DonRamsay

Turbo, that case did not turn on negligence because negligence was not considered. In any ordinary sense I thought the instructor was negligent passing up two good runways with an engine that was playing up. IIRC the decision was in line with the NSW legislation toning down the issue of negligence in dangerous activities. Essentially, the judgement said that if you want to fly in single engine aircraft you are exposing yourself to the possibility of a forced landing. Case thrown out.

In that dream there was a court case involving an instructor with a student passing on a couple of runways with a dodgy Jab engine (is that tautology?) and eventually having a forced landing that was not too pretty. And then I dreamed the student took the instructor to court and *lost* on the grounds that Rec Av is a dangerous pastime not unlike parachuting of water skiing. Now this wasn't unsuspecting passenger this was eyes wide open student who may have even signed a waiver and read the sign that says "this is a dodgy aircraft in which you fly at your own risk". Of course, I may have just imagined that dream . . .

Signed the petition gladly.

Recreational Aviation is a dangerous past time and anyone, even a student, is required to accept the risk, even the fatal risk, or stay away from aircraft.The fact that the risk with a Jab engine is even better known or at least more widely known only make plausible deniability of awareness and acceptance of the risks *less* feasible. The above might be more convincing if Spencer a Ferrier said it but it is what I believe to be the case.

True. Just filling in the lull before the storm. After CASA makes their next announcement it will, no doubt, get back on thread pretty quickly.

IFA or IVP (take your pick) allow you to actually have available on the runway for take off the engine's max hp. Even a ground adj prop is not going to go anywhere near that if it is set so as not to exceed max continuous hp in straight and level flight. ANd you can have max continuous hp for climb and whatever you like for cruise - speed or economy. IVP will set you back between $5k and $8k and add between 5kg and 9kg depending on type and whether CS or not. The weight is not an issue because what it gives you in fuel economy you can save in fuel weight. Cost is just a matter of how rich your parents are .

Bex, that is about the current price. Around $27k for the injected 912 and $23k for the 912 ULS. Interestingly, if you started with a new factory built J230 for less than $100k and the factory agreed to put in a 914 instead of the 3300, you'd have a damn good aeroplane for around $120k - a lot less than your typical Euro import. There would be a big line up for such an aircraft. And if you went with the 912 with an IVP prop you'd have 3300 performance at the operating cost of a 912. So much potential - so little potential realised :-(

Deborah, If you were to start with the cost of a new engine and work out the cost of, say, 2,000 h0urs over 10 years to a scrap value of the engine I would be amazed if a Jab engine were the lower cost per hour. If what I've read and have heard of Jabiru engines (not authoritative), you would have to include the price of two Jabiru engines and two significant overhauls plus attention every 25 hours or so. Add on the oil burned and incidentals plus ANs for through bolts and the like. Then do the same for a Rotax 912ULS. You would have the rubber replacement, a gearbox overhaul, possibly but not necessarily a sprag clutch and possibly (probably) carby overhaul. The Rotax donk in reasonable condition at the end of 2,000 hours would be worth more than $5,000 so deduct that. I don't know what a Jab engine is worth at the end of 2,00 or even 1,000 hours (twice) but you'd need to deduct that as well. No question Rotax spares are expensive and you can't do the gearbox or engine overhaul yourself. Perhaps that's the key, if you are a L2 you might with a lot of your own time be able to operate a Jab engine for a moderate cost and with acceptable reliability - I know L2s that do. But, if all your maintenance except oil and spark plug changes are done by a L2/LAME then I think you'd be in front with the Rotax. But, clearly as somebody said above, this is all off thread and we really should get back to the thing we all agree on - bagging out CASA for an unreasonable response to the Jab engine issues.

True Nev. At our last 100 hourly, we went through the 5 year total rubber replacement on our 912. It was reassuring that the rubber that came off looked as good as the rubber going on except of course for the carbies. They sell all things mechanical (excluding aero engines) on that basis nowadays and the general level of understanding of machines has dropped close to zero. Young pilots have it thumped into them that they cannot afford that attitude if they are planning on leaving the ground and have a bit more awareness but, without a few courses, they are not in a position to be trusted maintaining an aircraft engine beyond the most basic items. Obviously, I'm not talking about the bulk of RA-Aus grey-beards who do have an affinity with and some experience working on engines. But, the next generation? I wonder. How many people these days could do (or do do) a simple pad inspection let alone change on their cars? Not saying they couldn't be trained to but most have never done it or been shown how to. No, these are heritage engines not mainstream. The only people who buy them must appreciate that. Like as if you bought a T model Ford the engine is not going to have to meet 21st Century roadworthy standards (other than for glass). Not forcing you to buy but certainly restricting your options. I've made the personal decision that Jabiru motors are not for me. My risk assessment and my choice. Everyone should do that but many are just attracted by the lower up front cost and think they can manage the reliability risks. Fact is some can and some don't. It is a pity Jab don't offer the Rotax option for those that are happy to spend the money up front because for me it means I can't buy a J230 which is probably the best aircraft in Australia for general purpose touring.

Hmmm, It is hard to tell if someone is being a little "funny" in just black and white text. Just in case there was a slight tone of well meant sarcasm there Motz, we do keep our L2 advised of the rough running just in case it happens to be something more life threatening. Engine is smooth as at >5,000 rpm.

As did we :-( It is in a Tecnam Sierra and, as we've had a wing off for a couple of months replacing a couple of ribs, I'd be guessing but I think for a couple of hundred hours. It is not severe and hasn't got a lot of interest from me as I am rarely in that rev range. The carbies were balanced by a competent L2/L4 50 hours ago at the last 100 hourly.

Correct as always Nev. Except, that there is, I believe, a misconception that the Jab engine should be tolerated because the initial outlay is cheaper than the Rotax. And there is the question of "fitness for purpose". Is a Jab engine fit to power an aircraft that is flown infrequently by a relatively low hours, amateur pilot and maintained by, at best a knowledgeable L2 and at worst, by a Pilot with little or no real mechanical expertise. I personally know of evidence in the real world of some Jabiru engines performing acceptably but we don't have a lot of reliable data to back know. By the same token there is plenty of anecdotal "evidence" that Jabiru engines rarely go more than 25% into their TBO (2,000 hr) range without requiring substantial attention and that many are replaced by 500 hours. Is that OK? If a commercial product of any kind was unable to achieve 25% of the manufacturer's claimed life they would be taken to task but for some reason this doesn't seem to apply to Jabiru. If the new Rotax featured stratified direct injection and turbo boost then I would be happy to give it the "High Tech" label. I think the iS Sport Rotax is a lot less ambitious than that - but it still achieves a significant advance in efficiency and reliability, despite the added complexity. As for "knowing what is going on" the new Rotax provides a great deal of real time information for the pilot with a glass screen (Garmin/Dynon etc) and recorded data for the maintainer to review. This is like the argument we all had when EFI started to become common in the 1980s and an argument that faded when we just didn't need to work on the engine because they became so reliable even after hundreds of thousands of kms of poor operation and maintenance. As you would know, the addition of an extra digit on the odometer wasn't just due to the switch from miles to kilometres in 1974 but as a recognition that a car could last more than 99,999 miles in the old money. Fair enough. But it would seem reasonable to me that an engine with a claimed TBO of 2,000 hours should not need the heads off before 1,000 hours.

Our gearbox was overhauled at 900 hours. Our Sprag Clutch died despite the soft start at around 1200 hours possibly because of battery cables that were too light and too far from the starter motor and a battery towards the end of its life. Our 912ULS also features some rough running in the 4,500 to 4,900 range that seems to be persistent. However, this is not a rev range we use very often and easy enough to live with. Even with these significant maintenance expenditures, I estimate the Rotax as a significantly cheaper engine over 2,000 hours than would be expected from a Jabiru engine despite the differential initial outlay. This is even more likely if all repairs and maintenance checks are done by a L2 and costed accordingly. I've recently flown with the new, improved, 912iS Sport and it is an absolute delight. Starts easily, reliably with no magic and runs at all rev ranges as smooth as silk. I've read through the maintenance manual and servicing is a very simple affair with no carbies to balance and diagnostic read-outs from the ECU. Yes, you pay a lot for it and some competition with Rotax would be very beneficial.

To be fair, the independent audit was commissioned by Honda and they reported the defects exposed by the report. Many of the serious issues were already known to the authorities because Honda reported them out side the EWR system or were known to the authorities by their own systems. But, I agree any information provided from Jabiru may be of questionable value because of the widely commented practice of Jabiru "repelling borders" - many who report that their is a problem with their Jabiru engine are accused of being a poor operator or maintainer or both. This could be a reason why Jabiru defects are not reported to Jabiru or to RA-Aus or CASA.

RA-Aus might be happy that CASA is taking action but perhaps they are concerned that it is taking too much action? Not quite the same as playing both sides of the street.

Col, I don't know for sure what they mean by movements but I'm guessing they are working off landings reported for Rego renewals.

I am aware of it but don't understand how it fits with the CAOs. Not a bad idea. The no changes unless approved by the factory is not a sensible rule. It gives too much monopoly power to the LSA manufacturer to only use their replacement parts. It also does not allow for genuine improvements. A competent Aviation Engineer should be able to approve these changes as they can for the type certified aircraft.

And if a bankrupt Jabiru did bring down RA-Aus then CASA would have some interesting options. They could start funding RA-Aus for the fair value of work RA-Aus does for CASA or they could allow RA-Aus to fold and require RA-Aus pilots to convert to an RPL. That would be well received by many in GA both flying schools and LAMEs. It would put some pressure on CASA to come up with a more realistic Drivers Licence Medical as many in RA-Aus, especially former defectors from GA would not be able to pass the current CASA DL Medical.

The J170D is airworthiness certified LSA so the answer is NO, you can only put a Rotax in it with the permission of Jabiru - wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that approval. It gets tricky after that because for it to be 19 registered, don't you have to have built 51%? Pretty hard to claim for a factory built. Recently we needed to replace the prop on our LSA. We didn't want to put the Tonini back on and sought permission from Tecnam to fit a Bolly. We got the permission within 24 hours! This is a common change and both Tecnam and Rotax were very happy for the change.

I can't say it for a fact but I believe that CASA has had serious concerns with Jabiru for more than 12 months and has been in discussions with them. I've also heard that RA-Aus gets a similar response from Jabiru as do most of their customers. This attitude is resplendent again in Jabiru's FB page - not our fault, others out to get us, sink the slipper into CASA.

For an LSA aircraft with a Special LSA Certificate of Airworthiness, like the J170 and J230, you can not change anything without the permission of the Factory. For a type certified aircraft you can work with a CASA approved engineer to put a different engine in. Has been done with a Rotax into a J160 and I can't imagine it would be very hard to get a CAMit engine approved for a type certified J160.

In my view somebody had to act. This will be hard on all the people you mention but hopefully only in the short term with a real positive outcome for the longer term for Jabiru and their customers. RA-Aus and CASA were right to take this action to bring it to a head. Rod Stiff's response on FB gives a clue as to how cooperative a mood he's been in for the last 25 years. The time has come to make a quantum leap in the reliability of Jabiru engines because they are so widely used in FTFs. CAMit have done a great deal of investigation and redesign and that is exactly what Jabiru should have been doing instead of blaming the maintainers and operators. A quick fix is available in the CAMit engine mods and could see a situation where this draft is NEVER brought into action. And as others have said a Rotax firewall forward would not take long to get to market if Jabiru were prepared to look and see what has already been done.

A firm like Slater & Gordon would only take on an expensive class action against Jabiru if they believed Jabiru (or its insurers) had deep pockets. I would be amazed if there were deep pockets at Jabiru.

No.

I learned to fly on that J160 and cancelled a sol nav exercise the day before the 4th Jab engine died in the sky. I flew it again a few months later with the 100hp Rotax and it was bloody brilliant. Could only be done because it was type certified. Can't do that with an SLSA Jab like the 230 or 170 unless you are prepared to lose the 24 rego.