Jump to content

Jab down Tasmania 30 Nov 2020


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

Not sure what crop is in that paddock, looks like grass to me. But then I'm not a farmer! 

Maybe future garden pebbles 🙂

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

🥩

9 minutes ago, ClintonB said:

Maybe future garden pebbles 🙂

or T bone steaks or roast lamb maybe.🥩

 

Edited by bull
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the mention of cattle is important. They are curious, and if you do an outlanding in a paddock with cattle in it, you really need to be on guard for them "inspecting it"!

 

Cattle have been known to seriously damage aircraft with their curiosity. They can chew on panels and fabric, and they will lean on anything in their way, when they put their heads in for a look or a chew.

 

And being herd animals, they will gather when one finds something interesting, and before long you have 20 cattle all leaning on, walking on, or chewing on your aircraft.

 

But the horror animals are goats! They will eat anything! - as well as climb all over anything standing higher than surrounding ground, to stand on the highest point of your machine!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Actually, the mention of cattle is important. They are curious, and if you do an outlanding in a paddock with cattle in it, you really need to be on guard for them "inspecting it"!

 

Cattle have been known to seriously damage aircraft with their curiosity. They can chew on panels and fabric, and they will lean on anything in their way, when they put their heads in for a look or a chew.

 

And being herd animals, they will gather when one finds something interesting, and before long you have 20 cattle all leaning on, walking on, or chewing on your aircraft.

 

But the horror animals are goats! They will eat anything! - as well as climb all over anything standing higher than surrounding ground, to stand on the highest point of your machine!

Yep your dead right ,i had to chase the buggers away and then the farmer come over with some star pickets and some orange safety fence stuff and  helped me put a ring around the loehle until i could get my truck the next day and pick it up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I landed my hang glider in a paddock full of cattle back in the late 70s. Curiosity saw them start a charge towards me. It wasn't till I saw the swinging tackle that I realised they were all young bulls. I grabbed my harness and took off over the fence. They all gathered around my glider and started licking and nudging it. They eventually lost interest and wandered off to graze. I went back and walked the glider to the fence which luckily had no barbed wire and lifted it over to the other side. There was no physical damage. My logbook entry was "Soaring flight from Kaimais, landed in bull paddock. Kite covered in genuine Bullshit."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, onetrack said:

...Cattle have been known to seriously damage aircraft with their curiosity. They can chew on panels and fabric, and they will lean on anything in their way, when they put their heads in for a look or a chew...

Good point, 1T. While flying I make a habit of selecting possible landing sites if the noise stop. Cattle in a paddock is a major turn-off. Not the sort of place to leave your pride and joy while you arrange transport.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2020 at 3:04 PM, Kenlsa said:

The nose leg is designed to collapse as it is the built in safety feature to minimise a tip over. All correct!

Ken

Hey Ken just to clear up something i,ve got some stats for you that might help explain the mistrust of jabiru engines ok have a read and then tell me there is nothing to worry about with jabs.....

TL;DR. FACT: between 2009 and 2014, 1 in 10, Jabiru powered aircraft had an engine failure or malfunction, twice the rate (per hour flown) than any other manufacturer (3.21 per 10,000 hrs).
...will see if I can find anything that covers the last 6 years.
Over the 6-year study period between 2009 and 2014, 322 engine failures or malfunctions involving light aircraft were reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and/or Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus). These reports involved single-engine piston aeroplanes up to 800 kg maximum take-off weight. Aircraft powered by Jabiru engines were involved in the most engine failures or malfunctions with 130 reported over the 6 years. This represents about one in ten aircraft powered by Jabiru engines in the study set having reported an engine failure or malfunction. Reports from Rotax powered aircraft were the next most common with 87 (one in 36), followed by aircraft with Lycoming (58 – one in 35) and Continental (28 – one in 35) engines. When factoring in the hours flown for each of these engine manufacturers, aircraft with Jabiru engines had more than double the rate of engine failure or malfunction than any other of the manufacturers in the study set with 3.21 failures per 10,000 hours flown.
Unlike the engines of other engine manufacturers in this study, nearly half of the Jabiru engine failures or malfunctions related to a fractured component. Engine through-bolt failures were the most commonly reported failure mechanism in Jabiru powered aircraft with 21 through-bolt fractures reported between 2009 and 2014. Taking into account the number of aircraft registered in the study period, through-bolt failures occurred in about one in 55 Jabiru powered aircraft. Although originally designed to be replaced after 1,000 hours, 19 through-bolts failed before the 1,000 hour mark, with seven failing before 500 hours. At least four failures involved engines with upgraded 3/8 inch diameter through-bolt nuts. There were no failures reported involving the newer 7/16 inch diameter through-bolts which are used in currently manufactured engines (present in about 20 per cent of Jabiru engines).
 
Engine failures and malfunctions in light aeroplanes 2009 - 2014
ATSB.GOV.AU
Engine failures and malfunctions in light aeroplanes 2009 - 2014
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

BULL - you say "TLDR  FACT  " 

 

but it is NOT a fact !!! That is a BS assertion. Look up the word "fact" in the dictionary.
"a thing that is known or proved to be true."

 

The real numbers are much different because of the small numbers actually reported.

 

While I do not dispute that Jabiru engines are involved in a  high number of failures, your premise that is is a FACT is just wrong.

 

But it is NOT  a fact.  

 It is the numbers provided by the ATSB based on what they received . 

The real numbers for all engines are very different. I know of many unreported Jab and Rotax failures

The numbers are much higher than presented.

 

The ATSB data could be called a 'estimate' and no more.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lies damned lies and statistics. When CASA slapped a restriction on Jabiru engines in 2014 it specified 40 engine failures since 2011. When it was detailed the 40 became 12 that actually led to forced landings. An analysis revealed these included oil leaks and fuel starvation and other things requiring precautionary landings and shutdowns before the aircraft even took off & that was in 93,000 flights and 43.000 flying hours. These were mostly in Flying school aircraft one or two owned by a couple of disgruntled ex RAA people who had been recruited by CASA. Not only that Jabiru had implemented corrective actions for almost all of the 12.

 

All engines have problems especially in the early years of their development, and Lycoming, Continental and Rotax are no exceptions. If you want more statistics ATSB reported the failure rate for Jabiru engines declined between 2012 and 2013 from 3.9 to 3.25 per 10,000 hours while Rotax failures went up from 1.52 to 2.6 per 10,000 hours. Make of that what you will. The rate has continued to decline as issues are resolved. For example there have been no reports of through bolt failures in Gen 3 engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RFguy said:

BULL - you say "TLDR  FACT  " 

 

but it is NOT a fact !!! That is a BS assertion. Look up the word "fact" in the dictionary.
"a thing that is known or proved to be true."

 

The real numbers are much different because of the small numbers actually reported.

 

While I do not dispute that Jabiru engines are involved in a  high number of failures, your premise that is is a FACT is just wrong.

 

But it is NOT  a fact.  

 It is the numbers provided by the ATSB based on what they received . 

The real numbers for all engines are very different. I know of many unreported Jab and Rotax failures

The numbers are much higher than presented.

 

The ATSB data could be called a 'estimate' and no more.

ok going on that i,d agree your right ,,WHICH in itself is more worrying about jab engines is it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of grass left there for whatever was grazing it.

It might be a different story if you set fire to the paddock, but even with a crop flattened by the aircraft, ATSB roping off the area and fire trucks, ambulances etc, rarely would it equate to financial loss. One was of assessing it would be to calculate the area of the paddock, and the net income it was going to produce and then calculate the % destroyed, and then calcutate the net reduction in income from the damage.

 

In some cases the crop will recover, the grass will recover to finish off the season.

 

In other cases, say you came down in a paddock next to lambing ewes, the damage in lost lambs could be thousands.

 

You can usually tell by the look on the property owner's face as he drives up, but bull's experience would be the most common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(@Bull) yeah. 

There are many more Jab failures than are reported.

There are many more Rotax failures than reported.

 

CASA treatment of Jabiru was unfairly singling out one manufacturer due to an insufficiently rigorous reporting and airworthiness directive regime.

 

But, back to the Tasmania topic....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"ATSB reported the failure rate for Jabiru engines declined between 2012 and 2013 from 3.9 to 3.25 per 10,000 hours while Rotax failures went up from 1.52 to 2.6 per 10,000 hours."

 

The Jabiru numbers declined perhaps because fewer people were flying  in Jabiru aircraft at the time of all of these problems?

 

Rotax numbers have always been questionable in this report because they also include the two-stroke engines and not just four-stroke engines, so it is obvious that Rotax failures are over reported and not really indicative of the four-stroke fleet

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those numbers- I think that  use the use of decimal points in their figures  BS given the sample size and questionable sampling method, the sample method was biased and not the true story because it didnt capture all of the flights and all of the failures. It captured somewhere in between all and nothing.  It's just like CASA with that survey they sent out and retracted a couple of months ago because the sample population was not representative. ( Yes I am a member of AOPA and agree with their position on it) 

Edited by RFguy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if there was one productive thing that came out of that ATSB/CASA action (amongst all the downsides)  , is that it forced the manufacturer to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

Interesting Jab went all the way up to 7/16" thru bolts. and found the laterial vibration modes (which was easily fixed).

That is why I like the airworthinness directive stick of GA....

 

Edited by RFguy
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, RFguy said:

(@Bull) yeah. 

There are many more Jab failures than are reported.

There are many more Rotax failures than reported.

 

CASA treatment of Jabiru was unfairly singling out one manufacturer due to an insufficiently rigorous reporting and airworthiness directive regime.

 

But, back to the Tasmania topic....

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply Rfguy, and i know i sound like a jab hater , but i,m not really, i have flown in jabs and have 10 hrs in my logbook in jabs as pic [did not really like the flap handle hitting my head all the time ,,but thats beside the point i,m a big fella lol]  and as stated i trained in a jab engine fitted aircraft ,and i love all aircraft and all flying and as the saying goes,,,,,,each to his or hers or its own.... and wish no malcontent .  I am just cautious because i have seen so many failures of friends aircraft and others and wish no harm on anyone.😃

 

 

 

 

Edited by bull
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kgwilson said:

Lies damned lies and statistics. When CASA slapped a restriction on Jabiru engines in 2014 it specified 40 engine failures since 2011. When it was detailed the 40 became 12 that actually led to forced landings. An analysis revealed these included oil leaks and fuel starvation and other things requiring precautionary landings and shutdowns before the aircraft even took off & that was in 93,000 flights and 43.000 flying hours. These were mostly in Flying school aircraft one or two owned by a couple of disgruntled ex RAA people who had been recruited by CASA. Not only that Jabiru had implemented corrective actions for almost all of the 12.

I already clarified with you as late as February this year that this document covering 40 failures which diminished to 12 and included flat tyres etc. was released by the CASA spin doctor, not the engineers, and that it was based on information produced in a hurry by someone in RAA. I also confirmed that is NOT the data which CASA relied on for their instrument, and shouldn't be pedalled over and over again because it's misleading.      

 

Here is what I explained in February:

 

Paul Phelan story Indecent Haste 28/11/14

This story is based on the press release by Peter Gibson, Corporate Communications, CASA. He based those numbers (40>12) on what RAA provided to CASA in November 2014.

 

Paul Phelan was reporting what he had been given, but the figures which triggered the Instrument came from years before this.

 

CASA data

·        CASA referred to a batch of data from 2008 onwards

 

·        In December 2013 CASA offered to send staff to RAA to extract data and RAA accepted the offer. Two CASA employees collected this data on site covering January 1, 2012 to December 16, 2013. CASA provided a copy of what they had extracted to RAA.

 

·        In August 2014 CASA requested more data, and RAA supplied data to August 3, 2014

 

·        On November 3, 2014 RAA supplied further data (the 40>12 batch with errors)

 

·        ATSB supplied data

 

·        Jabiru Aircraft Pty Ltd supplied data

 

·        Aircraft Owners supplied data

 

CASA’s Safety Systems Office assessed the data

The assessment included allowances for debatable data.

 

The assessment was against FAA Policy PS-ANE100-1999-0006

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgPolicy.nsf/0/4AB3D0632E35843B86257B2D0058841C

 

I would recommend that anyone interested in the CASA Instrument read this because it takes all the politics out of what happened.

 

The average in-flight shutdown rate of 5.8/10,000 hours from January 2012 to July 2014was five times the FAA benchmark. Note that the data for this period was from the batch extracted by CASA, and the batch supplied by RAA in August 2014, not the contentious last batch on November 3, 2014.

 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Current_Inquiries

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_estimates

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The FAA is the US regulatory body not Australian which is CASA supposedly. No other civil aviation authority in the world including the FAA sought to impose any restrictions on Jabiru engines. Jabiru had already addressed the issues regarding the engine partial and full failures before the instrument was issued. Gen 3 engines were being produced since March 2013. Anti Jabiru politics and personalities were involved in this fiasco from beginning to end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

The FAA is the US regulatory body not Australian which is CASA supposedly. No other civil aviation authority in the world including the FAA sought to impose any restrictions on Jabiru engines. Jabiru had already addressed the issues regarding the engine partial and full failures before the instrument was issued. Gen 3 engines were being produced since March 2013. Anti Jabiru politics and personalities were involved in this fiasco from beginning to end.

There is no point in hitting social media with misleading information if you don't know the story.

Yes, we all know FAA is the US authority.

In the absence of Australian benchmarks to make a decision fair to CASA and fair to the owners, CASA used  FAA Policy PS-ANE100-1999-0006

There's nothing unusual in that; Our State EPAs frequently used USEPA benchmarks rather than spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making up their own.

 

The information used against the FAA benchmark was:

1. CASA collected Jan 2012 to Dec 16, 2013

2. RAA supplied August 3, 2014

 

The contentious batch of 40 which you quoted were not used in the instrument decision.

 

The Instrument came in the warning signs went on, the Gen 4 engines are available and this is old news. Engine manufacturers go through these cycles all the time and the way Jabiru has addressed it is pretty much industry standard, but what is not acceptable it talking down the problems to the point where owners and hirers disregard them and don't keep themselves current and ready for a forced landing, and then we have an injury or fatality.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...