Another Jabiru engine thread

[nickduncs84]

I just saw this...

 

in regard to 19 registered aircraft, there seems to be a perception that anything goes and that you can do what you like. Well, you can to a point but be very careful with your statements to your insurer. But I’m not insured you say. Yes you are if you are RAA registered then you have passenger liability cover and third party property cover through your registration. If you claim on your registration that you are fitted with a Jabiru engine and you have modified the engine then you are making a false declaration. So if your passenger is hurt for any reason your insurance claim could be void and possibly your public liability cover could be void as well. Remember, if you change the engine in any way, then it is no longer a “Jabiru” engine and you should state that to your insurer and to the RAA. The automotive industry is very hard on claimants who have modified their vehicles in any way. There are many legal precedents on this issue. By this I mean, water- cooled heads supplied by Rotec, components supplied by Camit, various electronic fuel injection systems, unapproved propellers, the list goes on. If any of these items are installed on your engine you can no longer claim to have a “Jabiru” engine so in fact you are now accepting a legal liability for your engine and this could cost you everything. It would be fair to Jabiru if you returned the data plate when you have modified your engine and it would also be fair to Jabiru if the RAA did not register these aircraft as a Jabiru. If you fit a Lycoming engine in to an experimental aircraft, Lycoming require you to return the data plate.In conclusion, I suggest you leave the research and development to Jabiru. If you do want to be an entrepreneur, then try building your own engine from a clean sheet of paper. Don’t fiddle with somebody else’s product.

I love Jabs but this is a bit rich isn't it? It seems the only ones that don't accept the fact that there are problems with Jabiru engines are Jabiru. Don't they understand that the only reason these other companies and other engines exist is because theirs weren't up to scratch. And to talk of possible legal consequences of not using their products, what about the legal consequences when someone actually dies from a jab engine failure?

 

The whole thing is very odd.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Where did you find this, Nic?

 

 

[JimG]

So where did you see that , Nick . Just interested in background of the thread.

 

Can anyone confirm the claim of having to return Lycomming data plates from experimental use.

 

Cheers

 

JimG

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's not odd when you look at the bigger picture as it applies to all engines, and leave individual names out of it.

 

Engines have been modified virtually since the automobile began by people who thought they could do better.

 

If you look at drag racing, it's possible to buy a Chrysler engine pumping out about 12,000 horsepower, but it has a life of around 30 seconds, plenty for a few runs.

 

When the 1979 fuel crisis hit and trucks switched from powerful petrol engines to tiny diesels, people fitted turbochargers, but didn't change the 100 or so parts to take the extra loads

 

I'm not saying this is always the case, but people, with the best intentions introduce modifications which either shorten the life or lower the performance, and there's a history of those people covering their design errors by bad mouthing the base product, so manufacturers understandably pull right back to warranting their product in it's factory form only, unless by way of a specific agreement with a contractor.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I had this question about RAA pilots with L2 certification being liable for engine failures of their own aircraft. If you hired a mechanic, they would be liable for the negligence.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you work on an engine you have the duty of care and are liable for it.

 

If you have acceptable qualifications then a suitable amount of PL Insurance should cover you.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Where did you find this, Nic?

Java chat. Just posted

 

 

[facthunter]

Over the years a lot of modifying of Lycoming (and other) cylinders has been performed. Chroming etc. Some of this works and some nearly works. Whatever has been done the engine still has the maker's ID plate on it. Lycoming love to trade these carcases in and get them out of circulation for their reputation and the safety aspect . If an engine lasts for 5 rebuilds it is probably too heavy in the first place. It's not really economic to extend the life for too long. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

If you modify a type-certificated engine, other than in accordance with approved data (See CARs 1988, regulation 2A) it is no longer a type certificated engine. The manufacturer can no longer be held liable for it, and its warranty will be void. So I would rather imagine that a pragmatic manufacturer might not actually mind that much if people persist in modifying his product; he will mind if he gets the bad press for the consequences. I'd not heard that bit of scuttlebut about Lycoming engines in experimental aircraft, however. Since even TC'd aircraft may need to be flown under an experimental certificate on occasion to get some modification approved (e.g. the installation of role equipment), and this does not result in Lycoming requiring the engine data plate to be removed, I doubt it's correct. Didn't happen whilst I was flying the Seabird Seeker on an exp. Cert, for its certification flight testing, either.

 

If the aircraft is operating under normal GA rules, making an unapproved modification is a criminal offence. See CAR 42U.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

The statement in that quote above is not correct.

 

There is no requirement to return the data plate and no issue with any STC or TSO'd component being fitted and used on an experimental aircraft.

 

Just because it is registered in the experimental category does not mean it will be tinkered with by an unqualified owner. A significant number of experimental aircraft are only serviced by fully qualified LAMEs. Haven't seen the latest figures but in my SAAA chapter about half are maintained by formal maintenance organisations

 

 

[Oscar]

Nick, you mean Jaba Chat, of course- on the Jabiru company website.

 

Holy crap, this opens up a lot of stuff. Rod Stiff's comments are entirely correct (as far as I understand it, and I'm not an expert) for LSA-class 24-reg aircraft - but NOT correct for 24-reg 'Certificated' aircraft (e.g. 160Cs). In the case of 160Ds, it IS correct: Jabiru as the manufacturer is held responsible for every component on the aircraft, and that includes the engine as defined, down to the last nut and bolt.

 

HOWEVER: since a 'C' ('Certificated') aircraft is NOT an LSA per se but a national airworthiness authority certificated aircraft, it can be modified by an Engineering Order supplied by a Part 21M engineer. Without going into chapter and verse (because that's longer than 'War and Peace'), the essential basis is (broadly speaking) that any modification does not invalidate the basis of Certification. LSA-registered aircraft are NOT 'certificated' - they are warrantied (as it were) by the manufacturer to comply with the (ASTM) LSA standard. The manufacturer is required to take the liability for compliance with the LSA standard, and this is an important distinction in terms of legal liability. Rod Stiff's comments are - I suspect - an entirely reasonable response to the liability Jabiru accepts for the supply of aircraft to be registered as LSA-compliant, with the advantages that bestows: higher MTOW etc..

 

There is - I think - also absolute truth in Rod Stiff's comments that stating to an insurer (or other authority) that your aircraft has a 'Jabiru' engine as defined in the TCDS if it has been modified in any way, is false. HOWEVER (again..) if you are running an engine that has received an Engineering Order for modification (which cannot be issued for an LSA-reg aircraft unless the manufacturer accepts it), then it is qualitatively equivalent to the original TCDS for the engine. Rod Stiff is( I think) almost certainly correct that notification to your insurer etc. of the changed status of your engine is required - but that does not mean that it is a lesser-quality engine. By definition, the issue of an EO for modification of a TCDS engine renders it in no way inferior to the engine for which the TCDS was issued - and your insurer should not impose any penalty for the substitution of components subject to the EO.

 

With respect to the CAMit modifications to Jabiru engines, it will be shortly be the case that an EO can be issued for such modifications, on an individual-engine basis. The work to provide the substantiation for the EO is well underway. It requires running a CAMit-modified engine through the full regime of conditions for certification against the JAR-22h requirement under which the original Jab. engine TCDS was issued. It is entirely not a trivial task. I have no information of intentions / activity to do the same for any other manufacturer's mods. - e.g. Rotec.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Following on from my statement above since I can't seem to edit it for some reason.

 

If an owner operator maintains the engine under the CASA Maintenance Instrument of Authority (CASA I A 33/13) then maybe the companies might like the data plates back but just because its registered as experimental doesn't mean it will be modified or maintained by the owner.

 

 

[SDQDI]

So if you had a 19 rego plane with a jab engine that you put Rotec LCH's on if you can't call it a jab what do you call it? Does it become a no namer? I mean it is still a jab engine with a mod so wouldn't you call it a modified jab?

 

 

[rankamateur]

So if you had a 19 rego plane with a jab engine that you put Rotec LCH's on if you can't call it a jab what do you call it? Does it become a no namer? I mean it is still a jab engine with a mod so wouldn't you call it a modified jab?

Don't worry about it! It isn't likely to to happen to you any time soon is it?

 

 

[SDQDI]

Don't worry about it! It isn't likely to to happen to you any time soon is it?

No not that example but for arguments sake how about if I was to put a aftermarket turbo on a 912 now I can understand the warranty being voided but telling the insurance company it 'wasn't' a rotax would be nearly lying because it still is a rotax but a modified one. I just don't quiet understand the importance of this with 19 rego aircraft, as using the jab example how many 19 rego planes still have a completely original jab??? I'm sure most of them have a mod here or there somewhere, and I'm sure that's not limited to jabs.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Java chat. Just posted

What I mean, Nick, is who actually said this? Is it just heresay, scuttlebutt, or did someone with some expertise or experience take responsibility for this?

 

 

[Camel]

Just read the whole blub on Jaba chat written by Rod Stiff. http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/jaba/Contrary_to_local_rumour.docx.

 

I think when the engine manufacturer (Camit ) recognizes the engines has faults and has decided to fix them, then Mr Rod Stiff better watch out as his engine has a bad reputation and he is doing nothing but whinging. He needs to embrace the modifications. I think he will be the big looser in the end. I wish Camit all the best.

 

 

[nickduncs84]

I agree Oscar. My issue wasn't with the comments regarding informing an insurer, thats probably prudent and is a helpful tip. My issue was the 'leave the research and development to Jabiru coment'. I think most jab owners would love to do that. Yeah I know some mods like EDI are more for performance gains, but the people that get liquid cooled heads installed or are looking at camit engines are only doing so because of the issues with the tankard Jabiru engines. It's a bit rich to tell people to leave the r&d to Jabiru when the bloody things keep failing

 

 

[nickduncs84]

What I mean, Nick, is who actually said this? Is it just heresay, scuttlebutt, or did someone with some expertise or experience take responsibility for this?

It's a letter from rod stiff. You can download the whole thing from the Jabiru website as Oscar said.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Its a bit of an odd stand, experimental is experimental

 

 

[Powerin]

Insurers want to know their risk. You tell them what you've got, they assess the risk and charge a premium accordingly. If the worst happens and you need to make a claim you need to have the same stuff that you told the insurer about.

 

Who knows, insuring a modified Jab engine might be cheaper! (sorry, couldn't resist)

 

 

[Oscar]

Just read the whole blub on Jaba chat written by Rod Stiff. http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/jaba/Contrary_to_local_rumour.docx.I think when the engine manufacturer (Camit ) recognizes the engines has faults and has decided to fix them, then Mr Rod Stiff better watch out as his engine has a bad reputation and he is doing nothing but whinging. He needs to embrace the modifications. I think he will be the big looser in the end. I wish Camit all the best.

It's not as simple as that. Jabiru holds a TCDS for the 2200 engine that took a lot of certification runs to obtain; CAMit will have to go through the same rigmarole to obtain a TCDS for its engine. However, accepted demonstration (by calibrated test runs) that modifications to a TCDS'd Jab engine have at least the equivalent 'quality' will allow substitution - by an Engineering Order - of CAMit modifications for original Jabiru parts. However, since in the case of a 24-D reg. Jab. every component is 'warrantied' by the manufacturer, an EO cannot apply.

 

The issue of whether 'Jabiru' as the aircraft and engine manufacturer should embrace and authorise the use of a revised version of their engine by CAMit, is entirely separate. We all have opinions; perhaps Jabiru will recognise the market forces if CAMit engines prove to be 'superior' ( and most readers of this forum will know my own position on that question) - but FWIW, it's not unreasonable for Jabiru corporate to withhold their blessing until there is clear evidence that it is deserved.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

So if you had a 19 rego plane with a jab engine that you put Rotec LCH's on if you can't call it a jab what do you call it? Does it become a no namer? I mean it is still a jab engine with a mod so wouldn't you call it a modified jab?

You would call it a non-certificated engine. There are two types of engine used in experimental / -19 registered aircraft, and only two: Type-certificated and non-type-certificated.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Its a bit of an odd stand, experimental is experimental

Sorry, not sure in what context you are posting this. Can you elaborate on your post?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Just read the whole blub on Jaba chat written by Rod Stiff. http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/jaba/Contrary_to_local_rumour.docx.I think when the engine manufacturer (Camit ) recognizes the engines has faults and has decided to fix them, then Mr Rod Stiff better watch out as his engine has a bad reputation and he is doing nothing but whinging. He needs to embrace the modifications. I think he will be the big looser in the end. I wish Camit all the best.

Get real. If Jabiru give a public approval for the fitment of a CAMit engine into their LSA-certified aircraft, that means Jabiru would pick up the liability for something they do not control and have not designed. That's hardly a reasonable ask. However, when the CAMit package has an approval from CASA, that relieves Jabiru from liability for the engine. Until that happens, FFS stop complaining about Jabiru not accepting the CAMit mods.