Question

[Guest Baa Baa]

After reading many posts on the sister site such as Jabiru through bolts and Rotax gearbox overhauls, to mention 2, it seems to me that many operators don't read the manuals or just think they know better. Does Jabiru allow the use of non genuine parts? Will Rotax support you if you don't follow their maintenance manual? And given the RAA Technical Manual states the following, what is their position?

 

SECTION 4.2.4

 

PERIODIC INSPECTIONS

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Aircraft operated under the auspices of CAO 95.10, 95.32 and 95.55 shall be maintained

 

in accordance with the manufacturer's maintenance manual. Where no manufacturer's

 

manual exists the aircraft should be maintained to the schedules contained in this

 

Manual. Aircraft types used for hire or reward shall always be maintained in accordance

 

with the manufacturer’s schedules.

 

Your thoughts please

 

Barry

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Good afternoon Barry,

 

Because we are what we are, there will always be people who need to be reminded/asked, "What does the manual say?" There will also always be people who think they know better than the manufacturer. And every now and then, one of the people who think they know better than the manufacturer will actually get it right... But the stats are way out there in favour of the manufacturer being right. So in my opinion based on my experience, on the condition there is no compelling reason why you shouldn't or can't, just do what the manual says...

 

On the issue of aircraft periodic inspections, I'm of the opinion that the Technical Manual is crystal clear. All of our aircraft are to be maintained in accordance with their manufacturer's maintenance manual. If the aircraft in question doesn't have a manufacturer's maintenance manual (in which case the aircraft cannot/will not be used for hire or reward) then the aircraft is to be maintained in acordance with the schedules contained in the tech manual. So we're back to the question, "What does the manual say?"

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

Good afternoon Barry,

On the issue of aircraft periodic inspections, I'm of the opinion that the Technical Manual is crystal clear. All of our aircraft are to be maintained in accordance with their manufacturer's maintenance manual. If the aircraft in question doesn't have a manufacturer's maintenance manual (in which case the aircraft cannot/will not be used for hire or reward) then the aircraft is to be maintained in acordance with the schedules contained in the tech manual. So we're back to the question, "What does the manual say?"

How much does this happen in real life? If you read some of the post kicking around, I would say not much. How many Jabirus do you all know of out there that have been modified by "experts" . How many old mates have asked "what oil should I use" or "where can I buy cheap filters" to be told "I have used X brand for years" No thought about what the manual might say but as we all know because it has Aviation Grade in the branding it is dearer so there must be a cheaper version out there I can use. We all have read a report about a certified aircraft used for training that appears to have used cheap cable ties instead of hose clamps on fuel lines among other things. You get what you pay for and sometimes that is cheap Sh!t.

 

I have seen many posts on forums that have really worried me and all the Moderators seem concerned about is if little Johny get his ego battered a bit, not whats right or wrong. There has been to many accidents lately where the rules have been broken and if we call them dickh!ads the Mods jump all over us. It seems to me we are prepared to accept this in our leisure activity which in turn just confirms what the general public thinks about people that fly those small planes with lawn mower engines in them. We are all cowboys.

 

Non of this needs to happen. There are rules out there that don't allow it. Yes I know there will always be the 1%ers but even they know if their caught what can happen. I know I can loose X points and be fined X dollars if I get sprung speeding on the roads.

 

So now the big questions.

 

What are RAA doing about it?

 

What are the penalties?

 

Then you can ask:

 

Are we as members of RAA prepared to sit back and do nothing?

 

Are we as members of RAA prepared to accept the poor training standards of some of our instructors? (Read the forums or go by your own experience)

 

Are we prepared to accept the "cowboy" tag given to us by the general public? If you think this is not true, get out a bit. Don't just be an armchair expert.

 

When I tell non flyers (the majority of Joe public) about my XT 912 Trike they say I must be mad as they would never go up in a small plane let alone a hang glider with a lawn mower motor on it. An hour later after I try to educate them a little they have a puzzled look on their face and still think I'm mad because those small planes fall out of the sky all the time. And if they don't say it to my face they will when I walk away. True? You know it is.

 

So are you all "cowboys" or do you think it's time to do something about it and lift our game?

 

The rules are there so inforce them or scrap them so others such as insurance companies and lawyers can't use them against us when it hits the fan.

 

Barry

 

 

[facthunter]

There's plenty of work to be done, out there. Trouble is when they decide to kick ar** they usually get the wrong people. Give most bosses the oportunity to dismiss the 10% of their choice (Hypothetical this one, most would get rid of anyone older and more qualified than themselves) and the crawlers stay and the outspoken ones go. Nev

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

There's plenty of work to be done, out there. Trouble is when they decide to kick ar** they usually get the wrong people. Give most bosses the oportunity to dismiss the 10% of their choice (Hypothetical this one, most would get rid of anyone older and more qualified than themselves) and the crawlers stay and the outspoken ones go. Nev

So should "the work be done" ?Or do you think we should just "let it devellop" a bit more.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Good afternoon again Barry,

 

Your questions are valid and deserve answers. Problem is, the questions need to be asked of your RA Aus representative. You should ask your rep personally. I'm serious, pick up the phone and call your rep's phone number. You'll find it listed in the front of your Sport Pilot Magazine. If you haven't got your magazine handy, call the office in Canberra on 02 6280 4700, and ask the ladies who your rep is, and what your rep's advertised phone number is. Another question you might like to ask along with the ones you've listed here, is to ask your rep, "What can I do to help you?"

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

Good afternoon again Barry,Your questions are valid and deserve answers. Problem is, the questions need to be asked of your RA Aus representative. You should ask your rep personally. I'm serious, pick up the phone and call your rep's phone number. You'll find it listed in the front of your Sport Pilot Magazine. If you haven't got your magazine handy, call the office in Canberra on 02 6280 4700, and ask the ladies who your rep is, and what your rep's advertised phone number is. Another question you might like to ask along with the ones you've listed here, is to ask your rep, "What can I do to help you?"

G'Day Wayne

 

These are my questions and they are valid to me, but my rep is not just my rep but yours and others as well. They represent the members. What I want to know is what the members want. This site, from what I believe was set up so the members can discuss RAA issues or politics and the sister site was left for education. ???

 

So now All members can have a forum to discuss the issues they feel need addressing. So lets discuss. Maybe the mods could start a poll so people could answer the questions without needing to even put their forum names to the answers. Seems a lot are shy. facthunter stated "There's plenty of work to be done, out there." and I agree. But do the rest of the members? I'm in favour of weeding out the bad apples and I believe RAA have the rules and means to do just that. But do the members want that. Don't be shy, speak up. Mods start a poll and ask what the members want and take that to our reps. I have spoken to our reps in the past and not been happy with their responce. But that maybe because my views are not the same as the majority and I accept that.

 

We have this site to discuss these issues now and I have raised my concerns. From the hangar talk I doubt that I'm the only one that feels the same way. But talking about it behind closed doors is not the same as doing something about it .

 

Maybe I should just crawl back under my rock and I will if that is what the majority wants. But be honest with yourself before you tell me to do that.

 

Barry

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Barry

 

Be careful about mass grouping, there may very be a whole bunch of modified Jab's for example out there and if there rego starts with 19 then that is perfectly acceptable/legal (with some caveats around who was builder and who was modifier) and no rules exist that I know of to say otherwise. Regarding the aviation parts vs non aviation parts......there are many parts in the Jabiru, and pressumably other aircraft as well that are sourced from the automobile supply channels so dismissing a part as automobile sourced is just not good or bad without understanding the circumstances and background. A good example is the Jabiru and Rotax spark plugs....Where does everbody buy them .....well from supercheap or Repco or......why....cause they weren't designed and manufactured for aircraft just internal combustion engines (and perhaps spark plugs is a bad example re the whole solid end of the electrode thing....but lets not go there)

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

Andy

 

Don't 19-0000 rego planes come under CAO 95.55? And if you fit a Jab or Rotax motor in those planes, don't those motors come with a manual?

 

As far as spark plugs go Rotax manual says: DCPR8E and Jabiru say: NGK D9EA ( for the correct motors)so if you use those plugs no matter where you get them would that be doing it by the book?

 

Your thoughts

 

Barry

 

 

[facthunter]

The type of plug is what matters. There was a champion plug approved for the Tiger Moth engine. (Unshielded harness) But perhaps plugs ARE a bad example. Fuel hoses and clips might be a better example.

 

My statement about plenty of work to do did not specifically recommend a "purge". In fact I tried to point out problems with such a course of action UNLESS it was done very carefully

 

Education before regulation. The rules must be clear and available. What is unacceptable should not be hard to work out, and doing what is unacceptable and illegal WILL be punished anyhow (if detected) by the current authority . This will only happen if it is known that the breach has occurred and reporting of aircraft being operated in a hazardous matter is mandatory for some persons ( most ) if they are aware of it happening .

 

If persons had repeatedly seen someone doing the ridiculous and not done anything about it, could they have been considered an accessory? Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

AndyDon't 19-0000 rego planes come under CAO 95.55? And if you fit a Jab or Rotax motor in those planes, don't those motors come with a manual?

 

As far as spark plugs go Rotax manual says: DCPR8E and Jabiru say: NGK D9EA ( for the correct motors)so if you use those plugs no matter where you get them would that be doing it by the book?

 

Your thoughts

 

Barry

I wasn't argiung that you shouldn't follow manufacturers documentation merely that the OEM for a home built kit is the builder not the supplier of the kit. Where the manuals and orders say, with words to the effect of, " maintenance IAW manufacturers instructions", the builder is the manufacturer and gets to define what the manuals say. The second point was that many of the components used in aviation had an automobile origin so a statement that an automotive part is wrong with an inference that their use is only as a means of saving dollars is also wrong at a whole of fleet level. If you search for engines that use D9EA plugs you will find many that are not aviation related. Further, even if the fittment of the jab engine or rotax into the home built is done entirely within the manufacturers guidlines because its a subcomponent of the aircraft the builder still has the rights to override jab or rotax documentation about their engines. Of course Im not arguing if that is good or bad, no amount of generalisation should be used here and in general I agree that the manufacturers documentation should be followed (especially if you wantr to avail yourself of a warranty for example), but legally I dont believe it is a mandate for builders that they do so.

 

Therefore to say that a jab is modified with an inference that is unacceptable, as per your post I replied to, is simply wrong to apply as a gross statement to the entire fleet. It is absolutely not wrong, where the rego starts with 25, for jabs, or 32 for trikes.

 

I would suggest that quite a number of the evolutionary steps that aircraft manufacturers have implemented into the style of aircraft we are talking about, have come from people who build their own and experiment when things the factory does are percieved by the builder as not being as good as they could be. Obviously not every change will result in beneficial outcomes, or the benefits wont outweight the negatives that it has introduced, but that is why 19 registered aircraft cant be used for training.

 

Perhaps Im being overly pedantic. In general I agree with your position but understand that its not a black and white rule, for some it is, for others its shades of grey.

 

Andy

 

 

[winsor68]

This will only happen if it is known that the breach has occurred and reporting of aircraft being operated in a hazardous matter is mandatory for some persons ( most ) if they are aware of it happening .If persons had repeatedly seen someone doing the ridiculous and not done anything about it, could they have been considered an accessory? Nev

I think at the very least morally yes... Being the "snitch" is not worth it in my experience. It is not just Ra-Aus whose systems for detecting and rectifying these problems has failed.

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

G'Day Nev and Andy

 

Agree Nev because you used the word "approved" so we get back to what does the manual say. The following is from the Jab site:

 

2.2 General Information

 

WARNING:

 

Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd has devoted significant resources and testing to develop the

 

Jabiru 2200 aircraft engine. This engine is intended to be installed in accordance with

 

the details given in the “INSTALLATION MANUAL FOR JABIRU 2200 AIRCRAFT

 

ENGINE”, document No. JEM2202. Any other uses or applications may be extremely

 

hazardous, leading to property damage, or injury or death of persons on or in the

 

vicinity of the vehicle. Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd does not support the use of this engine in

 

any applications which do not meet the requirements of the “INSTALLATION MANUAL

 

FOR JABIRU 2200 AIRCRAFT ENGINE”. Any non-compliant installation may render the

 

aircraft un-airworthy and will void any warranty issued by Jabiru.

 

The Jabiru 2200 aircraft engine is designed to be operated and maintained only in strict

 

accordance with this instruction and maintenance manual. Any variation of any kind,

 

including alteration to any component at all, whether replacement, relocation,

 

modification or otherwise which is not strictly in accordance with this manual may lead

 

to dramatic changes in the performance of the engine and may cause unexpected

 

engine stoppage, engine damage or harm to other parts of the aircraft to which it may

 

be fitted and may lead to injury or death. Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd does not support any

 

modifications to the engine, its parts, or components. Any such actions may render the

 

aircraft un-airworthy and will void any warranty issued by Jabiru.

 

Maintenance and modification cannot be supervised by the manufacturer. Maintenance

 

requires extreme cleanliness, exact parts, precise workmanship and proper

 

consumables. It is your responsibility to ensure absolute attention to detail no matter

 

who may become involved in work on this engine. Your safety, your life and your

 

passenger’s lives rely on precise and accurate following of instructions in this manual.

 

In exchange for the engine manual provided by Jabiru Aircraft Pty. Ltd. (“Jabiru”) I

 

hereby agree to waive, release, and hold Jabiru harmless from any injury, loss, damage,

 

or mishap that I, my spouse, heirs, or next of kin may suffer as a result of my use of any

 

Jabiru product, except to the extent due to gross negligence or willful misconduct by

 

Jabiru. I understand that proper skills and training are essential to minimize the

 

unavoidable risks of property damage, serious bodily injury and death that arise from

 

the use of Jabiru products.

 

You may agree or not with some of the statements there but when push comes to shove you will need deep pockets to find out who is right.

 

Barry

 

 

[winsor68]

Wasn't there some question about checking the oil according to the manual with the Jab motor recently?

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

I think at the very least morally yes... Being the "snitch" is not worth it in my experience. It is not just Ra-Aus whose systems for detecting and rectifying these problems has failed.

G'Day Winsor68

 

And I have been asking what the members want. Are you in favor of the "system" being fixed for RAA.

 

Barry

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

Wasn't there some question about checking the oil according to the manual with the Jab motor recently?

From the Jab site:

 

• Check Oil Level, replenish if necessary.

 

i) Check oil level by screwing in cap fully before withdrawing

 

ii) Oil level should be between the MAX & MIN marks - but must never be below the MIN

 

mark.

 

iii) Before long periods of operation, ensure that the level is at least at the mid position.

 

iv) Difference in the oil quantity between MAX & MIN mark is 300 mL (0.317 US Quarts).

 

v) See section 11.1 for first 25 hours of Operation.

 

vi) Overfilling is detrimental to the engine.

 

Barry

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Barry

 

The statement you reproduced from Jabiru is a risk reduction statement crafted by a lawyer, fundamentally it seeks to limit liability to Jabiru as you would expect.

 

That all said, it changes nothing that I wrote in my previous email. If you buy the engine and then use it to power a concrete mixer, then more power to you (quite literaly) You may well have issues on collecting a warranty claim, but lawyers from J arent going to parachute in and wrap you in legal tape whether you followed the installation guide or not.

 

Im not arguing that people should simply do their own thing, in general it would be foolish to do that, but not universally so. The J through bolt issue that is playing out at present is a perfect example where in consideration of the benifits that the non approved J alternate offers, to me far exceed the J approved alternate. My perhaps incorrect understanding is that the approved alternate is more about moving the spotlight away from a QA issue (which then raises Q's of negligence) and trying to focus it on a design issue that couldnt be forseen.... In any event the class action in the USA is likely to probe that area I would have though so I'll sit back and watch what occurs.

 

Andy.

 

P.S the Oil issue........Another example where slavishly following the instructions will probably do no harm...except to your wallet. In my J if I fill to the 1/2 way mark then I get, higher oil temps for the 10 min's or so that it takes the engine to chuck it overboard till it gets down to the slightly above min mark that I know the engine is happy to operate at. I guess some will say Im foolish for not filling to the 1/2 mark.....if thats the case then I guess I'll have to live with that knowing it will worry me for literally seconds.....

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

BarryThe statement you reproduced from Jabiru is a risk reduction statement crafted by a lawyer, fundamentally it seeks to limit liability to Jabiru as you would expect.

 

That all said, it changes nothing that I wrote in my previous email. If you buy the engine and then use it to power a concrete mixer, then more power to you (quite literaly) You may well have issues on collecting a warranty claim, but lawyers from J arent going to parachute in and wrap you in legal tape whether you followed the installation guide or not.

 

Im not arguing that people should simply do their own thing, in general it would be foolish to do that, but not universally so. The J through bolt issue that is playing out at present is a perfect example where in consideration of the benifits that the non approved J alternate offers, to me far exceed the J approved alternate. My perhaps incorrect understanding is that the approved alternate is more about moving the spotlight away from a QA issue (which then raises Q's of negligence) and trying to focus it on a design issue that couldnt be forseen.... In any event the class action in the USA is likely to probe that area I would have though so I'll sit back and watch what occurs.

 

Andy.

 

P.S the Oil issue........Another example where slavishly following the instructions will probably do no harm...except to your wallet. In my J if I fill to the 1/2 way mark then I get, higher oil temps for the 10 min's or so that it takes the engine to chuck it overboard till it gets down to the slightly above min mark that I know the engine is happy to operate at. I guess some will say Im foolish for not filling to the 1/2 mark.....if thats the case then I guess I'll have to live with that knowing it will worry me for literally seconds.....

Thing is Andy not worried about what legal tape Jabiru are going to try and wrap you in if any at all but more worried about what insurance companies could use as out clauses in the case of a claim or what CASA could use in the case of an accident. Call it risk assesment if you like. One good thing though. I don't think CASA have any control over concrete mixers.

 

Barry

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

G'day

 

All gone shy again? Seems nobody wants to talk.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So lets summarise:-

 

1) In general we should follow manufacturers printed documents and guidlines

 

2) Pressumably some of us arent doing that as a result of stupidity, or a thought out conscious decision that is aligned with the rules

 

3) Because of the # 2) Stupidity you want RAA to do something, but havent said what it is, or how it would be paid for

 

Over to you

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

All action will cost something and reduce you ability to enjoy your pastime, by more rules checks paperwork surveillance etc.

 

On the other side, if fools keep drawing attention to themselves we all appear (by association) to be a bunch of ungovernable cowboys and would have to live with whatever consequences that brings to our form of aviation. . Nev

 

 

[Guest Baa Baa]

All action will cost something and reduce you ability to enjoy your pastime, by more rules checks paperwork surveillance etc.On the other side, if fools keep drawing attention to themselves we all appear (by association) to be a bunch of ungovernable cowboys and would have to live with whatever consequences that brings to our form of aviation. . Nev

G'day again

 

Very well put Nev and it is the cowboys and fools that show no respect for the rules or the trouble they can cause the majority of the RAA members that are of concern to me.

 

You all know or know off cowboys in our organization. They are not the majority but they could do a great deal of harm to our section of the sky if they are allowed to go on unchecked. Yes it could cost to weed them out now, but it could also cost us all a lot more of our freedoms if they are allowed to flaunt their activities and attitudes unchecked. I believe RAA have the rules to weed out these cowboys and they should. Or they should stop turning a blind eye to them. Once again, I say this is not the majority but just the cowboys that have the potentional to do so much harm to the majority of RAA members and their future freedoms that should be weeded out.

 

Andy it is not just about the great Jab parts swap but if that is all it takes to float you boat, good luck to you. Read my post 4 again.

 

Most of the general public and some GA people already think we are all cowboys so I think it is time to lift image and show them we are not all tarred with the same brush.

 

It was said this forum was set up to discuss RAA politics etc. so lets.

 

Barry

 

 

[dmech]

BarryThe statement you reproduced from Jabiru is a risk reduction statement crafted by a lawyer, fundamentally it seeks to limit liability to Jabiru as you would expect.

 

That all said, it changes nothing that I wrote in my previous email. If you buy the engine and then use it to power a concrete mixer, then more power to you (quite literaly) You may well have issues on collecting a warranty claim, but lawyers from J arent going to parachute in and wrap you in legal tape whether you followed the installation guide or not.

 

Im not arguing that people should simply do their own thing, in general it would be foolish to do that, but not universally so. The J through bolt issue that is playing out at present is a perfect example where in consideration of the benifits that the non approved J alternate offers, to me far exceed the J approved alternate. My perhaps incorrect understanding is that the approved alternate is more about moving the spotlight away from a QA issue (which then raises Q's of negligence) and trying to focus it on a design issue that couldnt be forseen.... In any event the class action in the USA is likely to probe that area I would have though so I'll sit back and watch what occurs.

 

Andy.

 

P.S the Oil issue........Another example where slavishly following the instructions will probably do no harm...except to your wallet. In my J if I fill to the 1/2 way mark then I get, higher oil temps for the 10 min's or so that it takes the engine to chuck it overboard till it gets down to the slightly above min mark that I know the engine is happy to operate at. I guess some will say Im foolish for not filling to the 1/2 mark.....if thats the case then I guess I'll have to live with that knowing it will worry me for literally seconds.....

[dmech]

Hi ANDY

 

CAN YOU FILL ME IN A BIT ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION TOU MENTIONED PLUS ANY LINKS PLEASE. I am interested because i have located a significant fault that jab have unwhittingly applied to there engines due to lack of knowlege.this problem has been inherent for more than 10 yrs and should have been sorted by now. i'm supprised there hav'nt been more legal action against jab.

 

REGARD'S dmech [email protected]

 

 

[Yenn]

We could do what GA does even for homebuilt Experimental aircraft. That is maintenence in accordance with CASA Schedule 5.

 

Schedule 5 is well known to LAME's and easy enough to comply with. Look at the Maintenance Guide for Engineers, by cASA and it will be explained.

 

As far as checking the oil in Jab engines, their method only works in Jab airframes. If I fill my taildragger to the full mark, a large proportion of the oil will end up under the belly.