CASA - Draft Proposal for Jabiru Aircraft

[Guest Maj Millard]

If you are trying for the most unpopular member of RAA in the northern region, you can relax I think you have already achieved that.

Frank I doubt I got your vote last time anyway....I'm not here to make friends...I'm here to get things done on your behalf for our organization......Fortunatly most aren't thinking the way you are, as the input I recieved from my last area newsletter ( the only board member sending one out by the way) shows. The majority of it very positive.

In fact I just got off the phone with a local area Jab driver ( Rob Gray) who was more than happy to give me a call and chew the fat, rather than some who just whinge as usual on the sidelines.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Can't win them all Ross just keep on doing what your doing, our organisation will benefit from the efforts the board puts in, without a board we have no organisation, win win situation I see it, we have an RAA that will give us the privileges to fly and some people might get a better run out of their engines IF the company decides to help the owners instead of blaming them ALL.

 

Alf

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Oh come on guys (Maj and Frank), you're both too intelligent for that, leave that to me and FT

 

 

[facthunter]

People will apportion fault after the event . They always do. I'm 100% with Dafydd on this at the moment. We have been distinctly stupid. To start a process when you cannot predict the outcome is outright stupidity. It's a like a death wish or an insane gamble. Nev

 

 

[alf jessup]

Nev

 

It all started with a factory that has produced a fairly ordinary piece of machinery that hasn't done much than more than put band aid fixes on it for the last 20 years, 50,000 fairly reliable 912's have been produced over the last 25 years compared to 6000 in the last 20 years, someone got it right even though it costs more, you pay a price for reliability.

 

It isn't Maj's fault or anyone else's fault other than the manufacturers they have bought this on themselves through shear denial and blaming of others.

 

I am happy for the likes of Jetr & Frank and plenty of others who have had a good run out them, but I am not happy like the owners who shelled out decent money on a product they have had serious problems with that the factory won't support.

 

Alf

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Frank had a failure didn't he?

 

 

[alf jessup]

Frank had a failure didn't he?

Don't know Andy,

 

It was a presumption.

 

Alf

 

 

[dmech]

Bex,No, I have just replaced thru bolts on 2200 that had broken a top bolt. Flying school using avgas and maintained to the letter. Done about 400 hrs from factory bulk strip / repair where ,if I recall correctly , new thru bolts were fitted. Tom

Hi Planesmaker the top bolt u mention which side was that on oil filter side /dipstick side would appreciate your reply on this

A.D.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

IF the company decides to help the owners instead of blaming them ALL.

 

Alf,

 

Jabiru in my experience and others at the three clubs I am a member of would refute that comment.

 

I personally have had ownership of two J 230's in the last 10 years.

 

Minor problems sure, but the advice and service given has NEVER been anything but constructive.

 

Like, what speed to I climb? What oil do I use? What fuel do I use? Do I use additives? Time between oil changes? Etc.

 

Which is a normal request over the phone.

 

So to sum up at short notice. They have been very responsive and NO blame put back to me.

 

Hearsay on this site has gotten out of hand as Dafydd has indicated.

 

Back up your comments would be great.

 

Phil

 

 

[motzartmerv]

They have been very responsive and NO blame put back to me.

l

Not blamed you for what tho? You said yourself you have only had minor problems.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I may be totally wrong so someone explain why I am if I am, but:-

 

FTF's in general must be making money or they would not be there.

 

Many (not all I understand) planes used by FTF's are owned by other people or syndicates.

 

So if a plane becomes unavailable for any reason it is just a piece of machinery and at the end of the day it is not irreplaceable.

 

Yes I understand that many people will be out of pocket and in many cases will go broke if the worst happens.

 

However smart profitable FTF's will already be sourcing new aircraft and new owners to provide those aircraft.

 

Sure many are going to take a hit but this instrument if enacted will not stop people from wanting to fly or from taking up flying.

 

It may turn some away who have either had enough mentally or financially but there will always be new blood.

 

Worst case scenario is RAA may not be the same in 12 months but it will still be here.

 

FTF's may not be the same in 12 weeks but whilst there are people wanting to learn/hire then they will still be here.

 

So all this talk of this being the end of RAA/FTF's is IMHO quite ludicrous.

 

I feel for those who have much to lose but the reality is life goes on.

 

Of the 15 plus FTF's that I have had anything to do with since I got into this flying thing, I would say 1 of them has 50% Jabs and the rest would have an ever decreasing percentage down to at least half of them having 0 Jabs at all. (Anecdotal I know but not a long way of what I have seen).

 

So yes this will hurt but it is certainly not the end of the world and life will go on. But then if Jabiru simply find out what the regulator wants and work to achieve that then no problem really. I know life is not Black or White, but it should be.

 

Cheers Geoff13

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

On the note of fuel:

 

I've had a couple of times when my Cheetah has sat for a few months and I've gone for a fly and it's had really noticeable vibration at full power after a few minutes (just after take-off, was really worrying first time).

 

Throttled back and landed, then filled tank with new 98 and all was good.

 

Basically what I'm saying is when fuel is an issue, it seems to be pretty noticeable and still didn't hurt the engine.

 

I woudn't blame everything on fuel.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

another interview

 

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/11/bst_20141119_0822.mp3

 

RAA and Jabiru are arguing that no restrictions should apply until someone dies. CASA is saying Jabiru/RAA should act before someone dies.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

and the flight schools are arguing that they don't know how to run a business, so any change could cause them to close

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Not blamed you for what tho? You said yourself you have only had minor problems.

I was refering to Alf's statement that Jabiru blames ALL owners. Quote.

 

Phil

 

 

[Flyingfish]

Curse the software; I could not finish my post. Here goes again:All right, out of all this shouting & tumult, what do we have? Let me see if I can summarise it:

 

1. We have a statistic - not necessarily a very good-quality statistic, but still, it's about all we currently have - of one engine failure in around 3300 landings - i.e. 0.03% of movements. Roughly a probability of one in a thousand per flying hour.

 

2. As a result of this statistic, plus a lot of noise from certain persons, RAA demanded action from CASA. In so doing, it is arguable that RAA did not consider the statistic in the proper context of the other statistical risks that apply to any recreational aircraft to a greater or lesser degree; they merely saw that the Jabiru statistic was not as good as that for the Rotax 912, realised their impotence to do anything constructive about that, and lodged a rather unthinking complaint.

 

3. CASA over-reacted, causing panic amongst Jabiru owners and operators, and degrading the resale value of their assets; the total financial loss is likely to run into tens of millions of dollars. To a monkey with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

4. Many owners have de-registered their aircraft, and many have resigned from RAA, which in all probability threatens to cause RAA to collapse.

 

5. There are persons who may have a valid grievance, who have either launched or threatened legal action against Jabiru, and who are still making a lot of noise, which may or may not result in a class action against Jabiru. These people are, it would seem, out for blood, and do not care what the collateral damage may be.

 

6. The threat of any such action can only have the result that Jabiru will resist all claims that their product is defective; to do otherwise would be to admit liability, which would be suicidal.

 

7. The collateral damage will be that the Jabiru owners who would simply like the probability of an engine failure reduced from 0.03% per movement, to perhaps 0.015%, are most unlikely to have that available from Jabiru.

 

8. CAMit (CAE) can provide that sort of improvement, but they are hamstrung by their dependence on the ongoing income from manufacturing about ten Jabiru engines a month for Jabiru, to Jabiru's design. If Jabiru folds, CAMit folds. So the collateral damage will also prevent any "fix" from CAMit.

 

9. Aircraft having either E24 or 19 registration, or VH experimental, are free to fit a CAE engine. In any case, the inclusion of experimental aircraft in the CASA draft Instrument is invalid, and can be expected to be removed. (RAA could do something useful by trying to hasten this).

 

10. The CASA personalities involved very likely have their back so the wall, with Ministerial "please explains" to answer - so they are likely to do everything possible to justify their actions.

 

So, in summary, we have a completely stupid situation on all sides. It is not constructive to point fingers at this stage, it's far too late for that. This is a lose-lose situation. Either the rock or the hard place has to back off.

 

To quote Mark Twain:

 

"I wish I loved the human race;

 

I wish I loved its silly face;

 

And when I'm introduced to one,

 

I wish I thought "What jolly fun."

========================

 

Thanks for your summary Dafydd.

 

I would like to know exactly what RAA communicated to CASA to provoke the over-reaction. Can anyone find out where the idea came from that there is a recent increase in engine failures? (Help us out, you board members!) The only stats publically available from RAA are a single point in time, no evidence of increasing rate of failures. Was there an RAA board meeting with minutes agreeing on a resolution to request CASA to intervene? Surely there has to be some documentation of the request - how do members of RAA get access to this to evaluate it? I checked the 19 October board meeting minutes on the RAA website and there is no hint of this Jabiru issue. Ironically there is a motion requesting the CEO to pursue greater privileges for RAA members including controlled airspace endorsements. Can't see us getting that step up any time soon in this climate...

 

I did find the incident reports page which shows 38 Jabiru incidents occurred so far in 2014, which I have broken down as follows:

 

Engine failure = 18 (includes 5 x through bolt failures, 2 x case failure, 1 x valve failure, 10 x not identified yet)

 

Pilot error in technique/judgement = 14

 

Landing gear failure = 3

 

Wiring/instrumentation = 2

 

Propellor delamination = 1

 

The 54 incidents in 2013 have much less information about the nature and cause of the incidents, but here is the break-down:

 

No information = 37

 

Engine failure = 7

 

Pilot error in technique/judgement = 7

 

Wiring/instrumentation = 1

 

Landing gear = 0

 

Propellor = 1

 

Other aircraft = 1

 

There are fewer incident reports in 2014 so far (38) than in 2013 (54), and the "No information" category in 2013 reports swamps the other categories which means based on this information, we do not know if there has been any increase in engine failures from 2013 to 2014. I hope someone in RAA or CASA has much better evidence than this for the proposed restrictions on Jabiru aircraft!

 

See attached spreadsheet if you want to re-categorise or re-anyalyse these. Appreciate any comments.

 

Jabiru incidents in 2013-2014.xlsx

 

Jabiru incidents in 2013-2014.xlsx

 

Jabiru incidents in 2013-2014.xlsx

[planesmaker]

Hi Planesmaker the top bolt u mention which side was that on oil filter side /dipstick side would appreciate your reply on thisA.D.

I don't think what side is of any consequence they are through bolts after all. It was oil filter side, broke off at base of nut. Tom

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

another interviewhttp://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/11/bst_20141119_0822.mp3

RAA and Jabiru are arguing that no restrictions should apply until someone dies. CASA is saying Jabiru/RAA should act before someone dies.

Think about that; neither position is actually sensible. No matter what improvements are made to the engine, the failure rate can never be zero; therefore there will always be the chance that somebody will die. That's WHY the courts have defined flying in recreational aircraft to be an inherently dangerous recreational activity. If the aircraft were required to be able to stay aloft when the engine dies, a criterion of either of those sorts might look feasible; but in reality even that does not do it.

A more logical approach would be to establish an engine "safe life" as being the time-in-service that corresponds to some arbitrary statistical failure probability; however the probability cannot be zero; for a transport-category aircraft, ICAO sets a target probability of a catastrophic accident as (if my memory serves me) one in 100 million per flying hour. The rate gets higher as you come down the scale from that.

 

There is an exponential correlation between the average time-in-service to major failure, and cost. In a recreational situation, we normally accept a higher risk, in order to get a lower cost. The problem is that the average TIS to major failure cannot be established, in the real world, before the aircraft goes into service. It's not realistic to demand that the manufacturer runs a statistically-significant sample to destruction in order to establish this - because there is not way such a test can cover all the variables introduced by the users and maintainers. The ASTM standard allows the manufacturer to set the TBO at five times the endurance test hours, for a single test specimen. You want better than that, you are outside the recreational area, pal.

 

It follows that the manufacturer needs the latitude to introduce modifications on the basis of service experience, because there is no other practical way to improve the reliability. That is the reason why the regulations talk about Service Bulletins. But litigation inhibits that process, so it is fundamentally counter-productive for the majority of users.

 

Contrary to what a number of people have alleged on this site, I know enough about Jabiru engines to say that Jabiru have never stopped developing their product; in fact, that is becoming part of the problem, because the engines in the field are at all stages of development, they do not all get upgraded every time there is a SB, and you find engines in service with different mod. standards from one cylinder to the next.

 

I am not by any means saying that this process has always had a beneficial effect; it's arguably been a bit of each; but not for want of trying.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sure, no one has ever produced an engine which doesn't fail.

 

And I've argued in the past that we are trained to perform a forced landing when an engine fails

 

However, there are also indications that not everyone pulls off a forced landing, perhaps through being over impossible country, perhaps through inadequate training, perhaps through inadequate recency or any other reasons.

 

The end result is that a trend which is alleged to be a threat to safety has been identified by RAA and CASA.

 

The Administrator has reported the alleged risk to the Regulator

 

The Regulator has made the decision there is a risk

 

It has obviously escaped most people that once the Regulator made its decision public, we were all kicked up a level to the razor's edge of potential a culpable negligence charge if ANYONE is killed through any of us disregarding the decision in our own spheres of influence. So there's no point arguing about percentages now, especially doctoring them down to appear insignificant.

 

Public Liability risk associated with a forced landing is also elevated since we have all been made aware of where the risk is.

 

Any fatality is likely to be quite different to what we've experienced in the past in terms of public scrutiny. I know of at least two cases in the past where grieving relatives have not made a public liability claim against the people who may have been responsible for the fatality, but after this trigger there's a potential criminal prosecution on the table, and that doesn't have to be triggered by the relatives.

 

Several people have been stubbornly clinging to the plaque keeping them out of trouble, but it is only a warning for an innocent member of the public that he is not going up for a ride on an airline;it doesn't provide protection against negligence.

 

Someone asked me a few days ago what I would do and I said "Ground the fleet"

 

That was not through any opinion of Jabiru; if there was a run on Rotax in the next six months and I was asked again I would give the same answer.

 

The reason for that is with all aircraft on the ground, no one can have a forced landing, and from that be killed.

 

CASA didn't go that far when they made their decision, so in my opinion, if anything, they have opened themselves to risk rather than being the evil monster so many posters are implying.

 

If anyone forces/convinces CASA to water down their decision, and a fatality occurs, then that could be taken into account when any charges are laid, so I'd caution any official or body to think very carefully before going down that path. Governments may well have set a prescriptive exemption from risk in the past, such as a 1 in 100 year flood minimum for design of infrastructure, but we don't have that protection.

 

Many people have pointed to the financial implications if CASA enforce their Draft proposal, but financial loss, regrettable as it is, carries absolutely no weight in a situation like this

 

Better to get the issues fixed fast and move on.

 

 

[jetjr]

Very frustrating to read where other members say it will be alright whilst the RAA community stands to loose millions of dollars. No it will not be alright, real people stand to loose life savings.

 

In MY and many other cases with no reason other than uninformed, opinionated persons have made a lot of noise and CASA have acted with usual heavy handedness.

 

We debated for literally years that this would be the possible outcome and those people comtinued on their crusade. They even publically said it was "RAA duty to warn customers about Jabiru". Others proudly wrote reports to CASA that something must be done. No doubt constant pressure from this group resulted on this action. This pressure even seen leaking out of our most senior employee after an accident.

 

Dont kid yourselves Lee couldnt ignore these complains forever no matter how spurious.

 

There certainly isnt data to support this action, it was building but of such poor quality not much can be drawn from it

 

So right now the ENTIRE RAA is in risk and hundreds of members and owners stand to loose, two or more australian businesses, the only ones who cab help, are under pressure to achieve something they would have done years ago if it were possible. The only bright light in the dvelopment side is at serious risk and no doubt contemplating stopping development due to this action.

 

Jabiru are a very small company, theres good and bad go with that. Low cost product, dynamic upgrades but with some risk. Somehow people are assuming they can retrofit engines for free, should have done more, etcetc. If they did they wouldnt be here.

 

I agree that constant improvements are PART OF THE PROBLEM. No two engines are the same. This is inherant with owner mainteneance is thrown in too.

 

The core issue is people bought a low cost aircraft thinking it was "factory built"and was somehow different risk profile to any other experimental RAA. The LSA concept supported this. This perception is played for all its worth by all manufacturers. FTF and owners have bought and operated for ages sucessfully accepting this risk.

 

Ive never said things couldnt be improved and Jabiru shouldnt try harder but the constant references to Rotax beong the benchmark isnt logical. Lets see where RAA ends up if 95% of aircraft only use Rotax, do you think pricing will stay the same? Look at any other monopoly, rarely not abused.

 

RAA needs Jabiru and right now thanks to our penchant for complaining, stands a serious risk of either another round of money wasting patch ups or the dissapearance of innovative Ausstralian companies.

 

Not a great result

 

What about when CASA decide all Tecnams and Sportsstars are grounded until factory improves structural issues or survivalbility?

 

TP your argument, no doubt correct, sees the grounding of all GA and RAA, how is that a solution?

 

 

[alf jessup]

I was refering to Alf's statement that Jabiru blames ALL owners. Quote.Phil

Ok Sorry Jabiru Phil,

 

Not all owners,

 

Was a bit of an oversight on my behalf

 

Alf

 

 

[Keith Page]

and the flight schools are arguing that they don't know how to run a business, so any change could cause them to close

Good Morning F_T,

 

It has been highlighted that you are a non-member of the RAAus organisation.

 

If that is the case are you a no flyer as well? If you are correct you are going to have a lot of mates.

 

I can not see why the aviation industry is a big concern to you when you are not a member and do not fly.

 

I can not see why it is all a big deal for you.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page.

 

 

[facthunter]

The real issue is we are having this (perhaps) right on top of the last crisis that's been going on for a couple of years at least. I say perhaps because there is another week for submissions. Once we have stirred the pot though there is a certain inevitability about it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP your argument, no doubt correct, sees the grounding of all GA and RAA, how is that a solution?

I haven't printed the rest of the post, but I'm very sympathetic to your pain, however I've lived through this over and over again for decades, so I'm probably immune to the emotion to a degree. Personally it stopped me doing what I loved best which was designing unique cars and trucks, many of which have given incident free service for decades.

 

My argument doesn't see the grounding of all GA and RAA, but it does point out that if there is a risk of a fatality, then we as self regulators will face criminal prosecution if we don't address that risk. That's about the most powerful incentive around.

 

It wasn't a solution for Ansett, Ford, Leyland, Chrysler, General Motors, or International Harvester - you can't get away today saying I need to protect my hobby, so surely if only one person dies every two years that's OK.

 

Unfortunately it's black and white.

 

The solution is to remove the alleged risk - fast.

 

 

[01rmb]

The risk exists in the very concept that man can fly a heavier than air aircraft and it can come back to earth in an uncontrolled manner.

 

Looks like we are all going to be walking rather than flying if you want to totally eliminate the risk of a fatality from flying.

 

Be informed about the risk and make your own decisions on how much you are willing to take.