JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[gandalph]

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.
   
   
  

Naming those who started this is of little value now and is just another diversionary tactic that you employ so well and so often. Many of us who have a direct stake in this stoush have a very clear understanding of who started it and it's interesting that those who barked loudest before CASA stepped in (some would say stepped in it) have gone very quiet of late. Could it be that they have come to the realisation, much too late in their game, that although having let the genie out of the bottle, they no longer control it?

 

Very few believe that CASA acted on their own motion. I know that many would like to blame a couple of people who moved out of RAA and into CASA. I, for one, don't think that those two gentlemen started this, I believe they simply ran with it when the baton was passed to them. However, their lack of diligence in disinterestedly assessing the information passed to them may cost them more than just their credibility within the aviation community as I expect CASA will need to find some scapegoats if they are to successfully untangle themselves from this.

 

 

[facthunter]

I got an acknowledgement from the Senator's office today as well. I think this matter is being addressed, which is a good sign for once.

 

Gandalph, As for blaming people I do have some information which I will keep in confidence as that is why people speak to me.

 

.CASA have the obligation of checking information and not going off half cocked. They have form in this area and should learn from their mistakes. If there is a question to be asked it must be what was the hurry, that the planned meeting with Jabiru wasn't held before pulling the gun?

 

Other factors are when and how will the situation be resolved? Does it have implications for other types now and into the future.

 

Will sending the only two organisations broke, who can fix the matters when identified, aid the solution? and so on.....

 

also finding scapegoats won't gel as the time has long passed when that excuse would suffice. They may still try it. but tell it to the judge.

 

Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

They've been busy in O'Sullivans' office - I got the same, and sent them some other stuff they may find useful - and got a 'thanks for that, we will read it with interest' response in about ONE MINUTE!. They are on the case...

 

I think we can start to see that the effort we've put in to writing to O'Sullivan's office has had some effect!. Absolutely great work, everybody who has put the effort in!.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Perhaps one minute is Tooo quick Oscar? What effect is the change in the ministers position likely to have do we think? Has he been sounded out yet?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Naming those who started this is of little value now and is just another diversionary tactic that you employ so well and so often. Many of us who have a direct stake in this stoush have a very clear understanding of who started it and it's interesting that those who barked loudest before CASA stepped in (some would say stepped in it) have gone very quiet of late. Could it be that they have come to the realisation, much too late in their game, that although having let the genie out of the bottle, they no longer control it?Very few believe that CASA acted on their own motion. I know that many would like to blame a couple of people who moved out of RAA and into CASA. I, for one, don't think that those two gentlemen started this, I believe they simply ran with it when the baton was passed to them. However, their lack of diligence in disinterestedly assessing the information passed to them may cost them more than just their credibility within the aviation community as I expect CASA will need to find some scapegoats if they are to successfully untangle themselves from this.

I'm certainly NOT trying to employ a diversionary tactic, I'm trying to help you; it wasn't individuals, barking or otherwise; no scapegoats needed.

 

 

[dsam]

Perhaps one minute is Tooo quick Oscar? What effect is the change in the ministers position likely to have do we think? Has he been sounded out yet?

If it hasn't happened already, I would hope that RA-Aus President Mick Monck and CEO Michael Linke would pick up the phone and talk to Senator O'Sullivan to help clarify the foundation of all the contentious issues with CASA, prior to the Senator's meeting with them. They could provide the Senator with some accurate factual information that could help to counteract the spin from the CASA bureaucrats that wish to obfuscate their many mistakes.

 

 

[jetjr]

Id have thought Senator from QLD would be reading his notes from Jabiru closely. If they havent been lobbying him for last 18 months they should have been.

 

I believe CASA werent responding to RAA interest in discussing the issue.

 

 

[dsam]

Id have thought Senator from QLD would be reading his notes from Jabiru closely. If they havent been lobbying him for last 18 months they should have been.I believe CASA werent responding to RAA interest in discussing the issue.

No doubt the Senator does have information from Jabiru.

My reference to RA-Aus briefing the Senator (at the risk of thread drift) was mainly to include pressure regarding the Forsyth recommendations, now that there is some political momentum (thanks to this Senator), and also following the change of minister, since Warren Truss announced his retirement. It seems like a good opportunity to refresh the on-going issues we all have with the regulator, whilst they're "on their back foot".

 

The GA community might also want to reaffirm a relationship with this Senator, regarding the Cessna SIDS issue too.

 

 

[Oscar]

Merv, I think that such a quick response indicates at least that the issue is very much 'on their radar' - at least they are opening emails (this was to O'Sullivan's Office Manager using her personal email sent to me in response to my 'standard' message through the Parliamentary 'contact' channel) and it was definitely not an automated response.

 

What we may manage to achieve in this specific matter is of course unknown - but quite possibly, we may as a group manage to find and convince a 'champion' with real political clout that Recreational and Sport aviation is something that deserves some protection from ill-considered and arbitrary action by CASA. OK, today's issue is Jabiru engines - but who of us knows what CASA might, if left entirely unquestioned, decide is a safety issue tomorrow and acts in a similar manner.

 

Look, I hesitate to write this, because almost any 'implied' criticism of any particular make/model of aircraft starts a fire-fight on here - but if CASA decides to use other criteria of 'safety problems' based on a dodgy examination of statistics, it can target other makes/models and apply 'restrictions' for 'safety reasons' almost arbitrarily. If they choose 'fatalities/manufacturer/number of aircraft/hours flown', then with the baseline as Jabiru (which is as much the 'gold standard' for reported performance as Rotax is for engines), it's going to be a massacre of aircraft on the RAA register. Australian-owned RAA aircraft manufacturers - other than a crippled Jabiru - will simply disappear.

 

Nobody with any sense of respect for the lives of fellow aviators - let alone the general public, though we have never impacted them - ought to have a problem with CASA / RAA acting to rectify a genuine, proven safety issue. I believe that you and I are in complete agreement that the quality of 'investigation' of incidents that may - or may not - represent genuine cases of 'safety issues', is wildly varied: we both know of fatal accidents that have completely inadequate investigation, yet the very detailed forensic and Coronial investigation of SOME incidents/accidents ( e.g. the evidence preparation of the engine failure details for the Coronial Inquiry into the Goulburn Sting accident) is excellent. Other fatals, deserving of decent investigation, lack more than the most cursory examination of serious contributory factors.

 

Merv, the whole 'Jabiru vs CASA' issue is more than just people aligning in one camp or the other: it goes to the heart of whether Recreational and Sport Aviation has a right to be taken seriously by CASA or is merely a rubber ball in CASA's sandpit to be kicked around when someone in CASA is having a career-advancement/threatening moment.

 

Recreational and Sport aviators are not just bogans who buy jet skis / trail bikes / mini-monster trucks so they can go out and blast noisy holes in other people's peaceful enjoyment of the environment. I believe that we - generally - are respectful members of our community.

 

Merv: you run a FTF. I will bet London to a Brick that you teach your students to:

 

Fly competently and safely;

 

Observe regulations; and

 

Respect the community over which they fly.

 

I believe that with those ethics pretty much the norm in Recreational and Sports aviation - we deserve better from CASA than arbitrary bureaucratic imposition based on half- ar$ed compilation of dubious evidence.

 

And that is what this fight is really about.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Naming those who started this is of little value now and is just another diversionary tactic that you employ so well and so often. Many of us who have a direct stake in this stoush have a very clear understanding of who started it and it's interesting that those who barked loudest before CASA stepped in (some would say stepped in it) have gone very quiet of late. Could it be that they have come to the realisation, much too late in their game, that although having let the genie out of the bottle, they no longer control it?Very few believe that CASA acted on their own motion. I know that many would like to blame a couple of people who moved out of RAA and into CASA. I, for one, don't think that those two gentlemen started this, I believe they simply ran with it when the baton was passed to them. However, their lack of diligence in disinterestedly assessing the information passed to them may cost them more than just their credibility within the aviation community as I expect CASA will need to find some scapegoats if they are to successfully untangle themselves from this.

As I believe what is correct, you are not to far off the money. You mentioned RAAus that is correct. The RAAus/CASA people their roll in this issue, they were told to take the baton because it was their job. One tried to run away from the baton knowing full well what was going to happen, but upstairs had clout. As I see it, the vindictive people are with in RAAus they could have stopped it but they kept on pestering.

Now. What a mess to clean up..

 

There is a CASA safety thing in Townsville next week something may happen.

 

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Today I got a nice email from Samantha Muller, she is O'Sullivans chief of staff. She said that there had been quite a few emails like mine and that "we will certainly be continuing the discussions with all parties" and that another scheduled briefing was going to take place with CASA in about 2 weeks.

 

I would like to know that O'Sullivan is briefed on some of the things we have discussed here without sending him too much information or, heaven forbid, any misinformation that will damage his credibility.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Good point Bruce

 

 

[Ron5335]

While we are all getting a bit optimistic about things.

 

Feb 9th was certainly not a good day for CASA.

 

 

Seems CASA is the only organisation worldwide doing or requiring SIDS, on the downside was the Senators accepting that all

 

Cessna's are "Gone"

 

 

[gandalph]

I'm certainly NOT trying to employ a diversionary tactic, I'm trying to help you; it wasn't individuals, barking or otherwise; no scapegoats needed.

So are you implying that the CASA intervention was initiated not by individuals but by one (or more) organisations? That would suggest only 3 possible initiators: RAA; CASA; ATSB.

If I've got the sequence roughly correct CASA asked/required/directed RAA to provide details of engine related incidents involving Jabiru powered aircraft and gave the association an impossibly short time to respond - hence the "Every Incident" spreadsheet. That would suggest that the RAA was not the instigator.

 

CASA also sought information from the ATSB. We're not sure where in the timeline that occurred but as CASA makes reference in one document relevant to the FOI request to "seeking information from ATSB" (not a direct quote but a paraphrase) but CASA is being coy about the specifics of that request. So we could assume with some degree of confidence that the ATSB was not the initiator.

 

That leaves CASA as the initiator, but it's unlikely that they would have acted on their own motion unless there had been a serious incident that was of a high enough profile to spur CASA into action. There is no such incident listed on the spreadsheet. There was no Pel-Air equivalent recorded. They had to have been prompted to act by , if not an organisation, then by somebody or several somebodies.

 

That suggests to me, and to others I have discussed this with, that CASA was lobbied to act by individuals for reasons best known to them and their associates. There is no argument from me that CASA should act when provided with credible information that an aircraft type or class, engine or operator is unsafe and poses an unacceptable risk to the community. My argument has always been that the information provided by whoever was not given the careful and diligent scrutiny that must be expected and is required of a publicly funded Authority responsible for Civil Aviation Safety.

 

If you have information that supports a contrary view, then I am sure that many here would urge you to share it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So are you implying that the CASA intervention was initiated not by individuals but by one (or more) organisations? That would suggest only 3 possible initiators: RAA; CASA; ATSB.If I've got the sequence roughly correct CASA asked/required/directed RAA to provide details of engine related incidents involving Jabiru powered aircraft and gave the association an impossibly short time to respond - hence the "Every Incident" spreadsheet. That would suggest that the RAA was not the instigator.

 

CASA also sought information from the ATSB. We're not sure where in the timeline that occurred but as CASA makes reference in one document relevant to the FOI request to "seeking information from ATSB" (not a direct quote but a paraphrase) but CASA is being coy about the specifics of that request. So we could assume with some degree of confidence that the ATSB was not the initiator.

 

That leaves CASA as the initiator, but it's unlikely that they would have acted on their own motion unless there had been a serious incident that was of a high enough profile to spur CASA into action. There is no such incident listed on the spreadsheet. There was no Pel-Air equivalent recorded. They had to have been prompted to act by , if not an organisation, then by somebody or several somebodies.

 

That suggests to me, and to others I have discussed this with, that CASA was lobbied to act by individuals for reasons best known to them and their associates. There is no argument from me that CASA should act when provided with credible information that an aircraft type or class, engine or operator is unsafe and poses an unacceptable risk to the community. My argument has always been that the information provided by whoever was not given the careful and diligent scrutiny that must be expected and is required of a publicly funded Authority responsible for Civil Aviation Safety.

 

If you have information that supports a contrary view, then I am sure that many here would urge you to share it.

It's good that you brought this train of thought out, because, on the evidence I have from three different sources it is an incorrect conclusion, so you might want to start talking direct to CASA.

I would expect the broad details to come out over the next few weeks anyway,as CASA responds to the Senators, but as I mentioned #495 the situation is now uncontrolled and could explode anywhere.

 

 

[gandalph]

It's good that you brought this train of thought out, because, on the evidence I have from three different sources it is an incorrect conclusion, so you might want to start talking direct to CASA.I would expect the broad details to come out over the next few weeks anyway,as CASA responds to the Senators, but as I mentioned #495 the situation is now uncontrolled and could explode anywhere.

Well that's a disappointing response Turbs. If you have useful credible information why not share it?

 

I agree that we should not pin all our hopes on Senator O'Sullivan fixing everything for us, he is after all, a politician and while our agenda and needs/wants might align in part with his agenda, it would be foolhardy of us to believe that his goals and ours are identical. But I see no harm in fully briefing him on our side of the argument.

 

I would be much more comfortable if his forthcoming meeting with Messrs Skidmore and Aleck was conducted other than behind closed doors.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Some careful thought needs to be had before stiring up CASA, I'm not saying don't do it but make sure RAAus has its house in order first. There's a matter of a very out-dated technical manual and lack of any formal maintainer training or assessment path to be considered. The tech manual, a legal document empowered under CAO 95.55 (for Jabiru type aircraft) says if you hold an RPC you are automatically blessed as an L1. I'd suggest this clause was written when the owner was the designer/builder/maintainer of the aircraft (95.10 style) and was appropriate for that situation. Building an airframe, then fitting a factory built engine doesn't mean you have the required skills to maintain the engine. You might be the best person to maintain the airframe, but maintenance of an engine requires a different set of skills. At present there is no way of determining whether anyone has that skill set or knowledge. CASA are already concerned about this situation, it's been an ongoing issue for many years. CASA could easily use data to relate Jabiru engine issues to untrained/assessed persons performing maintenance and subject RAAus to more grief. I'm pretty sure the engine manufacturer has been pushing this line for a while, it would be a very easy argument to build.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well that's a disappointing response Turbs. If you have useful credible information why not share it?

For the same reason as Facthunter, the sources and content are confidential.

What is disappointing is that I've suggested to you that you contact CASA, and find out for yourself, yet you still want to just sit back. Call Lee Ungermann.

 

I agree that we should not pin all our hopes on Senator O'Sullivan fixing everything for us, he is after all, a politician and while our agenda and needs/wants might align in part with his agenda, it would be foolhardy of us to believe that his goals and ours are identical. But I see no harm in fully briefing him on our side of the argument.I would be much more comfortable if his forthcoming meeting with Messrs Skidmore and Aleck was conducted other than behind closed doors.

I don't have any concerns about the two Senators; Senator O'Sullivan's police background is likely to see him looking for evidence rather than rhetoric.

I don't think the doors are going to be closed for very long; many people have made accusations against CASA, and we should expect that CASA will produce quite a number of documents.

 

 

[kasper]

Some careful thought needs to be had before stiring up CASA, I'm not saying don't do it but make sure RAAus has its house in order first. There's a matter of a very out-dated technical manual and lack of any formal maintainer training or assessment path to be considered. The tech manual, a legal document empowered under CAO 95.55 (for Jabiru type aircraft) says if you hold an RPC you are automatically blessed as an L1. I'd suggest this clause was written when the owner was the designer/builder/maintainer of the aircraft (95.10 style) and was appropriate for that situation. Building an airframe, then fitting a factory built engine doesn't mean you have the required skills to maintain the engine. You might be the best person to maintain the airframe, but maintenance of an engine requires a different set of skills. At present there is no way of determining whether anyone has that skill set or knowledge. CASA are already concerned about this situation, it's been an ongoing issue for many years. CASA could easily use data to relate Jabiru engine issues to untrained/assessed persons performing maintenance and subject RAAus to more grief. I'm pretty sure the engine manufacturer has been pushing this line for a while, it would be a very easy argument to build.

But even your analysis of the history is flawed - when it was 95.10 delf design/build or even the first generation of 95.25 aicraft the engines were not homebuilt - they were purchased off the shelf ... you might have built or bolted on a belt redrive but the engine itself was a purchased unit. Not a jot different from today when the engine comes from Mr Rotax/Jabiru/Hirth/Sonex etc. The 'concerns' of CASA as you note are in my opinion reflective of the alignment of expectations from within CASA of operating control and maintenance control from GA being expected to be applied in RAA aircraft ... this is fundamentally different from the fundamental precept of what was termed ultralights where the engine was expected to be at risk of failure, you have mandated warnings on the airframes and you restricted the operating environment to reduce the risk to people not directly involved in the fliying ie it explicitly was written around the particpants voluntarily accepting risk to themselves.

What I am hearing a LOT is that because over the years the CAOs have expanded the operating space of some RAA aircraft to allow enhanced airspace access CASA and some within the RAA membership are accepting that ALL RAA aircraft NEED to be maintained at GA or GA equivalent levels.

 

I fundamentally disagree with that. I fully accept that there is graduation within the CAOs that govern RAA registered aircraft that allows that enhanced access ... certified engines, extra training, maintenance by L2 etc and whilst that is brilliant (and reflects CASA accepting that the risk to people/persons is reduced) I do strongly object to calls to remove the L1 to all pilots ... equally I fail to see the actual practical oily hands on benefit to applied knowledge that the L1 course offers - its a documentation exercise that in my mind is akin to window dressing.

 

And for the complete whinge I am fed up with people saying 'if we don't do what CASA want then they can just shut us down' RAA when it was AUF up to an including the introduction of the experimental category was TRULY a politically active representative body of the membership. Since then I have watched as in my opinion we have become an increasingly reactionary to CASA administrative outsourced subservient mini-CASA that in seeking extension or expansion has simply bent over backwards to what CASA want without holding fast to the original concept of flying for fun with voluntary assumption of risk and have become low end GA.

 

rant/whinge over. Off for a coffee, might be more polite after that

 

 

[Roundsounds]

. this is fundamentally different from the fundamental precept of what was termed ultralights where the engine was expected to be at risk of failure, you have mandated warnings on the airframes and you restricted the operating environment to reduce the risk to people not directly involved in the fliying ie it explicitly was written around the particpants voluntarily accepting risk to themselves.

Just like CASA has imposed on Jabiru powered aircraft?

The online portion of the L1 course was simply the first component, it was intended a hands on component was to follow starting April '15 which obviously did not eventuate.

 

The process was to be:

 

- establish the knowledge of basic maintenance practices / responsibilities, then

 

- hands on (assisted annual inspections / workshops)

 

- assess the areas needing improvement then

 

- produce courses focusing on those areas.

 

 

[kasper]

Just like CASA has imposed on Jabiru powered aircraft?The online portion of the L1 course was simply the first component, it was intended a hands on component was to follow starting April '15 which obviously did not eventuate.

 

The process was to be:

 

- establish the knowledge of basic maintenance practices / responsibilities, then

 

- hands on (assisted annual inspections / workshops)

 

- assess the areas needing improvement then

 

- produce courses focusing on those areas.

1. CASA in my opinion completely overreacted on Jabiru and even operated illogically and in conflict to how they treat other engine manufacturers ... why for example would a 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engine from 1 manufactuer be grouped for analysis and subject to the same restrictions? equally why are certified 2200 and ATSM 2200 and uncertified 2200 all grouped together? Can you imagine the 'fun' from the GA end of town that wwould ensue if CASA did the equivalent ans said ALL Lycomings have to restricted because there is a trend in failures across all engines from Mssr Lycoming ... oh and we can't tell you how we determined the trend, the data is not available (really?, how did you reach your determination then?) and we are not required to say WHAT is wrong or needs fixing?

2. the four dot points absolutely accept as being standard educational model - establish existing level (first two dots) identify required improvement and then address through training the identified weakness ... my point is that the training to pilot certificate level should cover (and used to cover) basic engine operations and daily tasks eg mixing fuels for two strokes, checking oils and radiators for others and the fact that teh engien manufacturer has a schedule of maintenance that should be followed. The past behaviour 9and I still see it) is that people self assess that they can do the daily line maintenance BUT are often uncomfy with scheduled maintenance ... and hence the L2s and others in 'clubs' what can do this and are prepared to do it.

 

What I dislike is that drift towards saying that RAA pilots should not be allowed to do the scheduled maintenance ... this is drift to GA ... and YES I understand that many people who have come DOWN from GA are appalled at the concept of taking responsibility for their own aircraft ... but that is the fundamental basis of RAA aircraft ... of ultralight aircraft ... and if you do not like that why are you here?

 

 

[gandalph]

For the same reason as Facthunter, the sources and content are confidential.

Fair enough. But if they are confidential why do you keep dropping hints about them? Turbs, It smacks of a primary school age boy shouting "I've got a secret but I'm not going to tell you what it is" with a strong " Nya Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah!, with tongue poked out" component. It doesn't further the discussion.

 

....I've suggested to you that you contact CASA, and find out for yourself, yet you still want to just sit back. Call Lee Ungermann.

Turbs, let me assure you that I am not sitting back and waiting. Your sources have mislead you.

As for ringing Lee at CASA. Thank you for that advice but, sadly, I don't have any confidence that he would give me other than the company line if I contacted him at his desk and I wouldn't want to put him in a compromising position by contacting him privately.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Up to you Gandalph, but this needs to be sorted out by RAA people.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Maybe during the re-write of the tech manual create two groups of maintenance practices?

 

1/ Want to do all of your own stuff without being trained or assessed- go for it but don't fly over innocent 3rd parties. Like the roots of AUF.

 

2/ Want to fly over 3rd parties / mix with commercial aircraft - maintain the aircraft in accordance with approved methods by suitably qualified people, as determined by RAAus.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The following link, while not referring to aircraft, has some very close parallels which will help people to understand the way governments are handling safety these days, and in particular:

 

Para 8

 

Cost is not a reasonable excuse

 

Paras 11,12

 

Worksafe Victoria will not prescribe compulsory roll over protection, or give a specification (on both counts that would open them up to claims), but declares the whole system an appropriate means of reducing risk when used in workplaces (farms are workplaces).

 

So, like Australian Standards, government Bulletins etc., if you don't want to be successfully sued after an accident, you can't afford NOT to comply.

 

Para 13

 

If a rollover occurs, and employer could face prosecution for failure to reduce the risk to the operation.

 

[From the mid 1980's many people didn't comply with bulletins etc, arguing they were voluntary, and claiming they were careful, should be able to take their own risks, or couldn't give a stuff. In industries where fatalities were common this was soon taken care of by the lawsuits, but in most industries by 1999 governments around Australia introduced Safety Regulations which introduced penalties.]

 

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/shock-as-atv-roll-rule-hits/news-story/bab113e51fc0ee8f45b004d09c466ecf

 

Deaths last year were 15 out of 275,000 ATVs