Oscar

Wouldn't have thought you'd get much in the way of offers - there must be a considerable queue of people prepared to do it for free...

Pity.... could have re-started his personality from scratch.

Patrick - yep, for sure - p.m. me.

A couple of photos at: http://twitter.com/thechrismartin7/status/708896579533479937/photo/1 Appears to be perhaps a trike?

Charlie, if you need parts, P.M. me and I can give you the email for the guy who bought Tony Hayes's remaining collection of bits (and aircraft) just before Tony died. He's at Toowoomba, so not too far away; though rather tied up with other matters at the moment, he might be able to help sort out some issues.

For new Jab. engines, that first engine run is done by CAMit on its dyno and the head bolt check is part of the 'build sheet' documentation supplied to Jabiru. However, as you say, if it was a 'rebuild' done by Jabiru, I am not aware if they do a test run.

Such as people with an obsession against Jabiru engines? I assume you speak from experience.. This is veering away from the respectful consideration of yet another sad accident - can we leave out the agenda-driven cr&p altogether, please?

I believe that this is a fairly serious issue, and not one where the - entirely reasonable, in my opinion - arguments that 'commonsense' says the more extreme situations envisaged SHOULD not happen. I am in no way deprecating Nobody's comments; he is entirely correct in his interpretation of the situation on the assumption that CASA actually applies 'commonsense' in its actions. I think we have some reason to accept that this is the usual case: e.g. ramp checks at the most recent Ausflys, for example. But there are also many examples of where this is patently NOT the case. However, as any road user knows, where there is ambiguity / 'looseness' in the legislation, there is room for outright bastardy on the part of those low-level minions of the Authority. Motorcyclists will know the extent of that when they are subject to allegedly random' 'licence checks' when riding as a peaceable group to e.g. a social rallye. Roadside speed cameras set up at the bottom of hills so far beyond the back of civilisation that even the rabbits wear akubras. As a group classified as 'Recreational', I suggest that RAA aircraft owner/operators and RPC holders have more stringent conditions applied to their training and regulation, the ongoing quality of their 'apparatus' and restrictions on the operation on that 'apparatus', than (for example) either non-commercial motor vehicle owners/operators or maritime craft owner/operators. As an owner/operator of all three types of 'apparatus' over a number of years, I believe I am in a position to say this with a degree of certainty. We fly in (mostly) aircraft that have entirely competent credentials to undertake regular flying - within their allowable operational regime - with a high degree of reliability. LSA-compliant aircraft are NOT plastic chairs suspended by Hills Hoists with lawnmower engines strapped on. A J230D, for example, will perform with a load within its MTOW restrictions, as well as a C172 with the back seats stripped out - at about 1/3rd the cost ( and by statistics, better than equivalent safety!) The PRINCIPLE at stake here, is: what is the safety issue? Because, CASA's role is NOT to intervene in commerce, but to act to improve safety. If I fly my (hypothetical) J230 into Tyagarah with 50 kgs of Joss Sticks aboard for sale at the BB music festival, I am in clear breach of CASR 206. If - on the same day - I flew my (hypothetical) J230 in with 50 kgs of rubber dinghy and outboard, fishing gear and camping equipment for my own use on my fishing holiday - no worries. Now - in the case that the flight ( whichever one) was done in complete observance with applicable regulations: WHERE IS THE SAFETY ISSUE WITH THE FIRST EXAMPLE VS THE SECOND EXAMPLE.? What happens with my cargo post landing, is completely incidental to whether the flight was undertaken with complete compliance with every regulation applicable to the aircraft and my current competency. It is not just ludicrous, but in fact contrary to CASA's enabling Act, that there may be a profitable (or potentially profitable) commercial eventuality of a cargo in the aircraft if there is no demonstrable safety issue.

I suspect that carrying advertising material - that you give away -to a show is not going to attract attention. Flying a 'demonstrator', probably wouldn't either - UNLESS you actually sell it, in which case it is 'goods for trade'. Stick a 'for sale' sign in the window, and you could just be looking at trouble. In theory, a plumber's tools per se are not 'goods for trade' - but a tap washer held as inventory would be. Where this all goes somewhat t!ts-up, is that CASA notoriously applies its regulations to mean what it WANTS them to mean - NOT what they actually say. That situation has been a matter of combat between a number of professionals in the industry and CASA itself, for years. Look at the record recounted in the Forsyth Review of Parliamentary inquiries into CASA actions - in recent times, there has been more than one per year on average! What is needed, is a clear distinction between activities that inherently pose a risk to 'third parties', and those that do not. As Nobody has stated above, 'taking a stock of bolts to sell' at a fly-in would be a clear breach of the existing regulations: yet the test SHOULD be, whether that action constituted a safety risk.

But, it shouldn't be CASA's concern that you might be charging for the flying. CASA isn't charged with administration of the economics of flying, it is charged with the safety of ( and though not explicit, I believe it is strongly implicit), in order: fare-paying public who cannot be reasonably expected to understand the risk involved in stepping into various classes of aircraft; 'people on the ground' who cannot in any way protect themselves from the results of a crash, and finally - actual aviators who CAN be either: a) reasonably be expected to understand the risk involved and/or b) are in a position to be made aware of the risks ( as in the Jabiru disclaimer situation). I see no distinction between the case of a tradie charging for the travel he/she undertakes, on a standard private licence in a standard 'private'-registered vehicle - your average dual-cab ute, for instance. ( Yes, they would be registered as for business purposes, which as far as I am aware does not require any special rego requirement but is mainly for tax purposes and perhaps some slight increase in Third Party cost (perhaps on the assumption that they will do more than the average private vehicle kilometers and therefore have a greater annual exposure to causing third-party claims?? - I don't know exactly how that works). Provided your plumber / diesel mechanic etc. is flying completely within the limitations of their licence and the aircraft operational limitations, I cannot see how there is any increased level of safety concern. One argument put forward by CASA some years ago, was that because a 'service' or 'commercial' type flight was involved, the pilot might be tempted to take additional risk. That is an assumption - not a demonstrated safety issue. To follow that logic, anybody flying with any sort of intention to get to Point B within an implicit schedule (even if that is simply 'get-there-itis) would be charged for getting into their aircraft to commence the flight!. I mean this seriously: if CASA's reasoning is that because you are undertaking the flight as part of delivering a service, or some goods, you 'might be tempted to fly in an unsafe manner', then the next logical step is ramp checks of the 'where are you headed and what is the purpose of your flight?' 'Um - I'm headed for Woop Woop to attend my daughter's wedding'. ' Is this wedding being held at a scheduled time, sir?' 'Well, yes, it's been planned for months, Church booked, all that sort of thing'' 'Then I require you to step out of the aircraft, sir, and I am serving you with a penalty notice for 'intent to fly without due regard for safety' (or some such similar 'offence'.) That scenario is only a small step away from the current situation in which those using their Recreational aircraft flight as part of a 'commercial' purpose (that does NOT include a 'fare-paying passenger ' component - I have no particular issues with THAT being 'airwork') are likely to be pinged.

Yep, good comment: the 1/1000 hours is taken by the FAA as the figure at which a manufacturer needs to act. Reputable manufacturers will react to the first instance of a failure they can pin down to unforeseen fatigue consequences of a component. In a world where having nude piccies of you splashed over the Internet gets a US$50M+ judgement - no Textron is going to just sit idly by and say: ' hey, let's just let this one slide, shall we?'

Only going on the advice of a CAR 35 engineer with about 45+ years of experience in the industry. I'm not a statistician, but my source of information has credentials going back 25 years plus, that his knowledge of fatigue life issues is internationally recognised ( and accepted by ICAO-signatory authorities, including CASA.) But, I may be quite wrong.

Lots to digest there. When reading it, people might like to consider a few incidental facts to put what has been reported in perspective. The reported rate of failure for Jabiru engines is 3.1 /10,000 hours. That is a probability of 0.31 in 1000 per flying hour. For the average private owner doing around 50 hours/year, that means 20 years of operation. Or, multiplied out: an engine failure is likely to happen once in 60 years of their flying. FTF's, I think, average around 7-10 times that usage: so an engine failure once in every five-six years of operation, should be expected. Some FTFs appear to get that sort of life: 1000 hours trouble free, then a full Top Overhaul, and back into service.. Some FTF's shred their engines on average about every 350 hours ( and my own aircraft has a documented history of the latter as usual in its life before I came to own it). One has to ask: is this above-average failure rate the fault of the engine or the operation? Now here's another interesting little fact: the 'safe fatigue life' for components in light General Aviation, is set at 1/1000 flying hours as a 'safe' life. So: which would you, as a conscientious, conservative private owner/operator rather bet on: the noise going out once in the next 3,000 hours of operation, or something in the airframe breaking in the next 1,000 hours of operation? Just asking....

Fine, then it is as it should be.

No, the radial scouring at the face of the barrel/head join land. It's fairly close to the finish you get with a CNC oxy-cut - not even as fine as a water-jet cut.

Frank: ABSOLUTELY! And it's bullsh#t. If my use of the aircraft involves offering services to persons that involve them taking off in my aircraft - then it's 'airwork'. My competency as a pilot, and the airworthiness of my aircraft is germane to the safety of the person who elects to sit in the RHS to witness what it is that I am trying to sell to them. The flight., is part of the sales pitch. HOWEVER: if I fly into the Birdsville races with a batch of T-shirts advertising the latest Camel Race hero - the clientele does not have any direct interaction with my flight. If I head for the Watchamacallit Opal Mine with some parts to keep its generator running and the tools to install them, (plus my expertise to do the job); - nobody but ME is involved in the flight. What we have here - is a failure to tell CASA to get real. A plumber does not need any special registration for his vehicle nor licence to use his ute to go to a job. His ( or her) transport is of NO BLOODY IMPACT on the job - and if he (or she) chooses to use a skateboard AND a backpack - it is still a claimable tax deduction. If he (or she) breaks the traffic rules - than that is a desperate issue. IF an RAA aircraft operated by a RPC pilot can provide transport from A to B that happens to result in a commercial advantage for the pilot and does not intrinsically have value for itself from the participation of a paying third party - what is the problem? If you think all that is simply fanciful: how would commerce prosper if document courier services by push-bike in the CBDs were restricted to those who had a high-level licences and bikes that were registered as comercial vehicles?...

Scotty: in Piccy #3 of Post #40m, there is an obvious ring of red-brown Loctite at the base of the head/barrel join. Seriously, trust me on this - I've spent HOURS trying to remove the last vestiges of Loctite 515 from the crankcase join of a Jabiru (actually, two, to be accurate). The problem with Loctite 515, is it sets like cement in about 5 minutes at around 20C. Read the Jab engine maintenance manual and you will see that Jab. mandates an assembly at high speed. I've watched the CAMit assembly guys putting a Jab. engine together, and it's a Pas de Deux for two highly-experienced operatives working in a controlled environment. If you saw a video of the crankcase assembly , you'd think it was fast-forwarded - but it is most definitely NOT. If Loctite 515 sets before the adjoining components are torqued up, it is like resorcinal glue: brittle as glass, and with no adhesion to the mating surfaces which it was supposed to join. Under the forces of expansion and contraction at 180C plus, it will crack and be blown out of the joint under pressure. THEN - you have no torque on the securing bolts.

Be VERY careful as to what CASA rules as 'commercial use' - therefore 'airwork'. I believe that a plumber was pinged on a ramp check, at Toowoomba, some years ago, because he had his tools of trade in his aircraft and was flying to a job. He wasn't taking a paying passenger; the aircraft was not under hire. Prima Facie, the use of the aircraft was no different to the use of work boots for walking to the job - but CASA prosecuted him. This is an area where RAA needs to get seriously involved and lobby vociferously for sensible application of definitions of what is 'airwork' and what is 'using the aircraft'. If, for example, you as a local take on a 'contract' to patrol the local beaches for sharks using your Foxbat/Gazelle/Lightwing/Jabiru as the platform for delivering that service in exchange for costs and a bit on the side for your time: is that 'airwork' for the aircraft? I would argue not; if you advertise for "Sharkspotting Joyflights " for which you charge, then yes, it is. RAA class aviation is being strangled by regulations against its utility for the social good by a CASA that has no imperceptive other than to limit its liability. We need to fight this - and fight it hard.

If it's a fuel hose, it should NOT have aluminium (as it appears to have) or brass fittings fittings anywhere in front of the firewall (and yes, I know that both the mechanical pump and the carby have, usually, brass fittings - a naughty according to FAA installation requirements... ) It looks to me as if it is an oil cooler hose to a rear-mount ( i.e. not Jab normal practice) oil cooler? Is it installed in a Jab? Personally, I suspect that barrel is cactus. It appears that there is considerable heat/flame erosion around quite an area and the contact between the entire head and barrel mating surface area is quite critical for effective heat transfer; if 'skimming' the top land on the barrel to restore the surface, you'd need to get the recess in the head to be a factory-tolerance match. However - and I am not a metallurgist, but the owner might want to talk to someone with the appropriate expertise - a localised heat exposure to combustion-temp heat MAY change the molecular distribution within the metal and make that barrel very likely to warping / embrittlement or other nasty consequences. One further point: the last set of piccies ( especially Piccy #3) show an obvious amount of Loctite (POSSIBLY 515 - the crankcase sealant grade - but one can't tell from the colour) having been applied to the head prior to installing. It's been some time since I built my own Jab. engine at CAMit, under the watchful eye and mentorship of the CAMit engine assembly guys , but I certainly don't remember using any Loctite when seating the heads, and it certainly is NOT mentioned in the Jabiru 2200/3300 Engine Overhaul Manual JEM0001-2. (available from the Jab. web-site) - p.126. IF - as it appears - that engine ( or that head, anyway) was assembled using any Loctite as a sealant between the head and the barrel join, I personally would have it as No. #1 SUSPECT for the loosening of the head bolt tension. CAMit would have done the original engine assembly, and Ian Bent can almost certainly tell you what assembly techniques were used for that specific engine. If it was supplied as a 'factory-fresh' engine from Jabiru and has definitely never had a spanner on it since, there are many questions to be answered. If it has had SBs undertaken locally since it was made, then I suggest there is a real case for digging into who did those, and how they did them.

Hate-filled, desperately obsessed, ignorant, devoid of any skerrick of decency, unfathomably disrespectful to the memory of someone who has contributed more to local aviation for his fellow aviators than you would achieve in ten lifetimes. You really are an utter tw@t. And that, frankly, is the least of what could be said on a site with rules that require a civilised level of expression in comments. I personally don't think there is a rock sufficiently large that you could crawl back under, that would protect you from the wrath of those for whom Rod Hay was, by all repute, a mentor and guide for their journey into and through recreational aviation. I personally never met him, but wish I had - for it is the Rod Hays of this world who connect newcomers to the joy of flying. No matter how young you might be or cynical about life, when some 'old geezer' with vast experience is enthusiastic to take you up and teach you what it means to be able to pilot an aircraft, if you have even the vaguest feelings about human interaction, that enthusiasm for flying will rub off. You would know that he (or she - there are plenty of wonderful 'grannies' out there who can show you flying at its finest), is doing it because of a love of being in the air. You would recognise that they are doing this not from any commercial need, but simply that they are keen to pass on their knowledge and their passion for flying. But you, FT, have reduced all of this to a typical snide rant against Jabiru engines. What a little tird you are.

JabiruJoe: did that document actually provide a citation to the 'certificate issued'? Seriously - before starting the meter running with a legal beagle - get a copy of that 'certificate' DIRECTLY from the Czech LAA. RAA has sometimes been provided with fraudulent documentation.

A very piquant observation, Turbs. I really do need to moderate my responses in the knowledge that I do not tolerate fools lightly. Will try to do better.

JabJoe: this is NOT meant to be in any way combative - you are in an invidious position and you ought to receive justice. I am trying to help you to narrow your target to areas where there is a reasonable chance of ROI, should you try legal remedies. The Czech Authority COULD NOT have certificated that aircraft at above 450 kgs MTOW. Please look at: http://en.laacr.cz/about-laa.htm IF your aircraft is TC'd under: Type Certificate LAA Czech Republic No.05/2000 from October 17.2000., then it CANNOT be TC'd - by them - at above 450 kgs. They simply don't have authority to issue TC's for in excess of 450 kgs MTOW - that is clear. What was the TC issued for your aircraft ( and what authority issued it?) If it's NOT issued by the Czech LAA, then you have a rolled-gold case against RAA, I think - provided that the TC Authority meets the requirements of 'country of origin.' . That is in no way a statement of the ACTUAL capability of the aircraft: it is ONLY a statement of the validity of a TC issued by the Czech LAA. I'd be perfectly happy to step into an Allegro 2000 and take off at 520 kgs. HOWEVER: IF RAA was provided with documentation that purported to validate an MTOW in excess of that permitted by the Certification Authority of the country of manufacture, then there is quite possibly malfeasance on the part of the provider of that information if that party was in a 'trusted' or 'responsible' position. Where RAA's negligence may lie, is in accepting such documentation without 'due diligence'. Do you have a reference to the actual TC applicable to your aircraft? That could clear up a whole lot of this at one stroke!.

Recreational/Sport Aviation isn't as safe as RPT? Who could have imagined that might happen? Back on Planet Earth and in this reality, those who fly in Recreational/Sport aircraft, understand that there is a likely disparity between the safety offered by aircraft costing no more than the mid-$150k range which they can maintain themselves (to a degree, anyway) and RPT aircraft costing 10 + times that, maintained by professionals. It's called 'acceptance of risk'. Perhaps, if your loosen your belt, Turbs, you will be able to assume a position that will allow you to get a more realistic view of the world. I'm no great optimist, but miracles do happen..

This argument seems to be going around in circles. kasper, in post #4, correctly and concisely identified the basic problem: that the TC accepted by CASA as in force due to the reciprocal arrangements we have with EASA through the ICAO agreement limits that aircraft to the MTOW specified on the TC. RAA certainly SHOULD not have allowed a higher MTOW than that specified on the TC (and the Australian version POH stated weight is irrelevant and might quite possibly be actually fraudulent, in that it is NOT a correct statement of the MTOW recorded on the TC under which it was imported as a factory-built aircraft). However, I am no legal expert and that statement could be quite incorrect - but again, I refer you to the disparities in the Pilot Manuals issued by two different distributors of this aircraft, links to which appear in Post #15. I reiterate, that both of these documents quote the same TC: one must be incorrect. The TC was issued by the relevant Czech authority - which is consistent with the ICAO specification for the 'country of manufacture' as being the certificating Authority. The convulations within the EEC regarding 'group' rights vs. the rights of individual countries to modify regulations makes sorting out just who has responsibility for what incredibly arcane, but the ICAO parameters are clear. The TC is issued by the accepted Authority of the Country of Manufacture; there is no wriggle-room to take on board differences in operational limitations imposed by different countries within the EASA umbrella as applicable outside that country. Or: in very simplistic terms: there is no ability to 'pick and choose' the 'operational' limits applied by different EASA countries. It is the TC that is the defining document. If ( for example) Romania decided to allow this aircraft to operate at unlimited MTOW - it makes absolutely NO difference to the acceptable MTOW in the TC. This is not a fanciful example: the FAA has provided a dispensation for the Icon seaplane to operate at above the ASTM MTOW limit while being registered as an LSA aircraft - but that has no validity outside the jurisdiction of the FAA. UNLESS CASA provides a complementary dispensation, you will not be able to register an Icon as an LSA in Australia - and nor would anybody within the aegis of the EASA be able to do so if EASA does not similarly issue such a dispensation. If one were to legally challenge RAA for 'negligence' in the case of the original MTOW acceptance at 520 kgs, there is a prima facie case that RAA has indeed failed to comprehend the facts of the situation. However, if it were me undertaking this action, I'd be looking very hard at what documentation was supplied to RAA in support of the 520 kgs limit, to make very, very sure that the target of the action was properly in focus. If there were ever a case for charging RAA with 'negligence' for accepting distributor documentation without adequate questioning, it would be for the acceptance of the Pacific Ibis under any guise, when it had NO certification status under any reciprocal ICAO country. There was simply NO path for acceptance of a factory-build aircraft that was not certified by an ICAO 'Authority'. By comparison, the MTOW issues for the Allegro are a matter of fine distinction. While that is again of no comfort to JabiruJoe, it may be to his advantage to research the situation and - if deciding to take legal action against RAA - further consider whether that action should extend to (or 'join') other parties.