CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[facthunter]

My observations are otherwise. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

This thread has done more circles than a spinning top, mostly hot air.

 

CASA took what they saw as safety action as they and their predecessors always have right back to the 1920s when DCA were nailing Clyde Fenton (or trying to)

 

The Instrument has stuck fast despite all the huffing and puffing, so that should be some sort of lesson that indignant public reaction isn't going to work.

 

It is due to be reviewed in the next few weeks. Reversing a safety action is a big decision, because if there is a fatality after the action has been rescinded the safety authority is going to be blamed.

 

Therefore a very sound case is required, and rather than just continue the mothers meeting there are some things which can be done to focus direction and develop a strategy.

 

Oscar has the ability to simply phone Lee Ungermann and find out what started the thing in the first place, and that may throw some light on who has to be convinced.

 

If gandaph's boast of a few months ago is correct, he has the skills to find the numbers that were involved, and starting with the case I gave him, decide if CASA need any numbers at all.

 

It's also time to ask for the number of engine failures which have occurred since the instrument came into effect. I certainly seen any traffic indicating a problem.

 

From all of that it's then a matter of deciding, if the numbers are down, what the reason is - lower numbers operating, or problems resolved.

 

I would expect CASA to be doing all that themselves, but it couldn't do any harm for us to work out a reasonable picture for ourselves.

 

 

[facthunter]

Other's opinions are not hot air.

 

Which new figures are going to prove ANYTHING? You need a cause and effect analysis. In this situation any valid conclusions are totally unlikely. The original problems aren't even specified in detail.

 

They have NO face saving way out. That's their problem and it makes it our problem. Usually there is a fall guy (person doesn't sound right) That's usually concocted and unjust.

 

Oscar or anyone can contact Lee or anybody who will talk to them, but under the current circumstances I would doubt anyone would be making many statements for release to us until something official happens. We are not important. Those involved MAY be in contact. (I hope they are) and some rare sense is injected into this fiasco. Nev

 

 

[Aldo]

Your theory is that the conspiracy goes ...

 

 

all the way to the top, but you have no direct evidence or empirical evidence or pattern of behaviour to justify your belief.

 

Just a feeling in your gut?

FT at no stage have I said anyone in particular was responsible but based on any number of posts on this and other sites it probably isn't too hard to have a speculative guess (but that is not what I'm doing).

 

As far as the instrument goes it has not affected me at all, I can still fly to all the places I need to fly to in my 230. The only restriction it has placed on me is flying to YBAF (Archerfield), YSBK (Bankstown) etc and if I really need to go to any of the restricted places I take the Navajo (as I did yesterday) or 182, if CASA were to place a complete ban on Jab engines I would just buy and install something else in it (19 reg), for as a commute vehicle I don't think there is anything better in the market, it has better speed and payload than the 172 uses less fuel and overall operating costs are less than my Ford Ranger.

 

In my correspondence to CASA (which I copied RAA head office and Jabiru on) I did suggest an increased maintenance regime I also suggested that the Jab may not be the best aircraft to use in a training environment (personal view). My opinion (and lots of people won't agree) is the 152 or Tomahawk are the best training aircraft on the market (tricycle) and that is what should be used, RAA should push to have these aircraft made available to RAA for training purposes and then do conversions to U/L.

 

I have over 800 hrs in my Jab and have done 2 top overhauls (adds about $20/hr to my operating costs which in my opinion are low anyway) do 20 hour services (all by a LAME Al McV) and I do my best to ensure my engine management is second to none and I'm the only person who fly's it.

 

You can carry on with your line of thought as much as you want, like the CASA instrument that doesn't affect me either.

 

Peoples attitude to the rules and regulations within recreational flying will have a greater impact on recreational flying than anything to do with Jab aircraft in the long run.

 

Aldo

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Can you see the head of the department that ordered the Jabiru action in front of senate review justifying the action by holding a screenshot of BHP1947's famous tweet "these Jabirus engines are rubbish :("?

 

 

[facthunter]

Interesting idea except the 152's and tomahawks have all too many hours on the airframes and are essentially 250K basic cost of production at least. Repairs relate to that figure rather than purchase price. Students don't like getting into tatty old aeroplanes. (Nor should they)

 

The Whitney Boomerang was made as a purpose built trainer. The weight limit makes building and RAAus eligible trainer virtually impossible. Half of them are overwight with two slightly large people in them. You can't safely do a spiral and recovery . It's not legal either for RAAus. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Can you see the head of the department that ordered the Jabiru action in front of senate review justifying the action by holding a screenshot of BHP1947's famous tweet "these Jabirus engines are rubbish :("?

Thats exactly what owners would like to see however a sensible presentation of the data they acted upon would silence most

Both RAA and Jabiru claim it has been interpreted incorrectly

 

 

[facthunter]

That's what happens when you try to make the circumstances fit the action(s) you are wanting to do. Selective extraction of data or sloppy work. Same thing whatever you call it. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Technically, CASA collect data on the basis of "no blame" but Jabiru don't work like that, they blame the owners. So obviously, CASA are doing the right thing to encourage an open dialogue by protecting their information, where as Jabiru are working to shut down any negative feedback. Jabiru could open its books and show how many engines they have had to fix over the years and the number of rebuild kits they have supplied to 3rd parties.

 

Anyway you look at it, the problem is still Jabiru.

 

 

[facthunter]

Can always rely on you, ft for a total condemnation of all things Jabiru.

 

CASA cannot justify keeping even one bit of information about the safety of Jabiru engines IF they have it. They would be condemned in any court of the world if action was initiated against them on this matter. They don't have the luxury of "It's for me to know and you to wonder about." .Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Makes you wonder why so many would put their CASA careers on the line.

 

 

[gandalph]

But what if over the years there has been a steady stream of tip offs from Jabiru owners that have had issues with their Jabirus and CASA set an arbitrary limit of say 1000 reports and Jabiru's number was up last year?You miss the point, Rod was never fixing engines those engines for "free".

Well as a recent poster in this thread said.....

 

but you have no direct evidence or empirical evidence or pattern of behaviour to justify your belief.

FT It seems reasonable that if you're asking others to provide proof, you should do the same. Or am I being overly optimistic ?

 

 

[facthunter]

CASA is sometimes one of those places where one might say (if somewhat tongue in cheek). They are so confused at head office they are running around stabbing each other in the chest . Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Gandy, CASA have guidelines that they have to work too. Show us your proof that they have breached the law.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well there you go, just another lot of hot air and rants.

 

 

[facthunter]

Organisations like CASA indemnify their staff from legal actions that might occur as a result of their "Involvement". There would have to be obvious and deliberate negligence or inappropriate conduct to run any risk at all of an employee being sued. This is what the RAAus need too when they act on the behalf of CASA. Otherwise the best decision may not be made (ie The RAAus might worry about going out of business, and 'duck" the issue.

 

The Gov't fund CASA so it won't go out of business. They act on the BASIS of "go your hardest.. WE have deeper pockets than you" . IF ever you as an individual or organisation sue the Gov't. pretty much the same thing applies. Justice er Not really. Reality? You got it..Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

I presume you were writing that when I made my earlier comment FH.

 

Maybe you could give some backing to your claims since it was mentioned on this site only recently that CASA can be sued.

 

In the case of this thread they have taken action on the grounds of safety, so suing them for negligence would be pretty difficult. If they fail to uphold their responsibility by ignoring their own regulations, ignoring industry standards like Safety Management Systems, or de-scaling regulations, then they could be at risk

 

As you've been told many times RAA cannot be indemnified.

 

This is just more hot air, and is not going to get any momentum going to try to ensure the Instrument is not renewed.

 

 

[Oscar]

In an earlier and more robust Australia, quite likely some people would have been taken out the back of the shed for some non-verbal attitude counselling, but this horse has bolted and such actions are not considered socially desirable.

 

The necessity for keeping pressure on CASA to validate its action is to ensure that ALL future action is conducted in a proper, reasonable, consultative and effective way. Any issue of pursuing legal retribution against CASA is for the parties involved now, and while that might go some way towards achieving the primary aim that can be in no way guaranteed.

 

Under the modus operandi CASA has so far displayed, with a change in focus from, say, engine reliability to other areas such as aerodynamic performance or occupant safety, there would be candidates for adverse judgement against an ill-defined 'standard' that CASA has unilaterally decided - and on those counts, Jabiru would more likely figure as the 'standard' to be achieved rather than be in the firing line.

 

I don't need, nor am going to enter into debate on, just what aircraft might be selected for CASA 'attention' - a review of the RAA accident reporting data should be sufficient of a pointer for that. And that's just for RAA: look at GA and there are quite a few 'outstanding' aircraft - mostly in Experimental - whose owners would be sleeping fitfully.

 

The use of unauthenticated 'data' coupled with the determination of an ad hoc 'standard' chosen to fit a pre-determined outcome, leaves almost no aircraft safe from this sort of action - if CASA is allowed to continue in this way.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbs my post #767 was just general comment. I'm not advocating suing CASA. I merely reiterate that I don't see CASA employees being sacked and refer to the situation that anyone suing the gov't will be in.

 

RAAus must be indemnified by the only people who can do it., also. Why would anyone work on the board if that isn't covered? That's a separate issue at the moment. I only brought it up because it's linked to the CASA situation.

 

I'm wasn't responding to any post particularly except perhaps ft's. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

RAAus must be indemnified by the only people who can do it.

Just three posts ago I told you that CASA cannot indemnify RAA, and nor can anyone else.

Hundreds of thousands of people volunteer in organizations from the CWA to Sky diving in exactly the same conditions as RAA officials.

 

That's what PL Insurance is for.

 

 

[gandalph]

Gandy, CASA have guidelines that they have to work too. Show us your proof that they have breached the law.

FT Show me where I have alleged CASA breached the law. Please DO TRY to get your facts straight before you sound off otherwise some might think you a fool or simply a shite stirrer

 

 

[gandalph]

Well there you go, just another lot of hot air and rants.

Ah Turbs, you're being unusually harsh on yourself there pal. You sometimes have useful and sensible things to say.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The use of unauthenticated 'data'

What is this "Unauthenticated data" you are talking about.

 

coupled with the determination of an ad hoc 'standard' chosen to fit a pre-determined outcome, leaves almost no aircraft safe from this sort of action - if CASA is allowed to continue in this way.

In safety matters today, a Responsible Authority needs to act to protect itself if ANY hazard is identified, and it needs to act immediately it becomes aware of the hazard.

 

Compliance with accepted standards, regulations, or cutting edge safety policies can be a defence for the participant (as against the Responsible Authority)

 

I don't believe an RA can come along and say five of yours have broken and three of his are broken, so you are grounded; and before you get excited, I don't believe that happened in this case despite the assertions of some people who put two and two together and got five.

 

 

[facthunter]

What turbo says "Gospel" what others say "hot air". Logically... How can that be?

 

There are many examples of where employees are indemnified. It has to happen. There is always a limit to insurance and the claimants use it as a target because it is known. A short while ago in the US there was no company which would cover against terrorism. The government had to step in and carry it. Nev

 

 

[Geoff13]

I'm not encouraging any witch hunt either. CASA have taken an action. There's no secret about that,, and they are required to explain and justify it at the end of the day.

Are they?