JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[Roundsounds]

Oscar, the organisation has employed a dedicated and very capable Safety Manager for at least 2 years. Aside from "Clear Prop" I have not seen any safety related educational programs come out of RAAus. The most effective way to improve the organisations safety record is by education, not legislation.

 

RAAus might not have any legal powers to correct technical issues, but they certainly have a responsibility to be proactive and to work with the manufacturers and regulators to address identified issues. The crux of problem being the incident recording system doesn't allow reporting to identify these issues.

 

 

[jetjr]

Doesnt the new system allow interrogation?

 

Id be very surprised

 

 

[Oscar]

It may well do - but the older information has been digitised but NOT databased. That means that a Google serach on specific search terms is the only possible interrogation, and since there was no controlled vocabulary, it's hit and miss as to the accuracy of any specific search by terms.

 

 

[Camel]

Oscar, the organisation has employed a dedicated and very capable Safety Manager for at least 2 years. Aside from "Clear Prop" I have not seen any safety related educational programs come out of RAAus. The most effective way to improve the organisations safety record is by education, not legislation.RAAus might not have any legal powers to correct technical issues, but they certainly have a responsibility to be proactive and to work with the manufacturers and regulators to address identified issues. The crux of problem being the incident recording system doesn't allow reporting to identify these issues.

Recently RAA did a safety promotion and sent out literature and training programs to CFIs and promoted it to RAA members, also incident reporting has been updated so when you report to RAA it is automatically shared with ATSB, so once again you need to know the facts , are you a member of RAA ?

 

 

[Keith Page]

Turbs, I have to disagreeIn the Senate Interview, there was No.1 and his wing man was a Legal Specialist, rather than a Tech Specialist,

 

defending their action/inactions, not a hint of "I better look into this".

 

Same Old

What you are saying Ron5335.. :- "Please adjourn this session and I will get this required information clear in my mind and get back to you" or a statement to that effect.

Is that you are saying?

 

Regards

 

KP

 

 

[jetjr]

If they dont know or dont want to answer they "take question on notice"........ Get back to them later with info or fix the issue in the mean time

 

Plenty of on notice questions are never answered it might seem

 

 

[Ron5335]

Keith.

 

What I am saying is...... The head of the Organisation was called to answer for the actions of his Organisation.

 

Firstly, it had to be established whether or not he is aware of the subject matter.

 

As jetjr stated, the big out is to take the question on notice, and if you look at the interview Senator O"Sullivan gave him the opportunity

 

early on but he waived the "Out" that was offered to him.

 

If the question was "Taken on notice" this would have given him the opportunity, to personally investigate the matter and analyse the data, the staff input, their recommendations, and subsequent actions.

 

Then, if he finds something "Fishy" he then fixes it, & reports back to the Senator in words echoed by Christopher Pine "I'm a Fixa" and in so doing, he dodges the bullet and the employee or employees get it, depending on who did what.

 

Instead, he (Skidmore) said he was aware of the issue. Therefore it can be assumed that he has already done the above.

 

(As I see it), By being aware of the matter, then defending the actions/inactions of the issue, the head of the Organisation is

 

taking the full responsibility for the issue, and is supporting all of the the staff and their findings and actions.

 

And that makes me believe, he is responsible person to suffer the consequences of any rulings or findings that may eventuate from it.

 

After writing this, I think I know why he took a Legal Specialist in with him rather than a Techie.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Recently RAA did a safety promotion and sent out literature and training programs to CFIs and promoted it to RAA members, also incident reporting has been updated so when you report to RAA it is automatically shared with ATSB, so once again you need to know the facts , are you a member of RAA ?

Thank you Camel, yes I am an active pilot member and have recruited 3 new members this year with another 4 who will join once they have purchased their syndicate aircraft. Maybe you could identify the titles of the programs sent out to CFIs over the past 12 months and how they related to findings from analysis of safety data?

 

I cannot see how automatically sharing incident data with ATSB helps improve the RAAus accident record?

 

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of collecting and analysing incident data? It's primary purpose should be to identify safety trends, good or bad and use the findings to develop training packages to address the identified issues.

 

If you read HF material distributed to members, you will see it cites many HF related hazards, but does not tell you how to mitigate them. Telling pilots and maintainers about potential pitfalls without methods of avoiding them cannot be described as education.

 

I work for a company with a mature and highly effective SMS and can tell you the RAAus system is reactive, rather than proactive. These are the facts.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Thank you for your answer, I can remember the offer of an out. I liked that section acknowledging the engine is the problem,data told them such. The questioning line switched and then data could not tell what is wrong with the engine. There is a stage where one has accept a case of futility and one can only protect for a certain amount of time. If my memory serves me correctly that particular Legal Speciaist wrote the instrument which is causing all the grief.

 

Regards,

 

KP

 

 

[Oscar]

Jonathan Aleck certainly signed it into force. Whether he actually wrote it, is less certain; it would be slightly surprising if someone of his expertise would thinkingly paint CASA into a corner from which it is, at the very least, going to have the devil of a time escaping without scorched hide.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Unfortunately he is part of the problem, he had a chance and did not respond or get involved. He is now the problem too. He needs to be punished as well for failing to act !

 

Jonathan Aleck certainly signed it into force. Whether he actually wrote it, is less certain; it would be slightly surprising if someone of his expertise would thinkingly paint CASA into a corner from which it is, at the very least, going to have the devil of a time escaping without scorched hide.

Maybe he was fully focused on how to derail the 37 recommendations that are yet to be implemented from the Forsyth Report, and this one slipped through to the keeper.

 

 

[turboplanner]

After writing this, I think I know why he took a Legal Specialist in with him rather than a Techie.

Doctor Jonathan Aleck is Associate Director Air Safety

 

His functions are shown on this link: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/associate-director-aviation-safety

 

It's probable that he and the Director were at the Senate Estimates Committee Meeting that day on other matters; you'll notice from the video that the Chairman had given them a short time to ask the questions.

 

The questions were asked during a Senate Estimates Committee Meeting; the video was not from an Inquiry

 

This link will explain what a Senate Estimates Committee does: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/senate_estimates

 

 

[Ron5335]

All the more reason to take the question on notice.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe he was fully focused on how to derail the 37 recommendations that are yet to be implemented from the Forsyth Report, and this one slipped through to the keeper.

The attached link covers the Executive Summary and List of Recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which you are calling the "Forsyth Report"

 

You'll notice that not all were aimed at CASA.

 

If you're interested there was quite a long discussion on this with a lot of intelligent input, over on prune, and they concluded the recommendations were so broad and lacking in detail that there was no way of CASA or anyone else implementing them, and the reasons were spelled out.

 

 

[turboplanner]

All the more reason to take the question on notice.

It was not an Inquiry; there was an arrangement made to discuss the questions raised at a later meeting, which according to rumour/leaks has just taken place.

There are two aspects to this matter:

 

1. Was the decision to issue the instrument made on unfounded grounds, as Jabiru and some owners and operators are claiming?

 

What were the full details of the benchmark?

 

What engine failure data, obtained prior to the Instrument being announced on December 22, 2014, was used.

 

2. What will be the criteria required to cancel the instrument?

 

This will include data since the Instrument was announced.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Turbs,

 

True !! but in the "Arrangement to discuss things" it uncovered a fact that even though a modified test engine had

 

accumulated 900hrs without fault (And by Casa's admission) the industry standard is 200hrs, they did not offer

 

any indication that there was to be a relaxation or withdrawal of the document pending, or indeed any indication on what they intended to do with this fact.

 

Even for a bean counter, bureaucrat or public servant that's hard to comprehend that something needed to be done, so like you have stated in your earlier posts, once sorted, this fall out could spray far and wide by either casa standing it's ground and bring more engines into the fold, or cut their losses and send RAA on it's way, and save face later down the track with an "I told you so". But we are here if required to bring them back into line.

 

That would put a distance from CASA to the document, and any matters arising from it.

 

 

[facthunter]

The engine testing regime is interesting. I can't fathom the logic of some of it. Most certified engines have overspeed consequences and there are several stipulated limits which involve time and RPM sustained. At the top limit with some the engine has to be junked. No rebuild allowed.

 

My point is what sort of test programme would do the job? The current one is very expensive, because it involves many hours. If you only do this to ONE engine It doesn't prove much

 

Once a motor has run flat out for a time it will reach an equilibrium temperature and this won't alter unless something changes. Probably 2 hours would be sufficient to reach such a temperature.

 

Valves in poppet valve engines have always had a problem lasting as long as the rest of the engine does. It is "normal" to do top engine overhauls in aero engines, especially aircooled ones. Also if an engine is over temped regardless of whether it still runs it should be considered unserviceable.

 

Racing improves the breed used to be the oft stated call and it will sort out "weaknesses" in a design, but few if any race type engines have ever been used successfully in aircraft, and in a RACE plane the engine will not be built for long life or it will be unnecessarily heavy. Power may be increased at one end but weight may well be removed at the other if possible. It's the way most aero engines evolve. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs,True !! but in the "Arrangement to discuss things" it uncovered a fact that even though a modified test engine had

 

accumulated 900hrs without fault (And by Casa's admission) the industry standard is 200hrs, they did not offer

 

any indication that there was to be a relaxation or withdrawal of the document pending, or indeed any indication on what they intended to do with this fact.

 

Even for a bean counter, bureaucrat or public servant that's hard to comprehend that something needed to be done, so like you have stated in your earlier posts, once sorted, this fall out could spray far and wide by either casa standing it's ground and bring more engines into the fold, or cut their losses and send RAA on it's way, and save face later down the track with an "I told you so". But we are here if required to bring them back into line.

 

That would put a distance from CASA to the document, and any matters arising from it.

If this weeks rumour is correct, the arranged meeting took place a couple of days ago, and unless someone leaks something (which could lead to real problems for the leaker), we're not going to know what was discussed unless it's formally released.

 

I believe the 900 hours without fault was brought up in the Estimates Committee discussion.

 

I'd be surprised if there is an Industry standard of 200 hours without fault, is there a link you can post?

 

What Jabiru have said, at the top of this thread in relation to the new roller cam engines is:

 

The new engines have achieved 30,000 total hours.

 

Several engines have come back for top end overhaul at 1,000 hours in good condition and have been returned to service.

 

100 people have been trained through their Engine Maintenance Workshop.

 

I've drawn people's attention back to that bulletin five or six times during the thread because that really is good news and gives light at the end of the tunnel.

 

 

[jetjr]

There is a set protocol for ASTM engines - Oscar and Daffyd know the details but its a very expensive process and only one place to do it.

 

It could be a 200 hr accellerated test, cycles and high rpm, Thats a lot of time in test bay.

 

Id guess maybe Jabirus tests may have been done in their own facilities, perhaps even in airframe. It would have needed to be done in short time and money. Doesnt devalue the result. 900hrs is a good result.

 

Remember they already did it all once already with CASA overseeing it to get 2200 certificated.

 

CASA are kind of admitting the test protocols for certificated engines isnt much good either and they can limit them at will.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The engine testing regime is interesting. I can't fathom the logic of some of it. Most certified engines have overspeed consequences and there are several stipulated limits which involve time and RPM sustained. At the top limit with some the engine has to be junked. No rebuild allowed.My point is what sort of test programme would do the job? The current one is very expensive, because it involves many hours. If you only do this to ONE engine It doesn't prove much

Once a motor has run flat out for a time it will reach an equilibrium temperature and this won't alter unless something changes. Probably 2 hours would be sufficient to reach such a temperature.

 

Valves in poppet valve engines have always had a problem lasting as long as the rest of the engine does. It is "normal" to do top engine overhauls in aero engines, especially aircooled ones. Also if an engine is over temped regardless of whether it still runs it should be considered unserviceable.

 

Racing improves the breed used to be the oft stated call and it will sort out "weaknesses" in a design, but few if any race type engines have ever been used successfully in aircraft, and in a RACE plane the engine will not be built for long life or it will be unnecessarily heavy. Power may be increased at one end but weight may well be removed at the other if possible. It's the way most aero engines evolve. Nev

If Jabiru are getting the results they outlined in their bulletin which started this thread, and those results now spread consistently across the new roller cam engine production, that would mean they have identified the problems, and corrected them, so there's no need for us to speculate whether the issues were overheating, material, design, or anything else and of course they are entitled to keep their work classified.

 

The difficulty for CASA is to decide what will justify an end to the Instrument, in a couple of areas, one being what happens with the certificated engines, and the other being the issues were intermittent.

 

You would know FH that an engine issue where a component may be a little under-designed, and consistently fails at say, 450 hours against a life cycle target of 1,000 hours can be easily addressed by scheduling the engine in for component replacement at say 400 hours.

 

In that situation there is a safe operation period out to 400 hours, and with the component replaced, another safe operation, so if an Instrument became necessary, I would argue that it simply specify a part replacement every 400 hours, without any placarding etc. because there's no increase in risk if that's done.

 

On the other hand, in all the figures I saw the issues were random, with some problems occurring on the way home from the factory, others occurring well after 1,000 hours and other aircraft not having any issues at all. That's a nightmare for a manufacturer to deal with as I've mentioned before.

 

It's an equal nightmare for a Regulator to address when deciding whether to end the Instrument, other than simply keeping a watch on reliability statistics for a time long enough to show that these intermittent issues were no longer occurring.

 

I agree with your comments on race engines; the ideal life cycle is that they fail as the car crosses the line on the last race of the day. Someone might like to correct me, but I think the scheduled life of a drag racing engine is fifteen minutes.

 

However the lessons they do give us are valuable in terms of techniques and equipment to make an engine operate more reliably.

 

 

[facthunter]

Over revving and overtemping deliberately in a test regime, to a % or fixed amount may give a "buffer". Life is definitely related to power demanded.

 

General comment... The same engine running to military limit figures may do 400 hours and the Commercial rated (derated) engine 2,000 or more..

 

There are lots of variables in maintenence and installation of Jabiru engines. Originally it was designed for Avgas. I wonder how using mogas affected the reliability?. The lean mixture experiment seemed to herald a spate of failures. Nev

 

 

[gandalph]

in the "Arrangement to discuss things" it uncovered a fact that even though a modified test engine hadaccumulated 900hrs without fault (And by Casa's admission) the industry standard is 200hrs, they did not offer

any indication that there was to be a relaxation or withdrawal of the document pending, or indeed any indication on what they intended to do with this fact.

Ron, I think it would be wildly optimistic to think that the DAS would disclose, in an open Senate estimates committee hearing, CASA's intentions in relation to the instrument. That would be shooting from the hip and would be more the old CASA style that the new under Mr Skidmore. I think there will be quite a bit of negotiating done before we get to having the instrument withdrawn (or as is more likely, eased).

 

On another but related matter, I see that the ATSB 10 year snapshot has been released. I expect there will be be some interesting reading there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Some food for thought there old chap.

 

 

[Nobody]

Here is and extract from ASTM F23389-06 outlining the durability testing requirements. In a 2000 hour overhaul time you need to do 166 hours at full power (5 minutes in every hour plus 183 hours at cruise power. so a total test is at least 349 hours. Not sure where the 200 hour comes from.

 

6.3.1 Accelerated Overhaul Test—This test simulates an engine overhaul interval. A protocol for this test shall

incorporate, as a minimum, the following elements:

 

6.3.1.1 At least 100 % of the time at maximum power that would occur over the overhaul interval.

 

NOTE 1—For calculation, each hour of normal flight would have 5 min of full power.

 

6.3.1.2 At least 10 % of the time at cruise power that would occur over the overhaul interval.

 

6.3.1.3 At least one cycle per hour of test from maximum power to cruise power and back.

 

6.3.1.4 At least one engine start for each 5 h of testing.

 

6.3.1.5 During operation at maximum power, one cylinder

 

must be maintained within 10°F of the limiting cylinder head temperature; the other cylinders must be operated at a temperature not lower than 50°F below the limiting temperature, and the oil inlet temperature must be maintained within 10°F of the limiting temperature.

 

6.3.1.6 The engine must be fitted with a propeller that thrust-loads the engine to the maximum thrust that the engine is designed to resist at each applicable operating condition specified in this section.

 

6.3.1.7 Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded. During operation at maximum power, the load

 

imposed by each accessory used only for an aircraft service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the engine drive or attachment point.

 

6.3.1.8 After completing the accelerated overhaul test, each engine must be completely disassembled and each component must conform to the new or overhaul limits established by the designer/manufacturer.

[Oscar]

On another but related matter, I see that the ATSB 10 year snapshot has been released. I expect there will be be some interesting reading there.

Link to the document?