Light Aircraft down near Camden

[facthunter]

If it only flew for less than an hour after an overhaul and then sat for 3 months it would have rust on the bores unless it was inhibited. Hardly anyone takes that seriously but it will cause an engine failure. It's one thing the new Nikasil cylinders with the Jabiru, (not Camit) mod, will prevent. Nev

 

 

[jakej]

Googling nikasil cylinders may be enlightening for some, I don't believe it's a cure all for engines.

 

I've seen an engine where some of the nikasil had flaked off a piston after only 3-4 hrs, not a good look.

 

The airframe manufacturer has not been offering the Nikasil option for the engine for some time now.

 

Jake j

 

 

[kasper]

Googling nikasil cylinders may be enlightening for some, I don't believe it's a cure all for engines.I've seen an engine where some of the nikasil had flaked off a piston after only 3-4 hrs, not a good look.

The airframe manufacturer has not been offering the Nikasil option for the engine for some time now.

 

Jake j

Nikasil and similar coatings have in the past been attacked by the sulphur in the fuel in the past - google nikasil Jaguar v8 - but low sulphur fuels now are allowing better use of nikasil in engines

 

 

[shafs64]

when I read all this. I think about my own mortality when flying aircraft. you start to second guess every thing did I do a proper pre flight should I fly near these mountains is the wind a bit strong. it can be a real brain f...k

 

 

[turboplanner]

when I read all this. I think about my own mortality when flying aircraft. you start to second guess every thing did I do a proper pre flight should I fly near these mountains is the wind a bit strong. it can be a real brain f...k

It can be very safe if you are methodical and set your own borders.

 

How often have you seen Facthunter and Farri write "Never fly over something you can't land on" That would have avoided this one.

 

Never think of an RA flight Plan as a straight line.

 

 

[shafs64]

I try be very careful. take any risks. And most of that is because of my Lack confidence. I have been told this would get better when I become a 150 to 200 hour plus pilot.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I try be very careful. take any risks. And most of that is because of my Lack confidence. I have been told this would get better when I become a 150 to 200 hour plus pilot.

...and that's when you risk becoming overconfident and blasé.

Don't change your approach, Shafs. Stay careful, stay timid.

 

 

[shafs64]

Thanks for that good advise guys.

 

 

[farri]

I try be very careful. take any risks. And most of that is because of my Lack confidence. I have been told this would get better when I become a 150 to 200 hour plus pilot.

shafs, In my opinion,to say that confidence comes with a certain amount of hours flown, is not correct and it may give you a false sense of security.

 

Confidence doesn`t necessarily come with hours flown, it may come with the knowledge that you are capable of handling any situation that arises,I believe that being under confident is as dangerous as being over confident, you need to be true to yourself.

 

Keeping in mind that it`s better to err on the side of caution, the more you fly the more experience you will gain and the more confident you should become.

 

Frank.

 

 

[shafs64]

I do tend to err on the side of caution. for instance I spend more time checking the aircraft than I do flying it. today the aircraft I hired had an issue with the trim. when I cycled It on the display it would only show full up and neutral. Not down so I had to shut the aircraft down and get out and have a look. I found out later that it had not been calibrated properly!

 

 

[microman]

In many parts of NZ, if you never fly over country you couldn't land on, then you would never be able to fly at all. In the end you just have to trust your engine and only twice in 30 years has a Rotax stopped on me - once when a balance tube between the carbs let go, and once when a drive belt disintegrated (both my fault, not the engines). Never flown behind anything else, and after reading some of the posts on this forum relating to other engines, and the seemingly quite regular instances of major work required, I aint about to change!

 

 

[shafs64]

I have never flown a light aircraft in NZ but have flown into Christchurch more time then I remember and the scenery is just awesome.

 

 

[biggles]

This accident investigation included pilot interview, manufacturer input, and an independent assessment of the engine. As with all accident investigations, a single root cause was compounded by a number of additional factors. The engine failure was caused by water contamination of the fuel system, compounded by an insufficient knowledge of the aircraft fuel system. Prior to flight significant water was detected in one tank by the PIC which may not have been completely eliminated from the other tank.

 

The engine assessment revealed no mechanical issues with the engine.

 

 

[kasper]

This accident investigation included pilot interview, manufacturer input, and an independent assessment of the engine. As with all accident investigations, a single root cause was compounded by a number of additional factors. The engine failure was caused by water contamination of the fuel system, compounded by an insufficient knowledge of the aircraft fuel system. Prior to flight significant water was detected in one tank by the PIC which may not have been completely eliminated from the other tank.The engine assessment revealed no mechanical issues with the engine.

Niggley point ... if there was no issue with the engine and the issue was with water in the fuel there was not an 'engine failure' but an 'engine stoppage'

I'll get my troll mask and wander off into the distance for the afternoon ...

 

 

[old man emu]

Strike this incident off the "Why I hate Jabiru engines" list. Put it down to wingnut failure.

 

OME

 

 

[coljones]

Niggley point ... if there was no issue with the engine and the issue was with water in the fuel there was not an 'engine failure' but an 'engine stoppage'I'll get my troll mask and wander off into the distance for the afternoon ...

And equally, of course, a nose over may well, also, lead to an engine stoppage. As would turning off the magnetos. The stoppage in both cases would not have been the root cause but was a secondary effect.

 

 

[brilin_air]

I think this thread has run it's course.

 

Thank you Bob for that info. :)

 

-Linda

 

 

[jetjr]

Will still go on CASA list of Jabiru engine failures

 

What if there were children playing in that swamp.......

 

 

[turboplanner]

Will still go on CASA list of Jabiru engine failuresWhat if there were children playing in that swamp.......

You have some indication of that from CASA?

 

 

[jetjr]

Yes, current limitations included these and runway incidents

 

Are you new here of just want to re run old arguement

 

 

[facthunter]

Till you are completely sure this hasn't happened in the past, (and it has) wouldn't you want more assurance that it won't in the future, than just rely on hope that things will be done properly?

 

CASA are now locked in to a situation that still lacks clarity as to what exact evidence the whole action is based on. They relied on questionable statistics. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Will still go on CASA list of Jabiru engine failuresWhat if there were children playing in that swamp.......

I was interested to see if this was a formal CASA statement or whether you had made it up, and you've confirmed it came from you.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Till you are completely sure this hasn't happened in the past, (and it has) wouldn't you want more assurance that it won't in the future, than just rely on hope that things will be done properly?CASA are now locked in to a situation that still lacks clarity as to what exact evidence the whole action is based on. They relied on questionable statistics. Nev

If you are referring to something posted on here relating to 40 engine failures in a year with allegations that two weren't engine failures, we've covered that before.

 

It was probably carelessness, and may well have been corrected. We don't know, not having seen what was attached to the original request to CASA or any other private correspondence.

 

If you are more comfortable, you could say 38 and see how fair that was.

 

If someone sued CASA for financial losses due to the restrictions, then they would have to produce a set of figures, and would be unlikely to be silly enough to class a fuel exhaustion as an engine failure. In the event they were silly enough, it's likely that they would agree to reduce the total by the two in contention, so you have 38 on the table.

 

RAA members have access to all the engine failures reported to RAA, so they have years of data, and that data goes to CASA. If you want the cause of the action to be clearly stated, then you would go back over the years for the reported data, add VH aircraft data from ATSB, and reported to CASA either from ATSB or through the Incident Reporting System.

 

 

[gandalph]

If you are referring to something posted on here relating to 40 engine failures in a year with allegations that two weren't engine failures, we've covered that before.

A predictable response. but compost none the less

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Till you are completely sure this hasn't happened in the past, (and it has) wouldn't you want more assurance that it won't in the future, than just rely on hope that things will be done properly?CASA are now locked in to a situation that still lacks clarity as to what exact evidence the whole action is based on. They relied on questionable statistics. Nev

We know that they have used fuel exhaustion as part of the "evidence" for engine failures in the past ( they told us they did when they released the data on which they based their decisions but they either didn't realise they had or hoped no one would notice it - that appears to be unequivocal but then they have refused to back down or to make any form of statement accepting they were in error either.

 

We also know that CASA did not in their initial report state any number of failures bevause they didn't actually know what numbers they were dealing with. AFTER the rule was announced they backtracked and sought information from RAAus. They do not even in their later report state 40 engine failures. They state 40 "engine failures and major malfunctions" and then in without any definition of what constitutes a "major malfunction" gradually slide into saying 40 failures and forgetting that actually the number of failures ( including fuel exhaustion) was 12!!!!

 

We also have reasonable grounds for suspecting that much of the drive to do something was little more than feeling a need to appease a loud minority (sadly many on this very forum) It was done with secrecy and somewhat nefariously - the day before the first announcement the same CASA officials attended a meeting of CFIs and industry delegates of whom many were known by them to be operators of jabirus engines/aircraft and they said absolutely nothing to them ( CFI of my own aero club included) about the rules which were to be announced within 24 hours.

 

CASA have two things on their side in this legalistic stuff though.

 

That their finances and legal defensiveness are inexhaustible - they have proved that in the past ( and currently) with operators driven to the wall while trying to defend themselves and secondly until the fiasco settles and the final costs to the industry and individuals are known then no one is going to sue them.... Yet.

 

So given to level apparent either incompetence or maliciousness involved so far - Turbo, I think we can be seriously suspicious that this water contamination will make its way into any future quoted failures to justify their actions or their continued adherence to an untenable position.