Oscar

Yes, plenty of Bach to come:)

Salierisol, you have got the wrong composer. Try Grieg. And try to ignore the connection with trolls.

 

 

I think I feel the lack of objectivity Merv. Bit like a combination of " I shot an arrow in the air. It fell to earth I know not where".. and some religious gathering exorcising the devil. Nev

Nev, I think the more appropriate phrase may well be 'shoot the wounded'.

 

Michael Moncke's / the RAA Board's communications since the initial CASA proposed action hand grenade was lobbed into the wagon have all been extremely worthy of careful reading and a lot of thought. They have given a very good summation of the broader picture (including placing the statistics into perspective, though that perspective seems to be lost on some people). They have NOT mentioned some of the more dire potential consequences, lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and for that we should all be thankful - but absolutely NOT thoughtless about.

 

The members of the Board who have been intimately associated with preparing responses and information send-outs to members have been putting in huge amounts of their time and energy to this problem, because they can all too easily see the consequences of the train hurtling through the tunnel towards the helpless RAA community tied to the rails. It helps precisely none of us that a few people seem intent on doing nothing but shovelling more coal into the boiler.

 

Let us not muck around with platitudes here: ALL of 'recreational aviation' is, by legal precedent now, considered to be 'a dangerous recreational activity'. See: http://www.cbp.com.au/Publications/Flying-lessons-in-a-single-engine-light-aircraft-

 

In brief - NSW Court of Appeal unanimously dismisses appeal in Campbell v Hay

 

 

The NSW Court of Appeal has confirmed that the injuries sustained by a student flying a light aircraft under the supervision of an experienced flying instructor involved the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity.

 

The CASA action has effectively cemented that position from the 'responsible authority' POV. Anybody who thinks a Court will differentiate between 'dangerous' being limited to Jabiru-powered aircraft and aircraft powered by other engines on the basis of a few parts of a percent of reliability statistics, is, not to mince words, a bloody fool. We are ALL tarred with the same legal brush now and the only possible difference between Jabiru-engined aircraft and others is the thickness of the tar. We are ALL 'black' in the eyes of the law.

 

Any operator who thinks that it would be a defence to propose that: 'I didn't send them aloft in a Jabiru-powered aircraft, therefore I contend that it was not dangerous' is simply being stupid. The CASA action is the opening of the Pandora's box.

 

 

OscarMy advice, just ignor the so called "committee of 6". They contribute nothing of value and just repeat the same rubbish over and over killing any possibility of informed and intelligent discussion on any thread containing the word Jabiru. Quite often new and interesting information gets posted but is smothered amongst the repeated repeated repeated private agenda of the same few.

Frank - I completely agree and have bolded the truly important part of your message, IMHO. The sanctimonious assertion that 'we're here to save your life' from the aforementioned group makes any discussion of the impact of this CASA action into something resembling the Irish Marching Season, that drags back any chance of sensible progress into the tribal warfare zone.

 

The majority of the RAA Board at least is extremely conscious of the possible - even probable - adverse effects that this action threatens for recreational aviation in particular, and the ripple-effect on light aviation generally, especially for remote areas where aviating facilities are often hanging by a thread, with recreational aviation use of such facilities often being the life-support for their continued existence.

 

There is such a thing as 'critical mass' for aviation - once this activity falls below that, then there is a cascading effect. If FTF's that have built up a viable - and safe - operation centred on the use of Jabiru-powered aircraft find themselves being unable to continue in business, any L2s servicing such FTFs will likely follow into business oblivion (at least for that site). The viability of fuel supply to the site drops and may disappear. Visiting aircraft will be forced to choose elsewhere to stop for fuel, service etc. Eventually, the local site owner (usually a Council, now able to turn the airfield into rates income) will cease to support maintenance of the airfield.

 

Rinse, and repeat.

 

 

And so, once again we return to the seemingly interminable denunciation of Jabiru engines 'supported' by regurgitation of strongly-held opinion. Does this advance consideration of the CASA action in terms of the results it may - and probably will - have on recreational aviation? Beyond a certain point (which was reached ages ago) it is on a par with an annoying child banging on a drum for the sole purpose of being annoying (and getting noticed.)

 

For those who do not like Jabiru engines: nobody is forcing you to fly behind one. By all means, carry a placard, get a T-shirt made, whatever, so that whenever you are on an airfield, people will not accidentally or maliciously bundle you into an aircraft with a Jabiru engine and offend your sensibilities by putting you in harm's way by your definition.

 

Make your position as unambiguous as you like - that's your right.

 

Now, how about you extend to those of us who hold a different opinion the same courtesy of allowing us to make our own minds up? Your campaign has many of the overtones of the religious zealotry that insists that everybody must adhere to one particular interpretation of a text / texts that is / are impossible to validate by any objective means.

 

 

Always a design mistake when landing gear loads are combined at the same point as wing- strut loads. Certainly some bad examples around.

Another nail in the coffin for the C162! You'd think Cessna would know about these bad design features.:

 

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Cessna_162_Skycatcher_N5201K_1010.JPG&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162_Skycatcher&h=194&w=259&tbnid=wzUNlXSW9BhPLM:&zoom=1&tbnh=150&tbnw=200&usg=__f0_FTspCfjAS0GMsFTgWM1SGPjg=&docid=Lq04GZ4cK7uiEM&itg=1&ved=0CIQBEMo3&ei=-NWgVKjOIOPvmAWpq4GoAQ

 

And Tecnam: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tecnam p92 echo&tbm=isch&imgil=IY_ahWk0mnAJTM%3A%3B0tkVwdkHpGi7dM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%252Ftype.php%253Fpg%25253D3%252526p%25253D1707%252526order%25253Dscreen_timestamp&source=iu&pf=m&fir=IY_ahWk0mnAJTM%3A%2C0tkVwdkHpGi7dM%2C_&usg=__Zzdhw45uWRuwzBysYdwHq1iF4j8=&biw=1536&bih=733&ved=0CDcQyjc&ei=QdegVMyJKYTTmgX7voDgCA#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=IY_ahWk0mnAJTM%3A;0tkVwdkHpGi7dM;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%2Fimages%2Fuploaded-images%2F2010-5%2F9%2F88164.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airplane-pictures.net%2Ftype.php%3Fpg%3D3%26p%3D1707%26order%3Dscreen_timestamp;1024;700

 

Oh, blimey - AND Brumby: http://brumbyaircraft.com.au/

 

 

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, but is it correct that the CASA themselves have made this move and not done it through the delegated authority which rests with RA-Aus? 

 

I would have thought that the correct course would have been for the CASA to bring this issue to RA-Aus's attention and request RA-Aus to regulate the recreational community while the CASA regulate the VH community.

 

 

 

Why have a dog (RA-Aus) and then bark yourself? Or doesn't RA-Aus have the necessary powers to take appropriate action.

I believe the answer is, that RAA does NOT have the power to make this type of determination. That is also the understanding of the Board, btw.

 

In the case of certificated engines, the certificating authority has the power to impose conditions on engines that it has certificated / accepted the certification.

 

In the case of certified engines ( i.e. ASTM-certified), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make such determinations.

 

 

Yes. CAMit-modded engines - that still retain the Jabiru data plate with the additional CAMit modification plate - are affected. CAE new engines are not. A strong protest was lodged with the Minister regarding the fact that CASA's instrument cannot, in fact, apply to experimental aircraft by definition within its own regulation, but that will likely be a fight for the New Year.

 

 

It is not on CASA's web on consultation draft. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102279I think this is disgraceful behaviour from CASA, so if no one was notified and the document signed, is it in effect ?

Our organisation has not been notified so I take it as it is not in force ! As you say a blatant stunt, I hope it backfires on those responsible !

Yes, it is in force. Was 'registered' on 23rd December, which brings it into force.

 

 

CASA made the 'data' available to RAA for examination about 48 hours before they required RAA to respond to the final note, by COB Friday 19th. Some RAA Board members were working well into the early morning of Friday 19th to try to prepare a response to CASA. CASA has not publicly released the 'data', and I assume that RAA is not allowed to release what it was sent since, I have reason to believe, some at least of that 'data' was highly questionable as relevant /properly authenticated / sufficiently analysed as to qualify it for inclusion without qualification or contest.

 

It is noticeable that the timing of both the 'demand' on RAA for a response in a ridiculous time-limit and the release of the 'final' document followed almost immediately upon the heels of Mark Skidmore attending an AOPA conference where he stated his intention of engaging far more fully with 'the industry' - a statement that the AOPA report specifically mentioned as being convincing to those at the meeting. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that this was a final 'two-fingered salute' by the departing acting DAS (Farquharson) to his successor, leaving him (Skidmore) with a decidedly tricky situation to resolve without leaving CASA open to possible action including AAT appeal / class action / other forms of litigation. Farquharson was well-known for continuing McCormick's abiding antipathy towards any form of aviation that was not fully under CASA control, and the general anger in the rec. av. community towards Ungermann may in fact be somewhat misdirected, though we will probably never really know the truth.

 

 

Unfortunately, it is actually NOT part of CASA's 'mission statement' to 'encourage aviation': (my bolding here)

 

To enhance and promote aviation safety through effective regulation and by encouraging the wider aviation community to embrace and deliver higher standards of safety.

 

Of course, these are just weasel words, as is the case with just about all such statements from almost any organisation. ''Aviation Safety' is as nebulous a concept as the Platonic 'Good', and recognition of what is - and is not- 'good' is a societal judgement; since CASA is a society of and to itself alone, it is little wonder that it was found by the 'Truss' review to be comprehensively in need of being bought in touch with the rest of the world..

 

But Wait - There's More!. According to CASA:

 

We act at all times with fairness and integrity. We maintain the highest levels of professionalism and act with high ethical standards and without bias.

 

 

 

We make balanced judgements which are risk based and evidence driven. We act innovatively and with flexibility to meet our responsibilities.

 

And if you believe THAT, then you would also happily await the awakening of your Norwegian Blue from its sad repose, pining for the fjiords.

 

 

All that lovely work - BUT - a billet aluminium crankcase? Steel barrels on it? According to some on this site, it's a wonder it didn't disintegrate on start-up!

 

 

Appreciate your answer, do you share info with anyone I.e Jabiru, Camit or CASA that can do something about this. I personally have always felt it was the way the case halves join and heating different material i.e. alloy case and steel cylinders. Why are you researching this? Do you have a way of getting Jabiru to listen to you ?

The standard Jabiru case joining technique can be a contributing issue if it hasn't been done correctly; CAMit use a different technique entirely. The gudgeon pin offset question is well-known and CAMit uses the opposite offset, as does, I believe, Jabiru S.A. I believe that both Lycoming and Continental use aluminium cases with steel barrels.

 

 

Well try not to be a smart ar&e like him then....of course we all like to see our families and have a break...IF and I stress IF they happened to be open I would call in and have a look at the operation seeing they are extremely busy and I didn't know if they were going to close or not....note the last part of my post. Many a year I have had to work through the holiday period for my business and I am sure Ian has done the same thing. Anyone who has run a business for a long time has to do things when they have to be done. It was nothing more than going in for a quick look if they were open.I import CNC machines for my other company although nothing like they use of course. You also do not know what I have planned in the future for another aircraft I am considering building and what engine I will put in it.

Kyle, I have no idea why you would have taken such offence at a suggestion that Ian Bent might be at CAMit over the Christmas break and would quite possibly be happy to show you around if you happened to be in the area at the time. He just is that sort of person anyway and is very proud of his operation, with good reason. He was prepared to come in from home and open the place on a weekend to allow my co-owner and I to keep on working on our engine rebuild when I was last up there, to drop what he was working on when we needed something special for our somewhat 'bitzer' build, and to show us the FEA analysis, CAD drawings etc. behind changes (and to check that changed components would work properly in the case of our specific engine), to teach us how to machine cases and heads, to make jigs and tooling himself because some parts of our engine were older than the engines for his existing jigs and tools.

 

 

No Oscar, no witness marks. My best guess is that the barrel broke first, then the bolt....Detonation? again...the engine was (2200) 20 hours old...I hope that the CASA intervention can encourage J. to find a cure and stop this sort of thing from happening again.

Well, that is a weird one, for sure - and the sort of thing that really needs to be added to the list to be thoroughly investigated, because it adds to the sum of knowledge about what sort of failures are happening and most crucially, what is the 'chain' of circumstances. I have absolutely no difference of opinion with those who say that Jabiru's 'normal' reaction to failure reporting is neither a sufficient nor an adequate response in many cases, though to be fair, that does not mean that Jabiru is automatically always wrong. It ALSO does not mean they are always automatically right- quite obviously.

 

The lack of decent, at least quasi-forensic, examination of engine failures plus proper remedial research and design improvements has put Jabiru in the situation in which it is now placed; I can't see any sensible argument against that. However, it is very likely that most of the failures that have occurred are not just due to a single factor but a combination of factors and it is this chain of circumstances that needs to be discovered.

 

 

Note: the crack in the barrel was well above the base. probably 20 or 30 mm. Nothing to do with the radius... But it was on top of the barrel....Tell me again which happened first? ...................

In THAT case, I'd go with the through-bolt being the most likely culprit, but really, one needs to examine the barrel, the case, and the bolt to get the best idea of which was the chicken.. . However - were there any witness marks on the case of the outer edge of the flange digging into the case? You don't have to have actual cracking at the base flange to get flex in the flange sufficient to break the through bolt.

 

 

Kyle, you could make yourself a whole new enemy by suggesting that! Or two, probably, if FT sees it!.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

 

Geoff: the base flanges on the CAMit barrels are about 0.8mm thicker than the early Jab ones (not sure about the current Jab ones), as well as having the enlarged radius (sorry, I can't measure it more accurately than that without popping a pot off my dummy engine).

 

Yes, the inhibitor does require pilot operation, I didn't make that clear. It's the 'simplest' practical means to get the effect; Ian Bent does not believe in making things complex if simple will work, but it WILL require just a bit of attention, I agree.

 

Kyle: why not send an email to Ian Bent - [email protected]. He has a family who would, I am pretty sure, dearly like to see their father over the Christmas break, the last period has been frantic for him, but he has such a lot on his dance card at the moment he'll quite possibly be spending some time at his desk, and he is one of the most obliging and patient people you could ever hope to meet when talking about his operation and his engines. The place will be oddly empty without the 'crew' at work, and the sight of some of those seriously large machines turning out a continuous stream of machining waste is really quite an eyeful. The assembly room, without Tony and Trevor calmly assembling engines to almost clinical precision, will seem like an operating theatre awaiting patients - and when you have the lads from the machine shop wheeling in the carts full of shining new pieces ready for assembly, the 'operating theatre' atmosphere is even more apparent.

 

 

quote " jetjrWhat about cylinder cracking mentioned in the instrument?Anyone ever seen this "

Yes, first hand, several occurrences............. Happens in conjuction with broken through bolt. Before the bolts breaks or after? who knows? 2 on engines immediately after rebuild. ( By J) Forced landings each time....

Cracking of the cylinder base just above the flange line will almost certainly guarantee a through-bolt failure due to the lever action of the flange against the case ( same action that causes P92 main leg and used to cause early Citabria main leg bolt failures, though in both of those cases there is a fix available). Most likely causes of that are detonation / overtemp operation stretching the through-bolts and allowing the cylinder to hammer, causing fatigue failure / case joining sealant breaking up and allowing hammering to develop.

 

The cracking mentioned in the referenced instrument won't affect the through-bolts, and is probably also caused by the same factors as above, but substitute head-bolt stretching for through-bolt stretching, obviously, and the case sealant degradation wouldn't be a factor..

 

 

What about cylinder cracking mentioned in the instrument?Anyone ever seen this

Most of these improvements are in the "short" engine they sell, still stuck with limitations

 

Has CASA even spoken to CAE?

CASA has informed CAMit that a CAE engine is not a Jabiru engine subject to the limitations, but has not (as far as I am aware) been in any contact to find out what CAMit: a) knows about the failures in terms of design, manufacture or use, and b:) what changes (and why!) CAMit makes to its engines to address those problems.

 

In my entirely personal opinion, I believe this is at the very least, lazy work on CASA's part; a conspiracy theorist (moi? - surely not..) would suggest that CASA does not want to hear any 'facts' beyond those it using to justify its current actions. It is commonly considered that Farquharson - the now all-but outgone Acting DAS - was highly antipathetic towards all forms of Sport Aviation having any 'life' beyond CASA's direct control; there are speculative dots that could rather easily be connected to suggest that an action that cuts the guts out of the RAA fleet would be an easy low-hanging fruit for CASA to pick.

 

And before anybody jumps right in there: YES, I agree that Jabiru had placed itself in that position. However, that does NOT, I believe, lead to automatic acceptance that 'the punishment fits the crime', in this case.

 

 

Let's look at specific, identified issues with Jab engines and what CAMit has done about it.

 

Through bolt failures:

 

The original 3/8" Jab through bolts were (just) adequate in strength for operation in 'perfect circumstances': scrupulous attention to assembly procedures necessitated by the case-joining sealant used, careful management of CHT at all times when the engine is in operation, and reliable appropriate fuel. However, in order to achieve the necessary clamping pressure they were torqued to within too small a margin of their ultimate strength and had no tolerance for any out-of-condition running. The Jabiru 7/16" upgrade provides greater margin of strength for the clamping pressure, but came out at around the same time as the reliability of mogas supplies went significantly downhill and ethanol started to be more widely used, and they did not take into account certain in-service condition issues for the bolt itself that have been identified and addressed by CAMit. Because of the limited space on the standard Jabiru barrels, the new 12-point nuts had to be hand-modified to ensure they made proper contact with the barrel flange and did not introduce bending to the thread area of the through-bolt.

 

The typical through-bolt failure mode is not a 'simple' failure of the through-bolt to withstand the forces directly applied to it in normal use ( i.e. a tensile failure from a load applied axially to the bolt as one would see in a proof-test situation), but a more complex set of physical circumstances. The major culprit is in fact the bending of the standard Jabiru cylinder base so that the flanges through which the through-bolts pass contact the engine case and apply a leverage factor to the load on the through-bolt. Reasons why that can happen include any over-temp operation and/or detonation. Any failure of the case sealant (usually a result of incorrect assembly technique - assembly of the cases plus cylinders MUST be done within a very narrow time-limit and ambient conditions, which requires a high level of experience to achieve), will cause the sealant to crack and allow the cases to fret, relaxing the clamping pressure on the bolts and thus introducing 'hammering' on the through-bolts that will cause fatigue failure.

 

CAMit engines use a different design of 7/16 through bolts and studs PLUS a thicker barrel base PLUS a case-joining sealant that is not assembly time critical PLUS a case-half location methodology that eliminates the standard Jabiru case-join dowels PLUS a different nut that does not require any modification to seat properly on the new barrel flanges (nor, by the way, does it require modification for older-style barrels). It took CAMit some time to find the right manufacturer for those nuts! There's another element to the CAMit through-bolts design that is the product of considerable research, analysis and design work, but (without wishing to sound as if it's 'Magic Ingredient XX-PLUS!), it's a bit of CAMit IP that rightfully remains in the purview of CAMit to reveal when and if it sees fit. Suffice it to say - it's no 'magic', it can be demonstrated using standard modern engineering diagnostic tools - but you wouldn't find it unless you went looking for it: CAMit did exactly that.

 

Valve failures:

 

Issues here are also complex, and include excessive guide wear, hydraulic lifter pump-up, and lead fouling. There MAY also be some instances of QA on the valves themselves, though that is rather speculative.

 

CAMit engines use solid lifters. They also use a revised rocker gear geometry that reduces the side-load on the valve stems by over 50% by comparison to the standard Jabiru rockers. The lubrication arrangements for the rocker arm bushes is also substantially improved. The valve clearance adjusters are a considerably improved design that utilises a hex-key head bolt with a 12-point nut - and is quicker and easier to adjust very precisely.

 

CAMit research has shown very high temps at the top of the barrels that adds to the heat load on the exhaust valve and improvements to the barrel cooling and the exhaust valve guide and seat materials has been conducted, and is (I believe) now being introduced.

 

Flywheel bolt failures:

 

The CAMit belt-driven alternator reduces the harmonics in the crankshaft that are a significant contributor to shear fatigue of the flywheel bolts.

 

Cylinder Head distortion:

 

CAMit uses a different and superior alloy to that used by Jabiru, that is considerably more tolerant to CHT temperatures in excess of the Jabiru limits.

 

Barrel rusting:

 

The CAMit engines have an inbuilt 'inhibitor' system that provides a fine spray of warm engine oil on shutdown.

 

Compression blow-by:

 

CAMit uses a different barrel honing pattern that provides both better sealing and better barrel lubrication characteristics.

 

 

Let's just look at the aviation scene for a moment. Australian manufacturers of aircraft of decent (in varying qualities) products that are no longer in existence: Victa, CAC (the Nomad), Dean-Wilson (the Whitney Boomerang) various owners of the Skyfox Gazelle. Manufacturers who were Australian but are no longer Australian-owned: Gipps Aero, Seabird, Brumby.Then why don't we all lobby to get rid of the major cause, CASA, ? CASA has a track record of destroying aviation in this country. I think their use by date is here, we don't need them, the airlines might but I can't see their role in recreational aviation or manufacturing. CASA should be called WOFTAM.

While CASA is the crowning t#rd in the toilet pipe (thank you, Blackadder) , it's economics that was the killer. To make a small fortune by being an aircraft manufacturer in Australia, you need to start with a large fortune.

 

Rod Stiff and Phil Ainsworth were not rich, bored people when they started Jabiru, but they did have some reasonable financial resources. I don't know any of the figures, but I strongly suspect that they could have put their money into other avenues for generating income and done a whole lot better than they did by developing Jabiru.

 

 

jj - the logical choice is the CAE engine. Bolts right up, miniscule W&B issues, standard installation arrangements fit on ( but - that said, a CAE engine with a CAE cooling package that's now under development, would be even better!)

 

And reasonably comparable price. Ian Boag is quoting from experience a $40k + cost and huge hassles to add a 'Used, at a a good price' - not a new - 912.

 

 

It is good for those that are located in Loxton. For me, Archerfield is 5 minutes away and I had it on line as a favour for a local flight school which meant that I covered my maintenance costs with a highly respected LAME. I now need to relocate over an hour away and need to find someone who will look after it, in addition to the loss of income to cover those costs.Now as long as Jabiru can stay in business to produce the parts you need to keep your aircraft going you will remain okay, but, I am not sure how many aircraft or parts sales Jabiru needs to stay in business given how few sales they will now make given the effect of the CASA restrictions and the fear and liability risk it creates.

01, have you considered DDSAA at Clifton? Private airfield, Trevor Bange who owns the strip is an L2; great atmosphere and fine place to fly from, bunkhouse accommodation on site, fuel on site - though a bit more than an hour away from Archerfield. The downside is that being black soil country, the strip becomes soggy after rain.

 

The second part of your post is the one that people should be worried about. There is an underlying sub-text from many of the strident Jabiru-knockers, that Jabiru has waxed fat on its sales at the expense of providing a good product and should be punished for that. That is just, simply, complete and utter bullsh1t. It gets by, on the same sort of margins as any average SME; you'll see more fancy cars and fancy premises at a Real Estate Agency than you see at Jabiru, or CAMit, for that matter.

 

Most SMEs operate in an environment where regulatory action doesn't just come in and cut the guts out of the enterprise, on highly dubious grounds, that leaves the SME with sod-all recourse to a defence - unless it has violated its statutory requirements for quality, service etc. In the current situation, how long can it reasonably be expected that Jabiru would exist with strangled sales opportunities?

 

Let's be realistic here. No company can continue indefinitely if its expenses exceed its income. A few cogent examples might jerk some people back to reality: in 2014 alone: Ford, Holden. Somewhat earlier, Chrysler Australia. Even earlier, Leyland Australia.

 

Let's just look at the aviation scene for a moment. Australian manufacturers of aircraft of decent (in varying qualities) products that are no longer in existence: Victa, CAC (the Nomad), Dean-Wilson (the Whitney Boomerang) various owners of the Skyfox Gazelle. Manufacturers who were Australian but are no longer Australian-owned: Gipps Aero, Seabird, Brumby.

 

Internationally, notable companies who have dipped a toe in the ultralight arena and withdrawn: Cessna, Piper, Bombadier (at somewhat arm's length with the Katana).

 

The question that people need to be asking is: for how long can Jabiru (and by default, CAMit) continue in the face of the inevitable results of this sort of bastard act?

 

 

Yenn - that situation (with Lycomings etc.) would be, surely, that it is not compliant with its certification requirements? I.E a maintenance release cannot be issued.

 

 

Thats not what Rod stiff says. He claims the minute you modify it, its not a Jab. Check out his Facebook page.Does that part apply to LSA Oscar?

Without CASA's written approval to remove the data plate, you can't without breaking the law. Rod is wrong - unless he can provide that approval by some negotiated mechanism with CASA. Yes, it applies to LSA engines etc. -

 

 

 

HOWEVER, Rod could, if he wished (AND the necessary ASTM / JAR 22h /FAR 33 certifying / certification testing is successfully completed and signed off), allow the installation of a CAE engine OR a modified Jabiru engine in his factory-built aircraft.

 

Certificated aircraft (factory-built 'C' reg / 55 reg) can be modified by an EO from a Part 21M engineer (with CASA's tick-off). CASA's ludicrously and unnecessarily-complicated rules for the application of EOs make it a difficult exercise, but FTFs could change-over to CAE engines and be exempt from the CASA fatwa. A full explanation of the hoops necessary to be jumped through would bring tears of mixed mirth and rage to the eyes of anyone with a glimmer of common-sense, which rather automatically excludes CASA.

 

However, that mechanism remains theoretical until a Part 21M engineer is prepared to issue an EO and the only Part 21M engineer in the loop at the moment who is a) prepared to issue such an EO, and b) would have a decent chance of CASA having to accept that EO (since he is the only Part 21M engineer in this country who has undertaken certification tests on aero engines - the original Jab 2200s) will only do so once test-running of the CAE engine to the full JAR 22H regime has been completed.