motzartmerv

Oh god. Here we go. Who can we blame, who's the culprit. Tiring, boring, and not helpful.

I'm not clinging to anything jet. I think if you think Casa are reacting to cfi's and board members and making up numbers , your clutching at some serious straws dude. You honestly believe Casa would act without the facts ? Not the Casa I know.

Have you guys even read the instrument?

Yea. Thats it. CASA are reacting to hot headed claims. Just ignore the 45 failures in one year jet, its all about the 'hot headed' claims ay? Got something to offer?

Harden up frank. Just a bit of jesting, nothing un usual. My wager is that jab will start optioning Rotaxes, not that you will take the option. You wouldnt consider a rotax in your Jab if it was an option at your next ..cough... 2000 hourly replacement?

When all else fails, just chuck out rubbish personal attacks. The writing was on the wall for a year before this Casa bombshell. If you didnt have your head firmly planted in the sand, you would have seen it, and headed the warnings. Merry xmass to you too.. We should get together and share some some EGGnog? Maybe throw a few EGGS on the barbie? I reckon that could be an EGGsellent time. Gandy, I feel the same. I dont think any of us are around the deeper issues and the back stories. However, looking purely at the stats, Recreational flying has had a spike in recent years with regards to fatals and serious accidents. Someone, somewhere could, should be pushing for something to happen. perhaps Jab are the "easy out" for CASA? I dunno.

Yes and Yes and as I recall, the statement I made that caused so much name calling and 'oscaring' was that " steps are being taken" To which you jumped up and down like a cat on a hit tin roof. Recall letters being written to Casa from raa? Recall the call for reports? From engineers an operators re jab failures FROM raa. The action my friend, certainly was initiated by raa. Nobody had any clue this would be the result, but I do recall trying to tell you what was a foot, and you simply refused to believe that anything was going on. I'm not the type to say I told you so... But...just for you... I bloody well told you so :)))

Ive heard lots of parts, like circlips, nuts and bolts. Not sure why thats a problem though.

Yep, you certainly would have taken a loss on that one too ey? Id be surprised if it takes that long, but Ill be here, egg removing utensils in hand (once again) to assist you :)

No, thats my primary ego.

Sorry for expressing concerns. As I said, im biting my tongue as I dont wish to bash anyone in public. My concerns stem from too many pilots fronting up with "minimal" pre licence training (not a statement against yourself or dave, just a general statement). Parousal of log books soon shows up 'missing sequences, or short hand versions of very important flying sequences'. One log book I saw recently had a pilot doing area solo's with NO practice forced landings. Only cct emergencies. The pilot in question made the comment to me " Man, I hope I never have an engine give it up, cause im pretty sure id be 4@%!$@^" That pilot thought his training was top notch too, it was cheap, minimal hours..The instructor was a great guy...What could possibly go wrong? After watching his reactions to a simulated engine failure, i would have rated his chances of survival at slim to sweet bugga all. he also had some interesting ideas about how to recover a stall. Not surprising when the sum of his "stalling " training was about .7 of an hour.

Well, you know what they say... Never take a bet your not sure you will win;)

I'll accept payment in ale's at the next flyin:)

Who wants a wager? Ill bet within 3 months we see Rotax optioned in jabs. $10. Cybershake on that!!

Yes DWF. The instrument is designed (I spose) to inform people, so they can make decisions based on relevant info. Best you can do is "inform them" and let them decide what they want to do.

DWF. You need to make that decision based on a relevant risk assesment. Risk is defined as the likelihood of a negative occurrence and the consequence if it does occur. If your guy Is trained well anf he is ready to solo ( which should be the only factor- in a perfect world) then the consequence of an engine failure should be " tolerable" and likelihood of it failing on his solo flight SHOULD be pretty minimal. However, this instrument adds complexity to the situation ( which sux) By adding ( IMHO) an added risk to YOU. But, applying the same analysis as the above , the risk is still very low, but the consequence now Involves YOU much more then it did a week ago. My advice would be not to hold him back but certainly inform him and the oldies of what's happening. Do you have another option ( aircraft)?

CASA not the only one with their neck in that noose.

Im not picking on the operator, but whats missing? Something has to give. 8 Hours to Solo, then * hours solo, and a lic at 20 WITh some navs.. Hmm.. Think i better bite my tongue..

We dont have to believe anything. The regs will mean you have to comply regardless of your beliefs Oscar. Plenty of jab engines in VH aircraft too. How do they fit into your "Recreational aviation is dangerous mantra?" Oscar, how tirseome your digs become. Where have I spoken for what the other 170 FTF's should be doing? Ive indicated MY feelings and how I will be moving my school forward. You profess to speak for the 170 schools though? What a crock of absolute garbage. Mate, I have many many CFI friends running these boat ancors, and believe me sporty spice, they DO agree, and they are in the same Sh1t pile as everyone else. I havnt attempted top speak for the "masses" perhaps you could gift us all by doing the same. Im sorry jab have ignored the consumer for 20 years and left you with a worthless slab in the front of your 19 rego'd 'repaired' wreck. But there are many who are in a far worse boat then you are. And they aren't in here bleeting rubbish, punching the 'percentage' button on their calculators attempting to "stat" their points of view across. Facts are facts mate, suck it up and move on.

45 in a year? Thin ? I'm not gunna entertain tit for tat with you again jet. Ic. Expressed my concerns as an operator, they don't relate to you so let's agree to comment on things that effect us ok?

Exactly!!!!

With all due respect methuselah, if that's what your taking from the current conversation, then I'm afraid you don't understand what's being said.

I would really be looking to the RAA for guidance on this. I may be wrong, but I think the RAA is in a real pickle when this becomes effective. Are instructors 100% guaranteed cover under the waiver? I doubt it very much.It would be devastating, but the RAA istelf would have a case to answer in my view. I would just be banning them for SOLO students until its sorted.

No. I will still train in Jabirus. But I wont be sending students Solo under that waiver. No. I would hope my students done auger in. But, chris as im sure you are aware...Sh!t happens dude. No, im aware that the parent must sign the waiver, not the minor. Try explaining the politics to the parents... yea she will be right, the Australian government deem the aeroplane to bean unacceptable risk, but if you just sign this, we can get her on her way....yea, thats gunna happen. No, I also have male students. Sorry if its "Florid", but thats how I speak. Sometimes the situation needs to be expressed in "real world" terms before it becomes clear. Im not suggesting any other CFI's take my word for anything. Ive expressed what I feel about sending people solo in an aeroplane Tony Abbot is telling me not to.

The acceptable rates for failures is not my issue Oscar. I dont have access to all the data that the regulator does, I am not an engineer either. I dont manufacture aeroplanes or their engines. So what I "find" acceptable is of little use. Logically I would want ZERO failures per 10000 hours, or 10 billion hours. What I find acceptable is not the issue. What is the issue NOW, is the people who DO have access to the numbers. The people that DO have acceptable and un acceptable levels, legislate FOR me. They give ME direction in the form of approvals and rule frameworks for me to operate under. When the regulator FORCES me to make my student sign a waiver with wording like : ‘I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CASA HAS IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE AIRCRAFT TO PROTECT PERSONS ON THE GROUND NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATON OF THE AIRCRAFT, UNINFORMED PASSENGERS AND TRAINEE PILOTS. THOSE LIMITATIONS ALSO HELP PASSENGERS AND TRAINEE PILOTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE RISK OF FLIGHTS IN THE AIRCRAFT. I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT: ‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND ‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION. ‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED. The risk is cl;eraly highlighted. And its been done so BY THE REGULATOR. In the event something was to happen and a student was killed, the fact they had signed the above would not help me sleep, or to answer the question posed by the coronor. "Mr Campbell, the risk was clearly highlighted, the regulator of your organisation TOLD you there was what they deem " an unacceptable risk" and yet YOU sent a student solo, who would ghave no doubt been acting on YOYR recommendation. The student could ONLY have agreed to fly the aircraft on YOUR recommendation. And there are OTHER options for you to send students solo in that the regulator does NOT find to pose an unacceptable risk. This would be my advice to ALL CFI's who would consider sending a student solo in the aircraft. The risk has NOT changed, but the consequence to US as instructors, and the RAA HAS CHANGED. And if thats not obvious to people, then I suggest they have good look at the wording of the waiver. And the spirit of the instrument. Good luck fighting the relatives of the 15 years old girl who augers in.