dazza 38 Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I admire your work jr, but adjusting the dipstick...... You are jesting. SOMEONE will do it. You just know it. Then the poo hits the prop. Nev Nissan recalled the Patrol with the anchor ZD30 engine and shorten the dip sticks so peeps would put more oil in the engine.
Old Koreelah Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 What about taildraggers? We have to recalibrate the dipstick. 1
jetjr Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Agreed, if someone plays with oil level, they had better know what they are doing, as you say theres serious consequences. Im not recommending it. How many have read and implemented the SB on dip stick length I wonder? if they had there would be way more complaints on high oil temps and oil usage. Jabiru have correctly always said every aircraft is different, mine for example has main wheels drilled up 50mm higher on the legs, so...aircraft sits slightly tail low, When the Dipstick calibration as per SB is done there is Nil oil showing. If I filled to top mark, as indicated, the engine would overheat constantly, like 110 degC, and use around 200-300ml per hour and oil pissing out every place it can. I tried it Operating to my calibrated level, oil runs 80 deg and below (unless i block cooler) and uses less than 50ml/hr You MUST know what your engine is doing in terms of oil usage. Firstly so you can monitor changes. Oil temp is sensitive to levels, even on a long trip like 4 hrs, you can see temps creep up a few deg as level drops. Of course adjusting dipstick is a delicate thing and hence why I said you need to know whats going on first. By the way the stick is just pushed into cap, drop it and you just adjusted it. Plenty actually leak oil up stick hole so it aint a tight fit. Just reinforces to me that these are not "production" aircraft despite what LSA promotes. Each needs operation and maintenance tailored to it. Kind of expected in homebuilts and regs permit this. LSA not so. I believe blind/dogged following of manuals without understanding causes many problems. The hard question is how to implement a management style strategy to handle this feature. 1 1
dsam Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Nev, I have after much writing to CASA for an explanation and receiving much irrelevant bla bla received a response from Mr Ungerman, he doesn't answer much, says he doesn't have time, blames other parts of CASA and says there are still gathering data in other words trying to justify, lots of words with no real facts. I think legal action is CERTAIN to follow, also I will not let this go as it does and has effected all of sports aviation, currently I know of many things that sport aviation are directly responsible for. Like I said earlier I'm happy to share just PM your email to me and I will forward, but I will not post on web until all responses have been received and whether there is an outcome in sight. If CASA blame him clearly they become responsible for this mess and litigation is certain so I will keep trying to get the facts. If CASA defend their actions which has and is happening they will look for more data to justify their actions that will make litigation more difficult. This has become a waiting game I believe, if CASA lift the limitation and there are engine failures they will be happy, this is the time to keep pushing CASA for facts as they don't have them and are probably waiting for the ATSB results. If CASA had any brains they would blame sport aviation dept and dismiss them and help the industry instead of destroying. We can all say jabiru engines are no good but there aren't a lot of alternatives and Jabiru have been progressively upgrading their engines and in support the latest seem to be a big improvement and to put a blanket limitation on Jabiru engines is a bit strange, it has been said many solid lifter engines have been doing life times trouble free and engines from 2012 are better than early ones. Did anyone have a chance at Avalon to tackle CASA reps there over the damaging behaviour of their organisation? It would be interesting to hear them try to defend themselves.
dazza 38 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Did anyone have a chance at Avalon to tackle CASA reps there over the damaging behaviour of their organisation? It would be interesting to hear them try to defend themselves. I doubt they would worry about " defending " themselves. They would probably say that they are the regulator so if you don't like it, bad luck. 1
nong Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Doing a lot of xcountry stuff...long legs, it worries me starting with oil leval low on the dip stick, ( as appears to be preferred by some folks )One time enroute, oil leval was only just showing, ( literally just wetting the tip ) since then I've run it 4...5 mm higher. I then get minimal blow back into the bottle, but retain a higher enroute leval. Question....just how low can we go ?? Some time back I saw a mod ....chap fitted a smallish blowback tank atop his engine, inside this was fine mesh, engine pushed oil vapour etc into this, vapour re liquified, then gravitied by another line back into engine. Said it worked great. A rough answer to the question is, wait for it...................500mls. It is only a rough answer because it wasn't determined scientifically. In cruise, the 2200 blew a jug (cylinder broken, through bolts broken). There wasn't any reason to stop, so we continued the forty miles back to base. The oil temp and pressure remained rock solid all the way home. We were able to drain just 500mls from the sump. After repairs, the engine did the remaining 500 hrs to scheduled overhaul. 1
UltraFlash Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I did speak to one of the CASA reps on their stand at Avalon. When asking about the restrictions I was told that CASA had 'more information than they have told at this stage'. I continued to question them on whether this should be applied to particular engines or variants of these and from the responses I got it appeared they were more focused on the manufacturer rather than any particular engine. I was however assured many times that the instrument is definitely temporary and would be removed at some stage in the future... However I did enjoy the free coffee from the CASA stand, looking on it as the only opportunity I'll ever get to get some of my money back from CASA. 2
Oscar Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I did speak to one of the CASA reps on their stand at Avalon.When asking about the restrictions I was told that CASA had 'more information than they have told at this stage'. I continued to question them on whether this should be applied to particular engines or variants of these and from the responses I got it appeared they were more focused on the manufacturer rather than any particular engine. I was however assured many times that the instrument is definitely temporary and would be removed at some stage in the future... However I did enjoy the free coffee from the CASA stand, looking on it as the only opportunity I'll ever get to get some of my money back from CASA. The response that CASA 'has more information than they have told at this stage' is pretty clearly intended to obfuscate the situation and there is absolutely no rationale by which that statement could be taken to be an affirmation that the action that was taken is correct, reasonable or even justified. Let's look at the possibilities: Possibility A: the information that CASA holds does thoroughly support the action. If this is the case, then the release of the information not only demonstrates CASA's bona fides but also would provide extremely important facts to the operators of Jabiru engines, which can only improve the safety of their operations. There is no possible way that anybody could interpret CASA in effect saying: 'we know stuff about your engine that is a safety risk but we aren't going to tell you what it is' as being in any way a responsible position for the safety of all concerned. I fail to see that there could be any sensible reason for CASA to not release the pertinent information. Possibility B: the information that CASA holds indicates a more serious problem than the action is designed to ameliorate. If this is the case, then CASA has obviously failed to exercise its power to adequately protect everybody at risk. It might be argued (by CASA) that if this is indeed the case, it has weighed up all the factors including risk, economic effect etc. on owners, operators, Jabiru and even CAMit, and attempted to arrive at a 'balanced' response. At a subjective level, I don't think there would be a lot of public (in this case, the aviating public) confidence that such a balanced decision is historically typical of CASA action; at the objective level, it is simply not in CASA's remit to consider economics, social consequences etc. - CASA's role is 'safety', pure and simple. If CASA holds information that obviously requires a more serious / restrictive level of action than it has currently taken then it would have demonstrably failed to exercise its power correctly in the performance of its statutory function. Possibility C: the information that CASA holds does not reasonably support the action. In this case, the action places CASA in a position where it could be the subject of both or either of individual legal action by Jabiru/an owner/an operator (e.g. an FTF operating out of, say, Archerfield) or a major class action (and remember, CASA can be sued). Further, it would expose CASA to serious questions as to its competence to provide appropriate responses to apparent situations in terms of research, analysis, and the development of remedial action. I believe that it would also introduce serious questions as to the motive(s) behind the action which - and this is personal conjecture - might include either or both of CASA having a 'political' position regarding sport aviation or an apparent vendetta against a specific manufacturer. I cannot think of any convincing reason why CASA should not release for general advice and consideration the information it claims to hold that it has used to validate the action it has initiated. It has provided no metric by the achievement of which the restrictions will be lifted, which to me indicates that it will make a subjective judgement on the issue - which I have to say appears to reinforce the view that the imposition of the restrictions was equally subjective. This response by CASA to enquiries regarding the release of the information behind the action appears to directly negate one of the recommendations of the Forsyth Review - and one supported by the Government - viz: 16. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority finalises its Capability Framework and overhauls its training program to ensure identified areas of need are addressed, including: a. communication in a regulatory context b. decision making and good regulatory practice c. auditing. That Report was tabled in Parliament in July 2014, many months before the action. A new DAS, charged with implementing the Report, was due to take over the reins of the organisation on the next effective working DAY following the promulgation of the action. CASA will not release the information it states validates the action it took, and by the timing of the promulgation of the action it ensured that the new DAS did not have the opportunity to examine that data and endorse (or otherwise) the action. To quote the Bard: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. That appears to me to have spread... 2 2 1
turboplanner Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 The response that CASA 'has more information than they have told at this stage' is pretty clearly intended to obfuscate the situation and there is absolutely no rationale by which that statement could be taken to be an affirmation that the action that was taken is correct, reasonable or even justified This just tells me that you really don't know what this is all about Oscar, and that you haven't read the posts by people who have been patiently trying to explain the background. 1
facthunter Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 IF CASA have more information on the safety of the Jabiru products ( and bear in mind they are still being operated) They MUST make it available. How can they justify not doing it?. Operators should have ALL the facts that are known to make operational and other decisions. Nev 5
dsam Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 IF CASA have more information on the safety of the Jabiru products ( and bear in mind they are still being operated) They MUST make it available. How can they justify not doing it?. Operators should have ALL the facts that are known to make operational and other decisions. Nev For this reason it puzzles me why RA-AUS has had to resort to FOI action to see CASA evidence. One can only conclude they have much to hide. Aviation organisations in particular, need to keep lobbying the minister to hammer home the Forsythe review recommendations they "claim" to have taken notice of. 1
facthunter Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 There should be no POSSIBILITY of anyone playing GAMES here. That's not a legitimate part of regulating Aviation Safety. Nev 4
turboplanner Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Don't be led astray by the inventive rhetoric. I suspect there will be egg on a lot of whining faces when it's all over. I haven't seen any evidence of CASA playing games
frank marriott Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Egg on face - The knee-jerk reaction of grounding all R44s on misinformation 1 2
jetjr Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 TP not sure what background your talking about Nothing said here has offered why this action is justified OR effective 4
gandalph Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 This just tells me that you really don't know what this is all about Oscar, and that you haven't read the posts by people who have been patiently trying to explain the background. Still playing the Newcastle song? 1
facthunter Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm from Newcastle. What is the Newcastle song? Nev
Jabiru Phil Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm from Newcastle. What is the Newcastle song? Nev Bob Hudson song. Don't you ever let a chance go by o Lord etc.
fly_tornado Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 you srs bro? the newcastle song is the gr8est Australian song since Waltzing Matilda 1
Kyle Communications Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 You may need to look over this aussie slang dictionary for some of the words....just look over it anyway its a blast http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html Mark
robinsm Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 It appears that those that can, do; and those that cant, join CASA. Why do we appear to be being victimised by an Ungerman/Stit fued. 2
Oscar Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Until there is some decent evidence that this was Ungermann's 'project', I believe that perpetuating the apparent blame onto Ungermann is possibly generating an urban myth and may well be quite negative to the development of better relations between Sport aviation management groups and the Sport Aviation oversight group within CASA. If, indeed, Ungermann was the progenitor and champion of this action and that is proven, then I would be happy to join the crowd drawing his hurdle towards the Tyburn gibbet, but I seriously believe that far more caution should be exercised at this time before hurling accusations around. Consider, for a moment, that Ungermann, and in fact most of the Sport Aviation group in CASA owe their careers (both prior to and since joining CASA) to experience within the Sport aviation sector. While their specific experience with earlier iterations of RAA management may have been less than joyous, RAA has a (mostly) new and generally far more responsive and sensible Board. It does not make sense to me that the Sport Aviation group in CASA would deliberately seek to cut the guts out of the very 'client' group to which their existence is linked. Further, I suggest that the entire manner in which the CASA action was executed would - if the new DAS is to be taken at his word regarding his intent to change the combative culture of CASA on the lines advocated by the Forsyth Report and endorsed by the Minister - be career suicide for a relatively junior middle-manager. Perhaps Ungermann is a thrill-seeker in regard to his career but I am not aware of such a characteristic in his nature. By comparison, I suggest that research into the nature and prejudices of the previous two DAS position occupants would point strongly to any explicit or implicit antipathetic policy towards Sport aviation has come from the highest levels within CASA. McCormick's reputation was pretty well understood; Farqharson's career in CASA ended - coincidentally? - with the promulgation of the CASA action. We may well be given some more indication of CASA's current position re Sport Aviation and RAA in particular by the way in which CASA handles the FOI request for the data behind the action. However, to suggest that this whole affair is simply the result of a feud is I think very much out of left field and any such allegation should be discouraged unless there is believable evidence to back it up. 1 4
facthunter Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Wise counsel but "appears" was the essence of the suggestion. Things should be done properly and also appear to be done for the proper reasons. . The previous CEO was against the very existence of anything like the RAAus and made that quite clear for anyone who cared to read what he said.. It's all on record. I commented many times and was assured I was being too negative, and there were white papers etc which would make everything come out roses. Then the rot set in.. Nev 1
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