JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[turboplanner]

My experience is that the higher the Court the sillier the rulings.

But then you would say that.

 

 

[facthunter]

"Grounding the Fleet" would have been the furthest thing from my mind. It's an extreme act for an extreme situation. The Tiger matter was quite contentious I recall . I wouldn't use those things as a good example. It shows they have the power to do it. Often not much else. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

In looking at the supposed 46 failures and who reported them, these are interesting;

 

Spark plugs, reported by RAAus

 

Avgas, reported by RAAus

 

Temperatures, reported by RAAus

 

Alternator wiring, reported by RAAus

 

Nose Wheel, reported by RAAus

 

Tyre deflated, reported by RAAus

 

Caliper part, reported by RAAus

 

Proximity Issue, reported by RAAus

 

Brake calipers, reported by RAAus

 

Nosewheel collapse, reported by RAAus

 

Maintenance process, reported by RAAus/Jabiru

 

Radio problem, reported by RAAus

 

Distributor rotor loose, reported by RAAus

 

EFATO no reason, reported by RAAus

 

Alternator failure, reported by RAAus

 

Delaminated prop, reported by RAAus

 

Cigarette socket short, reported by RAAus

 

Carburettor flooding, reported by RAAus/Jabiru

 

Flap circuit breaker, reported by RAAus

 

Brake pad jammed, reported by RAAus

 

Show cause why pilot should not be suspended for two months, reported by RAAus

 

Aircraft control system (Morgan), reported by RAAus

 

Electrical, reported by RAAus

 

Inexperienced pilot/high engine idle, reported by RAAus

 

Bowden cable, reported by RAAus

 

Leaking fuel pump, reported by RAAus

 

Undercarriage issue, reported by RAAus

 

Undercarriage issue, reported by RAAus

 

Rudder cables, reported by RAAus

 

Radio Issue, reported by RAAus

 

Prop blades, reported by RAAus

 

Loose control fittings, reported by RAAus

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Grounding the Fleet" would have been the furthest thing from my mind. It's an extreme act for an extreme situation. The Tiger matter was quite contentious I recall . I wouldn't use those things as a good example. It shows they have the power to do it. Often not much else. Nev

Well you still haven't committed yourself, and there was an urgency at the time - the next forced landing could have been a fatal.

 

 

[gandalph]

Don't have any problem with any of that, but you've assumed the position of a junior, and kicked the problem upstairs. What I was getting at was, if you were the Director, and you'd done all that (or had others do it), what sanction would you have imposed.It's not such an easy decision if the aim is to avoid any fatalities.

 

I was asked at the time what I would have done, and I said "ground the fleet" on the basis that this would have eliminated any fatality, but this wasn't very popular if I recall. CASA did it to Tiger Airlines though.

No, I assumed the role of investigator, who, I'd hope, would be a person with some reasonable level of technical skills and qualifications and certainly not at the junior level. I'd also expect that as an investigator I'd be a "disinterested" person in the same way that a Magistrate is supposed to be disinterested in the cases he/she hears.

I would expect the Director of CASA would NOT conduct or even head such an investigation. I'd expect the Director to be fully and and competently briefed on the issue and I'd further expect that a range of options would be put to the Director. We don't know if the latter was done but there is widespread belief that the outgoing Director saw a golden opportunity to leave a warm steaming turd on the incoming Directors desk.

 

The avoidance of any fatalities an very high goal. In most activities the aim is surely harm/risk minimisation which (should) pursue by rigorous risk assessment and management. If, as you claim CASA's role is the aim is to avoid any fatalities their inspectors should be in the field as we speak, removing the propellors from the entire RAA fleet.

 

Re Tiger airways: I believe there was far more substantiated evidence for CASA's action in that case. I also believe that ANSETT came close to enjoying the same fate but escaped by the skin of their teeth. The justification for the Jabiru injunction is much more tenuous and hardly analogous to those events

 

 

[gandalph]

But then you would say that.

Yair's.....

 

 

[DrZoos]

Moderators should take note as well !I suggest you remove it because you have put up my name, it no longer works as CASA made a mistake ! Now you have made a mistake ! Guess what is going to happen if you don't remove it ?

CASA email extract !

 

I refer to our phone conversation this morning regarding a document on CASA’s disclosure log, which was released to you in August 2015, and to the issue you have raised in respect of your surname appearing in the pdf file name/link.

 

We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and apologise for making your personal information available on our website. After speaking with you, I immediately contacted CASA’s web team, who promptly removed your surname from the document link’s title.

As i said, i didnt put up your name, i put a link to a public document with no intent to harm hurt or embarrass you.. In fact i didnt even notice the name on the document until you reacted... I merely thought the information contained was highly relevant to the conversation... I do not have the power to remove that link...only mods can or posters in the first 15 minutes... as far as guessing whats happening...please ask the mods to remove it instead of making threats to people.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbs, in the list you published above which ones are really engine quality issues? There's all kinds of stuff there and it should nave been reported and has. The next engine failure could apply to any single engined plane, and be fatal, but Jabiru land engine out better than many, on past experience. Where is the urgency relating to engines where the engine itself is the cause?. I know there have been some but there are many worse engines out there. Are they next? Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Since Jabiru have NO recorded fatalities from forced landings, the statement that 'the next forced landing could have been a fatal' - while absolutely correct in logic - is extremely contradicted by statistics from 25 years of operation. That is one of the most fatuous comments regarding genuine aviation safety I have ever witnessed.

 

If CASA had been genuinely looking at 'fatalities', as the highest level of concern as a safety issue, it would have grounded many other types of aircraft based on the statistical evidence before it even looked at Jabiru.

 

For one, Ross Millard would still be alive.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

If a marque of car had 1o times the catastrophic mechanical engine failure rate as other cars available commercially and in general use, leaving aside the market reaction, would the authorities be criticised for saying, "Sort this out and don't use them for rentals"?

 

The comment, "For one, Ross Millard would still be alive"... Statistics are funny things and you have to be very careful drawing firm conclusions, especially with small numbers. For example, you can get a cluster of people dying around a mobile telephone antenna which is nothing more than chance. The reverse also applies. The reason there have not been fatalities when Jabiru engines have failed may be little more than good luck.

 

Sooner or later there will be a fatality in a Jabiru aircraft powered by a Jabiru engine that fails mechanically. When there is, had CASA done nothing and it became common knowledge CASA knew they had a shocking record, it would be politically embarrassing to say the least.

 

Apart from that, Jabiru owes it to its customers to sort the engines out or sell CAEs instead.

 

 

[Oscar]

. If, as you claim CASA's role is the aim is to avoid any fatalities their inspectors should be in the field as we speak, removing the propellors from the entire RAA fleet.

And also all the C172's in Australia.

 

 

[Oscar]

The reason there have not been fatalities when Jabiru engines have failed may be little more than good luck.Sooner or later there will be a fatality in a Jabiru aircraft powered by a Jabiru engine that fails mechanically. .

25 years of statistics is not just a 'good luck' basis. If 'luck' is involved, then I assume that you would count all those aircraft marques listed in Jabiru's analysis with far, far more fatalities/aircraft numbers as 'bad luck'?

 

Do you not have extremely personal experience of the toughness of Jabiru airframes, at least when flung into the ocean? That was not a matter of 'luck', it was a matter of the personal occupant safety characteristics of the Jabiru airframe mitigating the stupidity of the PIC. And it was also NOT a consequence of the failure of the CAE engine, that was healthily turning over as the aircraft was speared into the water...

 

The balance, within the 'box' of the MTOW that applies to RAA/LSA aircraft, makes compromises between engine weight and airframe weight necessary. If 'ORN' had been a Sting, rather than a Jabiru, the occupants would have likely been severely injured at least. Jabiru airframes have a demonstrated occupant safety record that is second to none in the class. You are still here to make inane commentary as a result.

 

 

[gandalph]

Oh Ornis!

 

Do you have stats to back up your "10 times catastrophic mechanical engine failure rate" claim? Or is that just more of your Kiwi hyperbole?

 

That barrow you keep pushing must be getting very heavy by now. Why not take a break!

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, in the list you published above which ones are really engine quality issues?

None, in my opinion

 

 

[billwoodmason]

The penny has just dropped - I now realise who Ornis is and what his beef is (thanks Oscar).

 

Let it go Ornis!!.

 

 

[Oscar]

None, in my opinion

So - you would, it seems, more or less agree with my statements for months now that around 16-18 'in-flight failures' is a reasonable deduction?

 

 

[jetjr]

There are current examples of big name vehicles with many more catastrophic failures than others. Quite possibly 10 x.

 

What is done............nought but warranty replacement, and outside that stuff all.

 

Look up Nissan ZD30 - fitted to Patrols worldwide, many thousand melted pistons inside warranty period. Fondly named grenades today.

 

several upgrades, fixes, parts replaced, aftermarket monitoring, still failures.

 

Upgraded engine still sold in current models now. New fuel system, pretty solid engine now.

 

Plenty of makers have walked away from this type of problem, Toyota, VW, Ford, leaving owners out of pocket.

 

Unless ENOUGH people actually hurt or die they will possibly do nothing depending on name damage value vs repair costs.

 

How about known faulty airbags, may send steel shards into occupants and/or not deploy.

 

Worldwide recall, some owners will be waiting 2-5 years before new parts available - in the mean time no action. Keep operating with bad parts. Regulators action.........SFA.

 

These are massive multinational companies, do people expect the same from small hand made engine maker?

 

The concept that a near miss or possibility of an accident constitutes action is ridiculous. There are vastly complicated issues which may mean near misses DONT result in injury. Simply that Jabiru pilots are more highly skilled and intelligent people/pilots is a solid reason. Let alone protective structure in majority of Jab engined aircraft. Yes there are some others, but probably the same as bleriot, VW, Rotax 2S, suzuki or subaru powered models and they already feature poorer reliability specs.

 

No idea why you think the limitations has made Jabiru owners more careful maintainers and tinker less.

 

Id have thought if its raised any awareness of engine problems and absurd LSA restrictions and pushed some I know of fitting non approved parts with disregard to rules. Well beyond what they would have done 18mths ago.

 

Nice result.

 

Keeping them away from built up areas is equally absurd, next to nil of any type has landed in built up areas and injured someone. Ground all GA aircraft if thats a serious concern.

 

 

[facthunter]

Some GA aircraft have more than one engine. There is a reason for that. Redundancy. This requires a large extra cost and a lot more training. Jet and most turbines are a quantum leap with reliability over any piston engine. "Infernal Combustion Engine". Our expectations of them are above what they can deliver, in the environment they are in. Any engine can fail. You better believe it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Since Jabiru have NO recorded fatalities from forced landings, the statement that 'the next forced landing could have been a fatal' - while absolutely correct in logic - is extremely contradicted by statistics from 25 years of operation. That is one of the most fatuous comments regarding genuine aviation safety I have ever witnessed.

I'd prefer fatuous to flatulence Oscar.

There was nothing in my statement pointing to the airframe being a key reason for a potential fatality.

 

However, there have over the years been many unsuccessful forced landings, and in particular, within RA in Australia we had a series around 2010 - 2012 with stalls/spins in from heights,some above 1000 feet, where no fuselage structure would have saved the pilot, so no implications on Jabiru or the fuselage whatsoever.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And also all the C172's in Australia.

On what basis? Have you looked at the ATSB statistics for forced landings caused by engine failures over the past few years?

Or for Cherokee 140 and Cherokee Warrior?

 

That might put things in perspective.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you analyse data and find a trend or pattern in some accidents, you act to train or educate people to reduce/eliminate it. That is the reason you should report everything. So others can benefit from your experience. The way we teach stalls and recovery is totally ineffective. Blind Freddy can see that. We are negligent in not doing it better. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

So - you would, it seems, more or less agree with my statements for months now that around 16-18 'in-flight failures' is a reasonable deduction?

I've already posted my own findings of an average 6.8 from 2007 to 2012, I've already said I don't have a problem with Jabiru's claimed 12 in 2014.

I've said I don't believe the final numbers matter; the key is to eliminate a "reasonable forseeable risk".

 

 

[facthunter]

Without trying to appear "Cute", a reasonable foreseeable risk you cope with. An unacceptable foreseeable risk you have to modify/ change something before you continue.

 

BUT you have to treat all situations equally. Not do something to teach someone a lesson, for a perceived failure from a position of technically deficient judgement, and leave the rest of the "POOL" unaffected.

 

How a Jabiru performs in service depends a lot on the installation and how it's operated, and serviced.

 

Any aero motor operated with mogas, (especially if it's aircooled) the quality of the fuel is critical. There is NO control over what goes, (added) into it or how old it is. The octane No's are from a different scale and don't directly compare.. It's a large potential risk. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you analyse data and find a trend or pattern in some accidents, you act to train or educate people to reduce/eliminate it. That is the reason you should report everything. So others can benefit from your experience. The way we teach stalls and recovery is totally ineffective. Blind Freddy can see that. We are negligent in not doing it better. Nev

You're as brutal as me at times, but it is better to take sh!t from the living than to be scratching your head writing a eulogy.

 

If a trend develops, the first step is for the Controlling Body to address the risk, at which time the controlling body has the freedom to decide what action to take, and subsequently measure the success.

 

If the CB can't or won't address it then the Regulator has to step in and then you lose control.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Without trying to appear "Cute", a reasonable foreseeable risk you cope with. An unacceptable foreseeable risk you have to modify/ change something before you continue.

I was using the Donoghue v Stevenson based meaning - that if there are forced landings occurring there's a reasonable forseeable risk that someone is going to be hurt or killed.