CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[coljones]

I apologise if someone else has posted this link for the COMLAW or the CASA site

 

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01806

 

CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd - F2014L01806

 

CASA 292/14 Directions/Civil Aviation as made

 

This instrument prescribes operating limitations on aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by, or under licence from or under a contract with, Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd to manage risks arising from a high incidence of engine loss-of-power events and other reliability issues.

 

Administered by: Infrastructure and Regional Development

 

Made 22 Dec 2014

 

Registered 23 Dec 2014

 

Date of Ceasing To be ceased 30 Jun 2015

 

Reason for Ceasing Self Ceasing

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102353

 

Precautionary operational limits on Jabiru-powered aircraft

 

Contains some other information icludinf a link to the warning and staement to be signed off by passengers and students

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/media/download/acknowledgement_acceptance_risk_form.docx

 

Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Risk

 

Potential Engine Malfunction during Flight Time

 

Provided and signed pursuant to Instrument number CASA 292/14 of 22 December 2014

 

1. I, ___________________________________, PROPOSE TO TAKE A FLIGHT IN THE AIRCRAFT IDENTIFIED AS ___________________________ (THE AIRCRAFT).

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

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

 

5. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SIGNED BY (OR ON BEHALF OF): __________________________________

 

DATE: _________________________

 

 

[Russ]

Get intended pax to pay $1 co ownership of the aircraft, would negate the instrument from casa.....yes..no ??

 

 

[rhysmcc]

It applies to passengers, I don't think being an owner would make a difference. If they had a pilots certificate and flew as co-pilot then I guess they wouldn't be classed as a passenger.

 

 

[facthunter]

RAAAus planes don't have co pilots. The only time two pilots are in the plane and recognised is as instructor and pupil. or in a Trial situation. ie TIF. It has to be a 2 crew specified operation to need a co pilot. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

print that out in 6pt font like a mobile phone contract and no one will bother to read it

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks col.

 

it would be interesting to know how much protection this gave the pilot-owner.

 

I can imagine a lawyer saying this made the liability worse because the risk was "known". I once read that a " beware of the dog" sign actually increased your legal risk .

 

 

[jetjr]

Just reading it again

 

Are CASA acknowleging in 5A that this requirement to fly away from people and buildings would make emergency landing LESS safe?

 

So whilst saying the engine is more likely to fail, we impose limitations making possible outcomes worse

 

 

[Geoff13]

Only worse for those in the plane, not for those on the ground.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I don't think CASA has the authority to impose controls on what the PIC decides to do in an emergency. So 5A is probably illegal IMHO.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I don't think CASA has the authority to impose controls on what the PIC decides to do in an emergency. So 5A is probably illegal IMHO.

Who knows, perhaps CASA have re-assumed liability on that one, but I wouldn't want to test it because if I killed someone on the ground, I would be sure of being charged with manslaughter and getting 6 1/2 years, since I knew about the Instrument.

There has been a cynical disregard for innocent passengers, students, and the general public on this thread.

 

 

[geoffreywh]

7. really?

 

 

[coljones]

Who knows, perhaps CASA have re-assumed liability on that one, but I wouldn't want to test it because if I killed someone on the ground, I would be sure of being charged with manslaughter and getting 6 1/2 years, since I knew about the Instrument.There has been a cynical disregard for innocent passengers, students, and the general public on this thread.

This thread hasn't been a cynical anything - that is the province of the other thread. This thread focuses on the instrument and its constaints.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I don't think CASA has the authority to impose controls on what the PIC decides to do in an emergency. So 5A is probably illegal IMHO.

No but they do have the ability to influence over what sort of territory that emergency may occur.........as they have done.

 

 

[jetjr]

So making people fly routes over poor landing areas is now a good idea and increases safety?

 

When a track over town would have you directly over airport??

 

The risk of ground injury is very low, so much that it hasnt happened ever in RAA as far as I know and no ones offered examples. Probably similar risk of being hit by a component falling off or in flight fire, structural failure. Doubt aircraft crash even rates in risks to ground based public. Therefore to reduce this risk doesnt reduce much at all.

 

The risk for injury to Pilot and Pax in an emerg landing is pretty high, make them fly over worse terrain, ADMITTING it could have worse consequences, is greatly increasing risk of injury, assuming you follow the whole premise that engines going to fail often.

 

Pilot and pax safety is less worth than perceived public fear.

 

In any risk management system audit this looks like butt covering in the extreme. Possibly resulting in increased injury.

 

No disregard or cynicisim here except for poorly thought out limitations.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Jetjr...With a whole fresh new year upon us no doubt the Jab will be watched closely. Already a failure has been documented. Lets see what the next 12 months brings so that we can all make well documented informed opinions.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This thread hasn't been a cynical anything - that is the province of the other thread. This thread focuses on the instrument and its constaints.[/Quote]So did Andy's thread, but that didn't stop the stream of engine claims, anti-CASA hysteria, and hypotheticals.

[Guest Ornis]

So making people fly routes over poor landing areas is now a good idea and increases safety?

No, CASA doesn't want the Jabiru fleet flying until reliability and safety issues are settled but if you choose to ignore its advice then you're not permitted to endanger people on the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

RAAAus planes don't have co pilots.

Copilot is just shorthand for the passenger being another pilot, which is a special case, that I think CASA recognises.

 

 

[jetjr]

Ornis youve lost me, ....ignore what advice? When did they say they dont want Jabs flying

 

Why are you here considering none applies to you?

 

 

[facthunter]

Ornis Co-pilot has a strict meaning. It is not just another pilot being there. You could have things like "Safety Pilot" Observer or Check who would still have some defined function. A co-pilot where specified is part of the normal crewing for the type and has defined ground and flight duties and holding an endorsement on type.

 

Where A co pilot is not specified for the operation a passenger may occupy the seat in certain circumstances Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbs Are all comments questioning actions of the CASA , Hysteria? Do we just say they are the boss and do nothing. Hopefully they still listen to what people say. There have been plenty of rather quick responses in the past that had to be revisited and modified/reversed. Nev

 

 

[Tex]

I can imagine a lawyer saying this made the liability worse because the risk was "known". I once read that a " beware of the dog" sign actually increased your legal risk .

Volenti Non Fit Injuria

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

facthunter. All very true but completely irrelevant. We are talking about casually alluding to the passenger as copilot when he is a pilot and the consequences of this in terms of the restrictions. I don't think (s)he must sign a waiver, but I might be wrong.

 

jetjr. Okay, so would you say that CASA has, for the past several months, been actively encouraging the Jabiru fleet to fly or do you get the impression it would have liked to ground it, or as good as?

 

 

[facthunter]

Ornis we will have to agree to disagree on that one. When it comes to legal issues one word can make a whole world of difference. CASA are well aware of what co pilot means. The LAST thing we need with this sort of stuff is "loose wording", or for anyone thinking of doing something to just say anything will do to get around things. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

I think CASA has been very active protecting its a&$e and acting for the sake of being seen to act, all for possible litigation risk. Selectively using data to justify a result, making industry damaging claims, comments and proposals, not listening to RAA, Jabiru or owners.

 

Seriously overstepping the mark limiting operation of both RAA and VH experimental registered aircraft.

 

Through limitations, placing thousands of pilots in more dangerous position in the event of outlanding .

 

Basically acting as the bully they are renown for as outlined on Forsyth report

 

They would appear to have little interest in real results or subsequent safety consequences or they would have progressed in a coperative manner AFTER validating data supplied. As a result there is almost no chance of useful improvements coming from manufacturer and have in fact strengthened Jabirus claim that they are being targeted unreasonably.

 

All the aircraft are still flying, no safety advantage has been achieved other than reducing a nearly non existant risk involving ground persons, primarily based around a small number of city based airfields.

 

At this point im not sure its clear which division within CASA even commenced the action, its obvious a clear path to resoloution was not set prior to action.