JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[Geoff13]

The myth that there have been no fatalities in Jabirus needs to be put to bed. Lets get some accuracy back into the repoting folks. We would nail the media to the cross for such blatant fallicies.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No, I assumed the role of investigator, who, I'd hope, would be a person with some reasonable level of technical skills and qualifications and certainly not at the junior level. I'd also expect that as an investigator I'd be a "disinterested" person in the same way that a Magistrate is supposed to be disinterested in the cases he/she hears. I would expect the Director of CASA would NOT conduct or even head such an investigation. I'd expect the Director to be fully and and competently briefed on the issue and I'd further expect that a range of options would be put to the Director. We don't know if the latter was done but there is widespread belief that the outgoing Director saw a golden opportunity to leave a warm steaming turd on the incoming Directors desk.

 

The avoidance of any fatalities an very high goal. In most activities the aim is surely harm/risk minimisation which (should) pursue by rigorous risk assessment and management. If, as you claim CASA's role is the aim is to avoid any fatalities their inspectors should be in the field as we speak, removing the propellors from the entire RAA fleet.

 

Re Tiger airways: I believe there was far more substantiated evidence for CASA's action in that case. I also believe that ANSETT came close to enjoying the same fate but escaped by the skin of their teeth. The justification for the Jabiru injunction is much more tenuous and hardly analogous to those events

I apologise for being long winded getting back to you, but I got into terrible trouble for not putting the dinner on early enough and I'm just recovering.

 

I didn't mean anything by the word "junior" other than that you kicked the decision upwards, and the answer I was looking for from your and Facthunter was what decision you would have made if you had been the decision maker.

 

The "ground all aircraft" decision completely eliminates the risk, and varieties of this have been very successful in various industries. For example the falls from heights legislation makes it impractical for farmers to load small hay bales, and build haystacks, above 2 metres from ground level, and that has seen a wholesale move into bigger round and square bales, loaded and unloaded by tractors.

 

The CASA action is not quite at that level, and does potentially leave CASA open to legal action by anyone injured or killed, so I guess you could say they are balancing one risk against another.

 

Even in the discussion we've had you can see that these decisions are not easy to make if you don't want hordes of disaffected people around your neck. Consequently I don't think CASA decided they'd go out and make things as difficult as they could for as many people as they could.

 

The other factor in this decision was time.

 

At one of my meetings one of the State Associations made the meeting aware of a massive race car fire, in a class we'd been told was totally fireproof, and which had led to an exemption for the drivers from wearing firesuits.

 

We now had a forseeable risk, and we had to make the decision on the spot before any further racing occurred. I asked for a motion that firesuits be made compulsory for all 1100 drivers in that class, and got a unanimous vote from all the bodies present.

 

So while I'm generally supportive of your suggested process and Facthunter's thought process, sometimes you can't sit still.

 

As a matter of interest, my cousin is a barrister in South Australia, and was telling me recently that they have a Court problem, because almost all the public liability cases are being settled out of Court. This situation requires a different strategy again if singing your behind is to be avoided.

 

 

[2tonne]

The myth that there have been no fatalities in Jabirus needs to be put to bed. Lets get some accuracy back into the repoting folks. We would nail the media to the cross for such blatant fallicies.

Geoff, I don't think anyone is saying there have been no fatalities in Jabiru aircraft (although I believe there have been relatively few). My understanding is that there have been no fatalities in Australia as a consequence of the failure of a Jabiru engine, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

Your claim, Oscar, was: For one, Ross Millard would still be alive [in a Jabiru]. That is nonsense. You simply can't draw that conclusion from statistics. For one thing, many or probably most fatalities following engine failure in microlights are the result of a aerodynamic stall -- where a Jabiru will do no better that than any other aircraft.

 

Jabiru engines fail regularly and often. Nothing Jabiru has done has made them any better. That's why you bought a CAE, isn't it. You didn't put your money where your mouth is. Did you.

 

So, Jabiru engines fail regularly and often. That Jabiru airframes, being fibreglass, are stronger than many microlight aircraft does not alter that fact one iota. Does it. You are arguing if you have a robust airframe it's good enough for others to fit a dodgy engine.

 

Incidentally, was I meant to laugh at Millard's misfortune?

 

 

[aro]

I've already posted my own findings of an average 6.8 from 2007 to 2012, I've already said I don't have a problem with Jabiru's claimed 12 in 2014.I've said I don't believe the final numbers matter; the key is to eliminate a "reasonable forseeable risk".

Just playing around with search on the ATSB site. Searching the last 5 years:

 

Detailed Data Results

 

You searched for:

 

• Date range: From 03 Jan 2011 to 02 Jan 2016
   
   
  
• Location: All
   
   
  
• Occurrence Category: All
   
   
  
• Occurrence Type: Engine failure or malfunction
   
   
  
• Aircraft and Airspace: Manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft Company - All, Piper Aircraft Corp - All
   
   
  
• Injury Level: All
   
   
  

 

 

The number of occurrences during this time period were:

 

Total 334

 

Accidents 35

 

Incidents 247

 

Serious incidents 52

 

Number investigated by ATSB 25

 

334 reported engine failure or malfunctions in 5 years from Piper or Cessna aircraft. Any foreseeable danger there?

 

 

[frank marriott]

The myth that there have been no fatalities in Jabirus needs to be put to bed. Lets get some accuracy back into the repoting folks. We would nail the media to the cross for such blatant fallicies.

Geoff

The statements I have read on this line relate to "from engine failure'". I am happy to be shown where this is wrong. I have not made the statement but currently believe it to be correct.

 

By all means list some examples , I am personally not aware of them, but I am not suggesting you are wrong, merely that I am not aware of what you are suggesting.

 

My personal opinion from the 2015 crashes (24 with 14 fatalities ) none related to a Jabiru engine failure and another 4 crashes in 2016 already (same) I believe if reasonable person was to address this then a different area might be of greater concern.

 

I know this does not support a couple of views here but I am only looking at the facts, as I know them.

 

 

[aro]

Just playing around with search on the ATSB site. Searching the last 5 years:

I also searched for Cessna 172 specifically, there were about 50 Engine failure or malfunction reports in the last 5 years.

 

 

[SDQDI]

this thread is starting to make the 'gun culture' thread more inviting:violin:

 

 

[turboplanner]

I also searched for Cessna 172 specifically, there were about 50 Engine failure or malfunction reports in the last 5 years.

Interesting.

Is it possible to further narrow this down to Engine failure/malfunction causing a forced landing? i.e. not fuel exhaustion, flooded carbs, spark plug fouls, electrical, pilot misuse, carb icing etc, just engine mechanical failure.

 

Is it also possible to do the same for Piper PA 28 Cherokee 140 and Piper Cherokee Warrior (the 140 successor) - leave out the PA28-160 and PA28-180, they are more powerful touring aircraft.

 

We would then have a loose comparison for three aircraft used in training and short to medium cross-country with total numbers of engine failures. If you made the five years 2007 to 2012, we would have the data for the same years as the RAA data on Jabiru.

 

 

[gandalph]

I apologise for being long winded getting back to you, but I got into terrible trouble for not putting the dinner on early enough and I'm just recovering. Turbs, I am absolutely delighted to discover that there is at least one person in this great land that has the power to whip you into line. Is there any chance she (?) might consider giving lessons.....?The other factor in this decision was time. Yes. BUT time was NOT a critical factor in this matter apart from the need for the outgoing Director to make a dramatic final gesture before leaving the job.

 

As a matter of interest, my cousin is a barrister in South Australia, and was telling me recently that they have a Court problem, because almost all the public liability cases are being settled out of Court. This situation requires a different strategy again if singing your behind is to be avoided. Avoiding bottom burning is always difficult when dealing with the second oldest profession

[turboplanner]

Your #185 Gandalph:

 

(a) Yes it is a she (b) she is currently fully occupied with punishment duties.

 

When someone says to you "Mr G, you became aware of this risk on April 4 and the deceased's crash occurred on April 8, what action had you taken to mitigate this very obvious risk?" and you say "none", things aren't likely to be good.

 

I guess there is some "reasonable time" to act, but you can't predict the future.

 

I'm not so sure about the Director thing; I've found that people who supervise 800 to 1,000 people generally don't have much of an idea about what goes on day to day in the various divisions, despite the extremely switched on appearance those people project, but you may have some inside information.

 

Especially now they aren't waiting around for the disinterested Judge who at least looks at both sides.

 

 

[jetjr]

How has a disclaimer and no flights over built up areas mitigated risk?

 

Was there a significant risk to people on the ground?

 

Probably lower than lightning strike, casa hasnt deemed this now to be restricted?

 

Disclaimer covers someones backside but lends nothing to safety.

 

Damage is done to owners and no safety result

 

 

[Oscar]

Your claim, Oscar, was: For one, Ross Millard would still be alive [in a Jabiru].

You have an evident failure to comprehend the written word. I did NOT say that, nor imply it, I stated that there were other aircraft with statistically far greater fatality rates/number of aircraft on the register(s) than Jabiru that should have been grounded by CASA before action was taken by CASA against Jabiru. The Lightwing fatality rate / number of aircraft on the register is 16 X greater than for Jabiru.

 

 

[DrZoos]

It was pretty clear what Oscar was saying... he was implying Lightwing accident rate was far more unacceptable than Jabiru.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was pretty clear what Oscar was saying... he was implying Lightwing accident rate was far more unacceptable than Jabiru.

I didn't see any suggested risk trend related to the aircraft itself in his words though, which might have made his words more persuasive.

 

 

[Oscar]

That is because I don't wish to start a firefight regarding other makes, simply to draw attention to the fact that there are valid reasons why the restrictions on Jabirus are inconsistent with the old dictum of 'start with the worst of the problem and work your way back from there', and I particularly don't want to make 'capital' of Ross Millard's sad demise.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That is because I don't wish to start a firefight regarding other makes, simply to draw attention to the fact that there are valid reasons why the restrictions on Jabirus are inconsistent with the old dictum of 'start with the worst of the problem and work your way back from there', and I particularly don't want to make 'capital' of Ross Millard's sad demise.

Well without even some basic statistics, you're drawing attention to squat.

Ross's name has already got two inappropriate and despicable mentions since he died.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Lets all take a deep breath, relax and respect each other...as fellow aviators with drastically differing opinions on some pretty emotive topics.

 

It makes sense that these issues will upset a lot of people in both camps..but it wont achieve anything attacking each other...

 

 

[frank marriott]

in both camps

Therein lies the problem, no need for this division, fly and compare aircraft properties without being stupid about it - but we know that is not achieveable with certain personalities

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just received from Jabiru.Hello Jabiru Fleet,

 

Welcome back to 2016 and our first update for the coming year.

 

Sales are continuing to go well in our overseas markets. Jabiru North America currently have six J230’s on order. Two will depart at the end of this week, two in March and two more in May. We have a J170-D due off the production line within the next few weeks and it will be leaving us in March for its new Australian home. It is great to see these new Jab’s flying the coop.

 

Our roller cam engines are receiving a very good press. Total hours are now exceeding 30,000. Several of these engines have been back for their top end overhaul at 1000 hours in good condition and returned to service. Close to 100 people have now been through the Engine Maintenance Workshop held here at Jabiru. This training program, along with the on-going engineering research and development here at Jabiru is greatly improving the overall professionalism of the fleet. We will all keep up the good work and blitz those Rotax’s J

 

The CASA limitations are unfortunately still in place. Information we have received tells us that the on-going airworthiness department of CASA has no further issues with Jabiru. We are unsure of the reasons why the limitations are still in place. It would appear that the matter of lifting these restrictions may be held up by the legal department. We would of course like the limitations to be lifted as soon as possible. We continue to provide correspondence to CASA, Mr Warren Truss MP and our local members of parliament. The more correspondence they receive on the impact the limitations continue to have on owners and operators will assist. Correspondence can be sent to CASA, your local member, Mr Warren Truss MP at [email protected] and the Industry Complaints Commissioner CASA at [email protected]

 

The team here at Jabiru looks forward to the coming year with positivity and as always we sign off with “Happy Landings”

 

 

JABIRU AIRCRAFT PTY LTD

 

PO Box 5792

 

Bundaberg West Qld 4670

 

Ph: 07 41551778

 

Fax: 07 41552669

 

Email: [email protected]

 

www.jabiru.net.au

 

www.facebook.com/JabiruAircraft

We can start again then with this positive news, particularly about engines now being returned to service after 1,000 hours.

 

 

[Teckair]

I think the problem was there were so many Jabirus flying with many over populated areas with the engine having a bad name with many people Casa were worried one might hit someone on the ground. I think they were protecting there own back sides. The factory having a reputation for telling people the problems are someone else's fault has not helped.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I think the problem was there were so many Jabirus flying with many over populated areas with the engine having a bad name with many people Casa were worried one might hit someone on the ground. I think they were protecting there own back sides. The factory having a reputation for telling people the problems are someone else's fault has not helped.

Do you really thing this justifies the instrument. The real result is I can fly into (if someone else paid the landing & parking etc fees) Eagle Farm or Kingsford Smith etc. but not the class D areas in the same locations. Just stupidity IMO. I only get out of Qld every few years but Cairns class C, Townsville class C, Mackay class D, and Rockhampton class D all no problem but Archerfield No. I am aware there is a few who support the CASA action but if looked at sensibility it just killed the flying schools located in the class D areas but nothing else other then the value of our aircraft and run on effect for the company.

Apart from the resale value (which I can understand) it has not had any effect on my private flying in the slightest and as I have no intention of selling - net result Zero. The proposed (draft) instrument by Ungermann was a different matter.

 

 

[Teckair]

Do you really thing this justifies the instrument.

I don't have an opinion on that, zero for reading comprehension for you, read my post again, and try to understand it this time. I was trying to say what I thought had happened not whether it was right or wrong. People like your self might be able to gain something from the observations of an unbiased observer.

 

 

[frank marriott]

zero for reading comprehension for you,

I'll leave it at that

 

 

[aro]

Interesting.Is it possible to further narrow this down to Engine failure/malfunction causing a forced landing? i.e. not fuel exhaustion, flooded carbs, spark plug fouls, electrical, pilot misuse, carb icing etc, just engine mechanical failure.

Is it also possible to do the same for Piper PA 28 Cherokee 140 and Piper Cherokee Warrior (the 140 successor) - leave out the PA28-160 and PA28-180, they are more powerful touring aircraft.

 

We would then have a loose comparison for three aircraft used in training and short to medium cross-country with total numbers of engine failures. If you made the five years 2007 to 2012, we would have the data for the same years as the RAA data on Jabiru.

I think the 161 Warrior is probably the most common PA-28 in training now, and 140s are mostly in private hands. I don't see that I can separate to that level, but since we are interested in the engine not the operation it probably doesn't matter.

 

I searched for Pa-28, C172, C152 engine failure or malfunction from 2007-2012 inclusive (6 years). I got about 160 records. It's a bit hard to interpret, many of the records don't give a reason for the malfunction or much detail on where the aircraft ended up. My counting came up with:

 

* 70 incidents with a serious loss of engine power in the air.

 

* 35 incidents where the aircraft ended up off runway (most off airport, some overran the end of the runway etc. after engine failure)

 

* 24 incidents where a major engine component failed (cylinder, crankcase, valve, fuel pump, fuel controller etc).

 

That's only the incidents where it is spelled out explicitly.

 

However... it doesn't tell you much without the total hours to work out a failure rate. It does tell you that Jabiru engines are not the only engines that can and do fail.

 

I will attempt to attach the data file for those who want to do their own analysis.

 

The biggest problem with the Jabiru issue is that the RAA rules were developed when the engines in use were much less reliable and already assume that engines are unreliable.

 

Unreliable engines is the reason we have a low maximum stall speed.

 

Unreliable engines is the reason we have a low maximum weight.

 

Unreliable engines is the reason we are limited to 1 passenger.

 

Unreliable engines is the reason we are required to be able to glide clear of built up areas.

 

Sure, restrict to GA Jabirus that do not have the same restrictions if it is believed that the engines are not up to certified standard. But I don't see the reason for additional restrictions when the assumption of an unreliable engine is at the heart of the rules we operate under.

 

ATSBSearchResults (6).xlsx

 

ATSBSearchResults (6).xlsx

 

ATSBSearchResults (6).xlsx