Pearo Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Is there any real number on jab v rotax engines failure?. When I mean numbers, I mean rate of failure rather than absolute.
jetjr Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 No there isnt, those presenting numbers sway them whichever way suits them Maybe it was a 121 elt, says air liner picked it up, they are about th eonly ones watching 121 anymore CASA wont like that if true 2
frank marriott Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Apparently labels are no longer issued for current PLBs so you have to have an app on your phone now to prove your unit is current if you get a ramp check. My label expired but the unit still had over five years to run, I had to ring to get a current label issued about twelve months ago, so these changes must have been about to come in then. You have to renew your registration every two years and receive a new sticker. The battery life is another thing and up to you.
ave8rr Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 You have to renew your registration every two years and receive a new sticker. The battery life is another thing and up to you. Frank, yes you have to renew every two years however, stickers are no longer posted out. You have to carry a printed copy of the AMSA Registration or have it on Ipad etc at a ramp check. This all changed back in Sep 15 . Mike 1 1
turboplanner Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 No there isnt, those presenting numbers sway them whichever way suits them Even though I've posted official RAA figures on this forum several times? 1
Guest asmol Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Maybe it was a 121 elt, says air liner picked it up, they are about th eonly ones watching 121 anymore CASA wont like that if true Not so true, you are 'meant' to monitor 'guard' frequency 121.5 whenever you are able to during your flight and this includes start-up and shut-down and at any time in the flight when you are not required to be an another frequency for communication reasons.
Deskpilot Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Not so true, you are 'meant' to monitor 'guard' frequency 121.5 whenever you are able to during your flight and this includes start-up and shut-down and at any time in the flight when you are not required to be an another frequency for communication reasons. Not according to how I was taught. Radio is last on and first off to avoid spurious voltage spikes from the engine/ignition systems. Once the motor is running smoothly, switch radio on and check the frequency selected. Adjust if necessary.
jetjr Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Might have missed my point, if it was older ONLY 121 elt, might explain why only overflying airline picked it up Theres plenty still around and some dont realise the difference.
motzartmerv Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Glad they are both ok. A cold lonely night out there no doubt. 1
jetjr Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Happen to be talking to AMSA today, seems registration is an information update process, has no effect on response to beacon, someone will still come looking. Problem for AMSA is that without accurate contact details they could be chasing false alarms with no way to verify
Jabiru Phil Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Trevor Wright on radio today said that the pilot was from Maitland SA. Passenger would not comment on Elt until he made some phone calls? Phil
alf jessup Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Boys got it down safe, they survived the night and were found the next day Excellent result in my books, what ifs & buts and what should of been done can be dealt with later They live to fly and do whatever for another day 1 9
Russ Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Is there any real number on jab v rotax engines failure?. When I mean numbers, I mean rate of failure rather than absolute. Here we go...........comparing rotax to jabs.............it's bullsh!t Rotax..........near on $30k jab 2200...................$15k You cannot compare...........apples to oranges.........period. I'd bet me left jewel, if jab pumped out $30k engines.........they'd give rotax a run for their money. Please stop this "comparing" thing. ( perhaps i should complain to suzuki, that my $20k swift is inferior to my $70k subaru wrx, sti, and i want a refund ) 1
Butch Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 You cannot compare...........apples to oranges.........period. I'm glad you didn't say " comparing apples to lemons "! Just kidding............ 1 4
Aldo Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Here we go...........comparing rotax to jabs.............it's bullsh!tRotax..........near on $30k jab 2200...................$15k You cannot compare...........apples to oranges.........period. I'd bet me left jewel, if jab pumped out $30k engines.........they'd give rotax a run for their money. Please stop this "comparing" thing. ( perhaps i should complain to suzuki, that my $20k swift is inferior to my $70k subaru wrx, sti, and i want a refund ) Russ They do anyway and as you have said they are not as expensive, you just need to look after them correctly (like any engine) Aldo 1
motzartmerv Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Where's the icon for the merry go round? Yawn.... 1 2 1
Ultralights Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 i wonder how they will go recovering the aircraft this time? 1
alf jessup Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 i wonder how they will go recovering the aircraft this time? Guess they will need a new tyre for a start cause they burnt one of them, and then if it was a catastrophic engine failure they might need one of them too, if not get the insurance company to deal with it if it was insured, if it wasn't get deep pockets PS all said with tongue in cheek BTW 1
Downunder Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 You cannot compare...........apples to oranges.........period. I don't know about that. At the end of 2000 hrs, I recon the money spent would be comparable? The hard way.....and the easy way....
turboplanner Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 i wonder how they will go recovering the aircraft this time? I don't think it was on the lake, but on one of the surrounding rises, in which case it can be easily retrieved with a crane truck (for a lot of money due to travel distance) or local ingenuity.
Yenn Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 5000 square km may sound an awful lot, but it is the area enclosed in a 40nm. square so on a 3 hour flight it would be easy to get lost in that area.
Guest asmol Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 The engine put rods through the top and bottom, just a few hours after a 100 hour service so perhaps you can read something into that, it was 'suggested' the 100 hr may not have been completed properly. Plane is being retrieved today by 4wd and big trailer. Came straight from Tecnam Bruce.
facthunter Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Would seem like lube oil lack of. I wouldn't rush to conclusions. Quite a few things can fail and cause that, but it's not common. Nev
Oscar Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Yes, it is entirely possible that a 'botched' 100-hourly could cause engine failure ( in any brand of engine). Hopefully, there will be a proper forensic analysis of the cause of failure and we will get the results. Proper forensic analysis (or, more accurately, the almost total lack thereof) of the causes of engine failures is a major problem in accepting the CASA justification for its determination on Jabiru engines. I don't wish to re-ignite this debate, but when, eventually, the actual CASA 'DATA' compilation that it has pinned it action upon is publicly revealed (as sometime it must), even the most die-hard antagonist against Jabiru engines will be forced to admit that the CASA 'DATA' is seriously suspect. The RAA has already stated as much. Based on 'conventional wisdom' - always a dodgy measure - of Rotax engine failure analysis, the most likely cause of con-rods exiting the block is crankshaft failure. I refer you to : https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwibmOzKuJnKAhWi3aYKHYAVAsQQFgggMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.recreationalflying.com%2Fimages%2FSmith%2520and%2520Guthrie%2520Finding%2520-%2520Final.doc&usg=AFQjCNGM2DoUc4oFTxfiyw141_kLZuo3DA&cad=rja Those who have followed engine failure sagas will be aware of the major Rotax SB on replacement of crankshafts. Since the crankshaft and rods on a Rotax 912 are a 'one-piece' assembly, it is impossible for a 100-hourly to have any adverse effect on that assembly. As Nev has said above, inadequate lubrication would cause the mains to fail, which could have the cumulative effect of a broken shaft. Given the circumstances of this particular forced landing, a tear-down of the engine SHOULD produce conclusive evidence of the root cause of the failure. For the sake of the safety of all Rotax 912 engine owners, hopefully this will happen and if any remedial action is required, it will be undertaken. 2 1
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