Dafydd Llewellyn

Ta - I see your point. In particular, Section 3.13(5) of the QLD Act makes it quite clear that some risks are non-obvious. I wonder to what extent being flown in a glider - including a self-launching glider - that is maintained and operated in accordance with the GFA procedures, by a pilot holding the necessary GFA maintenance and pilot qualifications, is an obvious risk? In view of the precedent of Echin Vs STGC, I would suspect it to be an obvious risk; but in any case, it is something that can be included in the warning. I do find it difficult to accept that the law has changed to the extent that abiding by established and defined procedures such as GAAP, and using a normal degree of care and vigilance, should not be a defence against negligence.

Andy, I agree; what the aerodrome operator does via its ARO, is to minimise its own liability. It does not really have anything to do with an incoming aircraft, until that aircraft is on the ground. The default requirement has to be GAAP. Nothing else is workable.

Not to my knowledge

Which "they" are you referring to? And which CASA schedule?

Thanks, Turbs. Yes, the experimental warning placard and briefing, warn the passenger that the aircraft does not comply with normal safety standards, and that they fly in it at their own risk. This does not of itself address negligence. However it does establish that flying in the aircraft is a dangerous recreational activity; and by definition, the clauses in the Civil Liability Act means that no redress can be made in regard to negligence. So under those conditions, the passenger has no come-back, I believe. I agree that flying from a site that allows no EFATO safe landing possibility would constitute negligence - but there's no exclusion clause in the Civil Liability Act to address that; if you're fool enough to get into an obviously dangerous flying machine, despite being warned, then you can't complain about the outcome, no matter what the cause - or so it seems to me to be the effect of the Act. I think we've both put our point of view sufficiently on this; I don't propose to carry it further. Thanks very much for your input; it's been valuable.

Silly question - If you bother to think about it, it should be obvious that the engine test cell cooling system cannot be the same as the aircraft cooling system, because it's not moving through the air at 70 knots or so. Its function is purely to maintain the engine at the red-line temperature limits throughout the test, in order to prove that the engine can withstand those temperatures. Alan Kerr supervised the most recent J 2200 certification, and he used his own calibrated instruments, not VDO. (I used my own calibrated instruments for the flight testing I did, also; the calibration report is a required part of the test report. The instruments I used were standard aircraft hardware, not VDO; I had to get Rod to tap the oil temp probe hole in the sump for the MS 28034 probe). There was no question of cold-junction error in what I used. All this test work, for a certificated aircraft, is done under CASA's beady eye. They sit in on the engine endurance run, all 50 hours of it, and they go through the results minutely. They critically observe the before-and-after engine power rating tests; and they are right there for the engine disassembly and strip examination. Their test pilot and flight test engineer re-do any parts of the applicant's flight test report they feel like (and they usually feel like checking the cooling test, because it's such a fundamental issue.) Attached is a photo of the sort of thing that is involved in a test cell endurance run of an engine; it has a 5 HP electric centrifugal fan to supply the air. So the test cell endurance run is a test of the ENGINE, not of its installation. The test of the INSTALLATION is part of the required flight testing of each certificated model of the airfraft, and it uses the temperature limits that were established during the test cell running of the engine. The flight test procedure for engine cooling is to get the engine hot in level flight at low altitude (like, 50 feet above the water, off the beach between Elliot heads and Burrum Head), reduce throttle momentarily to slow to climb speed, and pull it into a maximum-performance climb at Vy, with full throttle - and hold that climb until the temperatures hit their peak and start to fall as the outside air temp falls - which generally takes about six minutes. You record the engine temperatures and the outside air temperature, every thirty seconds (I use a set of instruments in a box with a video camera recording them.) The peak temperatures are corrected by a standard formula, to account for ISA plus 22.7C. This procedure is identical for all the design standards; they all use the same words. I hope you are beginning to see why I am having difficulty accepting that the engines in the certificated models are running overtemp when they are operated in accordance with the POH, because all that, including what goes into the POH, is based on these tests. CASA is very fussy about the POH; if you look at it carefully, you will see that the operating limitations and performance sections of it are CASA-approved. The LSA models are not supervised or oversighted by CASA; and I have no knowledge of exactly what was done in their case. So I do not understand why you say " the consumer should be able to rightly rely on the CHT instrument accuracy, especially on factory built LSA models." . If anything, the level of surety should be higher for the certificated models.

As a matter of curiosity, David, which Jabiru models are producing this - the certificated ones, or the LSA ones? I ask, because the certificated ones were flight tested, which includes engine cooling, by competent test pilots who were NOT Jabiru employees. I tested the early aircraft, and Keith Engelsman (ex CASA chief test pilot) tested the rest of them. And CASA normally does its own verification testing as well. The cooling test results have to be corrected to a condition of ISA plus 22.7 degrees (i.e. a 100 degree F day at sea level.)

Glad to hear that. But I don't think it's for general publication yet, either; that has to be Ian's option. The point is, whilst all this bitching is going on, there are people trying to do something about it. It has to go through the proper hoops.

There's a lot of work going on in that area; can't talk about it now.

I have to agree. So where does that logic take us? I have been overhauling a Blanik - and what comes to me from that, is that there are a lot of people out there who should not be allowed within 100 yards of an aircraft - 200 yards if they are holding a spanner. Some of the butchery on that aircraft was incredible. Some of the work was very good. It hung together despite the butchery because it was such a good design in the first place. The whole basis of RAA etc was that the common aviation enthusiast was sufficiently competent to maintain his own aircraft. Are we getting to the point of disproving that?

Yep, I agree with that.

Yep; I think the party's over. I have always seen the AUF/RAA movement as a re-invention of grass-roots GA; and inevitably, the time has come for the next step in that process.

Mainstream aviation is already there - has been, long before the ADRs came into existence. That's all set out in CASR Part 21. Where we are currently having problems, is with the notion that it is desirable to have watered-down standards for recreational aircraft in order to reduce their cost; and lax enforcement due to the absence of a certificate of Airworthiness and a Maintenance Release, in the RAA system.

Um - your reasoning is a bit garbled, I think. Firstly, the Jab 2200 J and 2200C ARE certificated - you can look up the Type certificated Data Sheet on the CASA website. That means, CASA was (rightly or wrongly) satisfied that the engine met the certification requirement of the stated certification basis (JAR 22H); and the operating limits were set, as they normally are, on the basis of that testing. Thems is facts. So Jabiru is not misrepresenting that the engines are certificated. I think the reality is that people do not comprehend what the existence of a Type certificate actually means. I've tried to explain one facet of that above. Secondly, if the engines are exceeding their temperature limitations in normal service, that is an issue of either the engine installation in the aircraft not providing sufficient cooling, OR it's an issue of the operator using it in such a way that the limits are being exceeded. The certification requirements for the AIRCRAFT demand that the engine must not exceed its stated temperature limits in a maximum-performance climb at Vy (best climb rate speed). It does NOT demand that the engine must not exceed its stated temperature limits below that speed - for example, at Vx (best climb gradient speed). So it is quite possible to overtemp a certificated engine in a certificated aircraft by poor operation. That's why the thing is fitted with temperature instruments. If you are demanding that the design of the engine and the design of the aircraft should be such that no matter what the operator does, it's impossible to exceed limits, you are demanding more than the certification standards call for. This means, you do not have a proper understanding of what Type certification is all about; and that is a general problem throughout the aviation industry, I'm sorry to say. Most people understand that a pilot needs to comprehend that if he exceeds the flight envelope limits, he can pull the wings off. Similarly, if he exceeds the certificated operating conditions for the engine, things can come unstuck there also. I am NOT trying to put all the blame onto the operators of Jabiru engines; but please get your facts straight. I do suspect that people are inadvertantly exceeding the temperature limits, because of cold junction errors. The Jabiru engine installation manual gives clear guidance on the location of the cold junction and its intended temperature. I do not know whether locating it there actually gives that temperature or under what flight conditions it may do so. I do not know whether the temperature limits established during the 50 hour endurance test are sufficiently conservative in the longer term; it's definitely desirable to stay well within them, but you better make sure the gauge is telling the truth. Both the aircraft and the engine could no doubt be improved in these regards - but you are incorrect in saying that they are not certificated. Perhaps the certification standards need to be tightened-up. You could stick to FAR 23 aircraft, of course, which do have somewhat higher standards here - but the clamour 20 years ago was for relaxed certification standards, in order to make aeroplanes more affordable. You can't have it both ways.

In the interests of a better general understanding, here's (part of) what it takes to type-certificate an engine for a recreational aeroplane: The temperature limits given in the engine TCDS (look it up on the CASA website) are determined as a result of this test.

Routine maintenance. Being certificated (NOT certified) does not remove the necessity for maintenance. The fact that it's necessary suggests that the valve guide temperatures are a bit on the high side - which again says that the CHT is getting a tad higher than was demonstrated during the 50 hour certification endurance run. The temperature limits given in the TCDS are based on the temperatures that were exceeded for at least 50% of the endurance run; that's how they were established in the first place. The engine has to be run for 25 2-hour blocks, during the first hour of which the power is varied from idle to takeoff power; and the second hour is held at maximum continuous power, and red-line temperatures. CASA sits-in on all such tests. The engine is stripped and inspected afterwards, and carbon build-up in the guides would have been seen - so one must therefore deduce that if they are carboning up in service, then the CHT and/or the EGT are exceeding the TCDS limits. Hence my comments re the cold junctions. I don't think you are correct re Lycomings etc; it doesn't have to be done frequently, but those air-cooled engines all run very close to limiting conditions for the exhaust valve guides. Continental has gone through about four changes in exhaust guide material over the years, and they still give trouble. The Rotax has liquid-cooled heads, whose main advantage is that they make it easier to cool the exhaust guides. Some Lycomings have oil passages in the head to try to reduce the guide temperatures; I hate to imaging what the maintenance issues are when those passages carbon up, as they must. Cars don't do it because they do not run the same duty cycle as an aero engine.

Good point. However, an equally valid question is "how many Jabs ACTUALLY have these problems?" - and what is the actual cause of them? I would like to see some real statistical data; some of the statistical questions, like "How many Jabirus are registered in Australia" and "What percentage of them are factory-built?" should be simple enough to answer - but we don't seem to be able to get answers to even such basic questions as those. Even if we do start to get some numbers, remember the quotation " There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Ta - yes, I've seen that one before. I have been very interested in manufacturer's liability, especially when strict liability was introduced into the TPA. Were you aware that compliance with the ADRs is a defence against this? Aircraft manufacturers have no equivalent protection; I tried, when I was chairman of the Qld Aircraft Manufacturers' Association (now defunct) to get a parity with the provision that does this (I don't recall where it is, now - maybe there's a Motor Vehicles Standards Act - and maybe it's been overtaken by precedent) - but failed, because it would make CASA liable at the point of sale, whereas as things stand, they are liable only at the point of flight - and they also have an immunity in regard to experimental aircraft, under CASR Part 201.003. On the whole, I suspect Strict Liability with a limit, similar to the Chicago convention limit for airline passengers, will have to come in sooner or later, or we'll have no manufacturers; at least the actuarial mathematics of Strict (but limited) Liability are finite, so it's possible to insure for it. However, that does not, so far as I can see, carry over to the question of carrying somebody at no cost, simply for their pleasure, in the spare seat in an experimental aircraft; there could hardly be a more obvious risk (apart, perhaps, from bungee jumping) and the placards and briefing required nail the lid on that, I think. If one operates in a State where there is an effective let-out for the identified dangerous recreational activity of flying in an aircraft, and given the CASA immunity, there's little potential attraction for a Lawyer under provisional fee billing. If the pilot is criminally negligent and operating where there is no let-out for an identified dangerous recreational activity, well . . . The Damage by Aircraft Act and third party liability to other airspace users remains, and one needs to insure for those.

Thanks, Kaz - I must have mis-read something. It obviously makes a difference if you are providing a service as opposed to simply making a seat available to a friend. The situation is murky in SA, it would seem - and I've not pursued it elsewhere.

Seriously, provided one operates with normal diligence, and provides the required briefing, it looks to me as though an experimental aircraft really only needs insurance for the Damage by Aircraft Act liability, plus third party. Apart from a few grandchildren, I doubt I'll be carrying anybody who is not a pilot.

I suggest you locate the cold junction of your CHT instrument, and make sure it's not being exposed to hot air. I'm retired from the CAR 35 game, so I can't write you an EO; but see what it says in the Jabiru engine installation instructions for your model. For the 2200, the relevant info is on Page 21.

I'm not suggesting that you should. I'm trying to help prevent further accidents. If you choose to ignore what I provided on principle, that's fine by me.

Well, the Blanik doesn't belong to me; and you're welcome to the drawing instruments. Re negligence, look at QLD Civil Liability Act S19; NSW & Vic Civil Liability Act S 5L & 5M; SA Civil Liability (recreational service) amdt bill 2008 S 39C.

Yes - and anybody who rides in the glider does so at their own risk, because it's experimental (and carries the placards, warnings etc) - and I'm not worth sueing.

The word is "certificated" - i.e. having a Type Certificate. The normal way these things usually go, is that CASA asks the manufacturer to put out a Service Bulletin. If CASA is not satisfied with the SB, it can withdraw or suspend the manufacturer's Production Certificate, under CASR 21.002. If CASA is satisfied that a defect exists, the manufacturer was aware of it, and failed to report it to CASA, it can prosecute the manufacturer under CASR 21.003. CASA may elect to make a SB mandatory, by issuing an Airworthiness Directive under CASR Part 39. You are quite correct that CASA will NOT design a modification itself. It will lean on the manufacturer instead - and it can lean very heavily indeed.