turboplanner
-
Posts
24,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
159
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Store
Aircraft
Resources
Tutorials
Articles
Classifieds
Movies
Books
Community Map
Quizzes
Videos Directory
Posts posted by turboplanner
-
-
Well without even some basic statistics, you're drawing attention to squat.That is because I don't wish to start a firefight regarding other makes, simply to draw attention to the fact that there are valid reasons why the restrictions on Jabirus are inconsistent with the old dictum of 'start with the worst of the problem and work your way back from there', and I particularly don't want to make 'capital' of Ross Millard's sad demise.Ross's name has already got two inappropriate and despicable mentions since he died.
-
1
-
-
That's about exactly the hours of the pilot who spun one in during a routine final turn in Sydney - that one shook me; if he could do it what chance would I have?Which one FT ? How much flying have you done in ANY of those 2 ? Personally, I have approx 2000 hrs in one of those types & AM still alive - at least when i just checked:oh yeah: -
How would you ensure you hear what they are doing when the do get into office Bruce?
-
I didn't see any suggested risk trend related to the aircraft itself in his words though, which might have made his words more persuasive.It was pretty clear what Oscar was saying... he was implying Lightwing accident rate was far more unacceptable than Jabiru. -
Your #185 Gandalph:
(a) Yes it is a she (b) she is currently fully occupied with punishment duties.
When someone says to you "Mr G, you became aware of this risk on April 4 and the deceased's crash occurred on April 8, what action had you taken to mitigate this very obvious risk?" and you say "none", things aren't likely to be good.
I guess there is some "reasonable time" to act, but you can't predict the future.
I'm not so sure about the Director thing; I've found that people who supervise 800 to 1,000 people generally don't have much of an idea about what goes on day to day in the various divisions, despite the extremely switched on appearance those people project, but you may have some inside information.
Especially now they aren't waiting around for the disinterested Judge who at least looks at both sides.
-
Interesting.I also searched for Cessna 172 specifically, there were about 50 Engine failure or malfunction reports in the last 5 years.Is it possible to further narrow this down to Engine failure/malfunction causing a forced landing? i.e. not fuel exhaustion, flooded carbs, spark plug fouls, electrical, pilot misuse, carb icing etc, just engine mechanical failure.
Is it also possible to do the same for Piper PA 28 Cherokee 140 and Piper Cherokee Warrior (the 140 successor) - leave out the PA28-160 and PA28-180, they are more powerful touring aircraft.
We would then have a loose comparison for three aircraft used in training and short to medium cross-country with total numbers of engine failures. If you made the five years 2007 to 2012, we would have the data for the same years as the RAA data on Jabiru.
-
3
-
-
I apologise for being long winded getting back to you, but I got into terrible trouble for not putting the dinner on early enough and I'm just recovering.No, I assumed the role of investigator, who, I'd hope, would be a person with some reasonable level of technical skills and qualifications and certainly not at the junior level. I'd also expect that as an investigator I'd be a "disinterested" person in the same way that a Magistrate is supposed to be disinterested in the cases he/she hears. I would expect the Director of CASA would NOT conduct or even head such an investigation. I'd expect the Director to be fully and and competently briefed on the issue and I'd further expect that a range of options would be put to the Director. We don't know if the latter was done but there is widespread belief that the outgoing Director saw a golden opportunity to leave a warm steaming turd on the incoming Directors desk.The avoidance of any fatalities an very high goal. In most activities the aim is surely harm/risk minimisation which (should) pursue by rigorous risk assessment and management. If, as you claim CASA's role is the aim is to avoid any fatalities their inspectors should be in the field as we speak, removing the propellors from the entire RAA fleet.
Re Tiger airways: I believe there was far more substantiated evidence for CASA's action in that case. I also believe that ANSETT came close to enjoying the same fate but escaped by the skin of their teeth. The justification for the Jabiru injunction is much more tenuous and hardly analogous to those events
I didn't mean anything by the word "junior" other than that you kicked the decision upwards, and the answer I was looking for from your and Facthunter was what decision you would have made if you had been the decision maker.
The "ground all aircraft" decision completely eliminates the risk, and varieties of this have been very successful in various industries. For example the falls from heights legislation makes it impractical for farmers to load small hay bales, and build haystacks, above 2 metres from ground level, and that has seen a wholesale move into bigger round and square bales, loaded and unloaded by tractors.
The CASA action is not quite at that level, and does potentially leave CASA open to legal action by anyone injured or killed, so I guess you could say they are balancing one risk against another.
Even in the discussion we've had you can see that these decisions are not easy to make if you don't want hordes of disaffected people around your neck. Consequently I don't think CASA decided they'd go out and make things as difficult as they could for as many people as they could.
The other factor in this decision was time.
At one of my meetings one of the State Associations made the meeting aware of a massive race car fire, in a class we'd been told was totally fireproof, and which had led to an exemption for the drivers from wearing firesuits.
We now had a forseeable risk, and we had to make the decision on the spot before any further racing occurred. I asked for a motion that firesuits be made compulsory for all 1100 drivers in that class, and got a unanimous vote from all the bodies present.
So while I'm generally supportive of your suggested process and Facthunter's thought process, sometimes you can't sit still.
As a matter of interest, my cousin is a barrister in South Australia, and was telling me recently that they have a Court problem, because almost all the public liability cases are being settled out of Court. This situation requires a different strategy again if singing your behind is to be avoided.
-
I was using the Donoghue v Stevenson based meaning - that if there are forced landings occurring there's a reasonable forseeable risk that someone is going to be hurt or killed.Without trying to appear "Cute", a reasonable foreseeable risk you cope with. An unacceptable foreseeable risk you have to modify/ change something before you continue. -
You're as brutal as me at times, but it is better to take sh!t from the living than to be scratching your head writing a eulogy.If you analyse data and find a trend or pattern in some accidents, you act to train or educate people to reduce/eliminate it. That is the reason you should report everything. So others can benefit from your experience. The way we teach stalls and recovery is totally ineffective. Blind Freddy can see that. We are negligent in not doing it better. NevIf a trend develops, the first step is for the Controlling Body to address the risk, at which time the controlling body has the freedom to decide what action to take, and subsequently measure the success.
If the CB can't or won't address it then the Regulator has to step in and then you lose control.
-
I've already posted my own findings of an average 6.8 from 2007 to 2012, I've already said I don't have a problem with Jabiru's claimed 12 in 2014.So - you would, it seems, more or less agree with my statements for months now that around 16-18 'in-flight failures' is a reasonable deduction?I've said I don't believe the final numbers matter; the key is to eliminate a "reasonable forseeable risk".
-
On what basis? Have you looked at the ATSB statistics for forced landings caused by engine failures over the past few years?And also all the C172's in Australia.Or for Cherokee 140 and Cherokee Warrior?
That might put things in perspective.
-
I'd prefer fatuous to flatulence Oscar.Since Jabiru have NO recorded fatalities from forced landings, the statement that 'the next forced landing could have been a fatal' - while absolutely correct in logic - is extremely contradicted by statistics from 25 years of operation. That is one of the most fatuous comments regarding genuine aviation safety I have ever witnessed.There was nothing in my statement pointing to the airframe being a key reason for a potential fatality.
However, there have over the years been many unsuccessful forced landings, and in particular, within RA in Australia we had a series around 2010 - 2012 with stalls/spins in from heights,some above 1000 feet, where no fuselage structure would have saved the pilot, so no implications on Jabiru or the fuselage whatsoever.
-
None, in my opinionTurbs, in the list you published above which ones are really engine quality issues? -
We've had two or three quite big threads on supporting ultralights, and they go on for some time with people saying what should be done but when the comments start to run dry and it's time for people to say what they are going to do, the thread peters out.
We didn't establish on the last thread there is no impediment to the ultralight section, and there are affordable models available.
It seems to hinge on whether anyone wants to go out and fly one.
-
Well you still haven't committed yourself, and there was an urgency at the time - the next forced landing could have been a fatal."Grounding the Fleet" would have been the furthest thing from my mind. It's an extreme act for an extreme situation. The Tiger matter was quite contentious I recall . I wouldn't use those things as a good example. It shows they have the power to do it. Often not much else. Nev -
In looking at the supposed 46 failures and who reported them, these are interesting;
Spark plugs, reported by RAAus
Avgas, reported by RAAus
Temperatures, reported by RAAus
Alternator wiring, reported by RAAus
Nose Wheel, reported by RAAus
Tyre deflated, reported by RAAus
Caliper part, reported by RAAus
Proximity Issue, reported by RAAus
Brake calipers, reported by RAAus
Nosewheel collapse, reported by RAAus
Maintenance process, reported by RAAus/Jabiru
Radio problem, reported by RAAus
Distributor rotor loose, reported by RAAus
EFATO no reason, reported by RAAus
Alternator failure, reported by RAAus
Delaminated prop, reported by RAAus
Cigarette socket short, reported by RAAus
Carburettor flooding, reported by RAAus/Jabiru
Flap circuit breaker, reported by RAAus
Brake pad jammed, reported by RAAus
Show cause why pilot should not be suspended for two months, reported by RAAus
Aircraft control system (Morgan), reported by RAAus
Electrical, reported by RAAus
Inexperienced pilot/high engine idle, reported by RAAus
Bowden cable, reported by RAAus
Leaking fuel pump, reported by RAAus
Undercarriage issue, reported by RAAus
Undercarriage issue, reported by RAAus
Rudder cables, reported by RAAus
Radio Issue, reported by RAAus
Prop blades, reported by RAAus
Loose control fittings, reported by RAAus
-
But then you would say that.My experience is that the higher the Court the sillier the rulings. -
Don't have any problem with any of that, but you've assumed the position of a junior, and kicked the problem upstairs. What I was getting at was, if you were the Director, and you'd done all that (or had others do it), what sanction would you have imposed.You directed the question to Nev but I'll have a go at answering it.I would have asked my sister organisation, the Australian Transportation SAFETY Bureau, if they had any data relevant to the information provided to CASA by the RAA that I should consider and that might expand my understanding of the issue.I would have gone back to the RAA and asked for complete details of the incidents listed in their spreadsheet.
As a caveat, we don't know whether the RAA simply provided a bare bones summary of accidents/incidents relating to Jabiru powered craft or whether they supplied, as supplementary data, copies of member's incident reports and copies of RAA's investigations into those reports. I rather suspect that given the impossibly tight timeframe allowed by CASA for the RAA to provide information to CASA that the RAA Board and staff did their best and slammed together a spreadsheet expecting (wrongly) that CASA would exercise due diligence and cross check the RAA with their records and cull the flat tyre; fuel starvation; carb icing; comms failures ets from the data to be considered. I think that the RAA believed that the spreadsheet they provided was PRELIMINARY information and that they would be allowed sufficient time to refine and elaborate on the first flush information provided.
That additional information from ATSB and RAA might have allowed me to form an opinion as to whether there WAS a problem with Jabiru engines.
If I was to form an opinion that there was a problem with the mechanical integrity of Jabiru engines then I might draft a carefully worded detailing the results of my investigation and justifying any action I might propose for the (then) rabidly anti-RAA Director to include in any direction to the fleet to alleviate the problem(s) identified by my thorough and rigorous investigation.
I would not have sat back and said: "WOW! 40 failures per year! I'd better tell Mr F he can ground the fleet and drop the incoming Director in it with one fell swoop."
It's not such an easy decision if the aim is to avoid any fatalities.
I was asked at the time what I would have done, and I said "ground the fleet" on the basis that this would have eliminated any fatality, but this wasn't very popular if I recall. CASA did it to Tiger Airlines though.
-
1
-
-
Well the "thinking of RAAus" can only be that if the members continue to allow the people elected as board members to go off and make their own decisions, do their own thing as if they were company directors.
You own the Association, and need to take control of it.
If you go through the RAA accident/incident reports, you'll see plenty of very obvious mistakes, which a volunteer oversight group would normally pick up.
Same goes with pilot behaviour; Volunteer Stewards can see a problem developing on the local field.
-
I collated the 5 year RAA figures a couple of years ago, and the total was Jabiru 34, Rotax 3, and I've posted the results several times since then.If the numbers of engine failures is reduced, which you almost seem to be accepting now........ then Jabiru possibly fall alongside other engines in terms of reliability.RAA hasn't changed those figures.
There were no prescriptive mechanical directions in the action, so it didn't alter the engine performance itself, other than where people became much more careful with service, and tinkered less.The question asked a year ago, How will/has the action altered the safety of all the Jabiru engined aircraft?The action did ensure less people in the aircraft and less aircraft over built up areas.
-
Therein lies the problem; there are one or two so obsessed with having just the information they want, that they will moan and groan until they get it, rather than simply leave their finger off the mouse.I think that the forum thread structure does not allow derailling of all forumite's aviation thoughts. After all one must decide to select an 'off topic' thread before being exposed to its heretical content. -
That's what people have been speculating, but they don't know, CASA hasn't told them, they don't know what CASA knows.EXACTLY! that's all they appeared to do. They do not appear to have queried, verified or otherwise examined the data reportted with anything like a questioning mind. The took the lazy way out.
With your background, you would know that just when the bombshell of the 46 failures was about to drop, CASA can simply say "There are a number of errors in this document, obviously fuel exhaustion or a flat tyre is not an engine failure, so the numbers supplied by xxxx are reduced to X', and the process goes on with the correct numbers.The CASA mindset appears to be:1. An that engine stops (for any reason) = an engine that has failed
2 A forced landing for any reason = an engine failure..
I can't explain the difference; perhaps the Jabiru/RAA summaries were on the spreadsheet, as you would expect, and the ATSB summaries differed from the Jabirui/RAA, or perhaps they were the blanks. The aircraft registrations are listed for each entry, so it should be possible to reconcile. I would be concerned if CASA have changed any of the wording on the reports from Jabiru/RAA.I did NOT say that there were ATSB reports included in the CASA spreadsheet I DID suggest that a search of the ATSB database would provide reports on incidents that appeared, ( ie: could be cross referenced to incidents) in the CASA spreadsheet and that the causes noted in the ATSB reports did NOT tally with the CASA reported causes.Not at all; I knew it was going to be read by one of the best nitpickers in the business. -
Well how about you post something that makes sense then; people can then compare what you've found out, with previous figures.Same old s......t -
Well that's one comparison....I think it goes beyond being a pilot too. It'd be a great way of enticing students to all areas of aviation from engineering to mechanics to design to ground crew etc.And let's face it. Although flying can be expensive, an hour's lesson costs less than getting blind drunk on a weekend!Another is the cost of cigarettes. During a recent trip a small package of cigarettes was delivered to a Roadhouse owner while I was there; you could hold it in one hand. He ruefully looked at it and told me he had to pay $3,000.00 for it - about $6000.00 at retail - a staggering amount for such a small parcel.
JABIRU 2016 UPDATE
in Governing Bodies
Posted