JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[Geoff13]

I think you need to agree to disagree....its now getting ugly for spectators

That happened months ago.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Actually years ago.

 

This is a closed thread in Governing Bodies for forum members only.

 

 

[UltraFlash]

Wondering if you guys had considered if there was a known fault with the engines, which the RAA and CASA were aware of, and the manufacturer denies although it had been proven. One single thing which has been done wrong on the engines, and now the cost of the rectification and re-certification would put Jabiru out of business if they admitted to it.

 

Perhaps look to South Africa, they operate a lot of Jabiru's there and have nowhere near the failure rate. Do they make any modifications to the engines there?

 

Although I don't agree with turbs' sentiments regarding CASA's intentions, I do agree that there's a piece of the puzzle missing on here, which it seems CASA holds.

 

 

[jetjr]

If anyone knew what was wrong it would be public and fixed. There are several good engineers working on it and some believe they have solutions. these solutions can only be applied to experimental models and even then still have limitations.

 

Yes RSA modify engines, here many owners cannot due to LSA regs. They also mostly use 3300

 

CASA hold nothing, if they did and didnt release it would be extremely adverse to safty and surely legally damaging.

 

CASA have possibly fatally damaged the one group, owners and Jabiru themselves, able and interested to find and imlement fixes.

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA hold nothing, if they did and didnt release it would be extremely adverse to safty and surely legally damaging.

Why don't you actually do some research for yourself and find out how the safety system works. CASA have identified a forseeable risk of forced landings; that's what they have to act on.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they hold nothing on Ultraflash's "known fault"

 

If you want a parallel example, Victoria's V/Line trains have been shut down due to excessive wheel wear and boom gate faults. The trains have been replaced by 200 buses, which are costing $300,000 per day

 

There is now zero risk from a train catastrophe............................and NO ONE knows the cause of the wheel wear, which is being worked on BY THE OPERATORS and MANUFACTURERS, not some government boffins.

 

CASA have possibly fatally damaged the one group, owners and Jabiru themselves, able and interested to find and imlement fixes.

Really? CASA is a safety Authority obligated to manage risks if the industry participants don't. They were not CASA engines.

As far as damage is concerned, you could at least be honest and make it clear that after all your talk prior to the CASA instrument, according to a recent post you abandoned Jabiru and bought a CAMIT engine.

 

 

[jetjr]

Have done lots of research, I have a lot more invested in this than you Ill bet. Ive also read volumes of ridiculous comparisons to motorsport, fishing, old people homes, tainted lettuce and now railways.

 

Oh and the eternal truck standpoint, Id suggest you stick to them.

 

I dont think anyone has seen a link with what CASA has done, yet you trot them out. I really would like my wasted time refunded.

 

CASA ACTED ON FAULTY PRETENSE, ITS WRONG AND IMMORAL, DEGRADED SAFETY AND IS STILL COSTING MONEY. IF EXPANDED COULD END SMALL AVIATION.

 

THEY HAVEN'T MANAGED THE RISK OR EVEN QUANTIFIED IT.

 

You listening yet?

 

When was I not honest? Yes I bought a CAE engine and running beautifully thanks for asking, $20K spent partly due to this BS limitation. Im lucky I can do this many cannot either for regulatory or financial reasons.

 

Its in a Jabiru airframe so problems for them equals big issues for me. You ever met or spoken to Jabiru or CAE or RAA, or CASA for that matter?

 

Ive own other Jabiru engines too by the way but dont let this confuse your single track mind.

 

What skin do you have in this debate?

 

 

[facthunter]

One logical result for a manufacturer is to try and reduce the unknowns of individual servicing and installation and also the quality of the fuel used. All of that would be in the interests of safety for these engines, but would it be a good example of how the future will be for the movement we are part of, where we hope we as individuals can be involved with our planes?. Education and knowledge and choice. The risks haven't been properly analysed. On the basis of injuries it would fail to rate. The figures have been proven erroneous. There is no clear pathway to rectification. No specifics or sensible programme or industry standard, because it's impossible to do that and CASA must know it. Aviation is a lot more than it might appear. It's a "community" which is in an environment that is essentially and potentially risky. There's plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong, and it all needs careful analysis and consultation, not some increasingly detached Authority ready to impose a selective and impossible to deal with solution to an ill defined problem, that would appear to be more manifested in this country than all the others the engine operates in. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Why don't you actually do some research for yourself and find out how the safety system works.

According to most in the industry it doesn't work.

Is Australia's safety record any better than the UK, Canada, USA or NZ?

 

Why do we have the most adversarial authority in the Western World where weilding the big stick is King and encouragement and assistance is shunned?

 

When many in the industry suggested the CA system be modelled on the NZ system which in turn is modelled on the FAA system, they said "Can't be done, our legislation is different? How pathetic.

 

No, it has all been said before, it is about power and control, pure & simple. A massive cultural paradigm shift is required but with the level of bureaucracy that is ingrained at all levels in this country that is never going to happen.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What skin do you have in this debate?

$17,000.00 - not as much as many others I agree.

 

 

[turboplanner]

According to most in the industry it doesn't work.Is Australia's safety record any better than the UK, Canada, USA or NZ?

Why do we have the most adversarial authority in the Western World where weilding the big stick is King and encouragement and assistance is shunned?

 

When many in the industry suggested the CA system be modelled on the NZ system which in turn is modelled on the FAA system, they said "Can't be done, our legislation is different? How pathetic.

 

No, it has all been said before, it is about power and control, pure & simple. A massive cultural paradigm shift is required but with the level of bureaucracy that is ingrained at all levels in this country that is never going to happen.

Nothing wrong with putting up that argument where facts can be proved.

 

Personally, I'm not in favour of governments setting up arms length Bodies, particularly those which are given the power to make their own rules - such as CASA, Water Authorities, EPA etc. because what happens then is there's no requirement to debate the rules in Parliament where the public who want to have a say get more of a say than many people think - just look at the current nervousness about a GST increase.

 

I'm in favour of a Department of Aviation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

bet. Ive also read volumes of ridiculous comparisons to motorsport, fishing, old people homes, tainted lettuce and now railways.Oh and the eternal truck standpoint, Id suggest you stick to them.

I'm aware that some people are not getting the risk comparisons.

 

If a horse walks across a bridge and it creaks because it is becoming overloaded, and a cow walks over the bridge and it creaks because it is becoming overloaded, the common factor is the bridge.

 

Yet, people have been saying the equivalent of "Horses have got nothing to do with it", "you know nothing about cows", "you can't compare cows and horses" etc.

 

If you don't address that misunderstanding, you could find yourself in a situation where you had the Duty of Care and didn't realise it, or you could just have more and more pain from organizations practicing self administered risk management.

 

Insult me all you like, it's your protection I'm trying to achieve.

 

Trucks, Motorsport and Railways are all very relevant to out discussions because they are all part of DIRD, and where policies are developed for one section, and work, they are often applied to other sections.

 

For example, take Oscar's : "the (ex) CAR35 / Part 21M engineers"

 

In the automotive and transport industries a few years ago it looked as if low volume building was all over; a bit like the uncertainty being expressed here by some.

 

DIRD adopted a policy where governments selected suitably qualified engineers ("Signatory")and authorised them to Certify (where they carry liability for what they sign off vs certificate where what they sign off meets a prescribed specification).

 

Now you can economically build a Hot Rod from the ground up, or your own Ferrari variant if you wish, and you pay the "Signatory" to sign off on the design and construction.

 

I have no idea what DIRD has in mind for CASA or what CASA have in mind, but it would not surprise me in the least, given what happened to the CAR35 engineers (through no fault or implication of them) is not superseded by a system of signatories, which would allow a lot more freedom at a lot less cost with a lot less heartache. I have no idea if that is the game plan, but it has worked very well in the auto and transport industries.

 

 

[facthunter]

Who is silly enough to sign off on anything unless indemnified by their employer or the government?. A signature doesn't alter much. It only indicates who to sue first. We are losing skills and that means people who know what they are doing, not more beurocratic authority with people who don't know much about anything but authority and responsibility ducking. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

One logical result for a manufacturer is to try and reduce the unknowns of individual servicing and installation and also the quality of the fuel used. All of that would be in the interests of safety for these engines, but would it be a good example of how the future will be for the movement we are part of, where we hope we as individuals can be involved with our planes?. Education and knowledge and choice.

A lot of people during this debate have raised the issue of sub standard individual servicing; If incident reports are changed to a spreadsheet format, or otherwise changed to show mandatory fields, so that a forced landing report makes it very clear that the oil filter was blocked, nuts were not torqued correctly, and so on this would be pinned down to specifics, however the disadvantage is that this would probably have to be done at the owner's cost, and still begs the question, would this be an improvement over the car industry where the vast majority are self serviced, arguably by less mechanically minded people.

Installations - just do the same as motor racing and set up a structure of volunteer aircraft examiners.

 

Quality of fuel - very topical given the amount of ethanol shandy and aromatics - maybe a test after an engine stoppage, or random audit tests by aircraft examiners - there's a cost. There's also the option of doing a bulk deal with a fuel company(ies) for a standard optimum fuel specification Australia wide. One fuel company supplies 20 litre drums of Racing Fuel which is 95% Methanol/5% Acetone.

 

The risks haven't been properly analysed. On the basis of injuries it would fail to rate.

One risk linkage, in my opinion, is that forced landings have caused fatalities and injuries

 

The figures have been proven erroneous.

We know a spreadsheet which showed 46 "failures" in one year contains at least 32 cases which had nothing to do with an internal engine failure]

We don't know what CASA's formal decision was made on; it doesn't require any set numbers to trigger safety action.

 

There is no clear pathway to rectification. No specifics or sensible programme or industry standard, because it's impossible to do that and CASA must know it.

The Manufacturer is free to choose his own pathway to rectification. In industry standard, presumably set by government would be prescriptive, turning the liability flame back on them.

 

Aviation is a lot more than it might appear. It's a "community" which is in an environment that is essentially and potentially risky. There's plenty of opportunity for things to go wrong, and it all needs careful analysis and consultation

Yes, and whether that happened will probably be addressed down the track when people start deciding "who pays" - might take 5 - 7 years, but right now it's risk control time.

 

increasingly detached Authority ready to impose a selective and impossible to deal with solution to an ill defined problem, that would appear to be more manifested in this country than all the others the engine operates in.

Could be, but have you noticed that the FAA regulations, trumpeted on this site for years as a slice of heaven we should use, have changed also?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Who is silly enough to sign off on anything unless indemnified by their employer or the government?.

Me - so far around 18,000 times, maybe more.

 

A signature doesn't alter much. It only indicates who to sue first.

That's correct - it's a form of User Pays.

 

We are losing skills and that means people who know what they are doing, not more beurocratic authority with people who don't know much about anything but authority and responsibility ducking

As the changes move through, and many Companies have run "Coping with Change" courses, one set of skills (in government) is being replaced by another (in design/manufacturer/operations)

You don't seem to be saying much about where RAA, the Self Administering Body stands in all this. Surely CASA is simply a safety vale of last resort?

 

 

[jetjr]

I agree, they should sort out the reporting and investigation processes. Data is poor and inaccurate on any measure.

 

At this point not only it the data set being misused but the only information is from an owner who often just pranged and Id expect mostly concerned about an insurance claim.

 

The current setup allows altered story of events and largely evidence.

 

Solution is to involve investigators in each one. It could paint a very different picture (maybe not too) as to causes of failures. Other than this dont act on dodgy info or hearsay.

 

RAA dont have resources or money to provide this service. They administer not regulate recreational aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree, they should sort out the reporting and investigation processes. Data is poor and inaccurate on any measure.At this point not only it the data set being misused but the only information is from an owner who often just pranged and Id expect mostly concerned about an insurance claim.

The current setup allows altered story of events and largely evidence.

 

Solution is to involve investigators in each one. It could paint a very different picture (maybe not too) as to causes of failures. Other than this dont act on dodgy info or hearsay.

 

RAA dont have resources or money to provide this service. They administer not regulate recreational aircraft.

All good points, but nothing to stop RAA setting up a team of volunteer "Stewards" overseeing local operations who would conduct the initial on site interview, take photos, and get some evidence. That's been happening in other sports for years.

That's what administering is.

 

 

[johnm]

common ground and an agreement - good to see

 

investigation mechanism (voluntary), investigation, data, better reporting ................. could be a conclusion (or 1 of) ................ of this thread

 

 

[facthunter]

CASA should work WITH the RAAus. They seem to be more intent on having conflict with it and only one can win that fight. The CASA under the previous CEO were openly against even the idea of planes being homebuilt, despite the fact it is a world wide movement, and growing.

 

The RAAus position is a difficult one and I predicted problems on this forum years ago and was told more or less everything is OK. There are white papers etc. I'm being emotional or something. Well it's even worse than I expected.

 

RAAus has to be your policeman as well as you guardian angel that YOU have a say with how it happens.

 

RAAus has plenty of enemies, who are short sighted and not liking change who also guard their patch, who would be quite happy to see it go, because a lot are snobs who look down on this show.. IF we go, they won't be far behind, because the same attitude will trim their feathers also. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Has CASA paid the money they are supposed to for the work we do on their behalf? As we do more the amount should be more not disappear or have to be begged for. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA should work WITH the RAAus. They seem to be more intent on having conflict with it and only one can win that fight.

On the contrary, I think the government should be at arms length from sport and recreational and voluntary operations.

Nothing to stop that happening if a few people want to stand up and get going.

 

However, if you're responsible for self administering and you sit there and wait for something to happen, it often will, but it will be not what you want.

 

The CASA under the previous CEO were openly against even the idea of planes being homebuilt, despite the fact it is a world wide movement, and growing.

Gossip? How then are there rules for precisely that in Australia?

 

The RAAus position is a difficult one and I predicted problems on this forum years ago and was told more or less everything is OK. There are white papers etc. I'm being emotional or something. Well it's even worse than I expected.

Yes, ask someone who runs a big organisation and they'll tell you it's not easy

 

RAAus has to be your policeman as well as you guardian angel that YOU have a say with how it happens.

Correct, that is self administration - plus you pay for all that, not the taxpayer, and you or your insurance pays for all the damage you do.

 

RAAus has plenty of enemies, who are short sighted and not liking change who also guard their patch, who would be quite happy to see it go, because a lot are snobs who look down on this show.. IF we go, they won't be far behind, because the same attitude will trim their feathers also. Nev

I really haven't seen this from the people I mix with, which does surprise me because I do see Baron drivers biting the heads off those of us who are simply slower; most of the WW2 "you people have NO IDEA what real flying is" types have died, and up there in the stratosphere the sub RPT types are desperately struggling for survival trying to run charter operations for people who now communicate electronically.

However, so what if the enemies are there; there are regulations, there are processes when the regulations fail - just hasn't quite caught up with most industries yet.

 

 

[jetjr]

Was about to say that Nev - RAA has no money and nowhere else to get it other than members. CASA dont pay funds agreed to let alone extra. Dont know if this money has been paid now. was a while ago it came up.

 

RAA are heavily underfunded despite significant income being developed for CASA from RAA fleet.

 

See RAA 2015 report pages 26 and 27. (15 staff vs 871 staff for CASA)

 

Already RAA delivers more per $$ than CASA does and if they are required to provide these services should be getting larger share of CASA ($42 Mill) funding from taxpayer. PLUS the avgas levy still being paid.

 

RAA have around 25% of aircraft yet get around 2.5 % of the funds. CASA isnt just a regulator but administrator too and taxpayers foot the bill for large portion of their work.

 

There are already shortages of L2. Investigation might further curb self reporting too.

 

Cant fathom how you think a administrator/regulator should not work cooperatively with the industry it oversees????

 

 

[turboplanner]

Self Reporting MUST have exemption from prosecution for it to be effective.

 

 

[coljones]

Who is silly enough to sign off on anything unless indemnified by their employer or the government?. A signature doesn't alter much. It only indicates who to sue first. We are losing skills and that means people who know what they are doing, not more beurocratic authority with people who don't know much about anything but authority and responsibility ducking. Nev

If you are a professional you can get access to Professional Indemnity Schemes. You may need to belong to a professional body or scheme, be accredited and ascribe to a code of conduct and be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Such as RPEng (Q), CPEng etc.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Some good points on bad reporting to misdirect blame... I know of two incidents that persons involved story seemed to drastically alter...

 

 

[Ron5335]

And just to make it interesting.

 

Warren Truss (aka Young Mr Grace) has decided to leave politics at the next election.

 

Being the current head of Aviation matters in this Govt. He will have his feet up on the handlebars, with a Go away, stop bothering me attitude till then.

 

After the election, we will have to see who we get,. Then he/she will have to take a year or two to settle in before making any decisions.

 

as Malcolm Turnbull keeps telling us "It's an great an exiting time to be an Australian" and everything will be better if we just be innovative.