CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[turboplanner]

TP now your talking about someone deliberately breaking regsHow is that relevant?

Debate here is around absurdity of the regs not if we follow them or not.

 

So CASA now doesnt have the funds to prepare data upon which to deliver consistant regulation?

 

Are you suggesting they recieve more funding to do it correctly? id suggest even CASA wouldnt be brave enough to make that claim.

 

The Jabiru debarcle hasnt cost them much. Didnt even spend man hours reviewing data or it seems reading responses didnt burn much time either.

 

The meeting with Jabiru before announcement was cancelled.

 

The risk management section must have been too busy to run through safety outcome scenarios.

 

Acting director sure didnt spend much time looking at cost, complexity, consitancy and communications process.

 

Forsyth report is stuffed in bottom drawer somewhere, remains unread too

 

Few seem to be discussing the massive effect that this will have on future investment in Aus aviation.

 

Who would spend time developing or certifying products for AU market if it can be withdrawn or similarly limited.

 

Most know confidence drives risk and investment.

OK, I'm sorry I didn't get through to you; I very strongly recommend you seek the advice of a PL lawyer.

 

 

[Camel]

Ah, but I did fly a Jabiru and I know a great deal about them. So it's my duty to try to bring you to your senses...And of course, do my utmost to see Stiff doesn't wriggle of the hook...

You said, "Personally I wouldn't fly in a Jabiru-powered aircraft and I shudder to think I put my family and friends in one."

 

I accept what you say about Jabiru faults and seeing Stiff get off the hook as I believe he should have addressed problems. The actions of CASA are not appropriate, it does nothing to make Jabiru do anything. If you think this is the right action you may as well give up flying, do you know why Cessna stopped producing single engine aircraft in the early eighties ? It was a known problem with AD's yet litigation caused it from pilots who ignored it and failed to check.

 

I have seen pilots on many occasions do things to engines that I wouldn't do, so much so I would not get in any plane unless I know it history, maintenance, pilots and storage. Many Jabirus give trouble free operation but they are delicate and so are other engines. If you think a plane should put up with abuse then problems are sure to happen.

 

If someone flys a plane over weight regularly, high G turns, heavy landings, crabbed landings, steep climbs, idle descents, no warm up, stored long periods and engine not turned over.

 

I would not buy or fly a plane unless I knew it history. Jabiru are their own enemy at the moment but CASA are the enemy of the people as they have done nothing to address the problem merely caused inconvenience which could spread and destroy recreational aviation.

 

I fear structural failure more than anything, when I flew two stokes I was told " it's not IF but WHEN " a engine failure will happen. The Jabiru engine has been a great asset to the progression of light aircraft.

 

OPEN THE WINDOW AND TAKE A LOOK !

 

UL and D motor use Jabiru mounts, Rotec make after market parts, many flying schools use Jabiru, exported around the world. Etc, etc

 

CASA are completely out of control and are ready to wreck whatever they can get their hands on. Look at GA, where are all the flying schools, where are all the LAME and workshops ?

 

 

[Oscar]

None of which is reasonable, necessary or likely to happen This has the potential to..Make all engines that could be fitted to any RAAus aircraft potentially subject to an ill defined standard of reliability in a section of aviation which is "special" in that it is truly recreational and available to people who are enthusiasts and do not carry more than one passenger who is clearly defined as being informed of the risks involved with being carried on the aircraft and is willing to accept the lowered standard of regulation applying.

 

Logically have a flow on to warbirds, experimental and other non mainstream (certified) operations ...Nev

(the bolding of engines is my addition)

Nev, I believe that one should look beyond just engine reliability as a possible consequence of the way in which CASA has constructed the basis for the action. CASA has taken action based purely on the existence of a more than average risk of a 'class' of aircraft having an accident, or having a potential accident (since not every forced landing of a Jabiru-powered aircraft resulted in a 'crash', just an inconvenient and unplanned termination of a flight).

 

This creates a whole new avenue for legal argument: that any 'class' of aircraft that can be shown to have an accident rate beyond the norm should be subject to limitations in the interests of 'safety'. In this case, CASA has effectively defined 'class' as aircraft with a common brand of engine - which is nowhere a recognised standard for the creation of a 'class' in the way that, say, MTOW brackets, or use of a CS Prop, or retractable gear etc. can be seen as definitive.

 

By application of this principle - and lawyers WILL find ways to apply it where that suits their purpose - almost any specific aircraft can be made into a 'class' and compared with other aircraft also made into a 'class'. If, for example, it can be shown from statistics that low-wing aircraft have a higher incidence of occupant injury/death than high-wing aircraft, the argument can be bought forwards on this principle that low-wing aircraft should be subject to more limitation than high-wing aircraft. ANY make/model of aircraft that has a demonstrable higher rate of injury/death than the 'norm' should, by application of the principle, be /have been subject to limitations.

 

By making the basis for action a 'comparison', not an acceptable / non-acceptable figure of some sort ( let us say, failures / 10k hours of operation in the case of Jabiru-engined aircraft), the principle has been established that anything can be nominated as the 'baseline'. Whether one likes it or not, the really, strikingly obvious 'baseline' for serious injury / death in terms of providing a statistically meaningful figure, would be Jabirus - and because of the CASA action, they would be an almost automatic choice for a lawyer to use. What lawyer would miss the fact that Jabirus have been subject to limitations on the basis of a 'safety' argument when there are other aircraft out there with 'worse' statistics for serious injury / death?

 

Just on the 2014 accident statistics ( which CASA has highlighted), there are a considerable number of aircraft that can be demonstrated to have 'worse' serious injury / death figures: any involved in fatals, just for a start. One doesn't need to be a genius to see where application of the CASA principle could lead. As with pretty much any legislation / regulation, it's unlikely to be sorted until there is a legal testing of the principle - by which time all of the potential collateral damage may have been achieved, and without any quantifiable benefit. It is impossible to measure 'accidents potentially avoided'.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

Camel, I hear what you are saying. GA flying is dying in NZ. Times are a-changing and nothing lasts for ever. There is a steady move to microlights. These are not allowed to takeoff over "congested areas" but we live with that in return for the CAA devolving regulation to RAANZ and SAC, which issue licences and permits to fly. We can do our own maintenance. Fly in controlled airspace when ATC workload permits.

 

Of course I can't offer an informed opinion on CASA, but in light of the fact the instigator of the restrictions on Jabiru has a background in RA-Aus I really can't believe his objective is to destroy recreational aviation. I'm pretty comfortable to believe he's concerned with safety.

 

I accept people have been caught with (near) worthless engines. Made by Jabiru. Not CASA.

 

As for the slippery-slope and thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments ... what can I say?

 

 

[Oscar]

As for the slippery-slope and thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments ... what can I say?

Who knows? Could you try adding something useful to consideration of the situation? 'Get Rod Stiff'' by destroying Jabiru doesn't seem very helpful.

 

 

[Camel]

do you know why Cessna stopped producing single engine aircraft in the early eighties ? It was a known problem with AD's yet litigation caused it from pilots who ignored it and failed to check.

I did not get the answer, I wonder if people realise.

 

Throughout the 1980s, several attempts were made by Cessna to inform customers of potential problems with seat railings after their tracks became worn, which included a service information letter in March of 1983 (SE83-6), a Pilot Safety and Warning Supplement in 1985, an FAA Airworthiness Directive in 1987 (FAA AD 87-20-03), and an offer of a free secondary seat-stop system for all single-engine Cessna owners.

 

In 1986 Cessna Aircraft shut down its single engine manufacturing plant. This was due to the high escalating liability costs. However, with the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 it cleared the way for Cessna to begin manufacturing single engine aircraft.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

As for the slippery-slope and thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments ... what can I say?

Who knows? Could you try adding something useful to consideration of the situation?

Or I could say you're Henny Penny clucking about the sky falling in ... and scratching at a strawman.

If Jabiru fails the cause will be Jabiru itself. You can fool some of the people some of the time but ...

 

 

[facthunter]

This is at times a "FACT FREE ZONE". eh!. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Litigation !

 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bUFjUzzIFK0C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=cessna+seat+rail+litigation&source=bl&ots=rsa8w124XN&sig=s4qbq0q-lyTzoCXUjPd49hvBMwM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y4vNVPiuEZCD8gWljIDICg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=cessna%20seat%20rail%20litigation&f=false

 

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995937660So2d277_1912.xml/CASSOUTT%20v.%20CESSNA%20AIRCRAFT%20CO.

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2007-11-27/cessna-found-liable-480m-crash-185

 

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/53m-awarded-in-crash-of-a-cessna-150/

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/03/11/daily50.html

 

http://vineyardgazette.com/news/2012/04/05/dramatic-plane-crash-trial-ends-abruptly-settlements?k=vg54cd6d33420ce

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1580648.html

 

 

[David Isaac]

Litigation !https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bUFjUzzIFK0C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=cessna+seat+rail+litigation&source=bl&ots=rsa8w124XN&sig=s4qbq0q-lyTzoCXUjPd49hvBMwM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y4vNVPiuEZCD8gWljIDICg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=cessna seat rail litigation&f=false

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1995937660So2d277_1912.xml/CASSOUTT v. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO.

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2007-11-27/cessna-found-liable-480m-crash-185

 

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/53m-awarded-in-crash-of-a-cessna-150/

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/03/11/daily50.html

 

http://vineyardgazette.com/news/2012/04/05/dramatic-plane-crash-trial-ends-abruptly-settlements?k=vg54cd6d33420ce

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1580648.html

And they are just the seat rail litigations.

There was also an absurd award given to a pilot who attempted a go around in a 172 with full 40 degrees of flap extended and crashed and survived. He sued Cessna because a 172 could not do a successful go around with 40 degrees out, inspite of the POH saying you could not do a go around with 40 degrees out ... Damned if I know what is wrong with the U.S. ligation systems that can award damages in a case like this. Every one trained on 172s is told reduce flap to 20 immediately on a go around and allow they aircraft to accelerate, then reduce remaining flap slowly as plane accelerates.

 

I forgot to add that was the reason Cessna reduced the flap settings on all 152s and 172s to 30 degrees and offered an STC to reduce the existing fleet. Just absolutely absurd, when will pilots take responsibility for their own errors and stop trying to make manufacturers responsible?

 

 

[facthunter]

Dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. Is that the only answer? There IS a bit of pitch up with power and the need to retract flap to get performance and retrim at the same time. It's remarkably similar with the underslung engines on the Airbus.

 

When you get into a Court or a Coronial Inquest you find a lack of basic appreciation of the technical and situational matters often. This must be a factor in some of the weird statements coming from some of them frequently. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interesting, I think we concluded a seat rail killed someone in a C172 in Australia about a year ago, so the seats haven't been fixed?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Interesting, I think we concluded a seat rail killed someone in a C172 in Australia about a year ago, so the seats haven't been fixed?

if you don't replace them, the problem is NOT fixed.

 

 

[facthunter]

They wear Turbo. If they let go it's a VERY dangerous situation. You get used to jiggling your backside to make sure both side rails have entered into the holes. I'm not familiar with any extra locking mechanism. I knpw about 3 who have had the seat go and it is never a good situation. You often hold and pull the column back which is a no no. Close the throttle and abort the TO if you can still reach it The vernier one is even more difficult. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

The GARA is the reason that - I believe - all new C172's are 'updates' of the original 1956 model - it qualifies for the exemption to modern standards.

 

 

[Camel]

When I did my PPL in a C172 I was told to wriggle and make sure the seat was locked and make sure the passenger was also locked in seat position. The seat rail is fitted with stops on the pilots seat to prevent it from moving all the way back. People have removed these stops to allow easy access to rear seat which is dangerous and not allowed !, There is also a modification to the pilots seat on C172 I have seen and it is an inertia reel seat stopper, I don't know if it is a mandatory AD but I believe it is supplied by Cessna at no charge.

 

The seat rail in my C172 were inspected every 100hourly and eventually all replaced, I was told the reason cracks occur apart from wear is that they were a structural part of the plane.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Personally I wouldn't fly in a Jabiru-powered aircraft and I shudder to think I put my family and friends in one.

Are you goofing or for real?

 

I have a friend who engages in high-risk activities like eating gluten and sometimes going outside without a hat and sunscreen, crazy stuff eh?

 

 

[facthunter]

Ornis has the right to feel the way he does It's his decision. Personally I know many engines out there unaffected by CASA actions with a much greater chance of stopping than a Jabiru. IF I send someone off in a Jabiru I'm much more concerned with the pilot's ability than an engine stoppage especially if it is with a plane or planes from a place where I know they are well looked after and have NO history of failure at that locality. I don't like flying ANY single engined plane over houses where there is no place to land effectively. There are some aerodromes I am aware of where there are too many houses/ factories on approaches and I wouldn't want to operate there. It's a question of balance and risk evaluation.. I would welcome a fly in a Sopwith or such with a genuine rotary engine in it, even though they only went 5 or 6 hours without engine strip often I would pick the place I flew it from though. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

When I did my PPL in a C172 I was told to wriggle and make sure the seat was locked and make sure the passenger was also locked in seat position. The seat rail is fitted with stops on the pilots seat to prevent it from moving all the way back. People have removed these stops to allow easy access to rear seat which is dangerous and not allowed !, There is also a modification to the pilots seat on C172 I have seen and it is an inertia reel seat stopper, I don't know if it is a mandatory AD but I believe it is supplied by Cessna at no charge. The seat rail in my C172 were inspected every 100hourly and eventually all replaced, I was told the reason cracks occur apart from wear is that they were a structural part of the plane.

I was also taught this & always did it. A mate of mine bought a C172 from the DEA in the US after being seized in a drug bust. It had been sitting in the desert for years & the paint & upholstery were stuffed but with a 180 hp engine & coarse pitch prop it went like the clappers especially in the climb out. I flew it just after he got it & did the normal jiggle but must have not got the holes lined up right as the seat let go & I grabbed the top of the panel & that came off along with the plastic panel trim but it was enough for me to somehow get the yoke forward enough to prevent stalling. Very scary though. I didn't fly it again until it had been completely refurbished along with brand new $2000.00 seat rails.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

I know many engines out there unaffected by CASA actions with a much greater chance of stopping than a Jabiru.

Maybe, Nev, but are they sold as (certified) aero engines with certain claims of reliability and TBO, misleading installation instructions; every failure blamed on poor maintenance or operation?

Confronted with head embedment valve seat recession what did Jabiru do? Introduced hydraulic lifters. Customers bought engines that didn't work. At all. The legacy? A myriad of new problems. Compare this with what CAMit has done.

 

There may be some Jabiru engines in Australia that are safe. But how would you know? Strip them down before you go? I mean, mine went like a bomb (!) until an exhaust valve broke. True, we weren't monitoring the EGTs - Jabiru said we didn't need to. When you buy an engine, you shouldn't need to know more than the manufacturer. (cf the flywheel joint.)

 

After years of inaction, CASA has said, "Too many failures, stop mucking around, sort it out."

 

I would hazard a guess and say 99% of Australians would agree.

 

 

[facthunter]

The major effect is on the owners and operators They are not criminals nor have criminal intentions. Some operators have NO problems but it all gets lumped into one basket. The same FIX (which is not a fix and may remove any chance of a fix happening) is applied right on the beginning of a christmas break. I'm not alleging a conspiracy theory but it just seems DUMB. Maybe I will consider the conspiracy theory if something sensible doesn't happen soon. People who don't leave themselves a face saving way out , shouldn't be let off their lead. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Very true what you say Nev except I believe the Conspiracy theory. CASA sports aviation people were at the CFI conference, I can't see why they would not have discussed it as they should have known that FTF with Jabiru would have been affected also the meeting scheduled with CASA and Jabiru was originally cancelled because CASA guy was sick or something and the meeting was rescheduled the day after when the intention was made public on 13th Nov. I fully believe the conspiracy theory and hope the relevant people do not get a chance to do this irresponsible antics again. After all that I do hope Jabiru make improvements on their engines.

 

In support of the conspiracy, why does anyone need RAA if CASA take over recreational licensing and registration other that being a national club ?

 

Why did CASA employ three ex RAA people ?

 

Why did not CASA use it's own people to audit RAA ?

 

Why did they put an ex RAA CEO in charge of CASA sports aviation ?

 

Why did CASA sponsor Natfly and act like it was in charge ?

 

Why did so many CASA sports aviation people attend CFI conference ?

 

Why did I get a standard response from minister W Truss, did he get so many complaints ?

 

Why when I wrote to other government officials they palmed it off and said would pass to relevant minister ?

 

Why don't they wake up ? Are they completely stupid ?

 

Why wouldn't Jabiru just close down and reopen tomorrow with another name ?

 

 

[facthunter]

In fairness to CASA, it needs a new act of Parliament to operate under It has no freedom to act outside of it. Commentators with more brains than me have been mentioning this for years. The FAA is regarded as better insomuch as it CAN assist aviation. It is required to notionally. We just have an authority that can impose rules under the act. They don't do that correctly, or more important CONSISTENTLY either. If one or two have a whim of fancy anything can happen. No one I know in the game is happy. They just put up with it and shut up. There's no other option for them, other than getting out.Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

There's no other option for them, other than getting out.Nev

And for that reason, we're rapidly losing vast amounts of experience in the form of the best and most experienced ex-CAR35 engineers doing exactly that.

 

 

[Russ]

Any updates. .??