Oscar

Oscar said just a page or so back: "

That Rotax 912 engines are far more tolerant of a wider range of operating conditions than are Jabiru engines, I don't believe is in any way in issue. The form of Rotax 912s is without doubt, inherently more tolerant: water-cooled heads are, quite simply, protected far better than air-cooled heads and a great deal of the operating tolerance of Rotax 912s flows from that: tolerance to variations in fuel quality, a more consistent cooling installation in all operating conditions, almost no occurrence of thermal shock. All of that is good;

 

Hmmmm..... Seriously rubbishing the opposition with that comment. Like being savaged by a gummy sheep. I imagine Rotax will be seeking a restraining order after that condemnation.

 

Snickers time again?

Forget it, Gandalph. This is another pretty crude attempt to drag the thread back to tribal fighting when the rest of us were making some progress.

 

 

Also see 2009 ATSB data. Be interested in pre 2009 data the same.I think this might be pre hydraulic lifters, OK to be wrong if someone else knows when they were introduced

The 2200C introduced hydraulic lifters for certificated engines, TCDS issued 6 April 2008: you can Google it, copying link seems to have some issues.

 

 

Ok. No problems Oscar. Sure theres others that have an opinion on the matter. While I appreciate your opinion and point of view, im sure there are others around who have actually operated the engines we are all talking about, and I would value their input on why the CaMit engine seems to be the holy grail.

Fine. I suggest a good start would be reading through the entire 'CAMit engines - anybody got one?' thread.

 

 

Merv, I'm not going to be goaded into a complete waste of my time and this thread. End of.

 

 

Ok. ( rich coming from you)So refresh my memory ?

See YOUR posts #234 and #238, this thread.

 

 

Merv, those figures have been already supplied, and quite obviously none have been fitted to 'training' aircraft. You are just being needlessly tiresome, I expect.

 

 

If as you sugest , the J engines are the same and the problems are difference in operational handling and maintance , wont by that logic , those same operators trash and break the camit engines as well???Aircooled is aircooled ,

Go liquid cooled !

 

If weights an issue , i lost 17 kgs by just not having enough money to buy food . ( joke)

 

Realy , i just started to eat smaller meals !

 

Mike

Mike: ANYTHING can be broken by someone... but yes, you are absolutely correct: the CAE engine is air-cooled and therefore it will still require attention to operating practices; it uses solid lifters so therefore will require more frequent checking of valve lash etc. (though operational experience is now starting to mount, that shows a very significant reduction in changes that are common on Jab engines [valve lash, head re-torquing etc.] which indicates that the CAE engines are handling 'real life' use with fewer effects.)

 

The water-cooled head option for Jab/ CAE engines (Rotec) cannot be certificated / certified because of the electric water pump, so its a dead-end for 24-'C' and 'D' reg. aircraft, unfortunately. I believe the 0200 D is about 91 kgs installed, dry weight, which is around 7 kgs heavier than the J3300 'ramp weight' and about 28 kgs heavier than the J2200 'ramp weight', for a hp of exactly mid-way between the two. I don't know just how much equivalence there is between claimed 'installed weight' and 'ramp weight' for the 0200D, but 'ramp weight' is a pretty reliable figure (I believe) to expect when it comes time for the W&B...

 

Getting back to 'operator' effects... Ian Bent is absolutely aware that he cannot build an engine that will withstand a lover-fingered user. However, he has concentrated his efforts on making the parts of the engine that are most likely to give up the ghost without a decent fight back against poor engine management, and much discussion has taken place and further research is being and will continue to be done, on ways to reduce the incidence of poor management.

 

Now, it MUST be stated that 'poor management' does NOT mean 'intentional poor management' - though I think most people know of instances where some owners / operators frankly should not be left in charge of a rubber duck in a bath let alone an aircraft engine. Prime causes of 'poor management' are firstly: a lack of full condition reporting (and recording, for preference, so that later analysis can be undertaken) due to inadequate instrumentation, and the quirks of cooling set-ups that do not provide reliable and even cooling in all circumstances. A close third cab off the rank would be fuel quality, with particular respect to paying attention to the performance of the fuel actually being received by the engine - not just the fuel that one thinks one put in the tank.

 

Jabiru does not provide a cumulated, clear set of 'user notes' for the guidance on the 'care and feeding' of their engines, it does not mandate (though it does recommend) what most sensible people would regard as adequate instrumentation, and its cooling installation is only just adequate for careful use in 'average' conditions.

 

To cut a long story short(ish): CAE are looking very hard at all of the 'management' and 'installation' issues and developing strategies to improve / assist in these areas as a parallel exercise to the engine developments. The full extent of that is yet to be decided, but it is reasonable to assume that the following will be either mandatory or at least very, very strongly recommended before CAE issues a 'full' warranty for its engines: full cht and egt instrumentation, with recording facility for analysis purposes and a revised cooling installation with audit of cooling performance a la Lycoming. I also expect there will be rather better and more useful user documentation supplied.

 

 

In the end, due to insufficient incontrovertible data, the matter of Jabiru engine reliability becomes a matter of judgement. CASA has made a judgement. I agree with it. You don't. We both own and fly a Jabiru. I put a CAE in mine, you put your family in yours...

Ornis, I (and I think many Jab. engine owners) agree that the numbers do not show that Jab. engines are equally as reliable as Rotax - certainly Rotax 912's. For that exact reason, we have also added most of the CAMit mods. to our 2200 and will be further upgrading it to 'full' CAE specs. in the near future (barrels and heads, once test flying of other mods that have been done to our aircraft is complete and we have, in particular, extensively revised the cooling arrangements and proven them by test flying). Once that is done, we confidently expect to have an engine that will, with due attention to all of the factors relevant to good engine management, provide us with reliability that is every bit as good as Rotax, even if it may require more routine maintenance.

 

As you have said, CASA 'made a judgement'. The major bone of contention here - and the real subject of this thread - is whether that judgement and the resultant action by CASA:

 

a) was based on reliable data that had been properly analysed; and

 

b) represents an appropriate response to the 'situation'.

 

I'm not sure what your opinion is on a); you clearly believe that in the case of b) it was appropriate. The only people outside CASA who have actually seen the CASA data are a few members of the RAA Board - and they are unequivocal that they consider the answer to both a) and b), is NO. Until such time as CASA makes the data publicly available for review - and as we know, CASA has so far refused all requests to do that, which I believe raises serious questions about the transparency and fairness of the action - we have only the CASA judgement on one hand and the assessment by the RAA Board members who have seen it on the other, by which to be guided.

 

Therefore, we out 'here' who can only look on from the outside, can equally only make 'judgements' on judgements. We do not have the information by which to make any judgement from facts, other than those such as the ATSB and the RAA incident reports - and in both cases, there remains a real and significant question as to the rigour of any analysis that has/may have been undertaken.

 

That Rotax 912 engines are far more tolerant of a wider range of operating conditions than are Jabiru engines, I don't believe is in any way in issue. The form of Rotax 912s is without doubt, inherently more tolerant: water-cooled heads are, quite simply, protected far better than air-cooled heads and a great deal of the operating tolerance of Rotax 912s flows from that: tolerance to variations in fuel quality, a more consistent cooling installation in all operating conditions, almost no occurrence of thermal shock. All of that is good; there is an inevitable price to be paid, and that is reflected not just in direct purchase and operating cost but also in the weight penalty and the effect that has on the rest of the 'system' - especially airframe robustness - that makes up an aircraft. However, those issues are not part of this debate.

 

Jabiru engines are without question, far less tolerant of 'out of condition' engine management and I presume (since I don't know, as I have zero interest in Rotax engines) also of proper maintenance. They are also far less tolerant of fuel quality issues. Despite the at times almost comically ignorant utterances of some self-proclaimed 'expert' commentators regarding some of the design/ manufacturing /metallurgical features of Jabiru engines, the 'scatter factor' between operational experience indicates pretty conclusively that engine management is a major factor in getting satisfactory life and reliability from Jabiru engines.

 

We have FTFs with histories of repeated early-life engine failures / incidents, and FTFs that report thousands of trouble-free hours on engines that came off the same production line. Since the engine is a common factor, one has to look at the 'uncommon' factors - operation and maintenance (and to a lesser degree, installation). There is a lot of ground to cover there and it isn't appropriate to the core discussion of this thread; suffice it to say here that there is quite enough evidence of disparity in the patterns of reliability experience between various operators to suggest that serious investigation needs to be undertaken to determine what significant differences there are in operation and maintenance and how that affects reliability.

 

That said, it remains a fact that Jabiru engines are at the 'fragile' end of the air-cooled aero engine spectrum and that they certainly have 'weak links' that can too easily be broken unless scrupulous attention is paid to their operation and maintenance - and yes, I agree that Rotax 912s are more tolerant, by a fair margin. CAMit improvements are designed to improve the reliability of the basic Jabiru engine design by addressing each 'weak link', based on research and development and testing. I agree entirely with those who say that Jabiru should achieve that same thing, and that Jabiru management are being obdurate in not so doing.

 

Once CAE engines have passed both of JAR 22H certification and ASTM certified testing, Jabiru could - if it wished and had the sense to so do - commence to deliver engines for LSA 24-reg, 24 'C' reg, and 95.55 reg Jabirus and bypass the CASA injunction completely. The necessary testing is an expensive business; to do the 'full 9-yards' of both standards, the cost is likely to be of the order of $500K or possibly more and take several months. However, both the necessary facility and the expertise exist. If CASA were willing to be co-operative rather than obstructive, the time and cost could be somewhat shaved; however the standards are explicit and must be met.

 

The hurdles to be jumped through for an engine manufacturer are extensive. It is worth noting that - as far as I am aware - the only certificated /certified engines that are realistic propositions for 'light sport' aircraft are the Rotax 912, the Continental 0200D, and the Jabirus. Neither Ul Power nor d-Motor are certificated / certified - at least according to their websites as of today. You could put them in your 19-reg Jabiru, or equally, put in a CAE engine and save a lot of money, but they are NOT candidates for 24 'C'-reg, 24 'D'-reg or 95.55 reg. Nor will they ever be in their current form under the existing standards, because they rely on EFI for achieving performance. So far, only Rotax has done the very, very extensive work required to get an EFI system that meets the standards. Rotax has a US$9B annual turnover company behind it - and as we know, the 912 iSc has not been without problems!

 

So - while there are potential solutions available to meet the 'problems' nominated by CASA as the reason for its action, it is in no way as simple as 'just do 'X', FFS, and all this would go away'. There is no silver bullet.

 

And the question still remains: is the CASA action appropriate to and justified by the unreviewed and withheld data it claims validates the action? Why are not certain aircraft that have known and documented structural / aerodynamic /occupant safety deficiencies that have and do kill people not been subject to the same sort of limitation? If it is OK to slap a limitation on one manufacturer on the basis of 'probability' - that has not resulted in a corresponding spate of statistics of that 'potential' being realised in 25 years of operation - why has CASA not also similarly acted where there are known and documented problems?

 

 

Low stall speed and low kinetic energy - the very basis of the regulations that apply to 'recreational-class aircraft.'

 

 

Oscar, I don"t doubt what you are saying because there would be more CFIT/Nav/cross country involvement with the 172. I was just thinking of engine failures only, for this discussion.

OK, fair enough - but to pursue that point to a more definitive conclusion - how many RAA aircraft altogether, let alone Jabirus, (which I believe was where you were driving with this point) have in fact ended up amongst the crowded populace as a result of engine failure? We can discount the Runcorn one as engine failure; there was a Jab. that 'diverted' into the trees on a golf course (at Mildura, I think?). An Edge 912 (from memory) ended up in someone's front yard, as did an AAK (Hornet??), though in that case a non-suburban front yard and I'm not sure whether the cause has been explained.

 

The general operational restrictions that apply to RAA aircraft have, on balance, done a pretty fair job of protecting the 'innocent ground-based bystanders'. Has there been ANY instance of injury or worse to a non-participant from any RAA aircraft operation?

 

 

If you are going to compare deaths Per whatever with another aircraft type, those carrying more will expect to score more. Statistics MUST be interpreted. .A Cessna would expect to have a service life many times that of an ultralight I would think in general terms, so I wonder why the older ones are not included if we are considering training aircraft.Nev

Nev, I have no idea why older 172's were NOT included, that wasn't explained, other than I assume to keep some sort of numerical consistency with the 'seven year' period of LSA aircraft used for the comparison. I would not expect any significant difference for older 172's; I'm certainly not personally aware that older 172's have any notable structural failure rate, though some models of the engines used in 172's are - I believe - less reliable than others. I am sure you have a far, far better idea of that than I!

 

 

Oscar, I also see crashing into people or people injured/killed as a result of a fire as low potential, however an increasing number of Jabirus registered VH have been flying at City Airports where virtually any engine failure will create this potential.It's one thing for a Cessna 172, with decades of reliability to cause a fatality on the ground, but an aircraft with a safety limitation based on past statistics is a forseeable risk, and as such, protection of people on the ground becomes imperative.

Actually, Turbs, I'm not so sure you can use the C172 as the paradigm of safety/reliability. I suggest you have a look at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CC8QFjAD&url=http://flightdesign.com/files/Media/The%20Aviation%20Consumer%20-%20LSA%20Accidents.pdf&ei=w7OoVIWTMJC48gX3yoH4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGbNVJyj_byvBwqwrQ1HVpBgsPnHw&sig2=PBiajUDhIdXs8Z3YVQ1jcg&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc.

 

In that study, the overall accident rate (per 100K hours flown) was 3.5 for Jabiru and 5.8 for C172. Accidents /100 registrations was 1.9 for Jabiru and 9.7 for C 172. Fatals/100K hours was zero for Jabiru and .6 for C172.

 

Only C 172's built since 1997 were included in the C172 figures.

 

 

Nice try Oscar but you haven't included any jabs in your list. Are you perhaps distorting the numbers?Are you TP's brother?

I couldn't find any non-RAA Jabs amongst the (admittedly quick) search I did, that were qualified by Merv's description. My point was, that there are non-RAA aircraft crashing into heavily-populated areas, and even despite the sorts of comments from the Mayor of the area following the Chelsea crash (that Moorrabbin should not be used for training, even though that crash had zero to do with training), we have seen no action from CASA.

 

If we are to do a comparison of RAA and non-RAA that fits Merv's qualification, then that's a different issue. However, I do believe that Merv's post does not advance the calm discussion of the relevant issues for the thread topic, though it is certainly worthy of a 'threats to Recreational Aviation' - type thread.

 

 

True, but so is raa acft making forced landings every other week In parks, school grounds and beaches. That's the sort of thing that will land us all in hot water too.

Nobody can fault your logic there, Merv - RAA aircraft landing in populous areas won't do any of us any good.

 

But in fact, just how many RAA aircraft end up 'in parks, school grounds and beaches' from forced landings? You should be able - by your comment - to bring up say 20 per year. Shouldn't be hard for you to provide at least some references to these..

 

Here's a few of the NON-RAA aircraft crashes that have ended up in the midst of the suburban scenery in the past few years, that do not appear to have created action by CASA:

 

Glassair III - South Lakes School, W.A.

 

Cessna - House in Lower Dandenong Road, Victoria

 

Piper Mojave, Suburban Street, Canley Vale

 

Vans RV6, Suburban Street, Chelsea.

 

Supermarine Mk 26, Suburban Street, Salisbury

 

Cirrus SR22 Suburban Street, Lawson

 

 

Ornis - I believe you have presented a far more accurate and useful summary of the situation than anything added by the shrieking harpy brigade that predictably infest any thread mentioning Jabiru. Let's see if - just for once - we can drag a thread back to being of some use.

 

Things are most certainly not going to go back to the way they were. Short of a Court determination that CASA was incorrect in fact in its findings, CASA's 'determination' that Jabiru engines represent an unacceptably increased level of risk will stand, and will inevitably be used as 'evidence' in some future legal action/s. Those who are celebrating this as a good thing are blinded by their bias and frankly being wilfully ignorant of the potential future consequences.

 

Aviation is ruled by standards. There is almost nothing in, of or about aviating that is not subject to a standard, outside of 'experimental'. Adherence to those standards is the only pre-emptive 'defence' on the part of a manufacturer to the charge of 'not fit for purpose'. NO manufacturer could possibly entertain the idea of producing an aviation product - airframe or engine or major component - if it had to consider every possible legal challenge that might arise in the absence of standards: adherence to the standard applicable to the component is the 'go / no go' baseline here.

 

Just about all the standards in aviation are internationally accepted: think FAR, JAR, BCAR and ASTM. These standards are considered to be 'acceptable' - and all of them contain an inherent risk factor, by their very nature. It is not possible to decree 'perfect in all situations' - the standard implies that a certain level of risk is inherent in everything and sets the bar for what is, and is not, 'acceptable'. That principle applies to just about every product of any sort we encounter in our lives.

 

Certificated Jabiru engines have met the applicable standard ( JAR 22H, in this case, for certain models of the 2200 engine) and met the ASTM standard for the certified engines.

 

What CASA has done in this case, is introduce an arbitrary 'supplemental' standard. I say arbitrary, because CASA has not in any way provided a definitive statement of 'acceptable' performance - simply justified its action on the basis that Jabiru engines are less 'good' than the other popular engine. That is not a 'standard' that any manufacturer can apply, it is a judgement on CASA's part.

 

As a precedent, this is woefully dangerous to the future of aviation. Let me postulate an entirely analogous situation that is completely feasible in the circumstances:

 

If CASA were to look at the area of occupant safety and examine the statistics of fatality / serious injury per crash event, many 'recreational-class' aircraft on the register would come up statistically as 'less good' than Jabirus, which are numerically the single most populous brand on the Australian register. Just off the top of my head, I think that probably Brumby and Bristell in Australia would be ok, but those well below the line on a comparison basis would include Savannah, Tecnam, Morgan, Evektor, Colyaer, Skyfox, Alpi, Murphy, VANS, Lightwing, Eurofox, Fisher.

 

And that's just taking fatality statistics from 2013 - 2014.

 

Where would CASA draw the line between 'good enough' for no action, and 'insufficiently good'? We don't know nor can postulate from the action taken in the case of Jabiru engines - because CASA has not indicated any cut-off point, just decided that, by statistical comparison, Jabiru are 'less good' than Rotax. Using the same criterion, Jabiru airframes would be the 'standard-bearer' on the basis of hours/year flown against which everything else would be measured. Indeed, a serious question that follows from the CASA action is: why has not every engine that is 'not as good as Rotax' been similarly limited?

 

Hang on, I hear coming up by response: what about the circumstances of those fatalities? By the way CASA has acted in the Jabiru engines case, circumstances have not been taken into account - only results. This is a critically important part of why this CASA action is such a dangerous precedent for aviation. It is at least a significant part of the reason why RAA has stated that CASA has not subjected their data to sufficient analysis.

 

Those defending the CASA action as 'necessary, deserved, whatever', should open their eyes to the fact that this action has taken the regulation of Australian aviation down a new path and look beyond their own agendas to the broader picture of where that path can lead.

 

 

Just like the "phony casa figures" :) just sayin.

Now, Merv, we don't actually know they are phoney, don't jump the shark there just yet. What we do know, is:

 

a) CASA has not made the data publicly available for scrutiny;

 

b) the aviation industry has no trust in CASA's use of 'safety data';

 

c) the CASA data was provided to the RAA Board on 17 December; since RAA has not published that data we can, I believe, reasonably assume this was done with an embargo on its re-distribution. I know that members of the RAA Board directly involved in preparing the response to that data worked almost non-stop from the time they received it to the time CASA lowered the boom, and in the light of d) below, I am pretty damn sure they would have substantiated their conclusions if they were allowed to so do ;

 

d) RAA, having had a minute amount of time to examine the data, has stated: 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. This is despite their statement that they have found statistically significant evidence in support of their claims.

 

e) the timing of CASA's final action - coming on the last working day of the tenure of the Acting DAS, when the new DAS was already bringing himself up to speed (and had been continuously briefed by RAA since this whole farrago started), was a classic piece of dirty action that stinks of a lack of confidence that the new DAS would take the same POV - even though, quite obviously, he would be reviewing the same 'evidence'.

 

So: 'you might say it's phoney, I couldn't possibly comment on that...'

 

 

Fair?...No.. Accurate? I would hope so..

Ah, well, Merv - hope springs eternal! And like any spring, needs to be flexible...

 

For an opinion that is closer to the coal-face than any of us can possibly have, you might read: http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/10/forsyth-suggests-two-year-timeline-to-restore-industrys-relationship-with-casa/

 

Here's a sample:

 

In an indication of the lack of trust in Australia compared with other countries, Forsyth noted carriers such as British Airways and Easyjet freely sent the majority of their operational safety data through to their national regulator, something that would be unheard of here.

 

 

 

 

 

“I would never have done it in Qantas 10-12 years ago and you can be damn sure no one is going to do it in this country now,” Forsyth told delegates at the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) national convention in the NSW Hunter Valley on Friday.

 

 

 

 

 

“Overseas, operators share some and in some cases operators share all of that in-house data with the regulator.”

 

 

 

 

 

“That’s not happening in Australia. In fact, the reverse is true.”

 

Forsyth said the industry’s view that the relationship with CASA was both inappropriate and unhealthy centred on the availability and use of safety data.

 

Forsyth was, as you are of course aware, the chairman of the 'Truss Review'. It appears that he doesn't share your vision of hope.

 

 

So which year did the 45 failures occur in ?

Merv - we assume CASA was relying on 2014 statistics, but since they haven't divulged the data they claim prompted the action, we do not know. And therin lies one of the important issues: a complete lack of transparency by CASA. CASA is in effect saying: we have secret knowledge. Until CASA releases the data, the correct phrase has to be : '45 alleged failures'.

 

I doubt if there is anybody on this or any other Australian aviation forum who is prepared to stand up and say: 'I sincerely believe that CASA is always scrupulously fair and accurate in all its dealings with the sector'. Will you be the one to do that?

 

 

Sorry Merv, but no cigar for you.

 

The rate statistics provided by the ATSB were not based on the number of engines, but on the failure rate per hours flown. Here it is, again:

 

For Jabiru: 2012: about 3.9 / 10,000 hours. 2013: about 3.25 / 10,000 hours.

 

For Rotax: 2012: about 1.52 / 10,000 hours. 2013: about 2.6 / 10,000 hours.

 

Since there are allegedly more Rotax engines out there than Jabiru engines, that must mean that the actual number of Rotax engines failing as a %age of the total number in service must be greater than for Jabiru to produce the same result, if both fly a similar number of hours/year. We do not have data for either the average hours/year/engine brand nor for the actual numbers in service, so we can't make the comparison you try to suggest.

 

However, for the same period in the ATSB statistics, Jabiru total hours dropped from about 72,00 in 2012 to about 70,000 in 2013 ( the graph doesn't have sufficient resolution to attempt a more accurate figure), while Rotax dropped from about 110,000 in 2012 to about 75,000 in 2013.

 

Simple analysis shows that while Jabiru dropped its failure rate / 10,000 hours between the two years by about 0.625 while dropping total hours by 2.8% or so, Rotax increased its failure rate / 10,000 hours by about 1.08 while dropping total hours by nearly 32%.

 

 

I seem to recall that you posted stats, Turbs, then immediately stated that they were invalid because of all the 'unreported' cases you always claim. If they are 'unreported', then how do you validate that they exist? Since CASA has not made its 'Jabiru' data publicly available for scrutiny, how do we know whether they are valid? The only authoritative, publicly-available data I have seen is the ATSB stuff - and that does NOT support the CASA contention that Jabirus had an increasing rate of failures recently; indeed, it shows that Rotax was the engine brand with that distinction.

 

 

Ouch, Oscar. If I find a huge pile of sh!t on the doorstep I get a shovel, not go looking for a gift-horse...PS. I do value your erudite explanations. I try to be reasonable, but have found dealing with Jabiru and its engines extraordinarily frustrating and expensive.

 

It will make no difference to aviation in NZ if Jabiru folds its wings, but I appreciate it will in Australia. Pity about the Bents - sometimes the dragon wins.

Ornis - that may well be one of the best summations of the situation with which we are faced that has yet been produced! What we need by way of response is exactly, to grab a shovel and get the manure off the doorstep, rather than accepting - or worse, supporting - that it should have been placed there. What CASA has dropped is a large pile of excrement indeed.

 

 

Oscar,The case you mentioned has previously been explained. The pilot was not found to be negligent, so nothing really changes with non-Jabiru placarded aircraft, regardless of the general chatter. If you are negligent, you will pay. The Jabiru aircraft covered by the CASA limitations, require additional things to be pointed out, and may require additional action on the part of pilots, owners, FTFs etc.

Certainly there's a lot of thinking and planning to be done, and I started before Christmas to try to get some definitive advice made available around Australia. How well that works out remains to be seen, but it's not the end of the world.

Turbs, the important element of that case I am trying to mention is not the finding of guilt / innocence, but the fact that we have now all been put into a 'class' by a legal precedent. CASA's action regarding Jabiru has effectively reinforced that 'classification' in the case of Jabiru-powered aircraft; how long do you imagine it will be before similar action is taken in the case of other aircraft that can be demonstrated statistically to be 'unsafe' beyond an arbitrary point that is selected by CASA as being outside the acceptable?

 

This is 'slippery slope syndrome' territory. If, for instance, CASA decides to extend this type of action on the basis of occupant safety statistics from death/injury, there are plenty of other 'low hanging fruit' out there that will suffer, and satisfying THAT will be a far larger task than rectifying some deficiencies in engine components, it will require major, major airframe re-design. From the statistics found in that American study of LSA accident rates (often quoted here, but for those who haven't seen it: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flyingmag.com%2Fpilot-reports%2Flsa%2Fsport%2Flsa-safety-picture-emerging&ei=nf2mVK6hB8Lj8AWWxICgBg&usg=AFQjCNFz4vcQB_yvsNGY8ymr4KkcVP-1fw&sig2=pbEVMeDiDpj1lELHJAdAYA&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc ) , the list of such low-hanging fruit is extensive - and ironically but importantly, Jabiru is the least of the low-hanging fruit.

 

The essential point that the RAA responses made, is that the action CASA has taken is not justified on the basis of the big picture. It is a case that the cure is worse than the disease. It is also most definitely the thin end of a wedge.

 

 

Which part Daz? Or is tinnie time and open season on anything Oscar says? Perhaps he's getting old as well and that's why he SHOUTS.

No, Gandalph, it's because some people unfortunately need a hit with a brick between the eyes to attract their attention. Same reason as the fire exits in cinemas are in large, attention-grabbing letters by comparison to the seat numbers...

 

 

Jeez Merv! Your ancestor would be rotating like a Rotax with a ratsh!t reduction unit at that comment. You should know better. Grieg! Must be getting old!

'Old' and 'wise' are not necessarily mutually inclusive...

 

 

And what about the ones that DO send them in Jabs? Recreational aviation has always been an "at your own risk" activity. Never, EVER has the Govt stepped in and TOLD us there is an unreasonable risk, until now.I dont agree with your views (attempts) that would see the entire RAA on the deck of the floundering ship.

Merv, you have every right to hold your opinion. That doesn't make it any more valid than mine. The Board of RAA begs to differ with you..

 

The official RAA Board position, as stated in its initial response to CASA (available on the RAA website), states:

 

this proposed action threatens the existence of Recreational Aviation Australia, the body charged with the responsibility to administer the safe training and operation of approximately 10,000 pilots and 3,500 aircraft

 

Perhaps the Board does not have your expertise nor perspective, but I do believe there are some on there who are pretty experienced and astute people. They see a real existential threat. And they do NOT isolate that to only affecting Jabiru operators and owners.