gandalph Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I notice precautionary landings are included. Perhaps after re-start landing asap to find out WTF is going on. You think they are double /triple dipping? I think what Oscar is saying is that, given that the figures quoted by CASA (86 precautionary or forced landings - presumably as a result of the 142 engine failures) simply don't 'make sense. If CASA can't see a problem with that discrepancy how can we or, the industry, have faith in the process they used to determine that there is a valid reason to restrict Jabiru aircraft? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 How did CASA come up with 142 failures when they originally stated there were "46 reported mechanical failures or inflight occurrences" when they imposed the Instrument? There must be a Pinocchio in here somewhere. There were probably 86 precautionary landings out of 46 failures of which 142 were some sort of incident but no-one can remember what the incidents were, where they occurred or even if aircraft were involved, but it is all absolutely true although there is no evidence to support anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So there are over 100 engine failure, not incidents, not out landings, crashes or otherwise firstly unreported, and not including fuel outs, runway incidents. Thats a big difference to everyone elses including ASTB. Scondly 148 engine failures without harm to anyone including bystanders or preschools RAA training must be doing a spectacular job Is there any other aircraft, type, group brand that can boast that level of safety and good outcomes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 This is getting ridiculous. Numbers are now appearing that were never heard of before. Even less plausibility because of the widening discrepancies between failures, malfunctions and now even uncertainty about the number of aircraft who didn't need to land despite their engines stopping???? Part of the problem I suspect is the inclusion of events other than failures in totals to make the numbers sound more justifiable. Of course the inclusion in these same mix of events for rotax does not assume the same ratios either. For all we know 146 jabiru malfunctions could be 12 stoppages and 134 non- stoppage events ( of completely undefined significance and cause). CASA claimed that jabs had 1.8 times the failure rate of rotax ( as best I recall) which means rotax had about 81 events. But that could have been 69 stoppages and 12 malfunctions. Well seriously I think we would have heard on the grapevine if that were the case but you get my meaning. By bundling incidents and not defining nor separating them we are as good as having no useful data at all. I am however extremely perplexed as to why Jabiru would block release of the data. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If some of these engone failures were in fact service difficulties, problems foind in hanger,mthn thy arent safety issues Doesnt that mean the system is working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I am however extremely perplexed as to why Jabiru would block release of the data. Me too............i'm watching here all sorts of figures / allegations / inuendoes / he said / she said.......it just goes on and on. The sledge hammer was to pain jab bundy, we, owners, were just sandflys in this mix. What has surprised me tho.......is the lack of "fire" from bundy publically, it's been really weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 A couple of points to ponder: 1. We don't have any accurate data. 2. People seem to be now quoting 146 as the number but without attributing a source. I don't think that this number has been mentioned by CASA, Jabiru or RAAus as being the correct number. Lets not argue about incorrect information 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 This situation is now totally out of control, I own a Jab230 and I have no issue with owning it yes the maintenance requirement is higher than I would like but that is my choice. As a business owner that operates in a highly regulated industry if the regulator, customer or a competitor makes complaints about the reliability of my equipment we release all details immediately to prove our case , if these numbers show we have a problem area we replace, repair or re-engineer the problem equipment. The longer this farcical situation continues the worse will be the outcome for all. Jabiru could put it all to rest tomorrow by releasing all of their data good or bad this would show they are a manufacturer worthy of support and then start working towards a fix for all customers. If it eventually turns out that Jabiru has been bullsh!tting the customer including me I will never purchase another of their products. If it turns out that CASA has been doing the above sadly I will be unable to do anything but write letters of complaint to people who don't care or listen. Aldo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 What has surprised me tho.......is the lack of "fire" from bundy publically, it's been really weak. As casa are unavoidable for anyone in aviation, id suggest even though they would love to, Jabiru publically embarrasing them can only make things worse Was told once No matter how bad your situation appears, your potential is endless. Both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The other point to ponder..... From the minutes of the meeting I posted it is quite clear that Jabiru have admitted that they have made some changes to address past issues with the engine. At that point in the discussion it is immaterial what the actual accident data is. If the engine has been changed from the design that was certified how can Jabiru be certain that the engine meets the certification standards? Only by either analysis to testing and I dont think that CASA asking for testing is an unreasonable requirement. It would be best for all concerned to get on and do the testing. It might be expensive but it would confirm that the changes to the engine are sound from an engineering point of view and the restrictions could be lifted. The concern for Jabiru would be if it doesn't pass and they are faced with having to redesign the engine then that would take considerable time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 If manufacturers had to re do Astm testing each time they made upgrades, there wouldnt be much new in aviation world. Your talking similar to full certification and why GA is still using designs from post war development programs. Our sports type aircraft would be dead The testing requested is hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars, suggest would talk many months to complete and report THAT is if it passes in one test run. You are correct this is a major risk for a maker. Only one place able to do it I believe. Oscar or David L can elabortate if he is still around A danger here is that Jabiru drop engines altogether. End of the day they have to recover this expenditure. Owners will be even worse off and no solution in sight if this happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 i understand the legal option to install a rotax into a 24 reg jab has also been closed. I may be corrected here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Jaba-who...I have no knowledge at all why, But it could be they dispute a large amount of it. Once something is "published" it assumes a "fact": status in the eyes of many. . Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest john Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 This ongoing saga concerning Jabiru engine restrictions seems to be going from bad to worse as each day passes. If the Jabiru Factory are genuinely serious about restoring their good reputation for reliable Ultralight aircraft engines around the world, (because Jabiru P/L are a good genuine Aussie Company) then it has been suggested to them several times in the past by concerned Aviation personnel that they ought to give serious consideration to determine if a negotiated COMMERCIALLY JOINT VENTURE could be successfully achieved with Camit P/L (who are another good genuine Aussie Company), & if these 2 Companies could successfully achieve this probable outcome, then it should be a WIN WIN situation for not only both of these good Companies but for the long term survival of Jabiru Aircraft Aviators around the world, & hopefully get CASA off the monkey's back with Jabiru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 THAT is one thing that won't happen. (as I see it). CAMit manufacture Jabiru engines but the direction of development is not agreed on. ( I think that is an understatement) Nev 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 THAT is one thing that won't happen. (as I see it). CAMit manufacture Jabiru engines but the direction of development is not agreed on. ( I think that is an understatement) Nev When the 2200 engine development was commenced, there was a collaborative effort between CAMit and Jabiru,. However, I would point to those interested, post #53 in this thread regarding the current relation ship between CAMit and Jabiru. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 jj, you are not quite correct in saying that Ian Bent 'designed' the original Jab. 2200 ( the 1600 was all Rod Stiff's design, AFAIK) but he certainly did have input into translating Rod's ideas into manufacturable form, which was recognised by the original IP agreement between CAMit and Jabiru.However, the following extract from a Yahoo 'Jab. engines' thread that appeared in the last few days was added by Ian and clarifies the CAMit position: CAMit maintains an AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 quality system #1776 2003; continuously audited by Telarc SAI Limited since 2003 � CAMit holds a CASA Production Certification authorisation #760529-1 which allows the manufacture of certified aviation products � To quote a CASA auditor,” CAMit is seen as able and willing” � CAMit has specifically not been allowed input into the design, or sourcing of components for Jabiru engines for 9 years � No feedback is supplied by Jabiru to CAMit, of any issues that indicate a QA problem � CAMit does not accept Jabiru supplied components into our quality system as we are not aware of their provenance. Jabiru are responsible for the compliance of these components � On CASA’s advice, CAMit can only conform components sourced or manufactured by CAMit � CAMit supplies contract measuring services for some Jabiru supplied components. Material qualification services are not (cannot be) supplied � CAMit assembles and test runs Jabiru engines to Jabiru specifications. CAE engines are assembled and test run to CAE specifications. There are significant differences. � Further to this - and of direct relevance to this thread, is a copy of a response to a CAE engine owner's query to CASA seeking confirmation that CAE engines are not subject to the CASA restrictions: To Whom It May Concern. I can confirm that the CAMIT engine is not subject to the operational limitations described in 292/14, as this engine is not manufactured by a person under licence from, or under a contract with Jabiru. Regards, Mike Higgins Manager Continuing AirworthinessAirworthiness & Engineering Standards Branch Standards Division Civil Aviation Safety Authority Has CAMIT got history? How many engines and how many hours? and how many have reached what TBO? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icarus Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 One point I would like to make is that the original explanatory statement did say that CASA was aware of a number of engine failures and other reliability issues. they also state in those notes that CASA was aware of 46 reported mechanical failures or in flight occurrences during 2014 ........ Here is a link to the explanatory notes ,might be worth a read to recap. https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01806/Explanatory%20Statement/Text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Col, lots of onfo on the mesage you quote? They have started with older solid lifter engine, the one both certified and ASTM tested i believe. They have years of flight experience and many still perform well. Also the one even Jabiru now admit had less issues He has developed and improved things from there, addressing almost all thr known failure modes seen on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 Col, lots of onfo on the mesage you quote?They have started with older solid lifter engine, the one both certified and ASTM tested i believe. They have years of flight experience and many still perform well. Also the one even Jabiru now admit had less issues He has developed and improved things from there, addressing almost all thr known failure modes seen on others. Lots of info - no not really. I understand that they have been building engines for Jabiru and on their own but I haven't seen a history of engines built under a CAMIT brand, free of the CASA restriction, and their history, performance, TBOs etc. I keep getting told that CAMIT engines are NOT Jabiru engines but does this make them better or is the jury still out because there is insufficient data to form an opinion because the quantity, hours and testing are too low? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Its hard to say, firstly they want to differentiate due to all the Jabiru problems and forge separate path In reality they are very similar in many ways beginning from the same base engine. Jabiru have been improving theirs for many years, Camit have only more recently been able to sell their work as their own There are many diferences. Some minor some major They have solid lifters different throughbolt setup Different system for joining case halves Different cylinders, heavier, stronger Differnent higher temp head material New oil regulation and thermostatic control New head lube and internal oil distribution New rocker geometry, less side loading New flywheel attachment assembly New 40 amp altenator oil inhibiting system Exhaust seals Some improvement in valve guides.....not sure on this Also new sump Most of all they use genuine coils and other parts from proven suppliers. Some of these items are recent inclusions, and no doubt need more time but its a solid list of improvements and this is backed by several of the best Jabiru servicemen in Australia CASA and RAA also acknowledge Camits production skills and potential to raise engines performance They do produce a little more power CAE are what Jabiru engines should have been some years ago. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 But as I understand it, there are relatively few of them in use (From what Ian said when I was looking at buy a new engine I got the impression there are only in the double figures (with relatively few hours on them.) So until they have the time and usage, whether any of these changes is actually making any difference good or bad is still unknown. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 So do you suggest owners to continue spending money with Jabirus development program? Is does have flight time and not great results. Aside from failues, the longevity hasnt been good 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Of course at this point only 19 experimental or 25 ELS Aircraft have the option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 So do you suggest owners to continue spending money with Jabirus development program?Is does have flight time and not great results. Aside from failues, the longevity hasnt been good Do what ever they like. Seems both are still development programs. Both Ian and Stiffy will tell you that the options taken by the other are not going to solve the problems but their solutions will. As long as people don't simply adopt the mindset that " Jabiru have problems. Camit are not Jabiru therefore Camit won't have problems". Whose fixes will fix the issues? Only time will tell. 1 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