CASA 102/15 - Conditions and direction concerning certain aircraft fitted with engines manufactured

[DonRamsay]

The USA data is a credit to Jabiru and especially Jab airframes. I suspect that Jabiru North America have a more proactive attitude compared with Australia. As I understand it they fit better brakes that are not allowed to be fitted in Australia and require every Jab engine to have full electronic monitoring. They also fit Jab engines to their allied product, the Arion Lightning. They could not do business in the highly litigious USA if their products were falling out of the sky or unable to pull up on a short, overshot runway.

 

My personal belief is that looking at fatalities as statistics is not clever. Each fatality represents an extreme outcome that warrants exhaustive examination and analysis. Statistically, there are too few to try and draw trends. Obtain an understanding of the contributing factors and set measures in place, where practical, to ensure that there is no repeat.

 

If we were looking at all incidents, then the populations are vastly larger and more amenable to statistical analysis over time.

 

One special type of incident bears closest examination - potential plus actual fatalities. A potential fatality may in retrospect just look like an unreported hangar tale of a brush with death requiring no more rectification that a change of underwear. A dint of good luck and some good piloting skills averted it from being an actual fatality.

 

In my mind, every time an aircraft loses motivation while aloft, however caused, you have a potential fatality on your hands. Back in the days when self taught pilots were flying self designed and built rag and tube under 300 ft in the back paddock, chances are there were always going to be a landing area beneath you well within their short gliding range. But, losing engine power at, say, 7,500 ft, choosing the right piece of turf for your compulsory ALA is a bit hit and miss. You have time on your side from that altitude but as you tune your radio to 121.5 and punch out a MAYDAY and switch on your PLB/ELT/EPIRB you have christened the event a potential fatality.

 

That we rarely lose anyone in forced landings is a tribute to our training and discipline in avoiding tiger country. But it always involves an element of good luck. I certainly would not want to be combatting the equally probable alternative - bad luck - in an off airport landing.

 

Point is, and you suspected there might be one eventually, every in-the-air engine failure is a potential fatality and should be regarded with exactly the same degree of seriousness as an actual fatality.

 

On the other hand, landing incidents are rarely fatal but much more common and while it is important to understand the causes it is not as critical as potential fatalities.

 

I know of RAAus pilots who have survived multiple (>10) in-the-air engine failures and they have the view that it is "no biggie" and we shouldn't get excited about it - just train and prepare for when it happens.

 

Clearly, this is the antithesis of my way of looking at it.

 

 

[jetjr]

You're following CASA thinking there in parts Don, an engine out is far from being a potential fatality. For reasons you then later indicate why.

 

What Jabiru try to indicate is that its the combination of airframe and engine that determines aircraft safety.

 

Something that happens often yet results in little harm is far less dangerous than a highly rare one that regulalry causes injury or death.

 

The USA and ATSB data indicated shows other aircraft have worse records on actual fatalities. Isnt that what matters? Real safety is about actual injuries not percieved ones.

 

Training is a very solid method for preventing accidents as it can cover more than just say engine reliability but HF factors too. Learning and practicing unpowered landings can help in a wide range of problems

 

Luck works in both ways and for the numbers out there it shouldnt factor into statistics of the success or not of out landings

 

 

[Russ]

I would love to "shut" engine to idle, and glide/spiral...whatever, to a deadstick landing, but "shock cooling" scares the hell out of me, "readings" ( manuals etc ) alert to the danger of cooling too fast............so what's the go ???

 

 

[Oscar]

You know, I have by log unpowered landings numbering in triple figures - and I know people who have them numbering in FOUR figures. Some of them in paddocks far, far from home - possibly even in different States. I can't claim the 'different States' but I've ended up in paddocks completely unplanned. Been towed out, either behind another aircraft or on a trailer - and in EVERY case, the aircraft I had flown, flew the next day.

 

My first solo fight, I took off under the power of an 1800CC, horizontally-opposed, four-cylinder aircooled four stroke petrol engine, and landed with that engine not running. AS REQUIRED by my Instructor. The next student fo it took off maybe ten minutes after I landed.

 

The aircraft I flew were called 'gliders' (or, in the first solo case, a 'motorglider' or aerial barge, by some, me included).

 

THE ENGINE - for fixed wing aircraft (helicopters are an affront to nature that need not be considered by sensible people) does NOT - except for the Harrier and the Osprey, I think - provide lift. ( OK, add some Northrop + DC Comics devices way back in the past..) THE ENGINE provides thrust, which when translated into airspeed over a lifting surface provides LIFT, which gets us up to where we can fall down again.

 

AIRSPEED over a lifting surface - producing LIFT - is what allows us to remain in the air. Gliders don't have engines! - try to keep up with me here. Gliders utilise gravity - that force that sucks us all back to earth - in order to fly! Without being able to convert gravity into kinetic energy, gliders would be just odd-shaped balloons...

 

Gliders fly, by falling rather slowly through the air and finding air that rises faster than they fall, to climb. And they are damn good at it: the world's distance record for gliders currently stands at 3,009 kms for around three turning points. Absolute altitude, 15,460 metres AMSL. Oh, and they have been proven to stay in the air for in excess of 56 hours.

 

AND THEY ALL LAND WITHOUT ANY ENGINE POWER.

 

 

[Oscar]

I would love to "shut" engine to idle, and glide/spiral...whatever, to a deadstick landing, but "shock cooling" scares the hell out of me, "readings" ( manuals etc ) alert to the danger of cooling too fast............so what's the go ???

Russ: go out to any gliding field that uses tugs, and watch the Supercub or Pawnee pilots....

 

 

[Russ]

maaate...........i live in the back woods here, and we got nun of dat ear...ere, ( here )..........so, please expand just a tad

 

 

[cooperplace]

Gliders fly, . Oh, and they have been proven to stay in the air for in excess of 56 hours.

.

my god, imagine being strapped into a pilot's seat for 56 hours!! How would anyone's innards cope?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

You're following CASA thinking there in parts

Ah, the ultimate insult

or is "CASA thinking" like one of those things for which "military intelligence" is usually provided as the example - oxymoron?

 

. . . an engine out is far from being a potential fatality.

If it is not a potential fatality why are we trained to declare an emergency and call MAYDAY?

 

. . . Something that happens often yet results in little harm is far less dangerous than a highly rare one that regulalry causes injury or death.

Standard risk management stuff: probability x severity of outcome = risk

 

An engine out has the potential to cause death. True?

 

(Not talking about a deliberate disengagement of engine power but of an unplanned loss)

 

The fact that death, in most cases is avoided does not reduce the possible severity of an engine failure at altitude.

 

. . . Real safety is about actual injuries not percieved ones.

No, not at all. How many times could a person answer a text message while driving in Sydney without killing somebody? Done every day by, I would guess, thousands of drivers with zero actual harm coming to anyone. But, does the lucky actual outcome make texting while driving any less dangerous? Just because you didn't happen to run off the road and kill 7 toddlers in a preschool was it a safe thing to do? Absolutely not.

Just because a person flies mostly west of the Great Divide where there are usually plenty of safe impromptu ALAs does not diminish the potential for death as the outcome of an unplanned in-the-air engine failure. Flying east of the ranges makes an engine out a much bigger risk than in the golden west.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

In South Africa, an engine failure can kill you because the first people on the scene of your forced landing might well be murderous bandits.

 

They now have a 2 engined Jabiru which would probably not be allowed in Australia. ( For "safety" reasons?)

 

Since we don't have to cope with bandits yet, the safety feature of all our aircraft is NOT the engine reliability but the low landing speed. As long as you land into wind and aim the fuse between the trees or rocks then you will walk away.

 

The main danger is to panic and to a stall/spin and hit the ground nose-down. That's why some glider time is a good idea, with this experience a pilot should be less likely to panic when the engine stops.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . AND THEY ALL LAND WITHOUT ANY ENGINE POWER.

Virtually every landing I make is a glide approach either from base (on occasion) or late final (almost always). Not what we are talking about here, Oscar.

 

I'm not in the habit of declaring an emergency and issuing a MAYDAY call when in the circuit.

 

What we are talking about is a lot of decisions that have to be made quickly and confidently and executed with precision and good timing to avoid a very unhappy ending. I feel no threat while in the circuit other than below 500 ft on take-off.

 

If people believe their are no risks in an outlanding, they live in a different part of the world than I do.

 

Two stroke engines and flying low and never over anything resembling difficult geography made some RAAus members very relaxed about engine failures.

 

However, in an aircraft carrying 100 litres of highly combustible fuel with wheels more suited to tarmac than cow paddocks and with an aversion to tree stumps, power lines and fences and a nose wheel happy to stop before the rest of the aircraft outlandings are always going to be rated by me as a potential fatality. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not giving credit to the potential dangers not usually found on 1,100 metres of tar.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

A lot of the danger from an engine failure has been deliberately put there by CASA in that they force us way too low over houses because we have to fly below controlled airspace. Often this controlled airspace is completely unused.

 

 

[frank marriott]

they live in a different part of the world than I do.

I think you are closer to other people's views here then you realise. (A couple of overt posters here excepted)

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There are lots of places where I fly every week where there is no safe landing place. That is just a fact given the terrain and vegetation within 30 miles of our field. And in my experience many if not most fields have challenging areas around them. My number one, two and three defences are the reliability of my engine. People who say they can land safely dead stick are living in areas of level, open fields, but we don't all have that luxury. And if you choose to fly Bass Strait then you are backing your engine and its maintainers. I think people who brag about being able to manage an engine failure as a matter of routine are just BS artists.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I had got into a habit of landing dead stick these past couple of years from base or late down wind.

 

My last BFR instructor told me to tidy up my landings!

 

So, had to come in on final with power to placate.

 

The engine out test was a tick!

 

I will still do no power landings occasionally, you never know!

 

PHIL.

 

 

[Oscar]

Virtually every landing I make is a glide approach either from base (on occasion) or late final (almost always). Not what we are talking about here, Oscar.I'm not in the habit of declaring an emergency and issuing a MAYDAY call when in the circuit.

 

What we are talking about is a lot of decisions that have to be made quickly and confidently and executed with precision and good timing to avoid a very unhappy ending. I feel no threat while in the circuit other than below 500 ft on take-off.

 

If people believe their are no risks in an outlanding, they live in a different part of the world than I do.

 

Two stroke engines and flying low and never over anything resembling difficult geography made some RAAus members very relaxed about engine failures.

 

However, in an aircraft carrying 100 litres of highly combustible fuel with wheels more suited to tarmac than cow paddocks and with an aversion to tree stumps, power lines and fences and a nose wheel happy to stop before the rest of the aircraft outlandings are always going to be rated by me as a potential fatality. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not giving credit to the potential dangers not usually found on 1,100 metres of tar.

Don, every bit of that is true - and reasonable. BUT - it also implies a ready acceptance of risk by the operator contrary to warnings and sometimes explicit instructions to the contrary! - which most RAA-class aircraft operators do, all the time, quite normally and almost always without incident.

 

You fly a rotax-912 powered aircraft. In the Rotax 912 Engine Operators Manual, General Instructions, para 1.4:

 

'WARNING!. Non-compliance can result in serious injuries or death!

 

 

 

Never fly the aircraft equipped with this engine at locations, airspeeds, altitudes or other circumstances from which a successful no-power landing cannot be made, after sudden engine stoppage.'

 

I'm in no way having a go at Rotax engines here - I think Jabs. have an entirely similar warning - and AFAIK, there is a basically similar regulatory requirement for any operation of our class of aircraft... which is routinely ignored, without problems, for probably hundreds of thousands of flights every year. If we all actually scrupulously followed the manufacturers / regulators instructions to the letter, I can think of several airfields routinely used within about 30 minutes drive of my place - Mittagong using the 24 strip, and Wedderburn - that almost no RAA aircraft should take-off from. ( Mind you, Mittagong has been used quite successfully, a number of times in the last several years, for Jabs. dead-sticking in as an unplanned adventure on their flight..)

 

Then, there are people who really stretch the envelope - like the turkey who turned up at Camden about 12 months ago, kicked the tyres on a Jab. and (incompetently) did a fuel check - on an aircraft that had been sitting out on the airfield completely unused for many, many months, fired her up and headed straight out towards Bindook - over some of the lousiest tiger country you could possibly choose to be clawing for height above. Surprise - Jab. engines don't run on water... or on air alone, as in the Runcorn case. I suspect that Rotaxes also require a suitable air/fuel mixture to keep providing thrust.

 

What I am trying to point out here, is that very many operators of our class of aircraft routinely place a reliance on the noise staying on, contrary to the advice of the noise-maker and the 'general' provisions of the regulations under which we fly. Realistically, if we all DID observe all of those, the opportunities for flying would be hugely limited - BUT, by NOT following to the letter the advice and either explicit or implicit requirements, we are taking a risk against which we have been warned. We hand-off maintaining a margin of safety to the reliability of the engine.

 

And we hand-off that margin of safety to the engine for our convenience or pleasure. Nobody FORCES us to fly in dangerous circumstances (even if the regulations / noise restrictions / airspace restrictions / availability of better airfield sites etc. make it bloody difficult to avoid).

 

Now, (pure - not motor-equipped) glider pilots do NOT have the luxury of handing-off the risk to the engine. As a basic rule (at least in my gliding days), if you are at 1,000 feet AGL and in no lift, you damn well start your landing (and I've clawed my way back up from less than 600 feet, and I reckon Ingo Renner could climb out on a cow-fart from 50 feet, but he is a god with a special, personal arrangement with gravity).

 

Gliders have an l/d that provides a far greater choice of area for out- landing from any specific height than any RAA aircraft - but the principle is, and the laws of physics are the same for both. A glider has airbrakes - and they make a huge difference for what is a 'safe' outlanding field. So: in practical terms, you have a greater chance of finding a safe outlanding spot in a glider from ANYWHERE, at any height, than in an RAA-class aircraft. Very, very few glider accidents happen in out-landings.

 

Again: what is my point? Well, it is this: if we choose to rely on the engine running to get from anywhere to anywhere else irrespective of the potential for a safe outlanding, when the said engine does not provide an explicit guarantee that it will continue to run - we are accepting a risk against which we have specifically been warned.

 

RPT passengers step aboard an aircraft in the confident expectation that the seat they occupy will end up at the chosen destination. An awful lot of money goes into supporting that expectation. RAA operators/passengers step aboard an aircraft that flies under less-stringent requirements for reliability. The quid pro quo for that, is that we need to operate it with due respect for the difference.

 

As a crude analogy: if you go to the observation deck of the Empire State Building and take the elevator back down, you have every right to expect to arrive at the ground intact. If you jump off the observation deck with a BASE jump chute and you end up as pavement pizza, you (or more accurately, your successors) probably have little claim against the chute manufacturers.

 

 

[jetjr]

Don, sorry about the CASA slur, upon rereading it was a hideous thing to say and i apologise.

 

I think what your outlinng is a significant niggling problem within RAA, the growing expectation that peoples new $100K aircraft will have the same reliability as a $350K one.

 

LSA strengthens that belief as they are "factory built" and should be used like a new cessna.

 

ATSB and CASA are now directly comparing certificated expensive products and expecting same reliability from equipment much cheaper and lighter.

 

As far as outlandings being a non issue, yes where you fly makes a huge difference however if the terrain is so bad as to offer no survivable landing options, perhaps a certified twin is a better aircraft selection

 

My instruction included strong warning not to fly over places without a glide to landing option.

 

Up until 2014, ATSB stated Jab and Rotax failed about the same rate. Common feeling is 912 wont ever fail. They are good for sure but not that good.

 

No power landings are a good tool to get used to power out flight. Getting touchdown point right where you want it in variable conditions, without thrust is a key survival skill.

 

 

[kgwilson]

A glide approach from mid downwind is good to practice often. As with FLWOP endeavour to land 1/3 of the way down the strip. If you master this regularly you should be always able to glide from your base turn at 1000 feet & nail the runway adjusting your initial position to account for head & cross winds. Sometimes you will be a bit high & land long & sometimes you will make it ....just. It is all part of the learning process which never stops. I've had about 1000 forced landings in Hang Gliders back in the 70s, 80s & 90s. Slow speed & the ability to flare to a standing stop are advantages but I've seen plenty of complete fx!k ups as well with pilots landing in trees, creeks, the sea & the sides of cliffs sometimes with quite devastating results. I once was soaring at a coastal ridge with no bottom landing available & the breeze was light, too light & I got below the cliff top. There was no beach, only some rocks. I chose the biggest rock & nailed it. Necessity sometimes has the effect of highly focusing the mind. Another pilot failed & landed in the surf. He was OK but we were able to put his entire glider in the boot of a Morris Minor afterwards.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you fly over terrain where an engine failure is likely to cause severe injury or death. Ie Tall treed high timber country with steep slopes, and you don't plan to allow some gliding distance opportunity for better landing options in your planning as well as do a circling climb on departure etc you are literally placing you life on the engine keeping going, for extensive periods of time. If this is a commonplace occurrence you are doing a form of russian roulette. An acceptable risk shouldn't have to rely on a fair amount of luck to pull it off. Don't put up the old one of saying IF you feel like that you shouldn't be flying. Think about it. Many pilots are not as engine aware as they could be. Be engine out aware too. Airline pilots are. Every takeoff has a consideration of aborted take off with rapid initiation for any failure before V1. If they get an uncontrollable fire things happen quickly too but it's all in the training and attitude to risk. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

IF you fly over terrain where an engine failure is likely to cause severe injury or death. Ie Tall treed high timber country with steep slopes, and you don't plan to allow some gliding distance opportunity for better landing options in your planning as well as do a circling climb on departure etc you are literally placing you life on the engine keeping going, for extensive periods of time. If this is a commonplace occurrence you are doing a form of russian roulette. An acceptable risk shouldn't have to rely on a fair amount of luck to pull it off. Don't put up the old one of saying IF you feel like that you shouldn't be flying. Think about it. Many pilots are not as engine aware as they could be. Be engine out aware too. Airline pilots are. Every takeoff has a consideration of aborted take off with rapid initiation for any failure before V1. If they get an uncontrollable fire things happen quickly too but it's all in the training and attitude to risk. Nev

That's what a few of us have been saying for some years, but not only is it routinely done, and worse, some airfields provide those conditions on all sides, but when the inevitable occurs and someone dies it doesn't seem to register.