JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[Oscar]

That document gives a methodology to estimate the number of engine failure events from the number of fatal accidents. although I'm not convinced by it since the relative performance of the aircraft influences so heavily. I went back to the ATSB database and queried the last 10 years of engine failure related fatal accidents.The numbers:

 

Lycoming or Continental: 4

 

Rotax: 3

 

Jabiru: 1

 

VW: 1

 

Auto: 1

 

Gipsy: 1

 

Which using the methodology (multiply by 100 and divide by 10 years) gives estimated engine failure event rate of:

 

Lycoming/Continental 40 / year

 

Rotax: 30 / year

 

Jabiru/VW/Auto/Gypsy Major each 10 / year.

 

I would say these figures are rubbish due to the low number of data points. Also Lycoming/Continental figures are definitely influenced by the higher performance of the aircraft they are installed in - but this does reflect the real risk.

 

Rotax vs Jabiru is interesting although would be greatly influenced by 1 accident either way.

 

10 x the number of accidents might give better figures but I don't have the time at the moment.

Please forgive my accenting the cogent sentence!

 

And this is the nub of it all: the bloody statistics don't support the ridiculous haste to implement the Instrument - including denying the Jabiru team the opportunity to even meet to discuss. People were NOT dying - or being injured - whether in the aircraft or on the ground - in/as a result of Jabiru engine failures at a rate that in ANY way deserved the 'Indecent Haste' response.

 

Let's not muck about here: this Instrument was delivered as a result of the desire of the departing Acting DAS to cripple the incoming DAS. And Jonathan Aleck was complicit in delivering something as shonky as the Dreyfus conviction.

 

 

[aro]

It has to be per 1,000 hours or per 1,000 flight cycles or similar. Nev

That depends what you want to measure. If you want to know the risk of an aeroplane landing on someone, total events is the important number.

 

If you want to know where CASA should spend their time and money, events is also the important number (or maybe the number of fatalities). E.g. there is no point in spending time and money on Gipsy engines, even if they prove to be much less reliable per hour than Lycoming - because they don't do enough hours (relative to Lycoming) to be a problem worth looking into.

 

Although CASA sometimes seem to have a problem with this concept e.g. the AD recently issued against an aircraft last manufactured in 1929...

 

 

[turboplanner]

As we have said again and again we DO have the data they worked uponMaybe you dont but others do

Yes you have said it again and again, no you don't have the data, yes CASA has the data - everyone's free to keep churning out the rhetoric, but no conclusion is going to make sense until CASA release the final set of figures which produced the trigger.

 

 

[Oscar]

Yes you have said it again and again, no you don't have the data, yes CASA has the data - everyone's free to keep churning out the rhetoric, but no conclusion is going to make sense until CASA release the final set of figures which produced the trigger.

Which bloody part of 'we have the Spreadsheet' do you not understand? CASA commits a crime if it does NOT provide an accurate copy of its records in response to an FOI request, with redactions according to security/privacy/ Cabinet-in-Confidence / Commercial-in Confidence concerns.. It released the data under FOI last bloody August - just because it didn't happen to include you on that release list, doesn't mean others do NOT have an accurate copy.

 

You are simply not sufficiently important that CASA automatically includes you on their list. Deal with it.

 

 

[Oscar]

TAlthough CASA sometimes seem to have a problem with this concept e.g. the AD recently issued against an aircraft last manufactured in 1929...

Ah, the old 'Mills of God' problem..

 

 

[turboplanner]

Which bloody part of 'we have the Spreadsheet' do you not understand? CASA commits a crime if it does NOT provide an accurate copy of its records in response to an FOI request, with redactions according to security/privacy/ Cabinet-in-Confidence / Commercial-in Confidence concerns.. It released the data under FOI last bloody August - just because it didn't happen to include you on that release list, doesn't mean others do NOT have an accurate copy.You are simply not sufficiently important that CASA automatically includes you on their list. Deal with it.

If the spreadsheet you are huffing and puffing about is the one where I deducted 32 items, CASA supplied exactly what had been asked for, which they are entitled to do. They are not required to go on to explain whether that was the data which added up to the number required to meet their statement that the decision was made on the FAA criteria.

A genius like you may even be able to back calculate and get the magic number.

 

 

[Russ]

Which bloody part of 'we have the Spreadsheet' do you not understand? CASA commits a crime if it does NOT provide an accurate copy of its records in response to an FOI request, with redactions according to security/privacy/ Cabinet-in-Confidence / Commercial-in Confidence concerns.. It released the data under FOI last bloody August - just because it didn't happen to include you on that release list, doesn't mean others do NOT have an accurate copy.You are simply not sufficiently important that CASA automatically includes you on their list. Deal with it.

steady there pal......you'll pop a cork, and it ain't worth it. ( open a nice merlot, grab a good read )

 

 

[aro]

the decision was made on the FAA criteria

CASA seem to have done a poor job of quoting and perhaps understanding FAA criteria. For example the 1 in 10,000 hour engine failures is not a limit, it is the assumed rate of engine failures (in fact, greater than 1 in 10,000 hours).

 

 

[jetjr]

So TP you think they deducted the 32 you agreed needed to be removed and found a different 32 to add tht they felt wasnt requested as part of FOI?

 

You love a pointless debate

 

Have you wordrd anything to casa, raa, or the senators expressing your aupport or not of the data

 

 

[turboplanner]

CASA seem to have done a poor job of quoting and perhaps understanding FAA criteria. For example the 1 in 10,000 hour engine failures is not a limit, it is the assumed rate of engine failures (in fact, greater than 1 in 10,000 hours).

If it is the assumed rate of engine failures, the base line, the upper tolerance rate, then if you became aware of two to three times that, you would be obliged to act.

If we can get away from the emotion of CASA, I was one of the early ones who had to pluck benchmarks out of the air - not too high that I would put us out of business and not to low that I could be sued for failing to exercise duty of care. It is an extreme balancing act.

 

Wherever we could, we went for existing standards - the Australian Standards we'd ignored for decades became our salvation, industry best practice, maximum known safe limits etc.

 

So while I can understand your feelings, I can also understand how CASA would be conservative and settle on an existing US standard - stronger in Court.

 

 

[jetjr]

The FAA document pretty clearly indicates to identify engines or what segment of the fleet is likely to be effected and at worst issue AD.

 

For a major fault, even assuming numbers require action an AD on the faulty parts is justified or less

 

They dont even know whats going wrong and limited all aircraft with those engines, didnt even separate to size engine , construction model, registration or certification level. Plainly not following the guidelines.

 

 

[aro]

If it is ... the base line, the upper tolerance rate ... CASA would be conservative and settle on an existing US standard

It's none of those things - it is a number used to calculate the number of engine failures starting from the number of accidents or fatal accidents.

 

The FAA are saying in that document that data about engine failures is unreliable because many are not reported. So when they are required to assess risk they calculate a number of engine failures based on the number of accidents or fatal accidents.

 

Publicity about an engine's unreliability is likely to result in more reports. Since there is so much publicity about Jabiru, failures are far more likely to be reported - it is human nature. Look at the VW sudden deceleration problem - how many additional people reported problems once it hit the news?

 

I fly from an airfield with a busy Jabiru school. I have not heard of any Jabiru failures. I have heard talk of 2 Lycoming/Continental failures/power loss in flight, plus a newly installed Lycoming making metal that meant the engine had to be replaced. None of these appear in the ATSB list I extracted.

 

Many failures go unreported. Numbers are unreliable. The best numbers probably come from using the FAA methodology and using 10x the number of accidents. The number of fatal accidents is too low to be useful.

 

Actually I do recall one Jabiru failure. It failed after an oil line wasn't installed properly after maintenance. The Lycoming failure reminded me, it failed after a fuel line was not installed properly after maintenance. Were either reported? I don't know. There's another interesting number: 3 of 4 engine failures that I know of occurred after maintenance. The other was a brand new Cessna, according to the rumour.

 

All engines fail. You need a statistician to tell you whether one engine fails more than another and what the risk is. I strongly doubt that CASA have had any rigorous statistics done on these numbers.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The CASA methodology - the setting of a trigger point should certainly be open for discussion and improvement, just as laws are. It's a little more difficult with an arms length government body because they tend to be defensive and protective, but comments like yours should be raised with CASA.

 

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

 

The real question, which you DO have control on is what is the trigger point of Recreational Aviation Australia, the self administrator. That's where you can do something now.

 

 

[jetjr]

If they dont believe theres a problem based on their data, why should they act?

 

What do you suggest they do? What powers do you think they have?

 

Maybe a preemptive strike on their training aircraft fleet based upon dreamed up risk that one might land on an infants school

 

Maybe limit another 40% of the fleet (that would see nearly 70% limited) and then attack BRP as well demand product improvement to an unknown problem

 

RAA have assessed risk and either think there were other ways to manage it. I know they have improved reporting and data on incidents, maybe to make better decisions. Maybe to limit just aircraft affected or ones that can be fixed.

 

Perhaps they have been working to fix the problem for years. You have no idea whats going on behind the scenes..........just like you say for CASA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I know they have improved reporting and data on incidents, maybe to make better decisions.

Good point, what are the Pilot Notes reports in the magazine showing over the past twelve months? You would think there should be a noticeable reduction.

 

 

[Camel]

In latest Raa magazine a correction shown below as the red arrow with undo and below that the January magazine mistake. So the engine failure figure for all RAA is 1.98 per million flight hours.

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Which if true would require an immediate cancellation of the CASA instrument, and invitations to all those affected to submit out of pocket claims?

 

 

[Teckair]

Look at the VW sudden deceleration problem

Could you please explain what that is, I have not heard of it and I have owned 2 VW powered air craft and have no idea what you are talking about.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Well the simple fix for safety is for all of this is to have twin engine two seat LSA aircraft. That would be a hoot! Stick one on each wing. Love to watch the RAA instructors sweat and try to get THEIR twin endorsements, then teach on twins. Vmca training would be amusing with takeoff failures, see how many instructors would be left as they may get PTSD. Put Go Pros on the faces during training with new instructors and students that would be great on Utube.

 

Also Casa would have a new ball to chase and whinge about.

 

Of course costs would go up (a lot) but that's going on no matter what without real change of categories for different types of LSA with training standards, but we would have safe aircraft as we have a spare engine in case of one engine failure. No new students as it would be toooo expensive to gain a license.

 

All twin rated GA guys stop smiling - "this is a joke above", don't get serious. although I would like a twin LSA myself anyway AND also night VMC if I have three wishes.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Could you please explain what that is, I have not heard of it and I have owned 2 VW powered air craft and have no idea what you are talking about.

This has nothing to do with aircraft. It was a problem with a number of VW cars (Golf & Passat I think) that hesitated when endeavouring to accelerate away say from an intersection so they could possibly be hit by another vehicle by not being able to get out of the way.

 

 

[aro]

Could you please explain what that is, I have not heard of it and I have owned 2 VW powered air craft and have no idea what you are talking about.

It is/was an (alleged) problem with VW cars. A woman was killed when rear-ended by a truck on the freeway. The truck driver said that her car suddenly slowed down and he couldn't avoid it. Following the accident, many VW drivers came forward and said that they had also experienced their cars suddenly losing power and slowing dangerously in traffic.

 

VW issued a recall of automatic models, however the crash vehicle was a manual. VW claim the problem doesn't affect manuals, but many of the people claiming to have experienced the problem also had manuals.

 

It is only relevant because it is a very similar risk scenario - alleged engine faults that can/have result in death. Similar questions arise about manufacturer liability, whether authorities should force more action from the manufacturer, whether VWs do suffer this type of break down more often than other vehicles etc. or whether the publicity has prompted VW owners to come forward.

 

 

[rankamateur]

In latest Raa magazine a correction shown below as the red arrow with undo and below that the January magazine mistake. So the engine failure figure for all RAA is 1.98 per million flight hours.

Looks like our association shot us in the foot!

 

 

[Roscoe]

Everybody - and seriously - email O'Sullivan, congratulate hiom for opening this au to proper inspection. THIS IS IMPORTANT! - not just for Jabiru but to forestall CASA expanding this kind of BS throughout the Rec Av scenario.https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Contact_Senator_or_Member?MPID=247871

My message has been sent Oscar!

 

 

[coljones]

In latest Raa magazine a correction shown below as the red arrow with undo and below that the January magazine mistake. So the engine failure figure for all RAA is 1.98 per million flight hours.

 

[ATTACH=full]41421[/ATTACH] In [ATTACH=full]41422[/ATTACH]

I can't see a decimal point in the 198/10,000 stat. That would make it 19,800/1,000,000.

3 different figures 198/10,000 => 19,800/1,000,000

 

1.98/10,000 => 198/1,000,000

 

Or 1.98/1,000,000

 

Were the dodgy RAA calcs the basis of the CASA action?

 

 

[Camel]

I can't see a decimal point in the 198/10,000 stat. That would make it 19,800/1,000,000.3 different figures 198/10,000 => 19,800/1,000,000

 

1.98/10,000 => 198/1,000,000

 

Or 1.98/1,000,000

 

Were the dodgy RAA calcs the basis of the CASA action?

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.