Camel Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 12 months this time, looks like they are not expecting a quick solution. I think it looks like covering their behind as they have not fully disclosed all yet !
01rmb Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I am still keen to know what CASA are looking for to cancel the restrictions. If you don't state what it is you are looking for as an outcome then it will never be met. After 6 months CASA still can't say what it is that they are looking for Jabiru to achieve to prove one way or another that the engines are reliable or not so they just extend it for another 12 months. Just state what it is that Jabiru has to do to prove themselves and Jabiru can then either meet it or not. If it is a full retest of the engine then say so - Jabiru can then do it and if it passes then there is no more argument and the restriction should be cancelled. I don't know how Jabiru can demonstrate they have actually solved any/all problems and 'blame' any failures on poor maintenance or pilot handling for any failures. Even if Jabiru were to do a full retest I would not have thought CASA would just concede. They could still argue that the tests are not reflective of real world usage and prove nothing because there have been failures. Are CASA just dragging it out, hoping that there will be enough failures so they can say 'I told you so'... 2 2
01rmb Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Depending on the outcome of the ATSB light sport engine review, CASA could consider expanding restrictions to all RA-Aus self serviced aircraft given the lower engine failures or malfunctions (particularly serious incidents) of VH registered aircraft compared to RA-Aus fleet. Using the 'not as good as Rotax' measure LAME serviced aircraft (including Jabiru's) outperformed everything. Especially considering the rate below for RA-Aus aircraft includes aircraft serviced by L2s and LAMEs, so what would it look like if you separated those aircraft serviced by owners from the total RA-Aus figures, especially on the number of serious incidents. Going further, a possible outcome is, if there are 'enough' failures of other light sport aircraft engines (in CASA's opinion), that the restrictions (in some form) gets expanded across the whole RA-Aus fleet with CASA claiming that it is necessary because LSA as a whole is not as reliable as GA. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107.aspx
gandalph Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Depending on the outcome of the ATSB light sport engine review, CASA could consider expanding restrictions to all RA-Aus self serviced aircraft given the lower engine failures or malfunctions (particularly serious incidents) of VH registered aircraft compared to RA-Aus fleet. Going further, a possible outcome is, if there are 'enough' failures of other light sport aircraft engines (in CASA's opinion), that the restrictions (in some form) gets expanded across the whole RA-Aus fleet with CASA claiming that it is necessary because LSA as a whole is not as reliable as GA. [reference deleted for brevity] Exactly the points some have been making since before the restriction was implemented when some people here were hinting of their inside knowledge of forthcoming action against Jabiru. The message then was "be careful about letting the genie out of the bottle". The question now is: How do we control the genie?
facthunter Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 You can justify anything with stats. If you look at the owner serviced sector you will probably find some of the absolute BEST and some of the worst. LAME serviced, there will perhaps be less of a spread, but no guarantee of absolute BEST. and can still be BAD VH registered isn't just recreational (equivalent) It probably includes multi engined aircraft and charter etc. You either need to specifically identify a problem, or approve a situation that will be satisfactory or meet a standard. The engine has been the target (or maybe an organisation ). NOT HAPPY. Not as good as Rotax is a weird reason. A Technam isn't as good as a Lear jet either
turboplanner Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 You can justify anything with stats. If you look at the owner serviced sector you will probably find some of the absolute BEST and some of the worst. LAME serviced, there will perhaps be less of a spread, but no guarantee of absolute BEST. and can still be BADVH registered isn't just recreational (equivalent) It probably includes multi engined aircraft and charter etc. You either need to specifically identify a problem, or approve a situation that will be satisfactory or meet a standard. The engine has been the target (or maybe an organisation ). NOT HAPPY. Not as good as Rotax is a weird reason. A Technam isn't as good as a Lear jet either The "not as good as Rotax" is a red herring FH. 1
gandalph Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The "not as good as Rotax" is a red herring FH. The ASTB doesn't seem to agree with you on that Turbs. Did you read the attachment in O1rmb's post @ 1029 particularly, the 10 December update?
turboplanner Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The ASTB doesn't seem to agree with you on that Turbs. Did you read the attachment in O1rmb's post @ 1029 particularly, the 10 December update? I haven't found the ATSB's actual numbers from reading that document, but it only covers four years 2009 to 2013 and to me it would make more sense just with the raw numbers. I pulled the figures from the RAA Magazine over 59 months from Feb 2007 thru Mar 2012, and any serious discussion of failures would go back a lot further than that. What the RAA magazine produced in terms of either forced landing reports, or engine landed in a state where it couldn't safely take off were: Jabiru Exhaust Valve/Valve 12 Through Bolt 17 Seized/ConRod/Catastrophic 5 34 in 5 years Rotax 912 Engine failure no cause 1 Oil Pressure 1 Circlip 1 3 in 5 years The ATSB report, per 10,000 hours is Jabiru 2.6 Rotax 1.5 Make what you will of those, but the ratios are startlingly different. You would hope that ATSB haven't included the smaller Rotax two stroke engines in their figures, which would certainly skew them, and if they did then how much trust could you put in the rest of the data. Historically within the Department of Infrastructure and Development, and note that F2015L00974 is tagged by DIRD, the benchmarks have been: An arbitrary Federal Government design standard (established by research and laws of other countries) A shortcoming based on all manufacturer standards within the industry (e.g. car roadworthy) There's no precedent that I know of for a manufacturer to be judged by the standards of the best manufacturer in the industry. Apart from that there's the matter of natural justice. 1
facthunter Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 Once a set of cylinder heads have been overheated they have no useful purpose in an aeroplane. Same with an exhaust valve. The head will be soft and in the case of the exhaust valve it will most likely have fine cracks in the stem. Plenty of Jabiru motors have been overheated, so they should be pulled from service no matter how nice they appear to be running, if they have and checked. It would be possible to coat the heads with a paint that changed colour once it exceeded a certain temperature Jabiru's had a fairly good run until they tried leaning them out. With some mixture distribution problems that caused a fair bit of unreliability till most richened them up again. Getting EVEN mixtures are always a problem with a single carb/injector. Nev
Jaba-who Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 The "not as good as Rotax" is a red herring FH. No it's not TP it is THE reason - absolutely and incontrovertibly it is THE reason. They have said unequivocally they DO NOT have a bench mark for acceptable failure rate in engines. They have said jabiru engines had a roughly 1.6 failure rate compared to rotax engines. They have said in black and white that they compared jabiru engined aircraft to rotax engined aircraft. They have never published any statement where they have compared the jabiru failure rate to an internationally or even locally established benchmark for failure rates. Quite simply the jabiru has a failure rate which compared poorly to the rotax. 2
Oscar Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I don't know how Jabiru can demonstrate they have actually solved any/all problems and 'blame' any failures on poor maintenance or pilot handling for any failures. Even if Jabiru were to do a full retest I would not have thought CASA would just concede. They could still argue that the tests are not reflective of real world usage and prove nothing because there have been failures. The tests ARE supposed to 'reflect real world conditions' - as far as those who designed the tests are concerned - and the tests are international standards, not just something the manufacturer considers to be adequate. And therein lies a major problem for both Jabiru and CASA: because, if the tests are considered by CASA to be NOT representative, then it's not just Jabiru engines affected by that determination: ALL certified /certificated engines are therefore, de facto, not adequately 'tested' in 'real world terms'. Many models of the J2200 are certificated to JAR 22H - same for the Rotax 912A. The 3300 engines are certified under ASTM; some models of 912 are - I believe - certified under the same. Some models of 912 are certificated to FAR standards and I do not know the details of those standards, it may be that they are 'more representative of real world standards' and therefore CASA might make a qualitative judgement that FAR certification is the minimum required - but it would be a big step for CASA to repudiate standards that are accepted everywhere else. I believe that one of the very real problems we have here, is the quality of petrol we get; for anything other than 100LL, there is really no QC on what the petrol pump provides. Australia has notoriously poor fuel quality - which is why almost all European high-performance engines are specifically de-tuned for Australian-delivered models. The engine tests do NOT - at least as far as I am aware - have any allowance for testing for poor fuel quality; the tests are run using a specified fuel (by the manufacturer): e.g. for the J2200A, J2200B or J2200J, it's 100/130 or 100LL - end of story. That was fine in 1998, when at least 100LL was readily available. Jabiru has extended the fuel specification, presumably with the best of intentions for owners, to various grades of MOGAS, but in so doing may well have bought a world of pain down on themselves. That is NOT to suggest that Jab's situation is all petrol-problem related - we know it is not. However, detonation is a known engine-killer and not just for Jabiru engines; all air-cooled aircraft engines are susceptible to detonation without careful engine management, and Lycontinentals are not exempt from this - but since they almost universally run on Avgas, generally speaking good engine management practice will suffice every time you take off in one because the fuel is a known quantity. By comparison, with MOGAS, if you get a 'bad' batch, it would be entirely possible to take-off in exactly the same way and doing all of the good engine management that has worked every time - and suddenly there's an almighty bang and through-bolts have let go. Add another 'failure' to the list for the Jab. - yet how many post-engine failures have even examined the fuel the engine was getting to see if it met specifications? I cannot readily think of ANY I have seen in the RAA reports. We don't have any useful data here, but I suggest that the significant number of Jab 'failures' that occur as EFATOs would throw considerable suspicion on the possibility that the relevant take-off had been after a fill-up/top up of fuel. Fuel quality issues are just ONE of the possible causes for failure and the raw numbers of 'failures' is seriously deficient in determining the actual 'cause' of failures - they mostly simply record the 'fact' that a failure occurred. Water-cooled engine have considerably more tolerance of fuel quality because the heads run cooler. It doesn't take much extrapolation to see that - given the still relatively small numbers of 'failures' per hour flown for any Recreational-class aircraft engine, it would not take many fuel-induced 'failures' for Jabiru engines to be over-represented in the raw numbers - yet the fuel quality is obviously outside Jabiru's control and also outside any testing regime of which I am aware. While the fuel used in the testing is specified, I am not aware of any test required to demonstrate reliability when run on fuel outside that specified for the test. I think that most people will be aware of the rather public destruction of a Ford Falcon high-performance engine in a Police pursuit car when filled up with less than the specified quality fuel - it grenaded spectacularly, AFAIR splitting the block . So what does this have to do with the testing? Well, testing under a set of conditions that then aren't scrupulously adhered to in 'real life' isn't going to show up fuel-quality related issues. The test regimes do test for a pretty representative set of operational conditions. Here's an extract from the EASA test schedule: ( all 198 pages of it are at: easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/CS-E%20Amdt%201.pdf ) (1) Schedule for Unsupercharged Engines and Engines Incorporating Gear-driven, Single-speed Superchargers. Part 1 A 30-hour run consisting of alternate 5 minute periods at Take-off Power and speed and Maximum Best Economy Cruising Power or Maximum Recommended Cruising Power conditions. Part 2 A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1½ hours at Maximum Continuous Power and speed and ½ hour at 75% Maximum Continuous Power and 91% Maximum Continuous speed. Part 3 A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1½ hours at Maximum Continuous Power and speed and ½ hour at 70% Maximum Continuous Power and 89% Maximum Continuous speed. Part 4 A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1½ hours at Maximum Continuous Power and speed and ½ hour at 65% Maximum Continuous Power and 87% Maximum Continuous speed. Part 5 A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1½ hours at Maximum Continuous Power and speed and ½ hour at 60% Maximum Continuous Power and 84.5% Maximum Continuous speed. Part 6 A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1½ hours at Maximum Continuous Power and speed and ½ hour at 50% Maximum Continuous Power and 79.5% Maximum Continuous speed. Part 7 A 20-hour run consisting of alternate 2½ hour periods at Maximum Continuous Power and speed and Maximum Best Economy Cruising Power or Maximum Recommended Cruising Power conditions. Now, with regard to detonation: CS-E 360 Detonation Tests For spark ignition Engines: (a) A test shall be conducted to demonstrate that the Engine can function without detonation at all operating conditions within the flight envelope. If the design of the ignition system includes redundancy, this test shall be repeated in degraded operating modes. (b) During the test of CS-E 360 (a), the Engine shall be operated throughout the range from the lowest Engine rotational speed intended to be used for cruising, to the declared maximum Engine rotational speed, at the conditions of power setting, mixture setting (if applicable), oil temperature, coolant or cylinder-head temperatures, and manifold air pressure and air temperature, most likely to cause detonation. An agreed method shall be used to determine the degree of detonation. Note that there is NO mention of testing under degraded fuel quality! And - let's be sensible here - how would you decide what level of 'degraded' is acceptable? Are Jabs as robust as they ought to be? I think we all agree that they are probably not, and that is where CAMit's efforts have been directed - not to increasing performance but to increasing reliability through having more tolerance built in. Certainly four-stroke Rotaxes (at least) have considerably more tolerance built in. However, Jabiru engines have passed (under CASA supervision for the certificated ones) the required tests - or if they have NOT in the case of the certified ones, then Jabiru would have left itself wide open for litigation. So - re-testing would establish that Jabiru engines meet the required standard(s) -or if not, then identify any weaknesses if operated under the requirements for the test(s) but might well NOT in fact demonstrate the limits of tolerance to fuel quality, or for that matter, operation outside the POH limits (and in fact, the test regimes go beyond the POH limits, quite deliberately). This leaves the situation in a continuing bugger's muddle: UNLESS the test(s) are run and demonstrate failures in Jab engines, CASA has to either: accept that Jabiru's meet the test standards and remove the restrictions, OR determine to arbitrarily ignore international standards. If CASA accepts the results of the test(s), then it is placed in the position of having to justify the whole of the sorry saga because the Jab engines were ALREADY in compliance with international standards - unless CASA can demonstrate that the original tests were faulty (and having been the scrutineers of the certification tests for some models of J2200, I think that is somewhere CASA would not be wanting to go). If CASA rejects the results of the tests as demonstrating compliance with international standards, then it MUST apply the same 'CASA' standard to all other certified / certificated engines. Anything else would show the Jabiru restrictions to be a selective attack on Jabiru, unsupported by anything other than a set of dubious - and highly-challengeable - statistics. CASA is not going to be able to argue that Jabiru should have foreseen the situation of variable fuel quality, variable standards of maintenance, variable operator care and attention - none of which are under its control - and designed an engine to take those factors into account. The engine certifying/certification standards do NOT make provision for that. So: running a new set of tests for Jabiru engines is a Damoclean Sword - but over whose head does it hang? 2
turboplanner Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 No it's not TP it is THE reason - absolutely and incontrovertibly it is THE reason.They have said unequivocally they DO NOT have a bench mark for acceptable failure rate in engines. They have said jabiru engines had a roughly 1.6 failure rate compared to rotax engines. They have said in black and white that they compared jabiru engined aircraft to rotax engined aircraft. They have never published any statement where they have compared the jabiru failure rate to an internationally or even locally established benchmark for failure rates. Quite simply the jabiru has a failure rate which compared poorly to the rotax. I think all of those statements may have come from the discussions over the months. I didn't see them given in the very first documents. However, lets say they were, then see my post #1034, especially this: "There's no precedent that I know of for a manufacturer to be judged by the standards of the best manufacturer in the industry. Apart from that there's the matter of natural justice." So many people have posted assumptions of what CASA might have based their action on, or posted what they "heard", or posted what they have "sighted" and the water is now so muddy, that I doubt you will discover who know what and who acted on what for another year.
Jaba-who Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I think all of those statements may have come from the discussions over the months. I didn't see them given in the very first documents.However, lets say they were, then see my post #1034, especially this: "There's no precedent that I know of for a manufacturer to be judged by the standards of the best manufacturer in the industry. Apart from that there's the matter of natural justice." So many people have posted assumptions of what CASA might have based their action on, or posted what they "heard", or posted what they have "sighted" and the water is now so muddy, that I doubt you will discover who know what and who acted on what for another year. As far as I recall I am quoting from CASAs limited publications. And as for natural justice - that's something CASA is not noted for.
turboplanner Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I'm talking about the initial announcement. IF the question of numbers of failures becomes a key issue, and I don't think it will, then the Courts will be the most likely place natural justice will come into play. 1
Jaba-who Posted July 1, 2015 Posted July 1, 2015 I'm referring to all CASA publications that have surfaced since the initial announcement. If you limit the argument to the initial announcement you are stuck with the words "high and increasing incidence ". Rubbish words without data to corroborate them without defined meaning, which allows CASA to later on, if called upon to be specific, they can attach whatever meaning they like. That puts you just where CASA wants you. Hemmed in by lack of data and weasel-words. 2
Gnarly Gnu Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 I see CAMit now have a US distributor. Hope they do well, good to see stuff still being made in this country. Also hope the CASA mafioso don't decide to crush them.. 4
Yenn Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 Camit may do well, but it still looks like a Jab engine to me. I am not happy that somebody can design an engine and then another person comes along and improves it plus calling it his own engine. To me it is still a Rod stiff design, possibly improved, but at the same time Rod Stiff is stiffed. Unjustifiably in my opinion.
jetjr Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 Yenn you need to read about the relationship and how it came about. Maybe discuss with Ian who has stiffed who. Its shared IP. Its always been a Jabiru/Camit engine. Rod had the chance to make all CAE improvements part of his engine and more than refused. 1 3
Oscar Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 Camit may do well, but it still looks like a Jab engine to me. I am not happy that somebody can design an engine and then another person comes along and improves it plus calling it his own engine. To me it is still a Rod stiff design, possibly improved, but at the same time Rod Stiff is stiffed. Unjustifiably in my opinion. So far, the leading contender for uninformed comment of 2015. Going to be tough to beat. 2
facthunter Posted July 26, 2015 Posted July 26, 2015 I'm confident we have the talent required here. Nev 3 3
Camel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I have been awaiting the FOI release, be aware it has been released and I have it ! I will be notifying certain people in regard to its content including RAA, but I can assure you it is going to cause some trouble. A quote from a CASA spokesperson given in an email previously to me, Quote- We do believe this is a measured response to a problem which has become increasing apparent in recent times. It is clear there is a high rate of loss-of-power events and other engine reliability issues among Jabiru-powered aircraft. CASA was aware of 46 reported mechanical failures or inflight occurrences in Jabiru-powered aircraft during 2014 - approximately one event per week. These figures follow reported engine-related events in 2012 and 2013, although CASA has only recently become aware of the full scope of these issues. End of quote ! THE FACTS DONT MATCH THE STATEMENT ! In the list of problems some are totally non related engine issues. WHAT SHOULD WE DO ? 1 1
Nobody Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 CASA was aware of 46 reported mechanical failures or inflight occurrences in Jabiru-powered aircraft during 2014- approximately one event per week. Read their words carefully. They didn't say there were 46 engine failures, just 46 mechanical failures. By their definition a failure of a fuel pump would be on the list.
gandalph Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Well done Camel for your initiative in taking this matter on and for your perseverance to see it through.more power to your arm mate! 1
Camel Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 I'm referring to all CASA publications that have surfaced since the initial announcement. If you limit the argument to the initial announcement you are stuck with the words "high and increasing incidence ".Rubbish words without data to corroborate them without defined meaning, which allows CASA to later on, if called upon to be specific, they can attach whatever meaning they like. That puts you just where CASA wants you. Hemmed in by lack of data and weasel-words. EXACTLY RIGHT !
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