01rmb

Depending on the outcome of the ATSB light sport engine review, CASA could consider expanding restrictions to all RA-Aus self serviced aircraft given the lower engine failures or malfunctions (particularly serious incidents) of VH registered aircraft compared to RA-Aus fleet. Using the 'not as good as Rotax' measure LAME serviced aircraft (including Jabiru's) outperformed everything. Especially considering the rate below for RA-Aus aircraft includes aircraft serviced by L2s and LAMEs, so what would it look like if you separated those aircraft serviced by owners from the total RA-Aus figures, especially on the number of serious incidents. Going further, a possible outcome is, if there are 'enough' failures of other light sport aircraft engines (in CASA's opinion), that the restrictions (in some form) gets expanded across the whole RA-Aus fleet with CASA claiming that it is necessary because LSA as a whole is not as reliable as GA. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107.aspx

I am still keen to know what CASA are looking for to cancel the restrictions. If you don't state what it is you are looking for as an outcome then it will never be met. After 6 months CASA still can't say what it is that they are looking for Jabiru to achieve to prove one way or another that the engines are reliable or not so they just extend it for another 12 months. Just state what it is that Jabiru has to do to prove themselves and Jabiru can then either meet it or not. If it is a full retest of the engine then say so - Jabiru can then do it and if it passes then there is no more argument and the restriction should be cancelled. I don't know how Jabiru can demonstrate they have actually solved any/all problems and 'blame' any failures on poor maintenance or pilot handling for any failures. Even if Jabiru were to do a full retest I would not have thought CASA would just concede. They could still argue that the tests are not reflective of real world usage and prove nothing because there have been failures. Are CASA just dragging it out, hoping that there will be enough failures so they can say 'I told you so'...

I have spent 20 years involved in another high risk recreational activity - deep wreck diving on rebreathers using mixed gases. A number of people I knew personally and a large number I knew from internet forums have died over this period. This is very similar to the recreational aviation world where month on month there has been another death and another group/personal soul search of what happened and how it could have been avoided. Typically with a lot of 'it would never happen to me'. Several years ago there was survey in the technical diving world that asked would you dive if you had a problem with one of your redundant systems - and the failure of this component in itself was not going to kill you. Of the people who said they would still dive - over 80% of them were dead within 7 years. These were very experienced and capable people but in saying they would still dive with a known problem highlighted the fact that they were more willing to take risks and it was taking one risk too many that eventually killed them. So, would you fly if everything was not perfect or you are not comfortable with the number of small risks? Weather a little bit cloudy with potential to close in; wind a little bit strong/variable or cross winds at aircraft/personal limits - now and several hours later when you get to your location; last light cutting it a bit fine; engine running not quite right; last service several months ago; fuel been sitting in the wing for a few weeks; amount of fuel a bit close to the limit needed for the flight; aircraft loaded a little heavier than manufacturers specification - or even just heavier than normal; feeling a little weary from a cold or lack of sleep; feeling distracted by events at home/work; one beer too many the previous night; taking medication - prescription or over the counter; flight longer than normal; not flown for a few weeks; aircraft not used for a few weeks; different aircraft than normally used; new destination airfield; time constraints that must be met; feeling rushed getting to the airfield or getting airborne; too complacent with check lists or pre flight planning; keep trying to land rather than go ahead and try again; or any number of other risk factors that on their own may not be a problem but when compounded could become a major problem. Call it human factors, if your personal risk management strategy is such that you will call it a day and leave your aircraft in the hangar until you can fix the problem or the conditions are better then you are going to stand more chance of living and not have your decisions discussed on an internet forum such as this one. It is not going to prevent all deaths but taking the time to consider the risks and avoiding the 'she'll be right - I can handle it' attitude, will lead to a reduction in the number of 'collision with terrain' epitaphs on the last entry in the log book. Remember flying is a hobby - we can always come back next week but only if we don't die today.

Ethanol but not petrol will mix with water so to determine if ethanol is present in the petrol do the following: In a long thin bottle, make a thin permanent line about a quarter of the way from the bottom. Fill with water to this line, then fill to the top with petrol. Shake, and let it stand. If the water is now above the line there is ethanol present in the petrol. A real problem with ethanol fuels are that they absorb water from the atmosphere. This is a real problem for boats with obvious quantities of water around or aircraft in high humidity environments. Left for any time in a vented tank the ethanol in the fuel will suck up water like a sponge resulting in engines trying to run on water. Also, it is basically a solvent that will eat away at any seals or fuel lines. All bad news and has no part in anything I use.

It looks like an issue with this sort of hub although not sure if restricted to just Jabiru. I have seen a hub made by Sensenich (with a Sensenich prop) that had come off a Jabiru (don't know if it was a 4 or 6 cylinder engine) that had two large cracks that had propagated from the markings for adjusting the pitch. It radiated out on both sides from the centre full depth of the hub. If it had not been picked up it would have definitely caused the prop to come free.

Nice feature from the latest release from Avplan for those that use it for EFB. Quote below is from their latest release notes. Today we are introducing AvPlan Live! AvPlan Live brings live flight tracking to AvPlan EFB. When enabled, your devices will automatically send position reports via the internet every 15 seconds. This is a free service for all AvPlan EFB subscribers. These position reports are extremely light weight and when combined with a good coverage cellular network (Telstra in Australia for example) will enable your aircraft to be tracked with very good accuracy. The amount of data sent by your device is also very small – around 30 KB per hour while in flight. You do not need to have submitted a flight plan either, the service will work if you have a flight plan in the system or not. In Australia, soon you will be able to submit notification that you are using this service, and AMSA will be able to pull up details of your last known location if you happen to not arrive at your destination and a search is initiated. This will save a lot of time if a search is commenced and will ensure you are located sooner than before. When you share your flight plan via Twitter or Facebook, others can view your flight plan, current location and ground track. If you do not share your plan via these mechanisms, then your current location not viewable by anyone but yourself (when looking at the My Flights section of our website). To enable AvPlan Live, open AvPlan EFB on your device and tap Settings, User Settings.

Rob was a true gentleman who was very happy to help out his friends and fellow aviators. He assisted me with sorting out a tricky problem with my aircraft when I first got it for no more than the love of helping out and a bottle of wine. An extremely sad day - he will be missed.

Ryan, sorry if my comments have come out harsh, but: one it makes no sense to ignore obvious signs of a potentially major problem that could put yours or someone else's life at risk; and secondly, because as a result of the restrictions put in place by CASA to counter the issues with Jabiru engines, some of which may have been avoided by people listening to the signs predicting failure (and yes, as well as Jabiru doing a better job to stop the problems from happening again), I (and a large number of other Jabiru owners) have lost a lot of privileges, access to trusted LAMEs, access to local airfields and multiple financial losses with rental income, student training and value of their aircraft. It is worth taking the advice of people who know well the problems that can occur, the signs of those problems and how to best avoid the serious consequences if the problem does occur (and not me since I am still learning what can happen but there were several very knowledgeable people here who have given you advice to be careful).

Ryan was the one who said he was going to get his local LAME (Sunshine Coast) to look at it (aircraft currently located in WA) which I would presume he meant that he was still going to fly it back to the Sunshine Coast to do so - refer to other posts looking for a ferry pilot. If I am wrong and Ryan was going to get it checked in WA before flying back then that is a wise decision. The engine needs to be checked before such a flight - even just to prove that the current test was done incorrectly, but critically to ensure that the engine will last and not kill the pilot in a forced landing on the way. I am not arguing with you jetjr, I am just concerned that an engine which has tested out of specification and is in serious need of further investigation and/or repair could be flown across the country with great risk of an engine failure if the word of the current LAME were to be blindly accepted.

I am happy that someone experienced with Jabiru engines is going to inspect the engine before the aircraft is continued to be used and if necessary replace the engine if there is a problem but it has to get there first! How is the aircraft going to get from WA to the Sunshine Coast to get Ryan's local maintainer to look at it without putting the ferry pilot at risk of an engine failure onroute? Making the assumption that the pressure test was done incorrectly before a 24 hour flight is not the wisest of decisions.

Seriously - this is criminally insane - this is an example of a problem that can't be put on Jabiru if the engine fails and suffers a force landing. The engine displays clear cut signs of a problem and yet is being considered adequate to continue to fly let alone feel that an additional couple hundred hours is possible. Quote from the Jabiru service manual - "Maximum allowable pressure loss is 25% - therefore a differential of lower than 80/60 indicates a problem. " 2 cylinders are below specification and 3 more are so close it is not worth splitting the difference. There is a problem and it needs to be addressed. If the rings are gone it is going to be down on power and throwing oil out the exhaust as well burnt contaminants and heat back into the sump ruining the remaining oil. The LAME should be beaten with a stick and have his licence revoked for signing the engine off as being okay. Has he even read the Jabiru manual? And sorry Ryan, you are a fool for attempting to fly this aircraft without the problem being rectified. It is a case of negligent maintenance, pilot error and poor judgement reflecting badly on an aircraft manufacturer when the maintenance manual is ignored. You can argue all you like that Jabiru should be able to make an engine last longer but it is negligent to fly when a maintenance inspection shows a problem.

From my limited experience - the lower pressures could indicate that exhaust valves are starting to not seal leading to burn valve face and stem, or rings are starting to stick dropping power and burning or throwing oil out the exhaust - either is cause for further investigation before something bad happens when you don't want the engine stopping. It can very quickly go from low compressions to valve heads rolling around in the cylinder with the piston so worth taking seriously. Worth looking into for a little grief now to avoid a major problem later.

It's a moot point anyway since you are not constrained by what CASA implements, but, I am happy that you believe that there is such a demonstrated difference between the two engine's reliability to make the CAE engine so much better than the Jabiru engine that CASA would not change their view if there is a failure. Shame CAE engines can't be installed in a 24 registered aircraft since they get pretty well the same restrictions under experimental (eg. no flight over populated areas and no training use) albeit passengers don't need to sign a disclaimer. So really not much difference with how CASA treats them... As I said, I am happy that Ian has identified a number of improvements - it is just that the engines have not had the hours and the hard life to really prove it.

Ornis - you obviously have an issue with Rod Stiff and are happy to accept that Ian Bent the answers needed to achieve an acceptable level of reliability in what is largely the same engine. I have nothing against Ian and I am happy to accept that he has identified enough areas for improvements to achieve a more reliable engine but it is going to take a few years of real world use with several hundred engines doing 1,000's hours and making TBO without any problems to really be able to prove that the improvements have achieved the desired outcome. Since a handful of engines doing the typical private 50 hours a year is as good as myself and several hundred others with the same yearly usage not having any major problems with their Jabiru engines. Acknowledging that reliability in some environments especially flight schools with heavy usage can be improved how are you supposed to prove that any modifications made or any service bulletins released has actually made a difference? Even if Rod were to wake up with the revelation that he has missed the boat and invites Ian in to implement all the suggested changes how do they prove to CASA that the holy grail of reliability has actually been achieved? Really, in the same vein, how would Rod prove that the improvements that Jabiru has implemented over the last few years have or have not already achieved improvements? What's to say that after I were to drop $20-30k to change my engine to a CAE to obtain the promised improved reliability, that after a failure or two of a CAE engine in the hard life of a FTF, that CASA decides to not make a difference between the Jabiru and CAE and impose the same restrictions on all of them? The real problem with the CASA ruling is how does any engine manufacturer or by extension and aircraft producer demonstrate that they have achieved the necessary reliability needed to avoid CASA placing restrictions on them? It seems the standards to be met are pretty arbitrary if the requirement is to not have failures increase from previous years and to be no worse than the leading competitor.

With the exception that CASA are not sharing what the ANCAP ratings for each car (aircraft) is and the rating is assessed using data and methodology they don't share with anybody - Merely a pass or fail assessment... The problem is it is not a defendable or transparent process even if there is a basis for things to be better. For ANCAP at least manufacturers know where they can improve to obtain a higher rating.

Whether you like, hate or feel slighted by Jabiru or their customer service. After all the damage these restrictions have caused and will cause every Jabiru owner and operator including the many flight schools, CAMit and Jabiru themselves - for those that manage to survive, what is the outcome needed for CASA to overturn the imposed restrictions? Zero failures is not possible - given every aircraft/engine/pilot will be exposed to the potential of an incident over a period of time without grounding every aircraft and pilot to eliminate the possibility of an event from occurring. So what is going to prove the problem has been fixed? Given the small number of events per flight/flying hours that caused CASA to take action what would identify that the problem has been fixed? A small number of events is still a small number even when it is halved or doubled so is subject to statistical variation of a few events over a large number of hours and flights over a short time frame of 6 months or even a couple of years. Or are we talking about the total number of events per year? The very effect of the instrument is to restrict flights so will achieve that by reducing the flights undertaken and hence the likelihood of and event occurring, especially at flight schools, which seem to have the greater number of recorded events. Even if the whole engine was replaced with a new design - how would you go about proving that the problem has been resolved. With what is essentially a small number of engines and a short period of time with all new components. Surely the same effect would be achieved if every Jabiru engine was fully overhauled with no changes even being made to the design. Or even if CAMit have designed all the problems out and gave it all to Jabiru - how do they prove the problem is gone on a scale that would satisfy CASA? Or are CASA looking for actions from Jabiru in the way they handle engine problems or corrective actions? Or is this more about how RA-Aus handles incidents with LSA manufacturers and demonstrates to CASA they are able to manage the recreational aviation sector? The key question that goes with this is, what is to stop CASA extending this restriction to any particular engine type, aircraft type, pilot experience/age/health/training or even the whole RA-Aus association and any aircraft and pilot based on their judgement they need to protect the public and take action whenever there is a higher than whatever number of events that they accept as being reasonable? There really is no limit to how far they could take this.

And I would contend that pilot error causes more crashes than engine failures (certainly more than Jabiru engine failures) so do we stop all aircraft from leaving the ground???

So should everybody be forced to drive BMWs? Likewise, is Rotax the only engine good enough for recreational aircraft? Because they are the quality standard and nothing else is as good? Fair enough that quality costs money but should everyone be forced to pay top dollar or should people not have a choice and accept the alternative of increased maintenance over a longer period? I for one am generally happy to pay extra for quality where the option exists but not everyone should have the same choice forced on them.

Are they talking about the attached - which seemed to be fin cracking as opposed to the heads and then only on engines that are well into their life Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.pdf Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.pdf Jabiru Cylinder Head AN.pdf

Sorry Phil, Loxton was just an example of those not directly or immediately affected by being away from populated areas but will be indirectly affected from the flow on effects of Jabiru going to struggle to pull through this and the greater impact on aviation in general, RA-Aus, insurance (hull as well as liability), prices of aircraft, lack of development in Australia, accessibility to service facilities and travel through the more populated areas around the major towns etc. And for future investment in aviation, who in their right mind would invest in this industry given the ease that the regulator can change the rules and put you under. If only I knew two years ago what would happen I would not have made the decisions and investments I did and I only bought an aircraft. And that is nothing to the millions invested by Jabiru, CAMit and all the other businesses in Bundaberg that are directly affected by this. There will be quite a few affected as well as a number of the popular flight schools at Archerfield, Bankstown and Moorabbin that are RA-Aus. There is an exemption through the flight school for flights under their supervision in Class D which enabled a lot of RA-Aus training and ongoing flights, but even that was being reduced through changes from CASA. With a RPL you don't even need the exemption.

It is good for those that are located in Loxton. For me, Archerfield is 5 minutes away and I had it on line as a favour for a local flight school which meant that I covered my maintenance costs with a highly respected LAME. I now need to relocate over an hour away and need to find someone who will look after it, in addition to the loss of income to cover those costs. Now as long as Jabiru can stay in business to produce the parts you need to keep your aircraft going you will remain okay, but, I am not sure how many aircraft or parts sales Jabiru needs to stay in business given how few sales they will now make given the effect of the CASA restrictions and the fear and liability risk it creates.

And I guess that is a critical point (not picking a fight with 2 strokes). Is CASA saying that the only engine they have concerns about are Jabirus (of all types, manufacture year, modifications, service life and maintenance) that they need to keep them away from doing any harm and all other engines are okay? We just wait to see what is next area of concern with higher than average problems - airframes with fatality rate due to poor safety structures, or airframes with a crash rate due to poorer handling or pilots with increased health issues? What will be the justification to either include or exclude any matter of other factors to eliminate safety risks from the skies?

I would say it is more emotion and frustration from Rod with people fiddling with the engine than reality. Although he could say that the aircraft no longer meets the registration requirements if it has been modified and therefore illegal unless the owner has transitioned it to experimental status. It doesn't matter anyway if the engine wasn't a 'Jabiru', the aircraft would become experimental and it would have the same restrictions applied anyway unless the tech manager were to provide an exemption of those restrictions. And I would think that unlikely on an engine formally known as a Jabiru but with a new sticker on the side. Unfortunately, we are going to have to wait for Jabiru to fix the problem or CAE to get a certified engine option as a plug in replacement. Even with the CAE engine the aircraft would become experimental (unless Jabiru accept it as an option) but at least there would be a possibility (however slim) that it would gain an exemption to the 'can't fly over populated areas' restriction.

As a result of the CASA imposed restrictions to Jabirus at Archerfield I need to find a new home for my J230. I am considering Heck Field, Redcliffe, Caboolture and Boonah. Can anybody shed light on availability of hangar space (wishful thinking) or a decent tie down area please?

The way I understand it from the registration requirements (happy to be corrected by somebody that has better knowledge), even if you put a CAMit engine in, whether or not it is an improvement, the aircraft would face the same restrictions since the aircraft would become experimental (or still a home built) and would require approval from the tech manager specific for that aircraft to fly over populated areas. Now who would be game enough to provide that approval? The only way to fix the problem is Jabiru must include any modifications under their own authority. And if they did, what would be enough to satisfy CASA to lift the restrictions?