CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[Oscar]

I asked for the relevant law that allows Jabiru to object and the reply was !As detailed in my decision letter, Jabiru objected to the release of parts of the documents, which they are able to do under the FOI Act. I made a decision to release the documents to you, however as Jabiru objected, I am unable to do so until Jabiru has exercised their review rights or the review period runs out.

Was the relevant article in the FOI Act referenced? I'd be most interested to know under what provision this decision was made.

 

 

[Camel]

Has Jabiru indicated why they are the reason for refusal by CASA to release?

No Col, I have not spoken to Jabiru but a friend did and confirmed what I told him. Are you a regular at the Oaks ? if so ask D. R. as he can confirm.

 

 

[Camel]

Was the relevant article in the FOI Act referenced? I'd be most interested to know under what provision this decision was made.

PM your email and I will send the letter to you !

 

 

[Camel]

OscarAs always a very precise and comprehensive post, point 5 though, if what Camel is saying above is true (and I have no reason to believe that it's not) is becoming a bit of a two way street CASA wont release the data that brought the instrument into force and Jabiru are objecting to the release of information under the FOI act. If the data that CASA acted upon is flawed (and I believe it is) why would Jabiru be objecting to the release of that data.

 

It doesn't make sense from either point of view

 

For the record I do own a J230 so I have a vested interest in the eventual outcome.

I also own a J230 and I have a vested interest.

 

 

[facthunter]

If they have data that would help improve safety, they must provide it. I said the same as you a while back.. Clearly they are caught out, on this one..

 

It wasn't always like this. They have done some very good work particularly on the Aero Commander wing spar failure analysis, as an example. in the early 60's I knew many of their examiners, and they were great blokes,and later, I worked as a "pilot's friend" in investigations of incidents for about 20 years. This got pretty involved and at one stage they introduced consideration of human factors, which was a real advance on finding out what actually caused the problems, but that didn't last long. All it became is GET THE PILOT or air trafficker or who ever they could.. I get a lot of info from "Inside". so it's backed up by facts. I wouldn't like to work there. It's a long time since it was a happy place. A lot just stay there till they pick up qualifications and go elsewhere. I hate thinking about it. Just cover your ar$e when you deal with them as an organisation and don't dispute what they say. you will get differing answers from many of them, to the same question. It's the organisation not necessarily the individuals .Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

For those interested, FACTS. I have proof.Quote from CASA SASO

Data collected in this process came from a variety of sources, ATSB, Airservices, RA-Aus, direct reporting to CASA and eventually from Jabiru itself. In this process all information was considered that related to Jabiru Powered Aircraft, this included VH and Recreational registered aircraft. CASA reviewed all RA-Aus accident and incident data in December 2013 in relation to piston engine reliability from 2012 and 2013 , this data was provided back to RA-Aus in May 2014 and again in August to the new CEO. Further request of data specifically in relation to Jabiru engine failures was requested from RA-Aus in August 2014 and supplied by them. While RA-Aus may not agree to the number of occurrences identified, not all of them came from RA-Aus data.

That's pretty much what I was saying Camel.

 

If an RAA member really wanted to put some effort in and search for the engine failures which resulted in forced landings, or engine failures where the aircraft landed but was not capable of taking off again without a catastrophic failure, it should be possible to get the numbers almost right through the history of the engine from RAA, Airservices, and ATSB.

 

I wouldn't expect CASA to divulge the incidents reported to them, because part of the DCA/CAA/CASA policy has been to protect sources who report issues to those authorities.

 

You would then have a reasonably comprehensive list.

 

Re the FoI questions, the best solution is to go through the FoI Act to see what is available and what must be released. I have had several exchanges where, what I got at the end of discussions was a lot more than what I got after my first request.

 

 

[Camel]

That's pretty much what I was saying Camel.If an RAA member really wanted to put some effort in and search for the engine failures which resulted in forced landings, or engine failures where the aircraft landed but was not capable of taking off again without a catastrophic failure, it should be possible to get the numbers almost right through the history of the engine from RAA, Airservices, and ATSB.

I wouldn't expect CASA to divulge the incidents reported to them, because part of the DCA/CAA/CASA policy has been to protect sources who report issues to those authorities.

 

You would then have a reasonably comprehensive list.

 

Re the FoI questions, the best solution is to go through the FoI Act to see what is available and what must be released. I have had several exchanges where, what I got at the end of discussions was a lot more than what I got after my first request.

Turbo please read #949 again as it is a direct cut and paste from CASA legal.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I read it, I'll have a look at the Act.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Might pay you to talk privately with gandalph about length of review period, associated aspects.

 

 

[gandalph]

Was the relevant article in the FOI Act referenced? I'd be most interested to know under what provision this decision was made.

Me too.

 

 

[Icarus]

Oscar .

 

I read your post [3 times] and appreciate the effort.

 

1. ALL standards for aeronautical safety have acceptance of a 'failure' figure. TBO's are initially set by performance against a standard developed by an Airworthiness Authority ( e.g. EASA, ASTM , FAA, BCAA etc.) and then modified in the light of operational experience. Jabiru engines have been certificated/certified against those standards.

CASA appears to think that the engines need to be checked again to meet these standards, and are not meeting the accepted ' failure ' figure?

The data to back this up seems to be the contentious issue ie mystery data.

 

2. The CASA action was based on a 'metric' that has absolutely NO acceptance nor rationale, in any International/national standard. 'Not as good as Rotax' is NOT a Standard - it is a qualitative judgement and the use of it as a de facto 'Standard was NEVER communicated to Jabiru as a potential reason for act.ion - let alone was Jabiru warned that such a metric might be applied.

The rationale I believe is this:

 

aprox 1/2 [whatever the figure is] the Australian RAA , GA exp fleet is Jabiru powered. They appear { again the mystery data} to be stopping too often, as perceived by many in RAA ,the aviation industry and CASA . If 1/2 the fleet can be trusted and the other half can't ,then we need to rectify the lesser half..

 

Might not be standard , might not have been communicated, but can you see the reasoning? Again clumsy CASA at work.

 

3. When the CASA action was applied, there was NO indication of what remediation action by Jabiru would lift the restrictions. 'Until we feel happy about it' is NOT a valid definition of acceptable action, nor is it anything by which Jabiru could be expected to direct any action towards

I believe the action was taken ie the instrument. purely as a preventative measure. CASA did not know at the time what needed to be done . ie what the specific problem with the engines is. there-fore ,how can they ask for a specific action or remediation? They asked for [or demanded?] Jabirus co-operation in an audit of procedures, tear down reports, etc . that was the specific action requested, so they could then determine the required remediation, if any?

 

The instrument was a measure taken to make sure a] people still get to fly the Jabs. b] pax and students are aware of possibly higher than usual chance of engine failure so they can make an informed decision to fly. c ] the PIC does not put themselves in a situation where they may have to land in a suburban street.

 

I think that is a reasonable thing to do in the situation. Perfect ? No .

 

The remedial action it appears has now been decided. test the engine again ,and it better meet spec. [ There is Jabirus monetary penalty?!]

 

4. 'Safety' is not a metric - it is a quality in the Aristotlean sense, or in the more prosaic sense, an 'outcome'. 'Incidents' are NOT necessarily 'outcomes'. Having a fall from a step-ladder is an 'incident' - but being killed or injured as a result of that fall, is an 'outcome' in the safety sense. It happens to be a FACT that Jabiru in-flight engine failures, in terms of outcomes of death/injury, are in this country - the subject of the CASA action - fewer than the 'standard' used by CASA to justify its action. All automotive conversions, Lycomings, Continentals, and I am afraid Rotaxes of either two or four-stroke operation, have WORSE safety outcomes than Jabiru engine failures. Yet, CASA has not moved against them in a similar fashion as it has towards Jabiru engines. If Jabiru engines 'do not make the grade' as decided by CASA - can you suggest why other engines with worse safety outcomes are NOT being subject to similar 'preventive' safety restrictions?

Reduce the incidents= less poor outcomes.

 

I suspect In Jabirus case the airframe has saved the day on a few occasions.

 

engine failures are not desirable ,whatever the outcome.

 

The other makes are not perceived to be quitting at the current time. perhaps in the past they were ie Rotax . The current admin cannot change how that was handled. Nor should they apply the same solutions now, if they think that those previous solutions were inadequate.

 

Just because someone has not died in a jab engine failure accident does not mean that CASA should ignore or pretend there is no issue.

 

People have been injured in Jabiru EFATO and Engine outs Im sure. That should be enough to warrant a closer look?

 

There seems to be a fixation of fatalities as a benchmark. How a about using incidents as a benchmark ,reduce those to reduce injuries ,,damage and fatalities

 

5. The CASA action has relied on a statement of statistics that have not been made transparent - and that, indeed, CASA is resisting all efforts to be made transparent. Surely, that alone should make those who support the validity of the CASA action rather more than unsettled? If right is on your side, why would you HIDE the evidence?

Ah yes . The missing data. Who determines that the data is sufficient to enact an instrument /investigation etc.?? Jabiru? RAA? W Truss?

 

Is there a standard to go by other than fatalities? injuries, close calls?Remember ,we are measuring engine failure not fatalities Reduce the incidents ,reduce the odds of a fatality. Even if it has not happened yet. How many is too many ? 12?45? more than another type? 1 that kills someone? 45 that only injure a few?

 

CASA is the authority to make that call. If they are abusing that power of authority to intimidate , threaten ,influence etc then I agree that needs to be stopped.

 

Is that happening in this case? I indicated earlier I accept that it probably is.

 

Goodnight all.

 

Brendan

 

 

[jetjr]

The whole thing WAS done on incidents

 

Problem is even the claimed number from CASA is quite low concisering hours flown

 

Next the CASA data on incidents doesnt match any other available. A recent draft from ATSB indicated engine failures on Jabiru were static or DECREASING, whereas ROTAX were increasing

 

They even made the comment "they fail about the same rate"

 

RAA, who has seen CASA data, were given just a day or so to respond, which they did, outlining a number of the incidents included fuel starvation and runway accidents

 

Bulk happened on newer hydraulic lifter engines 4cyl used in training.

 

No one is saying there isnt an issue and some improvements need to be made but this brand wide limitation of engines developed over many years has no end game in sight. It doent appear to have a solution pathway. Which is always needed if the aim is to solve the issue.

 

Also have a look at original process. CASA outlined action, RAA, SAAA nor Jabiru were consulted. A key meeting with Jabiru was cancelled, then action implemented

 

Never were exiting owners consulted or information sought. They are infact the most effected

 

Jabiru can stop making engines altogether, or switch to other brand tomorrow, what then for the 1000+ owners in Australia, let alone the others around the world

 

At $15-20,000 K each thats an industry impact of $15 Mill. Plus of course the damages to businnesses and those used to make money.

 

Nowhere else on our society could a regulator run this type of action without strongest evidence

 

 

[Camel]

Jetjr, what your saying is correct and the problem is there is no way out for CASA's behaviour and without the actual 46 engine failure details there is no argument with CASA but it is Jabiru blocking the information.

 

RAA had an FOI in place too and they did not get it either, mine is to be supplied when Jabiru exhaust their objections. ATSB are meant to release their report on LSA engine reliability some time this year. This report could make or break CASA, https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107.aspx.

 

The Director of CASA DID NOT ANWER my communication, all my other letters to CASA were answered, without the facts I asked for !

 

 

[kgwilson]

Lets get one thing straight. CASA did not say there were 46 Engine failures. What was stated in the explanatory statement attached to the Instrument 292/14 is below.

 

"As of 8 December 2014, CASA is aware of 46 reported mechanical failures or inflight occurrences in Jabiru-powered aircraft during 2014, equating to approximately 1 event per week."

 

Investigations by RAA & Jabiru found that some of the so called "Inflight Occurrences" included fuel starvation and other maintenance related problems. Of the 46 incidents there were 12 that required forced landing due to complete or partial engine failure and that was in 93,000 flights totaling 43,000 flying hours. So that provides a statistic which is 0.0129% chance of an engine failure requiring forced landing per flight or 0.028% chance per flying hour. This to me says the risk is very low.

 

The issue is therefore "What does CASA consider an acceptable risk to be?" They have not said and will not say anything because they are not prepared to put their collective anatomy on the line. If they did there would likely be a plethora of statistics from numerous other engine types that are worse.

 

 

[Russ]

Let's get the whole thing straight.............it's pure unadulterated "personal" .....

 

Rod......rubs folks ( some folks ).......stubborn, touchy, arrogant, to name a few. He had a dream, jab was born, it's grown to be a world leader for sure, ( just check the numbers )

 

Here we have casa, probably numerous times dialogued with jab over the yrs, and i bet it caused tensions. So we have departing casa official throwing a had grenade as he departs office.........the rest is history.

 

just my view.........

 

 

[Icarus]

If CASA suspect that there was an under -reporting of the number of engine failures, they would probably use any figures they could, to justify the audit and obtain the Jabiru factory engine failure figures.

 

If jabiru Factory Figures are found to be substantially higher than CASA/ RAA/ATSB figures, then there is a problem.

 

Non reporting pilots may receive a nice reminder letter of their obligations to report.

 

Jabiru wont want the figures released, and CASA may be obliging because the deal is .co-operate or we release the figures.

 

Or {humour me here} CASA may be protecting Jabiru by not releasing the real factory figure because they are taking the Forsyth report seriously!

 

Or. CASA is protecting themselves from scrutiny because the evidence to start action is even weaker than first thought. [ seems to be most favoured theory here]

 

I reckon Russ is on the money.

 

Might be a combination of all above.

 

The factory figure is the number I want to see.

 

 

[facthunter]

Jabiru would have more chance of having a good idea of the number as they provide the parts and often rebuild the engines. Who knows where the reporting level within the RAAus is.? Who knows where it is in GA?.

 

The number from the figures so far don't show an increasing number of failures as alleged. You would have to relate figures to take-offs or flight hours for any sense to be made of them. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

Jabiru wont want the figures released, and CASA may be obliging because the deal is .co-operate or we release the figures.

Unlikely because there is a "live" FOI request in with CASA. If CASA were to try to work a sweetheart deal with Jabiru they could find themselves in a world of pain

 

 

[JEM]

Just curious

 

What have the attitudes and interactions been of the local (Bundaberg area) politicians such as Leanne Donaldson (labour Qld) and Keith Pitt (Nats Federal). Are/can/have they be/been of any help? PS: The Pollie in the electorate next door is Warren Truss.

 

 

[facthunter]

About as helpful as an ashtray on a fast bike. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Lets get one thing straight. CASA did not say there were 46 Engine failures. What was stated in the explanatory statement attached to the Instrument 292/14 is below.Investigations by RAA & Jabiru found that some of the so called "Inflight Occurrences" included fuel starvation and other maintenance related problems. Of the 46 incidents there were 12 that required forced landing due to complete or partial engine failure and that was in 93,000 flights totaling 43,000 flying hours. So that provides a statistic which is 0.0129% chance of an engine failure requiring forced landing per flight or 0.028% chance per flying hour.

I have sighted information supplied by CASA, citing the data they have used justifying the imposition of the restriction. They claim that there were 142 'engine failures' recorded in their data set. These resulted in '86 forced/precautionary landings'.

 

Presumably, in 56 cases of an 'engine failure', those 'engine failures' did NOT result in a 'forced/precautionary' landing.

 

American Air Traffic Controllers claim that they have a 100% success rate, since they have never left anybody up there. According to CASA's figures, Jabiru have a significantly greater success rate - 56 of the 142 engine failures CASA claims to be documented, did NOT result in a forced/precautionary landing.

 

It would seem, therefore, that Jabiru engines can sustain an 'engine failure', yet the aircraft can keep flying to its predetermined destination in very nearly 40% (actually, 39.436%) of all occurrences of 'engine failure'.

 

I, for one, would like to see CASA explain how it tabulates engine 'failures'.

 

 

[Icarus]

I have sighted information supplied by CASA, citing the data they have used justifying the imposition of the restriction. They claim that there were 142 'engine failures' recorded in their data set. These resulted in '86 forced/precautionary landings'.Presumably, in 56 cases of an 'engine failure', those 'engine failures' did NOT result in a 'forced/precautionary' landing.

 

American Air Traffic Controllers claim that they have a 100% success rate, since they have never left anybody up there. According to CASA's figures, Jabiru have a significantly greater success rate - 56 of the 142 engine failures CASA claims to be documented, did NOT result in a forced/precautionary landing.

 

It would seem, therefore, that Jabiru engines can sustain an 'engine failure', yet the aircraft can keep flying to its predetermined destination in very nearly 40% (actually, 39.436%) of all occurrences of 'engine failure'.

 

I, for one, would like to see CASA explain how it tabulates engine 'failures'.

Or in those 56 cases the engine was successfully re-started? or on the ground?

 

 

[Icarus]

Did Jabiru try the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? If not why?

 

 

[Oscar]

Or in those 56 cases the engine was successfully re-started? or on the ground?

Surely, if the engine was successfully restarted, the stoppage should not be classified as a 'failure?'

 

 

[Icarus]

Surely, if the engine was successfully restarted, the stoppage should not be classified as a 'failure?'

I notice precautionary landings are included. Perhaps after re-start landing asap to find out WTF is going on. You think they are double /triple dipping?