turboplanner Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 FH, I'd also add the word hysterical. Some people have trouble with CASA, tens of thousands don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 FH, I'd also add the word hysterical.Some people have trouble with CASA, tens of thousands don't. Except the aviation industry as a whole, according to the Forsyth Report. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Volenti Non Fit Injuria Which was accepted by the Court in the case of Noel Campbell v Rodney Victor Hay [2013] NSWDC 11 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Generalising serves no purpose and is somewhat attacking the messenger. I will have to state that I have more experience of them than you do. It was one aspect of my job in a past life to work with them on safety and accidents /incidents matters. I'm also still in contact with a large number of active people in Aviation, who have agood idea what is going on. There is little logic in your numbers argument , and I would wonder where you get your information from. In any case I'm NOT hysterical about it. When I don't believe they are correct I claim the right to say so. I know that is at some risk to myself, I suggest I am in alignment with the RAAus board also on this matter and time will tell how much damage will be done to the RAAus. When they do the right thing I will also say so and support them.. Nev 2 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Except the aviation industry as a whole, according to the Forsyth Report. Which now appears to have disappeared beneath the waves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 :snip" All the aircraft are still flying, no safety advantage has been achieved other than reducing a nearly non existant risk involving ground persons, primarily based around a small number of city based airfields. "snip" No they are not. I know of several that are no longer flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 facthunter, good morning. I follow your argument but it is the wrong argument. The point raised, which has been lost, is, must the passenger sign a waive if (s)he is a pilot? YES/NO. CASA did not refer to this pilot passenger as a copilot. It was just a casual remark on this thread. As such, doesn't seem very important to me in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think CASA has been very active protecting its a&$e and acting for the sake of being seen to act, all for possible litigation risk. Selectively using data to justify a result, making industry damaging claims, comments and proposals, not listening to RAA, Jabiru or owners.Seriously overstepping the mark limiting operation of both RAA and VH experimental registered aircraft. Through limitations, placing thousands of pilots in more dangerous position in the event of outlanding . Basically acting as the bully they are renown for as outlined on Forsyth report They would appear to have little interest in real results or subsequent safety consequences or they would have progressed in a coperative manner AFTER validating data supplied. As a result there is almost no chance of useful improvements coming from manufacturer and have in fact strengthened Jabirus claim that they are being targeted unreasonably. All the aircraft are still flying, no safety advantage has been achieved other than reducing a nearly non existant risk involving ground persons, primarily based around a small number of city based airfields. At this point im not sure its clear which division within CASA even commenced the action, its obvious a clear path to resoloution was not set prior to action. So, CASA thinks the Jabiru fleet is safe but invented the whole problem and is going to all this bother to: 1. Destroy recreational aviation 2. Destroy Jabiru 3. Cover itself in the process. I agree the danger to people on the ground is minimal but once a problem has been identified CASA would be failing in its duty not to act accordingly. People on the ground, especially around an aerodrome, would moan like hell. Yes, covering its own backside is part of it, but remember it's your money flowing to lawyers if CASA is sued. Anyway, it makes no difference what you say or think or write on this site. CASA has made a judgement and nobody on this site has changed his tune. I feel sorry that some operators have had to shift their aircraft but, in my opinion, they should never have been overflying congested areas in the first place. Jabiru engines, generally, are an accident waiting to happen. I base this on: 1. Personal knowledge of the Jabiru engines around here 2. The numbers of incidents reported is double the non-Jabiru 3. Safety is compromised by poor reliability. Your engine might be all right but CASA is dealing with Jabiru engines in general. Just as you might drive safely for 50 years but still have to obey arbitrary speed restrictions based on ability in general, not yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I don't buy the speed restrictions analogy, nor the "accident waiting to happen" comment. CASA have not contacted those people who get a good run from the engine(s) over long periods of time and found out what they are doing differently. IF they got opinions from informed people THEY CASA would probably not have the means of evaluating it (Resources). Their actions will not help Jabiru engine owners or the industry as a whole.. Two stroke engines would be worse than the Jabiru if figures were taken. Also a lot of Warbirds. The Philosophy of including all variants and naming one brand by comparing it to the current best in the industry and no other looks is if it is a quick response in a reactive sense that a legal challenge would probably beat. While I'm not advocating that approach, if the case is weak, hurts owners, CAMit and Jabiru, (perhaps mortally) and the RAAus generally, comes on just on Christmas. Has the RAAus management against it, perhaps it is not the BEST way to go. I support the RAAus action and would like to see a more pragmatic approach, which gives those involved a chance to use their resources to repair not demolish a section of the industry. (A fairly large one at that and with a good safety record for the overall package) Regarding single engined aircraft flown at low altitude accessing secondary airports, the congestion is a bigger issue (lanes and altitude restriction)and pilot standards. A collision involving a twin and anything will do more damage than a glass Jabiru. Nev 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 The taxpayers, quite rightly in the opinion of the non-flying public are not going to spend their money doing the analysis you are describing. Might have in the DCA days, but today the money is not available, and the legal liabity if CASA research then make a mistake are huge, so DIRD are doing what all other authorities now do and throwing the cost of research, and the legal liability for failures directly on the people who wish to involve themselves in the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Then this is the first of more to come, perhaps? Why bother aviating with so uncertain a future. My point has been exactly that. You may evolve a policy but it must be even handed and apply to all equally and we are entitled to know where we are headed, at any stage. Nev 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Anybody who thinks this action is simply about Jabiru and CASA suddenly awakening to a 'situation' is being naive. Dick Smith as Chairman rammed through many changes; as a result, CASA lost a large number of its best technical people and what was left became increasingly focussed on self-preservation; CASA legal office waged a major power campaign within the organisation and other areas became a series of warring fiefdoms operating largely behind their own fortifications. When Bruce Byron was appointed as CEO, he spent many months consulting at a face-to-face level with the industry; it was not unknown for Byron to materialise at an aviation organisation and sit down and talk to the people there about their problems and CASA. As a result, the entrenched power bases in some cases joined forces to directly oppose and negate things Byron wanted to achieve. It got so bad that some of those were removed from office (and the premises) summarily when an email specifically inciting 'rebellion' against Byron was circulated internally, but reached Byron's office. The timing of this latest CASA action is far too coincidental with the appointment of a new DAS - Mark Skidmore - who appears to not share the entrenched antipathy towards Sport Aviation ( or perhaps more accurately, any non-CASA directly controlled aviation activity) than did McCormick and his fellow seat-warmer Farquharson. The phrase 'indecent haste' has been applied and should resonate with those who can see beyond their focus on Jabiru. If there had been a history of CASA interacting with Jabiru to address 'problems' that had consistently been rebuffed, then one could perhaps agree that CASA could have become exasperated and forced into the position it has taken; however that is not the case. There is no history of audit - finding - remedial requirement being enunciated - remedial requirement being ignored that provides a decently transparent trail that justifies this action. Nor is there simple evidence of failure to comply with a known standard by Jabiru that would justify a sudden and un-signalled clamp-down. We have other areas of activity where the danger (including concerning numbers of fatalities) happen - e.g. quad-bike accidents, where the regulator has been consulting with the industry for a decent period of time without suddenly resorting to an ill-considered response. This is an action which sets a precedent that creates a serious threat to sports aviation across the board. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 God what a lot of nonsense. you'll be looking for "Reds Under The Bed" next.....There is only so much scaremongering that I can swallow. .. the responsibility for this debacle rest absolutely and completely with Jabiru ......Jabiru engines had an ever worsening history of breakdowns. CASA , I believe ( you know, the Safety Authority) was at the end of a rope. Mr. S was doing nothing to help in denial. They (CASA) had to be seen to be doing something. And so they did.......Imagine if they had done nothing?. Another Jabiru engine failure happens ( as it inevitably would) someone gets hurt. It doesn't matter who. There, the sh#t has hit the fan. The person/s involved look around for someone to blame....The Safety Authority has allowed an engine with known fault(s) to pull an aircraft around, over built up areas...And done nothing. They would be hung out to dry. Headlines like ...."Safety Authority take no action with known faulty engine" ect; ...............They had to do something........ Rod Stiff showed us his position when he announced, (in print) that "There have been no through bolt failures since 2011!" Someone tell him he's dreaming he's as bad as you.....There have been MANY failures .....Including the increased sized bolts (7/16's ) plus studs breaking instead of through bolts and where the through bolts hold the barrel cracks...It is NOT fixed. .....................It appears to me that you (amongst others) are looking to hang the whole mess on CASA Internal politics and other red herrings. ....I think that Jabiru Engines should to be compared to the industry standard. If they don't measure up then they should be grounded and none sold until they do.....IF and WHEN they get to a suitable reliability standard they (Jab engines) will be free to be used as are all other engines used today....If they didn't fail then CASA would have nothing to do with Jabiru.......This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it..... 6 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Assuming your attack on Jabiru is well founded how possibly can he CASA action make anything change? They are dealing with a small private company, able to change track very quickly If say Jabiru decided to fit 912 from now on and ditch the Jabiru engine range, how does that effect anyone else but owners and operators. Many CANNOT retain LSA status without Jabiru acceptance. Even if there was a fix from elsewhere it cant be implemented. The More CASA damage the brand the LESS power they can bring to bear to have it fixed. In any results oriented action, a known path should be plotted before action taken. I doubt anyone even considered how this would end up, just assuming manufacturers will jump because CASA said so All this talk of known engine problems and industry standard comparisons is rubbish. Yes there are issues and Jabiru needs to fix them but converting a known symptom into a known cause then into a solid fix isnt an easy task. If rotax 912 now becomes "industry standard" then 914 and on fact most other piston engines are up for serious review and possible restriction Its not that nothing needed to be done but it hasnt been thought out and with usual skill they have bulldozed into a problem with far from guaranteed results. IF someone does take action against them for this poorly implemented action, its our taxes paying to both fight it and claims too. Legal dept wins again 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Attack on Jabiru? Stating facts that's all..........But, I can see that the action by CASA may well have already harmed Jabiru................. But who's fault is that?.......... Jabiru makes the engines (and I sincerely hope they can come up with a permanent acceptable fix) .......................CASA has reacted to a situation not of its making...They are the Safety People, not the Engine People...Citizens not involved were at ever increasing risk, now they are less so... If Jabiru can get the reliability up (quickly) , then the job has been well done and Jabiru can come out of it all smelling as sweet as roses. or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Agree absolutely, geoffreywh, and I'll bet Rod Stiff was approached informally before CASA whacked him on the knuckles. The instrument expires halfway through the year and if the matter isn't sorted it will be reimposed. Naturally CASA will get the blame if Jabiru fails, but how many engines were being sold? Not many. The slide to oblivion started before CASA intervened. The claim Ian Bent thinks Jabiru engines are sound is complete nonsense. CAMit wouldn't be developing CAE engines otherwise. It's a golden opportunity for Jabiru to save itself. Another six months it might be too late. Another two years the Chinese will be selling LSAs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it..... Fortunately for the future of recreational aviation in Australia, the RAA Board has a more intelligent view of the CASA action 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Very interesting statement of yours Oscar. When the family of someone injured or killed is looking around for co-defendants to sue, CASA is on record as having taken action on this trend for which my own first statistics start in 2007, around 7 years ago, and having been vilified for it. And when they look at what the RAA actions are.....................???? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Come now, Turbs - not vilified, surely? Ridiculed, I can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Whatever adjective you like Oscar, there are plenty of them listed over the past month or so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Another two years the Chinese will be selling LSAs. Maybe with a Bexbetter engine? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Oscar, I'm happy for people to judge your "creative" tag by the anti-CASA comments made on the recent Jab threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Ornis, im not lying, and youve quoted me incorrectly and misquoting Ian which I take seriously, i discussed the issue with Ian and he said the solid lifter engine with new heads, running cool and with even EGT on Avgas "shouldn't have any problems" Obviously there are still improvements to make so it can tolerate wider range of operational variance He is making them because you can't buy a solid lifter engine anymore. If he simply did this reliability would no doubt improve to pre 2009 levels. If he can do better thats fantastic for everyone. What then? Restrict Rotax until BRP lower failire rates? Your concept CASA have just acted and safety is increased simply isnt correct. All they have done is punish a large number of owners, especially in the training side, assuming Jabiru will come to heel. Even the failure and incident rates claimed are very small. The assumptions they have made on RAA data are incorrect and undermine their action and credability Read some of the info and youll find Jabiru were headed to meetings with CASA the same day as the proposal was released. CASA werent interested in discussion just punishment. Untargeted towards Jabiru themselves but the expected market pressure existing owners can apply......which isnt much If they really wanted to get Rod hopping, enable fast approval and permit fitment of CAE engines into LSA. This IS within their power. How about they look into incident rates vs engine type, if i is as I expect largely a hydraulic engine problem then theres simple fixes existing and even LSA can upgrade upon overhaul. Jabiru may even be on board. Not talking wasting tax funds as mentioned, maybe a week on the phone gettng details together on failures, build a picture. Once outlined to them it may be a face saving way out for Jabiru. Right now they are using owners as pawns in game with Jabiru and no guarantee of any result 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 jetjr, it never occurred to me that you were lying. Remember, CASA is concerned about Jabiru engines recent and present installed and operated as instructed by Jabiru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 The claim Ian Bent thinks Jabiru engines are sound is complete nonsense. CAMit wouldn't be developing CAE engines otherwise. s. What did you think? He nor i said this Jabiru make and sell new planes, thats their business. Their core aim is to sell more in the future. Easiest way would be to change engine choice and walk away from existing owners. Previous sales, second or third owners, modified or home builts from the past surely dont mean much to them nor should they be expected to take any responsibility for engines modiifed or managed differently. Technically many of the engines out there no longer meet factory std so maybe should be classed as something else.......maybe experimental?? Yet CASA has limited their operation pending some action or development from Jabiru. If they wanted to limit LSA aircraft it would be a more difficult debate. jabiru still carry responsibility for their approval and customers signed up for this caveat to get training capability and factory built privaledges. Experimental owners dont even have to fit or fix any upgrades Jabiru might come up with. Or they can fit any engine they like no matter how dim or unsuitable. What reason do they have for involving both RAA and VH experimental aircraft? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now