JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[frank marriott]

I found it interesting today walking around the Watts Bridge breaky. Out of 25 plus aircraft, there was only one Jabiru. Another arrived as I was leaving but it was a Rotax powered one.

I don't see the the relevance Geoff as it depends where you are. SE Qld has been known for STOL type aircraft doing short trips. By way of example (and it means nothing other then location), I flew to Ayr this morning, and aircraft operating there were 5 jabiru, 1 Rotax powered Spirit, and a C172.

I don't see what your statement suggests/implies other then it depends on the area you operate in. I am aware you are a Rotax fan and I so am I, I also like the 2 common GA engines as well, I also like the Jabiru engine - I don't see what is to be gained by a pissing contest by some here. I reminds me of primary school children debating Holden V Ford back in the 70s - although some still carry on with that to the present time.

 

I just don't see the point really, it only polarises people who should IMO be making friends in the common interest of FLYING instead of promoting a Jabiru V Rotax culture. Some strong opinions come from people that do not even fly - but so be it, maybe it has a basis in the internet culture but achieves little constructive.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I don't see the the relevance Geoff as it depends where you are. SE Qld has been known for STOL type aircraft doing short trips. By way of example (and it means nothing other then location), I flew to Ayr this morning, and aircraft operating there were 5 jabiru, 1 Rotax powered Spirit, and a C172. I don't see what your statement suggests/implies other then it depends on the area you operate in. I am aware you are a Rotax fan and I so am I, I also like the 2 common GA engines as well, I also like the Jabiru engine - I don't see what is to be gained by a pissing contest by some here. I reminds me of primary school children debating Holden V Ford back in the 70s - although some still carry on with that to the present time.

 

I just don't see the point really, it only polarises people who should IMO be making friends in the common interest of FLYING instead of promoting a Jabiru V Rotax culture. Some strong opinions come from people that do not even fly - but so be it, maybe it has a basis in the internet culture but achieves little constructive.

It has nothing to do with pissing, I actually use the toilet for that not the internet.

 

Nor does it have anything to do with my preference in engines.

 

I simply commented if you had read my second post that I had noticed a decline in the numbers of Jabiru's going to the flyin's/ breakfasts that I attend.

 

Nothing more nothing less.

 

It has nothing to do with location because I am still going to the same ones I was 18 months ago.

 

It was just a comment that I thought reflected the effect of the instrument on local flyers.

 

Just for interest there was 1 aircraft with a Rotec Rotary as well.

 

There were also several GA aircraft with engine that I won't even try to guess at but the Trojan was huge.

 

So in summary as you don't seem to understand my English it implies that I have seen a decline in the number of Jabiru's in my area attending flyins in the last 12 months which is probably a direct reflection on the effect of the instrument.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Turbs the spreadsheet looks very much like it came from the CASA / ATSB weekly reports... They use the exact same cells and descriptions used here....

 

Geoff i tend to agree , we used to have one to two jabs tied down every week in our visitors area at Port Macquarie... lately its rare to see one a month...

 

 

[gandalph]

Doc, do you think there might be some causal link between the decline in Jab powered aircraft visiting strips in populated areas and the limitations CASA has imposed on Jab powered aircraft? Or am I jumping to conclusions thinking that after only 13 months we might reasonably expect to see something like you report?

 

 

[DrZoos]

I dont know Gandalph, i can only report my observation and assume the two may possibly be related..its a very obvious and significant reduction though... As jabs were by far the most prolific RAA aircraft tied down, and now they are rare...

 

 

[coljones]

Turbs the spreadsheet looks very much like it came from the CASA / ATSB weekly reports... They use the exact same cells and descriptions used here....Geoff i tend to agree , we used to have one to two jabs tied down every week in our visitors area at Port Macquarie... lately its rare to see one a month...

Effectively, we can't fly north from Prospect (Sydney) in a Jabiru. We could fly Victor 1 by first flying south to Appin and east to the coast and then flying coastal at 500/1000 feet. Or via the Blue Mountains, Rylestone, Denman, backhaul to Maitland and then up the Willy lane. But then again I think it is time my sister visited me.

 

 

[coljones]

Doc, do you think there might be some causal link between the decline in Jab powered aircraft visiting strips in populated areas and the limitations CASA has imposed on Jab powered aircraft? Or am I jumping to conclusions thinking that after only 13 months we might reasonably expect to see something like you report?

You can't fly into Bankstown in a Jabiru - per the instrument.

 

 

[JEM]

Hi Dr Z and Gandalph. Weather has been iffy on the coast lately. Maybe this is accounting for less visitations by all types?.

 

 

[jetjr]

Id suggest claims by the safety regulator that jabi u are unsafe has had a heavy toll in their flight hours.

 

Possibly its had a effect on Ultralights as a whole hours

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a kick in the guts for Jabiru & CAMit directly, and doesn't help the RAAus overall. or the rest of the movement directly and reputationally. Probably most of the longer flights were done by Jabiru's. They WERE swamping the scene. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Id suggest claims by the safety regulator that jabi u are unsafe has had a heavy toll in their flight hours.Possibly its had a effect on Ultralights as a whole hours

I don't have a problem flying a Jabiru - I do have a problem with the CASA instrument (but the weather in Sydney has been crap in January so a flyout in any direction does not guarantee a return anytime soon). It is not safety that has reduced the hours but the imposition of some rather paranoid conditions on Jabirus. Idiots!!

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's a kick in the guts for Jabiru & CAMit directly, and doesn't help the RAAus overall. or the rest of the movement directly and reputationally. Probably most of the longer flights were done by Jabiru's. They WERE swamping the scene. Nev

Well bearing in mind the Berryman v Wentworth Shire example I posted earlier and the fact that the controlling body had taken no action, if you were the person responsible in CASA (the regulator), what decision would you have made.

 

 

[facthunter]

It would be more based on TRUE stats and have a clear path to a resolution. The current action does neither. There is insufficient technical knowledge used in the decision, and no attempt to evaluate and consider the effects on individuals and the industry. It was just reactive and punitive. Nev

 

 

[coljones]

Well bearing in mind the Berryman v Wentworth Shire example I posted earlier and the fact that the controlling body had taken no action, if you were the person responsible in CASA (the regulator), what decision would you have made.

We are frequently told of judicial activism and judges turning the law on its head. Could Berryman v Wentworth Shire be another case?

 

 

[turboplanner]

It would be more based on TRUE stats and have a clear path to a resolution. The current action does neither. There is insufficient technical knowledge used in the decision, and no attempt to evaluate and consider the effects on individuals and the industry. It was just reactive and punitive. Nev

The safety issue was the regular forced landings, each of which had the potential of being a fatal. You'll remember that there was a period where we had several engine failures where the pilot simply stalled in nose first, so the good structure or otherwise of the aircraft would not have made any difference.

TRUE stats: I don't think anyone believes there were 46 genuine forced landings in one year, and I wouldn't have a problem taking Jab's reduction to 12 in 2014.

 

The five years of forced landings from February 2007 to March 2012 that I logged from RAA records averaged 6.8 per year, and on top of that would be reports to CASA, and ATSB reports (VH registered aircraft)

 

I didn't record what happened before 2007.

 

So for your true stats, and being conservative I'd suggest to you 6 forced landings per year.

 

Clear path to a resolution: As the Regulator, anything you say here can make you liable to big payouts, so you can't get involved in discussing valves or through bolts, you have to come up with something which will remove the risk of forced landings.

 

Insufficient technical knowledge used in the decision: It appears the decision was made on engine failures, which is the end result which causes the risk, and the release would also be based on this. From my experience, that is usually based on industry benchmarks, or cutting edge technology.

 

No attempt to evaluate and consider the effects on individuals and the industry: No, and not likely to be. I've given examples of the permanent shut down of the International D Line, Chrysler, Leyland trucks, and Cat truck engines. They invested a lot more money than we are talking about here.

 

So bearing all that in mind, what decision would you make?

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are frequently told of judicial activism and judges turning the law on its head. Could Berryman v Wentworth Shire be another case?

At the time it was one of the cases which turned us all on our heads, the main confusion being that the two drivers were severely intoxicated and the vehicle was unroadworthy.

However, it would have been easier to understand if the driver had been rested and with a zero blood alcohol reading, and the visibility due to rain/fog etc had been a contributing factor, and the driver had slowed for the last two curves, but missed this one because there was no sign.

 

The reason I quoted this case is because it was scrutinised over a number of years and went right to the High Court.

 

The good that came out of it was the contributory negligence decision, where if you injure yourself because you are blind drunk there is a contributory negligence factor which might reduce the damages even as far as zero.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm not going down that road, Turbs. CASA have consistently done things and made statements they have had to retract under pressure, generally from AOPA.in the past and look as if that will continue into the future. They need to change their attitude and work with the industry and get and listen to reliable advice, before they jump in and over react. They don't have the expertise to actually get things right, instead of short cutting it and going in heavy. If they can do this to Jabiru and CAMit they could just as easy close down all operations of the RAAus, with out giving any specific requirements to be addressed on the basis that there have been too many accidents, without researching the causes.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe they could, but you have access to Natural Justice through ACAT (ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal) FH, and at a very low cost. Things have changed over the past few years, probably since the AOPA days you talk about.

 

 

[Oscar]

Given that we have precedent ( i.e. a Judicial ruling) that engaging in Sport or Recreational Aviation is 'an inherently dangerous activity', drawing comparisons with other regimes of civil legislation is a complete nonsense. The CASA action is an Administrative fcuk-up of serious proportions and it is on those grounds that it will be fought - eventually. The 'Black Stump Council vs. Ma and Pa Kettle' comparison is out there with the Twin Towers conspiracy theories.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Wow, smarter than the High Court of Australia Oscar, good luck with it.

 

 

[Oscar]

Turbs, I have no doubt you are an excellent salesman of trucks and buses. But if you are considering a new career path in jurisprudence, , I seriously suggest you keep your day job.

 

 

[2tonne]

TP, you seem to be suggesting that he safety rationale for the restrictions was that there were engine failures. On that basis, why isn't there a restriction on Rotax engines?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs, I have no doubt you are an excellent salesman of trucks and buses. But if you are considering a new career path in jurisprudence, , I seriously suggest you keep your day job.

Please excuse me, I can't think of anything to say for laughing!

 

 

[turboplanner]

TP, you seem to be suggesting that he safety rationale for the restrictions was that there were engine failures. On that basis, why isn't there a restriction on Rotax engines?

The same RAA data I mentioned previously, showed only 3 Rotax failures in the five years.

As other people have said, you shouldn't compare Jab with Rotax and on the same basis You shouldn't assess Rotax against another engine which may have had one failure. We're trained to do forced landings because no one yet has a zero record. RAA should be the body assessing the risks and managing them. If they don't do it CASA has to step in. The questions I asked Facthunter show this is not an easy decision to make..

 

 

[Camel]

I didnt print anything with your name on it, i merely privided a relevant link to a public web link on a govt page...that is freely and publicly available to the entire world...if you dont like it tell CASA to remove it... A simple google search found that using the terms someone in this thread said to use...I appologise if you take offence, but its a bit rich blaming me for your name being on it...

Moderators should take note as well !

 

I suggest you remove it because you have put up my name, it no longer works as CASA made a mistake ! Now you have made a mistake ! Guess what is going to happen if you don't remove it ?

 

CASA email extract !

 

I refer to our phone conversation this morning regarding a document on CASA’s disclosure log, which was released to you in August 2015, and to the issue you have raised in respect of your surname appearing in the pdf file name/link.

 

We thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and apologise for making your personal information available on our website. After speaking with you, I immediately contacted CASA’s web team, who promptly removed your surname from the document link’s title.