jabiru down brisbane

[dazza 38]

Especially if you get distracted from flying the plane - ask John Denver.

Yes, although in John's case, he accidentally pushed against the rudder pedal while leaning back to the rear fire wall to change tanks on the fuel selector. It fuel selector is normally piped forward to the front cockpit. But in his aircraft, the builder decided that he didn't want fuel lines in the cockpit so he located the fuel selector onto the rear fire wall. Probably cost John his life .

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Yes, although in John's case, he accidentally pushed against the rudder pedal while leaning back to the rear fire wall to change tanks on the fuel selector. It fuel selector is normally piped forward to the front cockpit. But in his aircraft, the builder decided that he didn't want fuel lines in the cockpit so he located the fuel selector onto the rear fire wall. Probably cost John his life .

Yes, that was the distraction. I'm sure we are all a bit lucky to be here and able to critique other people's incidents. Laurie

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

This is a bad look, on any inspection of it. The new CEO has - it seems - shot his mouth off and managed to simultaneously make himself look rather foolish, while also conveying to the readers of the article that one of the most populous aircraft in the RAA fleet has 'serious' safety issues. I have no idea of the depth of knowledge he may have of aviation in general and RAA operation specifically, but I do not recall that being highlighted in the commentary when he was appointed. Prima facie, that seems to be fairly well up there on the scale of two shots to the foot without pausing to re-load.

And no one would do that here would they? .... Oh the joy of foolhardy anonymity and armchair experts - no specific reference to you Oscar!

 

 

[poteroo]

The classic Freudian slip - and from a lawyer yet! Could have been any one of us with some knowledge of the issue.

 

happy days,

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I will rest easy knowing at least, finally, someone, somewhere is trying to fix the problem.

 

 

[robinsm]

The anti jab faction seems to be failing to distinguish between the fuse which seems to be a strong good one and a motor which seems to be the part having the problems. What results from the jab conversion with a rotax 912?

 

Don't can the whole for one part failing. (I don't have one, don't want one, just saying in the interests of a fair go...)

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I've just rushed through the 5 or 6 pages of posts since my last one. Amazingly intense debate going on considering we really know nothing other than what has been reported in the press. And let's face it, the Courier bloody Mail? Could be the worst newspaper in Australia. . .

 

One brief phone call today to a 100% reliable source gave me information we've all been guessing at:

 

The Jabiru did

 

not

 

run out of fuel.

 

That was all I asked and am happy to let the investigation run its proper course and until it has we will not have an authoritative reason for the Jab engine giving up in flight.

 

I also enquired about the CEO's statement from a different source but not directly with the CEO - not wanting to distract him from useful work. I have no doubt in my mind he was misquoted to jazz the story up much as was reported by Andy @ Coffs. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

My personal risk management strategy with regard to Jabiru engines is not based on a definitive study. It is based on my judgement and experience and the not so surprising conclusion I reach is that I seriously doubt that Jabiru engines are as reliable as Rotax. My choice, please feel free to do your own risk assessment and determine your own risk strategy.

 

I also think it more likely than not that a Rotax engine over 2,000 hours would cost less than a Jabiru engine(s) over the same period despite the higher purchase price and expensive parts. It would also result in less down time due to checks and adjustments and at best partial overhauls every 500 hours or so.

 

The private letter I wrote was to one Board Member who is a L2 and CFI and a successful operator of Jab engines and eminently capable of coming to his own conclusions. My urging was that the investigation needed to have the same vigour as if a report was being prepared for the Coroner for a multiple fatality accident. Too often we get fed that an engine failure in flight is no big deal you just land the aircraft. My contention is that we've been lucky not to have more fatalities during forced landings. No doubt some of that luck we have made for ourselves with the Pilot:

 

• having had good enough and recent training;

 

• not having panicked;

 

• having chosen a landing site well;

 

• having had a suitable landing site within reach;

 

• having not received a rude surprise in the form of windshear or hidden objects

 

or mobile objects (people, cows, ‘roos, tractors, etc.) when they’re just a few hundred feet

 

from the ground and committed to landing; and,

 

• have been well protected by the airframe (Jabiru).

 

but, luck will run out.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I hope the actual cause comes out because it doesnt sit well with me if the pilot has been ridiculed for something that was out of his control.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The anti jab faction seems to be failing to distinguish between the fuse which seems to be a strong good one and a motor which seems to be the part having the problems. What results from the jab conversion with a rotax 912?Don't can the whole for one part failing. (I don't have one, don't want one, just saying in the interests of a fair go...)

I have on a many occasions agreed with the widely held, reasonable view that Jabiru airframes are as good as any on the market. I'd go further and say that for Australian conditions, I believe the J230 is the best aircraft on the market. I've also mentioned that I've flown a J160 with a Rotax 100hp 912 and it was a pure delight. I did my XC Navs in that aircraft immediately after the conversion. There is a very clear distinction from all I read that the Jabiru airframe is exemplary.

My big disappointment with the engines is that they could be brilliant, especially the six if Jabiru would commit to the engineering fixes. It is just a matter of engineering - nothing insoluable here.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I hope the actual cause comes out because it doesnt sit well with me if the pilot has been ridiculed for something that was out of his control.

I think most of the statements people have made here included the "if" word or it was at least implied in the discussion.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

What is more of an issue here which hasn't been mentioned is the perception of unsafe practices that people will have of the RAA operation at Archerfield. Yes this has been the second crash with this aircraft but they have also had another making three incidents. The pilot used his training, skill and a huge amount of good luck to manoeuvre the aircraft to a successful landing (any landing you can walk away from is supposed to be OK, right?) but really, is their operating regime flawed? For instance, using mogas in an aircraft where weather conditions could increase the risk of carby icing or was it a case of having too much air in the tanks? Comments locally at Archerfield seem to support the later, so was proper flight planning carried out to ensure enough fuel carried for flight and reserves?

 

 

[Keenaviator]

I too have no doubt that the Rotax 912, most Lycomings and Continentals are more reliable than Jabiru engines but none are as reliable as turbines. It's all relative.

 

Jabiru engines were developed out of necessity when there were much lower weight limits for our aircraft and no four stroke alternatives with the required power to weight ratio available. The 912 may have been available but too heavy for the early weight limits.

 

No doubt Rod and his mates are the type of blokes who don't mind a challenge and went for it after KFM let them down. We seem to be overlooking the fact that Jabiru have pretty humble beginnings (compared to Rotax who have a massive company behind them - Bombadier who not only produce engines for aircraft but jetskis, snow mobiles, lots of motorbikes.....). If Rod and co at Jabiru had 600 kg to design to back in the '90's they probably wouldn't have bothered developing an engine. Imagine, the 170 with a 912s, they'd have to work well together. Anyway, the Jabiru engine manufacting industry is established and very successfull and has allowed many people to get into the air in a variety of aircraft. I'm on my second Jabiru powered aircraft, the first being Corby Starlet 28-3381 (no longer owned by me but still going great and much loved by its current owner) and my current UL 450.

 

For me, there is a certain amount of national pride in Jabiru's achievements. Hearing the incessant and often hasty, uncalled for put downs by some, is in a way offensive. You've got to smile and think 'what the heck' when some of the most vocal critics of Jabiru have proudly displayed in their avatars that the aircraft they fly is powered by an engine with a 300 hour TBO. So far the only real engine failures I have experienced have been in aircraft powered by these.

 

I understand that Jabiru engines are a work in progress. So too are all other aircraft engines although Jabiry may be a bit more intensive in their requirement for vigilance. I also understand that flying is dangerous and there is no such thing as an infallible engine, aircraft or pilot. There are no guarantees on a safe return from any flight - that's why we should perform a careful risk assessment prior to any flight (or drive to the airstrip....).

 

Laurie

 

 

[nong]

I dunno about everybody else, but I always dip the tanks before I fly.

Not appropriate advice for Jabiru wing tanks.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Oh, and by the way, you will be getting your Brumby parts from China in future..good luck with that..

Who needs brumby parts? Anyway, we cant all use parts from supercheap.

 

 

[jetjr]

As always we see comment about how good the 912 is, however just 20 hp short of powering many Jabirus.

 

My point being, the arguabley most popoular and universally aclaimed fuse in australian RAA aircraft, j230, canot be powered by the engine rotax supporters promote.

 

There are examples using 914 but thats a very different animal in cost, weight and and performance.

 

Next point is recent sad events says having a great engine doesnt guarantee safe flying

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not appropriate advice for Jabiru wing tanks.

What's your advice?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

When I cant put any more in then I know I have 130Litres, I keep track of hours flown between refills with very conservatively high per hour usage rates, and use gauges as a rough check that what I believe is in the tank is in the tank. I don't allow anyone else to fly the aircraft and therefore any fuel management failure sits solely with me...... My gauges are the older site glass which means that you have to do the reading and take the sloshing around into account if your in turbulent air, and must fly balanced if you want an accurate(ish) reading), but as for chances of a failure occurring to make the gauge unserviceable, not so likely.

 

Closest I came to failure was when I took the spats off and was cruising down to Maitland for the day, I expected a slower cruise but was using a throttle setting that was too high above the cruise part of the needle and into the part of the needle where it transitions to the full power mix, the point of transition is not smooth, its quite pronounced and you jump from fuel usage levels in the mid 20's to high 30's with only a relatively small increase in RPM...... I have a fuel flow meter in the 230 but it is at the far opposite of the panel and I had a first time passenger so didn't notice what I should have noticed and I took off with less than a full load ( a trap for hangaring at a field with no AVGAS......) I noticed I was abnormally low in the low down section of the inland lane of entry into Maitland......My obvious discomfort and suddenly furious interest in the gauges was unnerving to the passenger...... When I refilled I put 110L in the wing so still had 10 Litres of useable in the wings plus the sump , but it felt to me at the time as though I was down to mere minutes..... Not a mistake I will be making again, and another that but for luck could have had me appearing as a statistic. A point worth making is that in some cases people actually run out and become a thread here others such as myself only go close....yet what caused the actual stoppage and what caused the close call is exactly the same failure (a general comment and not one specific to this thread cause we don't exactly know if exhaustion was the reason here) , so be careful when talking about "how on earth was such a thing possible" the fact that it repeats time after time since flying first started suggests that all of us could easily find ourselves in the same place. Perhaps for the majority of us the failure is known only to us and a few close friends yet for those that get to actual exhaustion the failure is suddenly know by all.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

Your experience shows that en route fuel burn calculations are an important part of flight management, and introduces an interesting additional difficulty with home made aircraft - the constant specification variations and changes.

 

A problem like you had would have been more obvious in an aircraft with accurate gauges, and given you the chance to recalculate much earlier, and people who are building in the hope of cross country flying might consider whether they really want the novelty value of a glass panel, or spending money on accurate fuel monitoring, and maybe saving the aircraft at some stage.

 

Sounds like you have a needle or main jet tuning issue - there should be a seamless transition from the part throttle needle phase to the full throttle main jet phase, which could be needle sitting too low/wrong taper, if the main jet is the correct size.

 

Another issue with the flat Jab tanks is that if there is a slight slope, or a tyre is slightly down you can dip the tank and still get a false reading.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

To be blunt there is only 1 filling volume that I personally believe you can take to the bank and that's full.....anything else after the first fill after completely empty is an approximation....As such you err on the conservative side and its something that is considered EVERY flight no matter what it is you are doing even just the local circuits you are doing to keep the bore corrosion at bay by running the engine up to full operating temp...

 

Andy

 

 

[rankamateur]

To be blunt there is only 1 filling volume that I personally believe you can take to the bank and that's full.....anything else after the first fill after completely empty is an approximation....

Trouble with this for most people is that taking a full fill of fuel leaves them only with the option of leaving their pax on the side line to watch them have all the fun, if the pax is also their spouse this can only lead to grief!

 

 

[Oscar]

The private letter I wrote was to one Board Member who is a L2 and CFI and a successful operator of Jab engines and eminently capable of coming to his own conclusions. My urging was that the investigation needed to have the same vigour as if a report was being prepared for the Coroner for a multiple fatality accident. Too often we get fed that an engine failure in flight is no big deal you just land the aircraft.

Don, if the said Board Member is who I think you may mean (SEQ-based) then I reckon you couldn't have made a better choice.

 

And I absolutely support the idea that far more in-depth investigation of engine failure (and let's broaden that to ALL engine failures, the maker's name alone doesn't keep the prop turning) is way overdue. If we had a base of comprehensive information about the genuine causes of the failure, rather than just a cursory note about the failed component, we would have good picture of what needs to be done to improve matters. I believe that picture would include not only 'component' susceptibility to failure but also a far more informative picture of other areas that can lead, in a chain of circumstances, to a failure.

 

At the moment, about all we have are a few 'boxes' into which the causes - and in many cases, the real cause(s) are not discovered, all that is known is the effect - get placed. We are all aware that those 'boxes' have increasingly become more widely separated, with one camp shouting incessantly 'component failure' and the other tending to re-buff with 'maintenance / operation' when it is rarely the case that you can make such a clear separation.

 

Without going into chapter and verse here, because it is both a vexed and also a highly complex matter, suffice it to say that the lack of comprehensive information serves nobody well, or even possibly at all. It gives rise to competing accusations and 'conclusions' that are jumped at, sometimes from a great distance and with a huge amount of vigor. Apart from keeping some aviation sites bubbling along with arguments, I don't see it improving things.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Trouble with this for most people is that taking a full fill of fuel leaves them only with the option of leaving their pax on the side line to watch them have all the fun, if the pax is also their spouse this can only lead to grief!

Indeed! but what in aviation doesn't require a compromise

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

See new thread - "Fuel contents gauging"

 

 

[rankamateur]

See new thread - "Fuel contents gauging"

On which forum?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Can you still buy a car that doesn't have a working fuel gauge?