Downunder Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Jabiru - CASA..... in a mexican standoff? None can move or manoeuvre ...... Now I see what point anarchists are trying to make..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 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.. Fatality stats are an issue but failure rates are more important. The failure of an engine will leave the PIC to manage the situation all the way down to the ground and will tax their ability. It would be unfair to hand an inexperienced PIC a situation that may be beyond their capability, even with the best crashcage in the business. Not all Jabiru engines power Jabiru airframes, not all Jabiru engines are piloted by PICs with high hours and extensive training, not all Jabiru engines fail in a perfect place (some might even fail at the end of a strip adjacent to a 12 lane expressway with a hospital and high school and a beach at the end. Not all Jabiru engines are maintained by experts (some Jabiru engines are maintained by people who are not fit to put petrol in the tanks). The most useful statistic to me, BEFORE any other is quoted, is the FAILURE RATE PER HOUR or the FAILURE RATE PER MOVEMENT (both subject to fudgeing). Deaths only matter when you want to examine Airframe, competency, environmental and other issues which com into play, almost, independently to engine failure. It would, therefore, be kind of you if you redid your stats based on engine failures alone (running out of petrol is not a failure, running out of oil is but not if the PIC forgot to check) Cheers Col 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Col: they are not MY statistics, they are - as referenced by Jabiru - ATSB statistics. I don't agree that 'engine failure' rates are per se the correct measure of 'safety'. Engine failure is a cause of an incident/accident - but the result of that accident is the measure of 'safety'. If you are, statistically, 16 times more likely to die after having taken off in a Lightwing than after having taken off in a Jabiru, does it matter whether your death results from an engine failure or any other factor? Your are still bloody well DEAD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Col: they are not MY statistics, they are - as referenced by Jabiru - ATSB statistics.I don't agree that 'engine failure' rates are per se the correct measure of 'safety'. Engine failure is a cause of an incident/accident - but the result of that accident is the measure of 'safety'. If you are, statistically, 16 times more likely to die after having taken off in a Lightwing than after having taken off in a Jabiru, does it matter whether your death results from an engine failure or any other factor? Your are still bloody well DEAD. In which case you would ground the Lightwing Airframe not the Rotax engine - unless it was failures in the Rotax 2 stroke engines - in which case replacing the Rotax with a Jabiru engine would be a really good idea. The CASA restriction is all about the engine independant of the airframe. It is really good that Jabiru has a great airframe (and an engine) that I, personally, am happy to fly in. An ordinary engine in the wrong plane, in the wrong place, in the wrong hands is not a good idea. A good engine under the same circumstances can be a life saver which is why we should be focussing, in the current situation, on just the engine to ensure that it is being dealt a fair deck and not being raped by dodgy stats by those with agendas. Concentrating just on deaths is not fair to the Jabiru plane and engine nor to the PIC and his passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 And that is why I took the Jabiru engine out of my aircraft and replaced it with a Rotax. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 This "saga" has rolled on for approx 12 mths, comments have abound..............yet, NOTHING has eventuated in a legal stoush. If............casa were truly ( like a rabbit, blinded by the headlights )...........helpless..........why have we not heard of these legal firms that operate " no win, no fee " attacking the jugular vein of casa. Why have we heard jack sh!t from any media. I'm thinking that just maybe, "they" are on safe grounds here....( casa ) just sayin........ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 This "saga" has rolled on for approx 12 mths, comments have abound..............yet, NOTHING has eventuated in a legal stoush. If............casa were truly ( like a rabbit, blinded by the headlights )...........helpless..........why have we not heard of these legal firms that operate " no win, no fee " attacking the jugular vein of casa. Why have we heard jack sh!t from any media. I'm thinking that just maybe, "they" are on safe grounds here....( casa )just sayin........ Ah don't be sucked in by "No Win No Fee". There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially in law. In the fine print it says "No Win - We don't charge you a fee but you still have to pay all awards against you by the courts, all your opponents costs awarded against you, and you may have other costs which you still have to pay." Many of these type legal firms won't take your case unless the adversary is someone with just enough funds to cover the award (or out of court settlement) so they can't hire a better lawyer, or only if the case is absolute open and shut so there is no hope of lost fees. So the fact no one has taken on the endless deep pockets of CASA with the unending supply of QC's, SC's and appeals processes is no surprise at all. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Because if you do win, you still have to deal with them as "the authority" and they have the ability to make things difficult so you try to play ball. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 To do the right thing. The PROCESS has been anything but satisfactory. You may think otherwise. That is your prerogative. Nev FH, I know that you have grasped the "reversal" effect as Australian has moved from Prescriptive legislation, where the liability rested with the Government to Non-Prescriptive legislation where the liability rests with the Public, because I've seen it in a few of your posts. Some people have not grasped the difference. CASA's primary Duty of Care is to aviation safety, so if they become aware of a safety issue they can act. You'll recall Dafydd Llewellyn talking about the CASA technical people, some of considerable experience, being offloaded. That's because they don't do technical any more, they issue instructions for the people directly related to the issue to do the technical work which will return the product to a safe standard. Almost all the hypotheticals I've seen on this forum would have been great in the Prescriptive days, but we are living in today's world, and we know, or ought to know our duty of care. I'm satisfied with the process where an official can go to CASA and say "We want you to do something about this because that is happening and posing a risk, and here are our examples", and is responsible for the veracity of the examples, and CASA acts on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldo Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 FH, I know that you have grasped the "reversal" effect as Australian has moved from Prescriptive legislation, where the liability rested with the Government to Non-Prescriptive legislation where the liability rests with the Public, because I've seen it in a few of your posts.Some people have not grasped the difference. CASA's primary Duty of Care is to aviation safety, so if they become aware of a safety issue they can act. You'll recall Dafydd Llewellyn talking about the CASA technical people, some of considerable experience, being offloaded. That's because they don't do technical any more, they issue instructions for the people directly related to the issue to do the technical work which will return the product to a safe standard. Almost all the hypotheticals I've seen on this forum would have been great in the Prescriptive days, but we are living in today's world, and we know, or ought to know our duty of care. I'm satisfied with the process where an official can go to CASA and say "We want you to do something about this because that is happening and posing a risk, and here are our examples", and is responsible for the veracity of the examples, and CASA acts on that. Turbo Agree with what you are saying but they still have to determine before they act if it is just a malicious act by a minority with an axe to grind which in this case I believe was the case. Some pretty high profile people within the RA community had direct access with the previous administrators of RA now with CASA to drive this agenda sadly one of them is no longer with us. As with all things if the minority complain long and loud enough and the majority just continue on their merry way the minority will get action. I along with a lot of other people have no problem with our Jabirus mine is maintained by a LAME and every AD, SB is actioned but I still have to comply with this rediculuous action placed on one of the safest aircraft on the market. Mine could have an engine failure tomorrow ( as could any aircraft engine) and I may die but that is a risk I manage to the best of my ability. Aldo 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 TurboAgree with what you are saying but they still have to determine before they act if it is just a malicious act by a minority with an axe to grind which in this case I believe was the case. Some pretty high profile people within the RA community had direct access with the previous administrators of RA now with CASA to drive this agenda sadly one of them is no longer with us. As with all things if the minority complain long and loud enough and the majority just continue on their merry way the minority will get action.Aldo Which is a good reason why I have been saying call up CASA and find out who asked for the action and what evidence they provided to CASA to support it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornis Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 So. The reality-deniers out in force. What, a dozen or so in the whole of Australia? The latest: A neighbouring Jabiru owner* came into the hangar to tell my co-operator: "Jabiru engines are fine if you don't fcuk around with them and yours has been fcuked with." No guesses where that comment came from. The Big Chief Denier. The one who said when I rang to question flywheel bolt failure: "Have a look and if you see movement put some Araldite around the heads. Then you'll be okay to fly across that strait of yours." Yep. Verbatim. Araldite. When I asked about flying the Tasman Sea, the phone went dead. Let's face it. Jabiru sometimes get it right -- getting rid of the aluminium in the flywheel sandwich -- but not until they've tried everything else first. Still struggling to disguise head embedment with hydraulic lifters and introducing a whole new chapter of disasters. The latest 'going off half-c0ck' answer is double springs. Or something. What's next? Red herrings? It's a miracle no one has been killed behind a Jabiru engine. Perhaps the devil looks after his own, as my old gran used to say... *The fact you can turn his prop with two fingers seems to have escaped his attention. Doesn't matter; he hasn't flown it for five or six years. Like the Jabiru opposite. Owner bought a new Tecnam 2008, so it just sits there. Safe at last... I look forward to seeing an epistle to the apostles from Oscar, which I will thoroughly enjoy not reading. You're a gasbag, Oscar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 And the persistent dribble starts again 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 TP the question has been asked by everybody, emails, FOI, RAA and personal cals Jabiru and RAA have been open in their requests and lack of response on the issue Only FOI has resulted anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 i have been busy and haven't kept across this, but just in case, I presume most of you have seen this ?? https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/disclosure-log https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/f15_1676.pdf?v=1454281836 I would suggest its not hard to get... Simply send an email to [email protected] but be very specific about what you want eg: Seeking all internal and external ingoing and outgoing emails, letters, faxes, memos, phone memos , text messages, and any other form of correspondence or record of correspondence , minutes of meetings or notes on meetings about the restrictions relating to engine failures placed on Jabiru aircraft. Please include all documents from the first moment CASA became aware of the issue to the current date. Specifically also seeking documents on who made the initial complaint, when it was made, what evidence they used. Please include all CASA documents of internal communication on the issue as we are trying to establish when and why decisions where made, by who and what data was used to make decisions. Also seeking information on current status and any discussions being held any internal communications memos, emails, letters in relation to how or when the restrictions might be reduced or eliminated. Specifically also seeking all correspondence between CASA and CASA legal department on the issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 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. Have you ever looked further into this situation or moved the scenario about endeavouring to discover something different. This new "New CASA tactic", have you considered it may be a retaliatory action on their behalf. Regards,KP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Page Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Which is a good reason why I have been saying call up CASA and find out who asked for the action and what evidence they provided to CASA to support it. "They" have names :- Find out who authorised what? Who provided what to CASA? Go to the top that includes the minister and his advisors, yep go through the RAAus office. If anyone does that I thing there will be a lot of scrambling for cover, as there are a lot hiding behind organisation banners and we are not getting the truth. As I said in another post "retaliatory action". Regards,KP. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Keith - could you give me a bit more of a clue about your thoughts of the Instrument being 'a retaliatory action'? It's certainly a possibility and one that might make a great deal of sense, but I'm not sure what 'action/s' might have contributed to this 'reaction' on CASA's part. I am most definitely interested in seeing if there is a credible argument here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 IF there was any possibility it was, there should be hell to pay. I think they rushed in, in something like a rush of zeolotry and don't know where to go from there. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Keith, retaliatory action tends to mean a tit for tat response, did you mean "responsive action"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 TP the question has been asked by everybody, emails, FOI, RAA and personal calsJabiru and RAA have been open in their requests and lack of response on the issue Only FOI has resulted anything. Probably the wrong questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 How about one or 2 here ( that exhibit knowing what to do ), get your heads together, form the required request/s...........and get these "elusive" FACTS. I would..........if i knew how. ( how matters have just flip flopped around for 12mths....or more, bewilds me ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 The last FOI was met with resistance from several directions. It took several attempts, cost momey and refernce to complaints officers to get the onformation. Was significant effort with detailed legal skills needed. Its not simple like those here imdicate. If any of the parties refuse basically it doesnt happen The claim of retaliation is how Jabiru and Rod feel. Apparantly there ws a series of this type of action proposed when aircraft being developed and LSA phase. The simplest action would be that all Jab engines be upgraded to latest spec to remove restrictions. They havent done this. Wouldnt bet it isnt an end game position. Nev is correct, many involved, including Jabiru, id expect, are concerned re long term dealings with a known retaliatory regulator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Thanks for your advice Jet, nothing to do with what I've been talking about though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Wasnt advice and certainly not you, you know it all already Still interested why you participate in topics where you have little to offer or are involved in 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now