Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
jetjr

New Through Bolt SB JSB031-3

Recommended Posts

As an old motor mechanic and having worked on many VW and Subaru, and owned five VW vehicles and one Suby, I was chating to a young VW enthusiast also a mechanic, I described to him the Jabiru through bolt set up and how it held the case halves together, he was less than impressed and said "there was a lot of banging around those cylinders holding those halves together". He thought the halves should be bolted as well and I agree, this would help take load off those pots trying to hold the case together !

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So CASA would step in if therew ere multiple 747 engine failures. They have stepped in with Jabiru saying that there are multiple failures and the rate is increasing. They also state that they don't know why. They also state they have confidence in Jabiru.What they will not state is the actual number of engine failures and the cause of those failures.

 

Funnily in the USA the safety record of Jabiru is the best of all LSA aircraft. The statistics in USA sshow that the Jabiru is only marginally worse than the C150, remember that the C150 has been flying since the fifties and all the problems have had years to be sorted out. If you were in the USA to planes to avoid would be Remos Evector and Czech Sport Cruiser, but the Skycatcher, C172 and Tecnam are all poorer than the Jab for safety.

So where are you getting all stated information from so you think CASA should sit back and say nothing. I don't roast Jabiru but when a engine is developed you have to make the engine for all pilots Jo Jack and Jill I as a mechanic understand how an air cooled engine works. Your office Jock in most cases don't and this is the problem.

 

If Rotax where air cooled they would have maybe the same problems. CASA are a governing body they don't have to state anything.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might not have to say anything but they would gain much more respect and trust if they were more upcoming with the specific information they base their actions on and how they interpret it. I personally doubt they have the internal expertise at identifying causes of engine faults , in the current circumstances. These sorts of skills are rare these days. Same as doctors who can good a good idea of your heart function with a stethoscope. We want to reduce everything to numbers on a piece of paper. When you include engines that have run out of fuel in stats, you aren't doing your job. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They might not have to say anything but they would gain much more respect and trust if they were more upcoming with the specific information they base their actions on and how they interpret it. I personally doubt they have the internal expertise at identifying causes of engine faults , in the current circumstances. These sorts of skills are rare these days. Same as doctors who can good a good idea of your heart function with a stethoscope. We want to reduce everything to numbers on a piece of paper. When you include engines that have run out of fuel in stats, you aren't doing your job. Nev

They do not have to have any expertise in identifying causes of engine faults, they have to react to safety data, and make designers/manufacturers/users identify and correct faults.

 

They didn't design the aircraft, they didn't manufacture the aircraft and they don't operate the aircraft.

 

These misunderstandings just seem to roll on and on and on, and the hocus pocus of blaming the regulator continues.

 

The manufacturer has at least made an effort, but the discussion has rolled on for four months. The random nature of this problem means we don't have to wait for 500 hours to see if this has been an improvement; we should see the early failures drop away, and other pre-500 hour failures drop away, and so far it appears this might be happening.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TB said "

 

They do not have to have any expertise in identifying causes of engine faults, they have to react to safety data, and make designers/manufacturers/users identify and correct faults.

 

They didn't design the aircraft, they didn't manufacture the aircraft and they don't operate the aircraft.

 

These misunderstandings just seem to roll on and on and on, and the hocus pocus of blaming the regulator continues."

 

But we would all expect them to only include truthful data in their deliberations upon which they make their decisions. And from the start they appear to have not.

 

The industry also could expect that where zero engine failures is an unattainable goal through all engine types then some benchmark failure rate should be established. More failures than the benchmark demands attention less has to be accepted. Simply comparing one brand to another and stating that one has more failures than another and closing down the poorer is unacceptable if they both are below the bench mark.

 

Lack of a benchmark IS the regulators failure.

 

It Seems that the 41 engine failures in 90,000 flying hours CASA finally stated after much coersion from the industry actually includes only 12 engine failures and the rest are "major malfunctions" ( undefined and also not adhering to any benchmark of severity). The comparison of failures to malfunctions across different engines has similarly not been defined.

 

The engine failures apparently includes at least one fuel exhaustion.

 

I am on a couple of medical regulator panels and if my committees made any decisions based on similar levels of evidence or rather apparent lack of it and then tried to make edicts based on it we would be sued before we closed the meeting for lunch.

 

But then Most of us work in a society where wronged parties are able to seek redress. Aviation is a unique situation where a regulator simply has to utter the word "safety" and then gets free reign to do anything they like because those who are affected have no power to complain lest their licences and capacity to operate are simply removed and to disagree is taken as some acceptance that you don't want safety.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But we would all expect them to only include truthful data in their deliberations upon which they make their decisions. And from the start they appear to have not.

As far as I can tell from my own research, this action was REQUESTED of CASA, and if that occurred, then the requestee had the obligation to supply the supporting data to CASA.

 

The industry also could expect that where zero engine failures is an unattainable goal through all engine types then some benchmark failure rate should be established.

The Legal industry doesn't agree with you, doesn't accept that it's OK to kill someone, even if it was an unusual event. We have an impossible target to work to, and I have in the past set down regulations based on levels where no one has previously been injured/killed (some people call this "world's best practice")

 

Simply comparing one brand to another and stating that one has more failures than another and closing down the poorer is unacceptable if they both are below the bench mark.

I agree with you, but I think you'll find this point came out of social media and has just been repeated and repeated, particularly in terms of Camit vs Jabiru and Rotax vs Jabiru.

 

Lack of a benchmark IS the regulators failure.

Coming out of the above point, I don't think you can just use the leading brand as a benchmark, and I don't think you can just use engine issues as a benchmark.

 

Forced Landings are a better benchmark. There are many engine issues which can be predicted or fixed on the ground, so they don't form part of a safety issue, and shouldn't be lumped in.

 

Lack of comprehensive recording is equally to blame.

 

Lack of reporting incidents so they can be recorded and the degree of the problem established is unconscionable, and equally to blame.

 

It Seems that the 41 engine failures in 90,000 flying hours CASA finally stated after much coersion from the industry actually includes only 12 engine failures and the rest are "major malfunctions" ( undefined and also not adhering to any benchmark of severity). The comparison of failures to malfunctions across different engines has similarly not been defined. The engine failures apparently includes at least one fuel exhaustion.

The "41 engine failures which is alleged to also include non-relevant details" I suspect is NOT the official knowledge, and could bring out into the open if they wished.

 

  • Isn't it a fact that ALL RAA incident and accident data automatically goes to CASA?
     
  • Isn't it a fact that CASA also gets incident and accident data from VH registered recreational aircraft?
     
  • Isn't it a fact that pilots, Clubs, airfield operators and even the general public can report incidents to CASA?
     
  • Isn't it a fact that CASA have FoIs travelling all over the country receiving complaints?
     
  • Isn't it a fact that ATSB forwards details of their investigations?
     

 

 

Based on that, I would expect:

 

  • ATSB data to be small
     
  • RAA data to be bigger
     
  • CASA data to include all ATSB data, plus the information they collect through their own resources.
     

 

I don't know where the 41 failures in 90,000 hours came from, but be careful, because CASA may be holding off for any lawsuits where they would be able to produce ALL of the above data.

 

I am on a couple of medical regulator panels and if my committees made any decisions based on similar levels of evidence or rather apparent lack of it and then tried to make edicts based on it we would be sued before we closed the meeting for lunch.

Sure, IF there is no evidence, but the evidence I produced from RAA figures was damning enough to require action, and nothing happened.

 

Sometimes with safety decisions you are better to make a mistake which costs financially than wait for enough people to be injured or to die.

 

I can remember one night recommending, after a massive accident fire came to our attention, that the exemption on that car class be lifted and 11o0 drivers be required to wear fire suits. My members unanimously approved the decision.

 

But then Most of us work in a society where wronged parties are able to seek redress. Aviation is a unique situation where a regulator simply has to utter the word "safety" and then gets free reign to do anything they like because those who are affected have no power to complain lest their licences and capacity to operate are simply removed and to disagree is taken as some acceptance that you don't want safety.

Another social media myth repeated by people who have no idea how governments work.

 

RAA could resolve this substantially by self administering like similar organizations - but that would mean a workable Compliance and Enforcement regime.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...