reggie Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Hey Ian ,can you start sourcing cotton wool. It sure looks like we are all going to require a lot of it. 1
RKW Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 OK......T_BJust one story would be OK.. Not on for them one for me. I could copy and paste it here for all to see.. You still have not answered the questions and the forum members are waiting with baited breath as to your answers. We all know your are not a member BUT that drifter on your avatar raises a question or two. Regards KP. FT flys a very strange aircraft. The rego is vh-troll. 1 2 7
jetjr Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 How do you figure this will make safer engine? Going to cost owners no doubt, who says it will be safer, who says its unsafe now? Using a competitor product as a benchmark is absurd Im really over circular debates, Jabiru's backup and customer support has NOTHING to do with it. The data is weak, CASA have screwed us, and will continue unless we stop giving them ammunition and stand together. 1 1
motzartmerv Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 And yet, here we are.. If the data is weak, we all have nothing to worry about.. 40 failures in a year is plenty of ammo dude.. Thats what has t stop.. That alone.. 1
jetjr Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 No it is not Not you or anyone else knows what causd them so doesnt count for much Yes we do have worry, as much of the damage is done already before anyone even knows what the data means 2
Butch Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 ......as you never know the well documented albiet unreported, serious structural cracks in Tecnams might be the next grounding Is this total bull sh!t I've searched the net and can't find articles about structural cracks in Tecnams. Our flying club have 3 Tecnams with thousands of hours use for training .....no cracks as yet. I hope there is an enquiry if it's true .......putting your head in the sand about safety helps no one cheers Butch 4
motzartmerv Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Not you or anyone else knows what causd them so doesnt count for much What a ridiculous notion. The reason we have no data on the cause is because the bloody manufacturer HASNT LOOKED FOR IT !!!!.. This is a fact proven time after time. I have direct evidence to show this case. Jab have, for years, maintained that operators are to blame. On friday I gave Jab a gift. A flying school that has suffered ALL the common failures, offered all my records Thousand of hours..All the common types..Multiple examples of each type. Operated in various locations, maintained by LAMES, L4's, L2's all around NSW and qld.etc.. They could have 'proven' their case, using my school.And I would be happy to cop it, if it meant they found the cause and fixed it for me. But guess what.. NO.. JAB are not interested in my case, as soon as they realised I had had many failures, they pretty much hung up the phone. They dont want to fix it, they just want it to go away.. Well guess what.. Its here, in your face...deal with IT!!!! 1 3 3
Powerin Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 With enough repeated noise, it becomes assumed that its fact. The Data isnt detailed enough to support even pub talk let alone action taken by CASA. When this is raised somehow only Jabiru problems go unreported and therfore data is biased???? I take your point jetjr, and it is a good one. However, when I go beyond the anecdotal and look at the data that is actually available, such as RAAus accident reports or CASA service difficulties, it does seem to back up the anecdotes. Data can be suspect too of course, and can be interpreted in different ways depending on your point of view. For instance I find it interesting how the apparently reliable figure of 1 engine failure in ~3000 has been immediately reduced to a percentage of 0.03% and therefore it seems a ridiculously small figure not worth worrying about. I didn't see it that way at all. Looked at a different way, given there are ~1100 Jab engines in Australia, therefore 1 in 3 takeoffs in all Jabiru aircraft in Australia will result in an engine failure. Doesn't sound as good as 0.03% does it? Looked at another way, if a flying school does 60 movements per week (is that a reasonable figure?), they should be planning and budgeting for 1 engine failure per year.
jetjr Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Why would they listen Merv, they are interested in what does work not what doesnt, besides most of your problems are already documented and reported Right now their total focus is to put out the fire You offered them a gift.... Glad i dont have mates or customers like you. I dont disagree with you re their attitude but that is exactly what the approach by CASA was always going to achieve. Also what was predicted by us in threads here if the action was to eventuate. Little tangible result, asi said its unlikely to have much result and the risk is there that they close and leave thousands of owners WORSE off than they are already Butch, wake up mate, there isnt a problem but if someone wanted to they could build a case against anything. I have seen multiple cracks and repairs. Powerin , i cant follow your numbers sorry, how do you go from 37 problems in 90,000 movements to every 1 in three take off will see engine failure? In my mind 0.03% is a bad number and needs work BUT thats the risk owners take and should be allowed to if they are silly enough.
nickduncs84 Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 I take your point jetjr, and it is a good one. However, when I go beyond the anecdotal and look at the data that is actually available, such as RAAus accident reports or CASA service difficulties, it does seem to back up the anecdotes.Data can be suspect too of course, and can be interpreted in different ways depending on your point of view. For instance I find it interesting how the apparently reliable figure of 1 engine failure in ~3000 has been immediately reduced to a percentage of 0.03% and therefore it seems a ridiculously small figure not worth worrying about. I didn't see it that way at all. Looked at a different way, given there are ~1100 Jab engines in Australia, therefore 1 in 3 takeoffs in all Jabiru aircraft in Australia will result in an engine failure. Doesn't sound as good as 0.03% does it? Looked at another way, if a flying school does 60 movements per week (is that a reasonable figure?), they should be planning and budgeting for 1 engine failure per year. You're right, data can easily be manipulated. Like you have demonstrated, all you need to do is move a decimal 3 places and all of a sudden things are looking very grim. 1
GAFA Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 In my mind 0.03% is a bad number and needs work BUT thats the risk owners take and should be allowed to if they are silly enough. The owners/operators my want to take that risk, but what about the innocent bystander who could get hurt or worse killed due to a Jab having an engine failure and crashing into a house or a park full of kids? If CASA took no action and this occurred it would certainly not end pretty for Jabiru, CASA and RAAus. 3 1
Powerin Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Yeah, I expressed it badly....I meant if all the Jabs in Australia take off only 3 times one of them will have have an engine failure. It's a silly way of expressing the statistic....but that was my point. In the same way I think 0.03% is not a useful stat either. Jet, you are exactly right though if you do want to take the risk with your own aircraft you should be allowed to. After all, that was the foundation of the ultralight movement and the experimental category. However, I don't believe FTFs have the same luxury - but the Jabs are heavily marketed to that area. At very least it seems Jabiru should amend their POHs and maintenance documents to reflect the more conservative way these engines should be treated to get the expected life span as these are the documents an FTF legally has to abide by.
Teckair Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Jet, you are exactly right though if you do want to take the risk with your own aircraft you should be allowed to. If you think that then don't blame CASA or anybody for not wanting Jab pilots taking unsuspecting passengers, flying over built up areas or students going solo in them. 1
nickduncs84 Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The owners/operators my want to take that risk, but what about the innocent bystander who could get hurt or worse killed due to a Jab having an engine failure and crashing into a house or a park full of kids? If CASA took no action and this occurred it would certainly not end pretty for Jabiru, CASA and RAAus This exact thing happened at a beach in Florida recently. Only it wasn't a Jabiru it was a Lycoming powered Cherokee. See where I'm going with this... 1
Downunder Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Could the end result be that jabs (or jab engined aircraft) will no longer be 24 rego? Existing jabs forced to E24, effectvely making them all fly under 19 rego rules?
facthunter Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The engine out performance of all single engine aeroplanes is much the same. You are supposed to not fly over populous areas except when landing or taking off if you are prudent. Flying over a concrete jungle or a tall timbered forest on mountain slopes is putting all your eggs in one basket with a single engined piston aircraft... The best aerodromes to fly from are those with open areas all around. The only jabiru I have witnessed in a hairy situation did a go around with carb heat on.. Who hasn't done that at some time? or almost done it.. Running out of fuel is becoming more common. No engine tolerates that regardless of the name on the plate. Nev 1 1
fly_tornado Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 My theory is that #24 Jabirus will be put on a higher maintenance cycle. Maybe something simple like a mandated new engine every 500 hours. Most FTFs wouldn't notice that in the scheme of things 1 1
RKW Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 My theory is that #24 Jabirus will be [put on a higher maintenance cycle. Maybe something simple like a mandated new engine every 500 hours. Most FTFs wouldn't notice that in the scheme of things No, they wouldn't notice it a bit. Most cfi's and instructors swan around in bmw's and mercs. Most of them have got so much money they don't know what to do with it. 2
pmccarthy Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 As far as I know, reliability of Rotax 912 is on a par with Lycoming and Continental 4 cylinder types. So flight planning should not be significantly different to GA flying. Draw a straight line to destination, adjust to avoid the worst tiger country, then put in waypoints. Cruising over towns at 3000 ft above terrain should not be a problem, nor over forests and rocky hills for ten minutes or so at a time. I did Bass Straight three weeks ago, have done it before, and would not do it if I didn't trust my engine. I'm a scaredy cat and would not fly behind an unreliable engine. 2 1
GAFA Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 This exact thing happened at a beach in Florida recently. Only it wasn't a Jabiru it was a Lycoming powered Cherokee. See where I'm going with this... True, Cessna ana Piper engines fail, but there is no underlying issues with them, the same can't be said for Jabiru. CASA have been made aware of this possible issues so they need to act to protect the public. As I said if they didn't act and there was an accident involving a Jabiru that was caused by an engine failure and a bystander was killed, it would be game set and match for Jabiru and possibly RAAus. 1
fly_tornado Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 No, they wouldn't notice it a bit. Most cfi's and instructors swan around in bmw's and mercs. Most of them have got so much money they don't know what to do with it. If everyone sits on their hands until there is a string of fatalities then everyone will suffer much worse. FTFs can transition away from Jabirus over the next few years and everyone is happy
jetjr Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Yep they could all be 19 oe E reg, Importantly there would be no parts much and owners could put whatever parts , modifications etc they wanted. Failure rate would be the same or worse. , and how does that help safety? Those arguing the "safety for bystanders" line should think about this. They will all still be out there flying as they currently do but with poorer maintenance protocols. Instrument would still leave them as no PAX which is a big deal for many. but has no impact on third party safety. The risk to RAA exists and isnt going away, just owners getting shafted 2
fly_tornado Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 moving the fleet to #19 means owners are able to access non approved modifications. As the Jabiru fleet grows and ages these problems are only going to get worse, god knows how many engines will be failing in 2020 if CASA doesn't act.
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 The chance of being killed on the ground by a lightning strike is about 1000 times the chance of being hit by an ultralight plane. I reckon some people should stay in bed because the risk of getting up is too much... but oops, the risk of being inactive is 5 times the risk of flying. What I hate is having people set up to dictate to me how to live my life. It's my life not theirs. And they have added a lot to my risk of flying... If I continue to fly as always, I might now have to worry about the risk of being assaulted or disposessed by men sent by the government. This fills me with terror a hundred times more than the possibility that my Jabiru might turn into a glider. 1 11
bexrbetter Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 What I hate is having people set up to dictate to me how to live my life. It's my life not theirs. 100% wrong. We live in a society together and we accept both the rewards and limitations of doing so.
Recommended Posts