gandalph

With respect Ross, The CEO's Christmas newsletter didn't spell out the revised restrictions imposed by CASA. The section of the Newsletter headed "Note to Members on Jabiru Issues" in the newsletter is shown below in full so that people can draw their own conclusions as to whether they were adequately informed that the draft restrictions were essentially in force when the newsletter was published. Issue 6 December 2014 Welcome to the final newsletter for 2014! Note to members on Jabiru issues As most people are aware, CASA published a draft instrument on 13 November 2014 which would have the effect of restricting the operations of aircraft with a Jabiru powerplant. This would affect more than 1000 RA-Aus registered aircraft and have an adverse impact on some two thirds of our flight training facilities. Since the publication of this draft instrument RA-Aus has been working hard to understand the justification for these restrictions. We have, for some time, known that Jabiru engines have a higher tendency for failure than their Rotax counterpart and welcome any appropriate changes that would improve their reliability. We would also welcome any measures that result in improved reliability and safety of any aspect of our fleet. Having said this we are troubled by the process employed by CASA and especially the lack of transparency in terms of the implementation of these proposed measures. RA-Aus has repeatedly requested the information used to justify statements made by CASA that claim the failure rate is increasing. We have also requested the analysis of said data in order to assess the veracity of these claims. On 17 December 2014, almost five weeks after the draft instrument was published, RA-Aus received the data and was provided one, yes one, working day to respond. As one would expect we would have liked much more time to assess the data, understand the analysis and then form an opinion on the suitability of the proposed measures, however, regardless of taking some five weeks to provide the data, CASA allowed one day. In light of this our response was somewhat rushed. Despite this, RA-Aus was able to note that the data provided to CASA on Jabiru engine failures only covered one partial year. The only time series data made available to us (although not provided to us) was via the ATSB. That is, no engine failure data beyond the beginning of 2014 was used by CASA to justify their position and they left us to infer what data the ATSB had provided. With reference to the latter, RA-Aus has contested the validity of the ATSB data on the basis that it shows a decline in the hours flown by the RA-Aus fleet. This is in direct contrast to Government published figures which show a doubling in the number of hours flown since 2000. This led us to a simple conclusion – CASA has not undertaken robust analysis on reliable data to establish with any degree of accuracy that the failure rate of Jabiru engines is increasing over time. This is despite their statement that they have found statistically significant evidence in support of their claims. RA-Aus’ position is, as stated above, that the failure rate of Jabiru engines is greater than that of Rotax engines but that it is not worsening as per the unsubstantiated statement made by CASA. In light of this RA-Aus responded to CASA, within their incredibly tight and unrealistic timeframe, to state that we oppose their draft instrument and suggested an alternative approach to addressing the real concerns. While CASA acknowledged that our response had merit within 24 hours of receipt they proceeded with the restrictions without due consideration of our arguments. While the restrictions imposed on our members are less stringent than those originally proposed, our opinion is that they are still inappropriate. Furthermore, CASA has remained evasive in terms of providing information relating to what rate of failures would be deemed acceptable and so we remain uninformed as to what point the restrictions will be lifted other than the statement on the CASA website regarding a review by CASA early in the New Year and the six month validity of the proposed Instrument. We will continue to work with CASA and Jabiru in an attempt to address these issues, however, we can’t provide further information at this point. RA-Aus is extremely worried about these actions and what this may mean for private aviation in Australia. Being the fastest growing sector of aviation it concerns us that unilateral action has been taken by the regulator that is not backed up by robust evidence which suggests the action is justified. It worries us that this precedent has the potential for further restrictions that may not be warranted based on incomplete data, deficient analysis and/or misleading claims. We also have concerns about the implications of CASAs decision and what it means for all self-administered aviation organisations as Part 149 is implemented. RA-Aus will focus our efforts on improving safety in our sector by reviewing training methods and practices, improving our education programs, communicating safety findings (where permitted by law) and so forth. We will also remain very focussed on the outcomes of CASAs recent actions, the Governments recent announcements about the recommendations of the ASRR report and continue to hold CASA to the same high standards that they demand of the aviation industry.

Geez Merv! It's not like you to back away from an argument, must be getting old, or maybe mellowing? ....... Nah. Must be getting old! .

Your humorous little dig at at our passionate board member's mantra reminded me of Meatloaf's song, and on a hot summer night too!

Volksy, Wasn't the GFTC owned and/or run by the bloke that bought the field from the Goulburn council, or have I got my wires crossed? Glad to hear that Teraya's operation is still going well.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

No. It would just shift their attention to Rotax.

Well they damn well should have! Never mind the name calling and finger pointing. It's a bit late for that now. Whoever started this process should have done a few "what if" exercises, I dunno, call it Risk Assessment if you like, before they, whoever "they" are, launched the process. It seems that everybody, after the event, realises that CASA had it in for Rec Aviation and that the outgoing Director dislikes us with a passion. How come nobody knew this before? How come nobody took that into account before?

From the RAA Christmas newsletter just received by email. "Note to members on Jabiru issues As most people are aware, CASA published a draft instrument on 13 November 2014 which would have the effect of restricting the operations of aircraft with a Jabiru powerplant. This would affect more than 1000 RA-Aus registered aircraft and have an adverse impact on some two thirds of our flight training facilities. Since the publication of this draft instrument RA-Aus has been working hard to understand the justification for these restrictions. We have, for some time, known that Jabiru engines have a higher tendency for failure than their Rotax counterpart and welcome any appropriate changes that would improve their reliability. We would also welcome any measures that result in improved reliability and safety of any aspect of our fleet. Having said this we are troubled by the process employed by CASA and especially the lack of transparency in terms of the implementation of these proposed measures. RA-Aus has repeatedly requested the information used to justify statements made by CASA that claim the failure rate is increasing. We have also requested the analysis of said data in order to assess the veracity of these claims. On 17 December 2014, almost five weeks after the draft instrument was published, RA-Aus received the data and was provided one, yes one, working day to respond. As one would expect we would have liked much more time to assess the data, understand the analysis and then form an opinion on the suitability of the proposed measures, however, regardless of taking some five weeks to provide the data, CASA allowed one day. In light of this our response was somewhat rushed. Despite this, RA-Aus was able to note that the data provided to CASA on Jabiru engine failures only covered one partial year. The only time series data made available to us (although not provided to us) was via the ATSB. That is, no engine failure data beyond the beginning of 2014 was used by CASA to justify their position and they left us to infer what data the ATSB had provided. With reference to the latter, RA-Aus has contested the validity of the ATSB data on the basis that it shows a decline in the hours flown by the RA-Aus fleet. This is in direct contrast to Government published figures which show a doubling in the number of hours flown since 2000. This led us to a simple conclusion – CASA has not undertaken robust analysis on reliable data to establish with any degree of accuracy that the failure rate of Jabiru engines is increasing over time. This is despite their statement that they have found statistically significant evidence in support of their claims. RA-Aus’ position is, as stated above, that the failure rate of Jabiru engines is greater than that of Rotax engines but that it is not worsening as per the unsubstantiated statement made by CASA. In light of this RA-Aus responded to CASA, within their incredibly tight and unrealistic timeframe, to state that we oppose their draft instrument and suggested an alternative approach to addressing the real concerns. While CASA acknowledged that our response had merit within 24 hours of receipt they proceeded with the restrictions without due consideration of our arguments. While the restrictions imposed on our members are less stringent than those originally proposed, our opinion is that they are still inappropriate. Furthermore, CASA has remained evasive in terms of providing information relating to what rate of failures would be deemed acceptable and so we remain uninformed as to what point the restrictions will be lifted other than the statement on the CASA website regarding a review by CASA early in the New Year and the six month validity of the proposed Instrument. We will continue to work with CASA and Jabiru in an attempt to address these issues, however, we can’t provide further information at this point. RA-Aus is extremely worried about these actions and what this may mean for private aviation in Australia. Being the fastest growing sector of aviation it concerns us that unilateral action has been taken by the regulator that is not backed up by robust evidence which suggests the action is justified. It worries us that this precedent has the potential for further restrictions that may not be warranted based on incomplete data, deficient analysis and/or misleading claims. We also have concerns about the implications of CASAs decision and what it means for all self-administered aviation organisations as Part 149 is implemented. RA-Aus will focus our efforts on improving safety in our sector by reviewing training methods and practices, improving our education programs, communicating safety findings (where permitted by law) and so forth. We will also remain very focussed on the outcomes of CASAs recent actions, the Governments recent announcements about the recommendations of the ASRR report and continue to hold CASA to the same high standards that they demand of the aviation industry."

Well.........Components with an S, but as Merv said is that a problem? (Hell it must be Christmas! Now I'm agreeing with Merv!)

WOW!

Oh Merv, That is so tempting, but I don't know whether He Who Must Be Obeyed allows gambling on this site.

Yeah Andy I know, and I put it in as an historical document providing providing some insight into their decision not to go with the Rotax and why it's still not a simple "lets just drop in" job. The trade offs are still valid today even if the numbers have changed.

That's ok FT. I never expected you would either, not even when presented with a rational explanation.

Is that true? What components?

FT, Perhaps this note from Phil Ainsworth written in 1994 while he Joint Managing Director of Jabiru Australia might enlighten you. "After 4 years development of the Jabiru aircraft a CAA Certificate of Type Approval was awarded on 1 October 1991. One month later, the Italian engine manufacturer (KFM) advised Jabiru that they had decided to cease aircraft engine manufacture. After an exhaustive investigation of all alternatives, including a visit to Italy to examine the possibility of manufacturing the KFM engine under licence, Jabiru decided that the only viable alternative to completely redesigning and recertifying the aircraft was to design, build and certify a new Australian aero engine. Many people have asked us why we went to the trouble of designing and certifying a new aero engine when all we had to do was to fit the Rotax 912. The following attempts to explain our thought process and our final decision to create the Jabiru 1600 Aero Engine. The first problem to address is the increased weight of the 912. On the hook, ready to install the 912 weighs 81kg (not the advertised weight, but the installed weight complete with exhaust system, oil cooling system, liquid cooling system, carby induction & heat system, oil tanks, fluids, hoses, engine mount frame, support brackets, clamps & hardware). This compares to the 56 kg of the Jabiru 1600 engine and 63kg for the previous KFM112M. The additional 27kg well in front of the CG position will require additional ballasting. Note that the KFM required 2kg of lead in the Ventral Fin and that the Jabiru engine requires nil ballast. The 912 would therefore require around 6kg of lead to bring the CG within flight range. The empty weight of the Jabiru aircraft is 235kg plus 32kg (27 additional engine + 6kg ballast) = 267kg which allows only 162kg usable load (430-267), or 2 x 80kg occupants and 3kg of fuel. Note that the Jabiru has an approved MTOW of 430kg which is both a structural and stall speed limitation. Remember that stall speed increases with weight. The Jabiru aircraft has a small (85sqft) wing with slotted and large stall strips and is stretched to its limits to achieve the necessary 40kt flapped and 45kt clean stall speeds. So, lets add more wing, this reduces stall speed but adds weight and doesn't solve anyCG problems, it also increases the need for extra fuselage length, extra tailplane, fin and rudder area to compensate for theadditional wing area. Again more weight! So let's upgrade the gross weight. This requires a complete revalidation of the airframe structural loads and remember that this is the first composite aircraft to be Type Certificated in Australia, and one of very few in the world. Now we are still overweight but we have, in the process, dramatically changed the design of the aircraft. So, back to flight testing: a full flight test programme which took 7 months of hard work in the first place, will have to be redone. But now we have the additional problem, that the aircraft with 79hp on board now exceeds 100kt straight and level, and therefore we are required to complete a full ground vibration programme at a cost of around $30,000 minimum, and another 3 months work. Also, we must now mass balance the ailerons and rudder - more weight: (say another 5kg). So, we have... ....added extra wing area ....lengthened the fuselage ....increased fin, tailplane & rudder area ....added 5kg mass balance... and we only started with 2 x 80kg occupants + 3kg fuel! As you can see, there is no clear solution to the weight/CG/stall speed/structural problem. But we haven't finished there! We now have to match the propeller to the geared 912 which means a new propeller design and propeller certification ($10,000), assuming we can transmit 79hp on a 54" diameter propeller at the low final drive RPM output of the 912. We can't inrease the prop. diameter without increasing undercarriage height, because we are at minimum clearance now. So, assuming we have achieved all of the above and probably redesigned the undercarriage for more ground clearance and for increased MTOW (and the extra weight on the nosegear), we now face noise Certification again (another $10,000). We now have a 912 Jabiru. What have we really got? The market price has increased by at least another $10,000. As an Australian manufacturer we are now totally reliant on an imported engine, as we were with the KFM (and remember that story), with all the vagaries of supply, currency variations, pricing policies of a European supplier. The aircraft now burns 16L/h compared to the Jabiru engine's 12L/h. We just lost another 1 hour endurance and increased our operating costs by $3.60 per hour for fuel, plus the high service costs of the 912. ....."

Camel, the reference was to the engine not the airframe. With a few notable exceptions, most of the respondents here, even those with an axe to grind with Jabiru, have positive things to say of the Jab airframe.

Well Don, I think that consequence was not foreseen by folk when they let the genie out of the bottle. As Methusala noted earlier, that was the thin edge of the wedge Rec Aviation, Jabiru first - whose next?

Merv, I think the waiver is designed to protect CASA's @rse not the yours.

Looks like this thread could turn into the p!ssing competition that the previous (now locked) one became. The topic is Jabiru Limitations not Yours is Worse Than mine.

To paraphrase Lewis Carrol: When I use a statistics,' CASA said in rather a scornful tone, 'they mean just what I choose them to mean — neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make statistics mean so many different things." "The question is," said CASA, "which is to be master— that's all."

The parent or guardian could sign. Kaz?

Expecting to get unbiased information in a public forum is setting the bar too high. Everyone has their biases and it's up to us, the readers and contributors to filter them. Sometimes the moderators might be seen as leaning too far one way or the other (depending on your personal bias). I wouldn't venture an opinion on that - my bias might shine through!

Ian, I doubt anyone here would disagree. Strong robust discussion, and sometimes that means disagreement and or disputation, is healthy, helpful and should be encouraged. Personal abuse is not.

Ian, It was inappropriate, I think, of you to disclose a member's (ex member's) name on this site. I agree completely with Nev that it is not acceptable for anyone here to receive personal abuse. If there is a personal history between you and the person who chooses go under the name Deborahlwayman, it should remain personal and private. I don't think it should be a matter for discussion in these places. I'm sure it must be uncomfortable for both you and your family to disclose those matters here and I wonder if perhaps you shouldn't delete those references. I hope you don't take offence at my comments, they are offered in good faith. Regards. G.

A clear statement of intent! Certainly seems that Deb is not the favorite child and is apparently the only one on this site "coming out with crap" Ian, this is where there "Really?!" button would be appropriate. I think you're over reacting. But you are the one with the finger on the Destruct button