Powerin

Media are reporting a recreational aircraft crash on a property near Boorhaman Victoria. Pilot escaped with minor injuries, plane has a broken back. Sounds like he hit a powerline while trying to land on the property airstrip. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-09/pilot-in-light-plane-crash-minor-injuries-boorhaman-victoria/104328398

Also, most aircraft manufacturers seem to have long waiting lists at the moment. If customers are buying as many aircraft as you can produce, at the list price, why would you lower the price? Good old supply and demand. Special deals are usually offered to sell surplus stock, but most aircraft are manufactured in low volume, and only built to order, so there is rarely any surplus. In this age of "just-in-time" manufacturing and supply logistics there is less chance of stock surpluses in any industry, but manufacturers might offer deals if their factory is operating below full capacity. I bought a mid-range farm tractor last year, which is still a relatively low volume product but still many times that of aircraft, and it didn't start on the assembly line until I signed on the dotted line.

Jabiru 3300 engine- Our price from Jab Australia= A$20,900 (~US$14,600 @ 0.70 exchange) US price from Jab USA = US$18,900 Not sure if that supports my point or not. That's the Oz retail price so Jab USA would surely get it cheaper than that..but maybe not. ?

Getting back to SDs original point, that the Rotax prices are the same everywhere and therefore must be rigged...I think it's good old economics 101...Supply and Demand. Rotax engines are a specialist low volume item, so no supplier around the world ever buys an amount that would attract a discount. Rotaxes aren't that big in the USA either so there is not the competition to drive prices lower there either. So I'm guessing the Rotax price around the world is pretty much set by the factory price (no volume discounts) plus exchange, freight and a profit/warranty margin. I wonder how Jabiru engine prices compare around the world? There are plenty of Aussie products that are sold cheaper in the USA than they are here on our shelves. We are a low volume market and are used to paying higher prices so we get charged more, even for our own products.

I can't believe it either...and yet it seems to be all too common. What is it about aviation that seems to attract dodgy operators? I don't know how these people live with themselves. It makes doing a build myself more and more attractive. Is it time to name and shame?

Thanks Garfly. I accidentally copied a truncated link and didn't check it. Annoying that you can't edit posts after a certain time.

I apologise if this has been posted elsewhere, but I just came across the Coroner's report for this accident...released back in July 2018. Interesting to note that the Coroner is himself an RAA member and pilot and also holds a PPL. Coroner's findings into the death of Ross Millard

I always understood Va (or probably Vb is more accurate) to be the speed at which the wing will stall as a result of an excessive vertical gust (turbulence) therefore unloading the wing before it reaches its maximum G-load. This speed gives you an automatic safety valve against excessive G forces. Interestingly the lower your weight is the lower the safe Va speed is if I remember rightly.

Ethical or not, exclusivity deals are all around and standard practice. Businesses want a return for their sponsorship or advertising dollar. I don't know why Restriction of Trade doesn't apply...but it happens all the time. Coke or Pepsi give milk bars flashy fridges at no cost on the proviso that the competitor's product is not sold there. Do we kick up a fuss if we can't buy Pepsi at a certain store because of restrictions? When Bose put their audio products into retail stores the stores got the advantage of the slick marketing of Bose displays...but those displays had to put somewhere where they could not be demo'ed or directly compared with any other audio products. Marketing. Aviation is such a small market in Australia with only a few players and small consumer base. Perhaps the mistake made by AVA is that there is not room or tolerance for marketing ploys like this in a such a small and close-knit consumer group as aviation is.

Yeah sorry...typographical brain-fade..meant 99 not 89.

I fly REX fairly often and have found them to be a good airline that usually keeps a good schedule. I haven't seen anything (so far!) to cause me concern about maintenance. The SAAB 340 airframes are getting on in age (production finished 1989) but apparently have a lot of hours/cycles left in them to last quite a lot of years yet. Talking to a REX pilot a while back, he doesn't know what they'll do after that as the REX business model is very much built on the efficiency of the SAABs. Apparently they are far better on fuel than any of the competing turboprops such as the Qantas Dash 8 or Virgin's ATR 72. Without REX a lot of regional cities would be left to the mercy of Qantaslink or have nothing at all. I have no interest or shares in REX.

As far as the risks go RPT airlines are the safest form of transport and the well known adage that you're more likely to get hurt driving to the airport is true. However private flying is a different story. It is not safer than driving a car. Depending on how you measure it, stats from the USA show that, per mile travelled, private flying is about 10 times more dangerous than driving. If you use hours instead of miles flying is about 20 times more dangerous per hour than driving. This is the average over all non-commercial flights. So don't fool yourself that flying is as safe as driving a car....but it's better than a motorcycle (26 times worse than a car per mile). Recognise the risks, do your best to reduce them, fly safe!

Perhaps I am a bit cynical. This is the first time (I think?) the RAA have come out with a preliminary accident report like this, so soon after an accident, and as an email to members...despite the number of accidents that have happened recently. It does not pinpoint any safety concerns. It is, however, quick to point out that the engine was running at impact. So it looked like the motivation for the email was attempting to quell any concern that the accident was a fatality caused by a Jabiru engine failure. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm happy if the RAA helps out Jabiru like that (if that's what happened). I just hope this wasn't a one-off report for the benefit of an aircraft company rather than the first of many reports to benefit members.

Interestingly the NRMA is now bribing their members to vote in board elections with a chance to win a new car. You'd get 10,000 votes in RAA board elections if you could win a plane!

Of necessity, in any organisation or Government, the members elect their representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Members then decide, after the fact, if the representative has done a good or crap job and vote accordingly at the next election. I voted for DonR because I trust him to make decisions that are in the best interests of RAAus. It may be that my trust is misplaced and if so I'll vote against him next time. I do NOT want an email from him before every board meeting asking me (and his other members) how he should vote on a particular issue. How would I know which way to vote? I haven't been involved in the discussions nor can I know all the facts. I don't want to read a 100 pages of information, financials and budgets to see if a certain decision is affordable or not, or if it fits in with the organisation's strategic plans or goals. My life is busy enough. But I can't make an informed decision without knowing all the above. So I'm happy to leave it to the guy who represents me and has read all this stuff (hopefully). We do however need to be kept informed on the performance and solvency of our organisation. If the Board are making a complete dog's breakfast of things we need to know about it and we have the right to call a special meeting at any time, in between elections, and sack the lot of them if we wanted to.