coljones Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 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 If you have a plane sitting in the hanger doing nothing it will not explode (perhaps). If the plane is out there doing real hours, movements and miles there will be an ever increasingly great chance of misadventure. A simple rate per engine tells nothing about the potential for problems. The only real test is the rate per hour, mile or movement. A bit like being eaten by a shark - first you have to go swimming and then you have to go swimming often and further out before you become a statistic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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. You can't do that any more, under CASR Part 21M, because it's a major modification, and therefore MUST go the STC path - but that's no help whatever to the LSA aircraft 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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 I'm prepared to run a CAE-modified Jabiru through it's required 50 hours in the test cell - which I have built at my own expense - for just the fuel cost. I'm a subscriber to the views of Ayn Rand; I want a certificated 3300, so it's in my interests to do this. Aviation heaven be buttered. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenns Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 And still we have no meaningful data to indicate why this process has commenced? until we gave this its all hearsay surely someone must have these statistics? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn 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 (Sigh) - For Rod Stiff to "allow" the CAMit mods onto his LSA aircraft, means he would be accepting the legal liability for something he has not designed. For CAMit to simply hand-over their IP for over four years of research to Rod - are you joking? Would you? The workable alternative would be for Rod to acknowledge that Ian Bent has an equal right to the Jabiru IP for the basic engines. That would allow CAMit to get APMA approval from CASA to manufacture APMA parts for jabiru engines (an APMA part is a legally approved alternative for an OEM part). Since CAMit already makes the OEM parts, they are the only ones with any chance of getting APMA approval. It would help if CASA would fast-track that process. Then, the CAMit mods need formal design approval - which means running an engine with those mods through the required 50 hours of instrumented running at all the red-line limits, under CASA surveillance. You expect Jabiru to do that? The test article has to be fully conformed against its drawing package, again under CASA scrutiny; run through a power rating test, then through the endurance test, and then through a final power rating test, followed by a strip inspection - all under CASA's scrutiny. CASA demands to be paid up front for its services. Figure 200 man-hours at about $200 per hour. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Understandably there is a lot of emotion in this thread. As it is only in draft stage no doubt there may be a few changes in the final product if it is indeed implemented, and I would think at "sensible" suggestions would be looked at (emailing CASA/RAA/jabiru and calling them names will probably find your email ignored). Looking through the draft it seems to me that the main difference is in the passenger carry as the not flying over populated areas part seems to cover what should be happening anyway and the day VFR restriction won't affect RAA pilots. In regards to above populated areas it seems to me to restrict jabs to be above 1000agl (which incidentally I was always led to believe was a rule when above towns ect anyway) unless for safety sake on takeoff and landing (open to a little self interpretation) and if above a populated area and above 1000agl you have to stay within gliding distance of a suitable landing area (that seems to be up to the pilot to determine and seems like a good practice for all pilots not just jabs). Being restricted basically to a single seater unless flying with a pilot or student will be a huge problem for a fair few people and I do feel for them. Blaming individual forum members and RAA IMHO seems a bit off mark. Talk of putting a rotax in a jab IMHO is NOT the solution to this problem. (Yes I would eventually like to see that as an option and I believe that would really boost jab sales) I would like to think that if Jab was to show to CASA that they were seriously trying to improve reliability that it would be like our own registration saga and they could be given time to come to a workable solution. (Yes it will come at a price but if time is spent to get it right it can be greatly reduced) It would be nice to see CAMit and jab work together (I don't understand the politics between them) and it seems to me that if CASA encouraged that but still gave them room to breathe that this could lead to great positive change. My ten cents on a good outcome is...... Current owners aren't 'forced' to change but are given the option to put 'proven' mods in their certified or certificated aircraft. The jab factory not only has an improved product but a better relationship with CAMit and it's customers. AFTER all that seeing a rotax option would be nice and would see a lot more people flying jabs. I mean no offence to anyone and do hope that this brings about positive change and I would think that no one in their right mind would like to see the failure of jab or CAMit or RAA. 3 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So, at least round $40k and months of downtime, Would have been nice if $40k had covered it ....:-( 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". It was done for Tony Grills to put an 80 912 into an early 450 kg Jab. Apparently worked OK but load capacity was small person plus smaller person plus two hankies for luggage and three cups of fuel .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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. All very well to wail about future potential losses. Spare a thought for those flying schools and individual owners who have experienced real and documentable losses from a very bad run with Jabs and have been continually fobbed off by the manufacturer. There are 2 sides to this issue. happy days, 1 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 So - do you want blood on the floor, or do you want the problem fixed? Because it's a question of priorities; get the order wrong, and you'll get neither. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What is interesting to me, is that the real issue and the driving force behind ANY regulatory move like this, is the safety implications. Ive heard gripes about costing this and that, and students not having a training aircraft etc, and yet here we are, supposedly all safety conscious pilots who uphold the ideals of airmanship and safety as our prime directive, and nobody has even mentioned the word safety in their rumblings. We all sprout such high morals and high standards of airmenship and safety UNTIL it hurts our pockets..Then the true motives and the true "spirit" of the aviator comes to the fore. We are all so busy watching the back account, and crying blue bloody murder on CASA, and not looking at the underlying safety message thats literally smacking us up the side the head. Anybody that has dealt with CASA would know exactly how serious a matter would need to be before they took this un precidented action against a company. I dont agree with the methods of CASA here, but the message is not new, and has not come lightly. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I actually know of 3 cases where the owner gave up flying engine-planes after an engine-induced forced landing: One was a Rotax and the plane landed ok in a paddock 20k north of Gawler. I think it was a fuel supply problem, and I never saw the plane or pilot again. The second was a Volkswagen-aero conversion. I think it got back to the airfield but the pilot never flew it again. The third was a Subaru conversion... the cause may have been icing, it was never determined for sure. I think the owner decided to retire from flying after this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Cancel CASA's proposed restrictions CASA have not provided any detail or reason for the proposed heavy restriction of all Jabiru aircraft engines. The effect of such a restriction will be detrimental to many areas of general aviation in Australia, where the engine has been developed and manufactured, as well as many export locations worldwide. CASA released the Consultation Draft – CD1425SS on 13th November 2014 and has only given 7 days for comment. Along with signing this petition (link below), please submit your comments to the Team Leader, Lee Ungermann at [email protected] or [email protected] https://www.change.org/p/the-hon-warren-truss-mp-cancel-casa-s-proposed-restrictions-on-jabiru-aircraft-engines JABIRU AIRCRAFT PTY LTD PO Box 5792 Bundaberg West Qld 4670 Ph: 07 41551778 Fax: 07 41552669 Email: [email protected] www.jabiru.net.au www.facebook.com/JabiruAircraft 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 But that is the point Andy, not everyone shares your view - you're entitled to it but so are others entitled to theirs. P.S. No I'm not wanting to debate the fact, I'll save my thoughts for my submission to CASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 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. Yes it did happen and one crashed recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I have it on reasonably good authority that the meeting between CASA and Jab/ RAA went well for Jabiru. No details other than to say Jabiru feel " it could not have gone better for them" If this is true its good news for them ( and many of us) . 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenns Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I have it on reasonably good authority that the meeting between CASA and Jab/ RAA went well for Jabiru.No details other than to say Jabiru feel " it could not have gone better for them" If this is true its good news for them ( and many of us) . I hope this is true the quicker this information is disseminated the better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Lots of engine ears listening for the outcome. Hope it makes things improve to everyones advantage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Safety is a fair comment however there has been NO ONE injured at this point Why no action on more serious problems, like structural failures, possible in flight fires? Why no action on 2 strokes? Why no action on other conversions with possibly worse records? The position many are in is they DO NOT agree that theres a safety issue, they have thousands of hours without incident. No matter the outcome this action will cost them money when the facts arent clear 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 To Jabiru Fleet,Will the silent majority please become vocal as soon as possible to protect your flying privileges!! Rodney Stiff and Susan Woods have just landed in Canberra and will be meeting with CASA @ 11am tomorrow morning with Legal Representation and will be fighting for your privileges!! WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT URGENTLY by responding to Lee Ungermann at email: [email protected] via the below link as we only have a week for responses to be submitted Refer to Link: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS%3ASTANDARD%3A%3Apc=PC_102279Regards, Jabiru Team JABIRU AIRCRAFT PTY LTD Airport Drive Bundaberg West QLD 4670 Hopefully Jabiru Team will be able to report as to how their meeting went with CASA, even if they are not able to give specific details just yet? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Now they have to come up with the numbers of failed engines and the causes of failure, plus they have to have figures to justify their saying the problem is increasing. I have asked Lee Ungerman for his justification and figures and also pointed out that the blanket restrictions are not necessary in the case of lightly loaded Jab engines. For example my engine is loaded at 8.75 lbs/hp. and cannot be run at full power without exceeding Vne. I think Lee is going to be very busy for a few days, but hopefully there will be a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The thing about perception is that everyone gets to have one, and there's no rule that any of them have to be the same. On the otherhand the only thing that really matters is at the end of the consultation process when we find out what CASA then decide to do and to which engines under which registrations schemes. I would hardly suspect J (or anyone in their same circumstances )would come out and say publically "well that went really badly......." (And I'm not saying it did or didn't...I wasn't there!) Folks dig in for the long term...this is not over until CASA say it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Agree Andy but soooo much damage is already done 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
440032 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Dafydd, you mentioned a little earlier: The inclusion of experimental aircraft in that Instrument was a clear abuse of regulatory authority. Could you elaborate your thinking, I've been looking at the CASRs, but can't quite see where that might be. Ta! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Yes it did happen and one crashed recently. Are you sure of your facts? There was a forced landing on a beach in NSW recently involving a Brumby B610 fitted with a Lycoming 0-233, (not the 0-235 as used in many GA types), using Champion electronic ignition - which was the probable cause of the engine stoppage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Lastest RAA email report on Jab/CASA/RAA meeting lists engine failure and flight hours data, But no breakdow between 2 stroke and 4 stroke Rotax'. Jabiru 28 failures in 41834 hours, all Rotax' 16 failures in 71626 hours, All types 51 failure in 131227 hours. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts