jetjr Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 CASA made a judgement. It is primarily a judgement that there is a problem with Jabiru engines. But, secondarily, it is a judgement RA-Aust is incompetent. When you are a member of RAA or maybe even live in Australia feel free to comment What do you propose they do? Under the current system they have no power to do anything except administer recreational aviation. Remember a few key SASAO staff used to work there and they know this situation well. 1
kgwilson Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 The following is an excerpt from the article "Indecent Haste" published by Proaviation & while it is Rod Stiff making the comments it shows the "Agenda" CASA appears to have in this scenario. The ATSB report also showed a reduced rate of Jabiru engine incidents between 2012 & 2013 while those for Rotax engined aircraft increased. CASA only used data from RA-Aus for 2014. The email I got from CASA stated "CASA has identified more than 40 Jabiru engine problems and events that have occurred in 2014 alone" but provided no other information. It seems that they didn't have any prior data. "CASA actually asked RA-Aus for their numbers after they had drafted the instrument – they didn’t have anything until I asked RA-Aus and they sent them their unedited list of incidents which included everything and listed 40 engine failures, so that’s where CASA’s magic 40 figure came from. “Jabiru had addressed most of the identified problems over three years ago. I believe CASA has been negligent because they never consulted with us before they introduced the consultation draft, and they pulled the rug out from under us while we were on the plane on the way down. They couldn’t wait another day to talk about the issue, which really tells you what the intent was; the intent was obviously to damage us to the point where we couldn’t survive. “When we finally worked that out with RA-Aus we spent a whole weekend going through the 40 events, comparing it with our list of failures, and working out which were just maintenance items like leaking fuel pumps, or simply running out of fuel, which were all on the CASA list. When we’d tidied it up we actually added some to the CASA list and when that was sorted out there were 12 actual in-flight engine failures which led to genuine forced landings. But that was in 93,000 flights, and 43,000 flying hours. And it was mainly flying schools because Jabirus are such popular training aircraft. " So the risk of a failure requiring a forced landing based on the statistics is 0.000129 per flight or 0.000279 per flying hour. This is what the CASA instrument is based on. A bland statement of a "high and increasing rate of engine failures". What is an acceptable risk? CASA has not answered that question 3 3
01rmb Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Whether you like, hate or feel slighted by Jabiru or their customer service. After all the damage these restrictions have caused and will cause every Jabiru owner and operator including the many flight schools, CAMit and Jabiru themselves - for those that manage to survive, what is the outcome needed for CASA to overturn the imposed restrictions? Zero failures is not possible - given every aircraft/engine/pilot will be exposed to the potential of an incident over a period of time without grounding every aircraft and pilot to eliminate the possibility of an event from occurring. So what is going to prove the problem has been fixed? Given the small number of events per flight/flying hours that caused CASA to take action what would identify that the problem has been fixed? A small number of events is still a small number even when it is halved or doubled so is subject to statistical variation of a few events over a large number of hours and flights over a short time frame of 6 months or even a couple of years. Or are we talking about the total number of events per year? The very effect of the instrument is to restrict flights so will achieve that by reducing the flights undertaken and hence the likelihood of and event occurring, especially at flight schools, which seem to have the greater number of recorded events. Even if the whole engine was replaced with a new design - how would you go about proving that the problem has been resolved. With what is essentially a small number of engines and a short period of time with all new components. Surely the same effect would be achieved if every Jabiru engine was fully overhauled with no changes even being made to the design. Or even if CAMit have designed all the problems out and gave it all to Jabiru - how do they prove the problem is gone on a scale that would satisfy CASA? Or are CASA looking for actions from Jabiru in the way they handle engine problems or corrective actions? Or is this more about how RA-Aus handles incidents with LSA manufacturers and demonstrates to CASA they are able to manage the recreational aviation sector? The key question that goes with this is, what is to stop CASA extending this restriction to any particular engine type, aircraft type, pilot experience/age/health/training or even the whole RA-Aus association and any aircraft and pilot based on their judgement they need to protect the public and take action whenever there is a higher than whatever number of events that they accept as being reasonable? There really is no limit to how far they could take this. 9
Guest john Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 Whether you like, hate or feel slighted by Jabiru or their customer service. After all the damage these restrictions have caused and will cause every Jabiru owner and operator including the many flight schools, CAMit and Jabiru themselves - for those that manage to survive, what is the outcome needed for CASA to overturn the imposed restrictions?Zero failures is not possible - given every aircraft/engine/pilot will be exposed to the potential of an incident over a period of time without grounding every aircraft and pilot to eliminate the possibility of an event from occurring. So what is going to prove the problem has been fixed? Given the small number of events per flight/flying hours that caused CASA to take action what would identify that the problem has been fixed? A small number of events is still a small number even when it is halved or doubled so is subject to statistical variation of a few events over a large number of hours and flights over a short time frame of 6 months or even a couple of years. Or are we talking about the total number of events per year? The very effect of the instrument is to restrict flights so will achieve that by reducing the flights undertaken and hence the likelihood of and event occurring, especially at flight schools, which seem to have the greater number of recorded events. Even if the whole engine was replaced with a new design - how would you go about proving that the problem has been resolved. With what is essentially a small number of engines and a short period of time with all new components. Surely the same effect would be achieved if every Jabiru engine was fully overhauled with no changes even being made to the design. Or even if CAMit have designed all the problems out and gave it all to Jabiru - how do they prove the problem is gone on a scale that would satisfy CASA? Or are CASA looking for actions from Jabiru in the way they handle engine problems or corrective actions? Or is this more about how RA-Aus handles incidents with LSA manufacturers and demonstrates to CASA they are able to manage the recreational aviation sector? The key question that goes with this is, what is to stop CASA extending this restriction to any particular engine type, aircraft type, pilot experience/age/health/training or even the whole RA-Aus association and any aircraft and pilot based on their judgement they need to protect the public and take action whenever there is a higher than whatever number of events that they accept as being reasonable? There really is no limit to how far they could take this. The simple answer to this post is from a previous employee of RAA who now works for CASA in the Sports Aviation Section. This previous employee of RAA stated in a previous edition of the RAA Magazine as follows: " Well the answer is that all accidents, fatal or not , are preventable in some way shape or form". Maybe this CASA employee was somehow blessed with celestial knowledge from above that we simple pilots don't have .
facthunter Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 It isn't realistic to expect NO accidents in aviation. You can aim for it but It ijust sn't achievable. It's probably a lot safer than motorcycle riding. A lot of people would ban that too. if they had their way. Some gains are made for a small extra cost initially, but it becomes increasingly expensive to continue the progress and could stop the activity in a practical sense for all but those with a lot of money to buy the best equipment.BUT The skill of the pilot and their judgement of how a flight should be managed will always be the biggest factor. A "perfect" light aircraft would still be easy to kill yourself in. It's not running on rails and you can't pull up on a cloud and fix it or get more fuel. Nev 2 4 1
Guest john Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 It isn't realistic to expect NO accidents in aviation. You can aim for it but It ijust sn't achievable. It's probably a lot safer than motorcycle riding. A lot of people would ban that too. if they had their way.Some gains are made for a small extra cost initially, but it becomes increasingly expensive to continue the progress and could stop the activity in a practical sense for all but those with a lot of money to buy the best equipment.BUT The skill of the pilot and their judgement of how a flight should be managed will always be the biggest factor. A "perfect" light aircraft would still be easy to kill yourself in. It's not running on rails and you can't pull up on a cloud and fix it or get more fuel. Nev If the current CASA employee who was previously employed by RAA & who supposedly possesses the celestial knowledge that "----all accidents are preventable in some way shape or form," that person may have the mythical answer to this question. Unfortunately all of us simple pilots would be waiting indefinitley for CASA to provide the solution to this ongoing issue , simply because they even don't have the answer themselves, & furthermore this useless statement that was previously scribed by the ex employee of RAA is simply a load of BULLSHXIT.
coljones Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 If the current CASA employee who was previously employed by RAA & who supposedly possesses the celestial knowledge that "----all accidents are preventable in some way shape or form," that person may have the mythical answer to this question.Unfortunately all of us simple pilots would be waiting indefinitley for CASA to provide the solution to this ongoing issue , simply because they even don't have the answer themselves, & furthermore this useless statement that was previously scribed by the ex employee of RAA is simply a load of BULLSHXIT. They may have all the answers but do they know what the question was. 1
Guest Ornis Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 The conversation was over 30 minutes, care to comment on what else was said and he really meant? No, I don't know what was said, but I know what wasn't. Ian Bent did not say, without qualification, he thought solid lifter Jabiru engines were sound. One reason you gave to back your claim Ian Bent thinks the engine sound was that he had designed it. You were proved wrong. The figures speak for themselves. Some 7000 engines produced and perhaps 500 reached 1000 hours. http://jabiru.net.au/images/AVDALSR088-1_Piston_Offset.pdf Twice as many incidents and serious incidents as Rotax. http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107.aspx A man previously involved with RA-Aust - thus in a position to know about Jabiru engines - persuades CASA there is a problem. But he is wrong. I have and will continue to fly many hundreds of hours with my kids in the plane. Because you are never wrong.
rhysmcc Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 ..The figures speak for themselves. Some 7000 engines produced and perhaps 500 reached 1000 hours. ... Out of those 7000, how many actually didn't or aren't still on the way to make 1000 hours. It's not unusual to see recreational aircraft that do less then 50 hours a year. The figure you quote does not mean much unless you can tell us the status of the other 6500 engines.
coljones Posted January 13, 2015 Author Posted January 13, 2015 Snip...Snip...SnipThe figures speak for themselves. Some 7000 engines produced and perhaps 500 reached 1000 hours. Snip...Snip...Snip You imply that 6500 have failed. I would suggest that the failure rate is much smaller than that. 5
David Isaac Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 FFS people, read the Jabiru document that Ornis posted properly. It was simply a statement at the time about how many had reached 1,000 hours. It in no way implied the other 6500 would not, they just had not at the time. That's how I read it anyway. It was Jabiru's own document.
facthunter Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 There was a strong inference what the figures meant by the way they were presented. Nev 1
David Isaac Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 This what is exactly what the document stated on page 9 of 13: "4 Service History At the time of writing: - The Jabiru 2200 engine has been in production for over 20 years in various configurations. - Approximately 7,000 Jabiru engines of various models have been manufactured. - It is estimated that around 500 engines have exceeded 1,000 hours TIS. - Annual fleet hours are estimated at in excess of 20,000 hours." How can you draw any failure inference from that????
facthunter Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I'm referring to the way ornis presented it, not the original document, with which I have no argument. The document makes statements that I accept are factual. I also agree that no inference of adverse failure rates SHOULD be implied from it. It is pretty much background information, giving some idea of the activity of the make. Just in passing, . There are significant differences in the early 1600 cc engines. They appear to not be included. I'm not suggesting they should be either.Nev 3
coljones Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 FFS people, read the Jabiru document that Ornis posted properly.It was simply a statement at the time about how many had reached 1,000 hours. It in no way implied the other 6500 would not, they just had not at the time. That's how I read it anyway. It was Jabiru's own document. FFS David, this thread is about Jabiru failures. I am not sure what Ornis is attempting to achieve but he is using the wrong figures and making spurious imputations to achieve it. He/she may not assert but does imply. I recently saw a TV show about fire alarms that suggested that only half of the particulate detectors and non of the ionisation detectors actually worked. I have since been informed that the second particulate detector finally worked (but not shown) but neither of the ionisation ones did. If I had gone with the TV show I wouldn't have installed any detectors as a 75% chance that none would work appeared to me that smokies are a waste of time - you need to dig through GOOD data and the data that Ornis presented is next to useless in relation to the 7000 Jabiru engines. A side note - I went and bought a barbecue as I was getting sick and tired of the smokey going off if I cooked a steak on the stove. Another side note - 60 Minutes (the same 60 second of info dragged out 60 times) showed its usual lack of depth and proves again that it is a waste of space. Perhaps The Checkout can do a better job on smokies in the house. Keep well 1 1
David Isaac Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 All good points Col, the devil is always in the detail. In the 60 minutes case ... 1 days filming in Darwin, hours of detailed Camera Interview with Carl Stefanovic (and that was just me) ... all reduced to 14 minutes of air time. Fourteen minutes cannot do much justice to a complex issue. BUT on the good side the message did get out to many, there was a reported run on photoelectric smoke alarms at many outlets. Some is better than none. Stay safe and buy Brooks 10 year Lithium powered radio interconnected smoke alarms and stick one in every habitable room. I want you to live to a ripe® old age buddy.
gandalph Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 No, I don't know what was said, but I know what wasn't. Ornis, if you don't know what was said how can you possibly know what wasn't said? 3
Oscar Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Ornis, if you don't know what was said how can you possibly know what wasn't said? Spoiling a good yarn by introducing logic ? Obviously, you will never learn. So sad. Those who know Ian Bent will recognise that he doesn't engage in 'loose talk' for the sake of promotion of his products. If someone presented to him a set of numbers for the performance of their existing Jab. engine that he considers shows it to be always operating within limits, he would - in my experience - be prepared to say that it has, on balance, a fair chance of continuing to operate reasonably. That's recognition of the facts. However, it is NOT in any way a blanket statement regarding Jab. engines. The various submissions to CASA indicate clearly that some operators have a history of repeated early engine problems while others have a history of exactly the opposite. Blind Freddy can see that some operators have developed practices, be they maintenance / operation, that enhance the operational use of Jab engines, while others punish their engines. The argument that 'we were operating to Jabiru's specifications' is a separate issue and while it MAY be correct, has yet, I believe, to be backed up with reliable data. There just is not the forensic level of evidence available. 3
Oscar Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I'm referring to the way ornis presented it, not the original document, with which I have no argument.The document makes statements that I accept are factual. I also agree that no inference of adverse failure rates SHOULD be implied from it. It is pretty much background information, giving some idea of the activity of the make. Just in passing, . There are significant differences in the early 1600 cc engines. They appear to not be included. I'm not suggesting they should be either.Nev Nev, my aircraft is prod No. 50 and was used as a factory hack for the development and certification of the 2200 engine - though technically it was an ST1 with a 1600 engine as sold. The 1600 should not be included in any data concerning Jab. engines, I doubt there are any left actually in service - I have the wings off the last one that I believe was in service.. 1
Old Koreelah Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 ...The 1600 should not be included in any data concerning Jab. engines, I doubt there are any left actually in service.. This is the first one I've seen. A bargain for the restorer! 1 1
biggles5128 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It has just occurred to me that there is an identified risk in driving a motor car, apparently hundreds are killed each year in Australia, the government must act now and stop these vehicles being used around the public and get all who wish to travel within to sign a waiver.
Keenaviator Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It has just occurred to me that there is an identified risk in driving a motor car, apparently hundreds are killed each year in Australia, the government must act now and stop these vehicles being used around the public and get all who wish to travel within to sign a waiver. They are actually using a different basis for this action, potential accidents that might occur as a resulf of a Jabiru engine failure. If they were looking at the type of engine powering aircraft involved in fatal accidents! ...... Let's just say there could be a number of operators presently gloating about their wonderful, infallable engines and their clever purchases who could be disappointed.
Oscar Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It has just occurred to me that there is an identified risk in driving a motor car, apparently hundreds are killed each year in Australia, the government must act now and stop these vehicles being used around the public and get all who wish to travel within to sign a waiver. The analogous action would be for cars with ANCAP ratings of, let's say, less than 4 to be similarly limited.
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The analogous action would be for cars with ANCAP ratings of, let's say, less than 4 to be similarly limited. I suggest the government should be consistent and extent the ANCAP system to motorbike users, only 5 star rated motorbikes on the road also. You know it makes sense! 1 1
Geoff13 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 :scooter:Mine would nearly fit that category. With its airbag, heated seats, heated handgrips, cruise control and awesome stereo.
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