CASA proposed operational restrictions on Jabiru Powered Aircraft.

[jetjr]

Why push anything with Jabiru, no one performs or is coperative under pressure.

 

Enable CAE to produce parts and replacement engines for Jabiru aircraft inc LSA and problem is solved

 

As discussed they can do this relatively simply

 

Many would jump at the chance to upgrade, Camit would do well, and remain around to service everyone

 

jabiru would either get on board or lose out

 

 

[BoxFat]

It may seem odd but I do support them PROPOSING the action suggested but would only support their IMPLEMENTING it if/when (a) an appropriate consultation period has elapsed (b) stronger supporting evidence is provided and © in the event of no constructive engagement/action being initiated by Jabiru in the interim. I make the distinction because from the experience of Jab operators I know (and the more considered of the comments here) I doubt that anything much would have happened if CASA had not put out the proposal. Now..which one of the boxes does this mean I should tick.. two ? three ? two and a half ??

 

 

[saccani]

Processes that get more factual knowledge (is there any other kind? but you know what I mean) to all operators and owners would help.

Indeed. In my view, the CASA have been remiss in this regard. I can't see any legitimate reason to state a high failure rate - and then present no data on the matter.

 

If they have the data, it needs to be shared. If they don't have the data - is their action legitimate?

 

Thus far, they aren't sharing information with the RAAOs and the manufacturer, let alone the aviation community as a whole.

 

The baffles me. I can't see a safety case for it, I can only see a safety case against withholding the information.

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

 

[turboplanner]

The data they have has been shared.

 

It has been shared by RAA to them.

 

The RAA data is available to all members.

 

If there has been some erroneous quoting of the number of engine failures per year, that is very easily rectified from the database.

 

The database only contains reports submitted to RAA, so will be under-reading.

 

Boxfat,

 

there was a consultation period, which was ample for people to put their views. Because this is a safety issue they are already out on the risk limb for doing that if there's a fatality.

 

 

[2tonne]

Is there any real evidence to suggest that Jabiru operators are more likely not to report engines failures than operators of other engines? Or is it just speculation based on anecdotal evidence? If so, I fail to see how under reporting is relevant, in that all of the reported statistics may be affected by under reporting to the same degree.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is there any real evidence to suggest that Jabiru operators are more likely not to report engines failures than operators of other engines? Or is it just speculation based on anecdotal evidence? If so, I fail to see how under reporting is relevant, in that all of the reported statistics may be affected by under reporting to the same degree.

It's people who don't report, not engines or airframes, so I would expect under - reporting to be across. all makes.

 

 

[gandalph]

It's people who don't report, not engines or airframes, so I would expect under - reporting to be across. all makes.

So if the maj is correct that Rotax has the greatest representation in RAA craft ( though I note that he still hasn't backed up that assertion with fact) it might be argued that there are far more "incidents" with Rotax than reported in the figures

 

provided to CASA by RAA

 

 

[turboplanner]

If you care to go back to my spreadsheet covering about five years, which was populated directly from RAA magazine reports, (so the same source we are talking about now), you will see that the strategy used by some, of arguing a comparison between engines, under-reported or not, is likely to backfire.

 

I've stayed away from talking a "little more" or "far more" because we have no idea of the National tally, and one of the most misleading techniques from posters has been to take the experience of their own aircraft, of a bunch of friends, or the one training area and assert that this applies across the board.

 

Here's my Rotax extract from May 2007 to March 2012 - just under five years. I'd suggest only two might be traceable to the manufacturer, and even then could be due to the quality of the report.

 

 

[my spreadsheet was never claimed to be official, only applies to the stated period of collection, and may bear no relationship to the discussion between Jabiru and CASA.]

 

 

[facthunter]

Who would know the % of unreported engine incidents of either type. Or the relative hours/takeoffs ,etc done.? ALL speculation. One thing for sure an engine change is recorded in practically 100% of times it happens with one make, and that Doesn't relate to failures all the time. It relates to a decision made by the owner to have work done in a certain way. An option which is not available for the other make.

 

Is a rebuild of the drive clutch at the distribitor/agent recorded as a failure? I'm not suggesting it should or shouldn't be . Just posing the question.

 

I'm not suggesting either that the Jabiru doesn't need more attention than the Rotax (on average) because it does.

 

CASA Or TASB has done tests on failed parts of these motors. It did on the failed crank shaft of the aircraft in the Goulbourn event. This was a metallurgical analysis only.

 

I don't believe the CASA should be making design recommendations to a manufacturer, but they could ascertain that the level of reliability was of concern with a certain Part or assembly are require more inspections , limits on operation until a better performing part was proven to have overcome the problem.

 

I can't see why non VH or 24.. 25 ..aircraft should be involved. We haven't heard from SAAA. here. They have quite a few aircraft running Jabiru engines. If they are GA Exp why would they be considered? Nev

 

 

[Downunder]

Is there any real evidence to suggest that Jabiru operators are more likely not to report engines failures than operators of other engines? Or is it just speculation based on anecdotal evidence? If so, I fail to see how under reporting is relevant, in that all of the reported statistics may be affected by under reporting to the same degree.

Would jab owners not report because it would seen to be giving amo to the enemy?

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks Turbo, Yes I did see and read your spreadsheet and I did go to the RAA site and tabulate all the incidents 'REPORTED' there. The point I was trying to make, which you perhaps overlooked, was that the REPORTED incidents for all types may be less that the actual numbers. It would be reasonable to suspect that under-reporting occurs across all brands and that MAY make the numbers provided to CASA incorrect, or to use an old truckers term - dodgy. Does that change the broad picture? I don't know.

 

Do you have factual inside information that could assist?

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are both saying the same thing, that reporting may be less than actual. For the broad picture, when CASA are looking to apply sanctions on any safety concern, it has to be based on proof, so any under-reporting has to be disregarded in the formal process.

 

 

[Yenn]

Surely the number of reported incidents that is relevant is the number that CASA have. No more and no less.

 

I have asked CASA for those numbers, but not received a reply. How surprising!

 

CASA should be able to justify their action.

 

 

[coljones]

It

 

If you care to go back to my spreadsheet covering about five years, which was populated directly from RAA magazine reports, (so the same source we are talking about now), you will see that the strategy used by some, of arguing a comparison between engines, under-reported or not, is likely to backfire.I've stayed away from talking a "little more" or "far more" because we have no idea of the National tally, and one of the most misleading techniques from posters has been to take the experience of their own aircraft, of a bunch of friends, or the one training area and assert that this applies across the board.

 

Here's my Rotax extract from May 2007 to March 2012 - just under five years. I'd suggest only two might be traceable to the manufacturer, and even then could be due to the quality of the report.

 

[ATTACH=full]33082[/ATTACH]

 

[my spreadsheet was never claimed to be official, only applies to the stated period of collection, and may bear no relationship to the discussion between Jabiru and CASA.]

It is good to see that someone is collecting data. Unfortunately this data does not indicate RATES of failure in terms of rates per engine in service, rate per engine hours or rate per engine movement. To get a proper perspective we actually need all the rates as a bias in utilisation may skew the stats and to that extent it would behove RAA to collate and publish data on engine count, plane count, total hours per annum by plane and engine, and movements by plane and engine. All else is rather meaningless without these figures. If friday's planes were all lemons and dogs and the publish data related only to the lemons and the dogs (for obvious reasons) and ignored monday to thursday planess you might get the impression that all the planes were crook. As they say in Qld - just saying.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The bottom line Col, is that collecting that degree of data with that degree of accuracy requires bypassing the human factor, where the reporter realises you might want those figures.

 

To do that you have to pay to send someone to the scene.

 

And he/she has to be able to get there before the engine has been dismantled/pulled out/sent off for repair.

 

And the owner has to have the instruments and will to have recorded the data.

 

You realise in the figures I posted for Rotax 912 over five years, only two forced landings had engine failures which were not caused by human error, one "engine failure no cause", and one "Oil pressure", and with those vague descriptions, it could easily have been one, or zero.

 

So you'd be going to a lot of expense for one mechanical failure every two and a half years in the whole of Australia.

 

What would be better is for RAA to start logging that extra data if a trend started to emerge.......but this is normal done by a manufacturer who has the commercial interest to fix issues before they cost sales.