JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[Oscar]

Presumably, then, we will have a CASA Instrument that mandates immediate grounding of all Jabiru engines that have been fed lettuce/lettuce mixtures originating from Tripod Farms in the period under consideration.

 

 

[jetjr]

In that case TP, someone actually got sick, infact many hundreds of people and perhaps millions had the dangerous products in their fridge.

 

Under your point of view all Tripod lettuce should be sold with a waiver (requiring signature) saying that you may get Salmonella from eating it.

 

Destroy their business and move on, good result.

 

 

[Oscar]

In that case TP, someone actually got sick, infact many hundreds of people and perhaps millions had the dangerous products in their fridge.Under your point of view all Tripod lettuce should be sold with a waiver (requiring signature) saying that you may get Salmonella from eating it.

Destroy their business and move on, good result.

With the signature having to be renewed every month... and with the ever--present danger of a packet of Tripod lettuce mixture crashing into a kindergarten and killing all the children therein. However, early-solo Tripod-lettuce eaters are at least protected.

 

 

[gandalph]

[Note that the Government is not doing the testing and analysis (where its methods and conclusions could later be disputed in Court), the supplier is.On this forum, a couple of people have kept repeating that CASA should have tested the components and found causes, not just symptoms, and this case shows that is no longer the practice today.]

NO NO NO!

 

People, and I count myself firmly among them, have been saying that CASA should have tested the EVIDENCE presented to them, before they acted as they did. Just as the DHSS tested the evidence that there WAS a problem with the salad vegies before they acted.

 

There is a BIG difference between the way CASA acted and the way DHSS acted. Your analogy is not valid.

 

 

[gandalph]

Oscar, You're being silly! Keep it up and you're likely to be kept in after class, or worse, expelled. Again.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In that case TP, someone actually got sick, infact many hundreds of people and perhaps millions had the dangerous products in their fridge.Under your point of view all Tripod lettuce should be sold with a waiver (requiring signature) saying that you may get Salmonella from eating it.

Destroy their business and move on, good result.

The point is not about the illnesses, it's about the process which is basically similar for all industries

No one's going to get too upset about a does of gastro, but Salmonella can cost you an arm or leg, or even your life.

 

 

[Oscar]

NO NO NO!People, and I count myself firmly among them,

You are SURE you are a person? Some here would contest that.

 

 

[Oscar]

The point is not about the illnesses, it's about the process which is basically similar for all industriesNo one's going to get too upset about a does of gastro, but Salmonella can cost you an arm or leg, or even your life.

Is the lettuce-eating industry subject to a judicial ruling that those who engage in the activity are voluntarily engaging in a 'dangerous activity'?

 

 

[biggles]

No one's going to get too upset about a does of gastro .

Try telling that to the relatives of those in nursing homes who die from it TP .... Bob

 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gastro-death-preventable-coroner-says-20120625-20xta.html

 

 

[turboplanner]

NO NO NO!People, and I count myself firmly among them, have been saying that CASA should have tested the EVIDENCE presented to them, before they acted as they did. Just as the DHSS tested the evidence that there WAS a problem with the salad vegies before they acted.

There is a BIG difference between the way CASA acted and the way DHSS acted. Your analogy is not valid.

(a) I was referring to testing and analysis of the cause of an engine failure and the metallurgical analysis of, say, a bolt - which in the vegetable case, is being done by Tripod Farms, and was not done by DHSS.

 

(b) "CASA should have tested the EVIDENCE"

 

From what I have read, DHSS just assemble spreadsheets of incoming reports, in much the same way as CASA.

 

I looked at a few reports of this vegetable case, and they all reported just a surge in reports; that in my opinion would constitute a reasonably forseeable risk alone, the test results are not in yet (8/2/16)

 

I'm not disagreeing with your statement that CASA should have made a decision on sound, provable grounds.

 

We don't know how they made their decision.

 

Camel says he specifically asked this (#137): "Just to clarify, I want the number, date, cause and details of Jabiru engine failures that lee Ungerman of CASA sport aviation department uses as statistics to justify his actions."

 

When you've been around FoI for awhile, you would never ask a leading question like that , because (a) Lee Ungermann may not have made the CASA decision, and the spreadsheet with the 46 failures may not have been the basis for the CASA

 

decision, just Lee Ungermann's actions, which may have been just to take part in the discussions.

 

As far as the 46 failures sheet goes, you'll remember that Jabiru argued there were only 12 genuine engine failures on the spreadsheet supplied under FoI. In #153 I listed 32 items on the spreadsheet that had nothing to do with mechanical engine

 

faults, and wouldn't disagree with Jabiru that there might have been a couple more.

 

In light of that, for CASA to have talked about 46 failures in the one year was a very silly thing to do, because it opened them up to claims of dodgy decisions.

 

However, as I mentioned, if push came to shove, CASA can admit that the spreadsheet contains error, and then you are left with the approx 6 per year over the five years to 2012 and 12 from the subject year to argue about.

 

Where someone feels a CASA decision is unjustified, a natural justice system kicks in, and there is a contact shown on the CASA website.

 

 

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Try telling that to the relatives of those in nursing homes who die from it TP .... Bob http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/gastro-death-preventable-coroner-says-20120625-20xta.html

Sorry Bob, I was going to go on to say you can lose a limb, or even die from it, and that before the current health regimes started FOUR MILLION Australians were HOSPITALISED, EACH, year.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression of trivialising it.

 

 

[2tonne]

The point is not about the illnesses, it's about the process which is basically similar for all industriesNo one's going to get too upset about a does of gastro, but Salmonella can cost you an arm or leg, or even your life.

Outbreaks of gastro infections caused by pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella and certain strains of E. coli are a BIG public health concern - remember Garibaldi? 23 kids got severely ill and one died. This bears no comparison whatsoever to the Jabiru issue.

Edited

 

 

[facthunter]

Selling an engine for a class of aviation which is acknowledged not to be as safe as more regulated forms of aviation, can hardly be compared to a product you eat which is proven to have a notifiable disease linked to it's use, one serve of which has a high chance of killing you. CASA over reacted and used emotive and inaccurate figures to justify their actions, possibly thinking they are saving 100's of lives, when there are much more unreliable engines not getting a mention. Only a fool would expect a particular engine to never fail and ......

 

Its reasonable to not expect to die from eating lettuce you buy at the supermarket in this country. Would it have been OK to shut down the supermarket till they could prove they won't ever have salmonella. Nev

 

Note,. I have removed "communicable"adjective, re disease when It's law to report instances of it only.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Outbreaks of gastro infections caused by pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella and certain strains of E. coli are a BIG public health concern - remember Garibaldi? 23 kids got severely ill and one died. This bears no comparison whatsoever to the Jabiru issue.Edited

The issues are totally unrelated, but some people are having difficulty understanding post-prescriptive processes most of which are based on offloading liability from government to participants.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Selling an engine for a class of aviation which is acknowledged not to be as safe as more regulated forms of aviation, can hardly be compared to a product you eat which is proven to have a notifiable communicable disease linked to it's use, one serve of which has a high chance of killing you. CASA over reacted and used emotive and inaccurate figures to justify their actions, possibly thinking they are saving 100's of lives, when there are much more unreliable engines not getting a mention. Only a fool would expect a particular engine to never fail and ......Its reasonable to not expect to die from eating lettuce you buy at the supermarket in this country. Would it have been OK to shut down the supermarket till they could prove they won't ever have salmonella. Nev

Again, my point was about the process - who has the responsibility for testing, diagnosis and correction and so on. There are still people here who think that CASA should have analysed components to see if they were safe or not, or looked deeper than forced landings following engine failure, and found out the component(s) which caused the engine failure and the metallurgical fingerprint which showed the cause; don't expect that to happen anytime soon - they make the manufacturer do that now.

 

 

[facthunter]

You keep saying that Turbs, but it doesn't work the way CASA have done it. No one knows what's really wrong with it and no one will know when it's fixed. Neither situation has been accurately defined. What is the standard?

 

This is an engine that was certified and a certified engine cannot be modified, unlike a motor vehicle where they modify and supercede a part without fuss, unless it's a recall, where there is a bit of publicity, often unwarranted. The companies that know things are crook and don't recall are the worry. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

You keep saying that Turbs, but it doesn't work the way CASA have done it. No one knows what's really wrong with it and no one will know when it's fixed. Neither situation has been accurately defined. What is the standard?

There appear to be some missing links in this saga and I totally sympathise with what you're saying about not knowing what's wrong or when it will be fixed, but the players are reacting to today's processes.

To give you an example. The Victorian Department of Labour and Industry used to specify a minimum distance of four metres to be clear between a safety fence and the crowd in motor racing. That was the standard prescribed, so you could just build to it, and if someone was injured you could hold up the specification and say "go see the government" or something similar. Your track would get a regular inspection from DLI and the tape measure would come out to make sure your seats were more the 4 metres away from the fence.

 

When the DLI was closed down and the Acts repealed, that four metres requirement disappeared, and these days if you are building a track, you have to make your own decision, and then live by the consequences.

 

You could say we're in a time of "User Pays".

 

 

[turboplanner]

Selling an engine for a class of aviation which is acknowledged not to be as safe as more regulated forms of aviation, can hardly be compared to a product you eat which is proven to have a notifiable disease linked to it's use, one serve of which has a high chance of killing you.

No, I can reassure you my intention was not to compare the two "uses", just the common risk identification and risk correction process, just the same as if I was comparing the common risk identification and risk correction process between running a waterslide park, and operating a transport business. Totally different operations, but the same management control to address risk.

 

CASA over reacted and used emotive and inaccurate figures to justify their actions, possibly thinking they are saving 100's of lives, when there are much more unreliable engines not getting a mention.

That's the same forlorn argument the motorist who has just been booked for speeding uses, and complains to the cop when have a dozen other motorists speed past.

Every unacceptable risk should be addressed without fear or favour, so maybe it's just that the other engines haven't yet been identified as an issue.

 

Only a fool would expect a particular engine to never fail and ......

Agreed

 

Its reasonable to not expect to die from eating lettuce you buy at the supermarket in this country. Would it have been OK to shut down the supermarket till they could prove they won't ever have salmonella.

No it would not be reasonable to shut down a supermarket because of a risk from one product, and RA and GA aircraft were not all shut down.

If you're referring to the instrument affecting all Jabiru models rather than some, I don't know on what basis CASA made their decision, but it may have started with the RAA reporting system where sometimes the applicable engine is mentioned and other times it's not, and several, if not all are listed at some stage - a very unhelpful omission if you are trying to manage a fleet of engines. Even an apprentice motor mechanic has it drummed into him to get the vehicle identification, engine model, and other key specification items before he writes up his report; same goes for Total Time etc.

 

 

[gandalph]

Again, my point was about the process - who has the responsibility for testing, diagnosis and correction and so on. There are still people here who think that CASA should have analysed components to see if they were safe or not, or looked deeper than forced landings following engine failure, and found out the component(s) which caused the engine failure and the metallurgical fingerprint which showed the cause; don't expect that to happen anytime soon - they make the manufacturer do that now.

And there are others, I'll hold my hand up for that as well, who understand that CASA doessn't have that role; that forensic investigation of engine failures; component failures; structural failures should be forensically investigated by the manufacturer (if they have the expertise), and or by the regulator, (in our case the RAA) if it has the expertise. Then reports to CASA/ATSB might contain much more informative and accurate information than a one line comment in a spreadsheet that an engine ran failed/ran roughly/ lost power.....

What CASA could have - SHOULD have- done is what you, I and many others here have done and that is looked a little deeply into the information on the infamous spreadsheet and they would have arrived, as we did, at a very different number. That would have given them the opportunity, if they were of a mind to, consider appropriate action and perhaps arrive at a different and more sensible a outcome. To simply (and lazily) tally up the number of cells in a spreadsheet column and arrive at the magical number of 46 engine failures is, as some of us non-flat earthers on this site saying, simply unprofessional but more importantly negligent.

 

 

[jetjr]

TP you keep saying we dont know what basis casa made their decision, yes you do, you have the details and somewhat agree the data set has been used badly.

 

If this is the case there may not be an "issue" justifying action and Jabiru failures may be inline with expectations and other types.

 

There are fully cerified types which cannot be changed at all, how are they supposed to fix the problem?

 

Experimentals , able to modify whatever they like, no matter how stupid, their risk has always been accepted.

 

Then LSA which are the only ones a manufacturer has responsibility for.

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP you keep saying we dont know what basis casa made their decision, yes you do, you have the details and somewhat agree the data set has been used badly.

If you're referring to the spreadsheet showing 46 "engine failures" in 12 months; were it has imploded on Camel is that he didn't specifically ask WHO made the decision, and what that/those person(s) used to make that decision.

He asked what Lee Ungermann used as statistics to justify his actions.

 

In my opinion the decision would have been made further up the tree, and by several senior staff, and for all I know Lee may have been using the spreadsheet to argue against the action proposed by others.

 

When you submit a Freedom of Information Request it's usual to get EXACTLY what you asked for and no more.

 

So, just repeating it, we do not know the basis on which CASA acted, until such time as CASA is of a mind to tell us. I would suggest that strategically, the best pace for them to drop that bomb would be in a courtroom after someone sued them.

 

If this is the case there may not be an "issue" justifying action

Let's take the case where the people who made the decision were told the numbers had jumped to 46 (and I stress this is hypothetical and has no inference of fact). This would certainly be similar to the spike which triggered the lettuce action.

Now let's say CASA confirm that the 46 figure came from a Spreadsheet which THEY prepared using a staff member who didn't know the difference between an engine failure and a tyre deflation and just when you're at ACAT and ready to pounce, the CASA representative announces that there were mistakes in the data, and the number has been reduced to 12, then that's what the argument is going to be about, and on my research to date the 12 would still constitute a spike and forseeable risk so possibly limitations still would have been supported by ACAT, but I don't know, this is just pure speculation.

 

and Jabiru failures may be in line with expectations and other types.

If the number were reduced in the subject year, on the basis of my research (RAA figures for the five years from 2007 to 2012) with Jabiru at more than 6 per year and Rotax at three for the five years, there is no basis there for claiming they may have been in line.

I've started to look at the C152, PA28 and C172 etc ATSB figures, which Aro pulled for us, and which show a lot of forced landings, and found only two mechanical failures in C152, but a lot of forced landings with no resolution as to why the engine lost power or stopped, and it frustrates me beyond all recognition that ATSB would do that without at least footnotes, so I'll be contacting ATSB to try to get the protocol. I thought it would be easy, just hit the Reference Number as a link and look at the detailed report, but at this point what I've found is the incident report numbers don't relate to the accident report numbers. If I find the engine failures due to mechanical failures are equal to or more than Jabiru, I won't hesitate in reporting it, but at this stage I can't rule out that all the failures (and a LOT sound like carb ice) unless notated with the mechanical item which failed, are non core engine related.

 

There are fully cerified types which cannot be changed at all, how are they supposed to fix the problem?

What about if the fix is a new engine?

 

 

[jetjr]

Repeated info.......repeatedly

 

I dont care who made decision, CASA and their processes took the action, if its bad data its still their fault for acting upon advice from underqualified people.

 

New engines would need recertification and that isnt going to happen, they spent the money once. Some would argue new models are less reliable than older certified models.

 

From your approach you would expect there are just 3 or four engines types out there. To pick out a couple of exceptional certified models and infer all Jabiru models should have same reliability isnt logical. In addition those engines your comparing cost double or more.

 

As you dont actually know what caused the problem what are you comparing.

 

Its not a reasonable comparison and your doing just as CASA has done repeatedly, seeking to sink any semblance of value in aviation. Its also clear that records are pretty crap. At the least youd hope the regulators might get this sorted so they can make better decisions

 

 

[turboplanner]

I dont care who made decision, CASA and their processes took the action, if its bad data its still their fault for acting upon advice from underqualified people.

RAA/you is/are the self administering Body. If you don't address risk and the government steps in you'll usually get something you don't like.

 

From your approach you would expect there are just 3 or four engines types out there. To pick out a couple of exceptional certified models and infer all Jabiru models should have same reliability isn't logical. In addition those engines your comparing cost double or more.

RAA were in charge of receiving the incident reports, ask them

Note that every report I knocked out of the infamous 46 was a report from RAA. I'd be asking about that too

 

I've previously said Risk responses don't have to be triggered by numbers, just the identification of a potential risk of injury or fatality, but the discussions on this thread and others have been heavily into numbers and the validity of those numbers, and where they came from, and it's a discussion which quite a few here are interested in, in fact they seem more interested in numbers than perceived risk.

 

Re your comments about picking on all Jabiru models, talk to RAA about the way they reported their incident statistics, and why the correct model was not specified with each engine failure. (Not forgetting that you, as a member had a responsibility to see the shortcomings and correct them.

 

As you dont actually know what caused the problem what are you comparing.

 

Risk, and I covered what you are implying. The manufacturer has the responsibility to find out what caused the problem, and from the first post in this thread it would seem is progressing very well.

 

Its not a reasonable comparison and your doing just as CASA has done repeatedly, seeking to sink any semblance of value in aviation.

My comparisons don't carry any weight; and so far no one has bitten the bullet and asked whether CASA just thought this one up at a weekend conference or were making a response, and I certainly don't want to sink any semblance of value in aviation, and don't want people to waste their time and money running down paths which closed off in the mid '80s, and getting all worked up about things which, when push comes to shove, could be found to be incorrect.

 

 

[facthunter]

If the future of all of our type of aviation is at risk by the method you suggest, we should just get with it and cop it sweet. I don't see that as a serious option. CASA's logic and methodology is flawed. If this sort of thing keeps happening you might as well sell your planes while you can. It's that clear. The manufacturers have a need to keep friendly with the AUTHORITY who it appears couldn't care less whether the most successful aircraft manufacturing business we have can be sent broke by the stroke of a pen with no comeback. Not Natural justice by a long way.

 

What's your interest in it Turbs? Have you ever flown a Jabiru engined aircraft, or something like a drifter? People who fly elementary or historic aircraft have a fair idea of what they are doing in respect of risk of engine failure. No one is holding a gun to someones head to make them get into one..Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

If the future of all of our type of aviation is at risk by the method you suggest, we should just get with it and cop it sweet. I don't see that as a serious option. CASA's logic and methodology is flawed. If this sort of thing keeps happening you might as well sell your planes while you can. It's that clear. The manufacturers have a need to keep friendly with the AUTHORITY who it appears couldn't care less whether the most successful aircraft manufacturing business we have can be sent broke by the stroke of a pen with no comeback. Not Natural justice by a long way.What's your interest in it Turbs? Have you ever flown a Jabiru engined aircraft, or something like a drifter? People who fly elementary or hiswtoric aircraft have a fair idea of what they are doing in respect of risk of engine failure. No one is holding a gun to someones head to make them get into one..Nev

Hello, there's been a relapse here; I thought you'd grasped the principles we have to live by.

I've mentioned Speedway many times, where the hurdle was jumped in the mid 1980's - about the same number of participants as RA, about the same number of machines worth about the same cost, about the same number of venues and it's still alive and well, managing its own risks.

 

Sausage sizzles are still on outside Bunnings doing their own risk management.

 

WRT to recent events you can cop it sweet, or there is a path you can use for Natural Justice; my over-riding message is: Do your bloody homework and find out who should have acted and when so that CASA didn't have to be involved, because when you open Pandora's box it's very likely that Pandora will not be in there.

 

My interest is in saving lives and preventing injuries, and yes I've flown an LSA55, J160, and J170, and I've seen a J160 after it flew into a shipping container and required two new wings and more, and then I stepped into and flew that same aircraft after it had been repaired, not that that has anything to do at all with people who are whining about action CASA took and saying nothing about what action RAA took.

 

I've given you in a number of posts specific examples where Manufacturers have been put out of business, some temporarily, like the water slide industry who got the message and now manage their own risks, and some like multi national auto and transport industry companies who closed down, so you've had a chance to go and check the facts and read up on the processes required to successfully manufacture today.

 

FH:"The manufacturers have a need to keep friendly with the AUTHORITY who it appears couldn't care less whether the most successful aircraft manufacturing business we have can be sent broke by the stroke of a pen with no comeback."

 

 

What attracted the Authority to consider action in the first place?

 

I gave you examples which show that cost cannot be considered when making a safety decision, and you'll find more of your own if you do your own research.

 

If you can show that someone made his own decision and applied it with a stroke of his own pen, you'll have a point, but you would know that a number of people ought to have been, and probably were, involved in the discussions leading up to CASA's decision, it would have been tested and approved by lawyers, and it would have be reviewed and approved by senior management.

 

FH: "Not natural justice by a long way"

 

For any owners/operators or anyone disadvantaged who feel the same way as you, there is an inbuilt Natural Justice system within CASA

 

I've mentioned it a couple of times, and here's the link https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/casa-industry-complaints-commissioner-icc