jetjr Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 OK, totally forget about Jabiru its not about them. All the emotion tied up in this isnt getting anywhere. For whatever reason they arent going to help in the way many want. It could just as well be any other LSA producer in the world in regards to my issue. We are (not so much today but in the future) reliant on aftermarket industry to work on and fix problems. BUT those upgrades cant be implemented on LSA aircraft. As I understand it there is NO process by which an LSA owner can make modifications to their aircraft without manufacturer approval and keep LSA privileges. Even GA and all the way to commercial aircraft have a path to let this happen, STC's. Someone can research, produce a kit/part, go through the long process and have their upgrade passed as suitable to fit to certified aircraft. Owner can have it fitted and problem solved. In LSA, what if the manufacturer is gone or doesnt want to help? Going to become a big issue as time passed and these aircraft get old and companies disappear. Lets say next week Tecnam/Aeroprakt/ICP change hands and no longer do small aircraft, now concentrating on space exploration and military. In time there is seen to be a serious structural weakness in wing assembly. New owner of the company doesnt want to know about it as LSA division is dead. There is no way that an owner of their LSA can implement an upgrade. What about even sourcing parts? Cant use parts made by someone else, not approved. Currently that aircraft is back to 25 or 19 reg OR worse, flying around training with known structural problem. Even improvements from Rotax cannot be implemented without LSA manufacturers say so. Work needs to be done to setup system for approval of aftermarket parts and upgrades to be used in LSA aircraft. This is going to be detailed and slow process but it must start. Another way might be to look at 19 and 25 reg being able to do more. ie NOT restrict training to just LSA, but factory built L2 maintained. Some sort of STC system for modifications. Nev is right, maybe we lack the skills to assess and approve these mods. If so it needs to be addressed. Who can?, how?, how much? Throw in problems of market size and lack of funds to do this work, those providing the aftermarket effort like Rotec and Camit deserve support. Right now a factory built J160/170 with new certified 912 Rotax is NOT ever going to be allowed to be used as trainer. Most would agree thats a solid package we are missing out on. If we keep pushing Jabiru for action only a few things can happen, none of which are good for RAA as a whole. Especially owners of the aircraft. 4 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 The repair costs POST EDITED AS IT DOES NOT ADD VALUE - MOD arent even close to costs which could occur if they were grounded until fixed. Not saying they arent real and painful. What about those with thousand hour plus without major problems? You want to saddle them with big costs too. POST EDITED AS IT DOES NOT ADD VALUE - MOD So owners are paying to fix broken aircraft, somehow Jabiru should invest it in R&D? Do you think they make that much? What are you proposing? TP has shown his prefered outcome and if that doesnt see the end of RAA , Jabiru and most owners Im not sure how it could happen faster. CASA will be approaching you shortly as a efficiency consultant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I think there's an answer to that - for private owners - in the form of the provisions to downgrade an LSA aircraft to LSA/experimental, in the event that a manufacturer ceases to support his product. CAO 95.55.1.9 applies. If you do that, then you can use whatever Camit or Rotec put out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Grounding Jabs isn't the solution that only hurts owners and Jab keep churning out rubbish. Forcing Jab to honour its legal obligation and extend the warranty to cover a reasonable period of use, say 5 or 7 years is the better option and encourages Jab to fix what ever is going wrong with the engines. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 How would you do that? Launch an action under the Trade Practices Act? And what do you imagine Jabiru would do in that event? They could simply sell out to, say, their American or African subsidiary, and then you'd be left trying to enforce Australian jurisdiction in whatever country it was. They're not getting any younger, that might be an increasingly attractive solution to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 That's Jabiru's choice, its a free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Again great outcome for owners and RAA??? Sounds awfully like much of Australia's maufacturing industry. Ive just been through that warranty debate with OS company, your rights are close to NIL. Even if they sell you wrong or defective parts you dont even have right to refund or replacement. Your right Daffyd but then it cant be used for training, whats the story with owner maintenance on 25 reg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Honestly, I can't see any future for Jabiru. Its a case of the other manufacturers products now are closing the price gap and have improved their quality and specifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 When did you last price an import at $0.80 USD or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Again great outcome for owners and RAA???Sounds awfully like much of Australia's maufacturing industry. Your right Daffyd but then it cant be used for training, whats the story with owner maintenance on 25 reg? Candidly, I don't know the answer to that; I suspect that's one of the issues that's in the RAA melting-pot right now. Presumably it would help to do the SAAA maintenance course. I think this thread could more usefully pursue that question with RAA and CASA, because an answer to that is surely going to be necessary, and soon. That's one of the reasons I got out of RAA and went to GFA. Downgrading LSA factory-built aircraft to experimental was implicit in the introduction of the LSA rule into CASR 21.186, from the very start; manufacturers come and go, and CASA had to put an LSA clause into the regulations, to allow the import of this class of aircraft - so the Australian rule looks very like the FAA version, except for the stall speed, which was increased on the arguments put forward by Bill Whitney and myself. CASA can't really be expected to do other than remain aligned with the FAA on LSA maintenance, in view of the bilateral airworthiness agreement between Australia and the U.S.A. On the whole, I would think the backwash from TP's solution would fairly quickly terminate the RAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 If you can't get 5 years trouble free years out of a $100K Jab it's not saving you much money by buying the locally made product. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I see the expected splatter has occurred. I only gave a simple answer to a question, and if this had been done in 2010 a lot of people would not be out of pocket today. The Minister has a Duty of Care responsibility for safety The CASA has the same, and for the certification and sign off which took place, and that includes any contractors RAA has a Duty of Care responsibility for safety The Manufacturer has a Duty of Care for safety The Seller has a Duty of Care for safety The Owner and Operator has a Duty of Care for safety The Pilot in Command has a Duty of Care for safety The Manufacturer has obligations under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for the product, advertising and marketing There are Government statutory warranties and parts supply timelines which may or may not apply for aircrtaft So if you want to address the problem, you have to look at what has happened AT LEAST in all these categories, because I could have missed more The way I see it from the public reports, in all the forced landings the PIC had carried off a forced landing albeit sometimes with damage, and in only a few cases with injuries. This points to the good training of those pilots and their recency, and either by decision or luck the quality of the ground beneath them. So these discussions have continued without regards to the safety aspect because it hasn't come up. Some time back we had a succession of fatalities (not in Jabiru) where the engine stopped, the pilot immediately lost control, and the aircraft dropped like a rock, in some cases from over a thousand feet, which pointed to poor training, lack of recency and other operations/pilot related causes. Now, suppose these people had been flying Jabs, and we'd had five or six fatalities in a row. The debate would be on a different level, law suits would be now underway, and so the Duty of Care implications would have kicked in. The way I see it, the difference between the two scenarios is just luck, and we could easily see some failed forced landings. So aircraft grounding is certainly not out of the question, and when that happens the manufacturer, if he wants to survive, becomes amazingly focused. The so-called "cost" increases or decreases based on pro-active actions which ensure the issue gets resolved, and that can come from anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 ft....POST EDITED AS IT DOES NOT ADD VALUE - MOD. What does it mean? The maintenance release on a civilian Jetliner goes for one sector and there's usually a fault to be written up ( or a few) each time. Warrantee on a jab couldn't allow private installation to ANY aircraft not stipulated and would have to have restrictions on who works on it at all times. Also it would have a cost which goes on ALL sales. Time to stop posturing and to work out where this is going. You are damaging the chances of Jab owners getting a sensible result, where this is headed.. If you don't care about that ,you should because this philosophy won't stop with this matter. Training Aircraft are a different case in degree. That is already covered. pretty well by the rules. The problem is that nothing specific has been done to address this UNDER THE RULES WE HAVE ALREADY. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also anyone who couldn't predict the position LSA category would end up in was asleep or in wishful thinking land. People went there for a few kilos of extra weight and will pay mightily for it. .Nev 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01rmb Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Grounding all Jabiru aircraft affects the manufacturer but no where near as much as the 1000 aircraft owners who have somewhere between $70-120k tied up in an asset that would become a useless 360kg lump of glass fibre and aluminium. The flow on effects would likely end (or at least severely cripple) RAA and the recreational aviation industry if the aircraft couldn't get back in the air. If there is no simple answer this will not end well. So focus needs to be on determining the root cause and coming up with a solution that includes how to apply the solution within the regulatory restrictions that controls this industry not belting the hell out of the manufacturer by calling in the regulatory watch dogs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 lots of luck there ft, if the problems been around for 15+ years and if you follow comments here, Jabiru aircraft outland more than any other yet see no fatalities. Is it maybe a positive that all the negative talk has created more cautious, aware and prepared pilots of Jabiru powered aircraft? Costs coming from anywhere????? Ill guarantee the costs will come from owners one way or the other. What assurance it will be fixed? Somehow some think there is a cheap easy answer waiting to be uncovered. Old quote "No matter the severity of your situation your potential is endless, both ways" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Nev, I am looking at this from a consumer good perspective. Owners don't want to pursue Jab through the courts because the legal protection isn't enough to get them out of owning a Jabiru if it fails. I can't see a future for Jabiru because more buyers are aware the engines are a bit of a liability, if you buy a Jabiru new you are taking on an extra liability for the engine. Psychologically, it makes Jabiru look a lot riskier than other brands. Jabiru are creating their own future by not standing by their customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 So RAA has a duty of care for safety, does it? Carol Smith's lawyers did not consider that would allow her to win her case. CASA has a responsibility under S9 of the Civil Aviation Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Nev, I am looking at this from a consumer good perspective. Owners don't want to pursue Jab through the courts because the legal protection isn't enough to get them out of owning a Jabiru if it fails. I can't see a future for Jabiru because more buyers are aware the engines are a bit of a liability, if you buy a Jabiru new you are taking on an extra liability for the engine. Psychologically, it makes Jabiru look a lot riskier than other brands.Jabiru are creating their own future by not standing by their customers. No argument. But if you currently own an LSA Jabiru, you can invoke CAO 95.55.1.9 and apply the fixes offered by CAMit or Rotec. Quite a few people doing this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 It isn't that simple ft. If you advocate some particular action be taken you are part responsible for the outcome, moreso if you have been effectively campaigning against the product. Aviation in this country is MUCH better off for the existence of the Jabiru aircraft, since the early 90's and strangely they may now be more accepted overseas than they are here. VICTA got much the same attitude against it and went to NZ and we then used an advanced version for our services training. You won't appreciate it till it's gone. We are good at shooting ourselves in the foot here, but then we ARE the clever country aren't we.? ( Just keep telling yourselves and it must be true). Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 POST EDITED AS IT DOES NOT ADD VALUE - MOD Jab arent going to help, get over it Jab are bad people, you and others think so, get over it Are we better of with or without them? Undoubtedly with them, as many hundreds of owners are locked in via LSA rules and there are more of them than any other RAA aircraft. Theres also plenty of informed, accepting of compromises, owners too. Lets work towards solutions not continued rhetoric. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't think Jabiru departing the aviation scene will have much impact, there will be some noise by the owners when they announce it, but buyers will just move onto other brands. There are enough used Jabs in Australia to keep everyone happy for the next 20 years. Jabs are a bit like Commodores and Falcons, everyone thinks they are a much bigger part of the market than they are. What solutions are you talking about? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Rotax offered a free upgrade for 912IS owners to go to the 912IS Sport spec which was pretty cool of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 thought that was because first version had lots of problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 there was a lack of midrange torque with the original engine. What did you want Jab to do @jetjr ? 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