Camel

Jabiru jumped though the hoops as CASA stood by at big expense to certify the engine, now CASA after destroying many other Australian manufacturers and says the Jabiru engine is no good, THEN THEIR STANDARD FOR CERTIFICATION IS NO GOOD !. GET RiD OF CASA ! There are problems with Jabiru engines but CASA has no clue how to go about fixing anything. Automotive engines in cars do not get certified, they have to meet pollution laws and be reliable so people will buy them, certification is helping no one except the ones going for the expenses paid bludge from CASA. In my opinion CASA approved it and now they want it changed, I reckon CASA can pay for the updates to make it meet certification standards. Same nonsense in 2006 and certified a Sportstar as LSA with an adjustable prop then said you can't have it, were the CASA people there BLIND or their eyes painted on or just plain stupid. http://www.evektor.com.au/public/editor_images/Current%20newsletters/SilverWing%20newsletter%2005.pdf. The Sportstar was the first US FAA approved SLSA. But it didn't have an adjustable prop because FAA did not allow then, so why CASA was so STUPID and The later and ex RAA CASA genius said no more adjustable prop. CASA have caused nothing but grief it's time to stamp your feet and say enough of this STUPIDITY, get rid of CASA !!!!!

So CASA certified the engine, don't they have to explain themselves, CASA have failed the job, their test didn't work then ! CASA are useless and no one can argue against that as they have proved beyond doubt that they couldn't run a chook raffle.

The limitations are not in force yet. " A copy of the limitations. The limitations must be registered by the Australian Government Office of Parliamentary Counsel, at which time CASA will publish a further notice stating that the limitations are in force."

Yes Stevron, my sentiments exactly, that is why I love RAA as I do my own maintenance, I owned a GA plane for many years and would never own a GA plane again for the reasons you mention. I'm a Motor mechanic and have owned buses,trucks and earthmoving equipment and five aircraft. Honest LAME's are hard to find but I have dealt with a couple ! CASA, well they are only helpful if you force them by submitting loads of paperwork. Do not allow RAA to loose any of its privileges as they are precious.

Dave was my instructor when I went from Trikes to 3 axis in the 90's, have done many flights with Dave over the years and am a CFI myself now. I can not praise him highly enough.

He can't hear you, his head is in the sand, it's been there a while.

Lucky Dazza 38 didn't catch you making that error ! LOL

Jabs have one carb, the linkage you talk about is a fact, the right throttle does not have a internal stop. The run-on usually occurs due to hot spots, carbon or lead build up, if an engine was suffering detonation this would also occur. A lot of high performance cars use to do this because of very high compression. See this link for a better explanation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieseling

See this page and go to test high lights http://jabiru.net.au/why-jabiru. http://www.jabirucrash.com/jabiru-crash-site-images.html. http://www.jabirucrash.com Google jabiru crash images Also photo, a few Jabiru amongst them , google jabiru crash in trees. May not be what you want, but I am convinced the airframe structure is strong and the engine is riddled with design flaws. Rod Stiff is a strange man, designed something with great possibilities but won't fix the problems and lives in Denial and that is not the Nile in Egypt. I hope he gives in and fixes the problems, the latest service letter shows to me he won't change. Head may go deeper in sand in De Nile.

Have you looked at Garmins products, I used waypoint manager which came with Garmin 296 GPS. Google-- Garmin Trip and waypoint manager. http://www.garmin.com/garmin/cms/lang/en/us/maps/tripplanningsoftware/mapsource. http://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?supportPage=Trip%20and%20Waypoint%20Manager&caseId=%7Bacfc93f0-1e85-11dc-5ab7-000000000000%7D

Evektor, I think. Short strip hot day.

The problem with the statement is that Camit did build the Jabiru engines too, so they really built them all but Jabiru are built to Jabiru spec. I'm amazed at the amount of people that have shown other ways of making Jabiru engines reliable but these mods are not allowed to be done but Jabiru continue with their nonsense and from the latest service letter their seems to be no change to Jabiru attitude after CASA intervention ( blame fuel, pull heads off at service ) , I am a motor mechanic and originally worked on BMC, when Leyland Australia built their own designs they made a lot of mistakes but it was an early mistake they did not rectify properly that destroyed them, it was the Morris Nomad, a dud Oz design engine and a dud gearbox, the warranty work was huge, the Kimberly and Tasman were not as good as the Austin 1800 and the Nomad was a disaster after the successful Morris 1100, the Marina and P76 were also riddled with warranty problems but mainly outsourced parts switches, gauges and alternators which had been occurring since the Nomad, the Mini was the best but the early ones were better. All could have been so different if when mechanics told engineers what the problems were and how to fix them but they had reasons not to and continued the patch up. The problems were obvious to mechanics. The Jabiru story is unfolding and if they keep their head in the sand and don't listen and act they will loose all support and finish up like Leyland. The Leyland products were ahead of their time and potentially good vehicles, the originals were better than the improved version, sound familiar ! Leyland introduced a Buyer Protection Plan to improve their image but it caused more pain for dealers as the dealer had to provide a courtesy car during warranty work, this usually emptied the used car lot each day and at the dealers expense. After that I worked on Datsun and Honda. Constant improvement was obvious and no hesitation to take on modification advice. Look at Honda now ! A far cry from the Zot, Scamp and the original Civic, which in its standard form could match a Mini Cooper S in performance with a smaller engine. Datsun copied the BMC engine and made it superior.

Well why are vehicles on the road no giving similar problems to Jabiru engines. I'm afraid cars have never been so reliable and effient as they are now even with current fuels.

Jabiru have released a Service Letter JSL 014-1 . I have no faith in Jabiru and look forward to Camit making advances as they are proactive at resolving faults and improving poor designs.

The ops manual is on the RAA web page, open it on your iPad and save it to ozrunways documents.

Jabiru Logic. Valve rockers poor geometry, valve guides wear out, valves jam, valve hits piston, valve breaks hits piston and engine goes bang. Jabiru fix, machine piston to clear stuck valves. There are many more of these sonarios I am aware of.

I think all will be good and you will have a new best friend. Maybe get a L2 or even L4 instead of L1 .

Here is link to engineering report bulletin . http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/AVDALSR088-1_Piston_Offset.pdf

I'm very interested in a way of confirming that Jabiru Sth Africa actually do this, Jabiru have published a bulletin on why it is the way it is, would love to see confirmation on what you say !

Are you making a factual statement or just presuming ? As someone said jabiru is not working with Camit on solutions ? If you don't have facts or knowledge, please do not create false information or BS as it is commonly known !

This is sad as Camit are keen to manufacture improved engines and if they were improving / making engines for Jab or assisting Jab, then it would ensure that Jabiru and Camit both survive, at this rate both might disappear.

Is Jabiru working with Camit ? Gossip I heard did not indicate this, sounded like the same head in the sand method from Jabiru ! The survey they sent to flying schools looks like a way out also ! I find it hard to be optimistic with CASA trying to destroy Australian aircraft manufacture with no regard for anyone and Jabiru with it is someone else's fault not ours now let's put our head back in the sand ! I do not hold my hopes very high for Jabiru to act appropriately after the responsonse to RAA bulletin about cylinder base cracks. More interest in hours than cracks, in fact it just says cracks pose no threat ! Quote. "This investigation also revealed that the cylinder heads on the engine with the cylinder head cracks sent to us had done 2,302.4 hours TTIS and 1,244.9 hours since the previous Top End Overhaul. The hours were done in a period of 2 years 4 months. There appeared to be confusion regarding the correct method of recording engine time in the maintenance log book. Jabiru requires that Hobbs Time be the sole method by which engine time is recorded. The problem with proper recording of engine time has prompted us to release the attached Service Letter (JSL010-1) regarding Service Intervals which clarifies your obligations concerning maintenance records. " After the CFI conference I thought everything will be fine and RAA has a bright future a couple of hours later I want to walk away and forget aviation totally. It is just not worth the agony from a bunch of ignorant fools !

Where else are you travelling to Pud ?

If you fly a jabiru 160 it is well known that jabiru's handle very similar so that would be acceptable to fly other types of Jabiru I believe, but if you fly a foxbat then to fly a Jabiru would be a big change. I found a Sportstar very easy to fly but some people had trouble with toe brakes as use to single hand brake. I believe some discretion will always be required as some homebuilts are unique and some people have not seeked training in similar types and come to grief. A very capable Sportstar pilot could not fly a Jab well as on landing would pull power too early and flare too high but he had company who helped ! There are many variations in aircraft out there hand brake or toe brakes, castoring and steerable nose wheel, vernier and push throttle, yoke or stick, centre or side stick, air cooled or water cooled, low or high wing, side by side or tandem, etc . These are features of types I suppose and can take time to get use to, these things are not endorsements. If you built or bought a plane say one of a kind or no instructor was familiar with and it had all the features you had used before and flown similar performance I'm sure no one would object to you being capable and suitably endorsed to fly, it would be worth a call to ops to reassure this. I believe ops have taken a sensible approach as many accidents occur due to unfamiliar on type, I believe there will always be exceptions as some pilots will have so much experience on various types as a few more features wouldn't be a problem. The specific definition in RAA ops is not clear but I take it as don't fly something your unfamiliar with and I'm sure that is the intent. To learn to fly say 25 hours, to be totally comfortable in another totally different type say 25 hours, maybe less but that's my opinion.

TYPE TRAINING 13. No Pilot Certificate holder shall operate a recreational aeroplane as pilot in command without having demonstrated competency on Type. Aeroplane Type Training must be undertaken with an RA-Aus Examiner who holds the respective aeroplane group and type. The RA-Aus Examiner is required to make an entry into the pilot’s logbook detailing confirmation of the training undertaken and achievement of competency in accordance with Section 2.02 of this manual. Note: Logbook entries showing a minimum of 2 hours pilot in command of an aeroplane type recorded prior to Issue 7 of this manual will be accepted as evidence of appropriate type training for that aeroplane. Pilot Examiner (PE) An RA-Aus Senior Instructor, eligible to be a Chief Flying Instructor and approved by the Operations Manager to examine recreational pilots and instructors. RA-Aus Examiner Means a Senior Instructor, CFI, PE, ROC, Assistant Operations Manager or Operations Manager, within the scope of their privileges, as detailed in this manual. ........ You don't need a " PE " but a senior instructor minimum. You do not want someone who can't fly your plane flying it. If you can fly it easy use the 2 hours to brush up other training, if you can't afford training then this sport is not a good idea. Training is cheap compared to damage or injury. When I changed aircraft type I took some lesson even though it was not a requirement and I have done this many times.