aro

I don't think the Cessna pilot did anything wrong. They seemed to make all the calls you could ask for on the radio. The main problem was the RPT missed hearing some calls despite having 2 radios, presumably while they were making their own calls on CTAF. There seems to be 2 main problems: 1) The RPT made an assumption about where the Cessna would be (below the layer of clouds) 2) ATC assumed the RPT would hear all the Cessna's radio calls. "Traffic is Cessna 150 RZP reported climbing to 5500" would be better than "Did you hear the call from RZP?" You really need to know what they said before you know if you heard it. It appears that they didn't hear the call ATC was referring to, only other calls.

More taxpayer funds are put into road freight, it is just better hidden. Fundamentally, the problem is that the when the cost of road and rail is compared infrastructure cost is excluded for road and included for rail. The fact that everybody drives cars makes it easy to hide the cost of building and maintaining roads suitable for trucks in the general roads budget.

Reportedly, about 99% of damage to roads is caused by trucks. Plus the roads are much more expensive to build due to truck requirements. The estimated damage to roads rises as the 4th power of weight i.e. double the weight causes 16x the damage. A single truck causes as much damage as several thousand cars. Source: Loads | Pavement Interactive Note: That site appears to be selling road construction and design related software, NOT some raging Greenie or rail fanatic site. Another study suggests that for lower strength pavement damage is the 6th power of weight i.e. double the weight causes 64 times the damage. It's pretty well accepted in economics that transport by truck is massively subsidised by taxpayers and the cost paid by truck operators is nothing like the true cost.

Instructors should check they are covered by their insurance if there is an accident due to the engine shutdown, e.g. if the engine does not restart.

And I have $100 that says that if this happens, medical requirements for RAA will be aligned with the RPL, which means that all those who currently can't get a class 2 will be forced out. (I am aware of many pilots with a class 2 that don't qualify for a DL medical, but I am not aware of any conditions that disqualify you from a class 2 where you could still get a drivers license medical. A DAME might know more.)

Except that the DL medical is stricter than a class 2.

None of the items I listed require endorsements in GA, and there are only a few aircraft that require type ratings - it would be pretty rare for your day VFR PPL to encounter one. Some aircraft owners might require training if you rent, but that is different to regulation. At the time AFR details didn't need to be notified to CASA, just entered in the logbook (this has now changed with Part 61). Not my point - my point is that these are all "regulations" that apply to RAA over and above what applies to GA pilots. Sure some of them might be a good idea, (although the HF exam had questions about SCUBA diving that I think were dangerously out of date) it doesn't change the fact that they do not apply to GA. You said: did you mean to add "unless the RAA hierarchy decide it's a good idea"?

That went out the window in RAA many years ago. High performance, low performance, 2 stroke, nosewheel endorsements... I was denied my certificate renewal a few years back because I hadn't provided details of my AFR, then I needed to sit the additional human factors exam. All additional regulations. Meanwhile I continued flying happily on my PPL. I fly GA not RAA because the constantly changing requirements in RAA became too annoying. The only issue I have in GA is the medical requirement. Say what you like about CASA, at least they introduce changes much more slowly and with much more consultation (or at least publicity) than RAA. It would be interesting to compare the inspection etc. requirements for amateur built GA to amateur built RAA.

I heard about the incident, but I'm not convinced by the diagnosis. How do weak springs cause the rudder to jam to one side? My suspicion is something more along the lines of a badly adjusted bellcrank going over centre - although that also requires something to initially move the rudder. If the rudder moved without pilot input there is something going on aerodynamically...

I know what the reg requires, but the question is whether I need to demonstrate that I did comply, or whether CASA need to prove that did not comply. Does the right to avoid self incrimination apply in Australia? Does it apply to Civil Aviation Regulations? If I get ramp checked and I know I have broken every rule in the book, exactly how much information am I required to provide to CASA - knowing it can all be used to prosecute me? If I have attempted to follow every rule, but it is possible I made an error and information I supply could be used to prosecute me, how much information am I required to provide? CASA reassuringly tell us that ramp checks are about education, but there is no actual guarantee. It is education, until they find something that they want to prosecute, at which point all the information you provided can be used against you. Asking where you came from, how much fuel you carried etc. is fundamentally an investigation to see whether you have broken the law. CASA are trying to say that they can gather all the evidence before they decide to launch an investigation. I'm not sure that it is wise to go along with that. This is probably not an argument that you want to have during an actual ramp check. It would be much better to have the ramp check guidance material reflect the information you are actually legally required to provide, rather than a CASA wish list. (The bit of that regulation that really raises my eyebrows is: in determining whether fuel and oil carried on an aircraft in respect of a particular flight was sufficient... a court must... take into account... any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA A court MUST take into account any guidelines issued from time to time by CASA... and this is a strict liability offence.)

Do the regs require that I can demonstrate it, or just that I have sufficient fuel? There is information that CASA has the power to demand, like license, maintenance release, log books etc. Other stuff I think they still have to prove an offence has been committed, and I don't have to provide information to help them. The law requires that I obey the speed limit, but as far as I know the police can't turn up and ask where I left from, at what time and require me to demonstrate that I obeyed the speed limit on the journey. CASA's rules may be different, but I'm hoping it's actually only the ramp check guidelines not the actual legislation. The article I linked to is clear about that in the situation in the USA: If the FAA ask about anything that happened in the past, e.g. a flight that previously happened it becomes an investigation not a ramp check, and protections against self incrimination apply. However I fear that in Australia any resistance to CASA e.g. not disclosing where you came from (Is there any regulation that requires you to provide that information to CASA?) would be viewed as uncooperative, and things would go downhill from there...

The question is whether you need to prove you haven't committed an infringement, or whether CASA need to prove that you have. It's a whole lot easier for CASA if they convince you that you have to 'fess up as soon as you are asked. When the police pull you over they may ask how fast you were travelling, but you don't have to tell them. However if you do it can make it a whole lot easier to prosecute you e.g. if they didn't actually get a reading on your speed. For those who think they always fly by the rules so have nothing to worry about: how many people weigh every passenger? For our size aircraft we are supposed to use actual passenger weights for W&B - how do you do that without weighing every passenger? I don't see any exemption for when it's obvious that the aircraft would be within weight and CG limits, allowing you to estimate your passenger weight if they don't look overweight etc. (If it's there I'm happy to be corrected and learn something.) That would be getting pretty technical for 2 people in a 172, but not necessarily for a 152 or smaller. Or if you just flew 55 miles without calculating fuel for an alternate... how much information do you want to volunteer to CASA? An interesting look at the situation in the USA is at: http://www.avweb.com/news/features/Legal-Issues-for-Pilots-221888-1.html The upshot seems to be that (in the USA) you are not required to provide information that might incriminate you, and the FAA are reasonably aware of that fact.

It's also a fact that more people have died after Rotax engine failures than Jabiru. It might even be true. Without actually looking in detail at the numbers - which we are trying to do - you can't be sure. Just because you are aware of more Jabiru failures, or heard it at the airport, or read about Jabiru failures on the internet doesn't make it true. Personally I know about more Rotax failures (also I believe unreported) than Jabiru but one person's personal knowledge is just an anecdote. You have to look at the numbers - and not just for numbers that support what you are trying to prove. You need to spend more time looking for numbers that might refute it. The old "I've never had an engine failure and they were not the engine's fault anyway" routine. This is why you need to look carefully at the numbers and work out what should be included and what shouldn't. Are maintenance related failures excluded from the Jabiru figures? Should Jabiru get any credit for eliminating any possibility of a balance tube problem? (Or all carb synchronization related problems for that matter?) I normally fly a Rotax but have no issues flying in a Jabiru. I would be far more reluctant to fly in a piston twin - I think PA-31s have killed more people due to engine failure in Australia than Jabirus.

That was my initial impression, but working from the numbers in the report I get about the same results. The important point to note is that it is only working from the failures classified as "high risk" by the ATSB - 6% of the total failures. I don't buy the numbers calculated for FTFs though - if the high risk failure rate is 4 in 400,000 hours, to get 1 every 3 years a FTF would need to do 30,000 hrs/year. If you have 60 FTFs averaging 1000 hrs/year you would expect a high risk failure every 2 years across all FTFs, If the failure rate for private owners is 1 in about 2000 years, if you have 2000 owners you can expect to see someone have a high risk failure every year. Then you have to ask the questions: "How does it compare to other engines" and "Is that acceptable". The biggest problem with these figures is that the number of high risk failures is too low for the figures to be accurate. Change the classification of one entry and it makes a big difference to the result.

Interesting report. I have a few concerns about some of the statistics. I would like more explanation of why they limited the GA study to <800 kg MTOW and the effect this might have had. Superficially it seems reasonable to compare similar aircraft, but if you are comparing engine reliability MTOW is not necessarily the best way to select your population. You would be better to try to get aircraft involved in similar operations. 800 kg MTOW excludes all C172 and PA28, so you probably exclude most of the GA training fleet, while Jabiru do a lot of training hours. The only common GA training aircraft that seems to be included is the C152 (and the Tomahawk, if you consider it a common training aircraft). I don't know which way that would skew the statistics. You also exclude some common amateur built aircraft e.g. RV-7 and RV-8 (although not RV-6 or RV-9). I think you can work out average aircraft hours/year from failures per aircraft and failures per 10,000 hours. If I did my maths right it comes to: Jabiru: 52 Rotax: 30 Lycoming: 40 Jabiru utilization is significantly higher (75% higher than Rotax, 30% higher than Lycoming) which again suggests to me that the operations may not be directly comparable. The report states: It should be noted that when comparing the VH and RAAus occurrences in Figure 5, there is always the possibility that reporting rates for engine failure or malfunction occurrences may differ between VH and RAAus communities. However, it seems unlikely that this would bias any manufacturer in particular. Figure 6, however, shows that there is something significantly different about reporting of Jabiru failures. Jabiru engine failure reports seem to have much more detail. The quality of the reports is different enough that I think you can no longer assume that the Jabiru numbers can be directly compared to other manufacturers. It seems possible that if details of the failure are more likely to be reported, failures themselves might also be more likely to be reported. It looks like Jabiru reports are about 50% more likely to include detailed information about the failure. Does this mean that failures are also 50% more likely to be reported? Or maybe reports with insufficient information are a similar percentage of actual failures, which would mean that Jabiru failures are about twice as likely to be reported. It's all guesswork until you can explain why the Jabiru numbers in figure 6 are so different. Some sort of verification needs to be done to make sure that you are comparing apples with apples. Overall I'm disappointed in the lack of analysis of the figures. I think you can conclude from the report that there are some common failures with Jabiru and MAYBE they fail more often than other engines - but exactly how often it's hard to say. It would be interesting if they had used the FAA methodology discussed in a previous thread, where a number of failures was deduced based on the number of accidents. That would have been an interesting way to cross check numbers.

Fundamentally, no. Because, from the first page of the Installation Manual: "This Installation manual for ROTAX aircraft engines should only be used a a general guide for the installation of ROTAX engines into airframes. It does not represent an instruction for the installation of a ROTAX aircraft engine in a specific type of airframe or airplane." "This Installation Manual shall in no event be used without fully complying with the specific instructions and/or requirements of the manufacturer of an airframe or airplane." Most of the sections also have a note that the airframe manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the installation will perform correctly. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for the performance of the engine in the airframe, and the airframe manufacturer installation instructions absolutely override the Rotax instructions. If you want to modify the airframe, even if it is to better conform with the Rotax installation manual, you need to follow the correct processes for a modification to the aircraft.

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.

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.

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).

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...

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.

That's not a benchmark on failure rate, its a way of estimating failure rate from accident data. It is saying the numbers for engine power loss and shutdown are unreliable, and provides a way to estimate them from accident data - which is considered more reliable. According to that document, historically engine power loss/shutdown frequency is greater than 1 in 10,000 flight hours (doesn't specify how much greater). Their estimate of power loss/shutdown frequency is Number of accidents x 10 or Number of fatal accidents x 100. So it doesn't provide any actual benchmark. However, it does provide a way to estimate the number of engine failures across each engine type: the number of accidents x 10. The number of fatal accidents is probably too low use reliably. However there have been a number of fatal engine failure accidents behind Lycomings and Rotax, so using this methodology would suggest that those engines have a failure rate much higher than Jabiru.

That's my point - without knowing the variation you can't conclude anything. The number on it's own is meaningless.

The number seems unlikely to have doubled in 1 year. If there is a trend over several years you would look at it, but you can't conclude anything from those 2 figures. That's when statistics come in - you plug in the numbers over several years, and statistics can tell you how likely it is that this number is produced by chance. If it is unlikely to be produced by chance, then you need to start looking for causes.

What FAA benchmark were they referring to? Assuming there is such a benchmark, there are still 2 problems: 1) What if other engines e.g. 2 stroke Rotax, VW conversion etc. also don't meet the FAA benchmark? 2) How long does it take to demonstrate that you do meet the benchmark? This is what I was saying might take 5-10 years of figures to produce valid statistics. When numbers are low, you get a natural variation in figures. Just the other day on the news they were saying that this year 14 people have drowned on beaches this year when the equivalent figure last year was 7. Have the people responsible for beach safety made some big change that is causing people to drown, or more likely, is it just a particularly unlucky year?