Guest Ornis Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 ... you are happy to accept that Ian Bent the answers needed to achieve an acceptable level of reliability in what is largely the same engine. It's not the same engine, weaknesses have been addressed. Ian Bent understands the engine and its installation, so I would expect a CAE to do better. Even if Rod were to ... invite Ian in to implement all the suggested changes how do they prove to CASA that the holy grail of reliability has actually been achieved? Don't need to prove anything. CASA is already persuaded CAEs are all right. What's to say that after I were to drop $20-30k to change my engine to a CAE to obtain the promised improved reliability, that after a failure or two of a CAE engine in the hard life of a FTF, that CASA decides to not make a difference between the Jabiru and CAE and impose the same restrictions on all of them? What do you want? A guarantee? As opposed to what? Complaining CASA is wrong?
01rmb Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 It's a moot point anyway since you are not constrained by what CASA implements, but, I am happy that you believe that there is such a demonstrated difference between the two engine's reliability to make the CAE engine so much better than the Jabiru engine that CASA would not change their view if there is a failure. Shame CAE engines can't be installed in a 24 registered aircraft since they get pretty well the same restrictions under experimental (eg. no flight over populated areas and no training use) albeit passengers don't need to sign a disclaimer. So really not much difference with how CASA treats them... As I said, I am happy that Ian has identified a number of improvements - it is just that the engines have not had the hours and the hard life to really prove it.
SDQDI Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Jet I notice you said there were only 131 VH aircraft with jabs, I was just wondering if that included other makes of planes that had a jab motor? Seems like a very low number, I would have expected a fair few experimental class would be running jabs. Ps you are all still saying the same things over and over and over.
Camel Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Just because I know theres some who love to argue about numbers.Im sure the normal fact police will find these assessments incorrect in some way There are 50 Accidents & Incidents in the RAA reported data for 2014 involving Jabiru and that includes ALL causes 54 in 2013, many not detailed on the web. Really rough count (even rougher grouping) or 2014 incidents shows Non engine related 21 incidents related to Pilot or operation 4 gear/tyre/brakes/prop related 2 electrical 27 TOTAL 4 Cyl Engine 10 unknown engine 8 throughbolts 18 TOTAL 6cyl Engine 4 unknown engine 0 throughbolts 1 flywheel 5 TOTAL So we have maximum 23 engine related incidents in RAA 2014 Long way off 45 CASA talks about. A very long way off the number and if you read what Mark Skidmore wrote in his January newsletter, he has CONTRADICTED himself! Just what CASA needs as an aviation director, He seems to be like the standard Government breauracrat. January 2015 From the Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore There are five principles CASA must embrace when making decisions or taking actions that affect the aviation community. The first principle is of course aviation safety. The Civil Aviation Act makes this certain by stating its main object is to "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents." The Act also requires CASA to "regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration" when exercising our powers and performing our functions. So clearly CASA's first principle must be to support the safest aviation environment for all Australians. CASA's activities must pass the test of making a positive impact on maintaining or improving aviation safety. With safety at number one there are four other principles I will use to ensure CASA is an even more effective aviation safety regulator, while building our relationships with the aviation community. These principles are communication, cost, complexity and consistency. I know people in the aviation community have been talking about issues relating to these principles for some time and I thank those who have provided input to my approach. I have told CASA's people that I will require everyone in the organisation to think about and apply these principles when we make new regulations or amend existing regulations, when we make decisions and take or recommend actions. These principles will guide CASA in all our dealings with the aviation community. CASA has a responsibility to communicate clearly, simply and effectively. If the aviation community does not understand CASA’s safety requirements we will not get the right safety outcomes. When CASA makes changes or takes decisions and actions we must consider the financial impact on both the aviation community and CASA and seek to keep it as low as possible-without of course compromising the achievement of optimal safety outcomes. While we are bound by legal requirements in the way CASA's legislation is developed and presented, we must do our very best to minimise complexity and provide clear explanations of what we require that are free of jargon and confusing language. Finally, CASA must be consistent in its decision making and actions. It is not acceptable for different areas within CASA to present different views on the same issues to the aviation community. I am personally a great supporter of aviation and want to see as many people flying as possible. In keeping with this vision and our core regulatory functions, CASA's role is to encourage, support and foster higher standards of aviation safety.
jetjr Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 , I would have expected a fair few experimental class would be running jabs. So would I but this came from RAA submission to CASA Nov 2014 stating 1000 affected in RAA and "a further 131 Jabiru powered aircraft on the CASA register" So the 23 stoppages in ~ 50,00hrs equals 0.046% chance of failure There is a FATAL ever 1.7 weeks on quad bikes. 1
facthunter Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I would like to believe the last two lines. It's NOT in the Legislation and therein lies the problem. Nev 1
dazza 38 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Aviation is a expensive business, whether right or wrong, CASA have compiled evidence and have acted. Aviation is full if examples where at a stroke of a pen, a aircraft or engine can become very costly for the aircraft owner. This is nothing new.
Guest Ornis Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Aviation is a expensive business, whether right or wrong, CASA have compiled evidence and have acted. The Civil Aviation Act ... "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents." I am personally a great supporter of aviation... In keeping with this vision and our core regulatory functions, CASA's role is to encourage, support and foster higher standards of aviation safety. Indeed. I no contradiction. I see Jabiru getting some encouragement to meet higher standards and its customers getting some support in requesting it, within the framework, and innocents protected.
jetjr Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 How are cusomers being supported and Jabiru encouraged? As has been outlined there is no safety outcome from this action. The contradiction was he said the other four points they must apply to everything they do, communication, cost, complexity consistancy. Although on second reading ot doesnt say he wants to reduce them?
Guest Ornis Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 How are cusomers being supported and Jabiru encouraged?As has been outlined there is no safety outcome from this action. Customers have been complaining for years. They were ignored and blamed for the problems which were largely intrinsic. Now Jabiru is acknowledging there are issues, even contacting customers in conciliatory emails. To show CASA it's doing something. Your argument about safety seems to hinge around not overflying populated areas on the way to an aerodrome if your engine fails. Don't think you'd get much public sympathy on that one.
ianboag Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Some of this certification stuff is a bit confusing to me. The certification process requires the on-site presence of CASA engineering staff at a gazillion dollars per hour with most of that being spent doing either nothing much or hardly anything. This is century 21 and video is soooo easy to generate in large quantities and data is sooo easy to log in vast quantities. So one might work on the idea that the process is all videoed (from as many angles as you want) plus all operational data (T's, P's, RPM, phases of the moon etc) is gathered at 5-second intervals. CASA take all of that and look for anything strange in it ... it would not be hard to sift out any bits of data that look a bit strange and go to the video to find out more. Assuming the results are unexceptional, two people should be able to knock that off in a couple of days. Even public servants with smoko/lunch breaks .... To keep people happy there could be the odd random auditing visit on site. If there are fifty sessions of two hours, then someone could check out an uneventful session in about 15 minutes. Hence my two man-days estimate. Over the years there have been a number of changes - hydraulic lifters, flywheel attachment, through bolt stuff, change ignition coils and probably more that I don't know about. Some of these would appear quite significant. One assumes the engine certification did not have to be redone from scratch (?). So there must be a point at which the post-mod engine becomes a "new" one and we (presumably) aren't there yet. So if Jabiru took some/all of the Camit changes (and the Stiff/Bent differences were resolved), how hard would it be to call the result a "Jabiru 2200/3300"? 2 1
facthunter Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Good logic. Why not ? If they are fair dinkum that is. Nev
jetjr Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 So omce again the miniscule risk of something which has never happens justifys this action Youre getting closer to the truth I feel so much more supported now i have afew emails......much safer too Your still not addressing question, how are customers being supported and safety improved? Plenty of customers now feel doubly shafted by Jabirus latest forced engine rebuilds And CASA limtations. as well as pretty poor support over the years. By the way these emails started before this action was proposed, new website, facebook etc too so none of that brought on by CASA
Oscar Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Some of this certification stuff is a bit confusing to me.The certification process requires the on-site presence of CASA engineering staff at a gazillion dollars per hour with most of that being spent doing either nothing much or hardly anything. This is century 21 and video is soooo easy to generate in large quantities and data is sooo easy to log in vast quantities. So one might work on the idea that the process is all videoed (from as many angles as you want) plus all operational data (T's, P's, RPM, phases of the moon etc) is gathered at 5-second intervals. CASA take all of that and look for anything strange in it ... it would not be hard to sift out any bits of data that look a bit strange and go to the video to find out more. Assuming the results are unexceptional, two people should be able to knock that off in a couple of days. Even public servants with smoko/lunch breaks .... To keep people happy there could be the odd random auditing visit on site. If there are fifty sessions of two hours, then someone could check out an uneventful session in about 15 minutes. Hence my two man-days estimate. Over the years there have been a number of changes - hydraulic lifters, flywheel attachment, through bolt stuff, change ignition coils and probably more that I don't know about. Some of these would appear quite significant. One assumes the engine certification did not have to be redone from scratch (?). So there must be a point at which the post-mod engine becomes a "new" one and we (presumably) aren't there yet. So if Jabiru took some/all of the Camit changes (and the Stiff/Bent differences were resolved), how hard would it be to call the result a "Jabiru 2200/3300"? Ian, if it were that simple...there'd be a lot more certified / certificated engines around. However, all of the techniques you have mentioned will be used, but there is still a huge amount of data analysis to be done. The cost estimates were prepared by two of the most experienced aero-engineers in Australia (both of whom have experience in engine certification, btw, which is extremely rare in this country). Absolutely nobody will be getting rich from this exercise (except maybe CASA..).
ianboag Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Ian, if it were that simple...there'd be a lot more certified / certificated engines around ...but there is still a huge amount of data analysis to be done. I need help here with the "huge amount of data analysis" notion. Let's look at a hypothetical 2-hour run. Logged every 5 seconds that would be 1500 data samples. Maybe 20 things would be logged ... Drop them into a spreadsheet and plot them as a time series. If there was anything odd, it would take about 5 minutes to identify that - if the data were presented intelligently. If there was nothing dodgy in the graphed data, then job is done for that run. You wouldn't sit down and watch a multichannel video (with sound) of an engine running in a test cell for two hours on the offchance that you might see something that wasn't in the (extensive and trouble free) data record ...... I still reckon the quickest way out of all this is for RS to bury the hatchet with IB, merge some of IB's good ideas into the Jab certificate and go with that. Assuming of course that IB's good ideas work out to be right :-) Can't be any worse that some of RS's previous tries. 3
jetboy Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Ian, if it were that simple...there'd be a lot more certified / certificated engines around. However, all of the techniques you have mentioned will be used, but there is still a huge amount of data analysis to be done. The cost estimates were prepared by two of the most experienced aero-engineers in Australia (both of whom have experience in engine certification, btw, which is extremely rare in this country). Absolutely nobody will be getting rich from this exercise (except maybe CASA..). Some of this certification stuff is a bit confusing to me.The certification process requires the on-site presence of CASA engineering staff at a gazillion dollars per hour with most of that being spent doing either nothing much or hardly anything. This is century 21 and video is soooo easy to generate in large quantities and data is sooo easy to log in vast quantities. So one might work on the idea that the process is all videoed (from as many angles as you want) plus all operational data (T's, P's, RPM, phases of the moon etc) is gathered at 5-second intervals. CASA take all of that and look for anything strange in it ... it would not be hard to sift out any bits of data that look a bit strange and go to the video to find out more. Assuming the results are unexceptional, two people should be able to knock that off in a couple of days. Even public servants with smoko/lunch breaks .... To keep people happy there could be the odd random auditing visit on site. If there are fifty sessions of two hours, then someone could check out an uneventful session in about 15 minutes. Hence my two man-days estimate. Over the years there have been a number of changes - hydraulic lifters, flywheel attachment, through bolt stuff, change ignition coils and probably more that I don't know about. Some of these would appear quite significant. One assumes the engine certification did not have to be redone from scratch (?). So there must be a point at which the post-mod engine becomes a "new" one and we (presumably) aren't there yet. So if Jabiru took some/all of the Camit changes (and the Stiff/Bent differences were resolved), how hard would it be to call the result a "Jabiru 2200/3300"? Ian, if it were that simple...there'd be a lot more certified / certificated engines around. However, all of the techniques you have mentioned will be used, but there is still a huge amount of data analysis to be done. The cost estimates were prepared by two of the most experienced aero-engineers in Australia (both of whom have experience in engine certification, btw, which is extremely rare in this country). Absolutely nobody will be getting rich from this exercise (except maybe CASA..). It does seem simple for Jabiru. There has been only 2 issues of type certificate for the 2200. The first one, and then the change to hydraulic lifters. If CASA think there is something wrong with the recent crop of engines, they should suspend the type certificate. Or revoke it if they can prove all the engines have an unforseen and uncorrected design flaw. It does not appear they are required to re-test for every little or big change that is made to the engine, under the guise of "continual product development" ASTM compliance was self declared for only the later versions of 2200 and 3300 They continue to self declare compliance. its up to ASTM to clip their wings if the product is non compliant. Now for another angle: in the USA, a parts manufacturer can become approved to make replacement parts for engines, as in FAA-PMA status. That same manufacturer can also apply for an STC - Supplementary Type Certificate - in order to make and fit modifications to any certified engine or aircraft. Is this process possible under CASA? They dont need the original makers approval. (unlike ASTM, which is so tricky in the case of the original manufacturer going bust or being uncooperative - that youd have to be very cautious about buying / running anything ASTM which doesnt have another design rule conformance to fall back on) Superior Air Parts and / or Mattituck in the USA built "Lycomings" in this way - pretty much a carbon copy (but better) I'd rather Camit didnt spend any money getting approvals for an engine that wont be approved by Jabiru anyway, under ASTM. Because it needlessly increases the price of the engine for the rest of us. I may need one soon. My J2200a has done 482 hrs. I will not be overhauling it.
Yenn Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Why not overhaul a J2200 engine? I would have thought that replacing anything worn out of spec, with new and updated stuff would result in a better engine than the old one when new. I see in the EAA mag that the USA Jab agents give some details of problems there. Since 2005 they have had 35 through bolt failures, they have about 50% of the 3665 engines produced in that time. Last year they had 2 valve related stoppages. They overhauled 40 engines, 2 with valve problems and the remainder were prop strikes. I wonder why they have so many prop strikes. 2 1
Oscar Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I need help here with the "huge amount of data analysis" notion. Let's look at a hypothetical 2-hour run. Logged every 5 seconds that would be 1500 data samples. Maybe 20 things would be logged ... Drop them into a spreadsheet and plot them as a time series. If there was anything odd, it would take about 5 minutes to identify that - if the data were presented intelligently.If there was nothing dodgy in the graphed data, then job is done for that run. You wouldn't sit down and watch a multichannel video (with sound) of an engine running in a test cell for two hours on the offchance that you might see something that wasn't in the (extensive and trouble free) data record ...... I still reckon the quickest way out of all this is for RS to bury the hatchet with IB, merge some of IB's good ideas into the Jab certificate and go with that. Assuming of course that IB's good ideas work out to be right :-) Can't be any worse that some of RS's previous tries. Ian, I'll be sure to pass your ideas along to the people concerned with the testing. New ideas are always good to consider. I'm not sure how far I'll get; things like data logging, computer-assisted analysis and spreadsheets may be a bit of a jump for these engineers to understand, it's not as if that industry has had any exposure to such radical concepts. They are SO bound up with their abacii and counting bones, really locked back in the C18.
ianboag Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Ian, I'll be sure to pass your ideas along to the people concerned with the testing. New ideas are always good to consider. I'm not sure how far I'll get; things like data logging, computer-assisted analysis and spreadsheets may be a bit of a jump for these engineers to understand, it's not as if that industry has had any exposure to such radical concepts. They are SO bound up with their abacii and counting bones, really locked back in the C18. I'm a Kiwi who Rotaxified his Jab, so I really have no skin in this game, but just out of curiosity - do you think I'm making sense? :-) Data logging - and dropping the results into a graph package - and video recording - are all just so easy these days. If any regulator was getting nervous she could phone up and demand a Skype walkaround. etc etc.
Old Koreelah Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I'm a Kiwi who Rotaxified his Jab, so I really have no skin in this game, but just out of curiosity - do you think I'm making sense? :-)Data logging - and dropping the results into a graph package - and video recording - are all just so easy these days. If any regulator was getting nervous she could phone up and demand a Skype walkaround. etc etc. Some good ideas there Ian, but common sense no longer rules. The Age of Innovation in aviation has passed; we have long since moved into an era of orthodoxy and over-regulation that even RAA is subject to. Progress has been made so difficult; no wonder aircraft engines are generations behind car technology.
Oscar Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I'm a Kiwi who Rotaxified his Jab, so I really have no skin in this game, but just out of curiosity - do you think I'm making sense? :-)Data logging - and dropping the results into a graph package - and video recording - are all just so easy these days. If any regulator was getting nervous she could phone up and demand a Skype walkaround. etc etc. Ian - making sense and complying with the requirements is an oxymoron. But it's all - seriously - just way more difficult than you imagine. These guys do not do FEA by peering into the entrails of a chicken or casting a horoscope, they know all of those techniques and have been using them for many, many years. Suffice it- perhaps - that the guy who will be PAYING the costs, understands and accepts that this is a realistic estimate? And there's a certain amount of 'mates rates' involved - the guys who will be doing this, have been doing it as a team for the last 20-years-plus and are friends as well as professional colleagues. It has taken nearly two years of (on and off-again) work to get the damn test cell up to scratch. If there were shortcuts, they'd be taking them.
Guest john Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 It has been mentioned previously on other threads that if Jabiru Aircraft & Camit were to form a Commercially Joint Venture concerning the Camit Engine this would be a win win situation for both of these good Aussie Companies & Jabiru aircraft owners. This proposed Joint Venture would require both of these Companies to obtain the services of a Consulting Aeronautical Engineer to compile the relevant documentation for the Camit engine to be submitted to CASA for an STC to be approved for this type Camit engine to be installed firewall forward in a 24 or factory built JabiruAircraft There will be knockers & naysayers on this forum & within the aviation industry that will say this procedure can't be done. Well all one can say is that it has been successfully done in the past & is still alive & well whereby OEM aviation components that are now unavailable would ground this type of aircraft around the world if an alternative source were not available. These alternative replacement components are now being manufactured in Australia & sold to aviation companies & aircraft owners in America & other countries throughout the world, which is keeping this fleet of aircraft still safely flying.
Oscar Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 You cannot have a STC for an ASTM certified aircraft - they don't have a TC in the first place.
Russ Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Agree there john.....problem is, too many folks immediately think" why something can't be done " They just seek hurdles.....every time.
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