Oscar

OK, the CASA action had - as you can imagine - a large flow-on effect for CAMit. It has certainly necessitated changes in CAMit's commercial strategy that could have been addressed later but as a result, had to be bought up the list of priorities. A perhaps unintended consequence but a very foreseeable one.

 

The test cell, as you have said, has been on a long and complicated path to get to where it is now, with many problems requiring solution (and most of those are hardly OTS-equipment solvable!) It's no accident that there aren't more certificated / certified aero-engines available in this class. If you don't have Bombadier-type financial resources, you have to find ways around that..

 

 

Hi Brendan, welcome to the site. You've made some very thoughtful points there.

 

Different head volumes won't be the problem though - they are completely CNC machined and laser-measured in a controlled environment room to extremely tight tolerances. However, all the other points you have made are very cogent.

 

The actual cooling air distribution between heads is a significant problem, and it changes with flight attitude and airspeed. Too few engines are equipped with reliable ( and by reliable, I include the entire wiring between the cht probe and the instrument, especially the cold-junction position/s) cht reporting for all cylinders. People who do have good total engine monitoring can tell you of significant changes between cylinders throughout the flight envelope; different cylinders will run hotter or colder in different circumstances, so a single cht probe set-up is almost useless and in some circumstances is very probably providing a completely false belief to the pilot that everything is going along nicely when some of the un-monitored heads are being fried!

 

Detonation is an absolute killer for the through-bolts, but that result is exaggerated by bending of the barrel base in standard Jabiru barrels when detonation occurs. The CAMit modified barrels have a thicker base specifically to address this problem, plus considerably revised through bolts that have been developed to address this issue and also address the crankcase movement issue that is largely a problem resulting from the standard Jabiru case-join methodology - CAMit engines use a different methodology.

 

Fuel-quality issues are a considerable problem for Jab. engines and this is an area where the inter-relationship of fuel and the issues it raises need a very good understanding of what are complex situations; there is quite a lot of speculation and experimenting 'out there' with varying levels of success - and not all of those take into account all of the subtleties between using different fuels, results can be very much influenced by how the engine is operated (which may suit one fuel better than another in a particular situation of operation). 100LL is the most 'reliable' fuel, but brings its own circumstances (lead fouling); 96 RON mogas is probably the next best, with 98 being a lottery in some cases.

 

We see regular reporting of problems with Jab engines, but very little reporting 'in depth' of the gamut of 'operational' use for engines that just tick along without problems - this is an area where more information exchange would benefit the entire Jab engine-using population considerably. The recently-released 'check-list' for inspection released by Jabiru is very much worth consideration, as it identifies the types of operation that are likely to produce problems, but it could (and hopefully will) be further refined.

 

 

At Forbes, we always did an extra low scan for Darby Munro as part of the 'all clear above and behind' before starting the winch launch. Darby was the local croppie, who you could see returning to the strip and tell it was him from the air because the shadow under his Pawnee got visible only when he flew over fences, and he never did circuits, just pointed it at his hangar from wherever he was approaching and landed.

 

We'd just waved off a launch when the CFI suddenly screamed out 'BUNG OFF!' - which the pilot did. About five seconds later, an F111 did a pass at about 50 feet straight down the middle of the strip at maybe 400 knots; the glider would have been absolutely right where he went past. The air blast alone would have totalled the glider even if they hadn't hit / the F111 had collected the wire. It shook the hell out of us..

 

The CFI said afterwards, that he hadn't really seen the F111 incoming but 'something looked wrong' in the distance. I believe his call to the RAAF was 'heated' - Forbes wasn't on any 'low flying' route for the jet jockeys.

 

 

HMM - bored fighter pilot from the RAF base? 'You can tell a fighter pilot... but you cannot tell him much..."

 

 

Well, yes, I agree the noisy things disturb the bucolic peace of the gliding field.... but often their pilots don't fully appreciate the fact that once in the circuit, gliders don't have the option of going around (often, anyway, unless you're Ingo Renner but he had his own private arrangements with lift).

 

My brother was once heading for home and storming along under a cloud street; a Piper Cherokee, I think it was, was just far enough away to be well in the sink and chugging along to maintain altitude, my brother passed him... The Piper pilot followed him to the airfield and landed behind, taxied up to beside the glider in the assembly area ( which was not really appreciated), got out with steam coming out of his ears, marched over and examined the glider and said 'I KNEW it didn't have a bloody engine, how did you do that?', and got laughed at...

 

 

Ah, well, trying to fly in Victoria, eh? Brave lad..... Looking through the logbook, my longest flight in a Blanik is 54 minutes, off winch, at Forbes; it was pointedly remarked to me that there were other people wanting to fly, so bringing it back would be appreciated right about NOW-ish....

 

 

Blimey, Phil, yer a hard man... a 300K in a Blanik is on, on a good day...

 

 

I agree. Some people have refused to move on from the horse because petrol can catch fire...

 

 

I plan to use a LifePo4 battery in my Jab., and have changed over to the CAMit alternator which has a proper regulator and (as far as I am aware) does not suffer the spikes of the standard Jab. system. I believe that will also give me better voltage regulation for running the iPad, as well as the harmonic balancing it affords, so I see it as a win/win all around.

 

 

An 'experimental' CANNOT be 'factory build', by definition.

 

 

Ok, this is a good point, why then are 19 kit builts given an experimental LSA certificate.

Only kits of an aircraft that has been certified to the ASTM LSA standard could be given an e-LSA registration. A kit of an aircraft that is certificated to a different standard ( JAR, BCAR etc.) could NOT be given e-LSA registration - by definition. Kits of aircraft that have not been either certified or certificated cannot be 'deemed' to meet any standard, even if they are built in every miniscule respect to the manufacturer's specification.

 

Aircraft that do not meet an internationally-recognised standard, have indeterminate status: Ibis aircraft, for example.

 

 

BUt that is the rub - there is no such thing as a bit experimental - all 19 reg are experimental regardless of them being as vanilla a kit as you can get or a one off built of paddlepop sticks.

Yes, absolutely correct, and that is why MARAP cannot, I believe, be legally enforced on 19-reg aircraft. However, if one looks at tghe rationale behind the controlling of modifications as being (rather crudely expressed), to ensure that as a result of the modification the aircraft is 'no less safe than it was before the modification' , it appears to me that there are now potentially two alternative ways of achieving that.

 

The first way, is to replicate the original flight test conditions, operating with the original restrictions.

 

The second would be, by following the MARAP, to have engineering justification done. Now that requires establishment of the 'original condition' against which the new condition can be evaluated. If there is adequate, reliable engineering data available for the 'original condition', your Part 21M engineer has something to work on (hence, my 'a bit experimental' classification: an aircraft that is legally NOT TC'd but is a known and documented quantity, vs. an aircraft that has demonstrated against a flight requirement that it has not fallen apart..)

 

In Andy's putative undercarriage mod., there is (assuming that there is evidence that his aircraft was constructed correctly from factory-supplied parts) extensive data of the 'original condition': the full specification and manufacturing schedule for the legs, the results of the drop-tests etc. A Part 21M engineer can, in most cases at least, calculate whether the proposed change will result in something 'of equivalent' (at least) safety.

 

Real-life case: I have put a UL (same as J120) fin and rudder on my LSA55, replacing the broken original fin and rudder. It has considerably more area than the original, for both the fin and rudder, and should provide better low-speed directional control (for which the original LSA55 is known to be a bit 'soggy' in response.. This change was discussed with Rod Stiff who believes that it will result in an improvement to the handling of the thing).

 

The fin and rudder are factory-supplied parts, so of known quality; the attachment work uses a schedule provided by a Part 21M engineer for the lay-up etc., and the thing has been tested to replicate the limit-load condition for the original aircraft modified to take into account the extra area. Hence, it can be shown to be 'no less safe' structurally, than original. However, the increased area will also mean that in order to meet at least the same aerodynamic stability considerations as the original, there will need to be an increase in dihedral - which will mean new lift-struts of longer length, and flight testing (not durability testing as per the 25 or whatever hours, but testing to a specified set of parameters of in-flight behaviour.

 

Once all of that is completed, the results can be assembled and presented using MARAP for approval. There should be no reason for RAA (or CASA) to require further testing, and I believe that this 'suite' of mods should be able to be used as a template for other LSA55 aircraft to be similarly modified, provided they conform to all aspects of the mod.

 

And the point is? - well, LSA55's do tend to play dead ants a fair bit and fin/rudder damage happens; here could be an easy and effective repair scheme that will actually improve the wee things.

 

The ONLY reason we have an 8 page thread on here is the bewildering insistence by the RAA Tech in announcing MARAP that it include sthe 19 series .... the only part of 95.55 that has no design standard behind it and is explicitly not covered by the amendments to the CAO that introduced MARAP

So over to the RAA - explain why 19 is included in the announcement when the CAO changes do require it or admit that they got it wrong ang 19s remain as they were - free to modified at any time by any owner as the definition in 1.2(e) is a point of time at initial registration test.

But I think we understand that it was CASA's insistence that 19-reg aircraft be lumped in under MARAP? I'd like to see further information about just how that happened and where the decision for it was made, before we lay the blame on the Tech Manager.

 

 

I agree - the more 'experimental' a 19-reg aircraft is, the more you are out there on your lonesome.

 

But conversely, diligently 'kit-build' 19-reg aircraft - if from a kit that has parentage in a certificated aircraft - the more you have a fairly solid investment. I believe that CASA's determination that all 19-reg aircraft must be subject to MARAP is simply incorrect, by the very definition of what constitutes a 19-reg aircraft. It's a bit like lumping a rallye-modified Subaru WRX in with home-built desert-racer specials.

 

If a kit-built aircraft has 'parentage' to a certificated aircraft, there is a heap of factory components that are documented to meet a standard. In the case of a kit-build Jabiru, I can't readily think of any components that are on the 'critical' list for safety, that aren't in fact produced by the factory to full factory standard: engine, wings, lift struts, engine mount, undercarriage, control surfaces, control runs etc.. TBH, a 'factory-assist' 19-build Jabiru is in my estimation about 99.9% likely to be every bit as good as a factory-build - if not even better. Those who did a 'factory-assist' build, are probably the BEST informed owners of a Jabiru - they know every inch of that aircraft.

 

Whether that holds good for other makes, I have no idea and therefore would not venture to comment. I assume that you have a far, far better knowledge of your Super Diamond than a second owner who has not really put a spanner (or riveter, for Morgan aircraft) on their aircraft. Presumably, you have done proof / limit load testing of your work to the manufacturer's specifications?

 

And here, I believe, is the crux of the problem for acceptance of repairs and modifications. Without going into boringly extensive explanation, repairs and modification IF THEY ARE NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO NEW TESTING, need to be provable that they are of 'equivalent' standard to the original. That can only be done by evaluation against the original documentation.

 

In the case of kit-build Jabirus, the original documentation is available. If it is NOT available for aircraft XX, but that aircraft has passed the 25-hour ' it's OK' test, then an engineer can't do anything more that evaluate the relevant areas of the aircraft and say: 'the proposed modification is at least as good as the original'. CASA could then reasonably respond with: 'then it has to pass the same test'.

 

 

So what about the situation where a #19 Jab has a Rotax put in it and the factory refuses to approve any subsequent modifications? Plane is now worthless

The factory did not approve the putting in of a Rotax anyway. So whatever the value of a rotax-engined 19-reg Jabiru was once it had an approval to fly, absolutely NOTHING is changed by the introduction of MARAP .

 

 

Most of those planes where designed over 20 years ago (1995!). Its not like there are a lot of light aircraft being developed in Australia.

And what is the primary concern of most aircraft owners? Aircraft that were designed over 20 years ago.. the more 'modern' ones are LSA aircraft and nothing in MARAP applies to LSA certified aircraft.

 

 

The risk is that clarification could see the end of any attraction to 19 aircraft after builder is finished with it.

This will affect further the assets of you me and hundreds of others and impact RAA as a whole

Actually, I'm not at all sure that you're not just looking at the entirely negative side here.

 

With a bit more experience of it and some intelligent development of its application, MARAP could just prove to be an unexpected blessing for 19-reg owners - at least, of certain aircraft. Let me explain why I think this way.

 

Taking a 19-reg Jab kit-built aircraft as the example, because that's the only one I know much about, what you have is essentially (for the LSA55 and all 'variants' thereof through to the J160), an owner-built example of a certificated aircraft. Provided that the kit-built Jab. has not been modified in any substantive way ( i.e. potentially affecting safety) from the kit and has been built to the Jab. instructions, it is a known quantity from an engineering POV and a Part 21M engineer can evaluate a proposed mod. against the standard to which the 'factory-built' equivalent was originally certificated. That allows a Part 21M engineer to evaluate the proposed mod. as being ( or not being, as the case may be) 'of equivalent safety' to the original.

 

Without the documentation of 'equivalent safety' (or alternatively, 'no adverse effect') for a component change, in theory at least any change to a 19-reg aircraft might require going back to the 'proof' under restricted flight conditions of 25 hours in a remote location etc. - for every one of 19-reg aircraft that happens to use a particular mod. By using the MARAP, a specific mod. could potentially avoid that for ALL the 19-reg aircraft that qualify, or at least reduce the impediment to one 'proof' aircraft.

 

Hypothetical example: someone develops a composite, ground-adjustable propellor for the J2200 engine. ( Of course, someone HAS - Jabiru - but it's only applicable for the LSA certified engines, and Jabiru appear to not be interested in spreading its applicability beyond those.) Using MARAP intelligently, there could be an avenue for its acceptability for 19-reg 2200-engined Jabs. as a simple 'application' to be able to install one on your 19-reg Jab 2200-engined aircraft.. Or changing to MATCO brakes, or installing a FWF CAMit-2200 engine package...

 

I suspect that with more introspection, the selective use of the MARAP may prove to be very advantageous. So far in this thread there seems to have been rather more heat than light; however if people are capable of unshackling their minds from the negative and looking at ways to embrace the positive, we might well find that RAA has managed to achieve a progression for its members of very significant proportions. ( and by way of declaration of interest, I am NOT (currently) a member of RAA).

 

 

FT, there are quite a number of engineers with extensive experience with 'similar aircraft'; most of the independent CAR35 engineers have been involved at various times with RAA aircraft, at least. If you don't include the really way-out-and-wonderful ( or awful, depends on your POV) 'specials', the more mainstream ( Gazelle, Drifter, Lightwing, Jabiru, Brumby etc.) have all had extensive input from some of the seriously respected senior CAR 35 / Part 21M engineers.

 

 

The advice I have received from an ex-CAR35 Engineer who is extremely conversant with the CARs is:

 

 

 

"There can be no formal approval of a modification to an experimental aircraft, because since it does not comply with any design standard in the first place, nobody can approve the design of a modification as 'complying with any design standard in force under these Regulations'. However, an experimental certificate is issued on the basis of a risk assessment; and if the risk is altered by a modification, the aircraft may have to go back and fly off another 25 hours or whatever, in a remote area."

 

This is an area that requires FAR more interpretation and without doubt, clarification.

 

I believe that the focus on 19-reg aircraft - while extremely understandable and most definitely needing further work including quite possibly pointing out to CASA forcibly that it is not complying with its own regulations (AKA taking certain people out the back of the shed for a good kicking) - the potential value of the MARAP initiative for the continued operation of Certificated aircraft should not be lost in the wash. MARAP appears to me to be a considerable streamlining for continued operation of a significant percentage of the RAA fleet including a very healthy number of aircraft used for training and line hire work.

 

The further we get with experience of LSA aircraft, the more it appears that Airworthiness Authorities, by accepting the ASTM as an 'alternate' standard, have abrogated their responsibility ( de jure or de facto) to administer aviation safety for the good of their clients. For want of a better analogy, LSA appears to be an aviation equivalent of a 'free trade agreement' - good for the 'winners' and increasingly bad for everybody else.

 

I believe that with MARAP, RAA has achieved something that - with tuning - is a major step forward in providing the 'recreational' sector with appropriate flexibility for its operation. Yes, the situation for 19-reg needs work - but to damn MARAP because it is not perfect in its initial iteration is to ignore the good bits.

 

 

FT, why don't you borrow a trailer, put your Drifter on it and take it to Alan Kerr at Caloundra? That's about 2 - 2.5 hours drive from you, if my memory serves me correctly, going via Toogoolawah and Kilcoy and cutting off through Commissioners Flat Road.

 

 

At first blush, this appears to be another case of CASA not actually understanding the meaning of its own damn regulations (as was the case with CASA including experimental aircraft in the restrictions on Jabiru engines, which is clearly contrary to the exemptions for experimental aircraft).

 

This requires examination by someone extremely familiar with the actual CASR's. I'll P.M. you.

 

 

Your term "good enough" worries the hell out of me, surely the aircraft should be built correctly and time taken to make it as good as you can, commercial interests aside. 19.. reg and 24.. reg are 2 different beasts and in my experience, most (not all) 19 reg are superior to the 24 built standards.

'Good enough' means that it meets the standard required and is (sometimes, I agree) ALSO 'fit for purpose'. For example, there are areas on the early Jabs where loose strands of glass are not sanded back and you can jag your hand when reaching in to a difficult area to get at a nut or bolt, there are some things secured by rivets where I believe bolts would be a better ( if weightier and more time-consuming) job to use in manufacture. But none of those had failed to do their job properly - therefore, to me were 'good enough' though had I been the builder I'd have done them to a slightly different standard.

 

Yes, I have certainly observed stuff on 24-reg aircraft that I doubt any experienced builder with reasonable knowledge would NOT have done, or done that way. I'll place a bet that any experienced LAME - let alone a Part 21 engineer- can find stuff on some 24-reg aircraft that they would reject as being 'best practice' - or even 'good practice'. However, not every builder of a 19-reg aircraft has an encyclopaedic knowledge of every facet of working on an aircraft, and a 19-reg buyer has to hope (to a degree) that there is not something, somewhere, in the aircraft that is a weak link.

 

 

Keith: I was by no means trying to suggest that all 19-reg aircraft are 'rubbish', nor all factory-built 'far superior'. I'm doing extensive work on a very early factory-built ( the first VH-reg'd Jab, in fact, later changed to 55-reg) that has work on it which I am very, very sure many kit-built Jabs. of the same era would have had done better. Pressure of production costs is a great leveller of quality - and as Nev has expressed above, a competent and conscientious builder will almost always find things that can be improved, for various reasons.

 

However - despite finding things that I have been at the least, surprised at (and making many detail and a few rather more serious changes, ( always in consultation with both of the then CAR-35 engineers who worked extensively with Jabiru in the early days, and who not only know these aircraft in intense detail but also have the data on just about every aspect, aerodynamic and structural, in their files!) in terms of apparent 'quality' - one fact is inescapably true: that little Jab. took everything that flying school work could throw at it for nearly 3,000 hours of service and didn't let anybody down. What I conclude from that, is this: the factory knew which stuff was 'good enough' for purpose even if it was nothing like 'perfect', and it did not take any shortcuts for the important stuff. I have no doubt that many Jab. kit builders were every bit as conscientious - but how can a buyer be assured of that?

 

The important point, I think, is that an aircraft built in an approved facility to a quality compliance standard provides an explicit 'guarantee' of meeting a defined level of 'good enough'. Further, there is a mechanism by which problems that arise later, are addressed. Is that always perfect? - obviously, NO - but at least there is a system in place for quality control and the rectification of problems. If - for example - a batch of bolts is found to be below-spec. - the manufacturer can identify the aircraft affected and issue a SB. If a particular bracket or fitting is found to be less than adequate - the manufacturer develops / accepts a modification and makes it available to the owners etc.

 

For an amateur-build aircraft, there just isn't the same depth of explicit QC for building and back-up in service. The buyer of a 19-reg aircraft simply has to take on faith ( and inspection and judgement) that everything has been done and maintained correctly. How many buyers of 19-reg aircraft would, for instance, seek the release note for critical components? How many owners (or even builders) would be able to supply them?

 

The late George Markey used to say, in his typically cynical fashion, that 'people really only buy the paint job.' Now George could reduce a plaster Saint to homicidal frustration over a cup of coffee - but there is more than a skerrick of truth in that statement. Generally bodgie work will be immediately evident - but how do you know, as the buyer of a 19-reg aircraft, that there isn't just one critical component that is the 'weak link' in the chain of stuff that ALL has to work properly, that you can't see? For instance, there is a market in re-plated AN bolts that are NOT to spec. - George himself had hundreds of the buggers in his quarantine store, that were fine for bolting on things like battery boxes but absolutely NOT fine for use for a close-tolerance, highly-stressed component such as an engine mount or undercarriage leg. You have to be extremely familiar with the subtle difference in colour to know they are re-plated; LAMEs should be able to see that immediately, not all L2's will, amateurs almost certainly will not. That's but one example...

 

Therefore, I suggest, applying the MARAP procedures to 19-reg aircraft, while commendable in theory, does in no way guarantee that the entire aircraft is 'good enough' for service. I know that Darren Barnefield has been consulting with experts in the industry to develop a 'schedule' of critical areas for extra attention for both the building and the maintenance of amateur-built aircraft and from that work I believe a sensible arrangement for at least improving the likelihood that these critical areas will be done correctly will emerge. That, I believe, is an important step forward for recreational aircraft.

 

Rather than damn the entire idea, I think it would be a far wiser move to seek 'fine-tuning' of it. 19-reg would seem to me to be an obvious area where some latitude should be introduced.

 

 

It does seem a bit illogical to include all of the MARAP provisions for 19-reg aircraft.

 

Any buyer of a 19-reg aircraft is (whether they realise it or not, and if they do not, then surely it is a problem of adequate INFORMATION rather than regulation), buying a basically unknown quantity. The phrase 'sold with all faults, if any' springs to mind.

 

Buyers of 19-reg aircraft are - whether they make this decision as an informed decision or not - buying something that simply does not have the backing of an approved manufacturer with defined QC requirements. Certainly, there are checks: if I am not mistaken, there is a mandatory L4 inspection required before first flight, and there is also a re-registration L2 condition report required. Neither of those can, realistically, guarantee that other than visible problems have been identified. Such things as incorrect preparation of bonded surfaces, incorrect mixing ratios of bonding materials, incorrect post-curing of materials - even the use of unspecified materials in certain areas - cannot be realistically determined other than by (usually) destructive test methods.

 

Inadequate corrosion protection of materials, the substitution of release materials by non-release materials that appear identical, the degradation of glues and such things as wood-rot in inaccessible locations, cannot realistically be determined without major strip-inspection. ( And it should be noted: some of those conditions are NOT limited to amateur-built/maintained aircraft - I am currently repairing and modifying a 55-reg aircraft that has both factory AND L2 -maintenance-work horrors that most people would not like to know about).

 

I think that applying all of the MARAP procedure to 19-reg aircraft is rather akin to trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. However, I also believe that we should look at the benefits for 55-reg and 24 'C' reg aircraft, and in that respect, I believe that RAA has come up with a very respectable idea that people should applaud.

 

 

It is very hard to know what to do without all the facts/numbers. Would it at all be possible that CASA haven't put all the numbers out because of legal action from jab?

If by that comment, you mean that Jab. has taken out some sort of injunction to prevent CASA releasing the numbers ( and those numbers may well be fairly meaningless if not accompanied by at the very least a description of the actual 'event': 'engine failure' by itself is a useless description, so let's call the information CASA holds as 'the data'), then I suspect the answer is 'no' - based on post #584, for instance. It would be strange for CASA reps. to say: 'we know stuff but we aren't going to tell you', rather than saying 'we can't tell you because we are barred from so doing', surely?

 

CASA has nailed its colours to the mast based on 'the numbers' justifying the action. It doesn't make any sense for CASA to retreat behind a veil of 'we know best, trust us' if it has what it evidently considers to be the data justifying the action. That would be the archetypical type of 'we're from the Government and we're here to help' comment, and even Public Servants know that that's an untenable position to hold.

 

I believe there are only two possible situations for NOT releasing the data (unless you are correct that Jab. has taken out an injunction).

 

The first is: the data CASA holds actually demonstrate that the action was inappropriately milder than the situation demands - i.e. CASA has under-reacted to the situation and has not acted in the best interest of public safety. IF this is the case, then for Jabiru to have taken legal action to suppress the release of the data, it is doing CASA a favour.

 

The RAA FOI request for official release of the data (and remember, a few of the Board and presumably the Tech Manager have seen the data in confidence so presumably have weighed up the consequences of airing the data for all to see) would - if the first possibility were the case - mean in all likelihood a demand for greater restriction on Jabiru powered aircraft. That does not to me seem consistent with all of the RAA communications to date on the matter.

 

The second possibility is that open examination of the data would indicate that the CASA action was NOT decently justified - which would certainly open CASA up to potential legal consequences - most of which have been discussed at length on this forum and don't need repeating. If this is - and I believe on the balance of probability, it IS the case - then Jabiru would be actually denying itself recourse to legal remedy if it were to take action to suppress the release of the data.

 

We may well get a strong indication of which of these two possibilities is correct by seeing what CASA's response to the RAA FOI is. If they claim 'sub judice' status for it, then there is a real likelihood Jabiru has indeed taken some legal action.

 

 

Shine will bleed Jabiru dry trying to win this.

Jabiru isn't currently and is highly unlikely to ever be using Shine - it is using Spencer Ferrier, who runs rings around anybody Shine can put on the case.