Bruce Robbins Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 CASA plain english wording! In the Instrument the restrictions apply to Group A, which is Hydraulic Lifter (Flat Tappet) or what they called Generation 2 in the report. 1
Oscar Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Latest advice from RAA shows up the basic ineptitude of CASA in drafting the new Instrument. 2 1 1
Camel Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 The restriction only applies to generation 2 if it is or has been with a flying school and has more than 500 hours on the through bolts !
Camel Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Latest advice from RAA shows up the basic ineptitude of CASA in drafting the new Instrument. I think you will find it was RAA that made a mistake or not quote the whole bit.
Oscar Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Actually, and on considered reflection, I believe I used the wrong term when I said 'ineptitude'. I meant to use a term more consistent with a logical arrangement of the words: 'backside', 'both hands', 'map, mirror and shouted instructions,' and 'not a chance of finding'. Choose your own sequence.
Camel Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Actually, and on considered reflection, I believe I used the wrong term when I said 'ineptitude'. I meant to use a term more consistent with a logical arrangement of the words: 'backside', 'both hands', 'map, mirror and shouted instructions,' and 'not a chance of finding'. Choose your own sequence. No argument about CASA being ASSABOUT ! 2
gandalph Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 I think you will find it was RAA that made a mistake or not quote the whole bit. It could be that the RAA is trying to cover that thing inside the back of their trousers that we are not allowed to call by its common name, by trying to blame CASA for jumbling their terminology but I think I side with Jem, Bruce and Oscar on this one. I think the CASA noodle brains were in such a rush to get the revised instrument out before it was automatically ceased that they failed to adequately proof read it and ensure that what they said in one document was reflected in the other. They should hang their heads in shame. A half way competent editor (or in CASA's case, a halfway competent senior manager )would have sent it back for re-writing before putting it before the executive for their signature. The Commonwealth's Solicitor needs a bollocking as well for letting that rubbish through, although the ComSol isn't renowned for always getting it right either "Revised information is required due to confusion resulting from inconsistent terminology by CASA between the internal CASA Jabiru Engine Reliability - Analysis Report and the newly published Jabiru Instrument CASA 65-16, which was enacted 1 July 2016." 1
Geoff13 Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 It could be that the RAA is trying to cover that thing inside the back of their trousers that we are not allowed to call by its common name, by trying to blame CASA for jumbling their terminology but I think I side with Jem, Bruce and Oscar on this one. I think the CASA noodle brains were in such a rush to get the revised instrument out before it was automatically ceased that they failed to adequately proof read it and ensure that what they said in one document was reflected in the other. They should hang their heads in shame. A half way competent editor (or in CASA's case, a halfway competent senior manager )would have sent it back for re-writing before putting it before the executive for their signature. The Commonwealth's Solicitor needs a bollocking as well for letting that rubbish through, although the ComSol isn't renowned for always getting it right either"Revised information is required due to confusion resulting from inconsistent terminology by CASA between the internal CASA Jabiru Engine Reliability - Analysis Report and the newly published Jabiru Instrument CASA 65-16, which was enacted 1 July 2016." What was the rush, they have had 12 months to get it right. 1
Oscar Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 What was the rush, they have had 12 months to get it right. The damn rush was, I suggest, the fact that following the election there will be roughly the same governance of CASA and Senator O'Sullivan's thoughts of a Senate Inquiry might just not have gone away..
Geoff13 Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 My point was it had to be done yesterday or not at all the old instrument expired at midnight last night. they (CASA) knew that 12 months ago and that is how long they have had to get the new one correct. 1
gandalph Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 What was the rush, they have had 12 months to get it right. Yep. And they didn't 1
gandalph Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 More to the point, the poor attention to detail that the drafter(s) of the new instrument paid to their own CASA Jabiru Engine Reliability - Analysis Report speaks volumes of their ability to read, understand and rationally interpret the data originally demanded of them from the RAA that lead to the imposition of the original instrument. Woeful! 2
brilin_air Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 ........Senator O'Sullivan's thoughts of a Senate Inquiry might just not have gone away.. Good. And I hope they get an ass reaming over it. -Linda 2
Camel Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 What was the rush, they have had 12 months to get it right. 18 months.
JEM Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Sorry if this has already been posted. From RA Aus 1/7/2016 (And I thought it would be as simple as ABC or 123) Correction to Jabiru Instrument Amendment ENews Members are advised that the descriptive information provided in yesterday's ENews is not accurate in relation to the type of engine required to comply with the instrument. Revised information is required due to confusion resulting from inconsistent terminology by CASA between the internal CASA Jabiru Engine Reliability - Analysis Report and the newly published Jabiru Instrument CASA 65-16, which was enacted 1 July 2016. CASA provided RAAus with last minute general information relating to changes which were made to the new Instrument 65-16, and in summary, the information we provided in the previous ENews has the potential for confusion with that contained within the instrument relating to the engines which are no longer required to comply with the instrument. The engines described in the table below relate to the type of valve train system used, being either solid lifter, hydraulic lifter, or roller cam hydraulic lifter. This terminology has not been followed in a consistent manner in the information used in Jabiru Instrument 65/16. Members are advised to carefully read the Instrument to determine for themselves if their engine is required to comply with the Instrument requirements based on valve train and through bolt configuration. The new instrument 65-16 is effective from 1 July 2016. We will continue to work with CASA to encourage further review as will Jabiru and SAAA as key stakeholders. You can read RAAus' response to CASA here. RAAus would like to apologise for any confusion caused by this information. The new Jabiru Instrument 65/16 can be accessed via the link below - CASA 65/16 - Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured by Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd. CEO [email protected] General Enquiries [email protected] Pilot and Student Enquiries [email protected] Aircraft Enquiries [email protected] ASIC Enquiries [email protected] This email was sent by Recreational Aviation Australia Inc., Recreational Aviation Australia, 3/1 Pirie Street, Fyshwick, ACT 2904, Australia.
Blueadventures Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 More to the point, the poor attention to detail that the drafter(s) of the new instrument paid to their own CASA Jabiru Engine Reliability - Analysis Report speaks volumes of their ability to read, understand and rationally interpret the data originally demanded of them from the RAA that lead to the imposition of the original instrument.Woeful! Absolutely agree. Displays thier ability or lack there of.
facthunter Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 A Lawyer friend of myself many years ago, regretted the fact he had lost the ability to write a letter in plain language.. LAW is what the CASA is about, not knowledge of engines. The experts had their say. The Lawyers don't know what to do with the information. That's why everything from CASA is confusing. It all has to be run past the legals to cover their @r$e. Nev 1
facthunter Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 It doesn't appear the work by CAMit has received much consideration. Has CASA taken sides? I think CAMit has to be part of the solution in ongoing maintenance of these engines. Who else is tooled up to produce the basic motor? (and some obvious improvements) Nev 1
Oscar Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 A CAE-plated engine was specifically stated by CASA, quite early on, to be 'not a Jabiru engine' - therefore, exempt from the conditions applicable to a Jabiru engine. That is in part (at least) a recognition that there is a legal difference in status: Jabiru ( or specifically, Aerotec, it's engine company) has all responsibility for its engines, either as the TCDS holder (for the 2200C engine) OR as the LSA certifying agent (for the 3300 and 2200 A series engines). However a CAE 'core rebuild' - which has a great many improvements, and combines 7/16 through-bolts (though not of Jabiru design), solid lifters, different valve actuation gear etc., thus addressing the major concerns outlined in the CASA 'Analysis' paper - is only acceptable at this time as an 'experimental' engine. Hence, it has to operate under the operational conditions relevant to 'experimental'/ 19-reg - thus cannot be used for FTF or line-hire work. Because CASA has approved the ASTM standard as an acceptable standard, (which is not under its control), it cannot force acceptance of a CAE engine by Jabiru as an 'acceptable' replacement. That authority resides wholly with Jabiru. Since there is no 'reliability' component of the ASTM standard, it is - to me - an interesting legal point as to whether CASA had ANY authority to impose the Instrument in the first place on Jabiru LSA-certified aircraft!. I'd like to have a quiet beer with Spencer Ferrier over that one... 1 1
gandalph Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Well if it was to be one of those "If you could invite anyone to your dinner party, who would you ask" kind of do's, I'd quite like to have Spencer Ferrier, Ian Bent, Allan Kerr and Dafydd Llewellyn to dinner. 3 1
Oscar Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 You'd probably have to sign a 'no disclosure' affadavit!. That bunch would have more knowledge of both aero-engine design, development and certification, and the entire aircraft regulatory scene, than possibly any group of four in the entire Southern Hemisphere.... Quite a few years ago now, there was a meeting between CASA and the majority of the major CAR 35 engineers in Australia, including Alan Kerr, Dafydd Llewellyn, Bill Whitney, Bob McGillivray, Bob Scott, Graeme Swannell and a few others. When 'introductions' were completed around the table, it turned out that there was considerably MORE actual CASA senior-level experience amongst the CAR 35 group than CASA could bring to the meeting.. 1
facthunter Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Australia has never been much involved with aero engine design. It built quite a few components and large% of engines during the war to a good standard. In the 50's the GMH Gipsy major 1-C engine was considered inferior to the DeHavilland one. I Understand as time goes on the GMH Crankcases are the ones to go for, to rebuild. I think in design of aero engines, we are not a big presence. DeHavilland don't encourage "replica" parts being used in their engines. The Gipsy was considered the "standard" for reliability at the time with a "top" around 400 hours and something like 1,000 hours TBO, and a fairly high oil consumption as normal.. Today, their reliability would be far worse than Jabiru I expect due to many factors, like some "odd" mods, age and infrequent use.. At Royal Newcastle Aero Club they overhauled all their own engines at the time and I can't recall any problems. with the 1-c. The Airlines had plenty of largish radials running and developed some expertise with "managing" them with help from DeHav's at Bankstown on some problems, and mods..Nev 1
gandalph Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 You'd probably have to sign a 'no disclosure' affadavit!. That bunch would have more knowledge of both aero-engine design, development and certification, and the entire aircraft regulatory scene, than possibly any group of four in the entire Southern Hemisphere....Quite a few years ago now, there was a meeting between CASA and the majority of the major CAR 35 engineers in Australia, including Alan Kerr, Dafydd Llewellyn, Bill Whitney, Bob McGillivray, Bob Scott, Graeme Swannell and a few others. When 'introductions' were completed around the table, it turned out that there was considerably MORE actual CASA senior-level experience amongst the CAR 35 group than CASA could bring to the meeting.. Do I understand you to imply that CASA had less experience and technical knowledge than the people they were writing the rules for? That wouldn't be the case today. Surely! 1 1
Oscar Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Do I understand you to imply that CASA had less experience and technical knowledge than the people they were writing the rules for?That wouldn't be the case today. Surely! You might think that, I could not possibly comment.. ( with deference to Francis Urqhart).
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now