glenns Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 If the intention is to take a stick to Jabiru, it seems like a strange way of going about it. Why wouldn't you just e.g. suspend their authority to certify new engines until a fix is developed, and revoke any authorizations for Jabiru to fly over built up areas?The RAA rules were developed when 2 stroke engines were common, and on the assumption that engines were unreliable e.g. must be able to glide clear of built up areas. Does the Jabiru engine have worse reliability than 2 strokes? Is the accident rate high enough that those rules are not enough? I don't see it. It looks to me like the rule was designed to have maximum impact on RAA and related businesses, without the headlines that "Jabiru grounded" would generate. I genuinely fear for the future of all RAA based on this, not just Jabiru. Even if the proposed restrictions do not go ahead, the publication of the consultation draft is very damaging to Jabiru and RAA. Just the knowledge that the threat has been made must influence the value of Jabiru aircraft, and the business plans of Jabiru and businesses that depend on them. Once you pull a gun on someone, your relationship is irretrievably altered - even if you don't pull the trigger. I agree, I have written to both Lee and RAAus safety asking for the following statistics so that I can properly respond. It will tell the true story if either organization cannot produce these immediately. Out of these 27 incidents how many were outright failures and required emergency landings? Out of these 27 incidents how many were caused by design issues rather than pilot or maintenance issues? How do these statistics compare to other stats in the Recreational Aviation area. How do these statistics compare to other stats in the General Aviation area. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 The 27 incidents that are being quoted as 0.03% interests me. 27 incidents from 90,000 flights may well be 0.03% However 27 incidents from 1000 aircraft is in fact 2.7% of aircraft that have failed. Isn't it amazing what you can do with figures. A 2.7% chance of failure is not insignificant. But again how many were engine failures and why? As many have said it really would be good to see real figures. Cheers Geoff13 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Jabiru succeeded in stopping CAE from further proceeding in "certification" of the 2.2 engine, how can casa now acknowledge CAE ....??I see nothing but protracted court proceedings. CAMit was until 2011, merely a sub-contractor to Jabiru, operating under Jabiru's Production Certificate (and subject to CASA surveillance). However in 2011 I licenced CAMit to manufacture parts for the life-extension of the Blanik glider, under my STC, SVA-542, so they were able to obtain a limited Production Certificate to manufacture those parts kits, on a one-off basis (each aircraft owner has to give them a Production Order - it's another example of bureaucratic obstructionism by CASA). However, it's the thin edge of the wedge; they can expand it or take advantage of it to obtain an APMA approval to manufacture Jabiru parts. The issue of IP has been opposed by Jabiru, and whilst CAMit has the higher legal ground, the cost of a legal wrangle over that means that CAMit is more likely to pursue a version that was wholly CAE; but to do any of those things, they have to stay in business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Piper Navajo - at least 10 dead in engine failure accidents in the last 15 years, some other accidents without fatailities. Is that better or worse per hour than Jabiru? Considering that they are supposed to be maintened at a level several increments higher than an RAA aircraft. What percentage of Australian registered Piper Navajos have had off airport landings or crashes due to engine failure? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlegg Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 The 27 incidents that are being quoted as 0.03% interests me.27 incidents from 90,000 flights may well be 0.03% However 27 incidents from 1000 aircraft is in fact 2.7% of aircraft that have failed. Isn't it amazing what you can do with figures. A 2.7% chance of failure is not insignificant. But again how many were engine failures and why? As many have said it really would be good to see real figures. Cheers Geoff13 Also, if the numbers were narrowed down to just Jabs in training schools with failures, that percentage would go sky high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy320 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Be careful when interpreting stats, eg the most dangerous pax a/c ever operated? The Concorde of the 20 that were on commercial use 5% crashed. Would've felt safer in it than a Russian airliner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 For those Jab Owners that are interested in upgrading their respective aircraft to the Rotax 4 stroke engine, well there is good news on the horizon, so don't think you have a boat anchor. Some years ago Bill Whitney -Aeronautical Engineer in Brisbane compiled an STC for installation firewall forward of a 4 stroke Rotax engine into a Jabiru airframe & this STC was approved by CASA. Several Jabirus owners went ahead with this modification, after which there was a saying going around in aviation circles as follows: "If you had a Jabiru with a Rotax engine then you had the best of both worlds". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 For those Jab Owners that are interested in upgrading their respective aircraft to the Rotax 4 stroke engine, well there is good news on the horizon, so don't think you have a boat anchor.Some years ago Bill Whitney -Aeronautical Engineer in Brisbane compiled an STC for installation firewall forward of a 4 stroke Rotax engine into a Jabiru airframe & this STC was approved by CASA. Several Jabirus owners went ahead with this modification, after which there was a saying going around in aviation circles as follows: "If you had a Jabiru with a Rotax engine then you had the best of both worlds". That's ONE STC for ONE Jabiru airframe. Yes, that can be done, but who's going to front-up with the cost of the STC? You have to pay CASA in advance. . . . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAFA Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Before sending that stupid (useless) statistic to CASA (in a rush), RAAus should have gathered more factual data including like for like comparison data for Rotax and other aviation engines. To me it makes RAAus look very amateurish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vk3awa Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 For those Jab Owners that are interested in upgrading their respective aircraft to the Rotax 4 stroke engine, well there is good news on the horizon, so don't think you have a boat anchor.Some years ago Bill Whitney -Aeronautical Engineer in Brisbane compiled an STC for installation firewall forward of a 4 stroke Rotax engine into a Jabiru airframe & this STC was approved by CASA. Several Jabirus owners went ahead with this modification, after which there was a saying going around in aviation circles as follows: "If you had a Jabiru with a Rotax engine then you had the best of both worlds". My choice would be a Lycoming 235 in my Jabiru. I think there was some talk of someone installing these engines in Jabiru aircraft. Not sure if it ever transpired. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Think they have worries in the new digital ign system . Good basic engine but wider and heavy. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieselten Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Much fuss and fury, predictably. The Instrument is a Draft. Currently it is not in force. At the moment it doesn't apply. DO NOT PANIC! What it has done is brought the issue to a head. The manufacturer of the engine (Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd) is being made to confront a perceived issue with engine reliability. It is probably well overdue. "The gun is loaded, the action is cocked and CASA are about to pull the trigger" but the sky isn't actually falling in - yet. Now, the statistics of engine failures will have to be produced. If they can't then the premise of CASA's introductory paragraph is fatally flawed. Analysis will have to be made, and when it is there will be several quite clear conclusions. Once these are made, then the manufacturer will be aware of what issues need to be addressed, with some guidance as to possible remedies. It will also pinpoint, with some precision, those engines most at risk and those which are at a very low level of risk. Then - and only then - the Instrument can be refined. What is of concern is the vast variation in "Jabiru engines". There are at least 9 on my local airfield, and they range from one 4-cylinder unit with a 3-digit serial number to a couple of brand-new roller-cam 3.3-litre engines which have just been installed. Most - but not all - have had the through-bolt upgrade. Some have been recently re-built with all the current upgrades. Clearly there is no "one-size fits all" solution here. The two most pressing issues are through-bolt failure and exhaust-valve failures. These are mechanical issues rather than design issues. I believe the engine is essentially well-designed, and from my own experience (engine-failures), it is a tough engine because even with a major failure it ran long enough to get me back to a runway - twice. From my own experience I can say the little Jab engine is a tough little unit, and the airframe is just about "unkillable". At the price, there isn't a better training-aircraft available. CASA could have simply grounded the entire fleet of Jabiru-powered aircraft in Australia, but what they have done is forced people's hands so the matters can be thrashed out and solutions found. It's my belief that was the intention of this in the first place. So by all means make representations to your local MP, to Lee Ungerman and the Minister, but be respectful, polite, positive and bear in mind the thrust of this proposed Instrument is to fix a problem, not ground a fleet of aircraft. As for the immediate future, about all I can confidently predict is the email server at CASA is about to crash due to the volume of emails being received from all over the world, and the receptionist at Jabiru will most likely require stress-leave when this is all over. One other observation, if I may; if the reaction to this proposed Instrument is as violent and widespread as some would have us believe, it may not reflect all that well on the regulator or on the person or persons who drafted it. 3 5 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 They have one of the J160C's with the 912 100hp motors in it online at Caboolture. I haven't flown it yet, that is on the to do list after the Drifter. I do have the feeling though that bookings on that aircraft my be harder to make in the near future if this all goes ahead, it could easily become one of only 4 or so Jabirus still in the air that can be used for training/solo students. Cheers Geoff13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 signup on change.org to encancel the CASA planned restrictions http://www.change.org/p/the-hon-jamie-briggs-mp-cancel-casa-s-proposed-restrictions-on-jabiru-aircraft-engines?recruiter=55066695&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbear Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I'm sure I've got an old VW engine in my scrap pile I might drag that out and put my jab engine in my ride on mower ! 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I This is a case of short term pain but long term real gain. Jabiru will be forced to improve the reliability of all Jab engines. I just hope they have the financial reserves to do that and stay in business. It would be a disaster for aviation in Australia iJab were to go under. I wonder if it will force a jab to take up the Camit improvements to get a quick result to meet CASA requirements.How will Jabiru sell a single aircraft while this hangs over their head? They must have known it was coming. Perhaps finally we'll be able to buy a Jab with Rotax engine as a factory build? Hello Don Are Rotax bomb proof and just keep on running? Be careful -- people will think the engines will keep on running through ever what. On this forum I have not seen any of the Rotax problems highlighted, only the Jab short comings. I am concerned that people will get a false sense of security by seeing all the negative information regarding Jabs and nothing for the Rotax. Rotax can stop too. Remember that they are all mechanical devices and humans put them together so expect anything. Regards KP. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Much fuss and fury, predictably.The Instrument is a Draft. Currently it is not in force. At the moment it doesn't apply. DO NOT PANIC! What it has done is brought the issue to a head. The manufacturer of the engine (Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd) is being made to confront a perceived issue with engine reliability. It is probably well overdue. "The gun is loaded, the action is cocked and CASA are about to pull the trigger" but the sky isn't actually falling in - yet. Now, the statistics of engine failures will have to be produced. If they can't then the premise of CASA's introductory paragraph is fatally flawed. Analysis will have to be made, and when it is there will be several quite clear conclusions. Once these are made, then the manufacturer will be aware of what issues need to be addressed, with some guidance as to possible remedies. It will also pinpoint, with some precision, those engines most at risk and those which are at a very low level of risk. Then - and only then - the Instrument can be refined. What is of concern is the vast variation in "Jabiru engines". There are at least 9 on my local airfield, and they range from one 4-cylinder unit with a 3-digit serial number to a couple of brand-new roller-cam 3.3-litre engines which have just been installed. Most - but not all - have had the through-bolt upgrade. Some have been recently re-built with all the current upgrades. Clearly there is no "one-size fits all" solution here. The two most pressing issues are through-bolt failure and exhaust-valve failures. These are mechanical issues rather than design issues. I believe the engine is essentially well-designed, and from my own experience (engine-failures), it is a tough engine because even with a major failure it ran long enough to get me back to a runway - twice. From my own experience I can say the little Jab engine is a tough little unit, and the airframe is just about "unkillable". At the price, there isn't a better training-aircraft available. CASA could have simply grounded the entire fleet of Jabiru-powered aircraft in Australia, but what they have done is forced people's hands so the matters can be thrashed out and solutions found. It's my belief that was the intention of this in the first place. So by all means make representations to your local MP, to Lee Ungerman and the Minister, but be respectful, polite, positive and bear in mind the thrust of this proposed Instrument is to fix a problem, not ground a fleet of aircraft. As for the immediate future, about all I can confidently predict is the email server at CASA is about to crash due to the volume of emails being received from all over the world, and the receptionist at Jabiru will most likely require stress-leave when this is all over. One other observation, if I may; if the reaction to this proposed Instrument is as violent and widespread as some would have us believe, it may not reflect all that well on the regulator or on the person or persons who drafted it. Just one point to add to that: The inclusion of experimental aircraft in that Instrument was a clear abuse of regulatory authority. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I am not happy with tone and attitude of some contributors to this site. However, they have achieved what they set out to do and ultimately, I feel it will be to my safety advantage to be able to choose to modify out some of the fragilities of my Jab engine . Out of the six Jabiru powered aircraft operating here, and they are all actively used and I have never heard of any engine problems - but that is irrelevant as in the big picture it is too small a sample. I work in reliability and would not be happy using rumour, inuendo and some of very poorly qualified statistics that has been peddled here to sentence any machine. Surely the reliability critieria has to based on faults per hours flown across the fleet of each engine type, only RAA could have those data. Where is it in this case? The Camit / Jabiru arrangement looks from a distance to be a very odd relationship, especially with Jabiru adamantly refusing to allow Camit upgrades to be approved and fitted. Now CASA has stepped in and one solution could be to mandate/allow some of these upgrades. Jabiru owners will then have to put their hands in their pockets to get their aircraft released from any CASA applied restrictations. This would be a win for all but the owners:- Jabiru get to sell aircraft with more reliable engines - Jabiru win. CASA is seen to be acting - CASA win. Operators have the option of upgrading - Operator win (but at a significant cost, so irate). Jabiru can continue to say the upgrades are not required, but CASA imposed - Jabiru win because it claims not to be to blame for Operators additional costs. Is that too sinical? Alan 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The Jabiru/CAE relationship problem should be seen as a test case for all LSA aircraft. If a manufacturer or engine maker decide to part ways or is closed, there is currently NO WAY that aircraft can stay in LSA or training Fix this and help CAE and owners move forward, CASA can do this of they choose This is going to cost owners dearly whatever the outcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I am certainly not a fan of Jabiru, however I have just submitted an email to Lee Ungermann requesting that experimental aircraft powered by Jabs be exempt from this due to the fact that it conflicts with the experimental regs which are designed to allow those freedoms regardless of what engine. I hope others will do the same and send in an email before the 20th to highlight this issue. I agree, if Jab fix the problems, then this could very well become a massive gain for them. There are already some Jabs out there with factory installed Rotax engines, all 24 and legit (I believe one is based at Caboolture and is available for flight training). The Caboolture J160 is not a factory install. It is not an STC. My J160 has more or less the same mod, but here in NZ where the regs for micro lights are a bit more relaxed. The YCAB machine was converted using an EO specific to that aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aro Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The Instrument is a Draft. Currently it is not in force. At the moment it doesn't apply. DO NOT PANIC! It doesn't really matter whether it actually applies. The publication of the draft is damaging enough. Everyone who was about to buy a Jabiru has just put their wallat back in their pocket and thought "Hmmm, maybe I'll give it 6 months or a year and see how this pans out... or buy a Rotax." People leaning to fly will think maybe it's not a good idea to learn at a school that uses Jabirus, I might not be able to fly solo. Flying schools that were planning to borrow to expand their business suddenly have a potential cash flow hit to consider. If a flying school has borrowed money and the banks find out, you might get an invitation to explain your contingency plan. The bank might tell you they aren't comfortable with your current level of borrowing, and would like an immediate reduction in your debt level. You try to sell an aircraft, but no-one is buying Jabirus. The bank do whatever they do when a business can't repay to the banks satisfaction... The draft by itself will probably costs RAA related businesses/individuals millions, maybe tens of millions - unless there is an immediate mechanical fix that which CASA bless as THE solution to the issue. 1 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 This has the real prospect of getting very undesirable even down to a personal level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Perhaps CASA have a fix in mind and are right now, offering it up to Jab. Lets hope so. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 One solution to this all this would be to get the ATSB to do a thorough investigation. Probably will need Warren Truss's intervention. Would take a while though. Phil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 That's ONE STC for ONE Jabiru airframe. Yes, that can be done, but who's going to front-up with the cost of the STC? You have to pay CASA in advance. . . . We are nearing the season of GOODWILL & PEACE TO ALL MEN & as a goodwill gesture so as to keep the fleet of Jabs flying whereby even though you have entered the golden years of retirement, have you considered coming out of retirement just once more so as to compile an STC for either a Camit Engine ,Rotax 4 stroke, Lycoming or Continental engine to be installed into Jabs & donate the STC to those Jab owners who decide to perform this modification, & when the inevitable time comes ( which we must all face sooner or later to meet our MAKER) then you will have an epitaph when you enter "AVIATION HEAVEN" as being the only person who has saved the fleet of Jabs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts