JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[Keith Page]

The inconsistencies in the Jabiru issue should set all alarm bells ringing.

 

Just a little think will fit the jigsaw together not a truck load of sustistics.

 

GA and RAA are two different critters and the Jab engine can not ever be compared with the continentals and Lycomings.

 

The last paragraph of post 595 from Jab-who has a lot going for it.

 

Regards.

 

KP.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

TP said "I think you might find the Rotax figures you are referring to include two strokes used in smaller aircraft; they grossly contradict the ratio from 2007 to 2012."

 

Nope those are the figures from the ATSB report from 2013 ( if I recall the date). They have made no distinction between any engine subtypes. Including jabiru subtypes.

 

So you can't gave it both ways. You can't say doesn't apply to rotates because there are old subtypes but we can use the jabiru figures even though there is while range of subtypes ( and includes at least one where the engine was highly modified by the owner before it failed)

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree the engines should be broken down by cubic capacity, or a common comparator, then compared like for like.

 

The RAA accident/incident reporting system doesn't appear to have a separate field for engine size or model, so unless the model is mentioned in the text you simply don't know what it is.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

The inconsistencies in the Jabiru issue should set all alarm bells ringing.Just a little think will fit the jigsaw together not a truck load of sustistics.

GA and RAA are two different critters and the Jab engine can not ever be compared with the continentals and Lycomings.

 

The last paragraph of post 595 from Jab-who has a lot going for it.

 

Regards.

 

KP.

The figures I quoted are for Jabiru engines in vh registered aircraft not comparing jabs to lycomings or continentals.

There is a distinct difference between failure rates depending on which airframe the engine is mounted in.

 

 

[jetjr]

Pretty sure the ATSB report didnt include the segments where most 2 stokes are used. Yes the data is weak and until that is sorted, conclusions cant be made reliably.

 

As was outlined the FAA wasnt a benchmark at all simply a method to extrapolate failure numbers from fatality reports AND based upon certificated engines not ASTM versions.

 

Anyway if Rotax 4 stroke and 2 stroke have "similar" or greater failure rate shouldnt they be limited too?

 

We are spending millions on innovation development and CASA are digging grave for two of the final aviation manufacturers in AU. Exporting successfully.

 

 

[turboplanner]

As was outlined the FAA wasnt a benchmark at all simply a method to extrapolate failure numbers from fatality reports

Mark Skidmore is on the record in Parliament House to the Senators regarding the FAA benchmark. You can play the transcript and see him saying it.

 

 

[Oscar]

RAA responded to a demand from CASA for data - and we don't know the terms of that request, though by some of the entries on the CASA list, it was very likely for ALL 'incident' reports pertaining to Jabiru aircraft over the specific period, since a heap of entries on the CASA spreadsheet have ZERO relevance to engine problems).

 

RAA was given an almost impossible deadline for the supply of data by CASA: I know for a fact that at least one member of the Board tasked with assembling the data demanded by CASA was working on it at well after 1.00 a.m. - I have emails to prove it.

 

However: it does not matter WHO supplied raw data: what matters is how that data was assembled and used by CASA. The old adage: 'lies, damned lies and statistics' applies. RAA has consistently - from the first - maintained that CASA did NOT undertake proper analysis of the raw data it had compiled and simple examination of the basic CASA spreadsheet shows this to be palpably correct.

 

Barry O'Sullivan is not a fool - indeed, far from it. If he confronted CASA with the actual spreadsheet - and it is HIGHLY likely he did - and asked them to justify its value as evidence to support its action, CASA would be so far up the proverbial creek as to have its testicles between two large bricks accelerating to conjunction at an increasing rate.

 

 

[jetjr]

Mark Skidmore is on the record in Parliament House to the Senators regarding the FAA benchmark. You can play the transcript and see him saying it.

A few pages back the link to FAA information was there, have a read, it isnt a acceptable limit and no relevance to non certificated engines - Think it was Marks advisors J Aleck that said that and hes making up stuff. A dangerous thing in that environment.

 

 

[Oscar]

Regardless of that, if any engine, Jabiru, Rotax, or anything else exceeds the FAA benchmark which CASA told the Senators they rely on, then even a result of 1.001 times the benchmark requires remedial action.

.

So: by the ATSB figures, correlated to the FAA benchmark, AT LEAST ALL Rotax, motor-vehicle converted engines (VW, Subaru, Suzuki etc.) should have been simultaneously subjected to the the same restrictions - in the name of safety. Probably even some Lycoming and Continental models..

 

Would you care to enlighten us, oh Delphic Oracle, as to why this did not happen? I, for one, will be fascinated to hear your reasoning.

 

 

[turboplanner]

The way you are telling it Oscar the information on which the board member was working well after 1 am was IT, mistakes and all, and that last minute data was what CASA relied on.

 

That begs the question "what had CASA done with the earlier data."

 

And if Barry O'Sullivan did confront CASA with the actual spreadsheet, which some people seem to have set their future lives on, then the response could have been fascinating, but I don't think it would have been CASA's testicles between the bricks.

 

Apart from that, how come a board member would be silly enough to put flat tyres and fuel exhaustions into what was clearly, that day. a very hot potato?

 

 

[turboplanner]

So: by the ATSB figures, correlated to the FAA benchmark, AT LEAST ALL Rotax, motor-vehicle converted engines (VW, Subaru, Suzuki etc.) should have been simultaneously subjected to the the same restrictions - in the name of safety. Probably even some Lycoming and Continental models..Would you care to enlighten us, oh Delphic Oracle, as to why this did not happen? I, for one, will be fascinated to hear your reasoning.

You'd grasp at any straw wouldn't you.

 

From my recollection the ATSB sample was very small and I certainly didn't give it much weight on its own, but after it had been included into the 2013 data, and 2014 data, and after any flat tyres etc. had been extracted, if the benchmark is the FAA benchmark, yes, the engines which didn't meet it would require remedial action without fear or favour and without regard to cost.

 

 

[Camel]

Let's hope that Skidmore does not have to take the rap for a mess he inherited.

Unfortunately he is part of the problem, he had a chance and did not respond or get involved. He is now the problem too. He needs to be punished as well for failing to act !

 

 

[Ron5335]

Let's hope that Skidmore does not have to take the rap for a mess he inherited.

Why Not ??? He along with just about every other newly appointed Board Member were put there last year in an effort to "Change things or the culture".

 

Here was an existing problem....... but rather than showing some gusto and get things looked at....... No..... We will just let the Dept operate the way it has been going since before we arrived.. Then !!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

[Oscar]

The way you are telling it Oscar the information on which the board member was working well after 1 am was IT, mistakes and all, and that last minute data was what CASA relied on.That begs the question "what had CASA done with the earlier data."

And if Barry O'Sullivan did confront CASA with the actual spreadsheet, which some people seem to have set their future lives on, then the response could have been fascinating, but I don't think it would have been CASA's testicles between the bricks.

 

Apart from that, how come a board member would be silly enough to put flat tyres and fuel exhaustions into what was clearly, that day. a very hot potato?

That 'last minute data' was DEMANDED by CASA. And you do not know the specifics of the demand. So don't try to deflect blame onto RAA for supplying information that they were required to supply. The RAA Board Member I referred to, has vastly more expertise than you in the technical administration of Sports Aviation, and frankly I can't be ar$ed to explain all of that to you. You and your spurious reasoning, don't matter.

 

 

[jetjr]

By TP reckoning RAA should have grounded its entire fleet some years ago based on this issue alone, all in the name of good administration and managership

 

Volunteers from, its somewhat smaller membership, would have volunteered to make sure none got airbourne

 

 

[Oscar]

Don't forget the prescriptive nature of authoritative actions and the safety of kindergartens. And the experience of Speedway Victoria.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ron, CASA is an organisation with 800 to 1,000 employees.

 

There is usually a massive resistance to change from the employees; you can see a miniature of that resistance to change even on this site.

 

Sometimes the incoming management just get rolled by the grapevine.

 

Sometimes they manager to change the culture, but this will usually take yo to five years.

 

A bit early to judge yet.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That 'last minute data' was DEMANDED by CASA. And you do not know the specifics of the demand. So don't try to deflect blame onto RAA for supplying information that they were required to supply. The RAA Board Member I referred to, has vastly more expertise than you in the technical administration of Sports Aviation, and frankly I can't be ar$ed to explain all of that to you. You and your spurious reasoning, don't matter.

Thanks for sparing me the explanation, however we are talking about a simple spreadsheet with cause of engine failure: fuel exhaustion, cause of engine failure: flat tyre and so on, in fact more than 30 basic blunders out of 46 in the one simple spread sheet! Explain that.

 

 

[Ron5335]

Turbs, I have to disagree

 

In the Senate Interview, there was No.1 and his wing man was a Legal Specialist, rather than a Tech Specialist,

 

defending their action/inactions, not a hint of "I better look into this".

 

Same Old

 

 

[turboplanner]

By TP reckoning RAA should have grounded its entire fleet some years ago based on this issue alone, all in the name of good administration and managershipVolunteers from, its somewhat smaller membership, would have volunteered to make sure none got airbourne

No need to get to the pathetic stage; I haven't done any reckoning other than on five years of data from 2007 to 2012, which as I've previously said, has never been questioned.

 

CASA have said they are relying on the FAA standard, and again and again on this forum people have almost wept that Australia isn't aligned to the FAA.......until now, when the sound of tinkling in the trouser legs is starting to be heard.

 

If the FAA benchmark was too tough, why didn't the members get the board members to relay this to CASA, and try to get an Australian Benchmark?

 

The thing about benchmarks is that they have to stand up in Court as a measurement for the defendant to successfully claim he was carrying out his duty of care, but new ones can supersede them if new information becomes available.

 

As far as what data was used in the final decision by CASA to issue the instrument, the real documents will eventually have to be tabled and they will have dates, and they will specify which period they represent and they will have corresponding emails also with dates, and given the volatile situation with the Senators in motion, anything can happen, instigated by the Senators and anything can happen, which everybody should be prepared for, instigated by the CASA responses and follow up actions - any skeleton in any cupboard is likely to be fair game. We just don't know at this stage.

 

 

[Oscar]

No, CASA is the one that has to explain that. It assembled raw data from various sources and compiled the spreadsheet. RAA vociferously ( check it on Google, Turbs) maintained that CASA had failed to analyse the data with which it was supplied competently - if at all. The Instrument - relying on the CASA spreadsheet for validity - was promulgated ( another long word with which you may have difficulty) before Skidmore came to office.

 

And the reason, Turbs , that your 'data' has never been questioned, is that it is completely unreliable. Nobody takes it seriously enough to even challenge it. Sad for you, but true.

 

And the FAA 'standard' is NOT a 'standard': it is a guideline for calculation from reports, the actual likely incidence of incidents (note spelling). It has precisely NO imprimatur for 'action' under ICAO rules.

 

Do try to keep up with reality here, Turbs.

 

 

[jetjr]

Skidmore trusts his advisors as he should be able to.

 

Not a wise descision considering history

 

Here we go again, same old arguments and rhetoric.

 

Raa were asked for details of incidents relating to jabiru aircraft, they gave it, casa added it all to their data and made dumb and far reaching action based n it. Apparantly without filtering out spurious info.

 

The senate hearings was the first time a mention of FAA was ever made and THEN its not to a relevant benchmark. How could RAA forsee them using a hurdle related to certified engines in another country. If no standards exist here then CASA can do little about it. The standard used at the time of the action was failure rate vs a competitors offering not FAA or anyone else.

 

Five years TP, the legal reform process has gone on for something like 25 years and burn billions of dollars. SFA has changed and appears safety is getting worse

 

 

[Roundsounds]

RAAus should have an incident recording system in place which allows it to produce reports based on selected fields. This type of system allows the Safety Manager to be proactive in taking appropriate action to address safety related issues. These issues might relate to a range of areas such as aircraft operations, maintenance or reliability. If such a system were in place the whole Jabiru engine problem and high fatality rate might look very different.

 

A wealth of incident data has been collected, there's no method of accessing it in place.

 

As an organisation RAAus must be able to take corrective action in relation to safety issues without CASA stepping in.

 

 

[Oscar]

Ok, several important issues here.

 

Firstly, RAA systems have been archaic, in terms of modern IT-based information retrieval capability, for many, many years. The vast majority of RAA records-keeping has - until about three years ago - been paper-based.

 

Secondly, there has not been any rigorous 'investigation' regime for incidents until very recently: at the very best, we have had summary conclusions for the cause of incidents derived by people in the field, almost all of whom have had no idea of (nor guidelines for) the information they should have been collecting and analysing. While I believe that the current Tech Manager has made very, very significant strides in this area, I also have reason to believe that investigation and analysis of incidents remains of patchy quality.

 

Thirdly, RAA has very limited power in regard to taking 'corrective action' on technical matters. It has NO power in regard to ASTM ( LSA) certified aircraft technical issues and also no power in regard to Type Certificated aircraft technical issues.

 

RAA has power in regard to Operations and the administration of Compliance with applicable standards. That is a fairly restricted window of opportunity for RAA to 'take corrective action'.

 

 

[jetjr]

Agreed, old systems were well below optimal (and not just incident reporting) hopefully being rectified. Should see some better data looking forward

 

THEN some conclusions re reliability failure rates can be taken.