turboplanner

I must disagree. If you search the ATSB database you will find many reports prepared by ATSB on RAA aircraft incident/Accidents.

some/many/somewhere in between - not a problem.

 

Exactly! And the "Causes" as listed on the CASA spreadsheet do not tally well with causes specified in the reports by ATSB. It's not hard to determine which of the CASA incidents are reported by ATSB & vice versa. Perhaps ATSB has a more forensic nature than either RAA or CASA when determining causes of failures.

There's a column "Reported by Jabiru" and a column "Reported by RAA" and a column for aircraft registration. There were only five aircraft where the report originator is not listed. ATSB are not listed as supplying any reports.

There's no suggestion in the document that CASA did anything but print the data reported to them.

 

 

Yes, but it appears CASA compared Jabiru to Rotax when they put the restrictions in place. They just drew an arbitrary line based on...who knows what?

I don't think they've released any detail on how they reached their decision.

As I mentioned earlier, you can take them to ACAT and if ACAT found the grounds were not persuasive, they may award you out of pocket costs.

 

They originally said it was a high and increasing number of failures, but the increasing numbers bit turned out to be bulldust.

I seem to recall seeing those "high and increasing" words before the CASA action.

I logged the 6 per year average from the RAA figures from 2007 to 2012. Earlier someone reported that Jabiru accepted 12 of the 46 on the CASA spreadsheet. I haven't seen 2013 RAA figures.

 

 

SOS

You need help?

 

 

Have a look at 2015 as reported HERE and in the press, 24 crashes, 14 fatalities, none reported as a Jabiru engine failure. I know where a sensible analysis would point to the problem. But that will not stop the continued pushing from those who have their own agenda, whatever that might be. (2 reported as engine failures both not Jabiru, well I guess that must just bad luck)

Reported where?

What do the monthly RAA accidents and incidents show?

 

 

Surely it would depend on the REASON the warriors or 172's were "falling out of the skies" (to use your hyperbolic language) If you, not you particularly TP but interested people in general , were to take the data in the spreadsheet provided by CASA relating to Jabiru incidents (difficult now that CASA has realised they have made yet another significant administrative error and taken the relevant document down) and cross check it with ATSB reports covering the same period you would see that the data do not match. That could raise a couple of questions in people with open minds:

 

1.Could that be because the ATSB actually investigates incident and accidents and provides an assessment of the CAUSE of the incident/accident whereas CASA appears to have taken the slackers way out and jerked their knees in response to some very dubious external stimuli?

 

2. Is it legitimate for CASA to determine that fuel starvation or carburettor icing or incorrect component assembly or incorrect maintenance should be classified as an engine failure?

 

p.s. Those were rhetorical questions

Since I might not know what rhetorical means I'll answer them anyway:

 

1. ATSB rarely investigates. RAA fatalities, let alone engine failures, and they, like Airservices Australia, are a completely separate Organisation to CASA, and unless there has been a recent arrangement for RAA to report incidents to ATSB, ATSB records would not match RAA reports, and would primarily cover VH registered aircraft and any RAA accidents they were called in to investigate. With reg nos you could sort it all out eliminating the double ups.

 

The CASA spreadsheet shows which data was supplied by RAA and you can see the causes RAA specified for those.

 

There are some blank cells, and you might speculate they came from mandatory reporting by mechanics - I don't know.

 

In the spray of communications which went on at the time my impression was that ATSB came up with their own separate numbers.

 

If you are thinking that the dubious external stimuli came from the two with alleged axes to grind, I don't know, but if I had found what they quite freely told us they found, I would have submitted reports too, but that would only have been a few engines.

 

Going forward it would be better if ATSB investigated every potential injury/ fatal incident.

 

2. No it's not. I cannot imagine Lee Ungermann or Mick Poole being silly enough to say "Yep, we can put that one in!" The data had to have been supplied by someone with very little mechanical knowledge. You could kick their arxes and take those mistakes out.

 

 

I wish them well, have had a couple of very succesful orders with them, and fast fix when a washing machine arrived dented - new one next day.

 

 

What if I want to fly my Bleriot with Anzani motor? Or even a Fairchild with Warner Scarab? Our aviation is what it is. If you want super safety fly in the back of a commercial airliner, or better still get up the front and fly it yourself, where you have a fighting chance .Some of the better 4 stroke Lawnmower engines are starting to look pretty good if you worked them over a bit. The pilot is the most dangerous thing in a plane. No single engined plane can do better than gliding distance if something goes wrong with the engine or out of fuel. Nev

And what about if six Warriors a year or six 172s a year started falling out of the skies?

 

 

That's about his speed. When you're directly underneath it seems faster, but maybe 40 kts?

 

 

TP, you seem to be suggesting that he safety rationale for the restrictions was that there were engine failures. On that basis, why isn't there a restriction on Rotax engines?

The same RAA data I mentioned previously, showed only 3 Rotax failures in the five years.

As other people have said, you shouldn't compare Jab with Rotax and on the same basis You shouldn't assess Rotax against another engine which may have had one failure. We're trained to do forced landings because no one yet has a zero record. RAA should be the body assessing the risks and managing them. If they don't do it CASA has to step in. The questions I asked Facthunter show this is not an easy decision to make..

 

 

Turbs, I have no doubt you are an excellent salesman of trucks and buses. But if you are considering a new career path in jurisprudence, , I seriously suggest you keep your day job.

Please excuse me, I can't think of anything to say for laughing!

 

 

Wow, smarter than the High Court of Australia Oscar, good luck with it.

 

 

Maybe they could, but you have access to Natural Justice through ACAT (ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal) FH, and at a very low cost. Things have changed over the past few years, probably since the AOPA days you talk about.

 

 

We are frequently told of judicial activism and judges turning the law on its head. Could Berryman v Wentworth Shire be another case?

At the time it was one of the cases which turned us all on our heads, the main confusion being that the two drivers were severely intoxicated and the vehicle was unroadworthy.

However, it would have been easier to understand if the driver had been rested and with a zero blood alcohol reading, and the visibility due to rain/fog etc had been a contributing factor, and the driver had slowed for the last two curves, but missed this one because there was no sign.

 

The reason I quoted this case is because it was scrutinised over a number of years and went right to the High Court.

 

The good that came out of it was the contributory negligence decision, where if you injure yourself because you are blind drunk there is a contributory negligence factor which might reduce the damages even as far as zero.

 

 

It would be more based on TRUE stats and have a clear path to a resolution. The current action does neither. There is insufficient technical knowledge used in the decision, and no attempt to evaluate and consider the effects on individuals and the industry. It was just reactive and punitive. Nev

The safety issue was the regular forced landings, each of which had the potential of being a fatal. You'll remember that there was a period where we had several engine failures where the pilot simply stalled in nose first, so the good structure or otherwise of the aircraft would not have made any difference.

TRUE stats: I don't think anyone believes there were 46 genuine forced landings in one year, and I wouldn't have a problem taking Jab's reduction to 12 in 2014.

 

The five years of forced landings from February 2007 to March 2012 that I logged from RAA records averaged 6.8 per year, and on top of that would be reports to CASA, and ATSB reports (VH registered aircraft)

 

I didn't record what happened before 2007.

 

So for your true stats, and being conservative I'd suggest to you 6 forced landings per year.

 

Clear path to a resolution: As the Regulator, anything you say here can make you liable to big payouts, so you can't get involved in discussing valves or through bolts, you have to come up with something which will remove the risk of forced landings.

 

Insufficient technical knowledge used in the decision: It appears the decision was made on engine failures, which is the end result which causes the risk, and the release would also be based on this. From my experience, that is usually based on industry benchmarks, or cutting edge technology.

 

No attempt to evaluate and consider the effects on individuals and the industry: No, and not likely to be. I've given examples of the permanent shut down of the International D Line, Chrysler, Leyland trucks, and Cat truck engines. They invested a lot more money than we are talking about here.

 

So bearing all that in mind, what decision would you make?

 

 

True Yenn, but it's just a shorthand use of English.

 

Not too many people studied précis in English at school. I did, and was still picked up on a statement by someone on this forum.

 

Social media, and media generally with it's requirement for minimum words leads to this.

 

 

It's a kick in the guts for Jabiru & CAMit directly, and doesn't help the RAAus overall. or the rest of the movement directly and reputationally. Probably most of the longer flights were done by Jabiru's. They WERE swamping the scene. Nev

Well bearing in mind the Berryman v Wentworth Shire example I posted earlier and the fact that the controlling body had taken no action, if you were the person responsible in CASA (the regulator), what decision would you have made.

 

 

Frankly, I am not at all convinced that simply identifying the 'sources' who may have initiated action by CASA, takes us anywhere in terms of remediation of the effects of the action.

No but it gets the gun pointed in the right direction, so you don't eventually wind up making a fool of people.

 

Full disclosure of the correspondence within CASA and between CASA and external correspondents, MIGHT be of use - if it demonstrates malfeasance on CASA's part. In the current governmental environment, FOI compliance is not enthusiastically supported. Quite possibly only a Senate Inquiry, with the attendant penalties for withholding / falsifying information, would suffice. Lying /obfuscation to Parliament is held as a far more serious offence by any government authority than doing the same to the general public.

The Senate is extremely powerful, can require you to attend, and to give evidence under oath, but it's not worth the effort if you can get the same information from a phone call.

 

Good luck proving a Safety Authority was malfeasant taking safety action.

 

Even the damn title provided by CASA: https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/disclosure-log re-iterates the '46 engine failures' implied furphy maintained by CASA from the start. Look at the document; count up the number of 'engine failures' - GENUINE 'engine failures' - you can see from the scant details. Jabiru saw those details and suggested that 12 was the correct number; I am less hard-line and would allow, on the stated details, perhaps 18.

Is that a CASA spreadsheet? or a spreadsheet provided to CASA?

 

a) CASA has at no time ever stated what is an 'acceptable' failure rate for RAA-class engines

And nor should they; once made aware of one potential fatality, they are bound to act.

 

In the prescription era, you would set what we called a "reasonable" or "practical" parameter for a safety issue, and it was common, for example, for a Council to put warning signs on roads only after someone had been injured or killed, as a warning to others.

 

Here's a discussion paper which includes part of the Wentworth Shire Council v Berryman case.

 

Wentworth is west of Mildura, the last town before Broken Hill, and the surrounding Shire has very few farms, so traffic is very low over very long distances.

 

The corner which became the subject of this case was sharper than others, and didn't have a "Curve" sign.

 

On page 162 II it shows that Berryman claimed the Council was negligent in failing to provide proper warning signs, His Honour held the Council 10 % responsible for the accident.

 

This discussion is primarily about the contributory negligence of the two drivers, and what is not covered is that it had cost Wentworth Shire $900,000.00 in trying to save themselves even before any damages were finalised.

 

In this case there had been ZERO injuries and ZERO fatalities, so it shows that discussing the number of engine failures is pointless. Maybe CASA have caused some confusion by even getting into dialogue on this.

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2006/15.pdf

 

c) CASA has NOT provided any specification of what 'remedial' action would be required by Jabiru, to have the restriction lifted./

In Prescriptive times DCA/CAA etc may have conducted their own tests and specified an action, but post-prescription that would be taking on board liability for their decision, and making big payouts with taxpayer money if they got it wrong. That doesn't happen any more. The manufacturer is responsible for its own testing and remedial decisions.

 

The fact of the abominable data compilation and (non-existant) analysis used to support the CASA action is crucial evidence to support the case that CASA did NOT undertake any proper analysis (as supported by RAA comments)

So where did the spread sheet come from?

 

 

AIARC? FB Groups? retart WW3? What are you trying to say man?

As Far As I Recall

Facebook

 

restart

 

World War 3

 

 

Camel, when you apply for an FoI, usually your name becomes public.

 

I received a response once, which included my name about 23 times, my address, what I said to the respondent, whet the respondent said to me, and about 78 pages blacking out everything else.

 

It was a public document.

 

 

Our newspapers have become so trashy and amateurish it's a joke. And the spelling and grammar is pathetic. Let's hope our fellow pilot at Cobdogla comes out of this okay...

They should study these forums and get their spelling correct.

 

 

Well about 60% of all RAA aircraft were not affected by the CASA action.

 

AIARC Jab have about 40% of the market, and the vast majority have not carried on.

 

The FB groups aren't trying to retart WW3.

 

So yes, that is telling me something.

 

It's unfortunate that a good news story from Jabiru, has been spoilt by inappropriate attacks on CASA, two bizarre stories about FoI and some people "with axes to grind", and even another selling attempt on Camit engines.

 

I suggest people read the Jabiru release again, put their hates away and get on with flying.

 

 

That would be two of us then........

I think someone earlier mentioned about a dozen.

 

 

You obviously don't understand.

 

 

Thanks for your advice Jet, nothing to do with what I've been talking about though.

 

 

One of the passengers (92 crash) was Ian Tatterson, CEO of City of Springvale, who owned a trotter.

 

His loss was immeasurable to the City of Springvale and its successor, City of Greater Dandenong.

 

Such an obvious and wasteful loss.