01rmb

Yes it does affect all jab engined aircraft - this problem is not going to be solved in the short term by moving to VH registration. I just can't in good conscience give money to the entity that has played the members by being the bad guy getting CASA to take action and then tried to pass themselves off to the members as trying to save the day. If they were doing the right thing they would have worked to have solved this problem without going to the press, without running off to the regulator to take action and without punishing the members who have large investments in aircraft or business relying on the operation of these aircraft. Don't see why I should pay $340 per year to someone that plays me for a fool. This is $80,000 of my and $100's of millions of other people money and their livelihoods they are playing with and they didn't think this could happen? Maybe there will eventually be a winner out of this, but, I am not confident it will be anytime soon, if at all. Much better to have worked to fix the problems and worked to allow the fixes to be applied to the particular registration of aircraft. Even if CAMit had the perfect solution I couldn't utilise it without a change to the regulations. Even if Jabiru had wanted to apply the fixes - at what cost the testing and regulatory approvals? RA-Aus would have been better off working with everyone - owners, schools, pilots, manufacturers (original and aftermarket) and the regulator to allow the improvements to be applied to reach a better outcome for everyone.

Looks to me like RA-Aus is trying to play both sides of the field - stir up the hornets nest and then try to side with the injured parties. See above and then read the quote from Michael Linke who had safety concerns "We've written to (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) about this particular type of aircraft, so we've advised them that (crashes) have happened once too often". Oh and by the way - the quote referenced an aircraft that was later found to have ran out of fuel not engine failure... I think I will be investigating VH registration - can't trust this mob.

No proposed date at this stage for when it starts to apply- only comments by 20th November. It is only proposed at this stage but I can't see them not doing something after making a big statement like this. Rod Stiff is to see them tomorrow with legal representatives to hopefully find some position where the actions are less draconian so there is some hope (although small) but people need to write to present their point of view to help achieve a better outcome.

Yep - it applies to all - 4/6/8 cylinder - the lot. I have a J230 based at Archerfield. So like you I need to find somewhere else to park it to then only fly on my own.

Unfortunately, if this goes through you just bought a single seat aircraft that can't be used over populated areas which would mean you can't operate out of Bankstown. If made law - CASA has just written off the value of your aircraft along with every other aircraft with a Jabiru engine. Myself and many others are in the same sinking boat as yourself.

People affected by this need to speak up now before this becomes law or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars in personal assets and Australian aviation in general. For all those that want a say in how to resolve this situation write to Lee Ungermann Email:[email protected]. It would have been great to have had RA-Aus as a lobby group but unfortunately they are the lead on this travesty against Jabiru owners, operators, training schools and pilots.

Somewhere between $60-100 million of aircraft made nearly worthless plus the flight training schools businesses that will go bankrupt as well as the pilots that can no longer fly as intended is going to raise a lot of motivation for compensation. Sounds like a legal case is building against CASA, RA-Aus (incl CEO and board) and others that have made inflammatory and inaccurate comments. Jabiru will cease to exist so no point looking for them. No point looking for support from RA-Aus - they were in the lead on this. Can RA-Aus even survive if over 1000 other aircraft owners and a few thousand pilots resign? Typical over reaction by the bureaucrats. With proper consultation and collaboration improvements for anything could be made - heavy handed action achieves nothing - now who will be left to make it happen? If this happens to Jabiru who else would be game to risk building an aviation business in Australia? If this doesn't get resolved in a suitable fashion, aviation in Australia is dead.

Useful information included there worth considering I thought people only needed to be told about Jabiru engines failing. I recall on the RA-Aus incident list a Skyfox had an exhaust stub completely detach from its flange. Having an engine failure is one thing - going down with flames is a whole different kind of concern.

The RPL and pilot certificate are considered equivalent so why can't the training and issuing of recreational pilot certificates/licences be aligned so that RA-Aus just issues a RPL? The theory of flight is the same, an aircraft is an aircraft, a radio is a radio and flying cross country still works pretty much the same no matter whether is is letters or numbers painted on the tail so why the difference. The ideal solution is that RA-Aus Instructors are able to train and assess the competency of pilots for the issue the RPL under the Part 61 standards on behalf of CASA. The Controlled aerodrome endorsement, Controlled airspace endorsement, Flight radio endorsement and Recreational navigation endorsement should then just be able to be added following the applicable standards. It still leaves the question of medical standards being different although if flying with a true drivers licence medical is safe enough under the current RA-Aus system then the same should apply for the RPL. Don't know how that would go down with CASA but maybe with new medical director it has a chance.

That is BS. I don't believe anybody would ignore safety just to retain the value in their aircraft. If you got that from anything I have written here then you have misjudged me. I certainly have not got that message from anyone else. My comments about not destroying the value in aircraft is that people should not act without proper consideration. I am certain the manufacturer does want reliable aircraft and will do what is needed to achieve that. There are a number of people quite happy to throw rocks, accuse Jabiru of not doing enough and generally trying to bring them down but those people don't seem to be able to come up with a constructive proposition to help remedy the problem. Fact based investigation of the root cause of the problems is the only way this can be achieved. There is a lot of innuendo and supposition about what the problems may be (most of it has no basis on fact). Some aircraft are getting many hundreds of hours of use without a problem and yes some are having some issues and proper investigation is needed to find out why. Treat machinery badly and it will fail. There are answers out there and a number of people are working on implementing real solutions. I have been open about the issues I have had with the exhaust valves in my aircraft being fouled as a result of the lead oxide buildup from using avgas -my strong recommendation following investigation is to use mogas. I also recommend to always check compression by pulling the prop through before every flight and if there is any sign of an issue to not fly and get it checked by somebody who knows about Jabiru engines. As I said earlier it is about risk - Flying has inherent risks, if it is too high for you then don't do it. You assess the risk before every flight and take appropriate mitigations. Every aircraft has an engine that may fail - every engine would have some history of a failure. You do your maintenance and pre flight checks and if there is a problem - you must be prepared for it and act accordingly. If you are not then take up golf.

Andy - I agree that the board must operate for the members as a whole but actions by the board and RAAus does not have to adversely affect one group over another. There is a large number of people not directly but will very likely be indirectly affected by what will happen. Any action by CASA is going to be anything but surgical - other engines or aircraft are not immune from problems so any approach will affect more than just the minority of Jabiru aircraft owners. Jabiru might be the start but then any engine or airframe issue would get the same treatment. My observation is that there are a few people that push their own agendas for their own purpose with no consideration of others. I believe you are more balanced in your views and approach but I can't say the same for everyone. I am happy for the association to be as heavy handed as needed - but in public and armed with facts - to work with the manufacturer to identify and resolve the issues. Don't make it public and don't drag the regulator into it because that does not help the minority or the majority when the arbitrator takes their indiscriminate actions.

Thank you Andy for recognising the problem that at the end of the day there are a lot of members in RAAus with a lot of much money tied up in the aircraft that are being discussed here. As a Jabiru owner yourself you are obviously part of that. My concern is at least one board member and other influential people with strong negative attitudes against Jabiru have influenced the views of the CEO who made public statements in the press against Jabiru and made approaches to CASA with the possibility that this could lead to action which would have an effect that could completely wipe out or severely reduce the use and value of these aircraft. So whilst eliminating engine problems is a great goal it should be considerate of the impact it has on everyone including aircraft owners. Safety is critically important and as a Jabiru owner myself, witnessing and personally experiencing some of the problems with the engines I would absolutely like to see improvements that would lead to better service life and reliability and be more tolerant of a wider range of operation and maintenance - everyone always wants better. But, by involving CASA, the problem is taken out of the hands of RA-Aus and we will all have to live with the consequences of what happens and the possibility that people with $63m worth of assets will be looking for some recourse. The engaged approach based on facts working with the manufacturer and others to develop a solution will always achieve a better outcome. The RAAus board does have and is having a role in influencing CASA and the manufacturer and affecting the outcome - good and bad. Hopefully it works out well for all Jabiru owners and pilots.

I would like to improve the reliability and safety of the aircraft I fly. Currently CASA restricts what may be some solutions by restricting modifications to those approved by the manufacturer. With the liability issues it is not unreasonable for the manufacturer to be conservative to an extreme. Maybe RAAus board can lobby to allow these modifications. Investigating the root cause of problems will provide members and the manufacturer with relevant information to base a solution on. Many of the causes stated are the symptoms not the cause. Understand the cause and it will lead to solutions. This is a manufacturers responsibility but maybe better data will assist them. Can the board assist with the collection and sharing of this information? In a non confrontational way. For me to look after my interests - I use a LAME who has looked after Jabiru aircraft with several thousand hours of hours flight time experience. Not trouble free hours but it has been a learning experience for everyone on how to operate the engine and what to look out for that is a sign of a potential problem and yes lessons have been shared with Jabiru. Case in point - I understand Jabiru are investigating running an engine on mogas to avoid the avgas issues as one example. I repeat this but from what I saw it really is bad for these engines. I also religiously pull the engine through feeling for loss of compression and listening for noises through the exhaust - any concerns it goes into the shop. If the engine is not running totally smoothly then it gets a look at. It has picked up a couple of issues that could have had more serious consequences if not rectified. What the board and CEO should not do is publicly shame the manufacturer - it does not help to resolve anything.

Safety of members and the general public is a high priority so how is criticising Jabiru in public going to help that? Asking the safety authority to intervene will possibly lead to the grounding of all Jabiru aircraft. That is certainly safe! Far better to work with Jabiru to identify root cause and implement a suitable solution in conjunction with owners. Win-Win. Protects the public, pilot and owners equity. Quite frankly any future owners can do as they please - flying and buying an aircraft is an informed decision. If you are worried about flying or buying a jab - don't - it is your assessment of the risks involved and your decision. If you don't accept the risk don't do it and certainly don't try to blame somebody else. There is a little label on the dash that says the same thing.

Good on you for trying to improve Jabiru engine reliability (very commendable) but all this public criticism 'Jabiru engines are bad and CASA should intervene because Jabiru won't do anything' simply hurts current aircraft owners not Jabiru. And with typical bureaucratic fallout any actions by CASA may have flow on ramifications which affect every light sport aircraft owner. Aircraft owners are the members that you are meant to be represent as a member of the RA-Aus board, they should not become victims of your battle with Jabiru.

I submitted the paperwork along with my logbooks to get the pilot certificate with radio and cross country endorsement recognised as equivalent to the RPL. They issued the RPL with no endorsements (took about 5 weeks). I have all the time requirements even including a cross country flight from Archerfield to Longreach (and return) with several stop overs so more than meets the 100 nm condition but no go. The radio was the one that really got me. Sit in my aircraft with a RA-Aus pilot certificate and radio endorsement and I can use the radio but can't use the radio as a RPL pilot. I am currently working through a GA school to do a flight review and provide the endorsements but they essentially will be doing all the theory exams and nav flights again.

Grounding all Jabiru aircraft affects the manufacturer but no where near as much as the 1000 aircraft owners who have somewhere between $70-120k tied up in an asset that would become a useless 360kg lump of glass fibre and aluminium. The flow on effects would likely end (or at least severely cripple) RAA and the recreational aviation industry if the aircraft couldn't get back in the air. If there is no simple answer this will not end well. So focus needs to be on determining the root cause and coming up with a solution that includes how to apply the solution within the regulatory restrictions that controls this industry not belting the hell out of the manufacturer by calling in the regulatory watch dogs.

I would like to have the most perfect 100% aircraft reliability and maybe there is a solution out there but what do you expect to happen? Jabiru to 'fix the problem' and upgrade everyone for free? If as you say it is a new block, pistons and valves then it will be millions of dollars for Jabiru to give everyone or have everyone to buy a new engine - it won't happen. What other options are there even if there was a simple 'fix' to the problem'? CASA grounds every Jabiru indefinitely until the 'fix' is applied? The 'f'ix' costs thousands or tens of thousands of dollars requiring every Jabiru aircraft owner to apply? Mandatory LAME maintenance or annual inspections for just all Jabiru or all LSA aircraft? Aircraft are restricted to 500ft and don't cross roads? If you invite the big bad regulator to take action you don't know what is going to be the outcome! Some people are getting reasonable service and with good operation, vigilance and maintenance are getting good life. Ultimately everyone would like to have more reliable engines/aircraft possible but we are talking a thousand (or more?) Jabiru aircraft and many more pilots affected by this even if the actions are restricted to Jabiru aircraft but it could affect every RAA aircraft if rules are applied without due consideration. Maybe the 'fix' is simple but if it was then I am sure it would have be applied by now. In a crusade to help everyone it may just kill the industry, bankrupt aircraft manufacturer/s, permanently grounding thousands of aircraft and pilots or at least costing everyone thousands of dollars. Airfields could become like elephant grave yards with LSA aircraft scattered around the field and in hangers slowly rotting away. How would dropping even just a third of aircraft and pilots from the RAA affect cash flow income? Melodramatic maybe but just look at he reaction to a $40 increase in fees to cover the shortfall due to the magazine. Efforts would have been better off being applied to working with Jabiru, other aircraft manufacturers/suppliers and the regulator to find ways to improve reliability and have them applied to all aircraft at the best cost - in the interest of the total recreational aviation industry this is the only solution.

I am sure a lot of people (owner maintainers or LAMEs) think they know how to maintain a Jab/Rotax engine but don't really understand the nuances and subtle differences needed to run them well and critically to identify things before they become a serious problem. These engines are built to get a lot of power from a light package which by the very nature requires compromise in tolerance that are not an issue with a typical GA engine. Things like lead fouling from avgas fuel may just have a Cessna running rough but in a Jabiru it will cause much more serious issues with exhaust valves failing. It is a bit like a tractor engine vs a F1 engine - Large differential in power/weight with much finer tolerances in valves and pistons and therefore way more susceptible to less than perfect maintenance and handling. With servicing, you are far better off with somebody who knows the finer points of looking after these engines. If you don't know what to look out for, the first you will know about it is when you are looking for a nice paddock to land in.

And a possible outcome of all this is that CASA simply requires that all maintenance be performed by a LAME to ensure that proper maintenance is done on all aircraft engines for Jabiru and Rotax alike to identify and rectify any problems. In my quick look at the incident figures there still have been a number of Rotax failures so why would CASA differentiate? Without knowing how many of each type are flying the number of failures between each type is irrelevant to working out failure rate. ie Ford, Holden and Toyata have the most car crashes so they must be unsafe... I believe that better fuel, better maintenance and some better components if they could be fitted to 24 registered aircraft (aka CAMit and most probably even Jabiru) will go a long way to improving the situation. So if there is a component fix - how does it get implemented if the current restrictive licencing requirements prevents them being fitted? Surely being able to modify a 24 registered aircraft with properly tested components/modifications without needing the aircraft manufacturers approval or/and with a huge associated expense is something that we and RA-Aus (as our members representative) should be seeking from CASA. If Jabiru aircraft stop flying then it will leave a lot of people (I don't know but is it 2/3 ?? of the RA-Aus fleet with Jabiru powered aircraft) with a large fibreglass paperweight. If all aircraft face additional limitations - how will that go for members/pilots/owners (Jabiru and no Jabiru alike) and RA-Aus? I would absolutely like to see reliability and maintenance improve since it is me and my family flying in the aircraft but I fear throwing Jabiru under the bus will not help the recreational aircraft industry as a whole. Surely a collaborative approach with Jabiru, RA-Aus and CASA will gain a better outcome.

I had vowed to not get involved in a Jabiru's are Bad vs Jabiru's are Good stoush but it is worth making the point that you must be vigilant during pre flight checks of any aircraft and make sure that at any hint of a problem it is investigated properly to avoid problems. It is an unwise person that would say that they do not want to have a safer aircraft, especially if he is actually the one flying in one! Jabiru engines are not tolerant of problems - especially with exhaust valves and pistons. I have had two problems, one with an exhaust valve not sealing properly and the second a stuck piston ring. Vigilance and a good maintainer ensured that the problems were picked up during pre flight inspections and the regular services. My key lesson from this was that if the engine has even a hint of low compression on any cylinder when pulling the prop through or the engine is not running totally smooth then it needs to be fully checked before being flown. I wish the engines were more tolerant of small problems since the fine tolerances means that any problem is cause for concern and further investigation. I believe that more needs to be done to understand the underlying root cause and fix the problem/s. I don't believe that the engine is overall a bad design but some parts do need to be better able to withstand wider variance in use and tolerance of things such as fuel (lead in avgas is evil) and cooling (too hot and things go bad). It sounds like CAMIT is doing some decent investigation and modifications in this area so hopefully Jabiru will learn from them any necessary lessons and join them to bring the improvements to 24 registered aircraft. To make this easier I also wish the regulations would allow freer introduction of modification/new components, still with an appropriate level of testing and certification, but, without the excessive high cost and liabilities currently so that improvements can be made more easily for better safety.

Good luck to him - it will be a big job. There are a lot of recommendations in the Forsyth report needing to be considered and if endorsed for him to implement. He will need to have a big stick to get CASA to work with the aviation industry to promote rather than just constrain the industry using the safety excuse. I note separately, Dick Smith has written to CASA questioning their directive to use the area frequency for radio calls at airfields not shown on charts citing radio traffic congestion disrupting communications with RPT aircraft. Obviously a decision with big impacts that was not fully considered. This and a lot of other ill thought decisions are needing to be properly considered and possibly altered to make them workable for Australian aviation - recreational, commercial and military.

I am still working through the system with GA to do the theory exams again as well as the additional instructor flight times so that they will sign off the flight review so haven't done it yet. I can understand the need of the GA schools to be sure that somebody is capable before signing off a flight review but I think they are going a little too far to force people to redo some of the basic things like the theory exams when CASA at least recognises the RPL as an equivalent of the pilot certificate. What is really annoying is the stupidity of the radio endorsement not being recognised and to a lesser extent the navigation endorsement. Surely if I have met the RA-Aus radio requirements for speaking on a radio (and in my case at a class D controlled aerodrome) that I would not have to prove I can speak English and CASA should accept I can communicate on a radio and recognise the radio endorsement. English language test - It would be funny but it is absolutely true... Instructor - "How can I help you?" Student - " I need to do the CASA English test" Instructor - "Pass - That will be $50 please" With the navigation endorsement, I met all the RA-Aus navigation theory and practical requirements and have even managed to get from Archerfield to Longreach and return via several stopovers so surely navigating a Cessna is no different to navigating a Jabiru. I understand there may be some limited instrument requirement (which I think is only in the PPL anyway) but that should be it.

Because RA-Aus has never been granted controlled airspace access, I am looking to gain my RPL so that I can take advantage of the controlled airspace and controlled aerodrome endorsements to give me unrestricted access to Archerfield where I gained my pilot certificate. I started the process of working with a local GA flight school to gain the RPL and they are effectively requiring probably 10-15 hours of extra flight time before signing off the necessary flight review and endorsements. To get the ball rolling, I submitted the relevant RPL license paperwork to CASA as they state that they recognise the RPL as equivalent to the pilot certificate but knowing I would still need the flight review and the controlled airspace and controlled aerodrome endorsements added later before I could take advantage of it. I was hoping/expecting they would recognise the radio and navigation endorsements from RA-Aus since I have the equivalent RA-Aus endorsements and the necessary flight times. It took them over a month but I finally received the RPL license back today. They provided no radio or cross country endorsement not recognising the RA-Aus endorsements. They even went to the trouble of using red ink to highlight the fact I can't use an aircraft radio. So it seems that there is equivalent and then there's CASA equivalent. It makes no sense that the most basic elements of radio and navigation are not recognised whilst the flying license/certificate is. Ironically, I currently can use the aircraft radio and fly my Jab anywhere in Australia (outside controlled airspace) but even if I did a RPL flight review I can't do exactly the same in a VH registered aircraft without doing these endorsements separately wearing a GA hat. So feasibly, with the RPL license, RPL flight review and RPL controlled airspace/aerodrome endorsements giving me access to controlled airspace and aerodromes but with no radio or cross country endorsement, I could still take off in my appropriately equipped RA-Aus aircraft from a controlled aerodrome transit class C airspace, and then fly across the country all whilst talking on the radio using my RA-Aus pilot license with it's radio and cross country endorsements. The lack of logic makes my head hurt... The sooner RA and GA accept common standards and appropriate equivalent recognition the better off recreational aviation will be.

If you want to transit controlled airspace or land at a controlled airfield then the ability to have the appropriate endorsements equivalent what you can get with the RPL endorsements (if they were ever made available to RA-Aus) would be great for a large number of people. If you don't want the privileges for controlled airspace and airfields then don't do the endorsements and you won't even know there was such a thing. If it is good enough for RPL to be recognised as the equivalent to RA-Aus pilot certificate (at least by CASA even though the GA schools seem to have a problem grasping that) to have a controlled airspace and controlled airfield endorsement then why should RA-Aus and people with a pilot certificate be excluded?