01rmb

If you're going to get excited by sabre rattling, bets to make sure the sabres are pointing at the enemy.

Remember the problem is not that Rotax are perfect and Jabiru fail every flight - Jabiru are just not as good as Rotax and will fail more often - not great but the failure rate is still only 1 in 3,300 flights. It says Rotax are much better than Jabiru and there is room to improve. If Rotax did not exist then Jabiru would be as good as the other engines being used in light sport recreational aircraft.

https://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/RA-Aus-Submission-to-CASA-re-Jabiru-Proposal-dated-21-Nov-2014.pdfWell worth a read..sorry if this is posted elsewhere....

 

Interesting that CASa asked what the data meant after already publishing the instrument...

The letter from RA-Aus by Michael shows that RA-Aus is trying to act as an appropriate agent within the recreational aviation industry - to both encourage improvement from manufacturers as well as lobby for improvements to the regulator. My criticism early in this mess may only apply to certain antagonists on the board.

I suggest you go and see what Ian Bent has been doing (except he's frantically busy right now, with this undeserved crisis to his situation) - you'll find he's light years ahead of this discussion.

In the discussions around the improvements Ian has proposed - do any of them consider the lead fouling problems caused by avgas? I know my own maintenance problems were related to fouled exhaust valves but also that 2 of the partial engine failures in the stats being used are directly related to the same issue.

Further to the above post re the 160 failure. (and I offer this NOT as a Jab bash, but a practical example of some ststements regarding jab service)After the failure jab washed their hands of the engine realising that the AD not being complied with meant they were free and clear of any responsibility. So they told us to " do what you like with the engine"

 

My engineer at the time requested that the factory check the engine for a cause, but was met with " you didnt do the through bolt mod" .

 

I think THIS case is a perfect example of how the factory's attitude has lead (in part) to the current climate.

 

For the sake of some shipping costs, the factory could have had a 'dead engine' to give an autopsy, but instead, washed their hands of it once they had their "out". This is (IMHO) an example of a reactive rather than pro active mentality.

 

Another example, just TODAY, I recieved a call from the Jab factory asking if I run jabiru engines in my flying school.

 

I answered no, the last engine is broken with little or no chance of being repaired. The previous 4 jab powered aircraft have also 'broken' and are no longer online. The girl on the phone said " Well, ok, theres no need for you to do our survey if your not running jabirus anymore." Ummm.. I was dumbfounded. I just told you I have broken 4 jabs at my school, and you dont think this is statistically important?

 

Anyway. Todays dealing has sealed the deal with me. Nobody can now convince me that they truely care. IMHO, they are only "reacting" still.

When I visited the Jabiru factory I was impressed on what had been accomplished but disappointed on what could still be achieved. I still don't like what CASA is doing to the owners - but getting Jabiru to lift their game to better investigate problems is reasonable! If Ian Bent has at least some of the answers to improve the engine I for one will be lining up - if I can fit them within my registration limitations...

It is good to see the robust discussion of the mode of failures and analysis of the potential solutions. There is a huge amount of information available from an in depth analysis of the failures. The information from facthunter, motartmerv, Dafydd, Oscar and many others here is critical to gathering information on the failures to determine the route causes of the problems. From what I have observed it would appear that Ian Bent (CAMit) has progressed a lot of this but I still believe that there is more to the problems being experienced.

Yes, Jabiru should be doing this. In spite of my open criticism of the CASA actions which I see as using a sledge hammer to repair a precision instrument, I have also argued directly with Jabiru that they should be doing more analysis of not just of the identified failures but also of the out of schedule maintenance being conducted, to determine the root cause of the problems and be doing something to fix the problems. A more reliable, robust and less reactive maintenance engine is a great thing for all who sit behind one and for those that pay the costs of maintaining them.

By uncovering the underlying reasons for failure and implementing changes (operation, maintenance and components) it will lead to improvements in reliability and thus safety.

How to make a small fortune in the aviation business? Start with a large fortune!

There is no money is this game - just a way of life...

I have no problem that Jabiru should be held to account to identify improvements to the reliability and serviceability of their aircraft. They need a big wack due to consumer product rights protection - but the heavy handed restrictions from CASA won't help because if aircraft can't be used as intended it will force owners, flight schools, maintenance facilities and a lot of other businesses including RA-Aus go under, if no aircraft are sold then Jabiru themselves would go bankrupt and then there will never be a solution.

But just trying to achieve the engine reliability of another engine (which is more expensive) doesn't make sense. The key point is - is the engine good enough to meet the requirements under which it is regulated? Making it better is an absolute (maybe idealistic) goal but taking the actions proposed is punitive against owners/operators rather than the manufacturer. Jabiru could just recommend a top end overhaul at 500 hours and problem solved. CASA would be satisfied but Owners would be hurt in the pocket.

I have seen and experienced problems myself that I feel should be properly researched and improvements made in recommendations of use, maintenance and possibly components. As I said before, I have witnessed and believe that one factor is the use of avgas has a lot of negative consequences depending on how the aircraft is used and research into what the issues are and if they can be avoided through different practices or the use of mogas, without other consequences, needs to be done.

The mechanism is there in the LSA regulations in that a manufacturer must maintain data on failures and issues service bulletins to rectify any identified problems. If that is not being done correctly then take that up with them to do it right. Putting restrictions as proposed affects owners, pilots, flights schools and others not just Jabiru.

Very clever you guys, join the list of protesters.I'm a bit surprised at you 01 because one of your earlier posts seemed to indicate you understood the safety process well.

The drive from the regulator should be about helping to achieve that - grounding the fleet and bankrupting Jabiru is not going to achieve that. Changing the regulations to allow CAMit or other improvements to be applied (without affecting registration) will help, collecting better data on failures and identifying root cause will help, enforcing better maintenance will help - Grounding everything just covers the problem because no one will be flying anymore.

The risk exists in the very concept that man can fly a heavier than air aircraft and it can come back to earth in an uncontrolled manner.

Looks like we are all going to be walking rather than flying if you want to totally eliminate the risk of a fatality from flying.

Be informed about the risk and make your own decisions on how much you are willing to take.

Probably true, but at the end of the day, the result is the same.

The owner of our training jab is already in this boat. The aeroplane is parked up un insured, can't afford To fix it. Busted through bolt and now it's discoverd all the heads are cracked.She's paid for the engine twice in 1000 hours.

What happens if your Jabiru is destroyed by a gust of wind one day?

They are wildly inaccurate statements, you won't see 1000 planes removed from the registry or 3000 members leaving.Flying schools/clubs will still be able to use Jabirus and owners can continue flying them.

Talk about hysterical over reactions.

Hence why it is important to come up with something that achieves the goal of improving engine reliability but without major collateral damage. Think of the consequences of your actions before you do something and you won't then be surprised by what happens. I optimistically hope that when faced with the reality of the consequences of these actions that CASA works out a way to better work with the whole recreational aviation industry (not just Jabiru) to achieve improvements.

The safety practices in workplaces changed when people were encouraged to identify incidents, not just accidents, with no blame being laid. Proper investigation of serious incidents with potential for an accident then resulted in changes to practices, procedures and other preventative measures. It changed the culture dramatically and resulted in far safer places of work.

If the same happened in our aviation industry then there would be decent changes realised. The trouble is some people make loud noises with poor facts and then the regulator jumps out of the trees with a large stick and belts everyone senseless. CASA needs to change the way they react if they want people to provide proper reports and enable decent investigation to happen. Only then will there be a real change in the way that problems will be properly managed.

Would someone mind posting the statistics which indicated 40 failures in the last 12 months, or direct me to the Post number please?I think Motz said they were a few pages back, but if they are I didn't find them.

Type Jabiru Rotax Others All (includes other engine types)

Hours flown 41834 71626 17767 131227

Landings 92735 145638 22010 260383

Engine failures (full or partial) 28 16 7 51

Failure rate per hour 0.07% 0.02% 0.04% 0.04%

Failure rate per landing 0.03% 0.01% 0.03% 0.02%

Hours per failure 1494 4477 2538 2573

Landings per failure 3312 9102 3144 5106

The reason for coming back Russ is that is one aircraft only, and the action take by RAA and CASA is based on a lot more numbers, and more importantly, forced landings which is the safety issue.The owner of the aircraft which was damaged in the forced landing at Red Cliffs, had had 8 years reliable service....until the engine failed.

RAA have the reports which give the number of forced landings and that is the key figure for safety.

 

If engine issues were just being found on the ground, or gave signs before failure, then it would just be a financial matter between supplier and customer.

 

Several people have pushed the single reliable aircraft story, but it's statistically irresponsible.

No one is ignoring the fact that there have been some people that have had problems and a number of forced landings, and in anyone's eyes, it is better to not have any problems or forced landings. It is great to focus on improving the reliability and I welcome the activities being done in this area. The fact remains (albeit with poor data) that only 1 in 3,300 takeoffs/landings resulted in a partial or full engine failure - and some of these are known to be fuel related. This is more than most people will do in the life of their aircraft and is no worse than for the other RAA aircraft with the exception of those with Rotax engines which have a demonstrated superior reliability record. But, then even they are not perfect and at the much higher cost both initially and servicing they should be expected to be better.

People need to prepared for the event that if something does go wrong that you are able to avoid a tragic outcome. Sadly this has not been the case with other aircraft and thus there should be a focus to improve survivability in the event of a crash.

Possibly - If the engine is pinging away from pre ignition or detonation - slow down the climb rate.

The trouble is many people will (If it is a hired aircraft) just fly it like they stole it - Works the same as with hire cars. I have known pilots to just jam full power and reef the stick back to climb as fast as possible for as long as possible without concern for odd noises and rising temperatures.

I still lay a lot of the variability of outcomes based on handling, maintenance and most critically fuel. Without proper analysis - you will never get to the bottom of the problem.

CASA hasn't said because they don't have a clue - only that they think it is not good enough.

A holden engine won't last as well as a mercedes engine - that doesn't make it unsafe or unreliable just not as reliable. At twice the price I would expect better from a mercedes or a rotax.

At 1 failure in 3,300 takeoffs/landings, whilst half as good as Rotax it is the same as the other engine types. Will this mean that every other engine other than Rotax should have the same restrictions imposed?

I would still like to have better from the engine with fewer failures but are the draconian measures from CASA reasonable? CASA along with Jabiru would be better off undertaking an analysis of each failure and determine if a fix, improved maintenance or better handing could have prevented the failure.

The trouble with overreacting is that the response is over the top as well. I don't agree that the response from Jabiru is correct but that is what happens when you get hit with a big stick - you hit back in defence. If only things were kept in control and proper analysis was carried out I am sure improvements could be made.

Personal view, not RAAus Board views......You speak as though there is simply NO way forward and I don't see it that way myself. You have a 24 Registered aircraft that can only remain that way if you do as the manufacturer says, you have to in his owners manuals etc. I think you have the option of installing an unapproved modification and asking as a result (to be clear before the next flight) to be reclassified as E24. Any Downsides, yep you cant put it on line for hire/reward, and others that pretty well align themselves to restrictions currently applying to the 19 equivalent's

 

Some will see this as completely unacceptable, others will ask what's the way back if you at a later stage determine you again want to fly a fully conforming LSA aircraft, so back to plain old 24 registration, what impact on resale etc... For others it gives a way forward.

 

Certainly might be worth a conversation with our Techman if you were seriously to consider....

 

That all said my 230 is a 19 registered aircraft and as such the ins and outs of LSA haven't applied to me so maybe my understanding of LSA is wrong and what I have posted above is all wrong.... Check with the Techman because at the end of the day only his view counts in the court of "will the transaction occur".....

 

Andy

I have a 24 registered jabiru and want to retain the 24 registration so I can continue to use my aircraft for hire but would like the best of any possible reliability solutions on offer which may include something not from Jabiru such as those from CAMit. The regulations restrict me from being able to adopt them - I was just saying that would not be the case if the regulator wanted to change the current policy. Surely safety improvements should be supported above some policy.

We are back to the same point - that unless Jabiru accepts the CAE modifications how does a punter like me get to fit them to his 24 registered J230?

CAE offer parts, overhauled engines and new engines (with 40 amp alternators, heavy duty barrels, improved rocker arms, modified oil cooler adaptors and other improvements) but they can't go in my aircraft. Hopefully Jabiru will make their own improvements (even pay Ian for his input, research and parts) but without a big investment in R&D of their own how will advancements be made? I am not sure that there are still people at Jabiru with the necessary level of knowledge and ability.

I was idealistically hoping that CASA would step in and help somehow here by providing a means to make reliability improvements and not lose my registration. But as you say, maybe, the real problem is the product liability question.

I would have my aircraft in Bundaberg tomorrow for an upgrade if I knew that it would be x times more reliable and I could still register it.

If you treat any engine badly (poor maintenance or handling) it will bite you but if you use and maintain it within the design limitations you should be rewarded with good service - as evidenced by some getting long service life.

Some engines are able to handle abuse better than others but with more money, development effort and good performance/failure information it is possible to improve the outcome. I expect that with Jabiru and CAMit working to improve the engine with better data from those failures that are experienced we will see some improvements on offer. It won't silence the critics but will provide a more reliable/safer aircraft.

Now - why are people dying in other aircraft...

Your best bet is to go for a drive, visit both and talk to them. Archerfield with the controlled airspace and tower operations is fine to fly out of and the tower control does not make it any more difficult and in fact gives a huge level of comfort and takes away a large fear knowing that aircraft are being kept separated - it is very reassuring. If you are eventually looking for RPL/PPL then the experience is essential.

I am biased because I learnt with Pathfinder but I did find them great. The CFI and instructors they have are nice guys and they teach very well. The best thing I will say about them is that when I was learning they had an instructor that did not work for me - I spoke to the senior instructor and gave him some feedback on him, they put him through a review with the CFI and then they actually got rid of him. That is taking it seriously.

Hysteria is always hilarious to witness....So... has anyone bothered to have a look and see what flight crew actually encompasses?

 

Reason I ask is that it occurs to me that student pilot certificates are flight crew certificates. They afford the privilege to fly as pilot in command under supervision and preclude them flying with a passenger other than the instructor...

 

So where does it say students can't continue to learn in jabiru powered aircraft?

The notice specifically says

"A control position must be occupied by a person who is authorised to pilot the aircraft and holds a RA-Aus pilot certificate or higher... Student/trainee solo operations are prohibited."

So, in the case of a licensed RAA Pilot Cert Holder, you cannot take a non crew passenger AND you cannot operate from a Capital City GA Airport such ad Bankstown, Archerfield eg . Is t

And with no passengers although you may arguably be able to take another qualified pilot. Student pilots specifically are not allowed solo.