JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[facthunter]

What if I want to fly my Bleriot with Anzani motor? Or even a Fairchild with Warner Scarab? Our aviation is what it is. If you want super safety fly in the back of a commercial airliner, or better still get up the front and fly it yourself, where you have a fighting chance .Some of the better 4 stroke Lawnmower engines are starting to look pretty good if you worked them over a bit. The pilot is the most dangerous thing in a plane. No single engined plane can do better than gliding distance if something goes wrong with the engine or out of fuel. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

What if I want to fly my Bleriot with Anzani motor? Or even a Fairchild with Warner Scarab? Our aviation is what it is. If you want super safety fly in the back of a commercial airliner, or better still get up the front and fly it yourself, where you have a fighting chance .Some of the better 4 stroke Lawnmower engines are starting to look pretty good if you worked them over a bit. The pilot is the most dangerous thing in a plane. No single engined plane can do better than gliding distance if something goes wrong with the engine or out of fuel. Nev

And what about if six Warriors a year or six 172s a year started falling out of the skies?

 

 

[gandalph]

And what about if six Warriors a year or six 172s a year started falling out of the skies?

Surely it would depend on the REASON the warriors or 172's were "falling out of the skies" (to use your hyperbolic language)

 

If you, not you particularly TP but interested people in general , were to take the data in the spreadsheet provided by CASA relating to Jabiru incidents (difficult now that CASA has realised they have made yet another significant administrative error and taken the relevant document down) and cross check it with ATSB reports covering the same period you would see that the data do not match. That could raise a couple of questions in people with open minds:

 

1.Could that be because the ATSB actually investigates incident and accidents and provides an assessment of the CAUSE of the incident/accident whereas CASA appears to have taken the slackers way out and jerked their knees in response to some very dubious external stimuli?

 

2. Is it legitimate for CASA to determine that fuel starvation or carburettor icing or incorrect component assembly or incorrect maintenance should be classified as an engine failure?

 

p.s. Those were rhetorical questions

 

 

[frank marriott]

Have a look at 2015 as reported HERE and in the press, 24 crashes, 14 fatalities, none reported as a Jabiru engine failure. I know where a sensible analysis would point to the problem. But that will not stop the continued pushing from those who have their own agenda, whatever that might be. (2 reported as engine failures both not Jabiru, well I guess that must just bad luck)

 

 

[bexrbetter]

p.s. Those were rhetorical questions

Then you do not use question marks.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Surely it would depend on the REASON the warriors or 172's were "falling out of the skies" (to use your hyperbolic language) If you, not you particularly TP but interested people in general , were to take the data in the spreadsheet provided by CASA relating to Jabiru incidents (difficult now that CASA has realised they have made yet another significant administrative error and taken the relevant document down) and cross check it with ATSB reports covering the same period you would see that the data do not match. That could raise a couple of questions in people with open minds:

 

1.Could that be because the ATSB actually investigates incident and accidents and provides an assessment of the CAUSE of the incident/accident whereas CASA appears to have taken the slackers way out and jerked their knees in response to some very dubious external stimuli?

 

2. Is it legitimate for CASA to determine that fuel starvation or carburettor icing or incorrect component assembly or incorrect maintenance should be classified as an engine failure?

 

p.s. Those were rhetorical questions

Since I might not know what rhetorical means I'll answer them anyway:

 

1. ATSB rarely investigates. RAA fatalities, let alone engine failures, and they, like Airservices Australia, are a completely separate Organisation to CASA, and unless there has been a recent arrangement for RAA to report incidents to ATSB, ATSB records would not match RAA reports, and would primarily cover VH registered aircraft and any RAA accidents they were called in to investigate. With reg nos you could sort it all out eliminating the double ups.

 

The CASA spreadsheet shows which data was supplied by RAA and you can see the causes RAA specified for those.

 

There are some blank cells, and you might speculate they came from mandatory reporting by mechanics - I don't know.

 

In the spray of communications which went on at the time my impression was that ATSB came up with their own separate numbers.

 

If you are thinking that the dubious external stimuli came from the two with alleged axes to grind, I don't know, but if I had found what they quite freely told us they found, I would have submitted reports too, but that would only have been a few engines.

 

Going forward it would be better if ATSB investigated every potential injury/ fatal incident.

 

2. No it's not. I cannot imagine Lee Ungermann or Mick Poole being silly enough to say "Yep, we can put that one in!" The data had to have been supplied by someone with very little mechanical knowledge. You could kick their arxes and take those mistakes out.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Have a look at 2015 as reported HERE and in the press, 24 crashes, 14 fatalities, none reported as a Jabiru engine failure. I know where a sensible analysis would point to the problem. But that will not stop the continued pushing from those who have their own agenda, whatever that might be. (2 reported as engine failures both not Jabiru, well I guess that must just bad luck)

Reported where?

What do the monthly RAA accidents and incidents show?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Reported where?What do the monthly RAA accidents and incidents show?

SOS

 

 

[2tonne]

The same RAA data I mentioned previously, showed only 3 Rotax failures in the five years.As other people have said, you shouldn't compare Jab with Rotax and on the same basis You shouldn't assess Rotax against another engine which may have had one failure. We're trained to do forced landings because no one yet has a zero record. RAA should be the body assessing the risks and managing them. If they don't do it CASA has to step in. The questions I asked Facthunter show this is not an easy decision to make..

Yes, but it appears CASA compared Jabiru to Rotax when they put the restrictions in place. They just drew an arbitrary line based on...who knows what? They originally said it was a high and increasing number of failures, but the increasing numbers bit turned out to be bulldust. I believe the latest data showed Rotax has an increasing number of failures.

 

 

[turboplanner]

SOS

You need help?

 

 

[frank marriott]

Same old s......t

 

 

[Camel]

Since I might not know what rhetorical means I'll answer them anyway:1. ATSB rarely investigates. RAA fatalities, let alone engine failures, and they, like Airservices Australia, are a completely separate Organisation to CASA, and unless there has been a recent arrangement for RAA to report incidents to ATSB, ATSB records would not match RAA reports, and would primarily cover VH registered aircraft and any RAA accidents they were called in to investigate. With reg nos you could sort it all out eliminating the double ups.

 

The CASA spreadsheet shows which data was supplied by RAA and you can see the causes RAA specified for those.

 

There are some blank cells, and you might speculate they came from mandatory reporting by mechanics - I don't know.

 

In the spray of communications which went on at the time my impression was that ATSB came up with their own separate numbers.

 

If you are thinking that the dubious external stimuli came from the two with alleged axes to grind, I don't know, but if I had found what they quite freely told us they found, I would have submitted reports too, but that would only have been a few engines.

 

Going forward it would be better if ATSB investigated every potential injury/ fatal incident.

 

2. No it's not. I cannot imagine Lee Ungermann or Mick Poole being silly enough to say "Yep, we can put that one in!" The data had to have been supplied by someone with very little mechanical knowledge. You could kick their arxes and take those mistakes out.

Maybe they are that silly, read all of the data, flat tyres, radio problems !

 

For you Turbs a little bit of true information ! An extract from Lee Ungermans letter to me which the people you are discussing this with have seen this letter !

 

Data collected in this process came from a variety of sources, ATSB, Airservices, RA-Aus, direct reporting to CASA and eventually from Jabiru itself. In this process all information was considered that related to Jabiru Powered Aircraft, this included VH and Recreational registered aircraft. CASA reviewed all RA-Aus accident and incident data in December 2013 in relation to piston engine reliability from 2012 and 2013 , this data was provided back to RA-Aus in May 2014 and again in August to the new CEO. Further request of data specifically in relation to Jabiru engine failures was requested from RA-Aus in August 2014 and supplied by them. While RA-Aus may not agree to the number of occurrences identified, not all of them came from RA-Aus data.

 

An extract from the FOI data sheet request was for this information !

 

Just to clarify, I want the number, date, cause and details of Jabiru engine failures that lee Ungerman of CASA sport aviation department uses as statistics to justify his actions.

 

Also Turbo, in case you didn't read already CASA made a mistake putting my name on the FOI, it was not meant to be on it and they removed the name and that link with my name doesn't work !

 

In case you still don't get it, Casa are on a witch hunt to destroy Jabiru just like they took out others. I am only interested in the survival and future of Australian aviation and manufacturing, if you have an agenda to agree with Casa and shut it down then you are a typical know all , knocker Ocka !

 

You did not answer my questions previously ! Don't worry I'm not interested in your answer anyway, SOS.

 

 

[gandalph]

1. ATSB rarely investigates. RAA fatalities, let alone engine failures, and they, like Airservices Australia, are a completely separate Organisation to CASA, and unless there has been a recent arrangement for RAA to report incidents to ATSB, ATSB records would not match RAA reports, and would primarily cover VH registered aircraft and any RAA accidents they were called in to investigate. With reg nos you could sort it all out eliminating the double ups.

I must disagree. If you search the ATSB database you will find many reports prepared by ATSB on RAA aircraft incident/Accidents.

 

 

The CASA spreadsheet shows which data was supplied by RAA and you can see the causes RAA specified for those.

Exactly! And the "Causes" as listed on the CASA spreadsheet do not tally well with causes specified in the reports by ATSB. It's not hard to determine which of the CASA incidents are reported by ATSB & vice versa. Perhaps ATSB has a more forensic nature than either RAA or CASA when determining causes of failures.

 

If you are thinking that the dubious external stimuli came from the two with alleged axes to grind,.....

I make no suggestion as to where the stimuli might have emanated.

 

No it's not. I cannot imagine Lee Ungermann or Mick Poole being silly enough to say "Yep, we can put that one in!" The data had to have been supplied by someone with very little mechanical knowledge. You could kick their arxes and take those mistakes out.

Again - I haven't named any names and I have not suggested publicly that Mrs Ungermann or Mr Poole were the instigators. I simply restate my belief that CASA officials did not display the rigourous analysis of the information one should expect of public officials when they decided to act on the information; that their lack of diligence action in promulgating the original restriction was was therefore ill considered and irresponsible.

[turboplanner]

Yes, but it appears CASA compared Jabiru to Rotax when they put the restrictions in place. They just drew an arbitrary line based on...who knows what?

I don't think they've released any detail on how they reached their decision.

As I mentioned earlier, you can take them to ACAT and if ACAT found the grounds were not persuasive, they may award you out of pocket costs.

 

They originally said it was a high and increasing number of failures, but the increasing numbers bit turned out to be bulldust.

I seem to recall seeing those "high and increasing" words before the CASA action.

I logged the 6 per year average from the RAA figures from 2007 to 2012. Earlier someone reported that Jabiru accepted 12 of the 46 on the CASA spreadsheet. I haven't seen 2013 RAA figures.

 

 

[gandalph]

Then you do not use question marks.

Then you wouldn't know if it was a question.

rhetorical |rɪˈtɒrɪk(ə)l|

 

adjective

 

2 (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.

 

ESL?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I must disagree. If you search the ATSB database you will find many reports prepared by ATSB on RAA aircraft incident/Accidents.

some/many/somewhere in between - not a problem.

 

Exactly! And the "Causes" as listed on the CASA spreadsheet do not tally well with causes specified in the reports by ATSB. It's not hard to determine which of the CASA incidents are reported by ATSB & vice versa. Perhaps ATSB has a more forensic nature than either RAA or CASA when determining causes of failures.

There's a column "Reported by Jabiru" and a column "Reported by RAA" and a column for aircraft registration. There were only five aircraft where the report originator is not listed. ATSB are not listed as supplying any reports.

There's no suggestion in the document that CASA did anything but print the data reported to them.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Same old s......t

Well how about you post something that makes sense then; people can then compare what you've found out, with previous figures.

 

 

[gandalph]

some/many/somewhere in between - not a problem. Sheesh! and people say I'm pedantic!

 

There's a column "Reported by Jabiru" and a column "Reported by RAA" and a column for aircraft registration. There were only five aircraft where the report originator is not listed. ATSB are not listed as supplying any reports.

 

There's no suggestion in the document that CASA did anything but print the data reported to them.

EXACTLY! that's all they appeared to do. They do not appear to have queried, verified or otherwise examined the data reported with anything like a questioning mind. They appeared to have taken the lazy way out. The CASA mindset appears to be:1. An that engine stops (for any reason) = an engine that has failed

2 A forced landing for any reason = an engine failure..

 

I did NOT say that there were ATSB reports included in the CASA spreadsheet I DID suggest that a search of the ATSB database would provide reports on incidents that appeared, ( ie: could be cross referenced to incidents) in the CASA spreadsheet and that the causes noted in the ATSB reports did NOT tally with the CASA reported causes.

 

Are you being deliberately thick?

 

 

[turboplanner]

EXACTLY! that's all they appeared to do. They do not appear to have queried, verified or otherwise examined the data reportted with anything like a questioning mind. The took the lazy way out.

That's what people have been speculating, but they don't know, CASA hasn't told them, they don't know what CASA knows.

The CASA mindset appears to be:

1. An that engine stops (for any reason) = an engine that has failed

 

2 A forced landing for any reason = an engine failure..

With your background, you would know that just when the bombshell of the 46 failures was about to drop, CASA can simply say "There are a number of errors in this document, obviously fuel exhaustion or a flat tyre is not an engine failure, so the numbers supplied by xxxx are reduced to X', and the process goes on with the correct numbers.

 

I did NOT say that there were ATSB reports included in the CASA spreadsheet I DID suggest that a search of the ATSB database would provide reports on incidents that appeared, ( ie: could be cross referenced to incidents) in the CASA spreadsheet and that the causes noted in the ATSB reports did NOT tally with the CASA reported causes.

I can't explain the difference; perhaps the Jabiru/RAA summaries were on the spreadsheet, as you would expect, and the ATSB summaries differed from the Jabirui/RAA, or perhaps they were the blanks. The aircraft registrations are listed for each entry, so it should be possible to reconcile. I would be concerned if CASA have changed any of the wording on the reports from Jabiru/RAA.

 

Not at all; I knew it was going to be read by one of the best nitpickers in the business.

[jetjr]

If the numbers of engine failures is reduced, which you almost seem to be accepting now........ then Jabiru possibly fall alongside other engines in terms of reliability.

 

ATSB seem to indicate its not too dissimilar to other types anyway.

 

The whole basis of the limitation is that Jab proved an unacceptable risk.

 

The question asked a year ago, How will/has the action altered the safety of all the Jabiru engined aircraft?

 

 

[turboplanner]

If the numbers of engine failures is reduced, which you almost seem to be accepting now........ then Jabiru possibly fall alongside other engines in terms of reliability.

I collated the 5 year RAA figures a couple of years ago, and the total was Jabiru 34, Rotax 3, and I've posted the results several times since then.

RAA hasn't changed those figures.

 

The question asked a year ago, How will/has the action altered the safety of all the Jabiru engined aircraft?

There were no prescriptive mechanical directions in the action, so it didn't alter the engine performance itself, other than where people became much more careful with service, and tinkered less.

The action did ensure less people in the aircraft and less aircraft over built up areas.

 

 

[gandalph]

Well bearing in mind the Berryman v Wentworth Shire example I posted earlier and the fact that the controlling body had taken no action, if you were the person responsible in CASA (the regulator), what decision would you have made.

You directed the question to Nev but I'll have a go at answering it.

I would have asked my sister organisation, the Australian Transportation SAFETY Bureau, if they had any data relevant to the information provided to CASA by the RAA that I should consider and that might expand my understanding of the issue.

 

I would have gone back to the RAA and asked for complete details of the incidents listed in their spreadsheet.

 

As a caveat, we don't know whether the RAA simply provided a bare bones summary of accidents/incidents relating to Jabiru powered craft or whether they supplied, as supplementary data, copies of member's incident reports and copies of RAA's investigations into those reports. I rather suspect that given the impossibly tight timeframe allowed by CASA for the RAA to provide information to CASA that the RAA Board and staff did their best and slammed together a spreadsheet expecting (wrongly) that CASA would exercise due diligence and cross check the RAA with their records and cull the flat tyre; fuel starvation; carb icing; comms failures ets from the data to be considered. I think that the RAA believed that the spreadsheet they provided was PRELIMINARY information and that they would be allowed sufficient time to refine and elaborate on the first flush information provided.

 

 

That additional information from ATSB and RAA might have allowed me to form an opinion as to whether there WAS a problem with Jabiru engines.

 

If I was to form an opinion that there was a problem with the mechanical integrity of Jabiru engines then I might draft a carefully worded detailing the results of my investigation and justifying any action I might propose for the (then) rabidly anti-RAA Director to include in any direction to the fleet to alleviate the problem(s) identified by my thorough and rigorous investigation.

 

I would not have sat back and said: "WOW! 40 failures per year! I'd better tell Mr F he can ground the fleet and drop the incoming Director in it with one fell swoop."

 

 

[gandalph]

Wow, smarter than the High Court of Australia Oscar, good luck with it.

My experience is that the higher the Court the sillier the rulings.

 

 

[facthunter]

You don't get justice or wisdom. You only get LAW maybe (if you are lucky and wealthy. Wealthy always makes you more lucky) Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

You directed the question to Nev but I'll have a go at answering it.I would have asked my sister organisation, the Australian Transportation SAFETY Bureau, if they had any data relevant to the information provided to CASA by the RAA that I should consider and that might expand my understanding of the issue.

 

I would have gone back to the RAA and asked for complete details of the incidents listed in their spreadsheet.

 

As a caveat, we don't know whether the RAA simply provided a bare bones summary of accidents/incidents relating to Jabiru powered craft or whether they supplied, as supplementary data, copies of member's incident reports and copies of RAA's investigations into those reports. I rather suspect that given the impossibly tight timeframe allowed by CASA for the RAA to provide information to CASA that the RAA Board and staff did their best and slammed together a spreadsheet expecting (wrongly) that CASA would exercise due diligence and cross check the RAA with their records and cull the flat tyre; fuel starvation; carb icing; comms failures ets from the data to be considered. I think that the RAA believed that the spreadsheet they provided was PRELIMINARY information and that they would be allowed sufficient time to refine and elaborate on the first flush information provided.

 

 

That additional information from ATSB and RAA might have allowed me to form an opinion as to whether there WAS a problem with Jabiru engines.

 

If I was to form an opinion that there was a problem with the mechanical integrity of Jabiru engines then I might draft a carefully worded detailing the results of my investigation and justifying any action I might propose for the (then) rabidly anti-RAA Director to include in any direction to the fleet to alleviate the problem(s) identified by my thorough and rigorous investigation.

 

I would not have sat back and said: "WOW! 40 failures per year! I'd better tell Mr F he can ground the fleet and drop the incoming Director in it with one fell swoop."

Don't have any problem with any of that, but you've assumed the position of a junior, and kicked the problem upstairs. What I was getting at was, if you were the Director, and you'd done all that (or had others do it), what sanction would you have imposed.

 

It's not such an easy decision if the aim is to avoid any fatalities.

 

I was asked at the time what I would have done, and I said "ground the fleet" on the basis that this would have eliminated any fatality, but this wasn't very popular if I recall. CASA did it to Tiger Airlines though.