ExJourno Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Hysteria is always hilarious to witness.... So... has anyone bothered to have a look and see what flight crew actually encompasses? Reason I ask is that it occurs to me that student pilot certificates are flight crew certificates. They afford the privilege to fly as pilot in command under supervision and preclude them flying with a passenger other than the instructor... So where does it say students can't continue to learn in jabiru powered aircraft? 1
01rmb Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Hysteria is always hilarious to witness....So... has anyone bothered to have a look and see what flight crew actually encompasses? Reason I ask is that it occurs to me that student pilot certificates are flight crew certificates. They afford the privilege to fly as pilot in command under supervision and preclude them flying with a passenger other than the instructor... So where does it say students can't continue to learn in jabiru powered aircraft? A student may be able to continue to fly with an instructor but not solo and only if the aircraft is able to reach a safe place to land with NO people The notice specifically says "A control position must be occupied by a person who is authorised to pilot the aircraft and holds a RA-Aus pilot certificate or higher... Student/trainee solo operations are prohibited."
ExJourno Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Yeah, 01rmb... I think you missed that I am fully aware of this. Sometimes a point is best put across with a question... rhetorically asked. And, uh... it's a student pilot IS able to and that "NO" people thing isn't quite right. The requirements reflect the need for a non populous area to land, very different to 'no people'. Also, the draft is not quite how you put it... the draft instrument requires "at least one" control position to be occupied by a holder of a pilot cert or higher or (for VH) whatever the GA bit was... the pilot in command is responsible for this being followed... the pilot in command, under the instrument (not the summary) need only be flight crew. A student pilot cert is a flight crew certificate. A student is not a passenger. Amusingly, the burden of compliance seems to rest, potentially, on the student, not the supervising instructor, through I would imagine instructors would be captured by their obligation to ensure students adhere to all relevant provisions of law and policy in executing their role. It may appear nit-picking over a few words, to some, however there is a difference between what you just wrote and what I did... I suspect you got yours from the wording of the required notice proposed for placement inside each subject aircraft, rather than the instrument draft. If these documents were to be formally actioned, the sticker wording does not carry weight in interpretive argument over the mandated requirements. It is more a general overview and it doesn't adequately capture what the instrument actually says, in my view, on account of the inconsistent, in isolation from the entirety of the instrument itself, wording.
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 The CASA instrument is demonstrably incorrect in including experimental aircraft. I expect this will be withdrawn. 1
webbm Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 <snip!!>There have been far too many issues ongoing, and not rectified. Jab wash their hands of an overhauled engine after 1 month, and of a brand new engine after 2 months!!! 2 months?????? Ridiculous! Finally something is being done about attempting to have this factory pony up and accept responsibility! Where has Ungermann been these last 3 years? Why hasn't he been talking to Rod & Co & working with Jab to resolve these issues.<snip!> Maybe he has been talking to them, but got the same response that pilots do when they report problems. --- Given the way the proposed instrument is written, you possibly can fly at Bankstown/Archerfield but only within gliding distance of somewhere to land where there are no people. So probably just circuits...And with no passengers although you may arguably be able to take another qualified pilot. Student pilots specifically are not allowed solo. Airbus A350 ETOPS 370 minutes Boeing 787 ETOPS 330 minutes Jabiru ETOPS 2 minutes
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 QUOTE: Well... not exactly. CAMit, as I understand it, owns half the intellectual property on the design of the engine. And, as such, had negotiated something of an agreement for the manufacture of the Jab engine to be done by them. However, as I understand it, there is nothing stopping CAMit from profiting from a design the owner part owns. And, despite being the same, it is not a Jabiru engine. Even Jabiru will tell you that. The internals have differences... specifically stated as being in place to overcome the issues spoken of with such fond-banter, on forums such as this (attributable to CAMit, this sentence). To clarify - yet again: Jabiru engines are manufactured under Jabiru's Production Certificate by CAMit Pty Ltd, strictly in accordance with Jabiru's specifications (as they must be). This is subject to CASA surveillance. These engines have a Jabiru data plate. CAMit also holds a CASA Production Certificate in its own right; however this is at present limited to "one off" items; and in any case, a PC can only be applied to a product for which the manufacturer either holds a TC or a licence from a TC or STC holder. The CAMit engine is not as yet certificated, so it has been being built as an engine for experimental & amateur-built aircraft. CAMit engines have a CAE data plate; and are physically interchangeable with Jabiru engines, but not legally interchangeable with them in factory-built aeroplanes. Jabiru engines that have been "core-rebuilt" by CAMit have a Jabiru data plate plus a CAE modification data plate. Since the CAMit modifications are not as yet formally approved by CASA, they are also restricted to experimental and amateur-built aeroplanes. The CAE experimental engines and CAE experimental core rebuilt Jabiru engines incorporate a considerable number of modifications , most of which are quite subtle, so they are NOT Jabiru engines for the purposes of the CASA Instrument. 4
jetjr Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 CASA is the only one who can approve modification to rules which would allow fixes done by others to be applied to Jabiru LSA If they went about it differently, for example, leave Jabiru to do what they do, formulate capability to fit or upgrade engine. Assist fast tracking camit certificiation "STC" process BOTH Jabiru and Camit would survive and prosper and owners can keep flying Market forces and customers would drive Jabiru, if not, thats their choice but customers would have options. When CASA say they want to work "with" someone it doesnt mean that and I doubt they have expertise to help. Somehow people think they can force Jabiru to "accept" Camits work, what if they cant or dont want to work together? Forcing them to is really short term thinking.
Admin Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I did say in another thread last week to watch this space and that it would be very public. At what stage does a life cost vs the inconvenience to many and whose life will it be...yours? At such a day, time and place in the future...If only we could see the future, perhaps we may change our mind...just my personal thoughts 2 5
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 The only product bureaucrats make is poverty. Their operations are to stop wealth creation while consuming a fair bit of the wealth for themselves. Yes we need the rule of law to stop bandits robbing those who create the wealth, but regulation beyond this operates as a deadening hand. The history of the world is full of examples of this. I think it is disgraceful that Australians have moved their operations to China, not for the lower wages but to escape the nasty Australian bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the weak among us are too willing to trade wealth and liberty for the opression and protection of bureaucracy, and alas the weak are there in large numbers. If there were any substance is the claims, ( which I would dispute) there are many ways CASA could have approached this, but they chose a nasty way. And this is just after the Truss review, which CASA are obviously treating with contempt. 2
ayavner Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail... 5
Oscar Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 For CAMit to be able to help out, it firstly has to stay in business. Since its business is (almost entirely) making engines for Jabiru to Jabiru's specification, this proposed CASA action would probably hit CAMit even harder than it hits Jabiru - leaving Jabiru owners and operators with aircraft of very, very little utility and leaving the only immediate, cost-effective and as things stand, researched and largely proven remedies unable to be provided to help them out. Blithely talking about 'just throw in a Rotax' is fairly much a nonesense from a practical point of view. It would be instructive to those who assume this is a viable path, to seek information from those who have done it as to the cost AND the effect on the aircraft. The realistic figure seems to be around $40k, and a reduction in usable weight. And then, also find out the regulatory path required and ensure that the calculation of the (at today's figures) costs involved are contained in the estimate. So, at least round $40k and months of downtime, while the necessary parts are made, (engine mount, cowlings, cooling set-up etc.), plus the requisite test flying and sign-off and then processing of the paperwork. To be applied to an aircraft that has had its market value seriously damaged and for which the resultant market value is at best entirely speculative until established. Only these who have the ready money to basically gamble could realistically be expected to go down that path. 5 1
dazza 38 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I wonder if people realise this won't just spell the end of Jabiru it has the potential to bring down RAAus. If there are not enough flight schools and training aircraft what do you think will happen to the membership? If there is a sudden decline in membership what do we think will happen to the financial viability of RAAus? There isn't many flying schools in SE Qld that use Jabiru's. Mostly Rotax powered aircraft.
Oscar Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 DDSAA - which happens to be the numerically (membership) largest club in Australia, I believe - have three Jabs. ( 2 x 160s and a 230) and a Drifter. It is particularly active in encouraging new and young membership, with flight training scholarships. Caboolture has at least one Jab., (J120) from memory.
facthunter Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 We have one thread closed down. If we can't discuss this matter sensibly what hope is there for us?. When you take ANY action, if you are wise you will anticipate all the likely outcomes. This action will be far reaching, probably more so than the post Ferris wheel registration fiasco. Your organisation is once again under stress, and don't underestimate how much. There may be legal action(s) too which will muddy the waters somewhat and cause delays. Some FTF's will disappear. Many individuals will lose a substantial amount of money. Some Flying schools that have operated Jabiru's who have had a trouble free run will be treated the same is those who have had a bad run. Every one is the same. ARE THEY REALLY? Why not ask them what they are doing? CAMit is the organisation that is best suited to rectifying some of the issues. IF it goes out of business, no one else will pick up the pieces. No one could or would set up to do it. I find it difficult to accept that there are not engines more likely to fail than Jabiru's out there, but there are a lot of Jabiru's, so in a way their success is leading to their failure. Do we be consistent and tighten up all over? Have you heard the term shooting yourselves in the foot? Have you just done it?. OK it's a draft. I will be away for a few days and can find some time next week with some difficulty. I will pass on any suggestions and discuss issues totally confidentially. You can get my email from admin. I hope he doesn't mind. Nev 8 1
Russ Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I've just gagged on my fresh made toast, Raa....god bless em, sent me a mail telling me to contact my local fed govt member, and tell him " how unhappy I am" And on it went.......... Raa, you cannot be serious, you are not in the mix here with casa, it's insulting to me as a member to see you play this game 1
motzartmerv Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Who will you pass suggestions on to Nev?
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 No, CASA does NOT make the regulations - federal Parliament does. Mind you, they usually accept what CASA puts up. The process is NOT rapid.
aj_richo Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Can I just change my placard to read : This aircraft and Jabiru engine are not required to comply with the safety regulations for standard aircraft and engines. PERSONS FLY THIS AIRCRAFT AND JABIRU ENGINE AT THEIR OWN RISK
aro Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 The CAE experimental engines and CAE experimental core rebuilt Jabiru engines incorporate a considerable number of modifications , most of which are quite subtle, so they are NOT Jabiru engines for the purposes of the CASA Instrument. The instrument defines a Jabiru engine as "an engine that is wholly or partly manufactured by a person under licence from, or pursuant to a contract with, Jabiru." Are you sure that those engines are not even partly manufactured under license from Jabiru? Simply modifying an engine so that it is no longer considered a Jabiru engine for the purposes of certification doesn't seem to be enough...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Ian Bent is seeking a clear statement from CASA separating CAE engines from Jabiru engines. If he doesn't get it, and quickly, CAMit will be out of business, to my understanding. Stop Press: I've just been advised that CASA has stated that the Instrument does NOT refer to CAE engines in any way. 3
geoffreywh Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 wasn't there a nasty note from Jabiru's Rod Stiff that wanted the data plates from any modified engine to be sent back, as "they're no longer Jabiru engines?" Be careful what you wish for Rod 1 1
Russ Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Jabiru succeeded in stopping CAE from further proceeding in "certification" of the 2.2 engine, how can casa now acknowledge CAE ....?? I see nothing but protracted court proceedings. 2
facthunter Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Only the Lawyers win there. They should sit down and talk before they both go extinct. Owners watch on in great pain. Nev 3
aro Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 If the intention is to take a stick to Jabiru, it seems like a strange way of going about it. Why wouldn't you just e.g. suspend their authority to certify new engines until a fix is developed, and revoke any authorizations for Jabiru to fly over built up areas? The RAA rules were developed when 2 stroke engines were common, and on the assumption that engines were unreliable e.g. must be able to glide clear of built up areas. Does the Jabiru engine have worse reliability than 2 strokes? Is the accident rate high enough that those rules are not enough? I don't see it. It looks to me like the rule was designed to have maximum impact on RAA and related businesses, without the headlines that "Jabiru grounded" would generate. I genuinely fear for the future of all RAA based on this, not just Jabiru. Even if the proposed restrictions do not go ahead, the publication of the consultation draft is very damaging to Jabiru and RAA. Just the knowledge that the threat has been made must influence the value of Jabiru aircraft, and the business plans of Jabiru and businesses that depend on them. Once you pull a gun on someone, your relationship is irretrievably altered - even if you don't pull the trigger. 2 13
Recommended Posts