CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[coljones]

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 ?

Will you be releasing the FOI to the world? You could refer the CASA spokesperson to the Institution of Engineers who could set up a disciplinary panel to test the assertions of the Professional Engineers in CASA and ATSB.

 

 

[Camel]

Will you be releasing the FOI to the world? You could refer the CASA spokesperson to the Institution of Engineers who could set up a disciplinary panel to test the assertions of the Professional Engineers in CASA and ATSB.

Release to right people to find solution. Would not do disciplinary panel as that don't help aircraft owners and operators. The real engine failures do exist but so do other brands, so where is the scale to work off ?

 

 

[Oscar]

Great work, Camel, your perseverance has paid off and hopefully this will be the start of the way forward that Jabiru owners have needed. As you say, the information will need to be used carefully and by wise people, but at least it's breached the 'fortress CASA' which few people have managed to do.

 

 

[jetjr]

Well done, be interested to see what comes of this. Persistence pays off.

 

Id expect years of a@#e covering , maybe a few sideways moves in CASA, if we are lucky the instrument will self cancel and be forgotten.

 

Wouldnt be convinced this action was driven by engineers, few would be that uninformed id have hoped.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Well done, be interested to see what comes of this. Persistence pays off.Id expect years of a@#e covering , maybe a few sideways moves in CASA, if we are lucky the instrument will self cancel and be forgotten.

Wouldnt be convinced this action was driven by engineers, few would be that uninformed id have hoped.

It didn't self cancel last time, what's changed to think we will be 'lucky' next time around?

 

 

[jetjr]

I said if we were lucky.....

 

the data upon which it was based is now publicly out there for scrutiny.

 

 

[Oscar]

Remember, CASA can be sued, including for tort.

 

For this to have a proper conclusion, it will be needed to be proven that CASA's action was unjustified, and CASA will position itself that it WAS justified - to the death. We're talking Parliamentary Committee investigation here - viz, Pel-Air.

 

Probably, the best outcome will be for the information to be laid on the table and that independent 'authorities' come out with ridicule of CASA's action. The 'where's there smoke, there's fire' suspicion will linger, even if an AAT finding puts CASA in the wrong - but complete ridicule for CASA's basic expertise and subsequent abuse of its powers will have a better effect.

 

Those who have followed with close attention the development of all of this, will connect the dots to the strident commentary of a very few. All of whom have been extremely noticeably quiet on anything to do with Jabiru engines on this forum of late.

 

 

[gandalph]

I said if we were lucky.....the data upon which it was based is now publicly out there for scrutiny.

Well the data is in the hands of the guy who took the time and spent his own money to submit an FOI request, and who had the perseverance and determination to follow it up and not be fobbed off by the bureaucrats. Whether he chooses to make the data available is up to him.

I doubt that CASA is likely to be overcome with a sense of generosity or contrition and feel the need to release the data to the world any time soon.

 

 

[Geoff13]

To date I have seen nothing new so I see no reason for anything to change.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Maybe there is a private agenda by a an unqualified person now working for CASA????

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I would also like to know what qualifications and experience CASA people had.

 

Is it possible to find out short of a freedom of information application?

 

My impression is that CASA consists of a lot of ex-airforce people, who are used to an enviroment with unlimited time, money and manpower and nothing to produce.

 

 

[Camel]

For those interested, I can say there are others who have seen it now.

 

Just to give some idea it is a spreadsheet with over 60 incidents and less than half unrelated to engine problems in my opinion, I have marked many with a question mark as well and a tick for a definitely. By my method and opinion the ticks and the question marks is less than what is quoted.

 

What Frank M, Grandalph and Oscar write I believe in my opinion to be very true, I believe the data is already public, it is the compiling of this data used is what matters.

 

 

[Camel]

I would also like to know what qualifications and experience CASA people had.Is it possible to find out short of a freedom of information application?

My impression is that CASA consists of a lot of ex-airforce people, who are used to an enviroment with unlimited time, money and manpower and nothing to produce.

Try this link, you should remember three of them.

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/standard-page/meet-sport-aviation-team

 

 

[Geoff13]

Like I say nothing new here. yes good on you for following through however why update us and tell us that you have finally achieved something if you are not willing to tell us what you have achieved.

 

 

[Camel]

Like I say nothing new here. yes good on you for following through however why update us and tell us that you have finally achieved something if you are not willing to tell us what you have achieved.

What will you do with it ? It took a long time and money, didn't do it to put it here but I am interested in other Jabiru owners. Sorry

 

 

[Geoff13]

Thats ok mate but you are the one who put half of the info here. Me I gave up on Jabiru and have spent the last 6 months removing my Jabiru motor and replacing it with a Rotax so yes I am interested but really there is nothing I can do with it other than justify my time and expense doing the change over. Many of us have spent time and money in different ways because of this. That was my choice and I was lucky, at least I made my decisions after the instrument was bought down. Many were not so lucky and I am guessing that you are one of them. for your persistance and effort I give you full marks, I just hope that CASA do not decide to take you on in a witch hunt.

 

 

[coljones]

Try this link, you should remember three of them.https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/standard-page/meet-sport-aviation-team

Ah!! No Professional Engineers there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I believe the data is already public, it is the compiling of this data used is what matters.

Not all the data is public; incidents reported to CASA by pilots are confidential.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah!! No Professional Engineers there.

You don't have to be an engineer to collate reports of engine failures, and as we have said previously, the regulator today doesn't spend taxpayers money analysing problems - that's up to the manufacturer.

On the other hand, one report which has been bandied around here, and includes issues which were not engine failures/forced landings sounds like it has been collated by a baker's assistant, but to get to the bottom of all this, the question is where this came from and who instigated it.

 

 

[Camel]

Not all the data is public; incidents reported to CASA by pilots are confidential.

Names, rego and location removed, date is there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Names, rego and location removed, date is there.

I wasn't referring to the RAA data which is reported to CASA.

 

 

[coljones]

You don't have to be an engineer to collate reports of engine failures, and as we have said previously, the regulator today doesn't spend taxpayers money analysing problems - that's up to the manufacturer.On the other hand, one report which has been bandied around here, and includes issues which were not engine failures/forced landings sounds like it has been collated by a baker's assistant, but to get to the bottom of all this, the question is where this came from and who instigated it.

If only we had more professional engineers rather than bakers assistants!!

 

 

[Oscar]

When the actual 'list' becomes available for general scrutiny, I feel confident that there will be a great deal of debate about some of the listings as to whether they constitute real 'failures' of the engine or stoppages that in fact were not 'engine-related' by any sensible analysis. I'll put 2 bob on the table that we will get quite a bit more information of a rather more 'forensic' nature coming forward from people familiar with the circumstances of specific occurrences listed, which will at least assist in providing perspective, though little if any redress.

 

It is NOT satisfactory practice to simply collate all reports of the propellor ceasing to turn while the aircraft is airborne and calling then collectively 'engine failures'. There has to be, at the minimum, some judgement made as to whether each instance was a proven 'failure' of a component in normal service, to an engine operated and maintained in accordance with all specified requirements and if the information about the 'failure' does not provide adequate evidence of that then it should be put into at least a 'questionable', or perhaps 'provisional', category.

 

A simple examination of ATSB incident investigations vs. the majority of RAA-class aircraft incident 'reports' demonstrates the vast difference between an examination of the causes of incidents vs. the reporting of an 'outcome'. When 'the list' becomes generally available for perusal, we will be able to judge, at least to some degree, whether any sensible examination has been undertaken of the probability of some 'outcomes' being in any way solid or even probable evidence of an 'engine failure'. If, as has been strongly suggested, 'incidents' used by CASA to generate their reported 46 occurrences that are quite evidently NOT engine failures, then I beoieve there is reason to be extremely sceptical as to the validity of the entire structure of their argument.

 

In Jabiru's original 'defence' of their product, they claim to have, in conjunction with RAA, examined the proposed list and reduced the number of 'provens' down to 12 (from memory). I personally doubt that is anything like correct, and I suspect just about everybody else would be equally sceptical of that as being the true figure. However, there is a vast difference between 12 and 46, and if the CASA list is evidently padded, it is hard to draw any other conclusion than that CASA has placed itself in a combative position against Jabiru, which it is not entitled to do.

 

The Fat Lady has not even started to warm up her vocal chords on this one, but just perhaps she has now received the song-sheet.

 

 

[jetjr]

Has similar 'in depth' analysis been done on other manufacturers. The 'one point' assessment has no value without a true comparison point instead of what seems just conjecture and biased opinions.

No and as many here have said for some time, IF this takes place its quite possible several brands, even maybe some big conventional types, would be limited or worse and effects to RAA and other segments of aviation would be devastating. Remember they are entire limiting a brand, not models or versions.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Has similar 'in depth' analysis been done on other manufacturers. The 'one point' assessment has no value without a true comparison point instead of what seems just conjecture and biased opinions.

Have a look at the various Acts, and I think you'll find CASA does not have to carry out comparative analysis; they can act on a single incident or potential risk.

 

If you did that on engines generally, you might well come up with a list of component life cycles which vary significantly, but that would be a commercial comparison, which would lead to people buying more of the longer life engines, and that's not what CASA are there for.

 

What this subject is all about is:

 

(i) The completely random nature of failures, primarily on 4 component/sub assemblies

 

(i) in component failure

 

(ii) in hours of operation

 

(ii) These failures causing equally random forced landings, with the potential for injury/fatality resulting from the forced landings.

 

Therefore CASA were only required to become aware of a potential safety risk, to act.

 

Also, they were only required to look at the outcome, i.e. engine failure which did or would result in a forced landing, to establish the risk.

 

There have been some people on here who have been smugly quoting others in the background who are out of touch with current DIRD (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) policies. DIRD is as astute at distancing itself from activities which attract unnecessary duty of care, as other departments, so don't expect them to start re-employing engineers to do comparative testing while the manufacturers carry this responsibility.

 

Having said that, I previously posted published RAA figures over 59 months for engine failure from the two main manufacturers covering engine failures which resulted in forced landings/where the aircraft got down but could not have taken off, and these were:

 

Jabiru

 

Exhaust valve/valve 12

 

Through Bolt 17

 

Seized/Con Rod/Catastrophic 5

 

TOTAL 34

 

Rotax 912 series

 

Engine failure unspecified 1

 

Circlip 1

 

Oil Pressure 1

 

TOTAL 3

 

I did not include forced landings from things like:

 

Spark plug fell out

 

Oil leakage around filter

 

Carbs overflowing

 

I see those as relating to servicing standards