CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[rhysmcc]

thanks gandalph, I've heard they make engines for UAV's but wasn't sure if it's just the same engine or something different. As you could imagine I was reluctant to spend the afternoon googling the operator

 

 

[Oscar]

This is all getting a bit conflated.

 

The 'truth', as far as it might be established by a serious and informed analysis of the various aspects, is - as it usually is - not exposed by reference to a few individual 'facts' (opr as increasingly appears to be the case here - quasi 'facts'), but needs intelligent analysis of the interaction of many apparently disparate threads into a cohesive whole ( and I do NOT apologise to Turbs if I'm using words he finds difficult to correlate with reality - that's his problem, not mine).

 

Let's pull out few actual facts by way of commentary on the posts just on this page of the thread alone.

 

kg, Jabiru were at their peak production actually ordering from CAMit 90 engines per month; on the basis of a requirement from Jabiru to be able to meet that volume of orders, CAMit moved to new premises and tooled-up to meet that demand. The CAMit facility was geared to meet that demand - at a very, very considerable amount of investment, multiple $M. Jabiru were not selling that volume of engines and their stockpile of engines grew. The extent of that stockpile may be gleaned from the current production rate: for some time now, 10 engines per month and none ordered for January 2015.

 

Trying to demonstrate a relationship between the figure of engines produced and engines actually going into service and accruing hours is in practical terms a nonsense, you cannot extrapolate an 'hours in service' figure from the total number of engines produced. Only an actual count of hours in service is a reliable measure - and that figure is simply not available. On the reported average aircraft hours per year of about 70 (being generous; the ATSB figures suggest it is about 60 hours per year and Jabiru and RAA agree that this is about right for 2014), it would be only on average, engines produced in or before 2000 that are capable of providing data for the 'reached 1000 hours' rate for problems.

 

We do not know the individual service history of Jab. engines. We don't know whether overhauls, zero-timed replacements etc. were carried out by prudent owners deciding that 'while it's in the L2's hands, I'll just get a full service/replacement etc. done'. The figure of 1000 hours TBO is not the same as the MTBF.

 

We also do not know what remedial actions may have been taken for Rotax engines when they were required to be checked for cracked crankcases, suspect crankshafts etc.. Who has the figures for owners /operators deciding that 'let's just do a full service while it's grounded anyway?' vs owners/operators saying 'well, if it looks ok, just button it up and I'll keep on flying'. Reliable data on that might provide a better basis for comparing statistics on failure rates than just the crude figures that CASA has apparently used for its decision to impose limitations.

 

One thing that we have seen from the publicly-available submissions to CASA, is that some FTS have a lamentable incidence of failures of Jabiru engines while others, who can, I believe, be assumed to operate under similar conditions, have very good service histories. This is in no way proof positive, but does give some credence to Jabiru's claims that 'operation and maintenance' is a major factor in engine reliability.

 

ATSB figures for accidents 2004-2013 state that 38 persons in Australia died from 'recreational aviation' accidents. Of those, I believe ONE was possibly - but is not yet conclusively proven - to be a result of a Jabiru engine failing. NO Jabiru-engine failure has, I believe, caused a fatality/serious injury to any passenger / student pilot. If anybody has contrary evidence, please bring it forward.

 

As far as I am aware - and I invite better information - NO 'person on the ground' - i.e. a 'non/participant' in the actual flight - has ever been even injured by ANY recreational aircraft. I conclude from that, that the CASA 'excuse' for the limitations on Jabiru engined-aircraft operational area access, is a complete fabrication that is unsupported by any statistical evidence.

 

The argument of 'potential' is entirely hypothetical; on recent statistics, you have more 'potential' to be killed as a result of someone's drunken one punch attack than of dieing in a Jabiru-powered aircraft. Or, as a result of a wayward Police car chase or a deranged nutter claiming to be an Islamic warrior, from eating too much McDonalds crap. Or rock fishing, going to sea in a tinnie, riding a bicycle in traffic, smoking, drinking, or even swimming when sharks are around.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Exactly right Oscar. I looked up the mortality figures and it is twice as dangerous to be 5kg overweight than it is to fly, and you have pointed out quite a few other things.

 

By far the most dangerous thing I do when flying is to fly at 4,500 ft over the Adelaide Hills on the way down to Murray Bridge .

 

Now with 2,000 ft more, I would always have a glide to an airstrip.

 

NOBODY else is using the airspace I am denied and it is 40 km from where any airliner goes.

 

So the idea that my "safety" is of CASA's interest is laughable.

 

I have sent this complaint off to the government but of course there has been no reply. But at least people can fly to Tasmania without being restricted to 5,000 ft for "safety" reasons. Of course it took the RAAus many years to negotiate this .

 

 

[David Isaac]

So, it's no different from saying 70% of engines had reached 1000 hours? Yes/NoYou would become indignant if I made the comment I found that figure reassuring? Yes/No

I don't know what is up with you buddy. I don't read anything in those figures other than what was stated in English.

I know there are major issues with Jab engines, we all know many operators have problems. But if we are going to quote numbers or claim the ability to extrapolate, you better be reasonably accurate otherwise the credibility of your claim suffers as a result.

 

 

[colinjely]

Have other jurisdictions where Jabirus are flown, eg FAA in the US enacted similar controls?

 

 

[coljones]

I don't know what is up with you buddy. I don't read anything in those figures other than what was stated in English.I know there are major issues with Jab engines, we all know many operators have problems. But if we are going to quote numbers or claim the ability to extrapolate, you better be reasonably accurate otherwise the credibility of your claim suffers as a result.

Piggy Muldoon once said, about the Kiwi Diaspora to Oz, that the IQ of both countries increased as a result. Not only was piggy a buffoon but he got it wrong, Australia was the only winner. (with apologies to my Kiwi friends)

I think this thread has reach its end. FT, I am sorry that I doubted you.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

I don't know what is up with you buddy. I don't read anything in those figures other than what was stated in English.

If you can read English then can you tell me why you can't answer simple questions:

 

So, it's [7%] no different from saying 70% of engines had reached 1000 hours? Yes/No

 

You would become indignant if I made the comment I found that figure reassuring? Yes/No

 

 

[David Isaac]

If you can read English then can you tell me why you can't answer simple questions:So, it's [7%] no different from saying 70% of engines had reached 1000 hours? Yes/No

You would become indignant if I made the comment I found that figure reassuring? Yes/No

Again ... and this is my last attempt; the following are the figures you were quoting from Jabiru to make your failure extrapolations. These were the statements made by Jabiru in English. Tell me how they have any relationship with the statements you have made above?

"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."

 

 

[Bikky]

Wow! What a great thread .... another opportunity to play the blame game.

 

Jabiru engines can be problematic Yes/No.

 

Jabiru is addressing this problem adequately. Yes/No

 

CASA has recognised this and placed restrictions on the use of Jabiru aircraft, obviously due to the number of people complaining.

 

Let's leave them to it. Complaining loudly seems to have become the Australian way. Have a problem? Great! Forget being constructive ... it might lead to a resolution and then we would have nothing to complain about. Let's throw sh!t around instead. We'll get better mileage out of it.

 

I think it was Bex who posted a very succinct joke which really says it all.

 

A waiter in a restaurant asked a table of Australian diners, "Is anything alright"?

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

I know there are major issues with Jab engines, we all know many operators have problems. But if we are going to quote numbers or claim the ability to extrapolate

I didn't claim any ability or make any extrapolations. I said, 500 engines out of 7000 (7%) reaching 1000 hours in 20 years didn't give me any reassurance. This was in the context of people arguing there isn't a problem with Jabiru engines or if there is it isn't serious or a safety issue.

 

... Tell me how they [the questions] have any relationship with the statements you have made above?

The questions were hypothetical and simple; again you don't answer. So, at no number between zero and 100% engines reaching 1000 hours would your thoughts or judgement move from "umm" to "gosh". In fact, you wouldn't think about the number at all because it doesn't and can't mean anything. Fair enough.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Wow! What a great thread .... another opportunity to play the blame game.Jabiru engines can be problematic Yes/No.

Jabiru is addressing this problem adequately. Yes/No

 

CASA has recognised this and placed restrictions on the use of Jabiru aircraft, obviously due to the number of people complaining.

 

Let's leave them to it. Complaining loudly seems to have become the Australian way. Have a problem? Great! Forget being constructive ... it might lead to a resolution and then we would have nothing to complain about. Let's throw sh!t around instead. We'll get better mileage out of it.

 

I think it was Bex who posted a very succinct joke which really says it all.

 

A waiter in a restaurant asked a table of Australian diners, "Is anything alright"?

And there seems to be a lot more complaining on this subject from Jab owners than there is with Cessna owners and the SIDS Inspection.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Actually out of what RAA currently claims to be almost 10,000 members, if you count the number complaining on this site, it is very small, just the same ones over and over again on several threads.

 

 

[jetjr]

Even fewer are supporting it

 

Many members and owners are gettng screwed over by this issue and are rightfully upset.

 

Same members, RAA and manufacturer believe the basis for the action is flawed.

 

A small group, most with absolutely no involvement with Jabiru engines and australian limitations, keep visiting and letting them know how much they deserve it and CASA has done the right thing.

 

SIDS is brought out by manufactirer, has a clearly documented problem, has a clear path to rectification. You dont read much if you think people arent complainin about it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No one has to support it; it wasn't a vote.

 

 

[jetjr]

You and others are supporting it by coming here and telling us all how CASA acted properly, how dangerous and failure prone Jabiru engines are and how much more risk we are facing now and the legal potential.

 

Do you fly, own or do anything much with Jabiru's?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe we care about safety, don't want anyone hurt, and don't want our flying restricted in the future.

 

I've already stated my reasons for walking away from Jabiru and RAA for the time being; what has that go to do with being able to read and understand regulatory documents?

 

 

[facthunter]

Interference based on " dodgy, and selective" evidence is not good regulation. There is a problem we all agree . How big it is and how it should be addressed most of us disagree on. Jab owners and operators, and the future of Jabiru, aren't being considered sufficiently in this matter.Essentially it's not the brightest bit of decision making I have seen. If it is a pattern for the future, there isn't any. I think the RAAus management think similarly and should be supported. People are entitled to be dealt with in a predictable and fair way. That is what I stand for. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

FH, unless you've been given access to the CASA evidence, you don't know whether it's dodgy or selective.

 

You may well know the evidence which flows through from RAA for reported incidents.

 

You don't know, because none of us know how many unreported incidents there have been

 

You don't know how many of the unreported incidents have been helpfully reported to CASA by others

 

You might know the number of VH incidents reported, but you don't know the unreported ones

 

You might have scoured the used ads and tallied up engine TT vs airframe TT, and made some more estimates

 

....and so on.....

 

Personally I don't place much store on the statistics, I'm looking to see if anything is starting to drop out of the sky that I might be paying good money to hire from smiling CFIs.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's far more pressing safety issues than this one Turbs. I'd like to see people making their own decisions based on sound evidence, and sensible improvements and problem determinations being made based on real facts. Emotional, motherhood statements are not good enough in aviation matters. RAAus is based on less than airline standards who know what risks they are exposing themselves to.

 

WE are trained to fly a plane with the engine not operating, and often running out of fuel is the cause, or poor maintenance. WE are NOT trained to fly it if it is overloaded , out of balance, poorly designed or sometimes we are not trained well enough per se. It is a question of proper allocation of priorities. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well I wouldn't open up that can of worms right now FH, or a whole lot more people might be on the benches, spread across all sorts of engines and airframes.

 

The point is that limitations are now in force and it isn't a voting matter - people have to comply with them.

 

The opportunity that is available right now is for members to discuss, vote on, and decide actions to address the matters you raised, BEFORE those situations merit outside action.

 

 

[Russ]

So it's Ok to hang jab owners out to dry, based on questionable evidence, but " mums the word " on a number of other makers, that do have more serious problems.

 

Sorry.......the logic escapes me.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good point Russ.

 

 

[facthunter]

Even handedness has always been my call, and has been a mainstay of my concern. How many times have I pointed out that we can expect more of this if we accept this form of management?

 

Saying the matter is out there and that is the end of it, I don't accept and it has not been the case in the past. CASA are not beyond being accountable. That's why AOPA exists. No other reason. Just to try and ensure that the pilots and owners get a fair deal. Similar organisations exist in any decent country.

 

OUR RAAus can't do it (in principle) as they have to serve two masters. and are compromised. Don't make waves and be good little fellows, or do what they have done, at some risk and try to get some form of due process. Which I support. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Maybe we care about safety, don't want anyone hurt, and don't want our flying restricted in the future.I've already stated my reasons for walking away from Jabiru and RAA for the time being; what has that go to do with being able to read and understand regulatory documents?

Firstly do you understand the experimental home build regulations ? Then why impose the limitations on them with Jabiru.

 

Secondly if you walked away from Jabiru and RAA then why interfere with those who support RAA and fly Jabiru's as you are sounding like the enemy ! I have my money in a plane and my buisness and you go on about regulation and safety and it has no effect on you ! The main thing is that I want jabiru problems fixed and Jabiru are hard to deal with, CASA's regulations are flawed and seriously effecting owners and operators and not nessecaryily doing anything to make Jabiru more reliable. Jabiru reputation and buisness would be seriously hurt by CASA actions, I would have liked CASA to work with Jabiru but destroying them is crazy. I am very interested in safety and not saying ignor it but they have been going for many years, why do it like this now, CASA are really a piece of work and are not interested in safety, just wave a stick and saying "we are in charge" !

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's over Camel, the decision was made in December, picking words out of everyone's posts isn't going to change it.