CASA - Draft Proposal for Jabiru Aircraft

[jetjr]

What, remove the risk of aircraft crashes?

 

 

[facthunter]

IF we apply that logic a bit further get rid of motorcycles and cars, but perhaps don't go near a hospital .

 

Over 10,000 people a year die there because of incorrect practices and errors in AUSTRALIA. 650,000 in the US..Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I think ladders are the most dangerous things, unless you count getting old. Getting old is even more dangerous than ladders. Bowls is the most dangerous game, based on fatalities while playing, and yes hospitals are the most dangerous place.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Very clever you guys, join the list of protesters.

 

I'm a bit surprised at you 01 because one of your earlier posts seemed to indicate you understood the safety process well.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's about money spent appropriately, Turbs where you get the most effect for your dollar. No physical activity can be made entirely safe. By the way you can't say I'm not plugging safety. It's behind most of my posts. Nev

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

The only phenomenon I don't understand is the miracle: Jabiru hasn't killed anyone. Is Rod Stiff a god, I ask myself?

 

Maybe. When I spoke to him about "flywheel bolts" breaking, he told me to have a look and put Araldite around the heads. Yep, transubstantiation: from poo to positive.

 

And... you may not be blamed to your face, but you can bet your life Casa will be hearing about your incompetence, neglect and stupidity. No prodigal sons here, Waffy.

 

The bottom line is, Jabiru was already in trouble. It's taken a long time but the market has reacted to unreliability and adverse "fixes". Casa is just kicking the corpse. No need to erect a crucifix.

 

 

[01rmb]

Very clever you guys, join the list of protesters.I'm a bit surprised at you 01 because one of your earlier posts seemed to indicate you understood the safety process well.

Sorry - your argument went too far - it went from how to reduce risk and create a safer environment to recommending to ground the fleet - starting with Jabiru and then the rest because they will then be the most at risk of criminal prosecution. I just don't agree that risk ever goes away in what is an inherently risky activity but yes better practices, maintenance and safer aircraft will help to reduce the risks. At the end of the day people must make their decisions and accept the risk of that decision and not try to sue someone else.

 

The drive from the regulator should be about helping to achieve that - grounding the fleet and bankrupting Jabiru is not going to achieve that. Changing the regulations to allow CAMit or other improvements to be applied (without affecting registration) will help, collecting better data on failures and identifying root cause will help, enforcing better maintenance will help - Grounding everything just covers the problem because no one will be flying anymore.

 

 

[01rmb]

I have no problem that Jabiru should be held to account to identify improvements to the reliability and serviceability of their aircraft. They need a big wack due to consumer product rights protection - but the heavy handed restrictions from CASA won't help because if aircraft can't be used as intended it will force owners, flight schools, maintenance facilities and a lot of other businesses including RA-Aus go under, if no aircraft are sold then Jabiru themselves would go bankrupt and then there will never be a solution.

 

But just trying to achieve the engine reliability of another engine (which is more expensive) doesn't make sense. The key point is - is the engine good enough to meet the requirements under which it is regulated? Making it better is an absolute (maybe idealistic) goal but taking the actions proposed is punitive against owners/operators rather than the manufacturer. Jabiru could just recommend a top end overhaul at 500 hours and problem solved. CASA would be satisfied but Owners would be hurt in the pocket.

 

I have seen and experienced problems myself that I feel should be properly researched and improvements made in recommendations of use, maintenance and possibly components. As I said before, I have witnessed and believe that one factor is the use of avgas has a lot of negative consequences depending on how the aircraft is used and research into what the issues are and if they can be avoided through different practices or the use of mogas, without other consequences, needs to be done.

 

The mechanism is there in the LSA regulations in that a manufacturer must maintain data on failures and issues service bulletins to rectify any identified problems. If that is not being done correctly then take that up with them to do it right. Putting restrictions as proposed affects owners, pilots, flights schools and others not just Jabiru.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The only phenomenon I don't understand is the miracle: Jabiru hasn't killed anyone. Is Rod Stiff a god, I ask myself?.

Apparently not...

Interesting to hear all this talk of Zero fatals in jabs. Do we mean Zero fatals attributed to engine failure? Thats also an interesting assumption when some of these are not explained in detail (the usual non investigated means)

 

There has indeed been fatals in jabs, all over the world. NO aeroplane is bullet proof.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/mildura-fatal-accident.21802/

 

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Jabiru%20UL,%20G-VILA%2009-13.pdf

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/single-engine-plane-crash-at-cherokee.html

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200104707.aspx

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry - your argument went too far - it went from how to reduce risk and create a safer environment to recommending to ground the fleet - starting with Jabiru and then the rest because they will then be the most at risk of criminal prosecution. I just don't agree that risk ever goes away in what is an inherently risky activity but yes better practices, maintenance and safer aircraft will help to reduce the risks. At the end of the day people must make their decisions and accept the risk of that decision and not try to sue someone else.The drive from the regulator should be about helping to achieve that - grounding the fleet and bankrupting Jabiru is not going to achieve that. Changing the regulations to allow CAMit or other improvements to be applied (without affecting registration) will help, collecting better data on failures and identifying root cause will help, enforcing better maintenance will help - Grounding everything just covers the problem because no one will be flying anymore.

I'm not putting up an argument, just trying to point out the reality of what you face in the current situation where the Regulator has identified a risk it considers unacceptable.

 

I already mentioned I had to stop doing the things I used to do. In fact I decided to quit the transport industry, and go into meat production.....and immediately found that 4 million people were hospitalised in Australia each year due to food poisoning with some dying, and had to learn all about HACCP and be qualified before I could do any slaughtering, have my property registered and all livestock tagged to that property, the meat stamped with a link to that property, and the restaurant having a link to that piece of meat, and I would still be nailed to the cross if someone died from salmonella if it was traced back to a pigeon crapping in my feed bin.

 

What you, Facthunter and I feel doesn't change the law. You cannot kill a person today and expect to walk away from it. Some people haven't caught up.

 

 

[Guest john]

Summarising the multiple threads pertaining to this topic over the last week, the following actions seems to be how all of these developments have unfolded:

 

1. Jabiru owners have been complaining to Jabiru Aircraft &RAA for some considerable time about the repetitive defects that are continually occurring within the Jabiru engines, particularly regarding the failed crankcase thru bolts & Exhaust valve failures.

 

2. RAA being the Light Aircraft Administrator has recently decided that because of the numerous abovementioned complaints , they (RAA) have decided that something now has to be done once & for all to address these serious issues, & so it appears they have exercised their duty of care & have notified CASA (the National Regulator) accordingly.

 

3. It then appears CASA have then acted upon RAA'S abovementioned notification & have considered the matter seriously & have eventually issued the DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR JABIRU AIRCRAFT last week

 

4. Once the draft proposal was issued with only a week to respond to CASA & after the meeting with Jabiru Aircraft last week CASA has reviewed this matter & have now extended responses to the end of next week.

 

5. For some time Jabiru Aircraft & Camit have not been working together on the "same page" with each other which have created tensions between both of these Companies ( which are both good genuine Aussie Companies").

 

6. In the meantime if Jabiru Aircraft & Camit can come to together as grown men & forget their differences & sit around a table to work out a viable Commercial Joint Venture for the financial benefit of both Companies in the future, then should this Joint Venture eventuates, then Jabiru Aeroplanes will be kept flying around the world & at the end of the day would in all probability be to CASA'S satisafaction.

 

 

[Russ]

Dear Russ

 

Thank you for your email responding to the invitation for comments on operational limitations being proposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines.

 

The proposed measures are precautionary and intended to reduce the potential risk of harm or injury resulting from possible Jabiru engine occurrences, until the causes of these occurrences have been identified and addressed. CASA has circulated the consultation draft to provide operators and other interested persons with notice of the actions CASA is proposing to take, noting that no action has been taken yet, as well as an opportunity to comment on those proposals, and offer any suggested alternatives.

 

CASA has been looking at data and reports about Jabiru piston-engine failures for some time. In the course of that review, problems related to Jabiru engines that have stood out range from full and partial power loss and in-flight engine shutdowns, to rough running and oil leaks. CASA has identified more than 40 Jabiru engine problems and events that have occurred in 2014 alone.

 

Mechanical problems that have been identified by Jabiru include through bolt, valve and cylinder, and fly-wheel bolt failures. The contribution of particular kinds of operations (for example, student training) and maintenance-related factors to some of these failures has yet to be determined.

 

Jabiru, as the manufacturer of these engines, has certain obligations under the relevant International Standards, and civil aviation safety legislation in terms of the identification and rectification of such engine problems irrespective of when they occurred or what may have caused them, and CASA is working with Jabiru to arrive at a solution.

 

CASA will consider all comments received on the consultation draft and the discussions held with Jabiru (which are ongoing) before making a final decision on any operating limitations that may need to be imposed, as a precautionary measure in the interests of safety.

 

In the expectation we will receive constructive and informative input, CASA has extended the consultation period by an additional 7 days to 27 November 2014. At the conclusion of that period, CASA will assess the information we have received, in conjunction with other information available to us, and act in accordance with our obligations under the Civil Aviation Act.

 

Your input will be considered in the process of determining the nature and scope of such operating limitations as CASA may ultimately decide need to be imposed in the interests of safety.

 

CASA fully appreciates that the imposition of any operational limitations will affect Jabiru and the many owners and operators of aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines. As an Australian-manufactured engine, CASA has special obligations in relation to Jabiru. CASA’s intention is to help ensure that safety-related problems associated with Jabiru engines—mechanical, operational or maintenance-related—are identified and addressed as quickly and effectively as possible.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Steve Neal

 

Office of the Director of Aviation Safety

 

Received today, apparently I raised my concerns, hence this reply

 

 

[Guest Bruce Knowles]

NevIt 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

Couldn't agree more

There has been lost opportunity by Jabiru in advancing proven new ideas for improving the performance and reliabilty of the Jab engine

 

Instead we have seen no more than a exercise in denial, a protection racket in self interest by Jabiru and some aircraft owners to the detriment of the whole Jabiru community

 

If only Jabiru had been more open minded

 

The Jabiru engine from what I have observed does have the potential to be a acceptable reliable performing engine direct from the factory floor

 

A engine that needs to perform well for the environment we live and without the need of a the tweaking environment most Jabiru owners have become accustom to.

 

 

[facthunter]

Grounding the fleet is one of the most inappropriate statements I've heard. Sorry Turbs. Have YOU ever flown any two stroke powered planes? . I cannot see the" operators of jabiru" people as those who must be saved from themselves because they don't have proper concerns about safety. As a group THEY more than any other want to operate safely. They probably just want some straight talk and facts as to how to make steady improvements and evaluate what the real risk is.

 

The engine(s) will be gone IF we don't utilise the current manufacturers in any process of improvement/change.

 

If you are just going to "dump" the engines, how do you reconcile that action with those who have had a perfectly good run out of them? Most of those have left this forum long ago because of the negativity and over the top expressions used, in regard to the plane they fly. (Don't shoot ME I'm only the messenger here)

 

In NO WAY do I wish to stand in the way of making changes happen. Quite the opposite..IF we just close the shutters we seal the fate of the engine(s). In other parts of the world they must wonder what we are on here sometimes. Nev.

 

 

[robinsm]

So what about those with past ownership, major expertise, retired pilots etc. No skin in the game...dont understand the allusion?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

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.

This is not consistent with reality. By all means, seek to reduce the risk; but there will always be a risk. Your argument above is, logically, also applicable to the risk for a Rotax 912 - except the the Jabiru at the moment takes precedence. The reality has been stated by 01mb precisely. What RAA has been doing, is not clearly stating the risk. Understand the risk; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

 

[poteroo]

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

Not what I heard at the CFI Conference in Dubbo. There are many, and varied, reasons that people own FTF's, or are unpaid CFI's at FTF's, or cross-hire aircraft to FTF's. I do it because I love to fly, I wish to stay mentally and physically active, and it allows me to transfer skills to the next generation. I won't expand on this because it will only create thread drift - perhaps another thread at a later date? happy days,

 

 

[DGL Fox]

I have been reading the complaints and I have seen the accident reports over the last year of so about the Jab engines, now I don't own an aircraft by the way, but I see a lot of people on this site now complaining bitterly that CASA is being to heavy handed with Jab etc, what did you expect them to do? I think their proposal is exactly want Jab needs to get their hands from under their ***** and to fix their engine or get it redesigned to make it safe to use.

 

All the money Jab has made over the years from selling aircraft part of this money should have been going into developing a completely new engine maybe a water cooled version, I would say they have not, well why not? from where I sit they have not had any development program to evolve the engine to the next step, it seems they are just happy to rake in their money play around with the existing engine forget about all the safety issues they have with the old engine and ignore everyone, well NOW they can't, well not if they want to stay in business.

 

It is painful for all concerned but it does NEED to be done for all the pilots and their families.

 

David

 

 

[skeptic36]

Robin. It is very easy to give useless throw-away lines from the sidelines with no recourse. Just a warning really. We have no real way of knowing the exact experience those throwing the throw-away lines have.

Or what sex they are, at least it's obvious if they can spell or not:roflmao:

 

 

[poteroo]

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

Agree. 'If you think safety is costly - try having an accident'

 

happy days

 

 

[facthunter]

We might be better if we thought about the possible, not the perfect, which is different in everyone's mind. I have no idea how much money has been made by Jabiru and CAMit over the years. I doubt it's a fortune. Most people in this part of aviation wouldn't do it primarily for money. It would be out of enthusiasm.

 

You aren't going to see a watercooled Jab and I'm not sure it would be the answer anyhow. There is no way a redesign like that would be viable. Most engines determine their final form by the dimensions of the original layout.Nev

 

 

[01rmb]

How to make a small fortune in the aviation business? Start with a large fortune!

 

There is no money is this game - just a way of life...

 

 

[kasper]

Apparently not...Interesting to hear all this talk of Zero fatals in jabs. Do we mean Zero fatals attributed to engine failure? Thats also an interesting assumption when some of these are not explained in detail (the usual non investigated means)

There has indeed been fatals in jabs, all over the world. NO aeroplane is bullet proof.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/mildura-fatal-accident.21802/

 

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Jabiru UL, G-VILA 09-13.pdf

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2012/11/single-engine-plane-crash-at-cherokee.html

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200104707.aspx

Yes people have died in Jabirus but as you note was it the engine is the key question as that is the suject area of the CASA proposed restrictions - I think you would have been better to stop there and leave the question stand as its hard to see how three of the four accident reports you provided are reasonably attributable to the engine - the first in your list has not engough detail but:

- the AAIB report - read it and take a look at the GPS tracks and comments - looks terribly like flight in very low viz and loss of control

 

- The US accident - two flat landings on a solo student, bounce, nose up power up, further power up further nose up then what sounds like a stall/incipient spin ... power all the way by the report, loss of control under power not really sounding like engine issue

 

- The ATSB report - specifically atates the evidence supports significant power delivered at the time of impact - again not engine as the first area to jump to mind.

 

On this thread there are LOTs of emotions and lots of thoughts but while I agree people have died in jabs it works against your pointing this out when what you link to is not reasonably pointing to the engine as the issue.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I was responding to the radio interview quote by the president " There have been no fatalities " .

 

I did not say the above accidents were related to engine failures. The line" there have not been any fatals in jabs" is simply not true, that was my point. Sorry if I was not clear.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think we reasonably agree the engine is the issue we are dealing with here. That was my recollection. Nev