Yet another Jab down.....

[jetjr]

And all 2 strokes

 

Maybe not ban them but a weekly SB for some critical inspection before next flight would do it.

 

Empty skies are safe skies

 

Yes landing without an engine is done regulalry

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Maj,

 

Careful with your chainsaw.

 

A mate nearly lost his nuts a while back.

 

It was a different brand, so that must have been the problem!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

POST DOES NOT ADD VALUE - MOD

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Purchase of an aircraft is the single largest consumer goods item purchase most people ever make. There is a lot of research that goes into that decision.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Cute, however it is a consumer product, and I'm amazed at the couldn't care less attitude to fellow aircraft owners who, apart from having their lives put at risk, have suffered substantial financial losses.

Do we have statistics for fatal crashes resulting from engine failures Jabiru vs Rotax?

 

 

[planesmaker]

I can't help imagining how well Jabiru would do if they offered rotax power as an option. I feel they would have trouble...... Yes keeping up with the orders! Just saying. Tom

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So lets talk about what RAAus potentially can do (through the board), if there were an issue

 

What legislative function or oversight capability do we have? Only those delegated to us by CASA in their annual Deed of Agreement, there are none delegated to us in in the ACT incorporated associations act that are in any way relevant to the question.

 

What rights at law do we have? Nothing more than an individual has. Does the association own any Jabiru Aircraft and could therefore argue potential to suffer a loss.....Nope!

 

We can however lobby CASA and or a manufacture and can educate our members by scrupulously clean provision of statistics (and we only get those if members report them to us, but we cannot impose any conditions on anyone not a member, and on members only what are in CASA's rules, and subsequently in our Opps/Tech manuals....

 

So when people say we should do something what exactly is it you would have us do that is in the members best interests.....What are Jabiru Owners and flyers of Jabiru's doing themselves given they have no more and no less power than the association has?

 

Andy

 

 

[01rmb]

Trying to improve reliability of any aircraft or engine should fall within the responsibility of RA-AUS (thus the board). The board are there not only to represent the members but act in the best interests of the association. While its great to be considerate of member's interest in ownership and value of investment, it ranks quite low when compared to the safety of members and the general public. And at the end of the day, isn't trying to make the product more reliable for future owners (who may not be aware of the reliability) a higher priority then a decrease in the value of the brands secondhand aircraft?Personally I fly a Jab, think it's a great aircraft and not come across any problems. However I'm not it's owner nor it's maintainer, as much as I would like to own my own aircraft, buying into a Jab doesn't make sense until this can be resolved.

Safety of members and the general public is a high priority so how is criticising Jabiru in public going to help that? Asking the safety authority to intervene will possibly lead to the grounding of all Jabiru aircraft. That is certainly safe! Far better to work with Jabiru to identify root cause and implement a suitable solution in conjunction with owners. Win-Win. Protects the public, pilot and owners equity.

 

Quite frankly any future owners can do as they please - flying and buying an aircraft is an informed decision. If you are worried about flying or buying a jab - don't - it is your assessment of the risks involved and your decision. If you don't accept the risk don't do it and certainly don't try to blame somebody else. There is a little label on the dash that says the same thing.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Do we have statistics for fatal crashes resulting from engine failures Jabiru vs Rotax?

Laurie,

 

Engine failures shouldn't kill you, been a few fatalities behind the Rotax no doubt like the double near Goulburn but that wasn't the engines fault, yes it stopped but the bloke controlling the rest of it drove it in to the ground,

 

No doubt the Jab IMO has the best survival cell of them all and it probably is the most tested of them all out there flying.

 

Alf

 

 

[alf jessup]

Just ban motors, and have done with it. Go gliding instead . . .

Dafydd,

 

'Without a motor of some shape or form you aint going gliding either unless you got a real big hill to roll off after you have pushed it up a hill or you can pedal the winch real fast.

 

Alf

 

 

[01rmb]

So lets talk about what RAAus can do (through the board)What legislative function or oversight capability do we have? Only those delegated to us by CASA in their annual Deed of Agreement, there are none delegated to us in in the ACT incorporated associations act that are in any way relevant to the question.

 

What rights at law do we have? Nothing more than an individual has. Does the association own any Jabiru Aircraft and could therefore argue potential to suffer a loss.....Nope!

 

We can however lobby CASA and or a manufacture and can educate our members by scrupulously clean provision of statistics (and we only get those if members report them to us, but we cannot impose any conditions on anyone not a member, and on members only what are in CASA's rules, and subsequently in our Opps/Tech manuals....

 

So when people say we should do something what exactly is it you would have us do that is in the members best interests.....What are Jabiru Owners and flyers of Jabiru's doing themselves given they have no more and no less power than the association has?

 

Andy

I would like to improve the reliability and safety of the aircraft I fly. Currently CASA restricts what may be some solutions by restricting modifications to those approved by the manufacturer. With the liability issues it is not unreasonable for the manufacturer to be conservative to an extreme. Maybe RAAus board can lobby to allow these modifications.

 

Investigating the root cause of problems will provide members and the manufacturer with relevant information to base a solution on. Many of the causes stated are the symptoms not the cause. Understand the cause and it will lead to solutions. This is a manufacturers responsibility but maybe better data will assist them. Can the board assist with the collection and sharing of this information? In a non confrontational way.

 

For me to look after my interests - I use a LAME who has looked after Jabiru aircraft with several thousand hours of hours flight time experience. Not trouble free hours but it has been a learning experience for everyone on how to operate the engine and what to look out for that is a sign of a potential problem and yes lessons have been shared with Jabiru. Case in point - I understand Jabiru are investigating running an engine on mogas to avoid the avgas issues as one example. I repeat this but from what I saw it really is bad for these engines.

 

I also religiously pull the engine through feeling for loss of compression and listening for noises through the exhaust - any concerns it goes into the shop. If the engine is not running totally smoothly then it gets a look at. It has picked up a couple of issues that could have had more serious consequences if not rectified.

 

What the board and CEO should not do is publicly shame the manufacturer - it does not help to resolve anything.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Do we have statistics for fatal crashes resulting from engine failures Jabiru vs Rotax?

I understand where you are coming from but IMO the question isn't valid. The Potential threat of somebody dying is there in every crash. Maybe people have been lucky.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I would have said, valid but not relevant.

 

I agree that the restriction on correctly approved modifications is an unnecessary obstruction, and not in the best interests of safety; under CAR 35, it was possible to get suitable modifications approved, so that implementing them in accordance with due process did not invalidate the certificate of airworthiness. There would be very few aircraft brought into Australia prior to 2010 that do not have at least one CAR-35 approved modification. Thems was the good old days.

 

However, CASA closed down CAR 35 in June 2011, and notionally replaced it with CASR Part 21 subpart M; but in doing so, the ability of the Approved Design Signatory was also limited to minor modifications only. Also, the liability of the ADS was greatly increased by the wording of 21.M; and so the scope has been reduced and the cost increased. Further changes are on the way that will carry this trend even further.

 

This is partly the result of the bilateral airworthiness agreement with the U.S.A., and partly to reduce CASA's vicarious liability for the activities of authorised design signatories. The overall result is strangling GA. (It's called "progress"). So I don't see this helping much to relieve the issue of LSA aircraft whose manufacturers are not providing proper airworthiness support.

 

However, there's one glimmer of hope amongst all this gloom; and that is this: Although a Part 21M design signatory cannot approve a modification to an LSA aircraft, he CAN recommend approval of the mod., via CASA Form # 979. What is needed is a pathway for the RAA tech. Manager to be able to accept such a recommendation.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I understand where you are coming from but IMO the question isn't valid. The Potential threat of somebody dying is there in every crash. Maybe people have been lucky.

As Dayfydd has explained better than I, valid but not relevant.IMO.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

The problem here does not lay with the RAAus or the board, it is neither s job or responsibility to ensure a manufacturer turns out a safe honest aircraft. They do have a responsibility to warn members if its not, and that is being done through 'incidences and accidents' in the ops section on the website, together with the compiling of accurate statistics.

 

The real problem here lays with the manufacturer who has stubbornly failed to not only acknowledge the engines have serious problems, but also has failed to do anything about it.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Choose your words carefully - in what way do you imagine the RAA Board is competent to improve the reliability of an aircraft or engine?

In lobbying Jabiru to conduct an in depth investigation into these engine issues and share the results.

 

RAAUS allows the registration of the aircraft, if there is such a major issue and the manufacture isn't doing anything then surely the board with the Tech Manager can issue a directive that no new aircraft fitted with this engine shall be provided registration until it's improved?

 

 

[jetjr]

It seems that the current approach from RAA has them not even talking to Jabiru and respect from manufacturers and owners is dropping.

 

Nothing good will come with this approach. As Andy has said they dont have a big stick, stop threatening like you do.

 

It IS NOT the role of RAA to warn purchasers about a manufacurer and id suggest as a board member, your lining yourself up for action saying such. No way do the many Jabiru owners want their membership dollars spent on your crusade. Neither should other owners as it doest concern them.

 

RAA can use its contact and tech knowledge to put potential issues with LSA retrictions and part 21 regulations impacts forward. CASA maybe unaware how serious it is and there could be room for exemption........like the whole of RAA.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Look to be clear, Im in my 3rd week on the board so I don't personally know what conversations have or haven't been occurring between RAAus (board or staff) and J, nor if raaus perceive there is an issue so don't take my post as a fact that "nothing is happening between us and J" Rather I don't know if anything is so wont speculate.

 

I do know that wielding a big stick, when infact its merely a feather will almost certainly lead to tears.......

 

I also know that ,( for example purposes) lets say there are 1000 jab's in the fleet, lets say 2/3 are LSA55/120/160/170 so for the argument represent an average of $55k ea. the other 1/3 are 200/230/250 and say are an average of $80k ea then that represents around about $63m of aircraft but even if wrong by 50% that is still big bucks!......This is not a Bull in a china shop exercise..... That is a lot of potential class action $$$.......

 

Andy

 

 

[Camel]

The problem here does not lay with the RAAus or the board, it is neither s job or responsibility to ensure a manufacturer turns out a safe honest aircraft. They do have a responsibility to warn members if its not, and that is being done through 'incidences and accidents' in the ops section on the website, together with the compiling of accurate statistics.The real problem here lays with the manufacturer who has stubbornly failed to not only acknowledge the engines have serious problems, but also has failed to do anything about it.

Maj, I have no problem with what you say BUT recently some aircraft manufacturer lost their right to build LSA aircraft due to actions of CASA and RAA, it seems a little strange that Jabiru can carry on with their nonsense. The valve washers are soft, not even to an automotive standard, absolute rubbish. People long ago resorted to cheating, that is they modified Jabiru engines to get reliability, valve guides etc. As you say Jabiru refuse to fix but they also prevent which is CRIMINAL, Cammit have attempted fixing and Jabiru will not accept or allow to be used, also Rotec identified problems and made alternatives. You Maj have identified problems and does anything happen ? If I have to put an " E " in front of my rego I will push to see J with E status too.

 

So why other manufacturers harassed and Jabiru able to sell faulty goods ?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........due to actions of CASA and RAA.......,

Perhaps that might be better read and understood in this form "........due to actions of CASA and RAA.......,"

 

 

[01rmb]

Thank you Andy for recognising the problem that at the end of the day there are a lot of members in RAAus with a lot of much money tied up in the aircraft that are being discussed here. As a Jabiru owner yourself you are obviously part of that.

 

My concern is at least one board member and other influential people with strong negative attitudes against Jabiru have influenced the views of the CEO who made public statements in the press against Jabiru and made approaches to CASA with the possibility that this could lead to action which would have an effect that could completely wipe out or severely reduce the use and value of these aircraft. So whilst eliminating engine problems is a great goal it should be considerate of the impact it has on everyone including aircraft owners.

 

Safety is critically important and as a Jabiru owner myself, witnessing and personally experiencing some of the problems with the engines I would absolutely like to see improvements that would lead to better service life and reliability and be more tolerant of a wider range of operation and maintenance - everyone always wants better. But, by involving CASA, the problem is taken out of the hands of RA-Aus and we will all have to live with the consequences of what happens and the possibility that people with $63m worth of assets will be looking for some recourse. The engaged approach based on facts working with the manufacturer and others to develop a solution will always achieve a better outcome.

 

The RAAus board does have and is having a role in influencing CASA and the manufacturer and affecting the outcome - good and bad. Hopefully it works out well for all Jabiru owners and pilots.

 

 

[Guest john]

To show how CASA & RAA can conjointly act with respect to grounding of aircraft for whatever reason if they want to , members may recall that a couple of years ago, all IBIS 24 registered aircraft in Australia were grounded forthwith overnight simply because the documentation was not in order & yet this type aircraft which was fitted with a the approved Rotax 4 stroke engine had previously been accepted & registered by RAA without question, & the only way they could now become airborn again was if the owners agreed to register these aircraft in the 19 category even though they were factory built in Columbia & had an enviable safety record worldwide.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Maj, I have no problem with what you say BUT recently some aircraft manufacturer lost their right to build LSA aircraft due to actions of CASA and RAA, it seems a little strange that Jabiru can carry on with their nonsense. The valve washers are soft, not even to an automotive standard, absolute rubbish. People long ago resorted to cheating, that is they modified Jabiru engines to get reliability, valve guides etc. As you say Jabiru refuse to fix but they also prevent which is CRIMINAL, Cammit have attempted fixing and Jabiru will not accept or allow to be used, also Rotec identified problems and made alternatives. You Maj have identified problems and does anything happen ? If I have to put an " E " in front of my rego I will push to see J with E status too.So why other manufacturers harassed and Jabiru able to sell faulty goods ?

Can you supply some part numbers or identify the parts as having come from Jabiru, together with hardness values? Jabiru has, I think, put out a service bulletin on this (I don't follow them, not being a Jab. owner). The point I'm trying to make, here, is that if you want CASA to sit up and pay attemtion, you have to give them factual information - like a defect report (used to be - maybe still is - CASA Form 404 - go to the CASA website and look it up; or maybe RAA has its own defect report form). You also need to produce the defective hardware and its history. CASA does not deal in hearsay.

 

POST EDITED AS IT DOES NOT ADD VALUE - MOD

 

ranting about cast Vs billet crankcases is an instance of pointless arm waving - but if anyone wanted to prove something he needs to produce some hard data - like a defective Jabiru crankcase and the metallurgical data that proves his point. So if you have a part that you consider to be defective

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

To show how CASA & RAA can conjointly act with respect to grounding of aircraft for whatever reason if they want to , members may recall that a couple of years ago, all IBIS 24 registered aircraft in Australia were grounded forthwith overnight simply because the documentation was not in order & yet this type aircraft which was fitted with a the approved Rotax 4 stroke engine had previously been accepted & registered by RAA without question, & the only way they could now become airborn again was if the owners agreed to register these aircraft in the 19 category even though they were factory built in Columbia & had an enviable safety record worldwide.

John

 

I believe my point re "........due to actions of CASA and RAA.......," is even more relevant from what I recall of the commentary at the time.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Maj, I have no problem with what you say BUT recently some aircraft manufacturer lost their right to build LSA aircraft due to actions of CASA and RAA, it seems a little strange that Jabiru can carry on with their nonsense. The valve washers are soft, not even to an automotive standard, absolute rubbish. People long ago resorted to cheating, that is they modified Jabiru engines to get reliability, valve guides etc. As you say Jabiru refuse to fix but they also prevent which is CRIMINAL, Cammit have attempted fixing and Jabiru will not accept or allow to be used, also Rotec identified problems and made alternatives. You Maj have identified problems and does anything happen ? If I have to put an " E " in front of my rego I will push to see J with E status too.So why other manufacturers harassed and Jabiru able to sell faulty goods ?

Camel , the aircraft you are probabily referring to was imported into this country as an approved kit , but was found not to have the correct approvals from the country of its origin. It was therefore not able to be registered under the RAAus umbrella. This wa picked up during one of the infamous CASA database audits, and we had no alternative but to take the action then that we did. I believe personally that CASA ( SASAO) is well aware of any problems with Jab engines.