01rmb

In my years of consulting to a large number of businesses (and you can include CASA in that number) you can never discount the fact that some people behave irrationally and illogically because they actually don't know how to do the right thing. Never discount incompetence as the reason why they do some things and not others! Unfortunately, I would say that CASA believes RA-Aus are not doing a good job (and past performances unfortunately doesn't help our case) and they think they can do better so they set up the RPL and continue to prevent extra privileges for RA-Aus which they afford their own equivalent (extra weight, passengers and controlled airspace access). They won't take back all the tedious administration work from RA-Aus but they will restrict controls, stifle growth and prevent anything positive to be achieved through severe management intervention, oversight and audits. Shame since there have been positive changes lately that demonstrate that RA-Aus is doing a a much better job now. The irony is that if CASA feel that the Jabiru engine is not as reliable as it should be it is actually their poor management and lack of oversight ensuring that Jabiru were doing the right thing in investigating the engine issues and doing something to fix the problem/s. But with other light sport engines only a few occurrences behind Jabiru when does CASA stop restricting aircraft operations? And if they wanted to keep going why stop at recreational aircraft - GA are not as good as commercial so maybe all recreational/GA pilots should sit in the back seat of nothing smaller than a King Air whilst commercial pilots are in control. If you look at the crashes around Moorabbin it would be hard to say that the only problem in the air is Jabiru. The only hope is that Mark Skidmore is able to pull CASA back from this unfortunate direction although unfortunately I would suspect it unlikely they did this on the last day before he came to power without consulting him.

I really don't know - possibly. More aircraft with suspect reliability increases the risk, but, is not one forced landing in a city one too many? I really don't know what the objective is. Is reliability only an issue if there are 'too many' occurrences or is it too many aircraft as opposed to a percentage of flight time/landings? Would Jabiru have been okay if they had produced less than 1,000 aircraft? What about any new engines that are introduced or a new model that has issues - what standards are they to meet or does it not matter until there are 'too many' of them? I would have said the problem was (arguably) that Jabiru failed to act appropriately to engine failures and taken appropriate action to reduce the number of occurrences - so surely any action should have been to have Jabiru undertake better investigation of engine failures and ensure they implemented improvements (design, operation or maintenance) to avoid future problems, as per their requirements under the LSA rules. If so, then should CASA not be undertaking increased audits of what Jabiru do with reported engine failures? Maybe they are, but to restrict aircraft operations like they have sets a dangerous precedence for all of RA-Aus and GA in general. Could it be that RA-Aus and their cheap little aircraft are to be forced to stay in the country and not be allowed near populated areas? Can of worms indeed.

It could be worse if they had kept the no passenger restriction in place, but the fact is that CASA has taken a strong and provocative action against owners of aircraft that, depending on where you were based, will severely restrict their use. My aircraft was at Archerfield, now currently being repaired after the storms last month, so I need to find a new home once I get it back. Shame, since I had a LAME who I trusted to ensure that I had no problems who I now can't use because of his location. Interesting thought - If the Jabiru engine is considered the benchmark for engines being unreliable and requiring protection from CASA for passengers, students and the general public, does every other aircraft with an engine with equivalent or worse reliability now get the same attention and restrictions? Whilst improvements to reliability should be the focus of attention, it is owners and businesses that will now suffer, and who knows what Jabiru will be able to do to help rectify the situation for CASA to reverse the restrictions. Very disappointing.

And this is what the maintenance guys couldn't explain - why some people have no problems. They could only guess that for us it had something to do with the amount of time idling/low power whilst circuit training, taxiing etc.

And just to tie this back into the thread topic - the recommendations I suggested to CASA et al was for Jabiru to undertake better investigation of engine problems (incidents and those identified during maintenance) as well as to better investigate problems with running on avgas. And not just running avgas in a test mule that gets fired up and left to run for several days but in an aircraft that gets hammered at at training school with multiple extended taxi and low power landing approaches per hour - for many hours per week. From what I have seen I feel that fuel problems accounts for a number of the identified incidents - I know for a fact that there would be 2 fewer partial failures on the list this year if they had not been running on avgas.

Merv - The experience was exactly the same - fouled cylinder heads, valves (especially exhaust) and plugs. Valve and plug fouling and many little rough running niggling issues has completely gone now that mogas is used. The photo below was at 300 hours. You can see the lead build up and the burning on the exhaust valve near the plug (the one that has been removed). The cylinders had similar thick light brown build up. After a good clean and running on mogas the heads and cylinders are still clean 100 hours later when one of the heads came off again to replace a compression ring in one cylinder stuck and needed replacing. (The cylinders were not touched when the heads were cleaned so it was possibly still a legacy from the avgas. Probably should have done the lot at the time.) I have had a few long chats with a long time family friend who was head of Shell aviation - he also identified that the lead from the avgas from the blowby gas will contaminant the lubrication oil and will combine with water to become an acidic paste. With such a low oil volume in the jabs, it doesn't take much to completely contaminate the oil to become a sludge and cause loss of lubrication, rusting and increased component wear. I believe that Jabiru after consulting a few people and in discussions with Shell changed the oil change schedule to 25 hours from the original 50 hours. Below are a couple of references that are worth a read. Note they specifically mention Rotax being designed for unleaded fuels and the potential that a hotter plug could be used to reduce lead fouling if avgas is used. http://www.shell.com/global/products-services/solutions-for-businesses/aviation/aeroshell/knowledge-centre/technical-talk/techart18-30071600.html http://transairpilotshop.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/winter-and-the-oil-in-your-aircrafts-engine/ I have spoken with Jabiru about avgas and whilst they acknowledge these issues they are uncomfortable with the variability of mogas and the increased potential for other issues such as detonation. I also feel that they don't want to alienate those that have avgas on hand at the airfield. It is far easier for me to fill up with Avgas than have to lug jerry cans of mogas but the experience has been way better on mogas and I would not go back to avgas given the issues that myself and the flight school has experienced. As long as the mogas is 95 or greater (we use 98), has no ethanol, is kept fresh, and not push the cylinder temps too high there should not be too many problems. But don't let it dry out - Where somebody has spilt some on a wing and left it to dry there is an awful syrupy residual mess that was hard to clean off so I would hate to see what it would look like inside a carburettor if it were left to dry out. Bring on unleaded avgas!!

This could have been something to do with the valve problems with my engine. The aircraft was initially run on avags but switched to mogas when the problems with the other aircraft were identified and then on my trip to Longreach we used avgas due to ease of availability and belief that avgas was not too bad in the 6 cylinders used for longer cross country flights. Tanks were pretty well empty at each time fuel was changed. The valves were probably already fouled and then the combustion and poorer valve cooling started to burn through the valve dropping compression very quickly and if not picked up would have dropped the valve head into the cylinder and causing major problems and a forced landing if it happened airborne.

The problems were on avgas and went away once on mogas. It was the fouling of the exhaust valves and plugs from the avgas and resulting rough engine running which drove the use of Mogas. It gets run through a lot so is always fresh but still need to be careful to not let it get old. Need to be careful during climb to keep heat down and avoid pinging. The 4 cylinder ab initio jabs were getting the worse (accounts for two of the partial engine failures in the reports) but my 6 cylinder used just for cross country training didn't escape the exhaust valves being fouled on 2 cylinders and starting to burn through the stems - identified in preflight and replaced during a service. The thoughts were that the extended taxi/ idle plus the extensive circuits with low power idling landings along with another extended taxi and idle before being shut down was causing the problems more than somewhere where the aircraft does a quick taxi and then sits at 2800 revs for extended time and then just a short powered landing. There seemed to be a change in the avgas that made things worse - time of year or supply import I don't know. It was not unique to the jabs, a number of cessnas were fouling plugs and needing to be replaced but they are far more tolerant of the problem and will keep running if a bit more poorly. Added bonus is that using mogas keeps the oil in much better condition avoiding the lead contaminants. From what I understand that was the main reason behind the 25 hour oil changes.

Thanks Merv - I do feel for people and especially flight schools that have had problems both from a safety consequences and cost. The flight school I am associated with had 6 Jabirus in use at one stage and 2 of those were doing over 30 hours per week each - so plenty of experience but also not without incident and challenges for the LAME. I dread every time there is an aircraft problem of any nature but because I have one I am particularly concerned about Jabiru issues when they occur. I agree that Jabiru should do more to find out why there are problems and ways that problems might be reduced - just good quality and safety improvement practices. But unfortunately and sometimes in spite of Jabiru, our LAME recommended some maintenance changes to ensure better reliability and for us the biggest was around the fuel used. They also looked closely at indicators during preflight and the 25hr services such as how smooth the engine is running and any compression changes that might indicate a head needs to come off to check valves or rings. Indeed, a lot of what Jabiru has now come out with in the increased inspection recommendations was being done. Again - apologies to you in that some of my comments were more directed at others with no experience of the problems or indeed impacted by the CASA response and were happier to sling poo at the guys doing 50-100 hours a year, just trying to enjoy themselves and trying to avoid unwanted attention from CASA.

Merv - I have obviously really upset you - apologies - some of my comments have been pointed and were not useful - I really have no desire to offend you. The comments I make here are based on the advice I have been given from my LAME who looks after a flight school was doing 300 hours per month on their Jabirus including my own aircraft. They have had their fair share of issues with the engines but have worked on ways to avoid these problems from reoccurring which I have passed on here in the hope to help others. There has been some helpful advice from Jabiru and some less than useful (including potentially poor maintenance from them (Jabiru) that actually caused a forced landing). Jabiru have a lot of things they can do better and working with customers who have problems is certainly one of them. I do not profess to be anything other than a new aviator wanting to learn how to fly better and avoid problems. I am a pup in this game but have no less right than anyone else to share an opinion here. I listen, I learn and I pass on what I can in the hope that someone else may benefit from that.

Merv - You are obviously sore from being rebuffed by Jabiru and have an axe to grind with the failures you have experienced. Since many others have been operating without problem, maybe you and your Lame's, L4's and L2's should have been trying to work out what you were doing different to have so many issues instead of just blaming Jabiru. Bit hard to brag when you have done so well. I will leave the little boys to their pissing contest now. Enjoy yourselves.

Yep - the circus is in town. Proves you don't need big feet and a red nose to be a clown. I leave maintenance to my LAME who uses the Maintenance Manual and Service Bulletins - I operate the aircraft as per the Pilot Operating Handbook and take advice from my LAME on how to avoid issues. Must not be too bad since I have had no problems in 400 hours and 800 flights.

Reliable enough if you operate them within specification, undertake preflight inspection and other maintenance as per POH. Even the poor figures provided by CASA puts partial or full engine failure no worse than 1 in 3300 flights. If it wasn't reliable enough I would not fly behind one.

Plus Cheap replacement parts / service No gearbox or water cooling complexity/weight Only engine available with 90kw/120hp and 275NM torque under 84 kg

I guess we are all just waiting to see what CASA comes back with once the paint eventually drys and they can get out of the corner they painted themselves into. Jabiru's response has been defensive of the engine and their handling of the problems experienced which is not great but when attacked as they have been, it is the expected response. The unfortunate thing is that in spite of the service bulletin that was released by Jabiru to increase inspections if higher risk factors are present, they should still be investigating the failures and maintenance problems and looking at what can be done to improve their engine to better handle the varied conditions that have been identified. But also what can operators and pilots do to reduce the likelihood of problems - increase climb out speeds, avoid glide approaches, use better fuel, reduce operating temperatures, increase maintenance inspections... Maybe the latest version of the engine has done the trick but a wise man does not rest on the laurels. The critical part now is for the engine to be more tolerant of those identified risk factors (heating, cooling, CHT and fuel etc) that could adversely affect through bolts and valves and lead to failure or the need for maintenance, Jabiru should be seeking ways to continually investigate failures and work out how to prevent them - engine and/or operations. CAMit, Morgan and a number of other people have possibly found some answers - Jabiru needs to work with them and every owner and LAME to keep improving the product. I have said before that the Jabiru is not a Rotax/Lycoming/Continental but everything could be made better. CASA should have and still do have the opportunity to work with RA-Aus and Jabiru to achieve the desired outcomes rather than punish the owners. Nobody wants an engine failure so people are not doing things wrong deliberately - so what can be done to reduce problems?

It was in reference to a lack of knowledge of VFR rules and deference to arguing the point when presented with those said rules. If people don't understand the basic class G airspace rules then CTA would be too big a jump with more rules and a requirement to adhere to them.

No wonder they want to keep RA-Aus out of CTA.

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 - 173 Cruising level to be appropriate to magnetic track (1)When a V.F.R. flight is conducted at a height of 5,000 feet or more above mean sea level, the pilot in command must, subject to any contrary air traffic control instructions, ensure that the cruising level of the aircraft is appropriate to its magnetic track. Penalty: 25 penalty units.

Hence why as Nev said - you should still actually apply some power for a short period of time even during a glide approach to help put some heat back into the carburettor and clear the jet of any ice. ie Don't just put carb heat on and expect that it will keep the carburettor clear of ice - especially in bad icing conditions.

Your words - not mine. I was simply stating that trying to make something that will handle every foreseeable poor handling or maintenance is not possible because people will do something that is not anticipated. But, it was Einstein that said “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” If people keep doing something and they keep getting the same bad outcome then maybe it is time to try something different. If they keep having problems you have got to ask yourself why - and maybe a different engine is needed if they can't or won't change what they are doing. Some people are not having the same problems with the Jabiru engine as others so they must be doing something right and it can't be just a bad design. High CHT, high EGT, high oil temp, flight training, increased time since overhaul, fuel, dusty environments and poor operational history are without argument going to be reasonable reasons that you need to increase inspections if you want to avoid a avoid catastrophic engine failure although I concede that I don't believe that it will prevent all engine failures. The Jabiru engine is not a Lycoming, Continental or even a Rotax so the recommendations from Jabiru to undertake increased inspections if you are operating in a high at risk category is a good thing. Certainly an engine used in a training aircraft should be tolerant of poor handling - they are after all students that know no better and are more focussed on keeping the shiny side up than what the temp gauges are showing. The repeated heating and cooling from climbing and idling in circuits is hard on engines and students climbing out at low air speeds will increase the likelihood of problems that will need more frequent inspections. The damage may well be done before the actual failure occurs. Quite possibly Jabiru engines are not tolerant enough of poor handling (time will tell if everyone follows these new recommendations in the service bulletin) and Rotax or other engines maybe a better alternative for training - Cessna after all chose to use a Continental in their 162 (albeit with a 35 odd kg penalty). I have personally seen 4 incidents (1 full engine failure, 2 partial and 1 fuel starvation) in Jabirus. The first was poor quality installation of a gudgeon pin circlip resulting in engine destruction and a forced landing, the other two were poor running as a result of lead fouling from avgas and returned safely to the airfield, the forth ran out of fuel and ended up on a soccer field. This has led me to avoid using avgas and only 98 mogas and ensure there is enough of it in the tanks - as well as making sure that the person touching my engine knows what they are doing.

I learnt to fly at a Class D controlled aerodrome but then as soon as I was certified I was locked out. There used to be an exemption for the RA-Aus training schools allowing continued use at the controlled aerodromes under instructor supervision as ongoing training but CASA then pulled that restricting flying to solo only. They said if you want to have access to the airfield and the surround Class D airspace with a passenger then you have to do the RPL with the controlled area & aerodrome endorsements. Seems to me just another way to flog RA-Aus and push the RPL over the pilot certificate.

The only people trying to make the Jabiru engine the same as a Rotax is CASA and a few people on this forum. The actual owners are happy to have an engine that costs 2/3 the price with parts 1/5 the price to get a lower cost alternative to the other engines that are available. If the engine requires some additional inspection and maybe extra maintenance (if operational conditions warrant them) to achieve good reliability and fewer engine failures then then that is a good outcome but people still are not satisfied. Some people have been getting extremely poor reliability whilst others have been doing well - You can't ignore variables such as temperature, training, fuel, operational handling, inspection or maintenance from this equation. This bulletin from Jabiru seeks to address some of those variables that are known to cause more problems and addresses it with increased inspection. It would be ideal if the engines can handle all sorts of varied and poor conditions and handling - Jabiru are still trying to improve the engine and make it more robust and CAMit have done a lot of work in that area as well. My desire is that better knowledge leads to better parts and maybe improved design that will yield increased reliability and ability to handle a wider range of conditions - but still you can't make it idiot proof since idiots are improving all the time. And yes - better engine monitoring seems a key. So how do you get CHT and EGT on a standard steam non glass cockpit? I have been looking at the Electronics International CGR-30 Primary Engine Monitoring System or Dynon EMS-D10 Engine Monitoring System. You could just remove all the temp/pressure/voltage gauges with one of these and get far better monitoring with a fuel computer to boot. The EI one is particularly neat since you can just slot in place of the tacho. It would need Jabiru though to have this as an option or authorise these in a standard 24 registration configuration. Comes at a price though.

This topic has generated a lot of comment and discussion from the groups of people that support and those that do not the CASA restrictions on aircraft owned by RA-Aus members. The people that own a Jabiru aircraft and are directly affected by these restrictions are most concerned about engine reliability because they fly behind one and any measures taken to improve this. I agree that there are those that have experienced problems (and financial loss) and agree that something should be done but in a way that actually achieves the goal of improving reliability not punish people who through good practice do not have a problem. The best solution is to require Jabiru to undertake the investigation and research of the failures and to implement engine improvements in parts, maintenance or operational processes. To restrict all operations based on engines over 25 year history with no regard to the version, level or quality of maintenance or operational use (flight training is going to take a far heavier toll on aircraft than a quiet sunday morning flight) is extreme and with no regard for evidence of why the failures occur. For those that feel it is CASA's duty to uphold safety, no matter the consequences, on the basis that CASA's actions relate to saving lives - Will the same people that support these current actions to restrict aircraft operations take the same position if next week, CASA determines that the current RA-Aus medical requirements are too lax and that everyone that flies needs to complete the CASA Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner’s Certificate or Class 2 medical before their next flight to eliminate the threat of old unhealthy people with dodgy tickers flying around with passengers over populated areas? Probably just as much or more evidence against letting people fly who can't satisfy the Class 2 medical requirements as there is against the failure rate of Jabiru engines...

Guys It is all out interest to stand behind RA-Aus and the president in this. It does not matter how we got here but what is important is to not let it get any worse and work on a proactive solution so it never happens again. It might start with Jabiru but the privileges obtained through LSA and the standards that allows cheap aviation needs to be maintained and a strong position needs to be uniformly presented so we can all keep flying. First Jabiru but what will they do next if not kept in check? The message needs to be - Don't mess with the privileges we have, help improve safety but don't destroy the recreational aviation industry in trying achieve it. LSA was initiated as a compromise that higher risk was going to be accepted as a compromise for the far lower associated cost. That is why we can fly a $80-120k aircraft rather than the typical $500k GA aircraft. This privilege needs to be protected. The focus should be to keep CASA from crippling the industry but also to get Jabiru to focus on improving their engines as is their requirement under the LSA standards. Jabiru (and every other manufacturer) should be enforced to actively investigate and report on defects with improvements where necessary - Maybe introduce financial penalties for non compliance. This is the role of the regulator - not to hurt the guys who have shelled out their savings on an aircraft or are running a business. With the support of others who have experience of what can go wrong and how to fix them, there should be more than enough information to make huge improvements. Ian Bent has answers - maybe not all, but a lot and he has a lot of research to back up his position. Other possible solutions include running mogas and most of the exhaust valve problems will disappear, change the maintenance schedules to clean the valves and cylinder heads at 500 hours to stop fouling causing issues, improve the through bolts better threads and less stress risers to prevent breakages, get rid of the alternator currently used to have better electrical power and improve harmonic damping, replace parts at a schedule before they typically fail... Even with increased maintenance the costs are still going to much less that the alternative (forced landing or other engine makes).