motzartmerv

His opinion doesn't matter, it's what is provable that matters.

The level of risk is much easier to prove now, is my point. It 'may have ' always been there' but it would be difficult for me to argue now. I'm not being mella dramatic, it's a very real implication and ramification of the current drama. Instructors have been held accountable because of one entry in a students record, years later. I've experienced something similar, all be it from the raa and not a coroners court or legal proceeding.

Even tho the records show he was quite thorough in his training and assessment of the pilot before sending her solo, there were other options available at the time. he could have chosen NOT to send her in that aircraft.. MR campbell, why did you not insist she fly in the most reliable option available.?

Gandalph ,In a word..yes.. That letter could be used to prove that I have been negligent in my duty of care.. " Your honor, Mr Campbell was well aware of the higher than normal likelihood of an engine failure. The regulator proposed some pretty big restrictions on these engines. he KNEW that, and yet he still sent a 15 year old student solo with all the available information at hand pointing towards the engine not being suitable for the flight."

Gandalph, yes I certainly do expect a high standard of proficiency in all sorts of " simulated" emergencys. They are however just that, simulations. We can't really know how an individual will react in any real life scenario. That's why we have to 'manage' the risk as bet we can. The reason I asked Nev that question was now that there is a clear safety concern been raised, we as instructors could be held liable should the worst case happen in a first or early solo. It could be argued that we failed to minimise the " known" risk by allowing solo in an aircraft that casa have raised issue with. I know the risk itself has not changed, but our exposure as instructors certainly has changed. At least until a clear retraction has been given I won't be soloing students in a jab. Not that I could anyway, out 170 is parked up with head a off.

What about at 5000ft?

No it happens on the ground too.

No don. No sarcasm there at all. I wouldn't joke about something like that. :)

It was a loaded question, I appolagise for that. But I aimed it at you as you are probably one of the most experienced instructors in here, and I'm interested to discuss how this, even just proposed, action will make us ALL think long and hard about sending people solo behind jabs. If the worst case happened, I'm sure some smart a$$ lawyer could find a way to use this " draft" to prove neglect on our part ( the instructor) . Risk being defined as " the likelihood of an occurrence AND the outcome of the occurrence. If the outcome would mean we can be held liable, then all of a sudden, we are running a big risk.

That's a given. Doesn't answer the question tho.

The current CASA discussion draft is causing huge amounts of comment and debate. I am interested to know how much support there would be in our ranks for this action by CASA. Obviously if implemented, this action will be devastating to many in the RAA , both privately and for operators, FTF's etc. As usual, the Jabiru engine debate has divided the community, but I want to know if even the so called "jab bashers" would support this drastic action by CASA.

Thanks Maj.. The symptoms Ive found (on all rotaxes Ive flown) are hardly desernable. Using the term "rough spot" is probably not accurate. They all ( in my experience) have that range where it happens. maybe my "pants" are more sensitive then yours...lol..But ive felt it in every 912 ive flown.. Some worse than others. I will get the L2 to look into it again. Ps, my old XU1 Torry used to do exactly the same thing!!

Would you send your 15 year old daughter solo in one?

Would be great if jab optioned rotaxes. :)

Why not? Sure they are designed differently, but when looking at 'suitability' surely comparing ANY product to what else is available is standard stuff for any discerning buyer/operator/regulator. A manufacturer of any product should always be asking " What SHOULD our product do" what benchmark can we set to work towards. What effect on reliability can we expect to find in the differences in design. Saying we cant compare Rotaxes to Jabs is a bit like saying we cant compare apples to oranges..They are both fruit..!!.. When the regulator want s to find "acceptable levels" of ANYTHING, surely they look at 'the levels' themselves and as such, look at other engines. Ok so its a budget engine, so maybe it could be expected to have double the failure rate of the "other engines". Ok, by looking at recent figures we see that no, its more like 4 times the failure rate.. Acceptable? Maybe..I dont know...But, certainly needs looking into particularly when the highest levels of failure are in the very MARKET the aeroplane is designed for....Training!. So to go a bit deeper.. Any investigation into an operation itself would HAVE to compare failure rates.. If a school has ZERO major engine issues with one make of engine, and 100% failure rate with another and usage levels roughly equal,, this discrepancy MUST be explained. If a school had the same amount of failures regardless of engine type, then sure, the finger starts getting pointed towards the operation, logically..

Oh yea ok. Most pilots dont even notice the rough range, and as you say, if it not in a 'spot' where your likely to leave it, its not a concern..

Don, the sprag cops a pizzling if theres any loss in Crank from the batt.. We learned this the hard way... Most of our rotaxes 'rough spot" is at around 3-3500 range. Have never had up as high as yours. How long has it been like that?

Yea maj, thats right. Forgot they had blown it out a bit. I just had a gearbox off a sportstar that has done 1700 hours. First overhaul of the gearbox.

Pray tell how 'some engines' can make it repeatedly? Are there jab engines that have made 2000 hrs 'repeatedly'? Or were you referring to the operator? In this case we have one individual running an engine for 13 years.. No numbers, no other data, other than " Ive had no problems'.. Then amore annacdotal evidence of " i know of a school that n 'normally' make tbo".. Again, not valuable contribution to the "stats" or to the weight of argument. I would be encouraging the schools in question to submit replies themselves along with DATA to support the notion.

Bruce. I'm not sure that insulting Casa, operators and everyone that has had problems with jabs in a letter with no real points, is going to help your cause. You need to be dispassionate when dealing with officialdom. Casa knew people owned jabs when they released this draft, They knew schools use them They knew ' fools' operate them. They knew they would be swamped with letters from owners saying my engine is fine... You need to adress the draft directly, not rant. Have you sent your letter yet? Of not I respectfully suggest some " reworking" :)

Current rotax gearbox inspection is 600hrs. None of ours (7) have ever ended overhaul until the second or third inspection. 1200hrs+ The rough running at certain rpm is NOT hear box related. That's a very typical rotax thing due unbalanced carbies. You can balance them and get rid of the what we call " rough range" bit it will slowly come back over 20ish hours and most people deal with it. The sprag clutch is a far bigger issue for rotax engines that don't have soft start modules.

Who actually supports the CASA draft ? I think if we did a poll you would find very few people support it ..

Some of my posts were removed today..:).... Next unfounded complaint?

Sorry kaz. Didnt mean to offend. It was a statement backed by statisictal data however.:))

Phil, the Piper sports is not a composite aeroplane? Its all aluminium apart from soem fiber glass around the cowling.. Piper bought a heap of them back when cessna were releasing that abortion they called the skycatcher, to compete in the LSA market. It didnt work out very well and now its gone back to being a czchech airowrks 'sports cruiser'. Apart from that, I agree. Not a nice aeroplane in the air and horrible in turbulence. In smooth air its quite good, but still far to pitchy for a training aeroplane IMHO