dazza 38 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Since when did a J200 carry four people? Since it had a RAANZ registration and that is limited to two passengers, it is ipso facto a two-seater. I think we all recognise and defer to your encyclopaedic knowledge of Jabiru deficiencies, but you would engender greater credibility by actually demonstrating a basic knowledge of the things. Or, indeed, bothering to check your facts. At no point in any of the video evidence is there any suggestion that there were four people aboard; presumably you have powers of observation and conclusion that escapes we lesser mortals.Possible still suspect powerplant? As far as I am aware, the fuel delivery system up to the engine-mounted fuel pump is not part of the powerplant, but obviously I should defer to your greater knowledge. I guess that in your world, a Jabiru engine failing to run with zero fuel supply is just another example of Jabiru's failure to produce reliable engines; no doubt Rotaxes operate perfectly with zero fuel delivery. In the several videos referenced, there was absolutely no indication that the engine was running other than sweetly. That the take-off attempt had just about everything wrong that one could factor in, is undeniable. Even allowing for the foreshortening effect of telephoto lenses, it seems obvious that a tight turn left within around 2-300 metres of the lift-off point would have been necessary. I seriously doubt that the insurance company for this aircraft will be paying out on the basis that 'Sh!t happens, here's your money'. It's an easy job to remove a Jabiru from an unviable take-off site. Classic case of an accident that was predicated before the PIC hit the starter. Don't hold mate tell us how you really feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I would think one of the main factors limiting the use of a Jabiru on a beach is the small tyres, which should be let down a bit in any case. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Don't hold mate tell us how you really feel. I'm trying to be polite.... Nobody with any reasonable intelligence suggests Jabirus are perfect in all respects. Neither are (perhaps were, in the current circumstances) Holden Commodores or Ford Falcons - but they do/did a damn good job on average of hauling around a huge number of Australians. Without Jabiru, the RAA scene here would not have expanded to anything like its current size. Jabiru are the most successful in terms of numbers (and probably revenue) of any Australian aircraft manufacturer, ever. In terms of international sales, there is simply NO contender within an exponential level of success. Jabirus don't kill people from poor aerodymanic or structural faults; go look at the fatality statistics for the Lancair 340/360 range for a comparison of just how bad a 'popular' aircraft can be. Jabirus soldier on with their original MTOWs unquestioned - see Sting and Pipistrel for comparison. Jabirus are certificated to known standards; ask Ibis owners whether that matters. Am I an blind, devoted Jabiru acolyte? Rod Stiff currently has my guts scheduled for garters on his dart-board for reporting what I consider to be a defect condition. It's not a problem in normal service, but in consultation with with the two aero-engineers who know early Jabirus best, my co-owner and I have made modifications to address that issue. We're anal-retentive, but we're prepared to put in the work to change something with which we aren't happy. There is NO perfect aeroplane, nor is there any perfect aero engine. The combination of Aerobus and Rolls-Royce nearly killed 300+ people on a Qantas flight. This, on one aircraft that cost way more than the total earnings of the entire existence of Jabiru. I have no problem with people exposing problems they have had with Jabirus - indeed, I take notice and factor that into my approach to returning our Jab. to service. What I do not consider reasonable is an entrenched bigotry that is expressed in slighting commentary that is utterly devoid of factual and truthful content and is - frequently observably - wildly incorrect. That this commentator is a member of the RAA Board is in my opinion a matter of serious concern; we need objective and informed people on the RAA Board rather than people who inhabit a universe of their own making. 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Mate you must have read a different post. I can't see Maj bashing jabs here? He sai a " possible suspect engine" . Pointing out the airmanship failings on display here seems to me to be almost a given. This thread is not a jab bash. Please don't make it so. The failings on dislay are Much more important than a jabiru plug. Your points are very valid regarding jabiru, but perhaps another thread would be the go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Oscar, my comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Mate you must have read a different post. I can't see Maj bashing jabs here? He sai a " possible suspect engine" . Pointing out the airmanship failings on display here seems to me to be almost a given.This thread is not a jab bash. Please don't make it so. The failings on dislay are Much more important than a jabiru plug. Your points are very valid regarding jabiru, but perhaps another thread would be the go? At what point do you consider the 'possible suspect engine' to be a factor? The videos referenced show the engine running prior to the attempt to take-off absolutely faultlessly; the NZ TV video explicitly states that a faulty fuel valve was the problem. This accident was a total stuff-up on the part of the PIC; bringing the reliability of the engine into question is an expression of an entrenched attitude towards Jabiru engines that is completely not proven by the circumstances. Provide me with any evidence that the phrase ' a possible suspect engine' is justified in this case and I will acknowledge the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Oscar, my comment was tongue in cheek. Sorry No offense taken, sport. It's a phrase I use myself - and usually supportive of the person who uttered it rather than as a point to combat. Yes, I tend to hit the end of my chain at the bovine manure spread by the Major in regard to Jabirus; if we as a group accept that there should be freedom of commentary, I do tend to take it as a right to counter the incessant flow of ignorant vitriol from that poster. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 At what point do you consider the 'possible suspect engine' to be a factor? The videos referenced show the engine running prior to the attempt to take-off absolutely faultlessly; the NZ TV video explicitly states that a faulty fuel valve was the problem. bringing the reliability of the engine into question is an expression of an entrenched attitude towards Jabiru engines that is completely not proven by the circumstances. Provide me with any evidence that the phrase ' a possible suspect engine' is justified in this case and I will acknowledge the point. Ok. I will bite. Sport.. First of all. Since when and in what universe is a statement made on a news real any where near a "fact"? Im not sure where you come from, but us here in the real world are use to and quite accustomed to the media very rarely IF EVER getting it right with regards to aviation accident and incident. So if you are relying on the good old "report you saw on the TV to get your facts, then your in for a very rude slap in the face with a cold NZ tuna... mate. Secondly. The video showed the engine running flawlessly? Are you kidding me? You think that means anything? Im sure if you could get the footage of the airbus , (that you referenced so elequeantly earlier) just seconds prior to it grenading, im sure it would have "appeared to be running flawlessly" aswel. What a ridiculous statement. Thridly. No body brought your precious Jabiru engine reliability into question .Maj stated that a possible suspect engine was at play.. Anybody in their right mind that had ANY engine failure would be suspect that they had diagnosed the problem before attempting a takeoff such as this. It appears you have several axe to grind regarding Jabirus and im sensing some nose out of jointedness regarding boards positions aswel. I really do start to yawn and get disinterested when someone starts a tyrannical politically inspired rant on this forum,. So my advice is start another thread, call it " my rant on jabiru's unjustified rubbish reputation" so people can chose not to read it when they are looking for info they can actually learn from, as is the case here. Maj certainly didnt deserve your spray, but you have have earned this one. Cheers...Sport... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 At what point do you consider the 'possible suspect engine' to be a factor? The videos referenced show the engine running prior to the attempt to take-off absolutely faultlessly; the NZ TV video explicitly states that a faulty fuel valve was the problem. This accident was a total stuff-up on the part of the PIC; bringing the reliability of the engine into question is an expression of an entrenched attitude towards Jabiru engines that is completely not proven by the circumstances. Provide me with any evidence that the phrase ' a possible suspect engine' is justified in this case and I will acknowledge the point. Oscar while I agree that this accident can't be blamed on the engine I think that after you have had an engine out landing due to "faulty valve" (if it was switched off that makes my argument void) if it was blocked by dirty fuel or similar don't you think it would be wise to treat it as "possibly unreliable" (nothing to do with the engine itself but if it stopped with a blocked valve what's stopping it getting blocked again as soon as you have taken off? Maybe the failed take off saved a bigger disaster later?) I guess what I'm trying to say is if I was a pax in this case I would hope that I wouldn't get back into that plane until the fuel had been drained and fresh fuel put in (putting the beach take off aside for the minute) as I would consider the engine unreliable till that was done (nothing to do with jab problems but just on the fuel situation alone.) As I mentioned earlier if the valve was turned off then all this dribble I've just written is null and void:duck for cover: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 A bloke near me with a 6 cyl jab told me he had sintered bronze (or similar) internal tank filters connected to his outlet and he was required to check them periodically. I thought this was a bit weird as you could not actually see them when blocked and required the tank to be emptied for them to be removed and cleaned. Inline (hose) filters seem much more manageable to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I spose I should remind everyone that this aircraft ended up on the beach via a fuel problem. BUT this is the first flight after a new engine was fitted . I doubt that the previous engine made TBO I think 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Yes i must admit i wonder how you can possibly tell a planes engine is working flawlessly because its prop is spinning. Looks like mechanics and EMS are no longer necesary. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Ok. Lets take the report at face value. It stated that they transfered fuel from one tank to the other? Now..What sort of fuel failure would be remedied by transferring fuel from one tank to another?. If the report was accurate (highly unlikely) then it would indicate that one tank drained empty while the other tank had fuel remaining. The obvious question is, did this Jab have selectable fuel tanks? i doubt it. So the only other option is, that fuel wasn't draining from one of the tanks and the other tank starved. What valves are in Jabiru fuel lines besides the fuel c0ck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I think the obvious problem was the nut connected to the joystick was incorrectly adjusted, 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Oscar while I agree that this accident can't be blamed on the engine I think that after you have had an engine out landing due to "faulty valve" (if it was switched off that makes my argument void) if it was blocked by dirty fuel or similar don't you think it would be wise to treat it as "possibly unreliable" (nothing to do with the engine itself but if it stopped with a blocked valve what's stopping it getting blocked again as soon as you have taken off? Maybe the failed take off saved a bigger disaster later?)I guess what I'm trying to say is if I was a pax in this case I would hope that I wouldn't get back into that plane until the fuel had been drained and fresh fuel put in (putting the beach take off aside for the minute) as I would consider the engine unreliable till that was done (nothing to do with jab problems but just on the fuel situation alone.) As I mentioned earlier if the valve was turned off then all this dribble I've just written is null and void:duck for cover: I completely agree - I would not have remotely considered attempting that take-off in the circumstances , and cleaning a blocked valve beggars the question of what caused the problem? Short of discovering a faulty valve component and replacing that - and doing some testing to see if the fuel flow remained correct, for which we have no evidence - I consider the PIC to be a nitwit. However, if one has identified a fault in the fuel supply chain, has apparently rectified that problem and the (downstream) engine itself is functioning correctly post that rectification, for a third party to state that the engine itself is a potential problem is simply not supported by the chain of circumstances. What I object to is the assertion that in all cases of the propellor ceasing to turn on a Jabiru, the problem has to be a fault of the engine. I share with many others the belief that Jabiru-spec. engines are less robust than is desirable, and in rebuilding ours we have incorporated a number of improvements to the standard engine purely because we believe they are better than the standard items in a Jabiru-spec. engine. However, I consider that deriving a 'suspect engine' condition from an engine stoppage due to fuel delivery problems is a bridge way too far and a complete abrogation of responsible commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 So is relying on a newspaper article to derive the notion that we have the facts. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 So is relying on a newspaper article to derive the notion that we have the facts. ;) So is relying on the newspaper article equally justification to assume that the engine was the problem? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Now your getting it:) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I have been thinking about the bloke who flew it , trying to put myself I his shoes . Pure speculation but here goes . First up, this is the first flight after a engine change. Then the engine stopped . Old mate while pulling off a great landing on the beach is probably thinking WTF is wrong now. I'm pretty sure that at this moment he is pretty pissed off at the whole situation . This guy is on a massive roll a coaster ride of emotions at this point, Then he finds a fuel problem then with he is on a upper thinking , thank Christ it's not the engine but another problem . At this stage the crowds have gathered as well as the local rozzers . He then says in correctly that yeah I can fly it off the beach . Then the video starts with crowds around .Anyway as a aviator his decision making wasn't the best . But I am thinking that the poor dude had a really bad day and made $hit decisions . The situation got big on him . 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlegg Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well, what a show, on and off the field:oh yeah: Here's me just thinking about the poor copper tripping over right in front of the camera:busted: Those kiwis sure know how to enjoy a day at the beach:roflmao: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 All jabs have coarse filters at tank outlets, is made of brass. The j200 in the accident was still running the old fuel system with central fin and gascolaters by the looks, there was problems with this and there wasnt a header tank like later models. Many upgraded after issues i think. Also has individual taps for each tank both before the gascolators and the engine..... Yep four taps. Easy to leave one set off, once spotted would make for a confident re attempt at take off Pure speculation but. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alf jessup Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well let's just hope Jabiru never install 0230 Lycomings or 912 Rotax's engines in these brilliant airframes they build and continue to keep making these certified 2000 tbo boat anchors, as we all on this forum would have nothing much to talk about would we 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 It's worth listening again to the interviews with the pilot and his passenger on the beach. What a pair of knobs. And after all this terrible airmanship and questionable decision making it wasn't their fault, as the bloke mit the European accent reckons they had been too conservative in their take-off planning, and that was the root of the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steve-nz Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 It's great to see lots of discussion on here regarding this mishap. Guess, we are all lucky to have some great footage about what not to do, and that even tho there were some poor decisions made, at least they walked away from it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keenaviator Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I spose I should remind everyone that this aircraft ended up on the beach via a fuel problem. BUT this is the first flight after a new engine was fitted . I doubt that the previous engine made TBO I think That was very enlightening Dazzzza! Laurie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now