Jabiru limitations

[Guest Ornis]

I was once an old bold Jabiru pilot but CASA brought me to their census.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

What CASA has dropped is a large pile of excrement indeed.

Probably true. But none the less, its here and we need to

 

a) learn to live with it

 

b) Encourage Jabiru to produce answers so the limitations can be lifted.

 

Seeing as paraphrasing a document to prove a point is the go..

 

I AM AWARE THAT THE CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY (CASA) HAS DATA INDICATING THAT THE TYPE OF ENGINE USED IN THE AIRCRAFT HAS SUFFERED A HIGH NUMBER OF FAILURES AND RELIABILITY PROBLEMS.

 

‘I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CASA HAS IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE AIRCRAFT TO PROTECT PERSONS ON THE GROUND NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATON OF THE AIRCRAFT, UNINFORMED PASSENGERS AND TRAINEE PILOTS. THOSE LIMITATIONS ALSO HELP PASSENGERS AND TRAINEE PILOTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE RISK OF FLIGHTS IN THE AIRCRAFT.

 

End of story.. We can jump up and down, stomp our feet and point fingers all day long, but at the end of the day it wont help matters.. The ship has sailed, the horse has bolted, the cat has well and truly been tossed amongst the pigeons...

 

Hopefully this will all be over quickly and Jab will produce the goods that CASA want, and we will have a better, safer Aussie product..

 

 

[dazza 38]

No, Gandalph, it's because some people unfortunately need a hit with a brick between the eyes to attract their attention. Same reason as the fire exits in cinemas are in large, attention-grabbing letters by comparison to the seat numbers...

You dont get it do you Oscar, the Jabiru engine has always been below standard when compared to other aircraft engines.It is the classic of "you only get for what you paid for."

Statistics tells me this, not personal opinion. Nobody has ever said that aviation was cheap.

 

 

[gandalph]

Turbop, perhaps you could publish in their raw form, the statistics you have seen, with sources, so that people here might have a better understanding of your position?

 

Simply saying something like: 'I have the statistics that you don't have, and I know what the problem is' damages your credibility. It could put you in the same basket as those who are seemingly always about to make a major announcement but never do.

 

 

[gandalph]

Where is the wanker button when you need it.

I think you had it last.....

 

 

[frank marriott]

Where is the wanker button when you need it.

Site rules???? Must be an exempt person

 

 

[dazza 38]

I think you had it last.....

I think you have more importing things to worry about mate like what your aircraft is worth. Which isnt much I suspect.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbop, perhaps you could publish in their raw form, the statistics you have seen, with sources, so that people here might have a better understanding of your position?Simply saying something like: 'I have the statistics that you don't have, and I know what the problem is' damages your credibility. It could put you in the same basket as those who are seemingly always about to make a major announcement but never do.

I have published around 5 years of data TWICE on this forum along with its sourcing.

 

Personally I've had a gut full of anti-safety snipers who can't accept what is written, but have to split hairs over just about every sentence and every word.

 

 

[gandalph]

There was a bold pilot - not motzartmervWho flew a Jabiru with great verve

The motor stopped short

 

And he was caught

 

With his pants down - the old perve.

 

 

 

[gandalph]

I have published around 5 years of data TWICE on this forum along with its sourcing.Personally I've had a gut full of anti-safety snipers who can't accept what is written, but have to split hairs over just about every sentence and every word.

OK. can you point us to the post where you posted those stats? That could be helpful to many here in this forum.

 

Not sure who you aimed you comment about anti-safety snipers etc at but if it was a response to my polite request for those stats then you are, once again, very wide of the mark. I don't see how asking for information you say you have which might improve our understanding of what's going on can been seen as splitting hairs or anti-safety sniping. But if that's how you see it then that's your problem not ours.

 

If you chose not to provide either the stats or the link to your earlier posts then that's your choice, but you can't then expect people here to take you seriously.

 

 

[gandalph]

I think you have more importing things to worry about mate like what your aircraft is worth. Which isnt much I suspect.

Daz, Not at all worried. Worth can be determined in many ways. It's not always about money. But thanks for your concern.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Simply saying something like: 'I have the statistics that you don't have, and I know what the problem is' damages your credibility. It could put you in the same basket as those who are seemingly always about to make a major announcement but never do.

I don't call that polite Gandalph, and you can forget about me doing your work for you.

 

 

[Teckair]

Hey!!! I'm not that old.. I'm not even 40 yet..... Doesn't mean I'm a spring chicken either... It's not the years, it's the mileage..:)

Give it time I was 40 five minutes ago and now I am 60.

 

 

[gandalph]

I don't call that polite Gandalph, and you can forget about me doing your work for you.

Sorry you see it that way.

Snake oil is an expression that originally referred to fraudulent health products or unproven medicine but has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, a snake oil salesman is someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is himself or herself a fraud, quack, charlatan, or the like.

 

 

[Oscar]

I seem to recall that you posted stats, Turbs, then immediately stated that they were invalid because of all the 'unreported' cases you always claim. If they are 'unreported', then how do you validate that they exist? Since CASA has not made its 'Jabiru' data publicly available for scrutiny, how do we know whether they are valid? The only authoritative, publicly-available data I have seen is the ATSB stuff - and that does NOT support the CASA contention that Jabirus had an increasing rate of failures recently; indeed, it shows that Rotax was the engine brand with that distinction.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

indeed, it shows that Rotax was the engine brand with that distinction.

yes, speaking of invalid stats. I saw your post claiming a 60% increase in Rotax failures. Just to clarify, how many failures was that? What numbers did you use? If there was 1 failure one year, and the next year there was 2, thats a 100% increase..

Interesting the way stats work hey? Where as if there was 45 failures one year, and only 44 the next year, the stats would happily show a DECLINE hey? How "Valid" are stats like this? What ever stats CASA are using, the result is still the same.

 

‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT, ALTHOUGH MOST JABIRU ENGINES OPERATE NORMALLY, THERE IS AN ABNORMAL RISK THE ENGINE IN THE AIRCRAFT WILL MALFUNCTION.

 

Keep trying Oscar...

 

 

[facthunter]

The fact CASA made that statement is easily verified but there are questions around it that should be asked. WHICH engines in WHICH aircraft and under WHAT circumstances.? With the variations in reliability and the installation and maintenance variables and the categories of registration, why apply it so widely? ' It also leads to the concern What is next and what is the criteria in existence? Do we need to have certified engines only maintained by LAME's?. Some of the Warbird engines wouldn't stack up too well either and I want them to keep on flying with the pilots accepting an informed risk of their own choice..

 

I'd fly an old Anzani any day if it was prepared properly and in the right environment and THEY are pretty ordinary motors. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Sorry Merv, but no cigar for you.

 

The rate statistics provided by the ATSB were not based on the number of engines, but on the failure rate per hours flown. Here it is, again:

 

For Jabiru: 2012: about 3.9 / 10,000 hours. 2013: about 3.25 / 10,000 hours.

 

For Rotax: 2012: about 1.52 / 10,000 hours. 2013: about 2.6 / 10,000 hours.

 

Since there are allegedly more Rotax engines out there than Jabiru engines, that must mean that the actual number of Rotax engines failing as a %age of the total number in service must be greater than for Jabiru to produce the same result, if both fly a similar number of hours/year. We do not have data for either the average hours/year/engine brand nor for the actual numbers in service, so we can't make the comparison you try to suggest.

 

However, for the same period in the ATSB statistics, Jabiru total hours dropped from about 72,00 in 2012 to about 70,000 in 2013 ( the graph doesn't have sufficient resolution to attempt a more accurate figure), while Rotax dropped from about 110,000 in 2012 to about 75,000 in 2013.

 

Simple analysis shows that while Jabiru dropped its failure rate / 10,000 hours between the two years by about 0.625 while dropping total hours by 2.8% or so, Rotax increased its failure rate / 10,000 hours by about 1.08 while dropping total hours by nearly 32%.

 

 

[gandalph]

Excerpt. A link to the full report is at the bottom of this post.

 

Research investigation into the reliability of light sport aeroplane engines

 

The information contained in this web update is released in accordance with section 25 of the

 

Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003

 

and is derived from the initial analysis of the occurrence data. Readers are cautioned that new data will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB's understanding of the engine failure rates as outlined in this web update.

 

Updated: 10 December 2014

 

Also shown in Figure 1 are the proportions of engine failures or malfunctions that have been recorded as incidents, serious incidents or accidents.

 

[/url][/url][2]

 

 

Although the accident rate for Jabiru powered aircraft was only slightly higher than for Rotax powered aircraft, both the serious incident rate and incident rate were about double that for Rotax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Five year average rates of engine failures or malfunctions for aeroplanes: VH-registered private operations

 

 

 

[3]

 

 

, the whole RA-Aus fleet, Jabiru-engine and RA-Aus registered, and Rotax-engine and RA-Aus registered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 shows the individual yearly rates over the five year study period for the RA-Aus aeroplane fleet as well as Jabiru and Rotax-powered aircraft. The rates shown are for all engine failure or malfunction occurrences (accidents, incidents and serious incidents). Additionally, the hours flown per year for each group are also plotted as lines with the scale on the right side. The rates for all three groups appear to be quite similar in 2009, however, since then the rates for Jabiru-powered aircraft have been consistently higher than both Rotax-powered aircraft and the RA-Aus fleet as a whole. The rate for entire RA-Aus aeroplane fleet has risen to a similar rate as for Jabiru engine aeroplanes in 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The hours flown each year appear to be decreasing over the study period for all groups and, particularly for Rotax engines, decreased in 2013. This may be due to the nature of the recording method, with RA-Aus hours flown data being collected at the time of registration renewal, there may still be some lag in the uptake of 2013 hours. These reduced hours may in turn be responsible for the apparent rise in the Rotax rate in 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Annual rates of engine failure or malfunction occurrences for the whole RA-Aus aeroplane fleet, and Jabiru and Rotax-engine RA-Aus registered aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These preliminary data indicate that there may be a slightly higher rate of engine failures or malfunction in the RA-Aus fleet as a whole when compared to VH-registered private aircraft. Additionally, within the RA-Aus fleet there appears to be significant differences in the reliability of different engine types. In particular, aeroplanes with Jabiru engines have higher rates of occurrences involving engine failures or malfunctions.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107.aspx

 

 

 

Merv,

 

 

 

Stats for Incident rates and incident numbers are two different fish. The graphs in the ATSB report show that Jabiru stats stink but that Rotax stats are getting pretty smelly too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

So which year did the 45 failures occur in ?

 

 

[gandalph]

So which year did the 45 failures occur in ?

I don't know. Perhaps you could ask TP. He reckons he has the stats

 

 

[turboplanner]

Gandalph, your "snake oil" comments would be referring to official, published, RAA records.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

If you buy or have recently bought a factory-Jabiru, and operate it according to Jabiru, will the engine likely require only normal maintenance to reach TBO? The balance of informed opinion would suggest NO.

 

Whether that will mean more crashes is guesswork, not statistics.

 

 

[Oscar]

So which year did the 45 failures occur in ?

Merv - we assume CASA was relying on 2014 statistics, but since they haven't divulged the data they claim prompted the action, we do not know. And therin lies one of the important issues: a complete lack of transparency by CASA. CASA is in effect saying: we have secret knowledge. Until CASA releases the data, the correct phrase has to be : '45 alleged failures'.

 

I doubt if there is anybody on this or any other Australian aviation forum who is prepared to stand up and say: 'I sincerely believe that CASA is always scrupulously fair and accurate in all its dealings with the sector'. Will you be the one to do that?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Fair?...No.. Accurate? I would hope so..