JEM Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Greetings all I own and fly a Jabitu LSA 55 (solid lifter 2200). I have been flying behind Jabiru 2200 engines for over 6 years including flying school aircraft and have never had one let me down. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docjell Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 A couple of posts in this thread have mentioned 'statistics' - I haven't seen any. The raw figures comparing hours flown and failures between the Jabiru and Rotax engines are just that- raw. I have not been able to track down any meaningful statistical analysis that would determine whether in fact there is an increased overall incidence of in flight failure in Jabiru engines or whether this is due to chance. Lee Ungerman at CASA has failed to reply to my request for this analysed data, and the RAA seemed unaware that such a thing a statistical analysis exists. My knowledge of stats is rudimentary so I cannot work out which of the many tests would be applicable - any statisticians out there,with nothing much on at the moment? 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 @docjell don't hold your breath expecting Jabiru to deliver any meaningful data. Customer support is more an after thought than a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 I bought a 1958 MF 35 petrol and a 1956 International B275, both running on original motors for more than 50 years, mostly parked out in the rain, with the worst our fuel could throw at them and maintained when I could remember, and I've got a John Deere lawn tractor with 455 hours on it and only oil changes, but that's all irrelevant colouring of the subject isn't it. What counts now is that RAA/CASA minimise the chance of a fatal, and maybe one or two of us could come up with a solution to help Jabiru through this as quickly as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docjell Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Thanks Fly-Tornado - I didn't approach Jabiru for the data analysis but CASA- since they are basing their NPRM on it. Perhaps they too don't realise that raw data needs analysing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Yep I have a problem free one too ~ 900hrs now, did replace engine @ 780 to get upgrades instead of top end rebuild. Was still running fine. Jabiru have been helpful to me especially as I never bought anything but parts (and now a rebuilt engine) from them. Solid lifter 3300, now with fine heads I service it a lot, have had some guides reamed, one cylinder had new rings before I got it, had an oil cooler hose wear through and landed safely. Ive got EGT and CHT down, balanced prop, and it flies great. Sure it could be better and Im a cautious pilot so always ready for stoppage. Its not single aircraft performing OK but we are all affected by proposed instrument. Ian raises good points on the CASA approach, they have neither the statistics to justify or the skills to rectify the situation. A negative person.....where to find one of them??......would say by taking action without solid data they have given Jabiru grounds to debate that the issue doesnt exist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 It would be reasonable to have the DATA to back up any action. (Or you look silly and do lot of unnecessary damage, to a lot of owners in particular, and the movement in general). PLUS it would be harder to take a future concern seriously. Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious. ALL I'm talking about here is a process. Not judging any outcome. Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKW Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Thanks Nev, you're the voice of reason on this and many other issues. Unfortunately the damage has already been done, whether this blunt "instrument" is enacted or not. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horsefeathers Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Here are 2 Radio National programs about RAA and CASA's response to the Jab engine failures, that were broadcast yesterday and today - some people may find interesting Ban considered on Jabiru aircraft engines Wednesday 19 November 2014 8:22AM Australia's recreational flying schools are warning that they could be forced out of business if the aviation safety regulator imposes restrictions on the Australian made Jabiru engine. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/ban-considered-on-australian-made-aircraft-engines/5902168 Recreational flyers sceptical of Jabiru engine ban Thursday 20 November 2014 8:36AM The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says there have been 40 incidents involving the Australian-made Jabiru aircraft engine in the past year. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/recreational-flyers-sceptical-of-jabiru-engine-ban/5905092 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggles Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Could be a problem here.I get 3000- 3050 at takeoff with full fuel. Phil Phil , Type of propellor and pitch/diameter will affect take-off revs as well . Bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 It has been mooted, that this whole sorry saga of poor pre attention to genuine facts/ numbers etc etc, which has now destroyed brand jab, savaged values , could spell the deathnell of some schools/ clubs, this saga has potential for a " damages" case. Hearing of one owner seeking advice. ( high profile firm, likes class action matters ) might get interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Recreational flyers sceptical of Jabiru engine ban Thursday 20 November 2014 8:36AM The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says there have been 40 incidents involving the Australian-made Jabiru aircraft engine in the past year. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/recreational-flyers-sceptical-of-jabiru-engine-ban/5905092 Where did they get that figure? As far as we have heard CASA is not telling anyone in the industry or user these numbers. How did the ABC get them and are they true figures? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Imagine the "claims" from owners against jab of they can use their aircraft as advertised.. I doubt it will pass in its current state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Recreational flyers sceptical of Jabiru engine banThursday 20 November 2014 8:36AM The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says there have been 40 incidents involving the Australian-made Jabiru aircraft engine in the past year. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/recreational-flyers-sceptical-of-jabiru-engine-ban/5905092 Where did they get that figure? As far as we have heard CASA is not telling anyone in the industry or user these numbers. How did the ABC get them and are they true figures? Note, there are a few ABC reporters that are members of this site 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01rmb Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 The reason for coming back Russ is that is one aircraft only, and the action take by RAA and CASA is based on a lot more numbers, and more importantly, forced landings which is the safety issue.The owner of the aircraft which was damaged in the forced landing at Red Cliffs, had had 8 years reliable service....until the engine failed. RAA have the reports which give the number of forced landings and that is the key figure for safety. If engine issues were just being found on the ground, or gave signs before failure, then it would just be a financial matter between supplier and customer. Several people have pushed the single reliable aircraft story, but it's statistically irresponsible. The problem with your argument is that it is more than just one problem free aircraft - there are several hundred that have had no problems even if you even if you exclude those that have had some maintenance done. No one is ignoring the fact that there have been some people that have had problems and a number of forced landings, and in anyone's eyes, it is better to not have any problems or forced landings. It is great to focus on improving the reliability and I welcome the activities being done in this area. The fact remains (albeit with poor data) that only 1 in 3,300 takeoffs/landings resulted in a partial or full engine failure - and some of these are known to be fuel related. This is more than most people will do in the life of their aircraft and is no worse than for the other RAA aircraft with the exception of those with Rotax engines which have a demonstrated superior reliability record. But, then even they are not perfect and at the much higher cost both initially and servicing they should be expected to be better. People need to prepared for the event that if something does go wrong that you are able to avoid a tragic outcome. Sadly this has not been the case with other aircraft and thus there should be a focus to improve survivability in the event of a crash. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 40 incidences.........ok, they've stated that, now give me the breakdown of that figure. Bet me left ### , that 40 were not caused by a common component failure, ie valves for example. Yes the engine needs attention, ie Camit R&D facts, but running out of fuel, tipping it over on landing etc etc etc, are " incidences" for sure. Bet this scinareo is in their figures to claim 40 incidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 two issues Merv 1. Jabiru reliability issues - debated to death but Jabiru havent placed restrictions on their aircraft. 2. CASA action - whats causing FTF/owners to loose $$, claim will be against them and rightfully so. If they dont have hard data to back their claims, Lee will be in deep @#$@ . Publically quoted wrong info will make it even deeper. Arguing they were preventing possible future casualties wont fly, Sadly it would be much stronger if there had been one. Correct or not, current stats say a Jab without power isnt very dangerous. Even workcover wouldnt chase that rabbit. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Lee will be indemnified by being an employee of the CASA. IF he has acted inappropriately that won't be good for him. IF Slater & Gordon do a no cost no win, WE as an organisation LOSE. Are we going into another crisis similar to what we have just gone through? Better buy bullet proof shoe tops. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REastwood Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Generally Motz it involve lowering the compression or even raising it on some, modifying the fuel system to handle more vapor produced by auto fuel at altitude, and mods to the carb as required to handle mogas.. All depends. A Lycoming O-320-E2D in a high wing aircraft (like Cessna) require you pay $300 to Petersens for their STC (piece of paper, some stickers and a little metal band), place stickers next to fuel cap saying you can run on MOGAS 91 RON. Place little metal strip over oil filler pipe as identification that you have MOGAS STC, have LAME sign log book then enjoy trouble free flying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 two issues Merv. Im not arguing jet, i am saying that there will be multiple avenues for litigation. Not least of which is along the consumer rights line should any resemblance of the current paper get passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Agreed and nobody will win, Jab's will still be out there, Jabiru and CAE may not be so few spares available Not a good outcome for anybody Consumer rights line is unfortunately weak, purchase over $40K sale to company, you havent got much comeback. If the company is gone thats it. Not sure about rebuilds they would be parts and service based, again weak grounds for consumer claim Moral high ground for sure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickduncs84 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 There was a guy who burned his new Jeep on TV recently, and I have considered doing the same with a new Massey-Ferguson tractor. Yes we went down the legal path with the tractor ( including VCAT ) but it only wasted more time and thousands of dollars.In comparison, the Jabiru has been completely reliable and well-supported. Anybody wanna buy a near-new 6400 series MF for half-price? I'm tractor shopping at the moment. I know nothing about them, but thanks for the heads up. I've crossed them off the list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 We bought a new MF 1100 in about 1968, kept us too poor to buy a green one for many years, got green ones now! They sound just as reliable as New Holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 I'm tractor shopping at the moment. I know nothing about them, but thanks for the heads up. I've crossed them off the list Buy a Fendt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 That RAA interview sounded terrible. Monk arguing that his RAA budget concerns take priority over member safety and well being is a good reason to ignore the problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts