New through bolt AD

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Further : the SB does state LSAs must comply. Non LSA - I make no comment.

Frank my comment I should have clarified that my point reflected the realities of insurance not the legal obligations. Although its a general rule of thumb that only the brave deviate from, that if you neglect the legal obligations the insurer will almost certainly neglect to pay any claim...... So while different they are interlinked loosely but enough that I wouldn't be neglecting the legal requirements at least knowingly without prior written acceptance of the insurer

 

AndyWith ref to making a decision to comply with a SB or not - I am under the impression (don't claim to be an expert or have any desire to argue the fact) that a SB has the same requirement as an AD , at least for a LSA. i.e. mandatory.

Just my take on the matter.

 

It is certainly more involved then the original but does not apply if the original was done in the required time frame (again that's the way I read the situation)

 

I have no doubt that arguments about doing/not doing/avoiding/amending etc will follow by some , as with most subjects discussed here, but my approach was to comply within the time frame. The cost was nil if completed by the factory (other then flying to Bunderberg. In my case I was flying past anyway.)

Mine is 19 registered and as such I was never sure if I had to legally incorporate the previous SB or not. I did talk to a couple of recognised J repairer experts who suggested that the solid lifters were fine left alone.......In any event it became a moot point when major work was required for other reasons.

 

The work required was significant enough that the replacement of TB's and indeed begrudgingly now the studs seemed a logical choice for my circumstances. I still don't understand if I had to have this done or not.....but I guess I'll get over that confusion.....

 

It was suggested that it would be an issue if I wanted to sell, but to be honest as a buyer its prudent to assume everything needs doing unless you can sight documentation proving incorporation both in the form of an appropriately annotated maintenance manual with details and signature of the L1,2,3 or 4 involved for the aircraft and supporting documentation such as an invoice and a set of worksheets if full details of all steps aren't incorporated in the maintenance manual rather just a summary entry. Caveat Emptor in this unregulated space like you've never Emptored before would be my thoughts!!

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

And, Maj., I would assume therefore that you are totally blissed out.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Ah ignorance is such bliss to some........Maj...

Hi Maj

 

I read the issue date is 10 September 2013; is this a preview of the AD to come?

 

Cheers

 

Mike Still in the 6th Sept here.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Hi MajI read the issue date is 10 September 2013; is this a preview of the AD to come?

 

Cheers

 

Mike Still in the 6th Sept here.

Don't really know Mike, ADs are usually issued by CASA, although I suppose a manufacturer could issue one. Maybe J knows something is coming that we don't. Just guessing of course.........time will tell no doubt.....cheers Ross

 

 

[Oscar]

Mine is 19 registered and as such I was never sure if I had to legally incorporate the previous SB or not. I did talk to a couple of recognised J repairer experts who suggested that the solid lifters were fine left alone.......

Andy

Andy: the solid lifter equation is not a remedy for detonation or out-of-temp-limit running. The through-bolt (and stud) issue is unrelated to the oil-feed issues that happened with the introduction of the hydraulic lifters. Yes, both are problems - and both are being seriously addressed right now. I am confident that by the end of this year, there will be options available to Jab. engine owners that will see a light at the end of the tunnel that is NOT an oncoming train..

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

An AD is issued by CASA under CASR Part 39; I suggest people look it up. It was inaccurate to title this thread "new through-bolt AD . . " because, as yet, it isn't an AD; it's a service bulletin. I do not know whether a Service Bulletin issued by an LSA manufacturer and graded by him as "Mandatory" has a similar legal weight for that manufacturer's LSA products, as one that is mandated by CASA for Type Certificated products, tho I'd not be surprised if that were the case.

 

None of this says anything about the wisdom of complying with it; one should normally think twice about ignoring a manufacturer's "mandatory" SB - tho I have to say that changing the nuts without doing anything else, sounds like re-arranging the deck chairs. What Oscar says is correct; there are many possible factors that can affect TB breakage, and all of them are aggravated by running at high manifold pressure.

 

The reason I asked whether it was really an AD, is because if it is, then the mechanism of an AMOC can come into play. Now go look that up on the CASA website.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Ah ignorance is such bliss to some........Maj...

Mike, my comment above was made in reply to another post that appears to have been removed now.........Maj...

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Oscar

 

my 3300A had the original thick finned heads, yet there was none of the head pulling into the cylinder even on the 2 hotter center cylinders that is apparently an indication of too hot a temp running. I do believe in the "run them hard" mandate that Don and team have been espousing for years but always understood that to be run them fast rather than bog them down, and unless there is an obstacle that requires best Rate of climb I'm happy to climb at closer to 100 than 70. I was always told that having the thick finned heads put me at a disadvantage to others and as such I needed to ensure that there was always adequate cooling air flow.

 

I changed the original thin black oil cooler for the chunkier one and as part of the lower cowl modifications required for the new oil cooler air intake I increased the size of the cooling air exit and as per J's instructions moulded a lip in to create a suction exhaust. Seems to have worked Ok so far...

 

I did ask about swapping to the fine finned heads but a $5k parts cost plus labour ontop when the repairer said that there wasn't anything apparent that suggested what I was doing was overheating meant that for the time being the thicker heads with new K liner guides will do for now.

 

Your point about the solids vs the hydraulics I understand, but I'm not aware of anyone who owns a 3300 solid that has broken a TB and neither were the 2 repairers that I spoke to......which I accept is non definitive they aren't aware of everything.....

 

Andy

 

 

[DrZoos]

Under ACL they have certain obligations. These are private aircraft for consumers. Thus for any private owner there is a possible case under acl.

 

http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=983801&nodeId=34452c5e015282c3651c4e076ab001f2&fn=Product Safety - a guide for businesses and legal practitioners.pdf

 

Summary

 

A recall can be initiated by a supplier or ordered by a minister. Most Australian recalls are initiated by suppliers.

 

Suppliers should recall consumer goods as soon as they realise the goods:

 

• > may cause injury
   
   
   
   
  
• > do not comply with a safety standard, or
   
   
   
   
  
• > are banned.
   
  When a supplier initiates a recall, they must notify the Commonwealth minister within 48 hours of recalling the consumer goods. Failing to do so is unlawful.
   
  A minister can order a recall when the product poses a safety risk and the supplier is not prepared to recall the goods voluntarily.
   
  ACL reference: sections 128 and 201 (supplier-initiated recall); 122-127 (minister-ordered recall)
   
  When can a consumer seek compensation?
   
  A consumer can seek compensation from a manufacturer who has supplied defective goods, if the goods caused loss or damage.
   
  A manufacturer is a person or business that:
   
  > makes or puts goods together
   
   
   
   
  
• > has their name on the goods, or
   
   
   
   
  
• > imports the goods, if the maker of the goods does not have an office in Australia.
   
  ’Loss’ and ‘damage’ can include:
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• > injuries to the person making the claim, or to another individual
   
   
   
   
  
• > economic loss caused by damage to, or destruction of another good, land, a building or a fixture.
   
   
  

 

 

The court will consider the safety of the goods by looking at all relevant circumstances, including:

 

• > marketing of the goods
   
   
   
   
  
• > packaging of the goods
   
   
   
   
  
• > the warnings and instructions for use
   
   
   
   
  
• > what may reasonably be expected to be done with the goods.
   
  If a person takes a manufacturer to court and wins, the court decides how much compensation is due.
   
  A consumer must take action within three years of becoming aware, or from when they should have become aware, of the alleged:
   
  > loss or damage
   
   
   
   
  
• > safety defect of the goods, or
   
   
   
   
  
• > identity of the person who manufactured the goods.
   
  They must also claim within 10 years of when the goods were originally supplied.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From

 

http://www.claytonutz.com.au/docs/ACL Guide manufacturers supplier_nov_2012.pdf

 

Under the ACL “goods” are defined to include:

 

• ships, aircraft and other vehicles;
   
   
  

 

 

The term “consumer goods” means goods that are intended to be used,

 

or are of a kind likely to be used, for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption, and (in circumstances where a recall action has occurred) includes any such goods that have become fixtures since the time

 

they were supplied. Unlike the term “consumer”, there is no upper monetary limit in the definitionof “consumer goods”.

 

Who is a ‘consumer’?

 

General definition of ‘consumer’

 

From http://www.ags.gov.au/publications/fact-sheets/Fact_sheet_No_12.pdf

 

Section 3 of the ACL contains an objective definition of ‘consumer’, which applies in many, but not all, parts of the ACL. This provision substantially carries forward the definition in s 4B of the CCA (although the two provisions are not in the same form). In summary, for most purposes in the ACL, there is a presumption that a person is a ‘consumer’ if they:

 

• – acquire goods or services the price of which is $40,000 or less, or
   
   
  But then says
   
  Consumer goods’
   
  The ACL also contains a definition of ‘consumer goods’, which is a concept referred to in Pts 3–3 and 4–3 of the ACL (relating to product safety standards and safety of services relating to certain goods).
   
  Section 2 of the ACL defines ‘consumer goods’ as ‘goods that are intended to be used, or are of a
  kind likely to be used, for personal, domestic or household use or consumption’. If a recall notice or voluntary recall has been issued in relation to those goods, the definition also encompasses any goods that have become fixtures since they were supplied.
   
  In distinction to the definition of ‘consumer’ in s 3, this definition does not require the price for the goods to fall under a particular monetary threshold.
   
   
   
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Oscar]

Andy - there are a number of different issues at play here, and very probably the definitive differential is the way in which the engine is used.

 

The early Jab. installations assumed that the sump in a decent airflow would provide significant oil cooling. In fact that is not the case: what happens is the oil closest to the surface of the sump is cooled, while the remainder of the oil in the sump slides past that layer with very little cooling indeed and is the oil that is recirculated through the engine. Cooling efficiency requires good velocity through a matrix that ensures maximum area for heat transference: look at the thinness of each tube vs. the area of your car radiator for an example.

 

The early LSA55's had a truly horrible airflow management arrangement ( I have one, it gives me Conniption fits to look at!) By comparison, the J160 has more problems with over-cooling of the oil than overheating: a thermostatically-controlled oil-cooling system would be far preferable.

 

Fine-finned heads provide better cooling - but a better baffling arrangement would do a great deal to make even the older heads more use-tolerant. There is almost no useful airflow past the cylinder barrels. Don't blame the engine builder for the inadequacies of the installation.

 

The alloy used in the cylinder heads is not optimum for use in an air-cooled engine.

 

Despite all of these limiting factors - if a Jab. engine is used carefully, rather than just as a thing on the end of the throttle knob that makes a noise - they can give very decent service. However, they are not abuse-tolerant: you get a light-weight engine for the price. If you demand 40k hours between majors - and 130 hp continuous for 24 x 7: go buy a Gardner 6LX oil engine. They only weigh just under 1 tonne, and though they're not in production anymore, you can buy a complete re-furb one for around $55k. (or I'll sell you a set of rods, a crankshaft and a starter motor for the price of a Jab/ re-build - best offer you'll get).

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Under ACL they have certain obligations. These are private aircraft for consumers. Thus for any private owner there is a possible case under acl.http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=983801&nodeId=34452c5e015282c3651c4e076ab001f2&fn=Product Safety - a guide for businesses and legal practitioners.pdf

Summary

 

A recall can be initiated by a supplier or ordered by a minister. Most Australian recalls are initiated by suppliers.

 

Suppliers should recall consumer goods as soon as they realise the goods:

 

• > may cause injury
   
   
   
   
  
• > do not comply with a safety standard, or
   
   
   
   
  
• > are banned.
   
  When a supplier initiates a recall, they must notify the Commonwealth minister within 48 hours of recalling the consumer goods. Failing to do so is unlawful.
   
  A minister can order a recall when the product poses a safety risk and the supplier is not prepared to recall the goods voluntarily.
   
  ACL reference: sections 128 and 201 (supplier-initiated recall); 122-127 (minister-ordered recall)
   
  When can a consumer seek compensation?
   
  A consumer can seek compensation from a manufacturer who has supplied defective goods, if the goods caused loss or damage.
   
  A manufacturer is a person or business that:
   
  > makes or puts goods together
   
   
   
   
  
• > has their name on the goods, or
   
   
   
   
  
• > imports the goods, if the maker of the goods does not have an office in Australia.
   
  ’Loss’ and ‘damage’ can include:
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

• > injuries to the person making the claim, or to another individual
   
   
   
   
  
• > economic loss caused by damage to, or destruction of another good, land, a building or a fixture.
   
   
  

 

 

The court will consider the safety of the goods by looking at all relevant circumstances, including:

 

• > marketing of the goods
   
   
   
   
  
• > packaging of the goods
   
   
   
   
  
• > the warnings and instructions for use
   
   
   
   
  
• > what may reasonably be expected to be done with the goods.
   
  If a person takes a manufacturer to court and wins, the court decides how much compensation is due.
   
  A consumer must take action within three years of becoming aware, or from when they should have become aware, of the alleged:
   
  > loss or damage
   
   
   
   
  
• > safety defect of the goods, or
   
   
   
   
  
• > identity of the person who manufactured the goods.
   
  They must also claim within 10 years of when the goods were originally supplied.
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From

 

http://www.claytonutz.com.au/docs/ACL Guide manufacturers supplier_nov_2012.pdf

 

Under the ACL “goods” are defined to include:

 

• ships, aircraft and other vehicles;
   
   
  

 

 

The term “consumer goods” means goods that are intended to be used,

 

or are of a kind likely to be used, for personal, domestic, or household use or consumption, and (in circumstances where a recall action has occurred) includes any such goods that have become fixtures since the time

 

they were supplied. Unlike the term “consumer”, there is no upper monetary limit in the definitionof “consumer goods”.

Yes, let's destroy Australian industry. Then we can all go back to watching the footy.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Yes, let's destroy Australian industry. Then we can all go back to watching the footy.

Thats easy to say if you have deep pockets or are unaffected.

Manufacturers know they have these obligations and if they are smart they price it in. I run my own business and we know exactly our refund rates and budgets, its priced into every transaction we make. Its not about crippling jab, its about jab knowing this was always a likely possibility and they would have both insurance and past profits to accommodate this..

 

If they dont they are very foolish. Its called product liability and recall insurance.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Thats easy to say if you have deep pockets or are unaffected.Manufacturers know they have these obligations and if they are smart they price it in. I run my own business and we know exactly our refund rates and budgets, its priced into every transaction we make. Its not about crippling jab, its about jab knowing this was always a likely possibility and they would have both insurance and past profits to accommodate this..

 

If they dont they are very foolish. Its called product liability and recall insurance.

Have you ever tried to obtain this sort of cover for an aeronautical product? The Americans at least have a statute of limitations of 15 years on the manufacturer's liability - so the cost of 15 years' cover has to be added to the price of each item. Australia has no such limit, so the potential liability is open-ended. How do you build that sort of cost into the selling price?

The end result of this sort of legislation is inevitably that no Australian manufacturer will market his product - if it's in the consumer product category - in Australia - at anything like its real cost. Nor will anybody take on a franchise to import a product in this class; what you will end up with is "facilitators" who "help" purchasers to purchase directly from the overseas manufacturer, and the manufacturers will set up in countries whose legislation is more favourable - why do you think Cessna are now manufacturing the 162 in China?

 

This sort of legislation is of no real benefit to anybody but the lawyers, in the long run. It's actually self-defeating - but the consumer pays for it.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Going by the serial numbers there is 3000 engines affected.

 

The Americans at least have a statute of limitations of 15 years on the manufacturer's liability - so the cost of 15 years' cover has to be added to the price of each item. Australia has no such limit, so the potential liability is open-ended. How do you build that sort of cost into the selling price?

Under ACL in Australia there is a 10 year limit. So its actually friendlier for Aussie manufacturers. Every retailer, every distributor and every manufacturer in Australia knows they can be sued for a faulty or unsafe product, and relied upon to replace faulty products under warranty, under recalls or for a variety of other reasons. We are a tiny business compared to Jab, but we carry 10M product liability and $1M recall insurance. We factor that into our costs, plus we operate with a 3% refund budget. Jab would be similar. They are crazy and reckless if they are in the game they are in and not insured for product liability or recall. Because even if they could walk away financially as a pty ltd co, from a major recall, they wont escape their duty of care for safety to consumers as company directors. These guys would have a serious insurance consult every year in the game they are in and they undoubtedly would be insured for this.

 

The end result of this sort of legislation is inevitably that no Australian manufacturer will market his product

Its standard practice already. Im not sure why your thinking this is unique to Jabiru or tough on Jabiru. All Aussie manufacturers retailers, distributors, representatives, sales people, service agents and a host of others already face this and deal with this every working month. This is not a unique problem to Jabiru, its not unique to the aviation industry. It happens all the time. There are literally hundreds of product recalls every month and unfortunately they are very expensive, but that is why you have insurance for it.

We faced a recall last year on one of our biggest selling lines. It cost us 3 months worth gross sales revenue, or over 12 months profit margin. Its just an unavoidable consequence of running a business. We made a claim and it was paid after a LOT of time and paper work. Our current premium is higher as a result. but our premium is not ridiculously higher, because the whole concept of risk management by insurers is to spread the cost of the probability across many insured parties, not lump it on one party, otherwise insurance wouldn't be viable.

 

It will be similar for Jab, they will bury their heads and hope this blows over, but it wont. They have a legal and moral obligation to fix what is undoubtably a safety fault in their product. Every consumer buys their product assuming they are buying a safe and reliable product. And they are entitled to some protection. Jabiru dont tell you when you purchase from them that they are selling a discount product that is unsafe or unreliable and thus discounted, or a product that has no warranty.

 

Where as when you buy a motocross motorcylce they fully inform you that you are buying an offroad motorcycle that due to its tough operating conditions is only required to provide a 3 month warranty. And every consumer knows that up front, and its a large part of the reason why its $3000 or so cheaper then the same bike that is registrable.

 

If you bought a TV hoping to get 3-5 years out of it, and after 13 months they said, this TV is unsafe and your house is likely to burn down if you dont have a major component replaced. The TV is not to be used until the part is replaced. Oh and we the company are not paying. It will cost you 1/4 the cost of the TV price to have it repaired. I bet it would hit the national news and every current affair program. Yet this happens all the time, we dont hear about it because these manufacturers dont shirk their responsibilities. They just go about fixing it.

 

 

[Oscar]

Out of interest, can anybody tell me what the arrangements were for the Rotax shaft inspection requirement some little time ago? Did Rotax pick up all the costs?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Going by the serial numbers there is 3000 engines affected.Under ACL in Australia there is a 10 year limit. So its actually friendlier for Aussie manufacturers. Every retailer, every distributor and every manufacturer in Australia knows they can be sued for a faulty or unsafe product, and relied upon to replace faulty products under warranty, under recalls or for a variety of other reasons. We are a tiny business compared to Jab, but we carry 10M product liability and $1M recall insurance. We factor that into our costs, plus we operate with a 3% refund budget. Jab would be similar. They are crazy and reckless if they are in the game they are in and not insured for product liability or recall. Because even if they could walk away financially as a pty ltd co, from a major recall, they wont escape their duty of care for safety to consumers as company directors. These guys would have a serious insurance consult every year in the game they are in and they undoubtedly would be insured for this.

 

Its standard practice already. Im not sure why your thinking this is unique to Jabiru or tough on Jabiru. All Aussie manufacturers retailers, distributors, representatives, sales people, service agents and a host of others already face this and deal with this every working month. This is not a unique problem to Jabiru, its not unique to the aviation industry. It happens all the time. There are literally hundreds of product recalls every month and unfortunately they are very expensive, but that is why you have insurance for it.

 

We faced a recall last year on one of our biggest selling lines. It cost us 3 months worth gross sales revenue, or over 12 months profit margin. Its just an unavoidable consequence of running a business. We made a claim and it was paid after a LOT of time and paper work. Our current premium is higher as a result. but our premium is not ridiculously higher, because the whole concept of risk management by insurers is to spread the cost of the probability across many insured parties, not lump it on one party, otherwise insurance wouldn't be viable.

 

It will be similar for Jab, they will bury their heads and hope this blows over, but it wont. They have a legal and moral obligation to fix what is undoubtably a safety fault in their product. Every consumer buys their product assuming they are buying a safe and reliable product. And they are entitled to some protection. Jabiru dont tell you when you purchase from them that they are selling a discount product that is unsafe or unreliable and thus discounted, or a product that has no warranty.

 

Where as when you buy a motocross motorcylce they fully inform you that you are buying an offroad motorcycle that due to its tough operating conditions is only required to provide a 3 month warranty. And every consumer knows that up front, and its a large part of the reason why its $3000 or so cheaper then the same bike that is registrable.

 

If you bought a TV hoping to get 3-5 years out of it, and after 13 months they said, this TV is unsafe and your house is likely to burn down if you dont have a major component replaced. The TV is not to be used until the part is replaced. Oh and we the company are not paying. It will cost you 1/4 the cost of the TV price to have it repaired. I bet it would hit the national news and every current affair program. Yet this happens all the time, we dont hear about it because these manufacturers dont shirk their responsibilities. They just go about fixing it.

And when did that come in? Long after Jabiru started, I suspect. OK, now for some maths - 3000 engines x (perhaps, on average) $3000 per engine = $9 million. How many owners do you think will get redress before Jabiru folds? And what support for the product do the owners have after that? If the TC holder folds, and nobody picks up the TC (and who would, with that sort of liability attached?) then will CASA cancel the Type Certificate? If so, all Jabirus will be grounded. Think it through . . .

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Isn't that law part of the trade's practices act of 1974....

 

I wonder how this is going to affect the resale of Jabirus now?

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Jabiru should NOT fold or have any problems provided they has intiated the correct business management practices as other people here have described in earlier threads, for God sake it is their product and if the engine or any other part of the aircraft prove to have a major fault safety in the engine or airframe it is their responsibilty to repair it and make it good at NO cost to the consumer, provided that the owner of the aircraft has followed correct proceedures set out by the factory since he bought it, these aircraft are not $200 items, they are expensive items that people have paid their hard earned for and they should expect a warranty and expect that their aircraft be fixed by the manufacturer at Jab's cost, how can this be any other way...

 

 

[facthunter]

If some of you fella's don't realise what sport aviation, is you will finish it off You should consider it's something like a race car or rally car or homemade submarine. Special built for a special purpose and in some ways on the limit. If you want guarantees for everything when there is little control over the end user and the way it is installed, maintained and operated. , you will kill off low volume manufacturers who are prepared to make stuff where there is a lot of risk and small profits at best. You threaten the individual being able to do his own work or design or anybody being involved who can't fully guarantee something as safe as a dumb little car that you can't work on with airbags everywhere. Sport aviation will nor survive by imposing more rules and conditions on everything. There will be no fun or room to move or innovate , and more and more regulation and cost. This game requires a bit of nous and acceptance of personal responsibility and good level of knowledge. Not just "buy and fly" and blame someone else when the wheel falls off. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

Isn't that law part of the trade's practices act of 1974....I wonder how this is going to affect the resale of Jabirus now?

That act has been superceded twice.We are now up to from memory Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Pretty much the written exactly the same though.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Isn't that law part of the trade's practices act of 1974....I wonder how this is going to affect the resale of Jabirus now?

The recall provisions were not, to my knowledge, in the 1988 version of the TPA, at least in the manner described by Dr. Zoos. Strict liability for defects was introduced then, but it related to injury or death.

The issue in regard to strict liability lay in the definition of a defect: "A product has a defect if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect" (or words to that effect). The Motor Vehicles Standards Act made compliance with the ADRs a defence against this. Aircraft (and aircraft engines) have to comply with far more stringent standards that that, to gain a Type Certificate, but the holding of a TC has not been made an automatic defence; the manufacturer would have the cost of arguing this in the courts.

 

The holder of a Type Certificate has a strict liability under CASR Part 21.003, to report defects to CASA. This is normally done by way of a Service Bulletin or similar.

 

The resale value of Jabirus is now, it would appear, more precarious than that of any of the imports, because of this recall legislation. In the case of the imports, the Australian legislation affects only the importer. Some of these are already "men of straw". So the effect is to destroy the indigenous manufacturer who was so misguided as to make his product available in Australia; and to guarantee that no redress will be forthcoming from an importer. To my way of thinking, this is totally counter-productive.

 

A 10-year limit is not "friendlier" - the correct description is, "only 2/3 as destructive".

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Jabiru should NOT fold or have any problems provided they has intiated the correct business management practices as other people here have described in earlier threads, for God sake it is their product and if the engine or any other part of the aircraft prove to have a major fault safety in the engine or airframe it is their responsibilty to repair it and make it good at NO cost to the consumer, provided that the owner of the aircraft has followed correct proceedures set out by the factory since he bought it, these aircraft are not $200 items, they are expensive items that people have paid their hard earned for and they should expect a warranty and expect that their aircraft be fixed by the manufacturer at Jab's cost, how can this be any other way...

What warranty does Jabiru offer? I'm sure it's not open-ended. For that matter, all the "UL" models of Rotax are labelled to indicate that they may stop at any time.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Thats why you have product liability and recall insurance. They are pretty reckless if they dont carry it, because of events just such as this. This event is not exactly unlikely or unforeseeable for an engine or airframe manufacturer, especially in an industry where safety is SO critically important.

 

If Jabiru management have even half a brain and an insurance broker worth a pinch of salt they will have this covered. The insurance company however would prohibit them from offering or making a declaration that they will cover the costs. The regulatory bodies will insist they cover it and then they will make a claim to their insurer. Only after the insurer checks they had proper processes in place to reduce these risks will the insurer allow them to state that they will cover costs. And from my experience having dealt with this and we probably are both underwritten by the same underwriter, this will not be a fast process and it will take angry customers to make it play out.

 

Their bank if they have any sort of loans or overdrafts which i bet they do have, would also have a mandatory product recall and liability insurance requirement. This type of insurance has been around and been common for well over 10 years so Jab would have no excuse for not having it.

 

This happens to Holden, Ford, Toyota every year. Yes they have the size, but it doesnt require size to have this in place. We are a tiny business compared to Jab and we have had this since day 1. It costs us 2.5% of gross revenue. For Jab it might be 4 or 5% but they would be stupid not to have it. It just like the GST, like wages and like materials is a cost of doing business.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think the last statement quoted by Dafyddd was mentioned In the coroner's findings in the case the RAAus are involved in. Manufacturers don't make these statements for nothing. It's to keep the cost to an affordable figure ( as to liability). The product is pretty much the same. If you want all the bells and whistles you will PAY and PAY...... for them. and you won't be a lot safer, because fools use a lot of ingenuity getting fool proof products to become NOT fool proof. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Free, zero, $0.00 - As I stated before if you complied with the SB within the time frame [about 12 moths from memory] it was done free of charge. I'm not talking hearsay, it cost me zero. If you elected to get your local LAME or L2 then you had to pay labour - your choise. I don't know where all this other crap is coming from as it is not relevant - as all too often threads take off into a world of their own and makebelieve.