turboplanner

Just catching the whole lot regardless is a crude lazy way to go about it. It could only be formulated by people who have no real idea, or is a fix designed to window dress rather than address a problem, which is vaguely defined anyhow. Disaster!. Nev

That would be correct Jim, but first you need the proven facts rather than what someone is guessing on an internet forum.

RAA email of 22 December:This led us to a simple conclusion – CASA has not undertaken robust analysis on reliable data to establish with any degree of accuracy that the failure rate of Jabiru engines is increasing over time.

I can think of two significant reasons for CASA drawing different conclusions to RAA, starting with the data which RAA supplies to CASA, but I'm not going to get into what is RAA and CASA business, and it's pointless for others to continue to try to inflame the situation with ghost statistics which may have no basis in fact whatsoever.

It's common practice in Australia for Regulators not to disclose what they know until an appropriate time such as a Coroners Hearing, Court Case, Senate Inquiry etc., the most common example being what state Police do.

The core to the numbers issue is we have no solid dataEverything is interpreted or suggestive from other information

Its a failing, in any case, RAA should look to improve.

 

limiting a n entire make of engine, several types and models, based on questionable data and mostly based on comparison to a competitor, indicates how biased and uninformed CASA is on the issue.

 

What if they compare airframes and limit them on the same basis.

 

STILL people think Jabiru are going to fix the problem....they dont know or cant fix what's wrong otherwise would have done it. As a result how can this instrument possibly bring improvement?

RAA DOES HAVE accurate data on every incident reported along with at least a brief set of notes as to the the cause (or for the pedants, the symptoms) - unless they've lost that data or thrown it out.

The current situation is not being helped at all by RAA not making the base data available publicly, instead running an agenda, which in my opinion is ultimately going to make the situation worse. Government officials aren't as stupid as some would believe.

There are people suggesting the engine is being compared with others, but that is irrelevant as it should be, or you go down the false trail of always potting the bottom manufacturer.

Safety decisions should always be based on specific evidence, and if that hits the favourite make, or the President's pet rules, it still has to be done, given that just one fatal can trigger a severe reaction, which may well be prescriptive in the form of grounding.

There are no airframes which stand out as unsafe in the statistics I looked at, so the regulators are not likely to make the comparisons you suggest.

As to your last paragraph in terms of safety a manufacturer has no option but to fix the issue, full stop.

There's really no point in regurgitating theories, propaganda and skewed statistics now.The Safety Regulator has made a decision; it's time to man up and work with the situation which will shortly exist.

CASA didn't make a prescriptive decision, such as grounding aircraft, and although I've mentioned performance standards and duty of care many times, the current situation seems to have left some people spinning in uncertainty and somehow believing that campaigning will change things.

 

Motz seems to be the only operator publicly across the situation.

 

There are now three standards of operational safety:

 

1. GA with its extensive safety infrastructure which would be regarded as the "Industry Benchmark"

 

2. RAA operations with a lower standard of safety, and an associated "Warning placard"

 

3. The aircraft subject to this limitation, associated with further and more detailed warnings

 

Things have changed dramatically in terms of your financial protection if you are in category three, so it's time to get some professional advice before you even start the engine, and you aren't going to get it on a forum site.

Debating the relative merits of different engines, second guessing CASA "motives", even suggesting hidden agendas by the previous Director of Aviation Safety, and burying statistics in "hours of operations" didn't convince CASA then and are not going to convince CASA now.

There may be some debate about the 45 number in the last twelve months, but be careful what you are shouting about.

I was certainly aware, from statistics, that RAA had a fatality issue as far back as 2008.

John Gardon extracted the figures, and it is high enough year by year to start to affect Insurers' decisions to staying in the market, and in fact from memory about 24 declined to make offers a year or so ago.

Within those fatalities, a surprising number related to an engine failure, followed by the aircraft virtually dropping out of the sky from altitude, i.e. not achieving a glide.

In those cases, the strength of the fuselage was irrelevant because the pilot never got to find out by actually trying to land in rough country.

I'm not sure if RAA have published an average hours per year per pilot, but if for example it was 50 hours per year, then there is no point in trying to minimise the visibility of the issues by burying them in a "per hours flown" mask, such as "x" per 1,000 hours flown, when RAA operations have nothing like high-hour operation.

So far I have referred to the general RAA fleet, not Jabiru powered aircraft, and I have referred to pilot error, not specific aircraft error.

With a record like the figures provided by John Gardon therefore, forced landings by RAA pilots have an unacceptable risk of ending in a fatality, and where ANY particular aircraft that starts to demonstrate a trend of forced landings, both RAA and CASA have a duty of care to manage that situation.

You might be Houdini, you might never have had a forced landing in 30 years, but the statistics that are driving the current regulator actions are based on the whole group, where history shows that not everyone pulls off forced landings.

We then come to the discussion on whether Jabiru is being victimised, or whether there is an agenda out there by "Jabiru bashers". If you look at the published statistics by RAA over the five years I studied, and if you take the fleet numbers of approximately 2000 aircraft, with approximately 1000 Jabiru and 1000 others, the statistics I studied show a forced landing trend in Jabiru.

You are welcome to argue about my statistics, because they have no official significance, however, if you want to continue the crusade against CASA, be aware that even if the "45" figure was found to be somehow incorrect, then CASA only have to go to the ALREADY PUBLISHED figures of RAA to justify their action, and not only that, but since RAA have only been able to publish REPORTED engine failures, they still have the option of conducting an inquiry into the number of aircraft which have been advertised for sale with disparate TT on engine and frame.

Better for the manufacturer to fix the problems as quickly as possible, and move on.

In the meantime the biggest issue is carrying out your duty of care if you are affected by the Limitation.

The argument that your risk has not been increased by the Limitation, isn't very safe in my opinion, since a new level of awareness has been published.

Motz is right on the money in terms of evaluation how he is going to operate. I said I would try to get some professional information for him, have had one meeting, and I'm now trying to get an affordable package of PL specialist legal advice available around the country, for pilots and FTFs, which has been interesting over the last few days, but looks like rolling over past the holiday season.

Really not sure what you hope gain from deprecating their worth or pedigree

I'd suggest you reread my post more carefully.

Frank I think "uncertified and unproven" while true as a statement doesn't give a fair impression of the situation, existing here.. CAMit have always manufactured the Jabiru engine, so would have a fairly good idea of the path it has gone down.IF a mod HAS to improve the performance of a part and couldn't expect to degrade it because of better materials and manufacturing techniques/design while still being able to be fitted to the certified engine, Why can't it just be accepted subject to some extra observations and testing of that PART. They aren't breaking new barriers into the unknown in metallurgy here. This kind of change happens all the time with the big stuff, and occasionally they have to pull a big rabbit out of a big hat.. Certify and sit still doesn't work. It's a straight jacket .

I believe CAE engines are exempted from this directive anyhow so the qualifications and efforts of the manufacturer are accepted somewhat. Maybe they think a bit of pressure will force a reconciliation and they will make babies. Even the family court wouldn't go down that path. Nev

One person suggested there were thousands, possibly inferring that since CAMit made Jabiru engines they were CAMit engines, in which case they would form part of the Limitation.

I'm of the opinion that while Jabiru's solution could be among the hundreds of armchair suggestions, there is always the possibility, based on my past experience that there is something inherent in the base engine causing the problem, and if that was the case then someone building the same engine but with detail improvements could well run into some of the same issues.

Random problems are an engine manufacturer's worst nightmare because there's no set time they occur - the problem can occur on startup on the production line, right out to almost full engine life.

Multiply this by the fact that problems only occur in a minority of engines, and you can't even run one to destruction on the dyno, because it's most likely to be a good one.

For these reasons you can't make claims based on a few good engines to date, and I've noted previously that CAMit themselves are not doing that, to their credit.

My reasoning that class action is viable.CASA certified the engine.

CASA have been aware of the engine history for some time and would have received defect reports.

 

Camit is a CASA approved supplier and has recognised the engine problems and addressed them but unaccepted by Jabiru.

 

Rotec and experienced engine manufacturer have recognised problems and addressed them but unaccepted by Jabiru.

 

Many people have modified Jab engine with sucess eg k-liner valve guides, but unaccepted by Jabiru.

 

Jabiru have issued ridiculous service letters in relation to their faulty parts eg valve washers.

 

CASA published their proposed restrictions before meeting Jabiru causing flying schools loss of buisness.

 

Very well cause loss of sales worldwide of Jabiru products.

 

Loss of value of Jabiru aircraft worldwide.

 

CASA released the first proposed restriction the last day of the CFI conference, never was discussed meaning CASA had NO Concern for the effect on RAA.

 

I believe world wide class action will be a serious option if certain people continue their self important BS and not consult and resolve the issues at hand.

This situation is not like a toxic medicine which causes hundreds of cases of cancer and a common result such as death.

Each case here will be different, with different evidence and different losses, and the Tribunal system caters for things like a faulty oil filter causing a blown engine for example.

There's really no point in regurgitating theories, propaganda and skewed statistics now.

The Safety Regulator has made a decision; it's time to man up and work with the situation which will shortly exist.

CASA didn't make a prescriptive decision, such as grounding aircraft, and although I've mentioned performance standards and duty of care many times, the current situation seems to have left some people spinning in uncertainty and somehow believing that campaigning will change things.

Motz seems to be the only operator publicly across the situation.

There are now three standards of operational safety:

1. GA with its extensive safety infrastructure which would be regarded as the "Industry Benchmark"

2. RAA operations with a lower standard of safety, and an associated "Warning placard"

3. The aircraft subject to this limitation, associated with further and more detailed warnings

Things have changed dramatically in terms of your financial protection if you are in category three, so it's time to get some professional advice before you even start the engine, and you aren't going to get it on a forum site.

Comma knockers are noisy. Nev

dsam, I wish you luck; I can't think of anyone from any industry who has succeeded in the last 25 years.

I think CASA may have made a very clever decision.

If you want to think about actions, give some thought to your duty of care, and how that has just taken an increase based on the statistics, which despite proclamations here, I suspect are very much in line with what RAA has been publishing over the past few years, plus further unreported cases which may be filtering through to CASA through For Sale Ads, and even engine production figures.

It IS Christmas Motz.

The Australian Government has a requirement for all pumps to be branded "Contains up to x% ethanol", or Contains y% ethanol"

Yet as I've been going around lately looking carefully at pumps to make sure I'm not having ethanol dumped on me, there seems to be a lot of deception around.

For example

One brand admits to 91 Octane having 10% methanol, but touts it's 95 as "self cleaning" which could mean anything

Another brand describes 91 as "benefits compared to unadditised fuel, and admits its 95 has 10% ethanol

Another brand contains no admission of ethanol in 91, 95 or 98

When you go to the website, there seems to be just as much reluctance to tell the truth. The brand with no admissions at the pump describes its 91 having up to 10% ethanol.

Looks like the Govrenment needs to take a much closer look at what is going on in the market place.

I'm sticking with " none" unless you can come up with something which can be verified.

This thread is no place for tongue in cheek comments.

None Motz..........

I say again, the first indiscretion may cost members millions of dollars.

"....group in your uncultivated way."

"I've noticed nose wheels around here seem to be used for cultivation these days" said the BPP pilot, who was immediately set upon by the site stoners, led by.............

Sandwich construction has great structural strength, separating two floppy skins and always keeping the skin on the potential outer curve in tension to provide that strength.

There are several posts and threads on this site making claims about the great strength of some fuselages.

However, its achilles heel is that the thin outer skins will not withstand an impact which is localised, such as hitting a tree or pole at high speed, so while I wouldn't have too much problem using it in parts of carriages, I'd prefer structural steel up front.

I've seen a few Shinkansen coming through stations in Japan at 320 km/hr, and the structure would be powder and bits for quite a length back don the train in a head on impact.

Keith, RAA is a self administering body, and contains a lot of Type A personalities

One of the downsides of Type A people is that they tend to disregard any authority.

One the other hand, in the self administering world, and administrating body can be sued for millions of dollars on the first indiscretion.

The days of buddying up, "having a quiet word", " dropping a hint" have been replaced by the "don't come back again Monday" or zero tolerance era, since our future is determined by the mathematics of who we injure or kill.

It sounds like RAA is beginning to catch on and catch up, and sure, this will come as a shock to those who comply with regulations when they feel like it.

Please don't tell me it was over Gander. . . .Phil

The first link compared varnish with the older fuels, and gum with enthanol. What I've seen looks like translucent gum in the carby.

Any ideas what the gum in the radials was from? did you ever find a way to clear it out?

It looks to me at the moment, from what I've read, that once you get the deposits from ethanol, you're in for trouble again and again and again, particularly in the drilled carby air galleries we've never had to unclog before. Compressed air won't clean it out and even boiling the carby in water for 15 minutes doesn't clean it out, although it does remove some.

........fall......

..........all babies over one year old are to be taken off the dole queue and other rortable activities,

"Waht about my activity?" wailed Front Tooth, who...................................

....Ide of March, because it would soon be time for the Ides of March, and he wanted to be first this year.

Brutus* looked amazing in his outfit, complete with dagger hanging below the toga, but as he swaggered down the main street, someone said "...................................."

*Turbo respectfully advises that Ratso has lost the plot.