CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[turboplanner]

Re the CASA SD reports held under http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_90818Of the total of 5 Jabiru engine "failures" I can find reported on the CASA list of 114 prop engine failures in 2014, three failures are claimed as engine, one failure claimed as ring gear and one as fuel pump.

 

Only one Jab failure is listed on the CASA SD list for 2015 so far.

So how many VH Registered Jabs are there?

 

 

[JEM]

Good question TP. I don't have the answer.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Hi Powerin, we are all more inclined to believe negative stuff than positive. There would be survival value in this policy for cavemen, which explains why this is so.

 

In 14 years, my Jabiru engine has not missed a beat. I flew it today, and it ran as smooth as usual.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So how many VH Registered Jabs are there?

27 if you key in Jabiru under 'manufactures' on the CASA registration search page.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

And another thing Powerin, I did not actually have the choice of Jabiru vs Rotax vs Lycoming vs Continental.

 

I envy you if you can afford to choose like this, you will probably be driving an expensive but high-safety car.

 

For me, the Jabiru was the only one I could afford.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

And another thing Powerin, I did not actually have the choice of Jabiru vs Rotax vs Lycoming vs Continental.I envy you if you can afford to choose like this, you will probably be driving an expensive but high-safety car.

For me, the Jabiru was the only one I could afford.

That is the great thing Jabiru did for Australian aviation. It got more people flying! They may be even more affordable now.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

And another thing Powerin, I did not actually have the choice of Jabiru vs Rotax vs Lycoming vs Continental.I envy you if you can afford to choose like this, you will probably be driving an expensive but high-safety car.

For me, the Jabiru was the only one I could afford.

He, like many of the other vocal, probably doesn't own.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Bruce and others,

 

I have had my 230 factory built now for seven years. This was my first plane that I owned except for a share in another 230 for a year or so.

 

I certainly spent much time determining what aircraft I needed for my needs, consequently I settled for a 230 predominantly due to my desire to travel cross country.

 

I keep looking out for a better aircraft that would suit, so far nothing has come close.

 

Value for money, yes. Great touring aircraft, yes. If you are just doing bumps and goes I would reconsider my choice.

 

Over the years I have travelled to most of OZ by 4 wheel drive and retraced my route by air. Absolutely magnificent experience.

 

I can recommend this model for anybody that has a like interest.

 

Cheers.

 

PHIL

 

 

[coljones]

The control Instrument CASA 292/14 ceases on 30th June, 2015. Does anyone have any insight about what CASA proposes to do from the 1st of July?

 

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

 

 

[Camel]

All the communication I have had with CASA is they have been trying to cover themselves, NO response from D.A.S , NO response other than standard letter from Minister even after several letters and phone calls,

 

Pass on to Deputy from PM after letter then no response, CASA Industry Complaints Commission sticking up for CASA, Still awaiting FOI ! I have been made aware CASA have failed to make representation to Jabiru by cancelation of visits, The fact this is an Australia only Limitation is RIDICULOUS.

 

My correspond to date has been shared with RAA and some other correspondence has been shared with me from others, I believe there is a serious case for interested parties to get answers.

 

The FOI put in for was a run around and doubt very much it will be supplied, this is due to be supplied end of this month ! Everything rides on the FOI and whether CASA ends the Limitation, but either way there will be some serious explaining to do as to date no explanation is satisfactory.

 

This is for the benefit for those who are interested ONLY !

 

Watch Keith's comment re Jabiru https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC9uoVIUeTwNC6FiD4_QIzQA/videos.

 

He sums it up very well.

 

 

[jetjr]

Does anyone think that this will quietly lapse?

 

Only way out for CASA without more pressure from owners and RAA

 

It clearly has done nothing to increase safety.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Since the introduction of said instrument there has been 10 RAA crashes (resulting in 8 fatalities) and if one is to believe the information posted on this forum, none relate to airframe/engines or maintenance.

 

This would suggest to me another area should be of greater concern!

 

I think there is a problem with "personalities" in CASA behind this instrument and not a comprehensive risk analysis as one would expect.

 

Level of skills/knowledge being delivered would be a point of discussion at this years CFI conference I would suspect.

 

 

[Oscar]

Let's look dispassionately at some facts here.

 

The ATSB figures for engine failures in the RAA sector showed that Jabiru engines had a decreasing ratio vs Rotax engines during 2013-2014. The attribution by CASA that there was a sudden upsurge in the ratio of Jabiru engine failures vs Rotax engine failures - and that WAS the criteria upon which CASA based the justification for its action - is not supported by the available data.

 

CASA has fought tooth and nail against releasing the actual data upon which it has made a claim of 'X' engine failures for Jabiru engines. You do not have to be a genius to realise that, if an entity has irrefutable data to support its case, it WILL release that data: short of 'national security' concerns, there is NO believable reason to restrict access to the data that has been used to support an action.

 

The first obvious conclusion is: CASA knows that the actual data does not validate its action and would not stand up in Court. If CASA were protected from a legal action of tort, it could simply publish the data with impunity, on a 'take it or leave it' basis. However CASA CAN be sued for tort, and therefore, protection of the data in which it made the decision for its action is a commercial reason for fighting the FOI release of the data: it has NOTHING to do with safety.

 

The second - and perhaps less obvious - conclusion is that the action by CASA had everything to do with protecting its perceived reputation for maintaining safety standards rather than actual effective action for safety itself. This has come about by the strident communication of opinion by a vociferous few, supported by certain elements of the 'social' media. Instead of performing a rigorous examination of the facts and compiling reliable data, CASA had a knee-jerk reaction to the possibility that it would be denounced publicly and noisily for having failed the 'public' - had a catastrophic situation happened due to a Jabiru engine failure.

 

Jabiru engine failures have NOT caused significant danger to either the flying community or the general public, in its history to date. There is no statistical evidence to support the case that Jabiru engines - operated within the limitations of the class of aircraft in which they are installed - present an unacceptable level of risk to either the general public OR the people who fly in aircraft powered by them.

 

The nature of 'ultralight' aircraft accepts a higher level of risk due to its lower level of regulation from GA. That 'recreational aviation' is a 'high risk' activity, is now enshrined in legal precedent.

 

In fact, 'recreational aviation' is not - from mechanical problems - a statistically major player in the 'high risk' category. More people die each year from rock fishing - and more of the 'general public' die from trying to rescue them than die from an innocent involvement in an ultralight accident. More people die from driving into flood waters each year; more people die from drunken fights outside nightclubs at 3.00 a.m. More people die from domestic violence incidents. More people die from falling off a damn ladder, FFS.

 

And many, many thousands of people die each year from automobile accidents.

 

 

[Russ]

welcome back....

 

 

[gandalph]

A well reasoned argument Oscar. Sadly though, I suspect it will once again rouse the hounds.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't be negative. Oscar was always worth listening to. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Don't be negative. Oscar was always worth listening to. Nev

Agreed Nev. I hope I wasn't taken as being negative about Oscars post. I certainly did not mean it to be taken that way. As I said I think he made some very well reasoned arguments and I support his view on this matter. My comment about rousing the dogs was directed at the baying pack that although quiet of late seem, intent on removing Jabiru engines from the skies and, as a consequence whether intended or not, CAMit as well. Perhaps I am being too negative with that view. Time to mellow with a nice red.

 

 

[facthunter]

I agree too There is nothing wrong with having a positive or even contrary point of view. I've found Oscars contribution worthy. There's an old saying. I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it...Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Yup.

 

 

[Oscar]

Thanks to all for the kind words. I do not intend henceforth to get into dispute with those who wish to continue with persistent anti-Jabiru diatribe, as it is both unproductive and not welcomed. I am already hearing from around the traps indications that the extent of the damage to 'the Jabiru community': those involved in the manufacture, operation, and ownership of Jabirus - is becoming evident. This was predictable, and there is more than a little chance that it will become irreversible.

 

The CASA 'figure' of in-flight engine stoppages is now becoming widely quoted in the Press in relation to any accident involving a Jabiru: e.g.: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/a-light-aircraft-crash-landed-in-the-nattai-national-park-after-its-engine-failed-with-two-people-on-board/story-fnii5s3z-1227289453945 We do not see - as far as I have noticed - any subsequent coverage of the actual causes, certainly not with the same prominence as the original sensational story.

 

For this reason alone, I believe that pressure must remain on CASA to release the actual data so that the actualities of the situation are exposed for critical evaluation. Jabiru have been, in effect, tried and found 'guilty' by CASA, and the entire Jabiru 'community' has been punished on the basis of 'evidence' which is being held secret. While I am no legal expert - not even a self-determined one - it appears mightily to me that if a similar sort of process had been applied to an individual, there would be a compelling argument that 'natural justice' had been denied. We do not operate as a society on the system of Napoleonic Justice; yet it is hard to see in the absence of examination of the data, that the CASA action has done other than laid the charges and applied the penalty, and is continuing to deny anyone the opportunity to even mount a credible defence.

 

 

[jetjr]

Id suggest the damage to Jabiru was the aim all along. Driven by petty personal issues and supporting pressure from others

 

However as has been said all along, nothing will be achieved and could make situation worse. The only people able to help are weaker as a result.

 

Owners and the associated community were just collateral. Like CASA, SSAO dont give a stuff about this.

 

Question has the aim been achieved and will the limitations be ended?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Watch Keith's comment re Jabiru https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC9uoVIUeTwNC6FiD4_QIzQA/videos.He sums it up very well.

Can you please tell us which clip the comments were in (there are two lengthy clips at the link)... is is the Q and A session? Thanks Camel.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The Cessnock meeting which the board members attended, and the link is on here, somewhere recent

 

 

[kgwilson]

Can you please tell us which clip the comments were in (there are two lengthy clips at the link)... is is the Q and A session? Thanks Camel.

Keith starts his statement at 16:15 from the start of session 2.

 

 

[Oscar]

Watch Keith's comment re Jabiru https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC9uoVIUeTwNC6FiD4_QIzQA/videos.

He sums it up very well.

I doubt there is a more respected Jabiru engine maintainer/re-builder than Keith Rule, anywhere. All of his comments are cogent and relevant, and they reflect the opinion of other maintenance organisations I have experienced. That Jabiru's typical response to reports from people whose opinions they should respect is fundamentally denial, is indisputable - though it has to be accepted that Jabiru are not always automatically WRONG.

 

The nature of an engine is that it is a system of components; the nature of that system is that the root cause of a problem is not always apparent from the failure of a component. To go back to the simplistic 'weak link in the chain' examination of a failure of a system to deliver required results: simply strengthening the 'weak link' will not solve the problems of the system if the system is fundamentally flawed for delivery of the required results. It will - at best - expose another 'weak link', etc. etc.

 

What is required is an expert analysis of the 'task' for the system and the design of the system to meet - in every aspect, from beginning to end - that task. There is NO 'silver bullet' fix that will miraculously solve the problems that are experienced in Jabiru engines, because the target is not singular, it is systemic. We have seen passionate arguments that 'the problem' is the orientation of the pistons, the use of hydraulic lifters, the size of the through-bolts, the through-bolt nuts, side-loading on the valve stems, the flywheel bolts, the barrel lining material, the type of valve guide - and a number of others. All of these have some validity when looked at in a system perspective. We have even had a persistent hypothesis expressed that the material and manufacturing process for the crankcase is the root cause, which at least has been thigh-slapping comic relief for anybody with even the most rudimentary understanding of metallurgy and machining processes.

 

That neither CASA nor RAA have gone beyond the use of dubious (and unrevealed) 'statistics' of end results, is incredible in the context of actually trying to improve safety. Yes, the RAA response in the referenced video that it is 'not an engineering organisation' is fair - but CASA IS 'an engineering organisation'. Within 'Airworthiness' branch, there is a unit dedicated to 'powerplants' - and though it has to be conceded that industry sources who have to deal with them will tell you that they could not find their gluteus maximus even with the assistance of a GPS and a call to a friend, they ought to be able to evaluate basic engineering problems, at least if assisted by competent advisors.

 

And a 'competent advisor' is available: the manufacturer of the major componentry of the Jabiru engine itself. Even a half-ar%ed engineering graduate should be able to recognise if the information he or she is being presented with is believable, and therefore follow that information to its conclusion. The conclusion will be, self-evidently, changes to componentry / processes that actually remove critical points of failure.

 

Simply slapping on restrictions that mitigate the potential (the actual harmful effects of Jabiru engine problems in regard to fatalities/injuries to the users or the general public is extremely low) results of problems is NOT a solution to the problems - it is a prophylactic. If CASA were genuinely concerned with improving the potential safety of Jabiru engines, it would be looking at the root causes of the problems and requiring appropriate remedies.

 

That CASA has entirely abrogated its responsibility to improve safety through positive action and has instead resorted to limitation of the potential results of problems by placing damaging restrictions on all Jabiru engine operators is entirely indicative of CASA's priorities.

 

CASA's catch-tag of 'Safe Skies for All', has become in reality, 'Safe Front Page News for Us'. Recreational Aviation is collateral damage of that change; with Jabiru being 1/3rd of the RA fleet , a significant area of concern for CASA has been neutered. For those who may think this is a good and just thing, you may pause to reflect: who is next..?