CASA - Draft Proposal for Jabiru Aircraft

[2tonne]

Before I took up flying, I looked at the statistics on fatal accidents in the different aircraft. One statistic that stood out was that very few Jabiru airframes have been involved in fatal accidents, and also relatively few serious injuries have resulted from crashes or forced landings - their record in this regard is pretty impressive. I understand that CASA is acting due to safety concerns in relation to the engine, but if I can no longer fly solo as a student in a Jabiru airframe, then I will be forced into an airframe in which - according to the statistics - I am more likely to be killed.

 

I know that this is a simplified, big picture view, but I fail to see how forcing me out of a Jabiru would be improving safety for me. Nevertheless, if there are issues with the engines, would be good to see them addressed.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Yep 2tonne you are right. The real point of the problem with CASA is that the way they have gone about doing this "addressing" is so bad that it is likely to do more harm than good.

 

I like your big picture view and would like to see more of it. The big picture view is not considered enough.

 

 

[Teckair]

Well this thread is about a draft proposal for Jabiru aircraft

It has been suggested some pilots not coping with engine failures could be a reason for the draft proposal for Jabiru aircraft. Please don't say the fatalities have not been in Jabiru aircraft as it really is not the point.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's CASA's job to weigh up the statistics RAA have given them and minimise the risk to you.

 

Fortunately the fatal accident volume is still low enough that very few airframes period have been involved in fatal accidents.

 

Weight for weight, fibreglass reinforced plastic is stronger than aluminium, as a material.

 

Fibreglass has some advantage in that it can be moulded into compound curves and rippled adding to strength

 

Where a foam core and double skin construction is used it goes up to sandwich panel strength, which you can see around town in today's refrigerated vans

 

I too would say the Jabiru monococque design is a very strong one.

 

On the other hand, when a skilled person designs a space frame, and clads it in aluminium it can be made equally bullet proof, since the aluminium is just keeping the rain out.

 

Fibreglass has a memory, so in a crash, although it may have been massively deformed, it springs back into place and looks as if there has been very little damage, and that sometimes leads to exaggerated comments as to its strength. The memory means that the damaged parts can just be cut out and replacement mouldings laminated to the original using a lap joint which adds very slightly to weight, as against, in some cases a write off or jig rebuild of a space frame or monococque aluminium aircraft.

 

Most fatalities are due to dropping from altitude or hitting terrain at high speed, and in both cases you would expect to see a pile of shattered and bent wreckage, so the type of construction is not going to make much difference.

 

In the case of an engine failure, if we look at two aspects:

 

(a) We have flown over a forest, and although we have the aircraft in a glide, the most probably scenario is localised impact damage similar to a car hitting a pole, with a fatal being the most likely outcome for either of the constructions.

 

(b) We panic and forget to set the aircraft into a glide and it either spins in or breaks up. The most likely scenario is a fatal for both constructions.

 

Where we successfully pull off a forced landing and get the aircraft on the ground around its normal landing speed, the strength of the construction plays a bigger part.

 

Both types of construction have their pluses and minuses, with space frame having an advantage with localised impacts, like a post, or small tree, but mononocques doing better against a concrete wall, and of monocoques or equal weight, fibreglass doing better than aluminium.

 

Once you touch the ground many different forces come into play:

 

I read a report once where the pilot of a Jab got it down OK but saw the fence coming up and ground looped it, sliding sideways into the fence with the lightweight doors taking the impact, and he got a broken arm (which is still a good outcome)

 

I saw a photo just a few weeks ago were a Jab made a forced landing on a ploughed paddock, and it looked to me as if the furrows started a vibration which too out the windscreen pillars, dropping the dash and engine into the dirt, so the pilot and passenger would have become the new nose of the moving aircraft if it had kept going. So in that case there was potential for a worse outcome, but the repair looked to be quite an easy one.

 

We've also seen quite a few photos of bent and distorted fuselages in space frame and monocoque aircraft.

 

The point I'm getting at here is that Jabiru has a very good fuselage, but it concerns me that some people are over-selling it, leading to over-confidence in pilots.

 

For example, in recent times there have been photos showing an intact prop, intact fuse and intact undercarriage, in other words none of those areas hit in the event, yet the claim has been how strong the frame was. That is just misleading.

 

 

[2tonne]

Most fatalities are due to dropping from altitude or hitting terrain at high speed, and in both cases you would expect to see a pile of shattered and bent wreckage, so the type of construction is not going to make much difference.

Perhaps it has less to do with airframe strength and more to do with performance and handling of the aircraft, and that this is what is reflected in the statistics? Are some of the other non-Jabiru aircraft more likely to get me into trouble (i.e. stall/spin) as a low hours pilot?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hitting terrain at high speed often occurs as a result of either flying in cloud, or falling out of cloud, unauthorised aerobatics, component failure etc. they mainly relate to complying with the law.

 

For performance and handling, you would take the advice of your Instructor, as to any quirks.

 

In RA I can only comment on Jabiru handling, and again, if you were looking at an alternative aircraft, your Instructor, if he has flown both types is the person to go to for an accurate comparison. I always go up with an instructor on a different aircraft and ask him to grade me harshly, then make notes of any likely screw ups.

 

 

[poteroo]

Perhaps it has less to do with airframe strength and more to do with performance and handling of the aircraft, and that this is what is reflected in the statistics? Are some of the other non-Jabiru aircraft more likely to get me into trouble (i.e. stall/spin) as a low hours pilot?

Probably not. Some have a lower stalling speed in the landing configuration and so, if flown according to the POH, would in theory have a lower impact force in the event of a touchdown accident. Aircraft such as Foxbats, Savannahs come to mind as lower approach speed types. If you are instructed competently, and operate whichever type you fly, to the numbers in its' POH - you are going to be as 'safe' as is possible. I'd suggest you don't 'think' about which type or make is 'safest'. When you look at accident statistics, the number attributable to mechanical failure is far outweighed by 'pilot error' No aircraft can out-think an unprepared, ham-fisted pilot. happy days,

 

 

[motzartmerv]

No aircraft can out-think an unprepared, ham-fisted pilot. happy days,

Too right!!

 

 

[facthunter]

A normal aircraft won't stall without the pilot doing it. The pilot is the most dangerous thing about an aircraft..Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

Perhaps it has less to do with airframe strength and more to do with performance and handling of the aircraft, and that this is what is reflected in the statistics? Are some of the other non-Jabiru aircraft more likely to get me into trouble (i.e. stall/spin) as a low hours pilot?

Competant Jab pilots would probably find other aircraft easier to fly. More than likely, problems would occur in reverse with non Jab trained pilots in a Jab....

 

 

[alf jessup]

No 2tonne

 

Fly all aircraft according to the POH and you won't stall & spin

 

My Tecnam has a lower approach speed and lower stall speed than most Jabs

 

The higher performance you go the more complex the aircraft becomes and the further ahead of the plane you have to be

 

alf

 

 

[kaz3g]

Yes , it's a collection of responses. Not statistics or data of any kind , I did read them all jet.I enjoy your digs at instructors :)

Really? Nothing left to offer ? Let's start attacking instructors now, why not. We have attacked everyone else in the industry. Let's continue the downward spiral of rubbish.

 

Your posts are often insightful and well constructed, but some times they are just a big girly whinge withe sly digs and childish rants.

 

Please continue to offer the well founded and respectful knowledge you have, we all enjoy it :))

Hi Merv

 

Enough of the "girly"... Big, unfounded, offensive, off the planet are fine but "girly" is out, especially on White Ribbon Day.

 

Thanks

 

Kaz.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Sorry kaz. Didnt mean to offend. It was a statement backed by statisictal data however.:))

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes you did mean to offend, and yes you did

 

First class members must be exempt from reproach here

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Some of my posts were removed today..:).... Next unfounded complaint?

 

 

[2tonne]

So, from what has been said in the posts above, it seems it is not the engine, the airframe or the performance/handling characteristics of the Jabiru aircraft that give it such a good safety record.

 

If it is none of those factors, then what is it? Is it because Jabiru aircraft clock a lot of hours in training under the guidance of our excellent RAA instructors? In other words, are a lot of the hours flown in the least risky operational category compared to other aircraft makes?

 

 

[turboplanner]

....or it could be that a lot of people are repeating what a lot of other people are saying, and just confusing everyone.

 

Best to not overthink this based on little public data, but to talk to your instructor.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

@2tonne There are no big mountain ranges in Australia, very little open water and tiny snow fields. Very few Jabirus fly at night

[deadstick]

So let me get this straight, Jabiru themselves have admitted to CASA that there are still three modes of engine failure that they can't explain. Yet we are outraged because CASA have proposed to act under their charter to minimise potential risk to other human beings and the unsuspecting public! If I recall correctly a 19 registered aircraft is not allowed to fly over a populous area unless it is fitted with a "recognised and authorised" power plant and given a written waiver by the tech manager! It seems that this is exactly the restriction that is being proposed should Jabiru be unable to rectify the issue. I personally own two Jabs and have a well documented history of trouble with them both and stand to lose a lot of money should they devalue any further ( already at rock bottom) but I understand that the regulator has a job to do and expect them to if there is in fact an identified issue. From the outset Jabiru have donee everything they can to lobby, fearmonger and ignore the regulator, I mean they are asking people to request that the minister order the safety regulator to ignore their concerns for Christ sake! Even after recognising publicly that there is some work to do they are again trying to bias the data by ignoring negative information in their survey, of which should have been done a decade ago. I am confident that they can resolve these issues but not under the current approach.

 

 

[coljones]

So, from what has been said in the posts above, it seems it is not the engine, the airframe or the performance/handling characteristics of the Jabiru aircraft that give it such a good safety record.If it is none of those factors, then what is it? Is it because Jabiru aircraft clock a lot of hours in training under the guidance of our excellent RAA instructors? In other words, are a lot of the hours flown in the least risky operational category compared to other aircraft makes?

I would suspect that training presents the greatest danger in aviation. Big planes have far fewer issues mainly because they a circuit a month unlike quite a few RAA planes where it is circuits, circuits, circuits, power-up, power-down, bounce bounce, and off we go again, day-in, day-out. Jabirus constitute a fair proportion of the RAA training fleet and their continued operation in the face of the punishment they receive is a testament to the builders and maintainers and in spite of the pilots.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not sure what RA statistics are, but Paul Craig in his book "The Killing Zone" said the student phase is the safest until about 500<700 hours, in the US, and I'm sure I've read the same thing here in GA.

 

The main reason is the amount of supervision of both the aircraft and the student, and the student tending to be at his/her most compliant in operating the aircraft strictly by his instructor, and flying regularly. Once out of the clutches of his instructor slackness and over-confidence can seep in, and recency can become an issue.

 

He lists his "killing zone" as from about 40 hours to about 320 for Private and Student Pilots.

 

 

[Captain]

Latest from Jabiru just received by email ............

 

Hello Jabiru Fleet, As you are aware CASA has issued a draft proposal to place operational limitations on Jabiru Aircraft. At a regulatory level Jabiru are communicating with CASA management and the Minister. CASA’s proposed document is virtually unprecedented in content and approach. We have sent our response. In summary:- “The proposed instrument concerning operating limitations for Jabiru powered aircraft should be withdrawn immediately and without reservation.” At an operational level we are having regular talks with CASA and the RA-Aus to improve communications and develop better methods and processes for managing the relationship between Regulator, Administrator and Manufacturer. At heart we all want a vibrant, active and safe recreational aviation sector and Jabiru are committed to doing what we can to achieve this. At a technical level Jabiru’s engineers and staff are liaising with their CASA contacts and are making steady progress working through the items on the technical agenda. For many obvious reasons Jabiru does not conduct R&D in public nor publish every internal engineering report, however in the last 12 months 153 drawing revisions have been made along with revisions to many operating, maintenance, technical and overhaul manuals. 3 Service Letters or Bulletins (or their LSA category equivalents) have been published and 25 people have visited Jabiru for maintenance training. All of this work has been carried out with the one goal of improving the reliability and ultimately the safety of our products. At a grass-roots level we have contacted many operating flying schools, asking them for information which will help us gather essential data to assess the currency of their configuration. This information will form a very important tool for us and we strongly urge people to take the time to provide the information as fully as possible. We are also appealing to people to keep flying and enjoying their aircraft! Overall, Jabiru is moving forward and embarking on a program of positive changes. You will see regular technical and engineering updates for engines and airframes. Jabiru conducts engine maintenance courses and we will run more courses, more often. Communications at all levels will be improved. In accordance with the CASA website the consultation period on the proposed instrument has been extended until 27 November 2014 and all submissions should be forwarded to [email protected] - Only 1 day left! While Jabiru and the RA-Aus work on the formal agenda with CASA we encourage members, businesses, owners and operators to contact federal and local members of parliament to provide input regarding the CASA imposed restrictions, detailing potential financial impacts or distress, loss of potential customers, negative effects on employment, reputational damage, etc. Your federal member details can be found at www.aph.gov.au with state and local details available at the relevant government website. Finally, some food for thought: Records given to CASA for this year indicated 40 engine incidents. Of these incidents there have been twelve engine stoppages in flight resulting in forced landings. No serious injuries or fatalities were recorded. Nearly 41,800 hours were flown in Jabirus in Australia in that time with 92,700 flights. It has been a very difficult and stressful time for Jabiru and it’s not over yet. However, as we drove to work today we saw a 20-year-old Jabiru LSA flying circuits and training its latest pilot. It helps to know that that little plane has probably trained at least 200 people in its life so far, that there are plenty of Jabirus in schools worldwide and there are a lot of smiles per hour happening because of Jabiru. That’s what we’re here for.

 

 

[jetjr]

Deadstick, Ill say again

 

People ARE NOT upset CASA have acted but how they have done it and how broad the limitations - all models, all ages inc experimental

 

No PAX, no training is a big deal for many

 

 

[aro]

40 engine incidents. Of these incidents there have been twelve engine stoppages in flight resulting in forced landings.

12 forced landings is rather different to 40, which is how the statistics seemed to be presented. Were the numbers for the other engines engine failures with forced landings, or "engine incidents", whatever they are? Do we even have a consistent definition of "engine incident" across the different engine types?

 

 

[01rmb]

This topic has generated a lot of comment and discussion from the groups of people that support and those that do not the CASA restrictions on aircraft owned by RA-Aus members. The people that own a Jabiru aircraft and are directly affected by these restrictions are most concerned about engine reliability because they fly behind one and any measures taken to improve this.

 

I agree that there are those that have experienced problems (and financial loss) and agree that something should be done but in a way that actually achieves the goal of improving reliability not punish people who through good practice do not have a problem. The best solution is to require Jabiru to undertake the investigation and research of the failures and to implement engine improvements in parts, maintenance or operational processes. To restrict all operations based on engines over 25 year history with no regard to the version, level or quality of maintenance or operational use (flight training is going to take a far heavier toll on aircraft than a quiet sunday morning flight) is extreme and with no regard for evidence of why the failures occur.

 

For those that feel it is CASA's duty to uphold safety, no matter the consequences, on the basis that CASA's actions relate to saving lives - Will the same people that support these current actions to restrict aircraft operations take the same position if next week, CASA determines that the current RA-Aus medical requirements are too lax and that everyone that flies needs to complete the CASA Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate or Class 2 medical before their next flight to eliminate the threat of old unhealthy people with dodgy tickers flying around with passengers over populated areas? Probably just as much or more evidence against letting people fly who can't satisfy the Class 2 medical requirements as there is against the failure rate of Jabiru engines...