CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[jetjr]

Have you gone head to head with regulating govt dept before Russ?

 

Your approach, although appreciate the sentiment, will get nowhere but possibly push for further extension of original stupid descision

 

If what you think is true, and i think your right, current casa know they have screwed up and would be looking for face saving way out.

 

Wouldnt assume the people behind it have left

 

 

[jetjr]

TP, a number of people have asked you to offer some evidence of your pro CASA stance and you wont even answer yes or no

 

Why would anyone call you to provide anything under oath?

 

Surely for the sake of the innocent children in danger you should present what you know, you might hold the key to the whole problem??

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

CASA don't care about paying fines as the taxpayer does it for them. The answer is to sue the individual persons responsible for this wild blunder, when a few of the incompetents lose their house and super they might start to wake up to how life works in the real world. Responsibility is an alien concept to them right now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP, a number of people have asked you to offer some evidence of your pro CASA stance and you wont even answer yes or noWhy would anyone call you to provide anything under oath?

Surely for the sake of the innocent children in danger you should present what you know, you might hold the key to the whole problem??

If I recall correctly, you said you were signing the waiver on behalf of your children. Just don't put them in if they are in danger.

 

 

[gandalph]

Well Turbs, how unlike you to offer diversion, misdirection and obsfuscation! You've been asked by not only me but by others here to do more than coyly hint at what you know but you continue to play the primary school game of "I know a secret and you don't" . Hiding your lack of credibility behind weasel words, threats and attempts to intimidate. How sad that you put your ego ahead of the welfare of your fellow aviators. But why did we expect anything different?

 

Stew in my own juice? Good one smeagol!

 

 

[ianboag]

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.

Or you could use the Rolls-Royce approach when they made the Merlin. Flog the engine till something breaks. Find what broke, strengthen it, bolt things up again, flog the engine etc etc. Repeat until time-between-breaks is considered acceptable.

 

They ended up with a pretty reasonable engine I understand ..... :-)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Turbs, how unlike you to offer diversion, misdirection and obsfuscation! You've been asked by not only me but by others here to do more than coyly hint at what you know but you continue to play the primary school game of "I know a secret and you don't" . Hiding your lack of credibility behind weasel words, threats and attempts to intimidate. How sad that you put your ego ahead of the welfare of your fellow aviators. But why did we expect anything different?Stew in my own juice? Good one smeagol!

Wrong again Gandalph.

 

 

[jetjr]

Or you could use the Rolls-Royce approach when they made the Merlin. Flog the engine till something breaks. Find what broke, strengthen it, bolt things up again, flog the engine etc etc. Repeat until time-between-breaks is considered acceptable.They ended up with a pretty reasonable engine I understand ..... :-)

Yeah they did but took an absurdly long time and lots of broken engines, luckily they were selling plenty at the time, sadly not too many made TBO anyway.

One change in a complex engine can cause problems elsewhere. You can chase you tail for a long time

 

Was comments here on this a while ago with numbers and comparison to other processes for engine design

 

Some of these engines of this period had 200 hr TBO i think

 

I think maybe this approach is kinda like how Jab are approaching development in the past

 

 

[facthunter]

There were very few counties where the Merlin was approved for civilian use, due mainly to it's design of magneto drive. It also had a habit of scuffing the cam followers on startup and getting hot on the ground.. The basic engine was strong permitting significant. power increases during it's service life. It's tbo was only a few hundred hours, but military power settings are higher for identical engines than when used in a civilian role. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

This is the only published article that gets anywhere near the facts and how the information CASA purports to have was obtained even though it is based largely on an interview with Rod Stiff.

 

Sharp End Aviation News and Features from Proaviation.com.au published November 2014

 

 

 

Indecent haste

 

Jabiru Aircraft’s Managing Director Rod Stiff has written to Infrastructure Minister Warren Truss in outrage over what he describes as “an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Jabiru and Light Sport Aviation.”

 

Jabiru markets a range of eight light sport aircraft models – four factory-built and four kit-build units. The company has sold 1547 aircraft into 47 countries, and has sales representation in over 70 nations. Jabiru also manufactures and markets four and six-cylinder engines either as finished units or “firewall-forward” conversion kits to replace other engine types. The company also produces power plants for at least one the world’s biggest manufacturers of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) “drone” aircraft, which demand high reliability because of the value of their high-technology payloads. Jabiru has sold about 250 engines to that manufacturer over the last 15 years and at peak production, produces 20 airframes and 50 engines per month.

 

“The action was taken without enquiry, without facts, and by way of a published statement that harms Jabiru, and was immediately published internationally,” says Mr Stiff. (This narrative is directly drawn from information supplied by Jabiru and RA-Aus.)

 

CASA launched its action on 27 October 2014, with a request to RA-Aus for specific data relating to operations of Jabiru aircraft and a specific deadline of November 10, requiring significant investment of RA-Aus resources. The information requested was for the stated purposes of a proposed SASAO (Sports Aviation Self Administering Organisations) audit of Jabiru’s operations on 17 November 2014. The data provided contained information on incidents and accidents involving Jabiru engines for the year to date, covering the period from 1 January 2014 until 27 October 2014.

 

RA-Aus formally submitted the information to SASAO on 3 November 2014.

 

On 4 November 2014 CASA engaged directly with Jabiru in relation to the proposed restrictions on Jabiru aircraft which included all aircraft manufactured by Jabiru as well as those non-Jabiru aircraft that have a Jabiru power plant. In this notice CASA clearly states: “Prior to making the instrument, CASA invites Jabiru to make representations about the terms of the proposed instrument…”

 

In the days immediately following, Jabiru arranged to meet with CASA on 14 November 2014 to address the concerns and to take advantage of the opportunity to discuss the terms of the instrument as outlined in the regulator’s notice. This meeting was also intended to action CASA’s request for Jabiru to respond by 10 November although it should be noted that due to illness of key CASA staff the meeting could not take place by the required date and that CASA agreed to extend the time. At this point Jabiru was led to believe that the proposed instrument would not be published until after the scheduled meeting.

 

On the afternoon of 13 November CASA pre-empted the outcome of the scheduled meeting with Jabiru and effectively ended the consultation with the manufacturer by publishing the commercially destructive ‘proposed instrument.’ This occurred some 18 hours prior to the scheduled consultation with Jabiru.

 

The derogatory information circulated by CASA said:

 

CASA is responding to a high, and increasing, rate of engine failures among aircraft that are powered by engines manufactured by, or under licence from, Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd (Jabiru). Such aircraft are referred to in this document as ‘Jabiru powered aircraft’.

 

The issues appear to be the result of several failure modes, which require separate investigation.

 

CASA has formed the view that its functions under the Civil Aviation Act 198 8 require it to mitigate certain risks to passengers, trainee pilots and persons on the ground.

 

The instrument will impose operating limitations on Jabiru powered aircraft that are issued with a CASR Part 21 authorisation by way of conditions under CASR 11.068.

 

 

CASA went on to list a set of proposed operating limitations on Jabiru-powered aircraft, including limiting them to day VFR operations only, not overflying populous areas, forbidding carriage of passengers, banning solo flights by student pilots, and displaying warning notices that “occupants fly in the aircraft at their own risk.”

 

RA-Aus says that even in the days prior to this the organisation began receiving enquiries from concerned members noting that CASA officials had made mention of the proposed actions ‘over a beer or two’ during the national Chief Flying Instructor conference held by RA-Aus. The conference is an annual event designed to inform RA-Aus instructors on new developments, changes to rules and generally improve safety in the aviation industry through the provision of training and education. It is fully funded by RA-Aus with no support from CASA or any other public source of funds

 

Following the publication of the draft instrument RA-Aus was “inundated” with communication from aircraft owners, flight training facilities and aircraft maintainers expressing concerns about the proposed restrictions and the potential impacts on business viability and reputational damage as a result. It should be noted that the information provided covered a period of less than one year and should have resulted in deeper engineering analysis by CASA as to root causal factors, along with requests for further detail prior to any action taken by the regulator. RA-Aus says it is firmly of the view that any conclusions drawn from the data are deficient in detail and do not address fundamental issues relating to potential manufacturing, operational and any other possible deficiencies:

 

“At the time of writing [the submission to Warren Truss] it has become apparent that CASA recognised this deficiency in terms of their understanding of the data that was provided on 3 November. On 18 November CASA wrote to RA-Aus seeking instruction on how to identify 28 engine related issues referred to earlier in this submission. It is of serious concern that CASA does not only provide a basis for its decision, it does not understand the data provided by RA-Aus and has acted on a flawed understanding of the issues.”.

 

“Jabiru rejects outright the suggestions implied in this threat which was made without warning,” Mr Stiff has told Minister Truss. “The public international threat to the company with its damaging effect on Australian aviation and safety should be immediately ended through withdrawal by CASA,” says Mr Stiff.

 

Michael Monck, President of the RAA, has already sent a separate document to CASA which Mr Stiff describes as “very forthright.” (See previous article,Get on with it!)

 

The most serious aspect of the entire CASA action was the distortion CASA applied to the raw information from RA-Aus, says Mr Stiff: “We vetted the whole RA-Aus list when we finally got hold of it. CASA actually asked RA-Aus for their numbers after they had drafted the instrument – they didn’t have anything until I asked RA-Aus and they sent them their unedited list of incidents which included everything and listed 40 engine failures, so that’s where CASA’s magic 40 figure came from.

 

“Jabiru had addressed most of the identified problems over three years ago. I believe CASA has been negligent because they never consulted with us before they introduced the consultation draft, and they pulled the rug out from under us while we were on the plane on the way down. They couldn’t wait another day to talk about the issue, which really tells you what the intent was; the intent was obviously to damage us to the point where we couldn’t survive.

 

“When we finally worked that out with RA-Aus we spent a whole weekend going through the 40 events, comparing it with our list of failures, and working out which were just maintenance items like leaking fuel pumps, or simply running out of fuel, which were all on the CASA list. When we’d tidied it up we actually added some to the CASA list and when that was sorted out there were 12 actual in-flight engine failures which led to genuine forced landings. But that was in 93,000 flights, and 43,000 flying hours. And it was mainly flying schools because Jabirus are such popular training aircraft. We already had corrective measures in place for almost all of those 12, and had implemented them since 2011.”

 

In earlier discussions, Jabiru had offered CASA information from a detailed survey of light sport aircraft safety in the United States, conducted by Aviation Consumer magazine, which placed Jabiru’s safety record in the top three of over a dozen types along with Cessna 152 and Cessna Skycatcher in three categories:

 

• Overall accident rate per 100,000 hours of flight (Jabiru was second only to Cessna 152);

 

• Fatal accident rate (Jabiru’s score was zero in USA); and

 

• Accidents per hundred aeroplanes registered (Jabiru was second only to Cessna 152 and Skycatcher.

 

“Of a claimed 40 Jabiru ‘engine failures’, the actual number of genuine failures is only 12 out of over 1500 aircraft. And there has not been a single fatality, and very few injuries.”

 

“Jabiru has settled CASAs concerns. We are looking forward to Mr. Higgins from CASA coming to Bundaberg as he has said, to see these outcomes. For example, Jabiru has not had a recorded through-bolt failure in any engine produced since 2011.

 

“The evidence available to Jabiru shows there have been no deaths in Jabiru aircraft arising from engine stoppage. That is the case internationally. Between January 2013 and November 2014 there have been a number of deaths in light sport aircraft in Australia in other aircraft than Jabiru. CASA ought to be addressing that matter.

 

“CASA should also be looking elsewhere for more serious air safety issues in light sport aviation. If 19 deaths did occur and none was in Jabiru aircraft, then CASA ought to be attending to those issues, and not attacking this company without notice.

 

“Turning to the substance of the response demanded by the CASA, the issues of Jabiru engine operation to which it relates have effectively been resolved. There was no need for the world-wide denigration of Jabiru.”

 

 

[gandalph]

Wrong again Gandalph.

Wrong about what Turbs?

You said:

 

That's right John, that would be the place where CASA would lay their evidence on the table, but be careful what you wish for because the dribble which has be stated on here over and over and over again is not likely to be what is tabled.

(bolding is added by me) I asked you, because it seemed that you might have inside information that would be of benefit to your fellow aviators:

 

Turbs, that sounds like you know something.It appears from your post that you have information about data that CASA holds that either the RAA doesn't have or isn't disclosing. Would you care to share? Or are you simply speculating?

Your response:

 

Don't speculate, now you've got Facthunter going; it's just a simple sentence.

You either misread my question or attempted to divert attention away from your earlier post by iimplicating Facthunter.

 

I wasn't speculating. I was asking if you were.Simple sentences sometime obscure complicated meanings. Are you privy to special information about the CASA "secret" data or not? Simple question.

Let's not deflect from that simple question by trying to divert attention away to Facthunter. It wasn't he who made the cryptic comment, it was you. That's why I asked you.

 

This is not a trivial matter. It has had a huge negative impact on recreational aviation. If you do "know" something, it would be good manners to let the group know. There is no court case yet so the matter can't be sub judice nor can it be commercial in confidence, so how 'bout fessing up?

Others asked;

 

So you know something TP or just being contrary?

Your reply appears to reinforce the expectation that you do have inside information but for whatever reason want to keep it to yourself.

 

I'd be happy to accept an invitation to provide under oath, should the matter end up in court, details of any and all dealings I've had with CASA.

Jet asked again:

 

TP, a number of people have asked you to offer some evidence of your pro CASA stance and you wont even answer yes or noWhy would anyone call you to provide anything under oath?

Surely for the sake of the innocent children in danger you should present what you know, you might hold the key to the whole problem??

And the best you come up with is to say I am "wrong again".

 

Wrong to ask you to share? why would that be wrong?

 

Wrong to read into your post #680 that you might have data not known to others here? Well that was the reason for post #681 asking if you did have such information of if you were, as many here have done before you, simply speculating that CASA was holding back. But you chose to take your usual route of deflection and distraction rather than answer the question.

 

Wrong to think that you might put the promotion of the interests of recreational aviation above the promotion of your sense of self importance? Well, perhaps I was overly hopeful there.

 

Wrong to believe you have anything useful, informative or truthful to add to this discussion? Yes I accept that I was wrong.

 

Wrong to invest any time is seeking clarification from you? Yes I was wrong again.

 

Wrong to think that you might perhaps take the opportunity to restore your crumbling credibility here? Guilty as charged.

 

And you still refuse to answer the thrust of the initial question: Do you know something we don't about the data CASA has?

 

You go and testify under oath mate. We are all waiting with bated breath!

 

 

[Oscar]

Gentlemen!

 

Before anyone dispatches Seconds to select pistols at dawn in a grassy glade, may I suggest that a fatuous comment with no demonstrated validity from an obviously provocative poster is NOT the issue for attention?

 

What IS germaine to the issue at hand, is the disparity between the CASA 'data' and the Jabiru (and RAA) response.

 

On the one hand, we have an assertion from CASA that '40' in-flight 'engine-related issues' justified the imposition of restrictions. To be scrupulously fair to CASA that included in its figures an incident that demonstrated the failure of a Jabiru engine to run on air alone, we need to add the 2015 evidence that a Jabiru engine will also not run reliably on water (the Nattai crash). The evidence keeps mounting up, doesn't it?

 

On the other hand, we have the assertion from Rod Stiff that the CASA figures actually documented 12 engine in-flight failures. To quote a recognised expert on the veracity of published evidence, Ms. Mandy Rice-Davies (RIP): 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'

 

Of course, the problem here, is that without access to the actual CASA data, we have no way of estimating the truth - so we have nothing more to go on than our intuitions.

 

Now, my personal intuition - and I make no pretence of suggesting that I have any inside information, is that IF Rod Stiff's contention is accurate, CASA needs to do no more to refute it than to release the data it holds. Lay down mezzaire, surely? The cards on the table would tell the story. As a very long-time student of human nature, I find it highly suspect that CASA would need to resort to statements of the nature of: 'we don't have to tell you the data, we are CASA' vs. simply presenting the facts and leaving it up to the individual to work it out for themself. Most intelligent people can discern the difference between bluster and evidence, though by some posts on this site we are forced to accept that there are still those who do not recognise this.

 

THE issue here, is not a debate on a fatuous statement that has not been substantiated in any way. It is that the future of recreational aviation depends on the application of sensible regulation based on a proper analysis of what is important for ensuring a reasonable level of safety vs. the benefits to the recreational aviation community and whatever flow-on benefits of that to our society in general may occur - and I suggest that there most certainly ARE benefits that flow-on the the general society from recreational aviation activity, though maximising the appreciation of those is not yet being achieved.

 

From two small manufacturers in Bundaberg, are delivered a world-recognised superb airframe in terms of occupant safety, cost/performance and generally pretty impeccable flight characteristics, and the second most adopted ultralight engine in the world. Yet, we have a National Aviation authority and a number of peevish individuals who seek to tear down these organisations.

 

I have to ask myself - and I would appreciate it if anybody could provide me with sensible answers - why is this the case? NOT ONE of the antagonists to Jabiru /CAMit have an alternative Australian product to support and promote. The 'safety' of the general public - the children daily cowering under the threat of a Jabiru crashing in flames through their kindergarten roof -argument has no statistical validity.

 

I support entirely, activities that can improve the products of these manufacturers. In fact, I am personally working to that end, directly, in hours at the coal-face. To those who have no contribution other than denigration of the products of these manufacturers - and we know who these are- I offer the classic injunction: a pox on you.

 

 

[Tex]

It is "germane" not "germiane" (variant of German).

 

It is "misere" not "mezzaire" (french).

 

Pretty sure "a pox on you" is a curse rather than an injunction (english).

 

My post, like yours; ad hominem (latin).

 

 

 

[gandalph]

Ad hominem? I didn't think Oscar's response was attacking anyone's character, did you? As for the Pox comment, perhaps he meant to type: interjection. He was probably looking through the wrong half of his bifocals again. Still, it's nice to know that we now have three grammarians onboard. I'm sure Dazza was feeling the strain.

 

 

[Tex]

It isn't character it is the person... fatuous; provocative; intelligent people; bluster; peevish; sensible answers; antagonists and "To those who have no contribution other than denigration of the products of these manufacturers - and we know who these are- I offer the classic injunction: a pox on you." I think, even taken at it lowest the inferences are clear. A good argument no doubt, shame it takes that form.

 

 

[gandalph]

Maybe Tex, but the phrase can have several meanings. The Collins Dictionary says:

 

1. (interjection) (archaic) an expression of intense disgust or aversion for someone.
    
    
   

 

 

So it could well be that Oscar was expressing, somewhat floridly as he sometimes does, his aversion and disgust for those he called "the denigrators". You could interpret it as him expressing a personal view of their antics without personalising it by naming them.

 

The Free Dictionary on the web says: A curse on someone or something! (Old. Now usually jocular.) The emphasis is mine.

 

So perhaps Oscar was just signing off with a jocular riposte. I guess it all depends on HOW people want to interpret it.

 

Lets not be too harsh on the old bloke. Even though you might think his language a little robust for such a genteel site as this, He's only just returned from Ian's Virtual Siberia and we wouldn't want him ejected again for a little archaic cursing would we?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Wrong about what Turbs?You said:

 

(bolding is added by me)

 

I asked you, because it seemed that you might have inside information that would be of benefit to your fellow aviators:

 

Your response:

 

You either misread my question or attempted to divert attention away from your earlier post by iimplicating Facthunter.

 

Others asked;

 

Your reply appears to reinforce the expectation that you do have inside information but for whatever reason want to keep it to yourself.

 

Jet asked again:

 

And the best you come up with is to say I am "wrong again".

 

Wrong to ask you to share? why would that be wrong?

 

Wrong to read into your post #680 that you might have data not known to others here? Well that was the reason for post #681 asking if you did have such information of if you were, as many here have done before you, simply speculating that CASA was holding back. But you chose to take your usual route of deflection and distraction rather than answer the question.

 

Wrong to think that you might put the promotion of the interests of recreational aviation above the promotion of your sense of self importance? Well, perhaps I was overly hopeful there.

 

Wrong to believe you have anything useful, informative or truthful to add to this discussion? Yes I accept that I was wrong.

 

Wrong to invest any time is seeking clarification from you? Yes I was wrong again.

 

Wrong to think that you might perhaps take the opportunity to restore your crumbling credibility here? Guilty as charged.

 

And you still refuse to answer the thrust of the initial question: Do you know something we don't about the data CASA has?

 

You go and testify under oath mate. We are all waiting with bated breath!

John #679 made this statement

 

It is a known fact that the manufacturers of Jabiru Aircraft in Australia have already consulted Shine Lawyers for their expert opinion regarding this matter, & it is now considered that if Shine Lawyers were to take on a class action on a NO WIN NO FEE basis on behalf of all effected organisations & owners that have been subjected to this KANGAROO COURT by CASA, then the COURT would in all probability compell CASA to produce their evidence in support of these draconian directives that were actioned late last year.

Turboplanner #670 responded

 

That's right John, that would be the place where CASA would lay their evidence on the table, but be careful what you wish for because the dribble which has be stated on here over and over and over again is not likely to be what is tabled.

This is just a straightforward caution intended for John

The sentence was not bolded, as you have bolded it, it was not cryptic, there were no implied secrets.

 

The information others have been using on this thread to clobber CASA with has been out of date almost since the instrument came into effect, and if it came to court CASA would be obligated to circulate its information. So the sentence was reasonable and correct.

 

In your post #681 you made the inflammatory inventions - all your work - You were wrong.

 

I was not implicating Facthunter in anything; he was responding to your suggestions as he had every right to do.

 

I told you to stop speculating, not him, and once again, rather bemused, I told you my post #670 was just a simple sentence.

 

Frank Marriott said in #674

 

Should the matter end up in court (which must be likely) some of the overt critics may well get an "invitation " for a bit of he said, I said , to explain their evidence for making public statements and involvement with CASA. Interesting times. True identities, when not already know, are not difficult to obtain if needed. Only time will tell.

he was quite right in treating an inference that CASA might be leaking information on a safety action as very serious, and I accepted his concern and reassured him with this.

 

If you're referring to me Frank, I'd be happy to accept an invitation to provide under oath, should the matter end up in court, details of any and all dealings I've had with CASA.

You've attributed my response to Frank as a response to Jetjr, so once again you were wrong.

In answer to your question "Wrong about what Turbs?"

 

In post #706 you said:

 

Well Turbs, how unlike you to offer diversion, misdirection and obsfuscation! You've been asked by not only me but by others here to do more than coyly hint at what you know but you continue to play the primary school game of "I know a secret and you don't" . Hiding your lack of credibility behind weasel words, threats and attempts to intimidate. How sad that you put your ego ahead of the welfare of your fellow aviators. But why did we expect anything different?

You were wrong, and insulting about just about everything you said here.

 

 

[Tex]

...we wouldn't want him ejected again for a little archaic cursing would we?

Absolutely not. I am prone to being facetious and Oscar it seems, verbose. A perfect match. Like Yin and Yang (That's me on the left.)

[gandalph]

So Turbs, it would appear that your very long answer to to the simple question in #681: Do you have "inside " information? is No. That makes the second question: would you care to share? irrelevant. All the rest is noise. It took a while to get there but we made it.

 

Note to Oscar: Our seconds can sleep in.

 

 

[jetjr]

TP Do you have information or not?

 

Seeing as you cant seem to say it, just list

 

A NO

 

B YES

 

Would pay you to read closely the sequence of events again posted above, CASA had no information prior to the announcement and included fuel and other problems

 

RAA and Jabiru confirmed 12 engine outages not 40

 

 

[gandalph]

Absolutely not. I am prone to being facetious and Oscar it seems, verbose. A perfect match. Like Yin and Yang (That's me on the left.)

I suspect that must be me in the middle then.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Gawd you lot are like a broken record. He said, She said, No I didn't, I'm telling on you.

 

Oh hang on that was the kindergarden I passed on my morning walk today.

 

There are some smart people on this forum but by jingos you can all act dumb at times.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So Turbs, it would appear that your very long answer to to the simple question in #681: Do you have "inside " information? is No. That makes the second question: would you care to share? irrelevant. All the rest is noise. It took a while to get there but we made it.Note to Oscar: Our seconds can sleep in.

Are you even reading what I posted? THERE WAS NOTHING THERE TO TAKE A WHILE TO GET TO.

 

Why don't you try to do something constructive instead of continually sniping.

 

 

[gandalph]

Isn't that what we finally agreed? There was nothing there?

 

Chill Mate. Have a calming ale or something.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, we didn't agree on anything. I said there was nothing there in my statement to John.

 

Both Oscar and Jetjr have referred to the post by kgwilson this morning which has some reference to the magic 40, and also refers to 1547 Jabs sold in total.

 

You'll note it is alleged the 40 figure came from RAA, and the 12 figure was after some study by Jabiru, i.e. 12 for the year 2014

 

For the other years, information out there in the public arena is available from the RAA magazine, ATSB and any published reports in Australia and overseas

 

Obviously all those figures are available to CASA as well.

 

So if you really want to know total figures you can research them yourself. You can't get figures for incidents reported to CASA of course and you can't get unreported failures, but you can get a lot more accuracy than people have been posting about.

 

Whether the numbers are of any relevance to the instrument is another matter.

 

Berryman v Joslyn; Wentworth Shire Council v Joslyn [2004] NSWCA (23 April 2004) - I haven't read this case tonight, but from memory this Responsible Authority had to pay out without having any prior warning at all, and it seems to me that CASA could find itself in the same position, so may not have the luxury of time to wait for significant numbers to build.

 

If you really want to do some good and move things forward, I'd suggest a study of the new engine might be worthwhile, and it may be different enough in design to warrant being free of the instrument.