Another Jabiru engine thread

[fly_tornado]

You can't certify an experimental installation, the installation is always experimental. In any contract there is a concept of being fit for purpose and experimental is purely educational.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

LIABILITY issues?..Warranty issues?............ a load of horse poo........................all this rubbish about an engine manufacturer being responsible for his product? I quote from Daffyd L on the topic of modifications " The manufacturer can no longer be held liable for it, and its warranty will be void. " I have found that that manufacturer in question gives no warranty beyond a year ( which is on average about 60 hours!) and has never been held liable no matter how many of his engines cause unexpected arrivals. And there has been LOT..................A Fly Tornado quote "If you work on an engine you have a duty of care and are liable for it." Well good luck with that. You would have to Prove Negligence or Carelessness on the part of the L2. And who is to say how long that liability would last with the engine type having a documented history of constant failure? Especially as the manufacturer claims pilot error for just about every failure. . The L2 may well be able to claim the same!............... If an L2 is proven to be negligent or careless then OK he may be in trouble...But the nature of the L2 is NOT to be careless or negligent, otherwise he would not be doing the job.....NickDuncs84 has it right . Almost all of the mods applied to Jabs are in an effort to make it more reliable....How many pilots/owners are expounding the merits of multiple CHT's ....I'd like to see Jab wriggle out of a liability claim on the grounds that the engine was modified with respect to the addition of 5 CHT senders. If the engine you are using is unreliable, then change it to make it (more) reliable or use a different make.....

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You can't certify an experimental installation, the installation is always experimental. In any contract there is a concept of being fit for purpose and experimental is purely educational.

No - firstly, I'm talking about a certificated ENGINE, not a certificated installation. Secondly, if you look at CASR 21.191, there are about ten experimental purposes, only one of which is educational. CAO 95.55.1.5 parallels only CASR 21.191(g).

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

LIABILITY issues?..Warranty issues?............ a load of horse poo........................all this rubbish about an engine manufacturer being responsible for his product? I quote from Daffyd L on the topic of modifications " The manufacturer can no longer be held liable for it, and its warranty will be void. " I have found that that manufacturer in question gives no warranty beyond a year ( which is on average about 60 hours!) and has never been held liable no matter how many of his engines cause unexpected arrivals. And there has been LOT..................A Fly Tornado quote "If you work on an engine you have a duty of care and are liable for it." Well good luck with that. You would have to Prove Negligence or Carelessness on the part of the L2. And who is to say how long that liability would last with the engine type having a documented history of constant failure? Especially as the manufacturer claims pilot error for just about every failure. . The L2 may well be able to claim the same!............... If an L2 is proven to be negligent or careless then OK he may be in trouble...But the nature of the L2 is NOT to be careless or negligent, otherwise he would not be doing the job.....NickDuncs84 has it right . Almost all of the mods applied to Jabs are in an effort to make it more reliable....How many pilots/owners are expounding the merits of multiple CHT's ....I'd like to see Jab wriggle out of a liability claim on the grounds that the engine was modified with respect to the addition of 5 CHT senders. If the engine you are using is unreliable, then change it to make it (more) reliable or use a different make.....

I suggest you read the Trade Practices Act 1988.

 

 

[Camel]

I wish Jabiru would get serious about recognising or improving problems but it seems impossible. Camit recognise problems and they are experts at Jabiru engines. If Camit recognise and fix the problems then I look forward to them proving reliability and if any Jabiru continues to fail at the weak spots, Jabiru deserve to be prosecuted accordingly.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

You mean the Trade Practices Amendment Act of 1988 or The Trade Practices Act of 1974? .......................................... The manufacturer is responsible for ( amongst other things) delivering goods of a "Merchantable Quality" (Fit for the purpose for which they are intended) .......Aeroplanes suddenly gliding down from height does not infer "Merchantable Quality".................Periferal mods, made in the interest of enhancing reliability can't be bad and it may be that an insurance company trying to deny a claim on that basis may be unlucky... But for 24 people they MUST be accompanied by CAR21 ( or whatever he is now called) approval...I believe that there is a division in the type of modification.... Radical , Different heads ect, or Minor as in cooling improvements ect, .... .......To be sure? Build a 19 reg aircraft and call it what you like....

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I was referring to the amendment Act 1988. I'm not entering into a debate on that aspect; I would point out that the Jabiru 2200 engine has a Type Certificate issued by CASA; you can work out for yourself what that means under the TPA. What constitutes that engine is defined by its Type Design (See CASR 21.031). The best available quide to that is the parts catalog. I don't think cylinder head thermocouples are things you will find listed in the part catalog, if so adding additional sensors of that nature would not constitute a modification to the engine. They may, however, constitute a modification to the aircraft - unless they are supplementary to what is supplied by Jabiru, rather than a replacement for it. RAA registration seems to confuse LSA and TC aircraft, so it's not - as far as I can see - a reliable guide to which aircraft require mods to be approved under CASR 21.M and which require them to be approved by the manufacturer. However you seem to have a rather confused understanding about all this, so I suggest you research the subject. Or, as you suggest, stick to -19 aircraft.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

or save yourself the inevitable "I told you soes" and buy something else

 

 

[geoffreywh]

I exit stage left, then go flying, weather and Continental 0-200 permitting!

 

 

[facthunter]

Camit may well upgrade the engine, but installations vary , and the conditions the engines are subject to, vary. The engine will never be a "fit and forget" item. Engines need inspection, servicing, analysis of condition and rectification/ repair/ modification. It's ongoing.

 

Some engines need more than others, but as a category of power unit a piston engine rates way down for reliability as it is as light as possible, making every part work, so it becomes more critical in many ways. Cyclic loads and relatively high frequency , and harmonics are always present, variable air cooling effectiveness. It's a wonder they are as good as they are. The early Gnome and Rhone got about 4 hours on average between engine strips, and I wouldn't knock back a fly of a Camel or whatever, that had one in it. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I want a Clerget Camel

 

 

[Guest john]

There seems to be a lot of debate on this thread about the liability issues with Jabiru engine failures as to whether or not the manufacturers of these type engines would be held legally liable by an Insurer in the event of an engine failure in flight resulting in property or personal injury damage & subsequently an insurance claim were to be made.

 

Let me spell it out loud & clear after having been directly involved in the insurance industry for over 40 years. Insurance companies don't like writing out cheques, but they will gladly take your hard earned savings with a smile of their face.

 

If there is any way whatsoever to deny a claim, then from experience this is what will happen. I have witnessed this over & over again .

 

There is no compassion or benefit of the doubt whatsoever when it comes to insurance companies considering whether or not an insurance claim is to be paid. If the fine print in the subject policy provides a clause that is not within the policy conditions, then you can bet your bottom dollar that the insurance claim will be denied & then you become your own Insurer.

 

 

[jetjr]

More from Rod on LCH heads posted today. He is having big week

 

 

[AVOCET]

Its a bit of an odd stand, experimental is experimental

I don't insure my planes ,

 

I couldn't get insurance for the avocet any way .

 

Should make you more diligent ,

 

Says

 

the guy who had a prang .

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I would advise readers to keep the basics in mind:

 

1. If you modify a type-certificated engine, propeller or aircraft IN ANY WAY (and that means interfering with what is in its parts catalog, or by altering its adjustments from what they are supposed to be) WITHOUT HAVING A FORMAL APPROVAL TO DO SO - which means, you must have approved data as defined in CAR 2A - OR you allow the work to be performed by anybody who does not have a maintenance authority that covers the work, your insurance will be null & void, unless you have your insurer's agreement to cover the modified product (LOL).

 

2. The approval can take a number of forms: It can be a substitute part that is approved under a PMA (American) or APMA (Australian). It can be a major modification that is approved via a Supplemental Type Certificate. It can be a minor modification that is approved via an Engineering Order under CASR subpart 21.M. It can be a modification that is mandated by an Airworthiness Directive. It can be a modification that is allowed by the manufacturer under a field service document such as a Service Bulletin or Service Letter. These are all set out, in order of precedence, in CAR 2A.

 

3. If you perform an unapproved modification to a type certificated product used in a type certificated aircraft, you will have committed a criminal offence under the regulations. It's no defence whatever to grumble about lack of support from the manufacturer; the foregoing stands regardless.

 

If the engine or propeller is used in an experimental aircraft, rather than in a TC'd aircraft, modifying it without approved data voids its status as a certificated component; this is likely to void any operating conditions and also to void the insurance - but so far as I am aware, it's not a criminal offence in its own right, unless perhaps you fail to make the situation known to the responsible authority.

 

I am not aware of any formal approval for the fitment of the ROTEC water-cooled heads, or for that matter CAMit components, to a certificated Jabiru engine. At present, these components can only be fitted to engines used in an experimental (including, I suggest, CAO 95.55.1.5) aircraft - but you'd better let both RAA and your insurer know about it. I do know that a lot of effort is going into achieving an appropriate approval status for CAMit mods, but it will be a little longer before that reaches fruitition. In the meantime, they can be used where such formal approval is not required. If I had a 95.55.1.5 aircraft, I'd certainly use them.

 

What Rod Stiff has said is quite correct (with the possible exception of the bit about surrendering Lycoming data plates - tho Rod may have more recent knowledge of that than I do). Whatever one's views may be about his products, they do not alter the validity of what he has said.

 

 

[planesmaker]

Sorry to read your rant Deadstick. I do think the Jabiru airframe is a good, well tested airframe( including spin testing and drop testing etc) which we certainly would not have if it was not for Rod. Credit where credit is due. Tom

 

 

[deadstick]

Lol, sorry Tom, rant is focused on the engine! I love the airframe, albeit not of Rods design but wouldn't be here without his initial throuput. ( I have been known to rant ) so when ya bringing that Rotax powered beast up Tamworth way, would love to see it in person!!!

 

 

[planesmaker]

I hope to go to Narromine in September, about as close as I'll be for a while. Be happy to show you over it. I am just one very happy Jabiru owner. Tom

 

 

[jetboy]

I have a couple of questions for the panel....

 

When I looked up the Jabiru engine TCDS it has been issued once and updated once, for the change to hydraulic lifters. This would seem to mean one can do a huge amount of modification without requiring any formal testing or paperwork or proof of continued product serviceability in compliance with its TC. Is maintaining a TC that simple? is the TC really still valid?

 

The manufacturer claims they are ISO (I'm presuming here that the international certification he refers is ISO) - so there must be a traceable paper trail for all this within the company and all their suppliers would have to be ISO certified as well. I'd like to see the paperwork for the Chinese valves they supplied me which wouldnt fit their holes.

 

Which leads me to question 2. There has been lots of rumour about where the engines are made nowdays and where the parts come from. Is the engine still assembled in Aus? There was a story about cast alloy cylinders being developed too.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I have a couple of questions for the panel....When I looked up the Jabiru engine TCDS it has been issued once and updated once, for the change to hydraulic lifters. This would seem to mean one can do a huge amount of modification without requiring any formal testing or paperwork or proof of continued product serviceability in compliance with its TC. Is maintaining a TC that simple? is the TC really still valid?

ANSWER:

 

The mechanism for altering a Type certificate is set out in CASR Part 21 subpart D. I suggest you download it (the link is on the CASA website) and do a little reading. It would have required a re-run of the parts of the Certification Basis that were affected by the changes - presumably, the endurance run required by JAR 22 subpart H. If you look at the TCDS for the Cessna 172, you will see that it covers every version from the original 172 to the latest one. There's nothing whatever unusual about the TCDS for the Jabiru 2200.

 

It's about time some of the posters on this website got their facts right; it's not hard to do.

[jetjr]

Daffyd, all your points are good and correct however few Jabiru engines would be on certificated airframes, Whats the benefit of a TCDS engine in an RAA or experimental aircraft? Particularly one with some unfinished development work.

 

LSA have to do whatever Jabiru says so its a similar situation. This may or may not be a good thing if Jabiru wont accept improvements OR fix the issues themselves. Could easily be denied using solid improvements by commercial or personal preducices.

 

The story on LCH seems a bit rich, never seen these sold as Jabiru products or that they suit TC or LSA aircraft and they say so. The damaged heads shown are pretty typical older thick finned heads which overheated and leaked, I owned 6 a bit like this and yes its fair to insinuate detonation is a problem in some jab engines, it possibly is and would be a solid reason for other problems owners see. Being fair much of this overheating is solved with newer heads, but theres plenty old heads out there in the thousands flying.

 

Re the modification and using parts only from list, not sure there is an up to date list available as parts keep changing on the run. I think this is ok as things improve much faster and costs kept down. Just not sure how this sits with certification.

 

Re Jetboy post, I agree and not sure how Rod gives other manufacturers a hard time re levels of certification as the 3300 isnt TC either as far as I know. I too dont fully understand TCDS and the use of "ordinary" parts which change and swap depending on price and availability.

 

My whole point here is nothing to do with TC or not (I have no issue being non TC, accept the risk and go flying) but selling ideas that one product in their basket is TC makes all the rest somehow better and other manufacturers of parts or aircraft less of a product, thats just cutting down others who are doing good work and in fact extending the engines use and reputation.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Daffyd, all your points are good and correct however few Jabiru engines would be on certificated airframes, Whats the benefit of a TCDS engine in an RAA or experimental aircraft? Particularly one with some unfinished development work.LSA have to do whatever Jabiru says so its a similar situation. This may or may not be a good thing if Jabiru wont accept improvements OR fix the issues themselves. Could easily be denied using solid improvements by commercial or personal preducices.

The story on LCH seems a bit rich, never seen these sold as Jabiru products or that they suit TC or LSA aircraft and they say so. The damaged heads shown are pretty typical older thick finned heads which overheated and leaked, I owned 6 a bit like this and yes its fair to insinuate detonation is a problem in some jab engines, it possibly is and would be a solid reason for other problems owners see. Being fair much of this overheating is solved with newer heads, but theres plenty old heads out there in the thousands flying.

 

Re the modification and using parts only from list, not sure there is an up to date list available as parts keep changing on the run. I think this is ok as things improve much faster and costs kept down. Just not sure how this sits with certification.

 

Re Jetboy post, I agree and not sure how Rod gives other manufacturers a hard time re levels of certification as the 3300 isnt TC either as far as I know. I too dont fully understand TCDS and the use of "ordinary" parts which change and swap depending on price and availability.

 

My whole point here is nothing to do with TC or not (I have no issue being non TC, accept the risk and go flying) but selling ideas that one product in their basket is TC makes all the rest somehow better and other manufacturers of parts or aircraft less of a product, thats just cutting down others who are doing good work and in fact extending the engines use and reputation.

All the Jabiru 2200s used in training schools are, I think you will find, on either Type Certificated airframes or LSA certified airframes. Every factory-built Jabiru up to the J160C was Type certificated; after that the LSA rule came in and Jabiru was in a position to make use of it, so they did. The Jabiru 2200 J and 2200C are type certificated; I do not know whether they have other models that are self-certified under the LSA rules.

 

The advantage in using a TC'd engine on an experimental or CAO 95.55.1.5 aeroplane comes in two places - firstly, the hours required to be flown-off in a restricted area; secondly, the operating limitations that will subsequently be placed on the aircraft. I don't know how RAA handle those matters, but see the appendices to CASA AC 21.10.

 

I'm not familiar with how RAA handles the use of non-approved parts or non-approved aircraft modifications; this may be one of the aspects that is quite unsatisfactorily regulated, as a consequence of the RAA not using Certificates of Airworthiness. That's Darren Barnfield's problem, and I do not envy him. But in regard to a VH aeroplane, look up CAR 42U.

 

I was not trying to be judgemental in regard to Jabiru; merely to point out the legal consequences. Rod stated them correctly, IMHO.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

My theory is that Rod is starting to realise what a threat Camit is to his largest market the experimental aircraft business. You can read it anyway you like but I read it as a warning/threat against anyone using after-market parts on a Jabiru "we won't side with you [in an insurance claim] if your engine fails". Which is fair enough, that's Jabiru's prerogative.

 

 

[facthunter]

You can't be held responsible for what someone does with your product. Having "certified " engines fixes them at a point in time. Improvements?? require extra cost/paperwork. While this might achieve some "control" It obstructs sensible mods being able to be done by the average Joe. This doesn't suit a lot of people who do have a right to their point of view IF their liability and privileges are restricted appropriately. No change equals no progress. Hence the need for RAAus and experimental GA. Leave the Airlines to run their part of the show. That is what is happening now with some sort of self regulation.( Good luck to them, but that is another story).

 

IF you buy a plane "off the Hook" then you accept the restrictions that come with the category of plane it is. Very few People are capable of working to a good standard for RAAus even, and SAAA seem to be drowning in paperwork, trying to satisfy the CASA who want to shift responsibility off themselves. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

You can't be held responsible for what someone does with your product. Having "certified " engines fixes them at a point in time. Improvements?? require extra cost/paperwork. While this might achieve some "control" It obstructs sensible mods being able to be done by the average Joe. This doesn't suit a lot of people who do have a right to their point of view IF their liability and privileges are restricted appropriately. No change equals no progress. Hence the need for RAAus and experimental GA. Leave the Airlines to run their part of the show. That is what is happening now with some sort of self regulation.( Good luck to them, but that is another story).IF you buy a plane "off the Hook" then you accept the restrictions that come with the category of plane it is. Very few People are capable of working to a good standard for RAAus even, and SAAA seem to be drowning in paperwork, trying to satisfy the CASA who want to shift responsibility off themselves. Nev

It also achieves compliance with the law. You want to change that, go change the law. Exp. Cat and CAO 95.55.1.5 provide an alternative. It's one or the other.