JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[turboplanner]

You obviously don't understand.

 

 

[skeptic36]

You obviously don't understand.

That would be two of us then........

 

 

[greybeard]

get a room guys

 

 

[turboplanner]

That would be two of us then........

I think someone earlier mentioned about a dozen.

 

 

[skeptic36]

I think someone earlier mentioned about a dozen.

Not telling you anything?

 

 

[billwoodmason]

What a disappointing diatribe from Ornis, I thought we had moved beyond this kind of post - kicking Jabiru and it's customers in the guts. To all who have maintained this line of attack - give it a rest - you've got what you wanted.

 

Jabiru has made consistent progress in making their engine reach tbo as is demonstrated by the list of changes to the various model engines. All engines need development as the situation arises. Jabiru has responded to these challenges although perhaps not quickly enough for its detractors or competitors.

 

What is needed now is the truth to come out about how this CASA action came about. Ie. Who were the chief initiators, were any of them from inside RAAus or previous employees etc urged on by disgruntled owners ( rumours abound) when the available data alone did not support or warrant CASA imposing these sanctions.

 

It is obvious heads should roll !!.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well about 60% of all RAA aircraft were not affected by the CASA action.

 

AIARC Jab have about 40% of the market, and the vast majority have not carried on.

 

The FB groups aren't trying to retart WW3.

 

So yes, that is telling me something.

 

It's unfortunate that a good news story from Jabiru, has been spoilt by inappropriate attacks on CASA, two bizarre stories about FoI and some people "with axes to grind", and even another selling attempt on Camit engines.

 

I suggest people read the Jabiru release again, put their hates away and get on with flying.

 

 

[facthunter]

Bit of attacking the messengers there. Anyone with a certain view has a problem of attitude?. People are entitled to their views. Turbs. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

i have been busy and haven't kept across this, but just in case, I presume most of you have seen this ??https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/disclosure-log

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/costanzo_document_released.pdf

 

I would suggest its not hard to get...

 

Simply send an email to [email protected] but be very specific about what you want

 

eg:

 

Seeking all internal and external ingoing and outgoing emails, letters, faxes, memos, phone memos , text messages, and any other form of correspondence or record of correspondence , minutes of meetings or notes on meetings about the restrictions relating to engine failures placed on Jabiru aircraft.

 

Please include all documents from the first moment CASA became aware of the issue to the current date. Specifically also seeking documents on who made the initial complaint, when it was made, what evidence they used.

 

Please include all CASA documents of internal communication on the issue as we are trying to establish when and why decisions where made, by who and what data was used to make decisions.

 

Also seeking information on current status and any discussions being held any internal communications memos, emails, letters in relation to how or when the restrictions might be reduced or eliminated. Specifically also seeking all correspondence between CASA and CASA legal department on the issue.

So you printed my FOI with my name on it, remove it !

 

IF IT SO EASY TO GET WHY NOT GET YOUR OWN INSTEAD OF PUBLISHING MY NAME WITH THE DOCUMEBT . IF I WANTED IT PUBLISHED I WOULD HAVE PUBLISHED IT !

 

 

[turboplanner]

Camel, when you apply for an FoI, usually your name becomes public.

 

I received a response once, which included my name about 23 times, my address, what I said to the respondent, whet the respondent said to me, and about 78 pages blacking out everything else.

 

It was a public document.

 

 

[gandalph]

AIARC? FB Groups? retart WW3? What are you trying to say man?

 

 

[turboplanner]

AIARC? FB Groups? retart WW3? What are you trying to say man?

As Far As I Recall

Facebook

 

restart

 

World War 3

 

 

[jetjr]

Very few know

 

 

[Oscar]

Guys:

 

Tempers are flaring, and in that situation the peanut gallery can always find a way to stir the pot to nobody's advantage (as we see). The Ornis's of this world are fun for providing humorous videos, but contribute less than nothing in terms of useful input.

 

Frankly, I am not at all convinced that simply identifying the 'sources' who may have initiated action by CASA, takes us anywhere in terms of remediation of the effects of the action. I am very sure that any suggestion - as has been made here - that this is a useful 'starting point', is a complete nonsense.

 

The horse has bolted, guys, and the CASA instrument has been executed and renewed. Simply knowing who was responsible for stirring CASA into action takes us precisely nowhere.

 

Full disclosure of the correspondence within CASA and between CASA and external correspondents, MIGHT be of use - if it demonstrates malfeasance on CASA's part. In the current governmental environment, FOI compliance is not enthusiastically supported. Quite possibly only a Senate Inquiry, with the attendant penalties for withholding / falsifying information, would suffice. Lying /obfuscation to Parliament is held as a far more serious offence by any government authority than doing the same to the general public.

 

I suggest, that following up on the 'data' and the way in which CASA has used it to underpin its action, is likely to be more productive.

 

The link provided in Post #56 is something that everybody should read closely.

 

Even the damn title provided by CASA: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/disclosure-log re-iterates the '46 engine failures' implied furphy maintained by CASA from the start. Look at the document; count up the number of 'engine failures' - GENUINE 'engine failures' - you can see from the scant details. Jabiru saw those details and suggested that 12 was the correct number; I am less hard-line and would allow, on the stated details, perhaps 18.

 

There are three points, I believe, that are pivotal to contesting the justification of the CASA action. These are:

 

a) CASA has at no time ever stated what is an 'acceptable' failure rate for RAA-class engines - it has simply drawn a comparison between one brand and the Jabiru brand;

 

b) CASA has NOT enforced any restriction on engines other than Jabiru that have a statistically-demonstrated failure rate of more than the 'baseline' it has adopted: the Rotax 912x

 

c) CASA has NOT provided any specification of what 'remedial' action would be required by Jabiru, to have the restriction lifted.

 

The fact of the abominable data compilation and (non-existant) analysis used to support the CASA action is crucial evidence to support the case that CASA did NOT undertake any proper analysis (as supported by RAA comments), but it is only one chamber of the revolver. Amongst others, is the time-line analysis of the CASA action.

 

From the compilation of evidence and opinion from various sources, I am convinced that the action against Jabiru was motivated by politics within CASA - and I believe that that can be convincingly demonstrated. Some of us are working on how most effectively to deliver that message. Suffice it to say, at this point, that identification of the initial 'complainants' to CASA is incidental to the main story, and is unlikely to feature.

 

There are more important and pertinent issues.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I found it interesting today walking around the Watts Bridge breaky. Out of 25 plus aircraft, there was only one Jabiru. Another arrived as I was leaving but it was a Rotax powered one.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

Let's revisit reality shall we. What has Jabiru done to improve the reliability and longevity (real world TBO) of the engine?

 

The Big Chief Denier (BCD) continues to blame his customers while Public Relations (PR) sends them love letters.

 

Owners with a few bob re-engine with Rotax. Or maybe CAE (Camit Aero Engines), which, while a huge improvement on Jabiru, can't overcome all faults inherent in the original design. It's almost impossible to cool to specified CHTs and EGTs. But at least Camit has attempted engineering solutions.

 

Crying "Poor me I haven't killed anyone yet" and trying to bluff CASA with dodgy data just proves with Jabiru it's just 'same old same old' only now with knobs on.

 

I suspect CASA will just let the instrument lapse. Maybe Jabiru will sell a few more engines, although why and how, I have no idea. But, as my old nan used to say, there's a fool born every minute.

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps a rule to not let unapproved persons work on the engines might be a satisfactory result??? I think NOT.... but who is to tell..Just how this works out no one knows. "I shot an arrow in the air. It fell to earth I know not where". is about where we are at the moment. I agree we will get nowhere finding who said what to who. Being well intentioned is not enough. The process was flawed. Just where is the final outcome going to reside? Send Jabiru to the wall? No where in the world do they have as much trouble as here. Non- school aircraft should not have been affected. If you can fit your selected version of a Volkswagen or a Chev Corvair engine, surely you can choose to use a Jabiru engine?. No engine is perfect. Get maximum information out there and let the people (market) choose. I've yet to arrive at a position where I can believe CASA want these types of aircraft flying. The idea anyone could build a plane out of materials basically obtainable from Bunnings scared the previous CASA CEO out of his brain, because he didn't have any association or experience with this type of activity. (and it hasn't advanced far since then). Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, retaliatory action tends to mean a tit for tat response, did you mean "responsive action"?

No retaliatory action...

 

 

[Oscar]

as my old nan used to say, there's a fool born every minute.

Did he/she record which minute you were born on? One to avoid for the rest of us.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith - could you give me a bit more of a clue about your thoughts of the Instrument being 'a retaliatory action'? It's certainly a possibility and one that might make a great deal of sense, but I'm not sure what 'action/s' might have contributed to this 'reaction' on CASA's part. I am most definitely interested in seeing if there is a credible argument here.

Catch up to me and I will put the jigsaw together, There is information I wish have on a publis forum.

I do not know you personally hence why I am so guarded..

 

PM me and I will see what I can do...

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

I found it interesting today walking around the Watts Bridge breaky. Out of 25 plus aircraft, there was only one Jabiru. Another arrived as I was leaving but it was a Rotax powered one.

Things are a bit different at YLTV. There are 26 Jabiru/Camit powered Jabirus there including mine along with many other Jabiru powered aircraft and they spend a lot of time in the air. They even venture off on trips of great distance, Australia wide (as I have in mine and plan to do so again this year). There is also a beautiful RV7 that has been flying now for years and I don't know if it has ventured far from the circuit.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Things are a bit different at YLTV. There are 26 Jabiru/Camit powered Jabirus there including mine along with many other Jabiru powered aircraft and they spend a lot of time in the air. They even venture off on trips of great distance, Australia wide (as I have in mine and plan to do so again this year). There is also a beautiful RV7 that has been flying now for years and I don't know if it has ventured far from the circuit.

That wasn't a dig KA. Just an observation. I have only been at this flying game for 18 months and have noticed less and less Jabiru and Jabiru powered aircraft everytime I go to a flyin/breakfast.

 

It does appear though that some Jabiru people are a bit touchy.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

Ah, the old gasbag breaks wind. Or was it his high horse?

 

How's the replacement CAE going, Oscar? Jabiru no good?

 

 

[DrZoos]

So you printed my FOI with my name on it, remove it !IF IT SO EASY TO GET WHY NOT GET YOUR OWN INSTEAD OF PUBLISHING MY NAME WITH THE DOCUMEBT . IF I WANTED IT PUBLISHED I WOULD HAVE PUBLISHED IT !

I didnt print anything with your name on it, i merely privided a relevant link to a public web link on a govt page...that is freely and publicly available to the entire world...if you dont like it tell CASA to remove it... A simple google search found that using the terms someone in this thread said to use...

I appologise if you take offence, but its a bit rich blaming me for your name being on it...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Frankly, I am not at all convinced that simply identifying the 'sources' who may have initiated action by CASA, takes us anywhere in terms of remediation of the effects of the action.

No but it gets the gun pointed in the right direction, so you don't eventually wind up making a fool of people.

 

Full disclosure of the correspondence within CASA and between CASA and external correspondents, MIGHT be of use - if it demonstrates malfeasance on CASA's part. In the current governmental environment, FOI compliance is not enthusiastically supported. Quite possibly only a Senate Inquiry, with the attendant penalties for withholding / falsifying information, would suffice. Lying /obfuscation to Parliament is held as a far more serious offence by any government authority than doing the same to the general public.

The Senate is extremely powerful, can require you to attend, and to give evidence under oath, but it's not worth the effort if you can get the same information from a phone call.

 

Good luck proving a Safety Authority was malfeasant taking safety action.

 

Even the damn title provided by CASA: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/disclosure-log re-iterates the '46 engine failures' implied furphy maintained by CASA from the start. Look at the document; count up the number of 'engine failures' - GENUINE 'engine failures' - you can see from the scant details. Jabiru saw those details and suggested that 12 was the correct number; I am less hard-line and would allow, on the stated details, perhaps 18.

Is that a CASA spreadsheet? or a spreadsheet provided to CASA?

 

a) CASA has at no time ever stated what is an 'acceptable' failure rate for RAA-class engines

And nor should they; once made aware of one potential fatality, they are bound to act.

 

In the prescription era, you would set what we called a "reasonable" or "practical" parameter for a safety issue, and it was common, for example, for a Council to put warning signs on roads only after someone had been injured or killed, as a warning to others.

 

Here's a discussion paper which includes part of the Wentworth Shire Council v Berryman case.

 

Wentworth is west of Mildura, the last town before Broken Hill, and the surrounding Shire has very few farms, so traffic is very low over very long distances.

 

The corner which became the subject of this case was sharper than others, and didn't have a "Curve" sign.

 

On page 162 II it shows that Berryman claimed the Council was negligent in failing to provide proper warning signs, His Honour held the Council 10 % responsible for the accident.

 

This discussion is primarily about the contributory negligence of the two drivers, and what is not covered is that it had cost Wentworth Shire $900,000.00 in trying to save themselves even before any damages were finalised.

 

In this case there had been ZERO injuries and ZERO fatalities, so it shows that discussing the number of engine failures is pointless. Maybe CASA have caused some confusion by even getting into dialogue on this.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2006/15.pdf

 

c) CASA has NOT provided any specification of what 'remedial' action would be required by Jabiru, to have the restriction lifted./

In Prescriptive times DCA/CAA etc may have conducted their own tests and specified an action, but post-prescription that would be taking on board liability for their decision, and making big payouts with taxpayer money if they got it wrong. That doesn't happen any more. The manufacturer is responsible for its own testing and remedial decisions.

 

The fact of the abominable data compilation and (non-existant) analysis used to support the CASA action is crucial evidence to support the case that CASA did NOT undertake any proper analysis (as supported by RAA comments)

So where did the spread sheet come from?