JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[bexrbetter]

Well your level is liking Bex's referral of me as a half-wit, so maybe you shouldn't give yourself heart flutters.

Just Faulty Towers humour actually, saw a door open and couldn't resist, that's just my humour - and I do laugh through most of these threads even when I seem serious. Don't feel special, I would have taken the opportunity regardless of who it was.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Of course CASA Legal Dept. is holding up any lifting of the restrictions - because it has realised that to do so places it in an extremely exposed legal position. Many people have seen this one coming - and quite a few could see it, and were howled down when they foresaw it, even before the action was put in place.It's really quite simple: In its unseemly and wildly executed lunge at Jabiru's throat, CASA left itself with NO way out of the restrictions, in terms of any metric by which it could say: 'this is what is considered satisfactory; when this is met, the restrictions will no longer be needed.' NO specific issue was noted.

 

The situation can be summed up as:

 

If CASA lifts the restrictions without issuing a statement that a specific issue/issues have been satisfactorily addressed (and whatever was identified as an issue/s would have to stand up to scrutiny in a Court of Law), then one OR BOTH of the following circumstances could easily arise:

 

a) an action by Jabiru / a class action on behalf of owners/operators for loss of income, value, reputation, utility ( and there are probably more than just these) is very likely to succeed because CASA would have de facto admitted that there was no specific 'safety issue' that has now been rectified; AND ( not OR):

 

b) in the event of a future crash in circumstances prohibited under the restriction, those affected by that crash could sue CASA for lifting the restriction without any palpable reason, thus compromising the 'safety' mantra that was invo0ked in the first place.

 

The action by CASA has been a monumental, intercontinental, fur-lined, multi-coloured hypersonic cluster-f%ck. If we had an effective Parliament - rather than a useless Opposition and a Government doing nothing but walking around with its hands covering its groins to avoid the kicks coming from everywhere - there would be an enquiry followed rapidly by the public lynching of Farqharson, Jonothan Aleck and quite probably all of the Sport Aviation department crew.

 

Don't blame Skidmore for the situation: he was ambushed and nailed to the wall by Farqharson in the last HOURS of Farqharson's tenure of the office. In terms of the survival of an Australian aviation industry - albeit in a small, but internationally-significant way - this is a national disgrace. In terms of 'maintaining aviation safety' - it is an administrative-failure disgrace that would - in a democracy with any sort of effective government pursuing the 'business of government' - have the agency responsible dismembered and rendered 'dead, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the winds'.

So Oscar, What you are saying there :- All RAAus aircraft should have restrictions put on them by Casa as all the engines they use stop. I have a big problem with singling Jabiru, as people will get the idea all other engines will not stop.

Regards,

 

KP.

 

 

[Oscar]

KP - absolutely, I am NOT suggesting that there should be - or have been - the use of this non-specific type of action - where by 'specific' I mean that the cause/s and remedy/ies were /are not detailed so that a clear path to ending the restriction through an acceptable solution can be demonstrated.

 

Where there is an identified specific safety issue, for example a component that is not to specification, a faulty manufacturing technique etc., then obviously action needs to happen and the normal mechanisms of ADs / SBs has served the aviation community well. AFAIK, the imposition of a blanket restriction on a particular brand, with no more than in effect a statement that 'we consider that something is happening and we're going to slap an action on this mob generally until it stops happening' is a new tactic for CASA, and one with potentially dire consequences for the industry and the sport.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

But I do think Oscar's idea of a public execution would be in order

Not sure about an execution but could they at least be tarred and feathered?

 

 

[kasper]

Not sure about an execution but could they at least be tarred and feathered?

Ah but would they, after being tarred and feathered, be airworthy???? At least they wouldn't be subject to the Jabiru restrictions

 

 

[gandalph]

If you read the instrument Oscar you'll possibly find them.

"Possibly find them" ??? Blimey Turbs! It seems from that statement that even you are now harbouring doubt that there are "valid issues listed in the instrument"

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just not engaging, that's all.

 

 

[turboplanner]

KP - absolutely, I am NOT suggesting that there should be - or have been - the use of this non-specific type of action - where by 'specific' I mean that the cause/s and remedy/ies were /are not detailed so that a clear path to ending the restriction through an acceptable solution can be demonstrated.Where there is an identified specific safety issue, for example a component that is not to specification, a faulty manufacturing technique etc., then obviously action needs to happen and the normal mechanisms of ADs / SBs has served the aviation community well. AFAIK, the imposition of a blanket restriction on a particular brand, with no more than in effect a statement that 'we consider that something is happening and we're going to slap an action on this mob generally until it stops happening' is a new tactic for CASA, and one with potentially dire consequences for the industry and the sport.

That would be the ideal, but the organisation, becoming aware of a risk has to eliminate the risk. When you read recall notices, often a whole assembly is replaced in a vehicle, and the problem component is diagnosed after.

 

 

[gandalph]

Just not engaging, that's all.

Oh Turbs! I've always found you to be an engaging bloke in your own particular way. (I nearly wrote peculiar, but I worried that you would take offense)

 

 

[JEM]

Hi all

 

If you are on Jabiru's emailing list you will have received the following mail this afternoon with an attachment. Sorry I don't know how to post here the attachment. To get on the list you might email leigh as below.

 

Cheers all..................

 

Hello Jabiru Fleet

 

Well it’s Friday once again and we thought you might like some light reading for the weekend

 

In our recent email update to the fleet we talked about sending correspondence out to CASA, Members of Parliament and the Industry Complaints Commissioner. The attached information is good reading and although we know many of you may have either read or know the information contained in this, we thought it may be of good use and helpful if you are considering writing correspondence.

 

Flying Schools may wish to utilise the information regarding the impact on business on page 5 of the attached document (The Office of Best Practice statement that is contained in CASA’s explanatory statement to the instrument) Flying Schools may also like to utilise the statistics provided to help alleviate the concerns of students and or their parents in respect to the safety of Jabiru Aircraft.

 

We hope you all have a good weekend and “Happy Landings”

 

JABIRU AIRCRAFT PTY LTD

 

PO Box 5792

 

Bundaberg West Qld 4670

 

Ph: 07 41551778

 

Fax: 07 41552669

 

Email: [email protected]

 

www.jabiru.net.au

 

www.facebook.com/JabiruAircraft

 

 

[Ron5335]

The Status-Quo is quite interesting.

 

If in Post #2 Oscar is somewhere near the money by saying casa will be left holding the bag if they lift the restrictions.

 

Then that is nullified by the fact (As in the latest Jabiru update) that casa might also end up holding the end of the stick with pooh on it should they leave the limitations in place and force someone into a "Statistically Less Safe Aircraft" that crashes.

 

But then the rest of the aviation world is saying that they are happy with Jabiru's and no action is required (And they appear to have the better records)

 

So, if it ends up a case of the whole thing was a beat up, then heads will have to go to neutralise the above Catch 22 and life as we know will go on.

 

 

[Russ]

The upcoming casa "spin doctors" are burning the midnight oil, to make us all feel..........they were concerned for our safety. it'll be a good read.

 

 

[jetjr]

The trouble I see is maybe Jabiru havent done much significant to alter CASA's point of view.

 

Remember its all perception so posibly requires an equally grandious recall, SB or similar

 

Incremental changes wont cut it let alone fix the issues although the list keeps growing of extra maintenance etc for older models

 

 

[coljones]

The trouble I see is maybe Jabiru havent done much significant to alter CASA's point of view.Remember its all perception so posibly requires an equally grandious recall, SB or similar

Incremental changes wont cut it let alone fix the issues although the list keeps growing of extra maintenance etc for older models

Often, the Emperor, without clothes, is reluctant to admit that he is naked, despite all the evidence.

 

 

[Oscar]

While it is a reasonable statement that 'Jabiru hasn't done much significant to alter CASA's point of view', the flip-side of that coin is: 'what COULD they have done to change CASA's point of view?

 

For Jabiru, it is a very complex situation. CASA did not identify any particular item/s it considered to be 'defective' nor specify to what standard these needed to be rectified (and remember, even for the highest-level of specification, a 100% non-failure rate is not required and nor is it possible to prove compliance even if it were).

 

So, for Jabiru to 'change' anything, there is a real, and serious, juggling act - and it's anything but trivial.

 

Firstly, there is absolutely no certainty that any change, no matter whether minor or major, cheap or expensive, will satisfy CASA - so the very first decision Jabiru has to make is: will whatever investment we have to make, be successful in having this restriction lifted? Once one starts to think about the position CASA has put itself in, the intelligent answer to that is: on the balance of probability - probably NOT. The CASA instrument makes it effectively impossible to make any calculation of ROI for any change.

 

Secondly, in the absence of any specification by CASA of changes they wish to see incorporated, for Jabiru to voluntarily embark on a programme of change/s 'under duress' as it were, of the restriction, MIGHT be taken by a litigiously-inclined owner/operator as an admission that there is an existing defect that Jabiru had resisted changing earlier. Now, all manufacturers discover problems and address them via SBs and airworthiness authorities discover problems and issue ADs; it is generally accepted, I think, that this is fairly much a part of the natural pattern of development and maintenance.

 

Rarely (but certainly not never), if something is found that is either so glaringly wrong as to support a culpable negligence claim / is an obvious candidate for a consumer claim ( 'not fit for purpose' etc.), then the march towards a Court is pretty inevitable. However, once again, the very lack of any specificity in the CASA instrument tends, I suggest, to make it extremely difficult for Jabiru to embark on any programme of change without opening itself up to possible litigation - an almost Catch-22 situation forced upon it as a consequence of the very nature of the Instrument. One would hope that this is simply an unintended consequence of the rushed and ineptly-handled action rather than a determined and considered outcome - I don't believe that CASA in fact has the corporate intelligence to plot something that devious.

 

In a somewhat perverse twist that would get both Jabiru AND CASA off the hook here, would be for Jabiru to adopt / endorse fitting of the CAE engine (at least, in LSA-registered aircraft, once the CAE engine is LSA certified). CAE can easily demonstrate to CASA the range of 'improvements' it has made, without that in any way being a cause for Jabiru to be held liable for 'failing to fix' something: 'new and improved' does NOT imply that what has been superceded was faulty, it merely says: 'this is better'. Jabiru would have, in effect, a 'clean sheet' engine to install on its factory-built aircraft; CASA has already stated that the CAE engine is NOT a 'Jabiru engine'.

 

The other possibility, I suggest, is for CASA to be forced to state what changes and level of performance it requires of Jabiru - but as things stand now, I believe that would be resisted strongly by CASA because it would, quite correctly, demonstrate that the original instrument was executed without adequate research and determination by CASA - which is exactly the position taken by RAA in the first instance. I don't see any chance of that unless by the directive of the Minister responsible for CASA, and good luck with hoping for that.

 

 

[facthunter]

They didn't leave themselves a face saving way out. Their action was reactive and lacked specificity. Also based on false data. The longer it goes on the worse it gets as they look (and are) indecisive and incompetent. Can't an affected group issue a writ of Certiorary or Mandamus ( I forget which) to require a statement of intention or even a decision? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

They didn't leave themselves a face saving way out. Their action was reactive and lacked specificity. Also based on false data. The longer it goes on the worse it gets as they look (and are) indecisive and incompetent. Can't an affected group issue a writ of Cercioraty or Mandamus ( I forget which) to require a statement of intention or even a decision? Nev

A lot of neurotic ramblings without checking the original facts FH.

The original problem was multiple forced landings over several years.

 

The story at the start of this thread is a very positive one. If the 1,000 hour cycle is consistent, not only will CASA have the evidence for a release on those aircraft and existing owners will have a bolt in solution, but the status vs Rotax will have changed dramatically, providing a lower up front aircraft cost potential, and putting Rotax in the position of having to achieve 2000 hours too approx, just to break even with Jab.

 

 

[facthunter]

Why use the term Neurotic? You lose me right there. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Cerciority? .....for what?

 

 

[facthunter]

I corrected the spelling. Sorry if any misleading . Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, but for what?

 

 

[facthunter]

To do the right thing. The PROCESS has been anything but satisfactory. You may think otherwise. That is your prerogative. Nev

 

 

[Ron5335]

Often, the Emperor, without clothes, is reluctant to admit that he is naked, despite all the evidence.

Or is it a case of

 

Give a man an inch, and he will make himself a ruler !!!!

 

 

[Oscar]

The Status-Quo is quite interesting.If in Post #2 Oscar is somewhere near the money by saying casa will be left holding the bag if they lift the restrictions.

 

Then that is nullified by the fact (Aas in the latest Jabiru update) that casa might also end up holding the end of the stick with pooh on it should they leave the limitations in place and force someone into a "Statistically Less Safe Aircraft" that crashes.

 

But then the rest of the aviation world is saying that they are happy with Jabiru's and no action is required (And they appear to have the better records)

 

So, if it ends up a case of the whole thing was a beat up, then heads will have to go to neutralise the above Catch 22 and life as we know will go on.

The Jabiru missive raises some very cogent issues.

 

However, I think that CASA is actually safe against a claim that, as a result of the restrictions, someone has 'been forced into a Statistically Less Safe Aircraft' ( though that is the de facto situation, for early solo pilots just for openers), since it can argue that nobody is 'forced' to get into ANY aircraft - it is their choice. Such a defence is likely to work in a Court - even though it is an absolute dingo of an argument because CASA would ALSO argue against the corollary proposition that getting into a Jabiru is therefore ALSO and EQUALLY my choice and the restrictions should not have been imposed on the grounds that there is a 'heightened level of risk'. That is, in essence, the very basis of the CASA action.

 

What the figures delivered by Jabiru show - and this has been appreciated by just about everyone in the rec. av community bar our own resident Foghorn Leghorn, BSC - is that there is very good statistical evidence that many other aircraft NOT powered by Jabiru engines, have a safety record demonstrating a 'level of risk' of many, many multiples over that experienced by Jabiru aircraft over a long - and I would think, statistically reliable - base period.

 

Now, here is where that leaves CASA:

 

From the statistics (and crudely, obviously) - individual aircraft will have far better than average statistics, but that is not the point: the point is that CASA singled out Jabiru-engined aircraft as having 'a heightened level of risk'. The raw statistics frankly show this is bullsh1t, you are 12 times as likely to be killed by flying in any other RAA aircraft, than in a Jabiru. Make that 16 times, if that aircraft is a Lightwing. You are 9 times as likely - in Australia - to be killed in a Cessna 172 - the world's most populous light aircraft. Unless being killed is less of a risk than enduring a forced landing - and most would likely accept that the inconvenience of an interrupted planned flight and some bruises is preferable to death - CASA has left itself HUGELY open to being sued for negligence if it does NOT impose similar or even more draconian restrictions on all aircraft with a statistically-demonstrable worse safety record than Jabiru.

 

Why? - because, by the action against Jabiru, CASA has stated there is a 'safety case' for the imposition of restrictions. That, both de facto and de jure I believe, says that IF there is a 'safety case' to impose restrictions, on Jabiru then by failing to impose at least equivalent restrictions on aircraft with statistically demonstrated worse fatality rates, CASA has been negligent in its duty of care to aviation users/'sufferers'.

 

Since CASA has used 'statistics' (albeit, such badly-assembled statistics that public exposure to then will render CASA as an object of derision) to put to trial and summarily convict Jabiru, it cannot argue that statistics are not a basis for requiring action against other brands of aircraft/engines.

 

Just look at the list of aircraft that have worse fatality statistics than Jabirus, and try to imagine the ultralight scene in this country with increasing levels of restrictions appropriate to the fatality rate using the Jabiru restrictions as the baseline.

 

To use a colourful and socially-acceptable phrase, slightly modified: CASA have pursued Jabiru into the swamp, and are now realising that they, like Jabiru are surrounded by alligators that will have no desire to differentiate from the fat CASA presence to the thin Jabiru one.

 

Or, in a less elegant but more quintessentially appropriate one: CASA has put its reproductive organ in a vyce and tightened the screw in order to 'get' Jabiru. And Jabiru - by opening the statistics for inspection - has set fire to the woodshed..

 

 

[Aldo]

So elegantly put Oscar.

 

Aldo