' to influence RAA's operations were trampled upon, because a 'democratic' RAA was a complete shambles as an effective administrator of the regulatory requirements. AFAIAC, I want to see RAA be an effective and cost-efficient administrator of the regulations that bind me when flying. I also want it to be an effective and efficient voice for RAA-class operations. Frankly, I could not give a damn, my dear, if it is less than 'democratic' in its make-up, because I am not in the slightest interested in supporting with my money the power aspirations of a few.

Does everything that a one-person hovercraft with a saddle would do, with way less safety. For my money, is as practical as a Unicycle drag-bike ( yes - they DO exist, even have competitions! http://jalopnik.com/355481/unicycle-drag-racing-for-the-win ) - and as a way of having drunken fun for cheap money at fairly low risk of much beyond sudden and hideous death, an admirable time-out from sanity. Kudos to the guy for having a giant economy-size sense of the ridiculous.

Bruce: JEM 2202-7_inst-1.pdf. Start at Page 31.

The Battack is famed in myth and legend.... but actually, there are some serious lessons here. That video is speeded up and the engine sound is superimposed, not the real one. What ACTUALLY happened, is this: The 'Bat was properly chocked, facing into an about 20 knot headwind. When George set the throttle, the wind knocked the canopy down and his hand hit the throttle, taking it from just cracked to about 50% power. Just as the thing fired, a Victa about 10 metres ahead of the 'Bat ran its engine up, and the combined windspeed lifted a wing sufficiently to let the wheel over-ride the chock - and that's when the fight started.. CASA took George to Court, and lost. They argued that there should have been another 'experienced person' in the cockpit when the thing was started - but the only experienced person on Mangalore at the time was Grahame Swannell who was unavailable at the moment, and almost nobody else could FIT into the cockpit - George was a bantam rooster and the 'Bat cockpit was built by and for George. I'm about 172 cm and 67 kgs - and the 'Bat (2) cockpit was a fairly tight fit on me. ( I never flew it - unqualified - but I did get to sit in it and help work on it). The 'Bat was hand-propped anyway, so that start was routine - except for the combination of circumstances. What happened was NOT the result of someone trying something they did not understand, nor bad judgement - it was a genuine accident, as the Court found. Sh#t happens. I've hand-propped a Gypsy Major plenty of times - and never feeling complacent about it!. It's not something a thinking person gets complacent about; you check the feel of the ground under your boots to be sure you won't slip, you mentally run through the swing action... every blade.

WHEN you build it.... or at least, that's what they say...

Sounds like a fairly good result!. You MAY find that there are some quirky spots in the rev/load matrix because of that rather large intrusion to the plenum, but with full monitoring, you'll get the information you need to be aware of those. I presume you have looked at the Jab. 2200 installation manual re the advice they give for ensuring the airbox is operating as best as can be tweaked? Some of the early ones were very, very rough..

I agree that it's not lab. work, but I can vouch from personal experience just how close some tolerances can be. We were installing the CAE through-bolts and studs - which are quite different to the Jab. ones, as they incorporate the case positioning dimensions instead of using dowels. We had drilled the cases (by hand, under Ian Bent's instruction and using his special drill, in a very good drill-press). We did - as one does - a trial install.. (The CAE bolts and studs have to be installed in the cases before the cases are joined). Everything went into the first case perfectly - gentle tap-fit with a nylon mallet - very reassuring. Then, we went to fit the second case. No way would it slide onto the case positioning area of the bolts and studs. It was still slightly warm from the drilling... 30 minutes later, when it had cooled to ambient, it happily slid home with the same gentle taps with the nylon mallet. And that's for through-bolts and studs straight off the CAMit machines. No lapping or polishing.

Nev: straightening the flow is AN issue, but it's not the only one. The early Jab. airboxes are bloody crude - mine, which was developed as a test mule for the original 2200, is so bad, it's beyond appalling; the Jab. installation manual has some good advice for cleaning it up reasonably, but the convolutions from the airbox to the carby as a result of the tight installation, remain as a problem. However, the position of the butterfly also seriously affects the airflow downstream of the carby, into a plenum that is extremely tight. That is minimised at WFO; Bruce's experience indicates to me that at lower openings (cruise power) he's getting quite serious pressure differentials within the length of the plenum, and the swirl is introducing a lateral component to those that starves the #4 pot. I suspect that the combination of swirl and butterfly position, is the reason that tilting the bing on a Jab. can make a significant difference to egt spread.

Well, that's $2 you won't see again - and it's good news that that's your major complaint!. It might be worth a call to Ian Bent at CAMit; I know he has had some thoughts about the plenum design some time ago, but whether he's had any time to do anything with those thoughts, I don't know. Every engine made by CAmit, whtehre Jabiru or CAE, gets run for at least 20 minutes on his dyno, so if there's anybody who has seen a common pattern of egt spread, I reckon it'd be the lads up there. A dyno run doesn't exactly replicate the installed configuration, but if the problem is downstream of the carby rather than from the air being delivered to the carby, I'd think it would show up.

How DID they manage to build that big fence???