Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
dlegg

New through bolt AD

Recommended Posts

Is this an AD - i.e. has it been issued by CASA under CASR Part 39? - or is it simply a Service Bull Tin that Jabiru have classified as mandatory? Because if the latter, it's not mandatory under CASR Part 39.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this an AD - i.e. has it been issued by CASA under CASR Part 39? - or is it simply a Service Bull Tin that Jabiru have classified as mandatory? Because if the latter, it's not mandatory under CASR Part 39.

As I understand there is no AD for LSA only service bulletins, as the manufacturer certifies the aircraft not Casa.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.3 JSB031 Issue 2:

 

 

This bulletin is applicable to the Jabiru 2200 and 3300 engines listed on Page 1.

 

 This bulletin is equivalent to a Manufacturer’s Safety Direction.

 

 This bulletin has not been mandated (as an AD or similar) by any National Airworthiness Authority at the time of writing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is to be adhered to IAW the Bulletin Under Limited Longevity Safety Handbook Intended Temporarily... or BUL.....

 

(just jokes people..lol) 042_hide.gif.f5e8fb1d85d95ffa63d9b5a325bf422e.gif 114_ban_me_please.gif.0d7635a5d304fa7bdaef6367a02d1a75.gif

 

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This SB is for any non complying engine - the mod should have been done by about Easter 2011. I can't believe anyone would be operating illegally for all that time. If someone is then why with that attitude would they comply with this one. I see it as a reminder that if anyone is flying without the mod then they are doing so illegally and may be subject to the legal consequences.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andys@coffs

Frank

 

It is different to the original and involves many more $$$$ to incorporate.

 

The original required thru bolts changed (even IMHO on early 3300 solid lifter motors that weren't having TB failures such as mine) but left the studs as they were, which in the end I believe were shorter than the replacement TB's so you had the right amount of threads showing through the TB's and not the Studs....which any MechEng would cringe about...

 

The new one has the studs replaced as well so that all are now the right length.

 

TB's are relatively easily changed, Studs however require the crankcase to be split and as such is a FULL Rebuild.

 

Mine is being done right now. Fortunately my repairer rang me about 3 weeks ago to say this new SB was on the way and now was the time to incorporate it. For me it was only an incremental cost on the work he was already doing.....but until this we didn't need to do any crankcase/crankshaft work.

 

As an aside the new Barrels from J for mine and an engine being rebuilt out at Narromine by a different L2/L4 than mine were rejected by the respective repairers as not meeting J's specification. The hone used on the barrels was too fine and the implication was that the barrels would glaze within 100hrs and then use significant oil. interestingly I'm told that the cost or restoring the NEW Barrels to J's SPECIFICATIONS was covered by the L2/L4 and then I assume the end customer and NOT by J...... It seems to me that if J doesn't enforce its own specifications, and has no appropriate Quality assurance to find these types of mistakes and when they then HAPPEN refuses to rectify....that they should go back to building cane harvesting gear and leave aviation for those that understand the obligations!

 

Pretty unimpressed with the barrels fiasco. Up until now I've been a pretty strong supporter but this blew me away.......The mistake has been documented by a repairer that J recognise as one of their warranty repairers who they trust.......but J wouldn't do anything.....

 

Andy

 

BTW, the question of must I do this or can I just ignore it......At the end of the day that is a question that for most of us can only be answered in advance of a disaster by our insurers....The last thing you would want is an engine failure, an accident and then the insurer saying Don't look to us...it was you that chose to ignore what we consider a mandatory instruction...... best to ask the question on paper and get a response on paper and then decide what you'll do......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can someone please clarify exactly what category of aircraft must comply?

 

I am sure 24 reg must, but what about VH(no casa AD) or 19 reg?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy

 

With 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.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if Jabiru have found that there is a serious fault in their engine that could cause an engine failure and like they do with cars they call for these things to be fixed at the factories cost and further to that as long as it is done my a qualified person that the cost would be passed on to them, why should anyone have to pay for this repair out of their own pocket whether it be done in the factory of not, I know if I owned a jab that needed this fix I would be jumping on Jabiru to fix it at their cost.. shouldn't it work like that?

 

David

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Andys@coffs

because they are not big enough to absorb that cost. For J owners, what is more desirable:-

 

1) J cover the cost and go wheels up leaving all LSA the option only of becoming ELSA, and all including the formally LSA owners with no source of parts for the future

 

2) J rightly or wrongly disclaim any costs and they continue to exist......

 

Neither are ideal....2) is the reality I think

 

Andy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a lot of mandatory or recommended service letters as part of my occupation, and the J ones, as I read them, require or strongly suggest that this be incorporated into all effected engines, otherwise (as I read it) your on your own as far as J is concerned, down the road if you have any failures.

 

Sounds to me like it would be wise to do it period.

 

I can only hope that this action and others like it by the factory , is as a result of all the "jab bashing " in past years by owners and non- owners, and no doubt is a step in the right direction.

 

I have always maintained that half the problem with the J motor is the material the case in made from, with too much movement and thermal expansion/contraction, and hopefully this mod will address that somewhat....It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease !...............M..........024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF a manufacturer recommend a safety related modification you would be out on a limb if you didn't comply. Selling it might be interesting if you hadn't stated the fact of such a thing NOT having been done when it was advised, at time of sale. Delaying the application of the MOD and continuing to operate it puts a question over subsequent damage liability too.

 

Jabiru are doing the right thing by advising these changes. Other reputable makers do the same. The format may vary but the principle is the same..Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because they are not big enough to absorb that cost. For J owners, what is more desirable:-

I don't think that is a valid arguement, if they are in the business of making aircraft they must take responsibility for what they manufacture to be well engineered and safe, now if it is found that they have made an engineering mistake well it's dam well up to them to fix it at their cost, yes I accept that they are a small company and this sort of repair to a lot of their aircraft is going to hurt financially but that is the business they are in surely they could have insurance for this just for this type of incident? If any company is not made to repair this out out of their own pocket, well to me, that gives them no incentive to improve and develop their product IMO.

 

David

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can argue that case DGL. The fact is that there would be a cost which would have to be passed on somewhere. Putting out a mod does admit the original is capable of being improved on. IF you made them cover the costs of installation that might act adversely to inhibit the changes they make. Aviation works on finding and rectifying/improving the article in service, in the light of field experience, and happens on all sizes of aircraft. It's not a bad system overall. The amount of inspection to keep a plane airworthy is ongoing and considerable and is quite foreign to people who never lift the bonnet to check the engine or don't even check tyre pressures on their car. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is Nev, people that own a Jab they may be short of money and or don't read the updates of the fixes that need to be done on their aircraft and continue to fly the aircraft or then on sell it to some unsuspecting person and this fix is not done, so what happens in the even of an accident and the plane falls out of the sky into a house and kills the people inside as well as the pilot, the insurance company checks it and finds out that the MOD wasn't done and that was the cause, of course the insurance company drops the claim like a hot potato, who is then open to law suits, I don't know, but it would not be a good situation to anyone involved and all because the "fix" was not done at the factories cost..I don't claim to be any expert but like I said, it just doesn't sound right to me that the owners have to fork out to get it fixed, you Jab owners must have a lots of money if you find all of this ok..

 

David

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When J sold the engines at a great price way cheaper than the competitor, (and so the owners thought also) the company made that price decision, and should have at that time, considered the risk of needing ongoing mods, and so should have put cash aside, or bought insurance to cover that. The owners took some risk also in deciding to purchase said engines, at the 'competitive' price.

 

As I see it, the J factory should cover some cost of the now expensive mod, but maybe the cost should also be shared 50/50 with the owners ?......I don't buy the story that the J factory is on it's last leg and can't afford it, wit their recent push into the 'Chinese ' market, and all their great success in the rest of the world !..............M...024_cool.gif.7a88a3168ebd868f5549631161e2b369.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I understand there is no AD for LSA only service bulletins, as the manufacturer certifies the aircraft not Casa.

The Jabiru 2200J and 2200C are type-certificated engines, NOT LSA. So the SB is not mandated by an AD for those engines. I'm not sure of the legal position for the other series mentioned in the SB.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always maintained that half the problem with the J motor is the material the case in made from, with too much movement and thermal expansion/contraction, and hopefully this mod will address that somewhat....

Ah, the gift of laughter! It's always inspiring to hear the comments of someone who has an indefatigable belief in their own knowledge, or at least, what someone down in the pub told them in strictest confidence, enunciated as fact.

 

Yep, changing the through bolts and studs will of course address the supposed wisdom of 'the material in the case'. Now, the application of fundamental logic (not to be confused with wild supposition or regurgitation of ill-considered 'what everybody knows' mantras) says that if the material in the case was the problem, then every Jab. engine would be affected in a similar occurrence of duty cycles. Yet - wonderfully - that is not the situation.

 

There are well-recorded instances of Jab. motors running well beyond 1000 hours with no problems vs. Jab motors running 250 hours or so (or less) and developing problems. A fundamental issue with the crankcase material would NOT allow such variation in performance.

 

That the through-bolts are the first point of weakness for a Jab. motor that has been operated out-of-limits, is undeniable. The culprit in 'out of limits' here is primarily detonation, that places loads on the through-bolts and studs that exceeds the design parameters, and secondarily, running over temp. limits.

 

How many of the issues with Jabiru engines are the result of people blindly following the 'conventional wisdom' of 'use it hard?' - mistaking keeping the revs up for best cooling efficiency for 'working it hard' - always going for max ROC - firewall the thing on initial take off and then hold the aircraft at 70 kts to 1000 feet? As any driver who grew up in the era of carburetor-fed engines knows, the easiest way to get pinging (detonation) was to run the engine heavily-loaded in a high gear - especially in fairly high-compression engines designed for good fuel, on less than optimum (any Alfa driver from the 60's and 70's will know THAT one..)

 

Jab. engines that have achieved decent hours with no problems are, more often than not, those that have been used by private owners who have intelligent approaches to their engine management -though a few notable flying schools have also had good reliability results. To paraphrase an old saw: 'it's not how big it is, but how you use it' that matters.

 

Rod Stiff, Phil Ainsworth and two of Australia's best aero-engineers developed from scratch an aircraft that has had unrivaled international success in its class. Along the way, they also were forced to develop an engine manufacturing capability that has produced Australia's first export aero-engine manufacturing company.

 

Yes, not everything about the Jab. engines is as bullet-proof as it could be. The manufacturer of the engines (CAMiT) is fully aware of the problems and has solutions to those problems in train. Jabirus will continue to fly, despite the unfounded and ignorant prognostications of self-appointed experts.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...