fly_tornado Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I reckon if Rod Stiff sued someone that would just about be the nail in the coffin for Jabiru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 From the .....'Clarification and extension to response period (CD1425SS) ...Page 2....' No operational limitations of any kind have been imposed at this point.' ' No action has been taken by CASA at this point to impose any operational limitations other than to publish notice of the limitations CASA proposes, and to invite public comment on these limitations.' ' No action will be taken by CASA to impose any operational limitations until after the relevent responses to the invitation for comment have been considered.... A logical response from the Regulator, which will probably elicit documented responses from owners who have suffered engine failures and operational emergencies which had not been reported to either RAAus or ATSB, but perhaps to the manufacturer. It's possible that these engine issues far outnumber those reported via standard channels. We may never know these numbers, but the manufacturer will likely be persuaded to negotiate, fully and frankly, on the issue. Without this Regulatory action, it's possible that the matter would continue to drag on, and on, and on........ happy days, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbear Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Maybe another solution would be for the mandatory fitment of CHT probes on every cylinder with a display in the cockpit with a audible alarm that is set at a certain temperature. Maybe a ballistic recovery system as well . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAFA Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Given this action by CASA and some of the comments on here have exposed potential issues with Jabiru engines, owners of flying schools are leaving themselves open to be liable for injury (or death) to their instructors under the Workplace Health and Safety act. Owners are responsible for ensuring the workplace is safe for all their staff including instructors, both on the ground and in the air. There have been many transport companies that have been found liable for knowing there were defects with a particular truck/bus etc, but still allowed their drivers to drive and then the driver was injured or killed in the defected truck/bus. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Those concerned with any potential loss of value of their Jabiru aircraft might draw some comfort from tthe fact that their potential loss pales into insignificance compared to the loss of credibility, respect and wordwide standing which this has caused CASA as an organisation. It must now be perceived by many similar organisations, as well as influential individuals in governments, as a deeply-flawed, role-playing bureaucracy, terminally-infested with ex-military buffers and empire-builders who have little or no concept of civilian aviation operations, economics or its importance in the general economic health of the nation. I think you're grossly overestimating how much other worldwide airworthiness organisations care about Jabiru the company or Jabiru owners, and grossly underestimating how similar in nature those organisations and "influential individuals in governments" are to our own. Again I refer to a previous post of mine. You have to get it out of your head that CASA have the slightest interest in economics or economic health of the nation. That is not their charter or why they were formed. That is not their purpose under the Act which created them. Once you accept the reality of that, and not before, you can progress towards an effective way of dealing with the safety regulator. Those who refuse to accept that reality may as well pack up and go home. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Maybe a ballistic recovery system as well . Sorry Ozbear but No! I don't like the idea and I certainly don't like the idea of Nanny state intruding further into our lives. No objection to ballistic chutes as an idea if owners/builders want, or are able to fit them but I would be strongly opposed to mandatory fitment. Are you suggesting them for all RAA aircraft or just for Jabs? The idea of putting a ballistic chute in an aircraft that carries it's fuel in a tank immediately behind the occupants seems to be spectacularly dangerous. That would rule out all of the non wet wing Jabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Those concerned with any potential loss of value of their Jabiru aircraft might draw some comfort from tthe fact that their potential loss pales into insignificance compared to the loss of credibility, respect and wordwide standing which this has caused CASA as an organisation. It must now be perceived by many similar organisations, as well as influential individuals in governments, as a deeply-flawed, role-playing bureaucracy, terminally-infested with ex-military buffers and empire-builders who have little or no concept of civilian aviation operations, economics or its importance in the general economic health of the nation. No regulator will ever be castigated for erring on the side of caution where there's a clear case of public safety. I'm thinking of students. My understanding is Jabiru was asked to voluntarily restrict certain operations but refused, leaving CASA no option but to declare an investigation. Years ago, when the flywheel bolts started breaking, I rang CAA to request a response from CASA. Apparently CASA denied all knowledge of the problem. So what is the international reputation you allude to? Letting sleeping dogs lie ... for 10 years or so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 No objection to ballistic chutes ... strongly opposed to mandatory fitment ... [where] fuel in a tank immediately behind the occupants seems to be spectacularly dangerous. That would rule out all of the non wet wing Jabs. I doubt CASA cares about private owners. Weight is more a problem than location of fuel tank. Jabiru don't have a wet wing, there's a fibreglass tank inside the wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Sorry Ozbear but No! . I'm pretty sure Ozbear's tongue was firmly planted in cheek .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 .....My understanding is Jabiru was asked to voluntarily restrict certain operations but refused, leaving CASA no option but to declare an investigation........ G'day Ornis, Do you have any evidence of that? If true, it would be an interesting development in this sad & sorry saga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 ..........Weight is more a problem than location of fuel tank. Jabiru don't have a wet wing, there's a fibreglass tank inside the wing........ Thanks for that correction Ornis, but it doesn't change the thrust of my comment. Weight would certainly be a significant problem for many of the small Jabs, but launching a rocket propelled chute above or behind a fuel tank would be even more of a concern for me? My opinion and worth as much as you paid for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I'm pretty sure Ozbear's tongue was firmly planted in cheek .... If it was, then Sorry Ozbear. But you weren't the first person to suggest it here so I thought I'd respond. Hope you didn't take is as a personal rebuke of your idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennyboy320 Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Apparently the BRS is NOT an option for the Jab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Why would Jabiru offer discounted engines, parts or service? CASA isnt pushing for customer satisfaction. They could indirectly force owners to buy whatever Jabiru come up with at whatever cost Jab set on it. CAE and Jabiru wont be agreeing on anything, infact i think Jabiru has prevented CAE from pushing ahead with further certification of the CAE improved 2200. In addition, if no one is buyong Jabiru engines Ian will no doubt find tough times. Anyone who can should support him by buying his gear. Elsewhere is has been discussed, CASA are prepared, and theres precedent, that upon the disappearance of LSA cert holder, they will approve other parts suppliers. Problem is they are unlikely to do anything if original manufacturer is still around Jabiru have said they were interviewing FTF to determine compliance status of active aircraft. Thats why only those still running Jabs got to talk. Wasnt an attempt to find out about problems or ideas on solutions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Anyone who can should support him by buying his gear. Patriotism went out the window a long time ago in just about any country you can name, you need to provide a decent product with decent backup if you want people to buy your product. Or, as much 'Made in China' crap verifies, it has to be darn cheap. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Nothing to do with patriotisim, if he doesnt survive, theres no parts full stop Plenty are saying they want to go that way, dont hesitate or it may not be an option 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Thanks for that correction Ornis, but it doesn't change the thrust of my comment. Weight would certainly be a significant problem for many of the small Jabs, but launching a rocket propelled chute above or behind a fuel tank would be even more of a concern for me? My opinion and worth as much as you paid for it. It's possible to get spring-powered ballistic parachutes. This avoids the rocket. The penalty is a bit of extra weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 It's possible to get spring-powered ballistic parachutes. This avoids the rocket. The penalty is a bit of extra weight. Interesting, do you have to wind up the spring before each flight? Where would one store the big key in a little plane like mine? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbear Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 I'm pretty sure Ozbear's tongue was firmly planted in cheek .... Yes your right Bex if a politician buys himself a BRS distributorship then they will be mandatory. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yes your right Bex if a politician buys himself a BRS distributorship then they will be mandatory. Maybe we should check Lee U's share portfolio....... C'mon Mods! That was a joke. Take your finger of the delete button 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Sorry Ozbear but No! I don't like the idea and I certainly don't like the idea of Nanny state intruding further into our lives. No objection to ballistic chutes as an idea if owners/builders want, or are able to fit them but I would be strongly opposed to mandatory fitment. Are you suggesting them for all RAA aircraft or just for Jabs? The idea of putting a ballistic chute in an aircraft that carries it's fuel in a tank immediately behind the occupants seems to be spectacularly dangerous. That would rule out all of the non wet wing Jabs. I think it was august 2012 it became mandatory in Germany and a few other european countries that ballistic chutes are standard fitment into ultralights now 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 other than crank case fretting at 1,000 hours to the point that it required a rebuild or replacement.. My J160 came from the Adelaide Soaring Club. After getting it, I read in the logbook that the original engine was replaced at 500 hours because of crankcase fretting ... Dunno if they had to pay for it. Just anecdotal of course. And for the avatar crowd, I am truly a bogeyman .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 My J160 came from the Adelaide Soaring Club. After getting it, I read in the logbook that the original engine was replaced at 500 hours because of crankcase fretting ... Dunno if they had to pay for it. And now that I remember - last year there was a 3300 on our field having the through bolts done. After the new bolts were installed and torqued up, the prop didn't want to turn. Cases fretted out at 700-odd hours. Funnily enough the top end was all good ... The engine was biffed - based on past experience, there didn't seem to be much point asking Bundy to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbear Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 My J160 came from the Adelaide Soaring Club. After getting it, I read in the logbook that the original engine was replaced at 500 hours because of crankcase fretting ... Dunno if they had to pay for it.Just anecdotal of course. And for the avatar crowd, I am truly a bogeyman .... So by the look of it you have a 912 in your jab is that right Ian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianboag Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 So by the look of it you have a 912 in your jab is that right Ian True, although that was a bit of a "rush of blood to the head" thing. Me and the boys at YCAB have the world's only two Rotaxified J160's. There are unlikely to ever be any more. It goes fine, but for the $, time and stress involved I should have just flogged it off and bought a Tecnam or whatever. I gussied up the paint job while I was at it. Not that this has anything to do with the thread ... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts