Nobody Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 . Meeting minutes are just a blank page. Maybe they pulled them down when they realised someone may actually read them. screw up rather than conspiracy. I didn't realize that it was a one time link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Would be predictable outcome with Ungerface still there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I haven't found Lee to be anything but genuine. Do you have evidence Frank? Nev? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Icarus raised a number of points in support of the CASA action. With respect, I submit that those points - which pretty much summarise the 'pro-CASA' side of the argument - are more based on emotion than derived from a logical examination of the situation. That is NOT intended to denigrate the 'emotional' side of the argument: I, and I believe EVERY proponent of the 'other' side of the argument, consider that improving safety for the people flying in any Recreational aircraft and ensuring as far as possible the safety of 'the general public' is something we all support. I would join in vociferously condemning any Recreational Aviator who takes the attitude that 'this is my sport and the rest of you can all get stuffed if you want to limit me doing anything I want to do.' The general operational limits on RecAv aircraft recognise that our aircraft are NOT designed, built nor maintained to the standards of GA aircraft. Those limitations have in fact served their purpose well. As far as I am aware, NO RecAv aircraft has ever brought death or injury to the 'general public'. The hypothetical situation, raised on this site by more than one poster, of a RecAv aircraft destroying a pre-school, is in fact totally a fabrication - however, there HAVE been instances of that exact situation being caused by aged drivers losing control of their vehicles. GA/GA Ex. aircraft have crashed into suburban areas. On the statistical evidence, NO Rec Av aircraft - Jabiru-powered or otherwise - presents an unacceptable risk to 'the general public'. On that basis alone, logic says that to single out Jabiru-powered aircraft as a risk to 'the general public', is a nonsense: One cannot multiply a figure of zero recorded occurrences and come out with anything other than the risk remain as zero. Suggesting it is otherwise, is false. Let's go to the next step: assuming a risk profile independent of the actual statistical evidence. A Jabiru-powered aircraft will have generally comparable capability to any other RecAv aircraft to glide etc. following an engine stoppage. In terms of the safety of the occupants, Jabiru aircraft (at least) have a documented safety record that is unsurpassed, though from the US NTSB figures, equaled - though NOT by any aircraft powered by Rotax engines ( I will return to that later). The CASA action is underpinned by the reference to Jabiru engines having a failure record in excess of Rotax engines. HOWEVER, Rotax engines do NOT have a record of zero failures. Therefore, since aircraft powered by either of those marques have had ZERO fatalities/injuries to the 'general public', and since the kinetic energy /fuel fire load risk to the 'general public' of an engine failure over a populated area will be identical, logic says that ANY restriction on Jabiru engined aircraft operation should also be applied to any other singled-engined aircraft powered by engines that cannot demonstrate perfect reliability. - if the safety of the 'general public' is a genuine objective. In terms of 'occupant safety': without any motive of denigrating Rotax engines, it is a fact that more people have died/been seriously injured in crashes involving Rotax-powered RecAv aircraft, than have died/been seriously injured in Jabiru-powered aircraft. That is not intended as an indictment of Rotax engines - it is simply a fact. Look at the NTSB figures for confirmation. Look at the RAA accident reports. Now let's go a bit further with logic. The CASA action was based on deducing a risk factor based on a comparison of Jabiru-engine failures vs Rotax failures. Since Rotax-powered aircraft have a higher demonstrated rate of death/injury to occupants, and an equal record for death/injury to the 'general public' as Jabiru-powered aircraft: how is it logical to use Rotax as the 'baseline' and then punish Jabiru when the actual important figures for Jabiru are SAFER? Icarus, I look forward to your response. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Ahem: from the CASA website: Precautionary operational limits on Jabiru-powered aircraft In December 2014, in response to power-related problems involving engines manufactured by Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd (Jabiru), CASA introduced certain operational limitations, as a precautionary measure, until the causes of those problems could be identified and rectified. These limitations were imposed by a direction issued by CASA on 22 December 2014 (Instrument Number Casa 292/14), which expires at the end of 30 June 2015. Collaborative efforts involving Jabiru, Recreational Aviation Australia and the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia have been ongoing and productive, and it is hoped that an effective response to the problems will soon be identified. In the meantime, with particular regard to the safety of passengers and others who may have little (and in some cases no) knowledge of, or effective control over, the risks to which they may be exposed, CASA will be re-issuing the operational directions as from 1 July 2015, pending the identification and implementation of effective remedial actions. Therefore, the operational limitations imposed in December 2014 will continue to apply as from 1 July 2015, subject to a change relaxing one of the conditions contained in the direction. Some regulatory relief as from 1 July 2015 As from 1 July 2015, the current requirement that the pilot-in-command of a Jabiru-powered aircraft may only permit a passenger to be carried in the aircraft if a statement (in a form described in the direction) has been signed by a passenger not more than 28 days before a flight, will be amended to permit such statements to be signed not more than 3 calendar months before a flight. This change will reduce an administrative burden inherent in the current arrangements, without diminishing the precautionary safety benefits provided by the continuing operational limitations. For the time being, the other terms and conditions of the direction will remain the same. It is hoped that an approach to addressing the engine-related problems that gave rise to the need to issue the direction last year will soon be settled, and as a result of the remedial processes identified further, and perhaps complete, relief from the limitations imposed by the direction can be granted. Until then, CASA, Jabiru and other stakeholders will continue to work together collaboratively and cooperatively to achieve that outcome, in the interest of safety. The current direction containing the operational limitations is set out in the legal instrument, which can be accessed at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01806. A further announcement about the new instrument that will take effect from 1 July 2015 will appear on the CASA website soon, and a link to the new instrument will be provided at that time. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Does anyone know if/where a "bench test" is being carried out? What test are they talking about and whats involved? Would appear CASA is awaiting these results but then happy to relax limitations. Would also appear that, assuming that it passes this test, new throughbolts, recessed pistons, roller cam followers, camshaft (and hydraulic lifters I assume) and new flywheel bolts, will need to be installed by all. Cheaper to buy a new one? Jabiru win by selling a number of new engines to LSA owners, who have no choice other than to live with limitations. Private and certified owners also looking at big $$ for little benefit. Thanks very much CASA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Does anyone know if/where a "bench test" is being carried out?What test are they talking about and whats involved? I don't know if one is being undertaken. I presume they are talking about a test to ASTM F2339-06. Details below: 6.3.1 Accelerated Overhaul Test—This test simulates an engine overhaul interval. A protocol for this test shall incorporate, as a minimum, the following elements: 6.3.1.1 At least 100 % of the time at maximum power that would occur over the overhaul interval. NOTE 1—For calculation, each hour of normal flight would have 5 min of full power. 6.3.1.2 At least 10 % of the time at cruise power that would occur over the overhaul interval. 6.3.1.3 At least one cycle per hour of test from maximum power to cruise power and back. 6.3.1.4 At least one engine start for each 5 h of testing. 6.3.1.5 During operation at maximum power, one cylinder must be maintained within 10°F of the limiting cylinder head temperature; the other cylinders must be operated at a temperature not lower than 50°F below the limiting temperature, and the oil inlet temperature must be maintained within 10°F of the limiting temperature. 6.3.1.6 The engine must be fitted with a propeller that thrust-loads the engine to the maximum thrust that the engine is designed to resist at each applicable operating condition specified in this section. 6.3.1.7 Each accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded. During operation at maximum power, the load imposed by each accessory used only for an aircraft service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the engine drive or attachment point. 6.3.1.8 After completing the accelerated overhaul test, each engine must be completely disassembled and each component must conform to the new or overhaul limits established by the designer/manufacturer For a 2000 hour overhaul period it would equate to approx ~167 hours at 100% power and 200 hours at cruise power. It would take about a month to run if you had access to the facility to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 You prophesy may be correct, but not apply to all users. Who knows? They have to appear to have done something. Perhaps it won't be all bad. .(always the optimist Ha Ha) Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I haven't found Lee to be anything but genuine. Do you have evidence Frank? Nev? Personal knowledge re credibility but I won't go into details Nev. everyone has their own opinion and I wouldn't try to influence them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 That's fine frank. My statement reflects what I saw of him and the dealings I had. It's long before he went to CASA. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I don't know if one is being undertaken. I presume they are talking about a test to ASTM F2339-06. Details below:For a 2000 hour overhaul period it would equate to approx ~167 hours at 100% power and 200 hours at cruise power. It would take about a month to run if you had access to the facility to do it. There IS a suitable facility. Right now, it has a CAE 3300 engine installed, awaiting the order to GO, which is dependent on commercial arrangements being concluded. The CASA action all but caused the demise of CAMit as collateral damage, but Ian Bent has battled through. It's caused a more than six month hiatus in the commencement of ASTM testing of the CAE engine. The engineers involved are the only ones in Australia that have ever run certification tests on an aero engine. They know what they are doing. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 See if this works CASA/Jab/RAA/SAA meting minutes CASA Minutes - 292-14 Operational Limitations 2 June 2015 (final) 20150619.pdf CASA Minutes - 292-14 Operational Limitations 2 June 2015 (final) 20150619.pdf CASA Minutes - 292-14 Operational Limitations 2 June 2015 (final) 20150619.pdf 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 See if this works CASA/Jab/RAA/SAA meting minutes The presence of Alan Kerr gives that meeting at least some decent credibility for having reliable and expert engineering input. Alan is one of the three people (outside of Rod Stiff) who really know the intricacies of Jab engine development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The current direction containing the operational limitations is set out in the legal instrument, which can be accessed at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01806. A further announcement about the new instrument that will take effect from 1 July 2015 will appear on the CASA website soon, and a link to the new instrument will be provided at that time. The bolding is mine added for emphasis. Received this afternoon by email: "CASA Media Release - Online services unavailable early July [sEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 25 June 2015 CASA’s online services will be unavailable for up to five working days from close of business 30 June 2015 due to an IT upgrade. More information of alternative ways to contact CASA during this time can be found on the CASA website" So once again CASA looks likely to leave Recreational aviators hung out to dry with another "Watch this space..." type of notification. Or are we betting that they will get the notice out before their web services go down on 30 June ? (an apt phrase). Screwed again, but politely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 CASA still don't seem to know what the alledged problems are. They speak like politicians in airy fairy words that say very little. Of course they are not going to back down or let this matter die a natural death, they have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Even if it is all waffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Would also appear that, assuming that it passes this test, new throughbolts, recessed pistons, roller cam followers, camshaft (and hydraulic lifters I assume) and new flywheel bolts, will need to be installed by all. Cheaper to buy a new one? Jabiru win by selling a number of new engines to LSA owners, who have no choice other than to live with limitations. Private and certified owners also looking at big $$ for little benefit. Thanks very much CASA I can tell you the current cost of new engine ( jab) vs new engine ( camit) vs getting old engine upgraded to all the latest. I got one about 2 months ago. 6 cylinder. New Camit $20K AUS - approx 3 month wait (no trade in given) Re-jigged old jabiru engine by jabiru $14K - approx 3 month wait Rejig old jabiru engine by camit $16K - uncertain time frame of months Brand new engine ( jab) -$18K with $4K trade in => $14K landed in Cairns in 4 days. The similar costs for an upgrade by jabiru vs brand new engine are because so many of the old parts have been changed and thus need straight out replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 CASA still don't seem to know what the alledged problems are. They speak like politicians in airy fairy words that say very little. Of course they are not going to back down or let this matter die a natural death, they have to be seen to be doing the right thing. Even if it is all waffle. I suspect that while that may have been the case, Jabiru have admitted that they have made modifications to the design of the engines over the years. Some of these have improved things (the larger through bolts), some have been detrimental (hydraulic lifters). There have been so many changes that no one can be certain that the engines meet the certification basis. CASA are proposing that the test be redone with a current spec engine. This would take about a month and cost some money. The easy way out for everyone would be for Jabiru to do the test. If the engine passes with flying colours then it would be difficult for CASA to argue that the restrictions should remain. Jabiru seem reluctant either because they dont want to spend the money or because they have concerns that the engine will pass. I suspect that it is the money. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gandalph Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Jab might have some difficulty accessing a test facility within a reasonable time frame. Oscar mentioned one, but that has seems to have been booked by CAE for their engine testing. Not sure how many others there are that could be adapted quickly , easily and easily appropriately instrumented to run the tests for Jabiru. One has to wonder if CASA can decide that the certificated engine from Jabiru apparently no longer meets the certification requirements ( for what ever reasons) , how many other engines might also be on CASA's agenda for re-certification. Someone a long time ago in another thread warned that we should be fearful of this action by CASA, not simply because of it's effect on Jabiru powered craft but because of the potential to effect the entire movement. Wise words. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPN Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Would be predictable outcome with Ungerface still there IMO getting personal and name calling does nothing to help the cause of effected owners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I see time and time again on this site the conspiracy theorists spouting that the CASA is trying to bring down Jabiru and also recreational aviation Australia. For whatever reasons they may believe. I am trying to show a different perspective ,as I believe the anti CASA sentiment that seems to be ingrained here is skewing the argument all Jabirus way. Im not up on CASA Legislation , I can only assume that somewhere in it gives CASA the ability to act even if it Suspects there are issues. This is a Safety authority. Safety should be No1. If CASA perceives there is a problem, then they are obligated to act. Data or no data, proof or no proof , suspicion or complaint . they must do all they can to identify and correct safety issues. Therefore they clumsily decided to use the data they have as a reason to haul Jabiru over the coals. I doubt they legally even need any data to do what they have done. I doubt they believe the jab engine failure data RAA have is correct.[ given RAA admin history]They probably cant say so ,as that would undermine their decision to enact RAA as authority. Everybody knows Jab engines had/have issues, why shouldn't CASA know? If the public , RAA ,GA and everybody else sees the problem, of course CASA will seize any DATA flawed or not to help justify taking action. The argument is not all about saving the general public from falling Jab powered planes, as we know this is almost 0% . It is also about protecting the young/older pilot on his first solo, or the new owner about to take his mrs up for the 1st time, the flight school taking off over bankstown etc. Jabiru and RAA have had their heads buried in the sand for too long over the issue and CASA has said Enough. Time to investigate further ,and while we do ,we will put an instrument in place just to be sure everyone is as safe as we can make them WITHOUT grounding all Jabiru powered aircraft. So in short: I don't believe CASA need data to do what they have done, especially data they don't trust. They can act on , reports, complaints, suspicion, perception, whatever. Thay also don't need to wait for someone to die in a Jab powered AC before acting. It seems to be this point you guys don't like, accept or believe. I don't expect to change your minds on this, I just want to try to get people to open the other eye just a little. I accept my opinions expressed above may be way off base and incorrect and I appreciate the lack of personal attack , especially being new here and not even licenced pilot yet. Brendan 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Jaba, thanks, i have a fair idea of the costs, bought a Jab rebuild 200 hrs ago, needing more repairs now. Normally would just fix it and move on, but ive had enough. IMO, by far the best value is a whole new CAE engine and you get a better engine away from all the Jabiru/CASA issues. The trade in price from Jab is subject to certain conditions, not tough but not a guaranteed return either. Can be as low as $1000 To buy any option from Jabiru your betting the problems have been solved, even those not in the spotlight. Core from CAE is still a Jabiru, albiet with supplementary plate. You also have all your old ancillaries. The whole new CAE incorporates new altenator, and all ancillaries, for the -$20k you also should get inhibitor, exhaust seals and TOCA. Of course all the small upgrades internally. Theres a long delay for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Well argued Brendan. I wish I had your faith in bureaucrats. Once I asked what qualifications one of them had and I was howled down by people ( on this site ) who said that it was unfair to ask. As far as I know, they have neither the qualifications nor experience to justify the extreme power they wield. Just suppose CASA officials are not appropriately expert , ( have another read of Oscar's comments)... would you really say they should not be held to account? Or at least exposed ? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Let's go to the next step: assuming a risk profile independent of the actual statistical evidence. A Jabiru-powered aircraft will have generally comparable capability to any other RecAv aircraft to glide etc. following an engine stoppage. In terms of the safety of the occupants, Jabiru aircraft (at least) have a documented safety record that is unsurpassed, though from the US NTSB figures, equaled - though NOT by any aircraft powered by Rotax engines ( I will return to that later). Looking forward to your return to the bit in bold Oscar?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I doubt they legally even need any data to do what they have done....... So in short: I don't believe CASA need data to do what they have done, especially data they don't trust. They can act on , reports, complaints, suspicion, perception, whatever. In places like North Korea and Communist China the government don't need to demonstrate just cause to shut any business down or 'disappear' someone. In countries where the rule of law applies this is not the case yet you feel comfortable that rogue government departments can act on a whim. This raises many possibilities in my mind such as are you a recent immigrant from a socialist state or 3rd world, young & naive, green / communist party voter etc? Or just trolling for kicks? Not intending to be rude at all, your reasoning here seems so left field I can't grasp it (assuming you are not just goofing of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Good evening to you Mr Gnu I am guessing that the appropriate legislation allows CASA to take /start investigations, instruments without hard fact/ data etc. I am speculating / guessing / pondering etc what the legislation allows ,having not read it. I am not saying this is how it should be , but how I believe it is Edit: Don't make me read the legislation ,please! 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