Jabiru limitations

[Camel]

Regard your comment Geoff 13

 

1. Refuse to look at the issues ?

 

2. Continually attack the man, which one ?

 

3. Both sides, what sides ?

 

4. No wonder CASA had to do something, AFTER 20 YEARS !!!! And not even fix the problem just get

 

CASA out of any blame for not acting !!!! What ATTITUDE ?

 

Do you really understand the issues ?

 

Other engines have had unreliability issues, lycoming and Rotax included.

 

The Jabiru engine has issues, but exactly on what model ?

 

They have been in production over 20 years. Experimental engines included! This is a breach of the freedoms in this category, as you can put in any engine regardless of its reliability. This is a major flaw in CASA's attack and the reason which will cause major problems ! For the engines that have failed, has CASA identified the year of manufacture or equipment fitted fine fin heads , solid lifter, fly cut pistons, roller followers etc. they just picked on all !

 

I have been led to believe that the engine manufactured since 2012 have had problems reduced.

 

Why did CASA not act sooner ? This one has been around a long time http://www.jabirucrash.com

 

Jabiru are difficult in their behaviour especially with Camit who are trying to do some thing. I'm told Jabiru do stuff in some room no one has seen until recently when the drama started !

 

Also ATSB is currently running an investigation into LSA engine reliability, CASA facts came from RAA, RAA dispute how they have used statistics, read RAA December newsletter.

 

 

[01rmb]

It has never been Ford verses Holden. More like Holden verses BMW. Nobody denies that Rotax are a lot more expensive than Jab motors. But quality costs money. That is why I own two KTM Motorcycles. Expensive yes, but top quality stuff with the latest technology. You only get what you pay for.

So should everybody be forced to drive BMWs? Likewise, is Rotax the only engine good enough for recreational aircraft? Because they are the quality standard and nothing else is as good?

 

Fair enough that quality costs money but should everyone be forced to pay top dollar or should people not have a choice and accept the alternative of increased maintenance over a longer period? I for one am generally happy to pay extra for quality where the option exists but not everyone should have the same choice forced on them.

 

 

[frank marriott]

As predicted this thread has ended up like the last one, so I'll leave you to play your childish games without me. I will await something NEW or informative to come out.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

So should everybody be forced to drive BMWs? Likewise, is Rotax the only engine good enough for recreational aircraft? Because they are the quality standard and nothing else is as good?Fair enough that quality costs money but should everyone be forced to pay top dollar or should people not have a choice and accept the alternative of increased maintenance over a longer period? I for one am generally happy to pay extra for quality where the option exists but not everyone should have the same choice forced on them.

People on the ground, or the uninformed passenger don't care what you paid for it.....they just want it to stay in the sky !.......

 

 

[jetjr]

In 19 reg or vh exp, i can fit whatever whipper snipper engine I like, without any further restriction.

 

In VH can load lots of Pax too.

 

This could push more to do so.

 

Yet with a Jabiru its suddendly , after 20 years, requires restricted use and a waiver for pax

 

It isnt logical or any increase in safety. Makes no difference to ground dweller. Only possible change is to training facilities and students and the devaluing of owners aircraft.

 

Few say nothing needs to be done but the current course of action will achieve nothing or maybe worse.

 

 

[jetjr]

Has there ever been a ground injury from RAA or light VH aircraft due to engine failure?

 

As ar as I can tell there hasnt been a participant fatality due to Jabiru engine failure.

 

Need to assess risk before mitigating against it.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

As predicted this thread has ended up like the last one, so I'll leave you to play your childish games without me. I will await something NEW or informative to come out.

Reporting forms are in the raaus website.

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Defect-Report-November-2014_Fillable.pdf

 

 

[01rmb]

People on the ground, or the uninformed passenger don't care what you paid for it.....they just want it to stay in the sky !.......

And I would contend that pilot error causes more crashes than engine failures (certainly more than Jabiru engine failures) so do we stop all aircraft from leaving the ground???

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

Jabiru engines, notorious for problems related to overheating - even in Jabiru aircraft - became noticeably worse with the introduction of hydraulic lifters. Hundreds of new engines were returned. Serious problems remain, including the original problem the hydraulic lifters were designed to disguise - heads going soft. A new problem seems to have arisen: through-bolt failure. Despite this reality-check, Jabiru flutters down the same path.

 

CAMit has addressed the inherent design weaknesses. CASA recognises this; CAE are very similar but exempted.

 

Sure Rotax 4-strokes stop. In the past 18 months two friends crash landed; carb icing, apparently. No one I know has had a Rotax chew itself it pieces with a broken valve, drop the flywheel or fall apart - and that's a fundamental difference in my view.

 

I believe CASA let Jabiru get away with too much for too long. I am not going to speculate on what has changed - probably several things.

 

Whatever it was that triggered the warning from CASA, three points are obvious. No way are things going to go back to the way they were, legal challenges notwithstanding. You can no longer plead ignorance if you take passengers and crash land, you have been told by the regulator to warn passengers. Unless Jabiru changes its ways - and I don't mean a flurry of emails to customers after decades of total silence - Jabiru is a Dodo.

 

It may be that you have a good engine. But, being installed and operated in a Jabiru according to instructions from Jabiru is not enough to say this. That is why CASA has made blanket restrictions.

 

If you are a private owner warn passengers and tell them you have confidence in your engine, or don't take them.

 

If a Jabiru is your livelihood then get CAMit to rebuild it. On paper it's still a Jabiru and subject to the restrictions but in reality it's a CAE. That is something I would be discussing with CASA. There may be room to wriggle.

 

 

[jetjr]

No wiggle room,if your training with it, its an LSA and you cant fit anything but Jabiru engine, parts, mods OR operate outside manual and remain in training use.

 

Even if Dmech, Bex, CAE, Rotec or anyone else comes up with a fix, it cant be implemented on anythng but experimental and STILL limitations apply.

 

In terms of real fixes, the only modification they approve is a whole new engine, from Anyone else but Jabiru?

 

Why not fit single plug auto conversion, with home made redrive?

 

Sound like CASA's idea of working with manufacturer.........

 

Plenty of Rotax have failed, infact similar numbers as Jabiru. ATSB acknowledges this. Redrive failures are common.

 

Perpensity for carb ice is an engine operation issue just like overheating.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

No wiggle room,if your training with it, its an LSA and you cant fit anything but Jabiru engine

A Jabiru engine rebuilt by CAMit remains a Jabiru engine, there is no argument about that. The discussion would be that it has the same qualities as a CAE - which is exempt. I can see room to wriggle and it might be worth negotiating with CASA. That's a suggestion. Your idea seems to be to overwhelm CASA in some kind of war.

 

Plenty of Rotax have failed, infact similar numbers as Jabiru.

Rotax 4-strokes have the reputation of being one of the most reliable engines in use. Numbers are just numbers, representing who-knows-what and measuring nothing that 'proves' anything much.

 

Perpensity for carb ice is an engine operation issue just like overheating.

Carb icing is an operational issue and soft heads in Jabiru is a design fault. Also, Rotax don't install engines.

You own a Jabiru and take your family in it, thinking all is well and if it isn't you'll land safely. That's why CASA had to make rigid rules rather than simply offer advice. People don't listen.

 

There is a problem with Jabiru engines.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Has there ever been a ground injury from RAA or light VH aircraft due to engine failure?As ar as I can tell there hasnt been a participant fatality due to Jabiru engine failure.

Need to assess risk before mitigating against it.

We've been through this on this thread Jetjr......yes there have been fatilities...and a lot of lucky escapes.

 

 

[jetjr]

So now ATSB numbers are "just numbers"?? Seriously

 

No one is saying there isnt an issue except those owning rotax, they fail in equal numbers as Jabiru. Be ready for it.

 

Jabiru have plenty more incidents and thats what needs attention no doubt

 

Ornis, read up on LSA, if Jabiru dont approve it, isnt happening unless the aircraft moves to experimental and can't be used for training. End of story, no CASA exemptions, consideration possible.

 

Whats with soft heads?? Head recession is from running too hot. All makers inc Jabiru say not to do it. Its the operators responsibility to make sure it doesnt happen. If that means fitting extra monitoring gear thats what needs to happen.

 

Maj ive never seen numbers on ground injuries due to engine failure. Yours were flyers and there wasnt a link to engine problems. Nev i think indicated VERY few EVER in all forms of aviation.

 

The workcover attitude that a near miss or a possibility of a risk is the same as actual event is farcical.

 

If a safety system picks up a potential problem before it happens, then its working.

 

Following your track, all aviation will be stopped. There is a risk, unfortunately people will get hurt, its high risk activity. Participants are specially trained to manage that.never going to get to zero incidents.

 

Managing for things which havent happened is a path to sector disappearance.

 

 

[Oscar]

Ornis - I believe you have presented a far more accurate and useful summary of the situation than anything added by the shrieking harpy brigade that predictably infest any thread mentioning Jabiru. Let's see if - just for once - we can drag a thread back to being of some use.

 

Things are most certainly not going to go back to the way they were. Short of a Court determination that CASA was incorrect in fact in its findings, CASA's 'determination' that Jabiru engines represent an unacceptably increased level of risk will stand, and will inevitably be used as 'evidence' in some future legal action/s. Those who are celebrating this as a good thing are blinded by their bias and frankly being wilfully ignorant of the potential future consequences.

 

Aviation is ruled by standards. There is almost nothing in, of or about aviating that is not subject to a standard, outside of 'experimental'. Adherence to those standards is the only pre-emptive 'defence' on the part of a manufacturer to the charge of 'not fit for purpose'. NO manufacturer could possibly entertain the idea of producing an aviation product - airframe or engine or major component - if it had to consider every possible legal challenge that might arise in the absence of standards: adherence to the standard applicable to the component is the 'go / no go' baseline here.

 

Just about all the standards in aviation are internationally accepted: think FAR, JAR, BCAR and ASTM. These standards are considered to be 'acceptable' - and all of them contain an inherent risk factor, by their very nature. It is not possible to decree 'perfect in all situations' - the standard implies that a certain level of risk is inherent in everything and sets the bar for what is, and is not, 'acceptable'. That principle applies to just about every product of any sort we encounter in our lives.

 

Certificated Jabiru engines have met the applicable standard ( JAR 22H, in this case, for certain models of the 2200 engine) and met the ASTM standard for the certified engines.

 

What CASA has done in this case, is introduce an arbitrary 'supplemental' standard. I say arbitrary, because CASA has not in any way provided a definitive statement of 'acceptable' performance - simply justified its action on the basis that Jabiru engines are less 'good' than the other popular engine. That is not a 'standard' that any manufacturer can apply, it is a judgement on CASA's part.

 

As a precedent, this is woefully dangerous to the future of aviation. Let me postulate an entirely analogous situation that is completely feasible in the circumstances:

 

If CASA were to look at the area of occupant safety and examine the statistics of fatality / serious injury per crash event, many 'recreational-class' aircraft on the register would come up statistically as 'less good' than Jabirus, which are numerically the single most populous brand on the Australian register. Just off the top of my head, I think that probably Brumby and Bristell in Australia would be ok, but those well below the line on a comparison basis would include Savannah, Tecnam, Morgan, Evektor, Colyaer, Skyfox, Alpi, Murphy, VANS, Lightwing, Eurofox, Fisher.

 

And that's just taking fatality statistics from 2013 - 2014.

 

Where would CASA draw the line between 'good enough' for no action, and 'insufficiently good'? We don't know nor can postulate from the action taken in the case of Jabiru engines - because CASA has not indicated any cut-off point, just decided that, by statistical comparison, Jabiru are 'less good' than Rotax. Using the same criterion, Jabiru airframes would be the 'standard-bearer' on the basis of hours/year flown against which everything else would be measured. Indeed, a serious question that follows from the CASA action is: why has not every engine that is 'not as good as Rotax' been similarly limited?

 

Hang on, I hear coming up by response: what about the circumstances of those fatalities? By the way CASA has acted in the Jabiru engines case, circumstances have not been taken into account - only results. This is a critically important part of why this CASA action is such a dangerous precedent for aviation. It is at least a significant part of the reason why RAA has stated that CASA has not subjected their data to sufficient analysis.

 

Those defending the CASA action as 'necessary, deserved, whatever', should open their eyes to the fact that this action has taken the regulation of Australian aviation down a new path and look beyond their own agendas to the broader picture of where that path can lead.

 

 

[gandalph]

We've been through this on this thread Jetjr......yes there have been fatilities...and a lot of lucky escapes.

And these fatalities you keep trotting out Ross ... were they the result of engine failures? Can you tell us how many there were?

Has anyone got figures on either the rate (or even raw numbers) of engine related fatalities in Jabiru aircraft compared to RAA aircraft powered by other makes of engine?

 

Yes, I know the accident/incident summaries are available on the RAA website, and yes I am going through them to see if I can answer my own question, but I thought I'd ask it here to see if anyone had collated the numbers.

 

 

[qolbinau]

Rotax 4-strokes have the reputation of being one of the most reliable engines in use. Numbers are just numbers, representing who-knows-what and measuring nothing that 'proves' anything much.

Numbers are so important. Humans are subject to many cognitive biases, and the numbers are the only way to objectively know whether this is a real issue or not. If the ATSB statistics are accurate they provide evidence that Jabiru engines, while slightly less reliable than Rotax engines, do not have a high failure rate or a failure rate that is substantially greater than Rotax engines.

 

If the statistics are accurate, it would suggest that if people think Jabiru engine failures are substantially more common than Rotax failures it is because there is an unrepresentative group of people sharing their experience using Jabiru engines (e.g., on this forum).

 

This does not change the fact that there may be systematic manufacturing or design issues in Jabiru engines that cause maintenance issues or engine failures. However, if the ATSB statistics are correct then the outcome of these issues is not such that it results in engine failures substantially higher than Rotax engines. If this outcome is the criterion that CASA have decided to implement limitations on Jabiru engines the ATSB evidence does not support it.

 

If CASA have evidence that is contrary to the ATSB I think they should provide it to be subject to peer review because their decision to implement this instrument will have an economic impact on Jabiru, business using Jabiru aircraft and the value of Jabiru aircraft.

 

Ultimately, I am a risk-averse person and if I had evidence to suggest that Jabiru engines were not safe I do want to know ASAP. So far, there has been little hard evidence to support the claim.

 

It's 2015 and according to Back to the Future we should have hover boards. I'd settle for evidence-based decision making.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

Yes, jetjr, numbers are just numbers. But talking about numbers...

 

1. How many people do you know who are removing a Rotax engine from an aircraft and fitting a Jabiru engine?

 

2. Would you expect or guess the number be about the same as the reverse: removing a Jabiru and fitting a Rotax?

 

Clever people can do clever things with numbers. The hard part is knowing what the numbers are measuring, how complete the data or representative the sample, and what the analysis means. You (for example) might put carb icing and a valve munting an engine in the same class - engine failure. One might and one certainly will lead to a forced landing, but are they the same thing? To me one suggests a simple installation problem and the other a serious engine failure.

 

Incidentally, talking about numbers again, do you remember Thalidomide? The experimental data didn't measure the problem and when problems emerged the company covered them up. Not, of course, that I am suggesting Jabiru is another Grünenthal, simply illustrating that numbers are ... well, just numbers.

 

 

[gandalph]

I'd settle for evidence-based decision making.

Yes!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

It's a beauty of a day... Let's go flying!!

 

 

[facthunter]

Soft heads are caused by overheating. The valve stem stretching and cracking likewise. Overheating of the valve only may occur. Once this has happened the motor is not safe to use.

 

Piston overheating and ring carboning (seizure) Blowby . refer to above. You will pick this by turning the prop as part of your preflight. It's all relating to overheating and many aircooled engines will overheat. More easily with marginal installations and slower aircraft .

 

The major problems emerged with attempts to run leaner and the introduction of hydraulic lifters.

 

There have been flywheel mounting issues here and there. bigger bolts, dowels, but proper assembly of high clamping force parts are the best yet.

 

I suggest if you have a cool running motor, the flywheel is fitted carefully, the right prop, don't use SUSPECT fuel Run solid lifters and monitor valve lash changes and don't run lean on any cylinder, the motor will be acceptably reliable. None of this is rocket science stuff. and it applies to just about any aircooled motor out there.

 

The jabiru motor is light weight and simple in principle. Putting a Rotax in is not so straight forward with bulk (Radiator etc) and weight and cost Chucking a lump of lead near the tail won't help it's spin characteristics at all either.

 

Do we end up making Rotax's liquid cooled motor compulsory? I don't see THAT as a a plus for the movement.

 

CASA need a face saving way out of this. Their logic is not obvious and a proper laid out case hasn't been made and if anyone had a few quid in court they could easily roll this over . THAT method is disaster, so have it as a last resort. Anyone who thinks the current situation isn't a monster risk to our future, hasn't thought it through. Nev

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

If the ATSB statistics are accurate they provide evidence that Jabiru engines, while slightly less reliable than Rotax engines, do not have a high failure rate or a failure rate that is substantially greater than Rotax engines.

If.

 

If the data reflected the reality there would be no CASA intervention and no discussion.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Anyone who thinks the current situation isn't a monster risk to our future, hasn't thought it through. Nev

True, but so is raa acft making forced landings every other week In parks, school grounds and beaches. That's the sort of thing that will land us all in hot water too.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't you think what you have just said is "slightly" emotive. I would only expect to read statements couched in those terms in some rag sensationalist newspaper. You are giving them their headlines. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

True, but so is raa acft making forced landings every other week In parks, school grounds and beaches. That's the sort of thing that will land us all in hot water too.

Nobody can fault your logic there, Merv - RAA aircraft landing in populous areas won't do any of us any good.

 

But in fact, just how many RAA aircraft end up 'in parks, school grounds and beaches' from forced landings? You should be able - by your comment - to bring up say 20 per year. Shouldn't be hard for you to provide at least some references to these..

 

Here's a few of the NON-RAA aircraft crashes that have ended up in the midst of the suburban scenery in the past few years, that do not appear to have created action by CASA:

 

Glassair III - South Lakes School, W.A.

 

Cessna - House in Lower Dandenong Road, Victoria

 

Piper Mojave, Suburban Street, Canley Vale

 

Vans RV6, Suburban Street, Chelsea.

 

Supermarine Mk 26, Suburban Street, Salisbury

 

Cirrus SR22 Suburban Street, Lawson

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'd settle for evidence-based decision making.

I already pointed you in the right direction; CASA have applied these Limitation

 

Therefore if you want accurate information you need to contact CASA. No one else has been appointed as their spokes person.

 

At the presentation it doesn't matter anyway; there is a Limitation in force, and if you have anything to do with Jabiru, it is essential to read and comply with the limitations.