CASA 292/14 - Conditions and direction about Jabiru engines

[Guest Ornis]

I didn't infer or imply that 6500 engines had failed, I simply said I don't find the fact that only 14% (actually 7%, as stated earlier) had reached 1000 hours was not reassuring.

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/jabiru-limitations.128627/page-27#post-469803

 

http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/AVDALSR088-1_Piston_Offset.pdfEngineering Report: AVDALSR088-1 17th Sept 2013

4 Service History

 

 At the time of writing:

 

- The Jabiru 2200 engine has been in production for over 20 years in various configurations.

 

- Approximately 7,000 Jabiru engines of various models have been manufactured.

 

- It is estimated that around 500 engines have exceeded 1,000 hours TIS.

 

- Annual fleet hours are estimated at in excess of 20,000 hours.

 

Of 7000 engines it is estimated 500 exceeded 1000 TIS. One in 14; 7%. (How many of the other 6500 are still going?)

 

How many of the 500 "successful" engines got to 1000 hours without having the heads off, inspected, replaced?

When I stated some while ago I didn't know what Ian Bent said to jetjr but I know what wasn't, I was tackled on the logic. Well, I could make a list as long as you like about what Ian didn't say. We are talking probabilities.

 

I don't know how many engines are failing. What I do know is the numbers don't reassure me a reasonable percentage of Jabiru engines are going just fine to 1000 hours.

 

 

[coljones]

Col, I know of quite a few 912s that have well beyond 2000 hours............

I don't have a problem with the rotax engine - I even flew a foxbat today, for my peace of mind and health. What bothers me is the crusade that some people get on using all sorts of trumped up statistics born of dubious data. It is a bit like the fluoride debate with the gummy old woman saying - "I don't need fluoride, I don't have a rotten tooth in my head"

Keep well

 

Col

 

 

[coljones]

I didn't infer or imply that 6500 engines had failed, I simply said I don't find the fact that only 14% (actually 7%, as stated earlier) had reached 1000 hours was not reassuring.http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/jabiru-limitations.128627/page-27#post-469803

 

When I stated I didn't know what Ian Bent said to jetjr but I know what wasn't, I was tackled on the logic. Well, I could make a list as long as you like about what Ian didn't say. We are talking probabilities.

 

I don't know how many engines are failing. What I do know is the numbers don't reassure me a reasonable percentage of Jabiru engines are going just fine to 1000 hours.

So, in fact you seem to know nothing at all and are parading it for the world to see.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Hi TPWhat was the critical disclaimer condition?

Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Latin for:To a willing person injury is not done)

 

In your case Tex, the Civil Liability Act 2003 says:

 

Division 4, Page 16, Dangerous Recreational Activities

 

19 (1) A person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the person suffering harm.

 

19 (2) This section applies whether or not the person suffering harm was aware of the risk.

 

So whether there was a warning plaque or Volenti Non Fit Injuria the injured party can’t sue for an obvious risk.

 

HOWEVER:

 

The meaning of “obvious risk” is defined in detail in Division 13, Page 14 AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THINGS (including negligence), saying in clause (5)

 

“To remove any doubt it is declared that risk from a thing including a living thing is not an obvious risk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk.

 

Examples for subsection (5)—

 

1 A motorised go-cart that appears to be in good condition may create

 

a risk to a user of the go-cart that is not an obvious risk if its frame

 

has been damaged or cracked in a way that is not obvious.

 

2 A bungee cord that appears to be in good condition may create a

 

risk to a user of the bungee cord that is not an obvious risk if it is

 

used after the time the manufacturer of the bungee cord

 

recommends its replacement or it is used in circumstances contrary

 

to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

 

So it’s not the blank cheque some would have you believe. Our negligence is the disclaimer condition.

 

 

[Oscar]

If an individual states that he doesn't find a specific number of engines achieving a specific TBO is not reassuring - that's a statement of personal opinion. It is not - and any intellectually competent person would recognise this - proof of failure before the specified TBO.

 

In philosophy, it is recognised that there is a logical disconnect between the statement 'All elephants are grey - this is grey - therefore, this is an elephant'. The same logical disconnect applies to Ornis's statement if it is construed to be a proof that Jabiru engines routinely do not reach 1000 hours TBO.

 

That said: there is certainly reasonable evidence to suggest that there are a significant number of Jabiru engines that do NOT reach 1000 hours TBO. What is missing from the debate is a forensic examination of the incidences of low-time problems and the circumstances relevant to those problems. We have seen evidence of FTF's with repeated low-time Jabiru engine problems and also evidence of FTF's with a history of thousands of hours of perfectly satisfactory operation of Jabiru engines. The application of reason over bias says that impartial investigation of the circumstances pertaining to the wide variance should be undertaken.

 

I personally believe that the CAMit modifications to the basic Jabiru engine represent significant improvements that should be recognised - and I've put my money on them over a standard Jab. engine. However, that does not mean that the 'risk' factor that CASA has implied - but not conclusively nor ( most tellingly) publicly demonstrated - is equitable to the imposition of the limitations.

 

 

[gandalph]

Col, I know of quite a few 912s that have well beyond 2000 hours............

And I know of many Jab that have done more than 2000 hrs as well. It's not a p!ssing competition Ross.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

the 'risk' factor that CASA has implied - but not conclusively nor ( most tellingly) publicly demonstrated - is equitable to the imposition of the limitations.

As I have said before, in the absence of incontrovertible data but plenty of doubt about the safety of Jabiru engines CASA made a judgement. We don't agree on the decision but I think we agree on everything else.

 

 

[gandalph]

As I have said before, in the absence of incontrovertible data but plenty of doubt about the safety of Jabiru engines CASA made a judgement. We don't agree on the decision but I think we agree on everything else.

We? Is that the "Royal we"?

I certainly agree with your choice of engine but I have difficulty with a lot of your other assertions. c'est la vie, c'est la guerre!

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

We? Is that the "Royal we"?I certainly agree with your choice of engine but I have difficulty with a lot of your other assertions. c'est la vie, c'est la guerre!

No, it's the we as in "Oscar, you and I agree," that oui.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I didn't infer or imply that 6500 engines had failed, I simply said I don't find the fact that only 14% (actually 7%, as stated earlier) had reached 1000 hours was not reassuring ..................

There you go again misrepresenting what the document stated. Read the English. The document did NOT say that only 500 had made 1,000 hours with any intent other than to say that at the time of writing they were aware that 500 had made 1,000 hours.

Six months later some more may have done 1,000 hrs and in five more years a few hundred more.

 

It was a Statistical statement made at a time to point out the number that had made 1,000 hrs, nothing more.

 

 

[gandalph]

There you go again misrepresenting what the document stated. Read the English. The document did NOT say that only 500 had made 1,000 hours with any intent other than to say that at the time of writing they were aware that 500 had made 1,000 hours.Six months later some more may have done 1,000 hrs and in five more years a few hundred more.

 

It was a Statistical statement made at a time to point out the number that had made 1,000 hrs, nothing more.

He's just stirring and being mischievous David.

The question that should be asked is not how many of the 20,000 produced have achieved the magical 1000 hours but how many have suffered a serious failure before reaching 1000 hrs. Ornis is using primary school "logic" by inferring that as only 500 have achieved the magic 1000 hours, the other 19,500 must have therefore failed before reaching that figure. He MAY be correct but he hasn't yet provided any factual back-up for his prepostering

 

He's using clever language to try and bolster his dodgy figuring. It's the same format used by politicians, dishonest Union reps and trucking company executives when trying to sway the masses with their illogicalities . And before the moderators start to hyperventilate, I am NOT implying that the Kiwi Kid is any of the above

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Gandalph, what are you implying then?

 

 

[Tex]

Volenti Non Fit Injuria (Latin for:To a willing person injury is not done)In your case Tex, the Civil Liability Act 2003 says:

 

Division 4, Page 16, Dangerous Recreational Activities

 

19 (1) A person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the person suffering harm.

 

19 (2) This section applies whether or not the person suffering harm was aware of the risk.

 

So whether there was a warning plaque or Volenti Non Fit Injuria the injured party can’t sue for an obvious risk.

 

HOWEVER:

 

The meaning of “obvious risk” is defined in detail in Division 13, Page 14 AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THINGS (including negligence), saying in clause (5)

 

“To remove any doubt it is declared that risk from a thing including a living thing is not an obvious risk if the risk is created because of a failure on the part of a person to properly operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless the failure itself is an obvious risk.

 

Examples for subsection (5)—

 

1 A motorised go-cart that appears to be in good condition may create

 

a risk to a user of the go-cart that is not an obvious risk if its frame

 

has been damaged or cracked in a way that is not obvious.

 

2 A bungee cord that appears to be in good condition may create a

 

risk to a user of the bungee cord that is not an obvious risk if it is

 

used after the time the manufacturer of the bungee cord

 

recommends its replacement or it is used in circumstances contrary

 

to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

 

So it’s not the blank cheque some would have you believe. Our negligence is the disclaimer condition.

Hi TP,

 

I have no particular view on Jabiru engines, this is objective: Thanks for the explanation of what you meant by the 'disclaimer condition'. I know what Volenti means (I did raise it after all) and my original point was a simple one given this threads OP. The letter is directed to establishing it as a complete defence against liability.

 

I appreciate your analysis of the legislation also but your reasoning has drifted off topic and appears to have been conflated with individual negligence. What it is really all about (OP) is relevant to CASA and Jabiuru; The letter brings to the attention of individuals what is purported to be an obvious risk (with Jabiru engines) and attempts to bind the signing party to a voluntary assumption of that risk, so that CASA (and perhaps collaterally, the individual PIC) are excluded from liability.

 

If an individual properly operates, maintains, replaces, prepares or cares for the thing then they are, by definition, not negligent ('Properly' not Negligently). Regardless the real issue is that (and the examples in the legislation are of no assistance), as you would agree I anticipate, the argument (positive on the balance of probabilities) would be that the potential failure of a Jabiru engine is an obvious risk - given the history, discussion and action taken - add a letter signed by the party acknowledging and thereby purportedly solidifying that 'obvious' fact. Ergo: CASA = 'WE have a complete defence from negligence'.

 

Cheers

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks Gandalph, what are you implying then?

Sorry Turbop, I didn't mean to confuse you.

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks Gandalph, what are you implying then?

Turpop, You might have missed , or perhaps you misunderstood the word NOT in my post. ( I put it in capitals so that it would be hard to miss.) To assume that because I said I was NOT implying something must mean that I was implying something else is as flawed as someone saying: "I don't know what A said to B but I do know what A didn't say to B." i.e. wrong in both examples.

Can I assist you further?

 

 

[kgwilson]

The Statistics as I know them.

 

Jabiru have produced approx 7000 engines over 20 years. (not 20,000 Gandalph)

 

Jabiru have sold about 250 engines to a UAV manufacturer over 15 years.

 

At peak production Jabiru produced 20 airframes & 50 engines per month.

 

Jabiru have sold 1547 aircraft into 47 countries.

 

Jabiru advised at a particular point in time that 500 engines had exceeded 1000 hours TIS.

 

Annual fleet (presumably Jabiru aircraft in Australia) hours are estimated at in excess of over 20,000 hours.

 

End of Statistics

 

You can extrapolate all manner of data from this but without further information in a time based, operational, maintenance, usage type, private or commercial and numerous other factors the resulting answer will always be wrong.

 

 

[gandalph]

Thanks KGW for picking up my error. My bad. I should've waited until after my second coffee before posting.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

is as flawed as someone saying: "I don't know what A said to B but I do know what A didn't say to B." i.e. wrong in both examples.

I know Ian Bent did not say, "I screwed Stephen Fry and his new husband this morning."

 

Are you saying he might have?

 

Clearly you don't understand much about physics and the nature of reality.

 

 

[Guest Ornis]

There you go again misrepresenting what the document stated. Read the English. The document did NOT say that only 500 had made 1,000 hours with any intent other than to say that at the time of writing they were aware that 500 had made 1,000 hours.Six months later some more may have done 1,000 hrs and in five more years a few hundred more.

 

It was a Statistical statement made at a time to point out the number that had made 1,000 hrs, nothing more.

So, it's no different from saying 70% of engines had reached 1000 hours? Yes/No

 

You would become indignant if I made the comment I found that figure reassuring? Yes/No

 

 

[gandalph]

I know Ian Bent did not say, "I screwed Stephen Fry and his new husband this morning."Are you saying he might have?

 

Clearly you don't understand much about physics and the nature of reality.

Nope. I wasn't a party to that conversation so I'd only be guessing that it is highly unlikely that Ian would say such a thing - just like you were earlier.

As for physics and reality - there you go making assumptions again, but to ease your mind, I get by.

 

p.s. when I challenged your earlier assertion that you knew what wasn't said, I wasn't attacking you, I was simply expressing my doubt. I kinda knew what you meant, but I couldn't let you get away with saying it that way. Still friends?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turpop, You might have missed , or perhaps you misunderstood the word NOT in my post. ( I put it in capitals so that it would be hard to miss.) To assume that because I said I was NOT implying something must mean that I was implying something else is as flawed as someone saying: "I don't know what A said to B but I do know what A didn't say to B." i.e. wrong in both examples.Can I assist you further?

No thanks, maybe someone else will play word games with you.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

The Statistics as I know them.Jabiru have produced approx 7000 engines over 20 years. (not 20,000 Gandalph)

 

Jabiru have sold about 250 engines to a UAV manufacturer over 15 years.

 

At peak production Jabiru produced 20 airframes & 50 engines per month.

 

Jabiru have sold 1547 aircraft into 47 countries.

 

Jabiru advised at a particular point in time that 500 engines had exceeded 1000 hours TIS.

 

Annual fleet (presumably Jabiru aircraft in Australia) hours are estimated at in excess of over 20,000 hours.

 

End of Statistics

 

You can extrapolate all manner of data from this but without further information in a time based, operational, maintenance, usage type, private or commercial and numerous other factors the resulting answer will always be wrong.

is the UAV engine the same as the 2200 or 3300 and any idea how those 250 engines are doing?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

is the UAV engine the same as the 2200 or 3300 and any idea how those 250 engines are doing?

I doubt we'll ever get that info; the military have lost an awful lot of drones and maybe some types are regarded as disposable.

Rod Stiff told an interesting story one year at Temora; how the US military had tested a Jab aircraft to over 20,000' and it was still climbing. Despite his advice to avoid that rev band, they preferred running the 2.2 engine at 2400 rpm, presumably to extend range.

 

 

[gandalph]

No thanks, maybe someone else will play word games with you.

Anytime I can assist with those tricky words like NOT, you only have to ask.

 

 

[gandalph]

is the UAV engine the same as the 2200 or 3300 and any idea how those 250 engines are doing?

Thery're a bit like comparing nectarines to peaches, they're related but not the same. As to how they're going.... it could be dangerous to ask that question in these troubled times. You could attract the attention of some seriously heavy players.