XAIRVTW Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 I think you also need to look at the maintenance log books (which all aircraft should have & kept up to date) & the blokes that just have to tinker & fiddle with the engine. I think that is half the problem. (IMHO), you only have to get on the forms & read some of the hair brain ideas that some come up with. For the record I have a had 2 Jab engines in 2 different aircraft have no problems do the prescribed maintenance as the manufacture requirements. I would also buy a Rotax if it was going to be appropriate for my next Build . Horses for courses! 4
eightyknots Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 You often see the claim (as I did again today) that the reason Jabirus feature as often as they do in faults and accidents is because their are so many of them. So I thought I'd do the exercise and work out how many there actually are on the RAAus register. I did this by copying the aircraft register from the RAAus website to a spreadsheet and sorting and counting by manufacturer. The register is a bit inconsistent in how aircraft names are entered so the counts may not be exactly right.And the verdict is...Jabirus are by far the most popular aircraft with 755 out of 3414 on the register or 22%. Other manufacturers of note are: Airborne (trikes) - 234 Aerochute (powered parachutes) - 215 Tecnam - 132 ICP (mostly Savannahs) - 125 Thruster - 115 Skyfox - 105 Austflight (Drifters) - 98 Howard Hughes (Lightwings) - 97 Zenith/Zodiac - 76 Aeroprakt (Foxbats) - 68 It's quite interesting to compare these stats with New Zealand which, on a world-wide basis, has a pretty high per-capita aeroplane ownership rate. The comparisons (with New Zealand number in RED) is as follows: Jabirus 755 (NZ 24) Other manufacturers of note are: Airborne (trikes) - 234 (NZ 25) Aerochute (powered parachutes) - 215 (NZ 11) Tecnam - 132 (NZ 77) ICP (mostly Savannahs) - 125 (NZ 8) Thruster - 115 (NZ 26) Skyfox - 105 (NZ 1) Austflight (Drifters) - 98 (NZ 1) Howard Hughes (Lightwings) - 97 (NZ 1) Zenith/Zodiac - 76 (NZ 57) Aeroprakt (Foxbats) - 68 (NZ 4) (Micro Aviation Bantams in NZ = 131)
Louis Moore Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 A few year ago I was at a presentation held by one of the main L2's working on Jab's, I mean this guy was Jab through and through. He said (and remember this was a few years ago so it could be totally irrelevant now!!) yes it was unusual to get a 1000 hours out of Jab engine and that the faults where actually due to problems with the hydraulic lifters that where fitted. Went on to say it is not really fair to blame Jab for having to fit the hydraulic lifters as they would go bankrupt due to people thinking they where antiquated if they left the manually adjusted tappets on! He also said the signs your due for a through bolt failure are not at all cryptic and that the engine can be read like a book, so he put the constant failures down to people refusing to accept there engine needed work and trying to fly them to their 2000 life before tearing them down. Made sense to me. That being said I think XAIRVTW hit the nail on the head. I would not be opposed to having either a jab or rotax bolted out front. I have worked on both engines and liked them both equally. Let's keep in ming Gypsy's used to fail rather regularly yet where all fine with labelling them as "quaint" instead of the unreliable piece of ............ they actually are (not that I would not love to own a tiger moth!).
Guest davidh10 Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 ...It is a pity the RAA stats are unable to allow anything other than back of a (small) bus ticket analysis. EDIT + The important metric is incidents per hour per landing. If the bird is sitting in the hanger idle, nothing will happen to it til the hangar falls on it because of age. ... RAA receive all the information needed:- With Certificate renewal we have to provide total and last 12 months hours (Pilot info). With registration renewal we have to provide total hours and landings as well as last 12 months hours and landings (individual aircraft info). Accidents and Incidents are reportable. Although most accidents would be reported, it is well known that there are incidents that go unreported, although I understand that situation is improving. Armed with all that information, it is useless on paper in a filing cabinet, but entered into a well designed database, it allows anyone who is a bit handy with SQL to come up with answers to lots of interesting questions. Surely, something like this should be implemented as part of the RAA Safety Management System, so as to be able to identify where to focus education and training to reduce incident and accident rates.
facthunter Posted April 16, 2012 Posted April 16, 2012 louis, where did you get the idea Gipsys used to fail regularly? They had a good reputatio for reliability They do fail a bit now, because they are older and people modify them. They always required "headwork" at regular intervals, ( a point I have made regularly on this forum in relation to Jabiru's) You can't keep running an engine with a sick top end. Nev
kevinfrost Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 Having flown quite a number of RAAus a/c I like to look at the whole package and I'm not talking the bells and whistles. I've had a Jab engine out (flywheel) 4 miles off the coast. Landed in a soft sand stubble paddock with no damage to a/c or persons. Luck or skill? I remember thinking at the worst she will go over on her nose in the shallows or paddock and I'll have the speed right back and we'll be ok. That view would not apply to quite a number of other a/c I have flown. The proven safety cabin, cheap purchase price and cheaper than most repair costs has determined theJabs popularity in the market. I applaud Jabiru for making flying resonably affordable for us poor people. In saying that, I will put my bum in most things with wings but will take into consideration the dangers that may present themselves in relation to that particular a/c irrespective of engine type. 2
Powerin Posted April 17, 2012 Author Posted April 17, 2012 RAA receive all the information needed:- With Certificate renewal we have to provide total and last 12 months hours (Pilot info). With registration renewal we have to provide total hours and landings as well as last 12 months hours and landings (individual aircraft info). Accidents and Incidents are reportable. Although most accidents would be reported, it is well known that there are incidents that go unreported, although I understand that situation is improving. Armed with all that information, it is useless on paper in a filing cabinet, but entered into a well designed database, it allows anyone who is a bit handy with SQL to come up with answers to lots of interesting questions. Surely, something like this should be implemented as part of the RAA Safety Management System, so as to be able to identify where to focus education and training to reduce incident and accident rates. I, for one, would be in favour of the RAAus spending a reasonable amount of money on this sort of system. As well as providing timely data which could allow targeted safety initiatives, they should have systems in place which streamlines pilot certification and aircraft registration and certification. Something like that could automatically flag problems such as pilots without medical declarations or aircraft without valid certificates such as we have seen lately. Even CASA audits should become easier. I dare say a custom system like would be expensive to implement in terms of software development, hardware and staff training, but it would have the potential to save money down the track in terms of efficiency, staff numbers and safety outcomes. EDIT: having said the above, transferring the existing data to a new database would be non-trivial if the aircraft register is anything to go by. When you start going through the register you see it is full of inconsistencies. Take a Savannah for example, manufactured by ICP. In the register Savannahs are listed as having the following manufacturers: I C P I C P Savannah ICP ICP Savannah ICP SRL Icp Srl ICP XL VG Savannah This is understandable as it probably depends on what the owner wrote on the application, who entered the data, and how much aircraft knowledge they had. A human can probably tell these are all the same manufacturer, but to a computer database the Savannah would have eight different manufacturers.....which is a problem if you're trying to get meaningful stats out of a large database.
fly_tornado Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 RAA aren't that big on computerization, every time you handle paper you are creating a job for someone.
Guest Crezzi Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 At least some of the processes you describe are already implemented. For example, I believe that membership renewals where there isn't a current BFR don't get sent a new pilot certificate. This acts as an additional reminder to the pilot that he's not legal to fly (in case they don't read the letter). Cheers John
Guest davidh10 Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 I, for one, would be in favour of the RAAus spending a reasonable amount of money on this sort of system. ...I dare say a custom system like would be expensive to implement in terms of software development, hardware and staff training, but it would have the potential to save money down the track in terms of efficiency, staff numbers and safety outcomes. Actually I don't think building the system would be very expensive (although that is in the eye of the beholder) and if well written, then training would be fairly minimal. The big costs would be:- Writing a functional requirement for the system that unabiguously described what is needed. (and perhaps deciding what is needed). Cleansing the data in any existing database(s) before import. Data cleansing is always very mandrollic. Transcribing data not already in electronic form. EDIT: having said the above, transferring the existing data to a new database would be non-trivial if the aircraft register is anything to go by. When you start going through the register you see it is full of inconsistencies. Take a Savannah for example, manufactured by ICP. In the register Savannahs are listed as having the following manufacturers: I C P I C P Savannah ICP ICP Savannah ICP SRL Icp Srl ICP XL VG Savannah This is understandable as it probably depends on what the owner wrote on the application, who entered the data, and how much aircraft knowledge they had. A human can probably tell these are all the same manufacturer, but to a computer database the Savannah would have eight different manufacturers.....which is a problem if you're trying to get meaningful stats out of a large database. It is easy to prevent this sort of multiple description by having aircraft make and model as dropdown selections. That way the person entering the data is prompted to pick from an available list before creating a new type entry or model entry. Low performance, low transaction rate hosts don't cost much these days as they can all be virtualised, so the cost of hardware is amortised over all the hosts residing thereon.
Powerin Posted April 17, 2012 Author Posted April 17, 2012 Writing a functional requirement for the system that unambiguously described what is needed. (and perhaps deciding what is needed). I bet this would be the most difficult and time consuming part...especially the deciding what is needed bit What would be your rough guess David? Under $50K?
Guernsey Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 They are still making them, apparently.[ATTACH]17261[/ATTACH] Do you own a Harley Davidson, Gipsy Joker.? Bikie Alan.
eightyknots Posted April 17, 2012 Posted April 17, 2012 I, for one, would be in favour of the RAAus spending a reasonable amount of money on this sort of system. As well as providing timely data which could allow targeted safety initiatives, they should have systems in place which streamlines pilot certification and aircraft registration and certification. Something like that could automatically flag problems such as pilots without medical declarations or aircraft without valid certificates such as we have seen lately. Even CASA audits should become easier.I dare say a custom system like would be expensive to implement in terms of software development, hardware and staff training, but it would have the potential to save money down the track in terms of efficiency, staff numbers and safety outcomes. EDIT: having said the above, transferring the existing data to a new database would be non-trivial if the aircraft register is anything to go by. When you start going through the register you see it is full of inconsistencies. Take a Savannah for example, manufactured by ICP. In the register Savannahs are listed as having the following manufacturers: I C P I C P Savannah ICP ICP Savannah ICP SRL Icp Srl ICP XL VG Savannah This is understandable as it probably depends on what the owner wrote on the application, who entered the data, and how much aircraft knowledge they had. A human can probably tell these are all the same manufacturer, but to a computer database the Savannah would have eight different manufacturers.....which is a problem if you're trying to get meaningful stats out of a large database. The same confusion exists in the NZ aircraft register, especially with Zenith aircraft such as the CH-601 for instance. They are listed as follows (using Zenair, Zodiac and Zenith side-by-side and interchangeably), This means that they are not even in order with other models listed in between: Zenair CH 601 HDS 1 Zenair CH701 SP 3 Zenair CH701 STOL 14 Zenair Tri-Z CH-300 1 Zenair Zenith CH-200 5 Zenair Zodiac 601 UL 6 Zenair Zodiac CH-600 4 Zenith Zenith CH 601- HDS 1 Zenith Zenith CH 601- UL 1 Zenith Zenith CH 601- XL 18 Zenith Zodiac CH 601- HD 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now