turboplanner

For instance, in a thru bolt failure, do they know which particular bolt/s failed? Were the bolts seated properly? Did anyone inspect threads for stress raisers? What was the state of combustion chambers? What about all other moving parts? Who did an analysis of fuel or oil?

However the SAFETY statistic is the number of forced landings.

There were either x No of forced landings last year or there weren't, and that's not that hard to prove if RAA is quoting the statistics they collect.

It's the frequency and growth in the number of forced landings that's the safety issue.

So far there has been a poorly arranged knee-jerk reaction based solely on skewed statistics and anecdotal stories.

Certainly the statistics published monthly in the magazine are clear about the forced landings, but no one can gauge accurately the additional ones that are not reported

Unfortunately it would be ripped to pieces by the hidden agendas.

You're not even talking about the same subject 01

If you're going to get excited by sabre rattling, bets to make sure the sabres are pointing at the enemy.

I wonder why you are still trailing this one through this thread Turbs? Hardly relevant to issues at hand. A very tenuous link indeed.

I wonder why you are still trailing this one through this thread Turbs? Hardly relevant to issues at hand. A very tenuous link indeed.

A simple EFI might make a big difference. Is anyone working on this?

Michael Monck - thank you.The letter from RA-Aus by Michael shows that RA-Aus is trying to act as an appropriate agent within the recreational aviation industry - to both encourage improvement from manufacturers as well as lobby for improvements to the regulator. My criticism early in this mess may only apply to certain antagonists on the board.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/t...harged-with-manslaughter-20140903-10brau.html

...........rudder trim for Harriet to stop him doing round in circles, and then he marched off to an old Drifter and...........

Thousands they built the lot,Older Solid lifter types are the basis for their work so it isnt a scratch built concept.

The hours done on them counts for something, they "significantly report" to have much less problems

 

With the new upgrades, dunno, Oscar knows but he is banned

I'm interested in how many of these have been produced. I would expect to see a couple of hundred as a starting sample.

How many engines to CAMit have in operation?

OK then Dafydd, leave the oil pressure out of it, what do you think about the resonance?

What do you think about the resonance?

Flywheel mounting Tubs? Nev

FH, What do you think about the resonance?

Like that dmech, I was thinking the photo in a previous post of a through bolt didn't look like stretch, agree with resonance the diameter wouldn't make much difference, and the flywheel bolts also sound linked.

It's like walking across the frozen river.

Step out, test the ice:

(a) No cracks = next step

(b) bending but no cracking = next step carefully

© cracking = no more steps, back inside to the fire

(d) cracking and a she'll be right jump = OH Sh$t

For pnce i agree TP, your statement on numbers is right.Lots of owners consider a rebuilt engine @ 1000 hrs is acceptable, significant top end at 500 is regulalry done. They STILL stack up as solid investments. Some are running to 2000 hrs too even in training environment.

the problem is the outliers like 20-200 hr failures, this needs attention no doubt. As Jabiru have stated if the throughbolt issue and valve failures are addressed it may be a very different picture

 

What You are saying is that if TBO and top end overhaul hours changed everyone would be happy and the aircraft be safer?

 

Thats how plenty look at their engines currently

 

The core of the issue is that of Jabiru cannot afford to push ahead, owners will end up with NOTHING, no parts, no LSA.

 

Amuses me people think Jabiru and any business are "raking in money" they are a very small family owned business.

There's no point in changing TBO with a random-time fault because you might get it at 300 hours. I explained in an earlier post that from a manufacturer's point of view TBO can be varied for strategic reasons to optimise customer satisfaction (for example you might decide on 800 hours but offer free big end bearings), or you might bulletin a 400 hour offer of a fixed-time failure part with free parts and a free set labour fee - the marketing possibilities are endless.

FH, sorry I forgot to say the current situation is not unlike the way you operate your Indian.

In Victoria, Historic registration status allows you to operate without the latest braking systems etc, provided you comply with some rules, including operating on a log book for each use on a road.

As I understand it there have been some issues with cars, and the system has been or is about to be tightened up substantially, I think eliminating some vehicles from the scheme.

This is not consistent with reality. By all means, seek to reduce the risk; but there will always be a risk. Your argument above is, logically, also applicable to the risk for a Rotax 912 - except the the Jabiru at the moment takes precedence. The reality has been stated by 01mb precisely. What RAA has been doing, is not clearly stating the risk. Understand the risk; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

In the prescriptive era, I used to discuss the risk, and put up arguments that in doing such and such we "minimised the risk, sometimes stating the obvious "there is always a risk"

I can't do that these days.

I don't believe RAA and CASA have to provide the detailed explanation you would have expected under prescriptive legislation, just the bald facts of a trend increase.

As far as the last sentence is concerned you can probably go to the austlii site and find cases where that was said, and what the case decision was.

Grounding the fleet is one of the most inappropriate statements I've heard. Sorry Turbs. Have YOU ever flown any two stroke powered planes? . I cannot see the" operators of jabiru" people as those who must be saved from themselves because they don't have proper concerns about safety. As a group THEY more than any other want to operate safely. They probably just want some straight talk and facts as to how to make steady improvements and evaluate what the real risk is.The engine(s) will be gone IF we don't utilise the current manufacturers in any process of improvement/change.

If you are just going to "dump" the engines, how do you reconcile that action with those who have had a perfectly good run out of them? Most of those have left this forum long ago because of the negativity and over the top expressions used, in regard to the plane they fly. (Don't shoot ME I'm only the messenger here)

 

In NO WAY do I wish to stand in the way of making changes happen. Quite the opposite..IF we just close the shutters we seal the fate of the engine(s). In other parts of the world they must wonder what we are on here sometimes. Nev.

So there's point dwelling on what I would do because my post carried no more weight than anyone elses. What you have to focus on is what CASA decides to do.

Fixing the problem quickly and moving on quickly is what I've done for the past few decades, after I found that screeching outrage didn't wash.

No, I've never flown a two stroke, so I would have to be trained, but I did work on two strokes (air cooled) for twelve years destroying a few dozen pistons and eventually producing engines putting out roughly double their original power with about the same reliability as four strokes. I think I know where you're going but can't think of any ongoing engine issues right now.

I've never recommended dumping engines, I've suggesting fixing them with minimal delay.

how do you reconcile that action with those who have had a perfectly good run out of them?

If you want to talk about cost of operation, that doesn't belong in this thread.

However, some people have been using their experience with one, two or four etc aircraft and trying to impose their views on others

If one engine gets to 1000 hours and another gets to 10 hours, then the fleet average is 505 hours

Getting away from brand names, if an engine has a common fault which occurs around 500 hours, then it is economical to fit a new part at say 450 hours, and you can argue there is not a safety issue.

On the other hand, if an engine has a common fault but it can occur from 2 hours to 1800 hours or anywhere in between, it's not predictable, so if you did 50 hours a year, and had a failure at 800 hours, you may have owned the aircraft for 16 years, and you may have been able to say "My" engine had been totally reliable, up to the failure, but in a random situation it's wrong to say "the engine", meaning everyone's engine is not going to have a problem before 16 years.

Just a question of how you report mathematics.

Sorry - your argument went too far - it went from how to reduce risk and create a safer environment to recommending to ground the fleet - starting with Jabiru and then the rest because they will then be the most at risk of criminal prosecution. I just don't agree that risk ever goes away in what is an inherently risky activity but yes better practices, maintenance and safer aircraft will help to reduce the risks. At the end of the day people must make their decisions and accept the risk of that decision and not try to sue someone else.The drive from the regulator should be about helping to achieve that - grounding the fleet and bankrupting Jabiru is not going to achieve that. Changing the regulations to allow CAMit or other improvements to be applied (without affecting registration) will help, collecting better data on failures and identifying root cause will help, enforcing better maintenance will help - Grounding everything just covers the problem because no one will be flying anymore.

I already mentioned I had to stop doing the things I used to do. In fact I decided to quit the transport industry, and go into meat production.....and immediately found that 4 million people were hospitalised in Australia each year due to food poisoning with some dying, and had to learn all about HACCP and be qualified before I could do any slaughtering, have my property registered and all livestock tagged to that property, the meat stamped with a link to that property, and the restaurant having a link to that piece of meat, and I would still be nailed to the cross if someone died from salmonella if it was traced back to a pigeon crapping in my feed bin.

What you, Facthunter and I feel doesn't change the law. You cannot kill a person today and expect to walk away from it. Some people haven't caught up.

Very clever you guys, join the list of protesters.

I'm a bit surprised at you 01 because one of your earlier posts seemed to indicate you understood the safety process well.

TP your argument, no doubt correct, sees the grounding of all GA and RAA, how is that a solution?

My argument doesn't see the grounding of all GA and RAA, but it does point out that if there is a risk of a fatality, then we as self regulators will face criminal prosecution if we don't address that risk. That's about the most powerful incentive around.

It wasn't a solution for Ansett, Ford, Leyland, Chrysler, General Motors, or International Harvester - you can't get away today saying I need to protect my hobby, so surely if only one person dies every two years that's OK.

Unfortunately it's black and white.

The solution is to remove the alleged risk - fast.

...relieving himself on the footpath right in front of Constable Doubtfire, who always parked her patrol wagon outside the BOB towards closing time, ostensibly as a warning to drunks like Loxette and the Rat not to get into their cars.

"You got that right" said Turbo to the Rat, "we have show and tell type meetings these days discussing entymology, fossicking or my favourite, my collection of 2,000 cowry shells, which many find more interesting that the correct tyre pressure of a 172 nosewheel, or which gauge you look at when taking off - that sort of technical stuff, which is just too................."

Sure, no one has ever produced an engine which doesn't fail.

And I've argued in the past that we are trained to perform a forced landing when an engine fails

However, there are also indications that not everyone pulls off a forced landing, perhaps through being over impossible country, perhaps through inadequate training, perhaps through inadequate recency or any other reasons.

The end result is that a trend which is alleged to be a threat to safety has been identified by RAA and CASA.

The Administrator has reported the alleged risk to the Regulator

The Regulator has made the decision there is a risk

It has obviously escaped most people that once the Regulator made its decision public, we were all kicked up a level to the razor's edge of potential a culpable negligence charge if ANYONE is killed through any of us disregarding the decision in our own spheres of influence. So there's no point arguing about percentages now, especially doctoring them down to appear insignificant.

Public Liability risk associated with a forced landing is also elevated since we have all been made aware of where the risk is.

Any fatality is likely to be quite different to what we've experienced in the past in terms of public scrutiny. I know of at least two cases in the past where grieving relatives have not made a public liability claim against the people who may have been responsible for the fatality, but after this trigger there's a potential criminal prosecution on the table, and that doesn't have to be triggered by the relatives.

Several people have been stubbornly clinging to the plaque keeping them out of trouble, but it is only a warning for an innocent member of the public that he is not going up for a ride on an airline;it doesn't provide protection against negligence.

Someone asked me a few days ago what I would do and I said "Ground the fleet"

That was not through any opinion of Jabiru; if there was a run on Rotax in the next six months and I was asked again I would give the same answer.

The reason for that is with all aircraft on the ground, no one can have a forced landing, and from that be killed.

CASA didn't go that far when they made their decision, so in my opinion, if anything, they have opened themselves to risk rather than being the evil monster so many posters are implying.

If anyone forces/convinces CASA to water down their decision, and a fatality occurs, then that could be taken into account when any charges are laid, so I'd caution any official or body to think very carefully before going down that path. Governments may well have set a prescriptive exemption from risk in the past, such as a 1 in 100 year flood minimum for design of infrastructure, but we don't have that protection.

Many people have pointed to the financial implications if CASA enforce their Draft proposal, but financial loss, regrettable as it is, carries absolutely no weight in a situation like this

Better to get the issues fixed fast and move on.