JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[coljones]

Before you go right off on a tangent, read the correction with the red arrow. 1.98 in 1,000,000. Very Clear !The data for Casa action was full of out of fuel, flat tyres, radio problems etc. if it had a Jabiru engine it was on the data spreadsheet used to justify their limitations, nothing to do with RAA except they supplied info.

Not off at a tangent. The first stat quoted by RAA was 198/10k. How far did RAA spread that?

 

 

[rankamateur]

Not off at a tangent. The first stat quoted by RAA was 198/10k. How far did RAA spread that?

Looks like our association shot us in the foot!

[SDQDI]

1.98 per million doesn't add up to me, as much as I would like to believe it.

 

Those stats say there was 211,000 hours flown up to October in the year, so even if you said 300,000 for the full year (which on those figures is conservative) that would equate to only 2 engine failures in 3 years. That seems a bit fanciful if you ask me.

 

 

[2tonne]

I think it was meant to be 1.98 per 10,000? Maybe?

 

 

[SDQDI]

I think it was meant to be 1.98 per 10,000? Maybe?

Yes I would say so.

Col mentioned that their original mistake said 198 per 10k but it seems when they corrected their mistake and put in the decimal they added on some zeros:doh: and got per million instead of per 10k

 

If you worked out 1.98 per 10k for say 250,000 hours per year you would get around 50 per yer which sounds a lot more realistic to me.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

..... Snip snip .....If its accepted that many failures go unreported, that just means the safety situation is worse across the board, on all engine makes. ......... Snip snip. ...

No it doesn't. Geez!

If the data is incomplete it will almost certainly be incomplete on both malfunctions and hours flown. So it might be more failures with more, same or less hours flown.

 

Incomplete data means incomplete not selectively chose what you like to bolster your own argument.

 

 

[facthunter]

Been done before. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

No it doesn't. Geez!If the data is incomplete it will almost certainly be incomplete on both malfunctions and hours flown. So it might be more failures with more, same or less hours flown.

Incomplete data means incomplete not selectively chose what you like to bolster your own argument.

You've got a point, but people are more reluctant by far to report malfunctions than they are to add to their hours tally.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you repair a Jabiru motor you either get the good deal ( from Rod) or you buy the parts (from Rod) either way Jabiru know your engine needed work on it. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Maybe but id suggest they record very little, no requiremnt to. Mostly not certifcated.

 

L2 would be ordering parts all the time, some for jobs, some for stock, no links to engine number.

 

 

[facthunter]

I would be very surprised if the sales records weren't complete. It's not a swap meet situation and cash for everything. Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I would be very surprised if the sales records weren't complete. It's not a swap meet situation and cash for everything. Nev

Well its probably not as accurate as you would hope.

 

My home airport as an example.

 

We have about 6 or 8 Jabirus there.

 

Three of us have a fairly complete workshop in one hangar.

 

Two are VH experimental and one is 19 owned by an L2.

 

We have a stock of new parts and when any of us buys new parts we check if anyone else needs a parts etc. So we can sometimes get shipments for several aircraft in the one purchase. I have bought parts which I have ended up not using and they go on the shelf and might get used on one of the others.

 

Jabiru have never asked me which aircraft its going on (except for a cylinder I sent back once for checking because it had been possibly overtemped (as it was it hadn't - turned out to be an intermittent problem of the Dynon sensor.)

 

Apart from that one episode they have no real idea whose getting it on which engine.

 

Point is "we" know where the bits have gone and keep maintenance logs that reflect this, but Jabiru don't have any link to our records.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

A couple of things I'd be interested to learn:

 

- do the ATSB get data directly from the RAAus pilots involved in incidents or from RAAus?

 

- if RAAus pilots report to both ATSB and RAAus, is there sufficient data to correlate the reports so they aren't counted twice?

 

- have the failed engines been subject to strip-down and reports by independent qualified persons?

 

- has there been analysis of engines maintained IAW manufacturer's recommendations versus other methods (including whether manufacturer's bulletins had been incorporated at the time of failure)?

 

- what percentage of L2 / LAME maintained versus L1 maintained engines are failing?

 

 

[jetjr]

Key problem is answers to most questions is sometimes

 

Id think

 

-Most data goes to RAA then ATSB

 

-No hardly ever, so we dont know what caused problem just what eventually broke, tainted by the owners feelings afterwards.

 

- no BUT aircaft used in training would be L2 maintained and all LSA should be done by the book. Plenty arent.

 

- everyone you see stopped or for sale is "maintained by L2 or LAME" i think this is oftn bull s&$t or the maintainer didnt know the type very well.

 

In saying all that im still not sure engines can be viewed with rigid service guidelines as per certificated types. Each one is different and margins are small. Jabiru info changes often and there are lots of undocumented variations. Not something a LAME is used to or id have thought happy with.

 

Currency and experience on type is key with a maintainer

 

 

[turboplanner]

-Most data goes to RAA then ATSB

If it does, then ATSB actions were most unsatisfactory for a number of years on the Jabiru issue. RAA certainly had data that there were problems and should have managed the situation professionally, but ATSB is supposed to be the analyser, and with, for example the RAA data I analysed, should have reported a problem as far back as 2007 (that I know of), which would have involved less aircraft, and would have allowed a much less painful response.

 

-No hardly ever, so we dont know what caused problem just what eventually broke, tainted by the owners feelings afterwards.

Symptoms are enough to start risk management, it's the engine manufacturer's responsibility to do the diagnosis, which was confirmed by CASA in the recent video.

 

- no BUT aircaft used in training would be L2 maintained and all LSA should be done by the book. Plenty arent.

RAA is the self administrator; if that's the case, a single person in Canberra has been a failure; volunteers on the ground are required. Remember the oversight of RAA is by the "Self Administering Sport Aviation Section of CASA".

 

- everyone you see stopped or for sale is "maintained by L2 or LAME" i think this is oftn bull s&$t or the maintainer didn't know the type very well.

You can see from the RAA incident reports that they are all slightly different, and that could be corrected by a formal Incident Report form and follow up; with volunteer "Aircraft Examiners" in local areas, it's much easier to sift through the BS, and find the maintainer.

 

In saying all that im still not sure engines can be viewed with rigid service guidelines as per certificated types. Each one is different and margins are small. Jabiru info changes often and there are lots of undocumented variations. Not something a LAME is used to or id have thought happy with.Currency and experience on type is key with a maintainer

While this discussion, if implemented, might produce much more accurate date on NUMBERS when a fault developed, and pick up the Mr dodgies who don't report issues, it would come at a BIG cost.

If you look at the 2007 - 2012 spreadsheets I've posted two or three times, you'll find that even with all the faults in the RAA reporting, and even with the unreported data missing, there was a clear trend, which could have been acted on by RAA in a much less intrusive way several years ago.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not that I wish to push it, at this point, but all aircraft are supposed to have engine log books and all servicing /repairs should be recorded, and up to date. Nev

 

 

[SDQDI]

If you have an incident it MUST be reported to BOTH Raa and atsb.

 

I haven't done one since the new Raa online system came on but I think it was going to make it a lot easier to duplicate (maybe it even automatically sends to both?)

 

 

[kasper]

And the thing that keep jumping out at me is there is no clear analysis from CASA (or analysis at all) that shows which failures are on engines that have incorporated all mandated changes and have been maintained and operated in accords with the manual.

 

If you start with all the 'Jabiru' incidents we know about and subtract:

 

1. operating issues

 

2. installation issues

 

3. certified engines not up to mod status per Jabiru

 

4. engines not operated / maintained in accord with Jabiru

 

THEN you are left with the issues that are probably something Jabiru need to assess and understand.

 

Yes Jab may find that items 1-4 may benefit from change to operating and installation guides/manuals but underlying engine issues are the remainder.

 

Only after excluding all the non-engine design non-Jabiru responsibility items can you validly assess the failure rate of the engine ... and even then I would argue that they should have looked at segregation into engines in certified situations separate from engines in experimental situations to identify if a certified engine in an certified installation being maintained and upgraded in line with manufacturers specifications is a problem.

 

From what can be gleaned on this forum and from public documentation this was not done. Jabiru have been hit a horrid commercial blow as have Jabiru owners.

 

And IMO the whole reporting and data gathering within RAA/CASA/ATSB is not effective or efficient in terms of identifying underlying root cause to support the type and level of analysis that would support one way or the other ... doesn't matter a dickie bird if its certified by validated external test or ATSM declaration of self compliance as a base without the ability to separate out the non-design root causes you are considering actions on unreliable data.

 

Bloody mess and a shame

 

 

[01rmb]

I just got a response to my email from Senator Barry O'Sullivan's Chief of Staff advising that despite the time limitations of the Senate Estimates last week, they are intent on continuing the discussions with CASA over the Jabiru restrictions to get the issue resolved.

 

They have a briefing scheduled with CASA in two weeks time so hopefully CASA will finally be held to account for their actions, the data used to justify the restrictions and why it is a blanket restriction on all Jabiru engines regardless of age, version, use or maintenance standard. This is the most positive thing to happen since this whole saga started well over a year ago.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And the thing that keep jumping out at me is there is no clear analysis from CASA (or analysis at all) that shows which failures are on engines that have incorporated all mandated changes and have been maintained and operated in accords with the manual.

That's not CASA's job; who is the Self Administrator?

 

Only after excluding all the non-engine design non-Jabiru responsibility items can you validly assess the failure rate of the engine ... and even then I would argue that they should have looked at segregation into engines in certified situations separate from engines in experimental situations to identify if a certified engine in an certified installation being maintained and upgraded in line with manufacturers specifications is a problem.

RAA should be able to do this, even at this late stage. Importantly, the Pilot Notes in the magazine should be showing an improvement.

 

And IMO the whole reporting and data gathering within RAA/CASA/ATSB is not effective or efficient in terms of identifying underlying root cause to support the type and level of analysis that would support one way or the other ... doesn't matter a dickie bird if its certified by validated external test or ATSM declaration of self compliance as a base without the ability to separate out the non-design root causes you are considering actions on unreliable data.

The Self Administering Body, and in their absence CASA, has the responsibility to identify a developing risk. A blow out in the number of forced landings would be identified as a risk. To remove that risk, the blow out of forced landings would need to cease. The engine manufacturer's job is to identify and correct root causes.We currently have a situation where:

 

• Everyone is blaming CASA, but none of the RAA members seem to be asking who started this - big mistake.
   
   
  
• Only a few people are up with self administered risk management, which is confusing the issues
   
   
  
• Two Senators have started asking questions, and a follow up meeting is likely, where CASA are likely to lay out their involvement - how it all started and what the strategy was of those who started it, how CASA then had to make the decision that there was a risk, how CASA, instead of grounding the aircraft, tried to keep them in the air with some limitations, what this potentially means in terms of taxpayer dollars if anyone is injured or killed (exposure of the Government), what factors can be used to close off the limitation, and so on.
   
   
  
• We don't know who got the Senators involved, or what their strategy was, or what the Senators were told.
   
   
  
• There has been a call to arms on this forum where several people have emailed politicians, but we don't know what we said or what their strategy was.
   
   
  

 

 

So we have an uncontrolled situation; it could explode anywhere.

 

 

[kasper]

That's not CASA's job; who is the Self Administrator?RAA should be able to do this, even at this late stage. Importantly, the Pilot Notes in the magazine should be showing an improvement.

 

The Self Administering Body, and in their absence CASA, has the responsibility to identify a developing risk. A blow out in the number of forced landings would be identified as a risk. To remove that risk, the blow out of forced landings would need to cease. The engine manufacturer's job is to identify and correct root causes.

 

We currently have a situation where:

 

• Everyone is blaming CASA, but none of the RAA members seem to be asking who started this - big mistake.
   
   
  
• Only a few people are up with self administered risk management, which is confusing the issues
   
   
  
• Two Senators have started asking questions, and a follow up meeting is likely, where CASA are likely to lay out their involvement - how it all started and what the strategy was of those who started it, how CASA then had to make the decision that there was a risk, how CASA, instead of grounding the aircraft, tried to keep them in the air with some limitations, what this potentially means in terms of taxpayer dollars if anyone is injured or killed (exposure of the Government), what factors can be used to close off the limitation, and so on.
   
   
  
• We don't know who got the Senators involved, or what their strategy was, or what the Senators were told.
   
   
  
• There has been a call to arms on this forum where several people have emailed politicians, but we don't know what we said or what their strategy was.
   
   
  

 

 

So we have an uncontrolled situation; it could explode anywhere.

Nope sorry to disagree.

1. CASA is the responsibile body for those engines and airframes that hold a CASA issued certificate. Agreed- the ATSM manufacturer (Jabiru) is responsible for those that hold ATSM compliant status. This oversimplification you keep posting is very frustrating - there is NO 1 2200 Jabiru engine or 3300 engine etc there are various groupings of engines and they really need to be analysed and treated separately (even if there is a common root cause)

 

2. you can't in the one breath say RAA should have the data even at this late stage and put the responsibility on Jabiru as the ATSM manufacturer ... sorry but that inherently illogical

 

3. on your 5 dot points I would also disagree strongly with the first point but agree that once CASA stomped on jabiru its damn hard to get the general RAA population to talk even handedly ... on the rest of your dot points its not IMO germane to the underlying issues of what if anything is fundamentally wrong with the engines and on what evidentiary basis did CASA use its powers in relation to each and all of the groups of engines built and sold under Jabiru name.

 

EG CASA could have pulled/restricted the certificates on the LSA55s as that issued the certiifcate. For anything holding a 19 reg or 10 reg with a Jab engine - regardless of its ATSM or CASA certificates staus - they could have undertaken analysis agaisnt all engines in that classes and looked at overall risk rates and addressed individual operational limitations eg airspace and restricted Jabs back to the level of others 19 or 10 reg aircraft with any engine eg two stroke

 

What really galls is the VERY harsh and illogical way the CASA restrictions apply to passengers when a Jab engine exists compared to any two stroke - IMO even IF there is a basis for underlying design/manufacturing issues they OVERreacted on the instrument they put forward and that's just plain unfair

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA is the responsibile body for those engines and airframes that hold a CASA issued certificate.

Sorry, I oversimplified, but a lot of people aren't even understanding the basics of the responsibilities on the newer process let alone the combined.

 

3. on your 5 dot points I would also disagree strongly with the first point but agree that once CASA stomped on jabiru its damn hard to get the general RAA population to talk even handedly ...

We'll see.

 

on the rest of your dot points its not IMO germane to the underlying issues of what if anything is fundamentally wrong with the engines and on what evidentiary basis did CASA use its powers in relation to each and all of the groups of engines built and sold under Jabiru name.

No it's not but it is germaine to the statement below the dot points.

 

What really galls is the VERY harsh and illogical way the CASA restrictions apply to passengers when a Jab engine exists compared to any two stroke - IMO even IF there is a basis for underlying design/manufacturing issues they OVERreacted on the instrument they put forward and that's just plain unfair

Do you want the plastic fantastics brought back to the same judgement criteria as two stroke rag and tube, or do you want it vice versa?

 

 

[dsam]

I just got a response to my email from Senator Barry O'Sullivan's Chief of Staff advising that despite the time limitations of the Senate Estimates last week, they are intent on continuing the discussions with CASA over the Jabiru restrictions to get the issue resolved.They have a briefing scheduled with CASA in two weeks time so hopefully CASA will finally be held to account for their actions, the data used to justify the restrictions and why it is a blanket restriction on all Jabiru engines regardless of age, version, use or maintenance standard. This is the most positive thing to happen since this whole saga started well over a year ago.

Yes, I got a similar supportive response from the Senator's chief of staff. For what it is worth, my email to the Senator also included an urging to emphasise implementation of the ASRR (Forsythe review) recommendations tabled in Parliament by Warren Truss, when he meets with Mark Skidmore.

 

 

[kasper]

Turbo,

 

I am not going to discuss engine issues on airframes grouped into plastic fantastics or rag and tube - it NOT the airframe that is in question its the engine and its the status of the engine under the CAOs that gives rise to access to airspace because under our CAOs for RAA reg aircraft its the certification status of the engine and training of the pilot that opens up airspace to parts of those within the reg grouping ... a plastic fantastic with a non-certified engine is exactly the same governance regime as a rag and tube with a certified engine.

 

So its not ME that's bringing the assessment of operations between rag n tube and plastics under the one brush the the CAOs that already do that as they always have done.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Yes, I got a similar supportive response from the Senator's chief of staff. For what it is worth, my email to the Senator also included an urging to emphasise implementation of the ASRR (Forsythe review) recommendations tabled in Parliament by Warren Truss, when he meets with Mark Skidmore.

I also have had a positive repsonse from the Senators COS today & co-incidentally I also mentioned the Forsyth report, (among other things like the blanket restrictions including home built experimentals contrary to CASAs own rules), Truss's acceptance of 36 of the 37 recommendations & CASAs failure to act on any.