Jabiru limitations

[facthunter]

The failures have to be defined more accurately. and have to be a % of hours flown or take offs or such. I wouldn't rate a soft cylinder at 500 hours as a failure. Plenty of engines won't make that and often there are specific reasons why these things happen. (Like leaving the engine sit idle for long periods or having a severe overheat event, that is not followed up). Nev

 

 

[Ultralights]

Casa made sure the timing does the most damage, release the report and rules right on the last day before they go on holidays, so you have no right of reply for a while, they are well know to give notices at 4.59 Pm on fridays..

 

 

[facthunter]

Good call. I didn't connect the times. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

So, what is the worst of them out there? CASA quote 45 'failures in 2014..Show me ONE engine that had 46?

Looks like this thread could turn into the p!ssing competition that the previous (now locked) one became. The topic is Jabiru Limitations not Yours is Worse Than mine.

 

 

[Camel]

So CASA certified the engine, don't they have to explain themselves, CASA have failed the job, their test didn't work then ! CASA are useless and no one can argue against that as they have proved beyond doubt that they couldn't run a chook raffle.

 

 

[Russ]

I dont know how much "worse" it could get?

 

 

NoteParagraph (a), together with the definition of populous area, has the effect of prohibiting Jabiru-powered aircraft from departing from or landing at various places, including but not limited to Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin Airports.

 

So No jabs ourt of several airfields.

 

AND.... This is the 'waiver' we are expected to get students and pax to sign..

 

‘I, [insert name] , PROPOSE TO TAKE A FLIGHT IN THE AIRCRAFT IDENTIFIED AS [insert registration information] (THE AIRCRAFT). 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.

 

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

 

‘I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:

 

‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND

 

‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.

 

‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.

 

‘I ACCEPT THE RISK NOTING THAT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND FIX THE ENGINE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

 

‘I AM AWARE THAT CASA REQUIRES MY SIGNATURE ON THIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FLIGHT MAY COMMENCE.

 

‘SIGNED: DATE: ’

 

I dont know about you guys, or know about "gettin that into me" but anybody who flops this in front of a student and thinks they will be still sitting in front of them in 30 seconds time, lining up for a solo flight, have rocks in the head!!!

The gyro folks have similar, it was " self " .....asra, initiated, yrs ago, never heard a case where the newbie bolted after reading the form, they signed, they flew.

 

 

[Russ]

I think......" Glide from populous areas" as mentioned in the casa document, excludes takeoffs and arrivals. Clarification might be needed here.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The failures have to be defined more accurately. and have to be a % of hours flown or take offs or such. I wouldn't rate a soft cylinder at 500 hours as a failure. Plenty of engines won't make that and often there are specific reasons why these things happen. (Like leaving the engine sit idle for long periods or having a severe overheat event, that is not followed up). Nev

Nev, which engines are "worse"?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Looks like this thread could turn into the p!ssing competition that the previous (now locked) one became. The topic is Jabiru Limitations not Yours is Worse Than mine.

Not at all Gandy. Nev made a statement that if true has lots of merit in the conversation. if there is indeed a "worse" engine out there, then I for one want to know what it is. Secondly, CASA need to explain why these "worse" engines arent being legislated 'against'. I dont want p1ssing contest either, but I would like statements like " there are worse" engines to be explained.

We have a hole in our school now, that needs filling. If there is another suspect engine out there, I want to make sure we dont end up with that bugga online too:)

 

 

[Methusala]

This scenario is most definitely NOT about Jabiru. This is the well known tactic ,vis "thin edge of the wedge". CASA have been a huntin' our movement since the arrival of McCormack, AKA "I AM A REGULATOR!" Who has forgotten the pamphlet published with a Drifter image on the cover decrying risks to air safety. I was particularly alarmed when I saw that but was howled down by a mob who thought CASA was our friend. No reason to think that his replacement hasn't been carefully vetted as well. I now no longer fly to airports because I know that I don't need reams of paperwork to be able to navigate safely. Just follow the map as you do when traveling by road. Thankfully we had thirty good years before these fools started hounding us freedom flyers. Don People who are constantly complaining about a product should simply avoid it.

 

 

[Oscar]

The failures have to be defined more accurately. and have to be a % of hours flown or take offs or such. I wouldn't rate a soft cylinder at 500 hours as a failure. Plenty of engines won't make that and often there are specific reasons why these things happen. (Like leaving the engine sit idle for long periods or having a severe overheat event, that is not followed up). Nev

CASA has resolutely - and in the face of repeated requests from RAA - refused to make the data they are quoting available for inspection and comment/challenge. Board members were fighting against this action right up to the knock of Friday afternoon, working through the night and the wee small hours of early Friday morning. It is of course entirely a matter for the Board to make the details of how the actions of the last few days between RAA and CASA have played out, but if that ever surfaces it will be apparent that the RAA Board went down fighting valiantly to the last. An immediate challenge to the directive is underway.

 

This was the acting DAS, Terry Farqharson's last-ditch act of bastadry towards Sport aviation and there can be no effective comeback against him. It book-ends the McCormick 'regime's' entire tenure at the top of CASA and its consistent opposition to Sport aviation generally. The incoming CASA DAS, Mark Skidmore, attended the AOPA Flight Crew Licensing Regulations Review Forum meeting on Wednesday 17th December. The report of that meeting concludes:

 

The new DAS Mark Skidmore, whilst he has a huge task ahead of him, seems genuine in his desire to change the culture within CASA, he reiterated his and CASA's intent to implement the recommendations of the ASRRP.

 

I suggest it is not at all fanciful to believe that this final act by Farquharson was a parting shot across Skidmore's bows as he hoves into view - a spiteful 'cop that, young Harry' act motivated by indignation that the McCormick / Farquharson 'legacy' might be repudiated and dismantled. In a just world, those two would be hunted down by a righteous Sport aviation community and gutted like clams - oh, I AM sorry, I mean apprised of our displeasure.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Possibly oscar. But the numbers provide an easy "bullet' for them to fire dont they?

 

 

[Oscar]

Not at all Gandy. Nev made a statement that if true has lots of merit in the conversation. if there is indeed a "worse" engine out there, then I for one want to know what it is. Secondly, CASA need to explain why these "worse" engines arent being legislated 'against'. I dont want p1ssing contest either, but I would like statements like " there are worse" engines to be explained.We have a hole in our school now, that needs filling. If there is another suspect engine out there, I want to make sure we dont end up with that bugga online too:)

Merv - what is, in your view, the cut-off point for an acceptable rate of engine failures per 10,000 hours of flying vs a non-acceptable rate? I think we all agree that there is no such thing as a fail-proof engine, so at what point would you be prepared to say to your students: 'well, this engine is less of a risk than that one, so I'm happy to send you off into the blue with this engine but I wouldn't dream of exposing you to the risk of that one?'

 

Your concern for your student's safety is commendable and I in no way denigrate the value of that; there are apparently about 170 FTFs that currently have a different view to you. Here's an opportunity for you to provide them with guidance.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . while ignoring Rotax. . . .

Oscar, please don't wish CASA looking at Rotax on us. The issue here is CASA's out of proportion reaction to the "jabiru problem". One of the reasons we all kicked back against their illogical response is because following this example there is no limit to the harm that they could do to light aviation.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The acceptable rates for failures is not my issue Oscar. I dont have access to all the data that the regulator does, I am not an engineer either. I dont manufacture aeroplanes or their engines. So what I "find" acceptable is of little use.

 

Logically I would want ZERO failures per 10000 hours, or 10 billion hours. What I find acceptable is not the issue.

 

What is the issue NOW, is the people who DO have access to the numbers. The people that DO have acceptable and un acceptable levels, legislate FOR me. They give ME direction in the form of approvals and rule frameworks for me to operate under.

 

When the regulator FORCES me to make my student sign a waiver with wording like :

 

‘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.

 

I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:

 

‘(A) THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND

 

‘(B) THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.

 

‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.

 

The risk is cl;eraly highlighted. And its been done so BY THE REGULATOR. In the event something was to happen and a student was killed, the fact they had signed the above would not help me sleep, or to answer the question posed by the coronor.

 

"Mr Campbell, the risk was clearly highlighted, the regulator of your organisation TOLD you there was what they deem " an unacceptable risk" and yet YOU sent a student solo, who would ghave no doubt been acting on YOYR recommendation. The student could ONLY have agreed to fly the aircraft on YOUR recommendation. And there are OTHER options for you to send students solo in that the regulator does NOT find to pose an unacceptable risk.

 

This would be my advice to ALL CFI's who would consider sending a student solo in the aircraft.

 

The risk has NOT changed, but the consequence to US as instructors, and the RAA HAS CHANGED. And if thats not obvious to people, then I suggest they have good look at the wording of the waiver. And the spirit of the instrument.

 

Good luck fighting the relatives of the 15 years old girl who augers in.

 

 

[Camel]

So CASA certified the engine, don't they have to explain themselves, CASA have failed the job, their test didn't work then ! CASA are useless and no one can argue against that as they have proved beyond doubt that they couldn't run a chook raffle.

Jabiru jumped though the hoops as CASA stood by at big expense to certify the engine, now CASA after destroying many other Australian manufacturers and says the Jabiru engine is no good, THEN THEIR STANDARD FOR CERTIFICATION IS NO GOOD !. GET RiD OF CASA ! There are problems with Jabiru engines but CASA has no clue how to go about fixing anything. Automotive engines in cars do not get certified, they have to meet pollution laws and be reliable so people will buy them, certification is helping no one except the ones going for the expenses paid bludge from CASA.

In my opinion CASA approved it and now they want it changed, I reckon CASA can pay for the updates to make it meet certification standards.

 

Same nonsense in 2006 and certified a Sportstar as LSA with an adjustable prop then said you can't have it, were the CASA people there BLIND or their eyes painted on or just plain stupid.

 

http://www.evektor.com.au/public/editor_images/Current%20newsletters/SilverWing%20newsletter%2005.pdf.

 

The Sportstar was the first US FAA approved SLSA. But it didn't have an adjustable prop because FAA did not allow then, so why CASA was so STUPID and The later and ex RAA CASA genius said no more adjustable prop.

 

CASA have caused nothing but grief it's time to stamp your feet and say enough of this STUPIDITY, get rid of CASA !!!!!

 

 

[Chird65]

Good luck fighting the relatives of the 15 years old girl who augers in.

Merv,

 

• Does this mean that you are not going to train in any Jabiru?
   
   
  
• Are your students suddenly going to auger in because you are not there?
   
   
  
• Are you going to get an under age person to sign a waiver?
   
   
  
• Do you only have girl students?
   
   
  

 

 

 

I think you would be better off saying what you intend to do and why, rather than peppering your posts with florid terms. pass on your though patterns and leave it to others to assess their risk.

 

I agree that there is a case to be answered but that goes both ways and as others have mentioned the actual raw data and statistics should be produced by CASA. I would suggest that if I was going to be dragged to court then I would have a similar waiver for all risk based activities. I would have training similar to large companies that students/hirers and staff would have to complete that points out the risks and their requirements to be safe.

 

This is about risk management and only training and access to all data can allow someone to assess if they are comfortable.

 

Chris

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Merv,

• Does this mean that you are not going to train in any Jabiru?
   
   
  
• Are your students suddenly going to auger in because you are not there?
   
   
  
• Are you going to get an under age person to sign a waiver?
   
   
  
• Do you only have girl students?
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Chris

No. I will still train in Jabirus. But I wont be sending students Solo under that waiver.

 

No. I would hope my students done auger in. But, chris as im sure you are aware...Sh!t happens dude.

 

No, im aware that the parent must sign the waiver, not the minor. Try explaining the politics to the parents... yea she will be right, the Australian government deem the aeroplane to bean unacceptable risk, but if you just sign this, we can get her on her way....yea, thats gunna happen.

 

No, I also have male students.

 

Sorry if its "Florid", but thats how I speak. Sometimes the situation needs to be expressed in "real world" terms before it becomes clear.

 

Im not suggesting any other CFI's take my word for anything. Ive expressed what I feel about sending people solo in an aeroplane Tony Abbot is telling me not to.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If I send a staff member to a country that has a DFAT 4 warning, and something goes wrong, I had better have a very good, bullet proof, explanation of why I thought it was OK to send them despite the warning. Similarly if you send a student up in a Jab you had better have a well thought out, documented explanation of why you thought it was OK to ignore the warning. You will really need to provide evidence of special circumstances that apply in your case. Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, but have been briefed on the DFAT situation several times.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I would really be looking to the RAA for guidance on this. I may be wrong, but I think the RAA is in a real pickle when this becomes effective. Are instructors 100% guaranteed cover under the waiver? I doubt it very much.It would be devastating, but the RAA istelf would have a case to answer in my view.

 

I would just be banning them for SOLO students until its sorted.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I think that MM's assessment of liability risks are balanced and accurate and excellent advice.

 

I'd be interested to explore the logos that says otherwise.

 

The only counter I can think of is that the Courts have stated that recreational aviation is an inherently dangerous activity and dismissed a suit for negligence on that basis ( between a student and his instructor).

 

 

[DonRamsay]

I would really be looking to the RAA for guidance on this. I may be wrong, but I think the RAA is in a real pickle when this becomes effective. Are instructors 100% guaranteed cover under the waiver? I doubt it very much.It would be devastating, but the RAA istelf would have a case to answer in my view.I would just be banning them for SOLO students until its sorted.

The ironic thing is that CASA would almost certainly be joined in any action against an RAA Instructor as happened with the Smith / Sting case.

 

 

[Methusala]

It seems as though some instructors would prefer all training be done in a simulator (if not a cocoon )

 

 

[motzartmerv]

With all due respect methuselah, if that's what your taking from the current conversation, then I'm afraid you don't understand what's being said.

 

 

[gandalph]

I would really be looking to the RAA for guidance on this. I may be wrong, but I think the RAA is in a real pickle when this becomes effective. Are instructors 100% guaranteed cover under the waiver? I doubt it very much......

Merv, I think the waiver is designed to protect CASA's @rse not the yours.