JABIRU 2016 UPDATE

[turboplanner]

Great work Aro, I'll spend some time studying the list; thanks.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Aro, I just ran the Cessna 152 batch with this prelim result.

 

Because we all talk about engine failure as when the engine stops rather than when a component fails, I've used the term PF for Primary Fault. That could still be a maintenance fail rather than a manufacturing fail.

 

This is for the 5 years 2007 to 2012

 

Primary engine fault 2

 

Ancillary Item 3

 

Carb Ice 1

 

Fuel Contamination 1

 

Fuel - water

 

Power Loss 14

 

Rough Running 8

 

Stopped 7

 

Undetermined 1

 

I'll go to the individual reports to see if any primary engine faults come up in the detailed report, but Power Loss, Rough Running and stopped can be carb ice, plugs, carb settings etc. The 182s seem to have a little more detail on this.

 

These are certainly not final figures until each case is checked in detail.

 

 

[facthunter]

Lonely when you are logical isn't it?

 

You need a rate.. Ie per flight cycle, per hour in the air, per take off, and an analysis of type of malfunction.. Does a fault detected at engine run up count as a failure?

 

Primary cause being a failure of the engine due to malfunction of itself ... Not a propeller or a fuel pump or no fuel or contaminated fuel or carb ice (which could be controlled with the existing system) or a burst oil hose, magneto failure etc IF those components generally are common to most aero engines. If it was peculiar to the said engine include it but make a special note of the nature of the failure, in the summary. IF you are honest about it you will get a useful set of figures..

 

Always remember ...." there are Lies. Damned Lies and Statistics" . If you select your statistics, you can prove anything. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Lonely when you are logical isn't it?You need a rate.. Ie per flight cycle, per hour in the air, per take off, and an analysis of type of malfunction..

The numbers are low; if I get the basics right we will know that of the people flying 152s over that five years x number force landed due to an internal engine fault.

That will give you a first gut feel on whether the numbers are significant or not.

 

With the basic figures setablished, then you can spreadsheet them against hours flown, number of aircraft, training vs cross country - any parameter you want to include.

 

Does a fault detected at engine run up count as a failure?

The logic I've been using is if a fault is found on the ground (say a cracked piston) where the aircraft could not have taken off and completed a flight without a forced landing it should count. (see your primary failure comment)

 

Primary cause being a failure of the engine due to malfunction of itself ... Not a propeller or a fuel pump or no fuel or contaminated fuel or carb ice (which could be controlled with the existing system) or a burst oil hose, magneto failure etc IF those components generally are common to most aero engines. If it was peculiar to the said engine include it but make a special note of the nature of the failure, in the summary. IF you are honest about it you will get a useful set of figures..

Agree we are really only interested in the engine itself, so I've listed exhaust pipe cracks, magneto failures, spark plugs (which completely stopped one engine), contamination in carburettor, water in fuel as "Ancillary", or separate.

 

Always remember ...." there are Lies. Damned Lies and Statistics" . If you select your statistics, you can prove anything. Nev

Agreed

It's a work in progress, agree with what you're saying.

 

On the 152 chart ATSB only logged two failures, both failed cylinder. The 172 figures are more illuminating, specifying faulty plugs, mixture settings etc.

 

Not sure yet if ATSB protocol is to specify a mechanical fault in these brief summary reports, or just forget about the actual cause of the rough running/stopping/power loss, so I'll go to each detailed report.

 

As you will appreciate, that will take some time.

 

A lot of the rough running resulted in successful landings, so probably a lot of carb ice, and that was the most significant thing to me so far, particularly in the 172s (which I haven't spreadsheeted yet). I know I'm going to be a lot more alert about climate conditions and carb heat use than I've been in the past after reading case after case of rough running or power loss followed by an uneventful, but quick, landing and then nothing found in the post landing analysis.

 

 

[Spooks]

There was talk of Jabiru compared to Rotax regarding reliability on the BMAA (similar to RA-Aus) forum a few years ago.

 

Thought this was an interesting post

 

"If a Rotax engine overheats, they say it's not the engine's fault but the installation. If you look back through correspondence on here, you'll find simlar: Rotax 912s shedding oil pipes, 912s cracking their engine mounts, etc. if a similar thing happens to a Jabiru then it's said to be the engine's fault.

 

Reminds me of the Boeing/Airbus rivalry... or PC/Mac rivalry. It comes down to the tribalism we indulge in within our sport.

 

I never say my engine's good - don't want it to get ideas above its station and take a rest when I need it.

 

All aero engines need proper care and attention if you want reliability.

 

We still teach that uncertified, amateur-maintained engines can fail at any time without prior warning."

 

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&p=1&m=100093

 

 

[facthunter]

So can professionally maintained ones. If it's your own you try harder.

 

Turbo a run up is part of the procedures we adopt as standard. Most problems are magneto moisture, and leaded plugs. If an item is in common use and not made by the manufacturer to HIS spec , it shouldn't count if it's common. It's not an open and shut thing. The Bing Carburettor is not aircraft standard, and there's 2 of them on a Rotax. One caused a complete engine failure in the states on a Jabiru.Nev

 

 

[Keith Page]

There was talk of Jabiru compared to Rotax regarding reliability on the BMAA (similar to RA-Aus) forum a few years ago.Thought this was an interesting post

 

"If a Rotax engine overheats, they say it's not the engine's fault but the installation. If you look back through correspondence on here, you'll find simlar: Rotax 912s shedding oil pipes, 912s cracking their engine mounts, etc. if a similar thing happens to a Jabiru then it's said to be the engine's fault.

 

Reminds me of the Boeing/Airbus rivalry... or PC/Mac rivalry. It comes down to the tribalism we indulge in within our sport.

 

I never say my engine's good - don't want it to get ideas above its station and take a rest when I need it.

 

All aero engines need proper care and attention if you want reliability.

 

We still teach that uncertified, amateur-maintained engines can fail at any time without prior warning."

 

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&p=1&m=100093

Good one, Spooks. You forgot the crank shaft issues.

KP

 

 

[DrZoos]

Had a mate cook a rotax this week...we are tearing the heads of in an hour or so to send to flood for hardness testing. You could easily cook my Rotax in the Alpi as its a tightly cowled little thing that doesnt like having its nose high for too long... carefully managed its not an issue, but on hot days wtih high loads it needs to be step climbed or it too would cook and fail.

 

 

[facthunter]

There has been a lot of myth about the Rotax. One being it will run OK without coolant. It may go for a bit longer than some , but since it can overheat with coolant in it, It won't run with none will it? Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

Surely a failed re drive is an "engine" problem in Rotax, others dont have them. Seen a couple go unreported as it was found and repaired after landing.

 

Maybe if your isolating problems to ignore ancillaries you'll end up that there are generally very few engine failures., You're also analysing symptoms not causes. A few things can cause say overheating and therefore seizure or head cracking.

 

These ancillaries are part of the power plant and if they play up can stop the noise

 

 

[Geoff13]

I think you have just shown up the biggest failing of the instrument as I see it.

 

The potential for people to stop reporting because of the fear of unfair reprisals.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Geoff thats the entire problem with CASA's big stick , ban everything approach...

 

I have heard repeatedly of what seem to be extremely reliable stories from multiple very reliable people of unnamed things like people who are in control of rather large items with lots of lives on board ...who seek medical treatment for cash in Australia from medical professionals not at work or who seek treatment overseas simply so they can avoid scrutiny and unwanted headaches from organisations who do things exactly like CASA... These are not isolated cases... the CASA big stick approach simply forces people to find ways to hide what really should be reported and dealt with. I have no personal knowledge of any person who has breached any rule law or similar... But i have been reliably told it does occur on mass with regularity ...i cant remember who told me or when though... CASA has me so scared that i have lost all recollection of the details of these events other than Im sure they possibly did occur...

 

Last time i made a post like this i got a horrendous phone call afterwards... so this time im not so certain about anything...

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think you have just shown up the biggest failing of the instrument as I see it.The potential for people to stop reporting because of the fear of unfair reprisals.

LOL, people have avoided reporting since the beginning of aviation, just read Clyde Fenton's book; he did some outrageous things and virtually spent his career with DCA on his tail.

CASA's predecessors had a policy that if you reported a breach of regulations to them you would not be prosecuted. So if you had a fuel exhaustion it was smarter to report it than wait until a mechanical analysis showed it.

 

In my opinion that worked very well as a motivator for the majority of people; it would still work today with engine failures etc.

 

I went looking for the clause a few months ago but didn't find in an hour or so's search. Maybe someone could have a look for it.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Surely a failed re drive is an "engine" problem in Rotax, others dont have them. Seen a couple go unreported as it was found and repaired after landing.Maybe if your isolating problems to ignore ancillaries you'll end up that there are generally very few engine failures.

In my study of the 5 year RAA data on Jabs, I disregarded ancillary items, and engine fails from flooding carbies, spark plugs dropping out, fuel exhaustions, contaminated fuel etc, so I'm doing the same now to get a direct comparison.

Redrives are ancillary, but if there was a run on redrive failures, its easy to do a study on redrives only.

 

You're also analysing symptoms not causes. A few things can cause say overheating and therefore seizure or head cracking.

This has been mentioned a number of times, and is not relevent to the CASA action.

A story on the Victorian Police site about a snake which go into the Carrum Downs Police Station illustrates both holistic risk management, and why the actual cause is someone else's problem.

 

It was a feel good story and the Sergeant chose to outline his risk management policy in dealing with the snake.

 

He said "We assessed the risk", and then went on in a humorous story, which more of less was - The risk was high, the staff were totally isolated from the threat, so that there was zero risk of someone getting bitten.

 

That's the equivalent of my holistic risk suggestion of grounding all aircraft.

 

The action he took to remove the risk was to phone a snake catcher; it was the snake catcher's job to identify the cause of the symptom of the risk, and he dealt with it by removing the snake.

 

If someone had come in, just after the Sergeant had closed the door and said "No, No NO - we can't do anything until we find the CAUSE - whether the snake was hungry, or p!ssed off with something his mother said, we have to find the CAUSE", he probably would have been tased.

 

 

[gandalph]

Possibly, Turbs, but if the snake catcher had been a CASA acting Section Head, then all of that breed of snakes would have been banned indefinitely.

 

 

[turboplanner]

LOL, people have avoided reporting since the beginning of aviation, just read Clyde Fenton's book; he did some outrageous things and virtually spent his career with DCA on his tail.CASA's predecessors had a policy that if you reported a breach of regulations to them you would not be prosecuted. So if you had a fuel exhaustion it was smarter to report it than wait until a mechanical analysis showed it.

In my opinion that worked very well as a motivator for the majority of people; it would still work today with engine failures etc.

 

I went looking for the clause a few months ago but didn't find in an hour or so's search. Maybe someone could have a look for it.

Found it: https://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary/asrs/

 

 

[DrZoos]

"Reporters submitting eligible reports can claim protection from administrative action by CASA, in accordance with section 30DO of the Civil Aviation Act 1988, once every five years."

 

Only once per 5 years - doesnt exactly inspire you to wnat to use your one and only get out of jail free card!

 

 

[facthunter]

A whistle blower with a whistle that only blows once every five years. Another absurdity. You couldn't make this stuff up. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

A whistle blower with a whistle that only blows once every five years. Another absurdity. You couldn't make this stuff up. Nev

This is not the evil CASA, it's ATSB exempting you from CASA.

It's not whistle blowing; you are only reporting your own infraction.

 

You might use it if you got lost, fuel exhaustion, airspace infraction etc.

 

It used to be the backbone of MacArthur Job's Air Safety Digest and produced some of the best lessons.

 

If you have to use it more than once every five years, you're a dill.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There are many symptoms such as dizziness, sleepiness, chest pains that an ordinary person might seek advice for, but a pilot will think twice and hope they go away. The result is exactly opposite what is intended by the regulator and safety is adversely affected, not to mention the personal risk to the individual which is far higher from the medical matter than from its potential consequence to flight safety. The present system is absurd.

 

Not that I can remember being told of any specific examples. Or if I was told, it was by people whose names I didn't know.

 

 

[facthunter]

Turbo.. One pilot might do 5,000 hours in that time. Another, who post putters around the local field, less than 100. Nothing to do with being a DILL. Where the act is deliberate, through making a habit of taking short cuts or pushing the boundaries to over the listed figures or gross negligence involved, one would wonder HOW the authority could justify NOT taking action if a repetition of the type of behaviour could not be guaranteed against. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Just the way it is FH, same as a semi trailer driver who does 250,000 km/yr vs granma who does 3,000 - the penalties and points don't change.

 

Recreational pilots can be grateful for the system as it is; I wouldn't want it taken out.

 

 

[facthunter]

Better than nothing , is not the ultimate situation. Can always be improved, Nev

 

 

[DrZoos]

"Just the way it is" doenst make it right, good or acceptable...

 

 

[facthunter]

Of course you can end up losing what you have, (or thought you had) Does anyone feel that has already happened? Nev