CASA Safety Notice warns against stalling Bristell aircraft - 19 Feb 2020

[kgwilson]

Ask anybody who has worked on Jabs for any length of time, they will tell you the problem is usually not the people who are operating the engine. The likes of fitting pistons in from the factory with the piston pin offset around the wrong way. Anybody know why that was done?

Correct, it is mostly those maintaining them to their own requirements rather that the manufacturers specifications

[turboplanner]

I am surprised at the lack of hysteria wrt this aircraft. If it was a Jabiru all would be grounded immediately. CASA have a different approach to this problem. They were happy to kick the local product on shadowy statistics.

That's not true and I hope you weren't relying on earlier posts because they weren't true either. I haven't heard of anyone being refused correct figures from CASA. Figures that included flat tyres etc were RAA figures very late in the process, and produced verbatim by the CASA PR person. I would suggest that if you seriously want to know CASA facts you contact CASA direct. The Senate "Inquiry" was not an inquiry either, it was a qestion asked by a single Senator during a Senate Estimates Committee which was discussing financial matters, and the CASA people present were those required for the financial discussion, so not the ones involved in the Jabiru instrument.

[Guest Machtuk]

Ask anybody who has worked on Jabs for any length of time, they will tell you the problem is usually not the people who are operating the engine. The likes of fitting pistons in from the factory with the piston pin offset around the wrong way. Anybody know why that was done?

 

I operate a 80 HP solid lifter Jab donk, trust it with my life, Runs like a Swiss watch cause I look after it! Most fail due poor handling and poor installations.

[FlyBoy1960]

Then why dont the Rotax engines fail ? There are thousands more in service than Jabiru in Australia, run by the same dumb pilot people and you just dont see anywhere near the failure rates.

 

One day the Jabite's will face extinction !

[Student Pilot]

Correct, it is mostly those maintaining them to their own requirements rather that the manufacturers specifications

Disagree

Talk to an engineer who has been working on Jabs.

Do you have any affiliation with Jabiru or the production of parts, engines or any componentry that is fitted on Jab engines?

[kgwilson]

Then why dont the Rotax engines fail ? There are thousands more in service than Jabiru in Australia, run by the same dumb pilot people and you just dont see anywhere near the failure rates.

Rotax engines do fail. That is a completely irresponsible statement. All engines fail. There is no perfect engine. In 2014 when this ridiculous fiasco was at its peak Rotax failures were increasing and had reached 2.7 per 10,000 hours flown while Jabiru's were decreasing from a peak of 3.9 per 10,000 hours flown in 2012 to 3.3 in 3013. This is from published ATSB figures.

The Senate "Inquiry" was not an inquiry either, it was a qestion asked by a single Senator during a Senate Estimates Committee which was discussing financial matters, and the CASA people present were those required for the financial discussion, so not the ones involved in the Jabiru instrument.

The CASA people involved in the Senate inquiry were the Director and the American legal expert. They denied any knowledge of the fact the the data relied on by CASA was not right and when questioned stated that the failures attributable to fuel starvation etc had been removed from the figures. They had not. All this had been published well before the inquiry by "Proaviation" in an article entitled "Indecent Haste" in November 2014. The facts that CASA will now tell you are different from the facts they published before they were found out. Read the article attached.

Talk to an engineer who has been working on Jabs.

I do most days. He maintains flying school J170s. The current one has had 3 engines. One replaced at TBO (2000 hours), 1 replaced at 1000 hours as it was cheaper than the top end overhaul & the other at 700 hours after a gudgeon pin circlip failed.

I built my own aircraft and run a 3300A which I maintain myself. Dyno tested at 128HP & I can run it all day flat out & it is simple with direct drive. Try that with a 912ULS. 5 minutes is the maximum as stated by Rotax. The 914 has a reputation for unreliability. In saying that the 912 is an exceptionally good engine but it still sounds like a bunch of gnomes trying to escape from a tin can & I don't like all the plumbing & gearbox. Personal opinion but that's it.

Article from proaviation.pdf

[Student Pilot]

Is the piston pin offset in the 3300 fitted before or after TDC?

I take it by your not answering my question you do have an affiliation with Jab in some way?

[Guest Machtuk]

Rotax engines do fail. That is a completely irresponsible statement. All engines fail. There is no perfect engine. In 2014 when this ridiculous fiasco was at its peak Rotax failures were increasing and had reached 2.7 per 10,000 hours flown while Jabiru's were decreasing from a peak of 3.9 per 10,000 hours flown in 2012 to 3.3 in 3013. This is from published ATSB figures.

 

The CASA people involved in the Senate inquiry were the Director and the American legal expert. They denied any knowledge of the fact the the data relied on by CASA was not right and when questioned stated that the failures attributable to fuel starvation etc had been removed from the figures. They had not. All this had been published well before the inquiry by "Proaviation" in an article entitled "Indecent Haste" in November 2014. The facts that CASA will now tell you are different from the facts they published before they were found out. Read the article attached.

 

I do most days. He maintains flying school J170s. The current one has had 3 engines. One replaced at TBO (2000 hours), 1 replaced at 1000 hours as it was cheaper than the top end overhaul & the other at 700 hours after a gudgeon pin circlip failed.

I built my own aircraft and run a 3300A which I maintain myself. Dyno tested at 128HP & I can run it all day flat out & it is simple with direct drive. Try that with a 912ULS. 5 minutes is the maximum as stated by Rotax. The 914 has a reputation for unreliability. In saying that the 912 is an exceptionally good engine but it still sounds like a bunch of gnomes trying to escape from a tin can & I don't like all the plumbing & gearbox. Personal opinion but that's it.

 

Well said.

 

People just love to bag the Jab motors, it's an Aussie tall poppy syndrome, good for a laugh they are and I enjoy their ramblings ??

For a basic air cooled engine that is cheap to run, spares are very cheap, they run real smooth I'm happy with mine despite all the dooms day sayers?? My IO360 is a sweet motor too but an expensive piece of iron!

[kgwilson]

I take it by your not answering my question you do have an affiliation with Jab in some way?

I own a 3300A so if that's what you call affiliation there are 10,000 others who are affiliated along with 50,000 Rotax owners being affiliated to Rotax.

[tuffnut]

I wouldn't be to hard on the Bristell. All overseas LSA aircraft should be considered guilty until proved innocent. All AU LSA aircraft are extensively stall/spin tested. Aussies like to know their wings won't fall off etc. etc. I know for a fact that this is not true of Europe, even though we sometimes think they have very strict requirements. A lot gets through over there and you should choose your poison carefully. Read this for an interesting but tragic tale..

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-096/

tuffnut

[kgwilson]

I have heard comments (unverified) of European LSAs with stress ripples appearing on wing skins. If true I would steer well clear of such an aircraft.

[bexrbetter]

 

I take it by your not answering my question you do have an affiliation with Jab in some way?

 

I haven't even posted in this thread, therefore, by your logic, I must own Jabiru.

[facthunter]

I don't see why the piston pin offset is a critical issue. There's a logic behind having it (in a car). Changing the side it's to will affect ignition timing as well as nullify the purpose of it. They also had a change of circlip section. THAT could easily be a safety issue but all is OK IF proper procedures are observed when assembling an engine.. Nev

[tafisama]

So if it doesn't meet LSA standards,does it meet GA standards.What I have heard is LSA standards state or require an aircraft to come out of an incipient spin without much control input from pilot and enter into a spiral dive.A C152 is one such aircraft I know of though it's not an LSA.However some of the Bristels that have crushed were GA registered which means GA pilots are failing to recover.The Statwell incident I know of happened at very low height.I am not sure if they recover easily at height.I have flown a Roko which recovers at height but any unco ordination at stall,it drops a wing violently.I hope DJP will be able to share his views here.

[FlyBoy1960]

Rotax engines do fail but I DO remember correctly that it was not apples versus apples in the comparison because the Rotax engine statistics also included two-stroke engines which as you know are far less reliable in operation and endurance. This artificially made Rotax engine is worse than they are (the 4 stroke series). Anyway, natural selection will eventually prove who is correct in the long-term. It is really a shame because I would like to see an Australian product succeed but when they claim there are no problems and never have been any fatal accidents because of the Jabiru engine it becomes very difficult to believe.

 

I just had a look at the Jabiru australia website and this 'sample' is typical of many of the advertisements of used aircraft for sale. Sure, there are some there that have the same airframe hours as engine hours but they are usually under 500 hours operation.

 

• This J160 is in top condition for its age – 2006 Factory Built Total of 1460 airframe hours and 470 engine hours
  
• 2097 airframe hrs, 742 engine hrs on engine since full rebuild
  
• Engine No. 22J725 Engine Hours 156 Airframe Hours 1872.1
  
• Total airframe hrs 733, Engine hrs 482
  
• 2003 Level 2 built, 612hrs, top end overhaul @ 500hrs
  
• Total airframe hours 1010, New factory engine fitted by Jabiru in 2014 139 engine hours
  

 

why are so many people passionate about an underperforming product when it comes to endurance and reliability ?

 

I think it is just human nature, we all like to think we are pretty smart people and make informed decisions. Nobody likes to look stupid in front of others when it comes to their own actions or experiences and I think this goes in line with a lot of Jabiru engine owners. They know that if they wanted to buy the Rolls-Royce of engines and they should probably go for a Rotax but for other reasons unknown, they could be on a budget, it could be the engine supplied by the manufacturer they have to choose what is an engine of lesser reliability. Because they made this decision they need to defend their actions and get quite defensive when people point out otherwise. It is a little bit like which football team is better or which car manufacturer is better, there are good and bad in everything but the point I am saying is that there is no way a comparison can be made between Jabiru engine and the Rotax engine for reliability. Sure, the Jabiru engine is cheaper, and that could be acceptable to some people for having reduced reliability. Let's say you only fly 50 hours every year and it looks like you are going to get 10 years worth of flying before you have a problem based on what I see on the different forums so for many people this could be enough time for them to enjoy flying later in life and that is sufficient for their requirements.

 

Nobody is ever going to win this argument because there are so many opinions (mine included as an example) but it is not really fair to scream from the top of the hill that you own the best aircraft engine in the world when statistically you don't if you own a Jabiru

[SplitS]

That's because they are easy and cheap to maintain or replace if you are a flying school and down time matters instead of an overhaul you simply drop a new engine in. You can have 3 Jabiru engines for the price of a rotax (which is not a rolls-royce engine).

Jabiru's are one of the safest planes on the planet (does that make it a rolls-royce?).

Good luck with your overpriced European junk the Bristell is showing the level they operate at :).

Real aero engines are air-cooled!

[facthunter]

Yes Jabiru DID a good deal and made change over so cheap many did it rather than an outside the factory repair. It also got upgrades out there more quickly. Constantly used AGAINST the make with statistics like this. Do you think that is fair?

At 3.9/10,000 hours you would find plenty of engines worse than that in service. RR Merlins never had a TBO over 650 hours. and were only rarely used in civil service.

Some of these engine sit without proper inhibiting and that will cause problems with many/most aero engines.. They also operate under very varying conditions out in the field. Open valve engine (Historic ones) would need the heads of at quite low engine times. There's still room for a different approach (I hope) for all to make their assessment different to just saying Rotax are the only engine to use. THEY ALSO FAIL so fly with that reality and not have a big shock if your Rotax Fails. It's often something extra to the actual basic engine that makes you land when you didn't think you would have to. Nev

[Guest Bristell]

A review of the coroner’s report into the first spin accident reveals the presence of the opioid Fentanyl in the student’s body. I wonder what effect that might have had on his performance.

[M61A1]

A review of the coroner’s report into the first spin accident reveals the presence of the opioid Fentanyl in the student’s body. I wonder what effect that might have had on his performance.

Link?

[onetrack]

There's no record of any coronial finding involving Fentanyl, in any aircraft crash in Australia, that I can find.

 

There have only been four recorded Bristell crashes where the ATSB has become involved, one in Ireland and three in Australia, and only two of these crashes are recorded as being suspected as a result of a flat spin.

 

The most recent Bristell crash (the first listed), with just the pilot on board, is a crash with a currently undetermined reason.

 

Australia - Kanangra-Boyd NP, NSW - Investigation: AE-2020-008 - Technical Assistance to RAAus - Collision with terrain involving BRM Aero Bristell, 24-8555, Kanangra-Boyd National Park, NSW, on 16 December 2019

 

Australia - Moorabbin, VIC - Investigation: AO-2019-071 - Collision with terrain involving Bristell S-LSA aircraft, VH-YVF, Moorabbin Airport, 12 December 2019

 

Ireland - Investigation: AE-2019-036 - Accredited representative to the AAIU Ireland investigation into an impact with terrain involving a BRM Aero Bristell NG5, registered G-OJCS, near Belan, Co. Kildare, Ireland, on 13 June 2019

 

Australia - Stawell, VIC - Investigation: AO-2018-066 - Collision with terrain involving BRM Aero s.r.o. Bristell S-LSA, VH-YVX, near Stawell, Victoria, on 5 October 2018

[Guest Bristell]

Im sorry but it’s a matter of public record in the Victorian Coroner‘s report COR 2017 3812 into the death of Yan Chung Cheung the Soar student killed in the first accident. Report date 6/9/19

[Thruster88]

Im sorry but it’s a matter of public record in the Victorian Coroner‘s report COR 2017 3812 into the death of Yan Chung Cheung the Soar student killed in the first accident. Report date 6/9/19

 

The info provided does not result in a match on the Vic coroner site, perhaps you could provide a link?

[Jabiru7252]

They look schmick....but you can see at a glance that rudder design is likely to kill you if you make a mistake.

 

Gee I'm dumb. I can't see at a glance how the rudder design is likely to kill. Can you enlighten me?

[Old Koreelah]

Have look at 3-D pix of various aircraft and notice where the tail fin and horizontal stabiliser are mounted.

The safest designs have the rudder well behind the horizontal stab, or at least projecting down below the tailplane.

If the aircraft enters an incipient spin the rudder needs to be in "clean" air to counteract the rotation..

Some aircraft are in trouble here, because the rudder is in the "shade" of the tailplane.

[Guest Bristell]

Sorry Thruster . Im having trouble posting the link. Will work on it tomorrow. I do have the original document as does every other Bristell driver in Australia.