Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I believe that Dafydd is alluding to home built as being under the complete control of the builder /manufacturer...If I have a hankering to make a 3 axis plane with a steam engine and can get it to fly then within the constraints afforded by 95.55 then so be it, numbers on the side off I Go.....I never have to as part of that registration process show that the engine will meet a certain level of reliability, but as a result of that there are a bunch of constraints over say 24 or 25 registered that I have to comply with, and we must have a sticker that says in effect "made from matchsticks, certain death for almost all who venture skyward" In the future we have to add a "really truly ruly..." to the front if we have a more reliable Jab engine having swapped out the coal guzzling steam engine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) met with Jabiru and CASA today (14 November 2014) in relation to the recent proposed actions by CASA that would affect owners and operators of Jabiru aircraft and Jabiru powered aircraft. RA-Aus maintains its stance that the available data suggests that Jabiru engines are more likely to fail than a comparable 4 stroke Rotax engine but insists that our operators should be free to exercise their informed judgement and assess the risks for themselves. We also question whether the CASA proposed remedies are the best action to take given the risks posed. RA-Aus feels that the meeting was constructive and has outlined a way for Jabiru and CASA to address the risks highlighted by CASA in a manner that will minimise the imposition on aircraft operations. Jabiru and CASA have committed to working together to arrive at a solution. In the meantime RA-Aus once again encourages all affected stakeholders to contact CASA with their views on the proposed restrictions and to engage with other appropriate parties to escalate their concerns if they wish to. As per our earlier advice the relevant contacts are: The Minister for Transport, the Hon Warren Truss, [email protected] Your local federal member details can be found at www.aph.gov.au with state and local details available at the relevant government website. Lee Ungermann of the SASAO office within CASA can be contacted at [email protected] Please include [email protected] on all correspondence to CASA and members of parliament. Reported data for 2014 year to date (January through October) Jabiru Rotax All (includes other engine types) Hours flown 41834 71626 131227 Landings 92735 145638 260383 Engine failures (full or partial) 28 16 51 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 According to those figures you are FOUR times more likely to have a engine problem in a Jab engine than in a rotax powered aircraft 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The figures quoted by RAAus today certainly seem too justify some sort of action. Maybe not as dramatic as is being touted but something all the same. Extrapolated from the raw figures, 1 every 1500 hrs foor Jabiru 1 every 4500 hrs for Rotax 1 every 2500 hrs for all others. I know which one I would prefer to fly on those raw figures. But as I said earlier we can fiddle figures to suit our own ends all the time. Cheers Geoff13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2tonne Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The jab failure rates are not as high as I was expecting in light of comments on this forum. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Gents...Be careful of your interpretation of the numbers....the last column is not "All Others" (which Is what I mistakenly thought it was) rather its "Everything" If you through basic maths exclude Jab and Rotax from everything then you are left with "all others" . The results for all others where 7 engine failures for 22,010 cycles and 14,767 hours....which as a ratio against Rotax (ie Rotax is the :1) we end up with 2.89 failures for cycles as compared to the 1 for Rotax ( and its 2.75 for Jab) and 2.21 per hour (3.12 for Jab) but I note that the ratio of cycles to hours for jab is 2.22 cycles per hour and for all others its 1.49 cycles...Rotax is in the middle at 1.95 cycles per hour, so Jab is leading the push at training I'd guess given the short cycles...... P.S I think Rotax is Rotax whether 2 or 4 stroke......where 2 stroke I would expect it to make the numbers worse for Rotax (which by inference suggests an even higher Jab:Rotax ratio) ....but on the other hand I wonder these days what percentage of our fleet still use 2 strokes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What, specifically, were the 'risks highlighted by CASA'? Those documented BY CASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn 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! See attached Ministerial letter2.doc Ministerial letter2.doc Ministerial letter2.doc 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Well I have been flying behind a two stroke now for more then 15 years without an engine fail ! have just under 500 hour total flying time between two 582 lightwings I put that down too good engine management practices and proper maintains at proper interval so for me I would say that a two stroke can be a very reliable engine . In the right hands , As for most engines of today's choices ,.".. Doug 2 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy s 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. I wonder how many engine failures was due to poor maintenance and lack of understanding and not following the proper instructed maintenance guidelines? 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Well I have been flying behind a two stroke now for more then 15 years without an engine fail ! have just under 500 hour total flying time between two 582 lightwings I put that down too good engine management practices and proper maintains at proper interval so for me I would say that a two stroke can be a very reliable engine . In the right hands ,As for most engines of today's choices ,.".. Doug Don't mistake me to be saying that their inferior....just that by the manufacturers declaration of TBO they themselves believe they don't have the legs as compared to their 4 strokers......I flew behind a 582 for years and loved every bit of it...except the time I had the sieze..... I wonder how many engine failures was due to poor maintenance and lack of understanding and not following the proper instructed maintenance guidelines? Guy agree, but ability to maintain and read should be the same across both owner groups shouldn't it? so if it adversely affects the J numbers wouldn't it do the same to the Rotax and all others numbers? If not then perhaps that tells something too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I read the last column correctly Andy and got my figures for others by subtracting the sum og J and R engines from the totals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Who has worked on both engines? Which is more technically challenging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Evans Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Don't mistake me to be saying that their inferior....just that by the manufacturers declaration of TBO they themselves believe they don't have the legs as compared to their 4 strokers......I flew behind a 582 for years and loved every bit of it...except the time I had the sieze..... Guy agree, but ability to maintain and read should be the same across both owner groups shouldn't it? so if it adversely affects the J numbers wouldn't it do the same to the Rotax and all others numbers? If not then perhaps that tells something too All good Andy I was just putting a different point across, For the sake of the forum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhysmcc Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Jabiru just released a press release.CASA likely to pull instrumnt. Someone pls post it :-) Not sure where one would find a Jabiru Press Release, but they did post on Facebook which is a copy/paste/minor edit of the email RA-AUS sent out recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Seeing As RAA is giving out numbers, how about listing data by engine type, 582, 912, 914, 2200, 3300, solid vs hydraulic lfters and by registration catagory We can do some serious off track speculation then! but seriously might gt rid of some myths on maintenence levels and reliability Lets say for example most Jab failures are hydraulic lifter types??? There would be a clear path to resoloution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Am I correct in saying, Jabiru have been given some time to start sorting out the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS71 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus) met with Jabiru and CASA today (14 November 2014) in relation to the recent proposed actions by CASA that would affect owners and operators of Jabiru aircraft and Jabiru powered aircraft. RA-Aus maintains its stance that the available data suggests that Jabiru engines are more likely to fail than a comparable 4 stroke Rotax engine but insists that our operators should be free to exercise their informed judgement and assess the risks for themselves. We also question whether the CASA proposed remedies are the best action to take given the risks posed. RA-Aus feels that the meeting was constructive and has outlined a way for Jabiru and CASA to address the risks highlighted by CASA in a manner that will minimise the imposition on aircraft operations. Jabiru and CASA have committed to working together to arrive at a solution. In the meantime RA-Aus once again encourages all affected stakeholders to contact CASA with their views on the proposed restrictions and to engage with other appropriate parties to escalate their concerns if they wish to. Reported data for 2014 year to date (January through October) Jabiru Rotax All (includes other engine types) Hours flown 41834 71626 131227 Landings 92735 145638 260383 Engine failures (full or partial) 28 16 51 This is the email I received from RA-Aus today, minus the contact details for Truss, et al. Cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The jab failure rates are not as high as I was expecting in light of comments on this forum. That's because so many are 'unreported' - for many and various reasons. The smart people sold a few years ago because this disaster has been many years in the making. Now the chickens are coming home to roost! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenns Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 At least we now have the numbers. The question is why did it take this action for members to finally see these stats. Further breakdowns would be helpful in determining the issue. I have had my fair share of issues in the early days including a couple of thru bolt instances one while I was taking off. I have to say though in recent years I have had engines doing their 1000 hours without anything unusual. Good maintenance is a key element as well as recently released engines I suspect 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 My information is that a large part of the discussion revolved around the through bolt failures. This of course has been dealt with other than for owners who did not take up the Jabiru offer in the allotted time. I would think that the outcome of this particular issue would have been a win for Jabiru. Until someone tells us what was the cause of the 27 failures or partial failures there is basically no evidence to support the CASA proposed restriction. It appears at least one of these was fuel starvation, hardly an engine issue. How many can be traced to poor maintenance regimes, how many were due to poor cooling including full power slow climb rates. I suspect many of these are FTF owned aircraft. It doesn't matter what the instructor says. Once the student is solo the instructor has no control over how the student treats the engine. This is something that won't appear in the Rotax stats due to the partial liquid cooling system & appears much less in Lycoming/Continental etc due to their much larger mechanical tolerances. Maybe this is the biggest problem, the engines are not idiot proof. There are so many possible issues but we have been given no information. I'll bet CASA has none either just the basic numbers released by RA-Aus. Now what about me. My 3300 engine is a couple of weeks away from being run for the first time. As a home builder under 95.55 I could stick anything in the engine bay. I think CASA would have a hard time enforcing the proposed restrictions on me. I think Ungermann has an agenda somewhere & it is not just to get Jabiru to get its sh1t together. I understand he was at Dubbo for a CFIs meeting where many Jab operators were present, said nor discussed anything & then flew directly to Canberra for the meeting. Lastly sign the petition & email Ungermann. I have. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I beg to differ. The through bolts are still breaking . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I beg to differ. The through bolts are still breaking . Fair comment. The new upgraded ones with the 12 point nuts or the old ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 The numbers don't show engine defects found on the ground. These are the raa numbers, not the numbers casa would have been using when drafting . The ad that came out last week re the heads cracking revealed several that I know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts