Jabiru engined a/c Limitations

[Rod1]

Jabiru engined a/c Limitations

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/m ... 1425ss.pdf

Will the LAA act on the Australian restrictions?

require that Jabiru powered aircraft are operated in a manner that minimises the risk of a forced landing into a populous areas

prohibit the carriage of passengers

etc

Rod1

[Chris Martyr]

Rod, calm down mate . This is a proposed instrument in its consultation stage !

Look at the conditions for a start, apart from the pax carrying proposals , there are no more differences than the restrictions on a normal LAA issued PtF.

Jabiru engines have been around since the 1990's and haven't been on the receiving end of any more incident reports than Rotax's or VW's . Anyone who flys behind one should be aware that there are certain caveats with these engines that one probably wouldn't need to worry about with a Continental or Lycoming.
Also, are these proposals aimed at any Jabirus in particular ? I.E. 8cyl. 6cyl. or the most common 4 cylinder.
There certainly has been the odd glitches with UK reg'd. Jabs but they haven't been dropping out of the sky have they . Or have we all missed something !
I'm sure that our capable mentors are aware of this and will be taking the matter to hand when/if required .
Please don't misunderstand me, but I have a gut feeling that this is to appease the lawyers rather than to satisfy any engineering misgivings .

[Rod1]

"Jabiru engines have been around since the 1990's and haven't been on the receiving end of any more incident reports than Rotax's"

Some Australian stats here. Looks like the Jab is around 66 percent less reliable than Rotax.

Reported data for 2014 year to date (January through October)


Hours flown
Jabiru 41,834
Rotax 71,626
All 131,227

Landings
Jabiru 92,735
Rotax 145,638
All 260,383

Engine failures (full or partial)
Jabiru 28
Rotax 16
All 51

I suspect that a straight comparison between Jabiru and 912/914 Rotax variants would be even more damning.

[John Price]

Are you back Rod ?

John.

[Chris Martyr]

Before any premature conclusions are jumped to, it needs to be established what type of operations the aeroplanes that have generated these stats have been undergoing . If , as suspected , some of these figures come from flight school aircraft , then the chances are that they knock up many times more hours per annum than the average LAA administered PtF type aircraft.
Given the size of the country and the fact that the aussies treat their aircraft more like cars than we do is another reason for making alot closer scrutiny of the sectors they fly before jumping in with both feet.
As for the Australian climate ? There's another area where there is absolutely no comparison to us . Flying in and out of dusty old bush strips at 110 deg. Fahrenheit draws no parallels with most LAA PtF type operations whatsoever. So "Will the LAA act on Australian restrictions" , I very much doubt it . Not without gaining some realistic insight into this first .

The statistics provided don't really give one much to compare either. Jabiru manufacture three different engines, the 8 cyl , the 6cyl. and the one that is probably far and away the most commonly used one on LAA PtF type aircraft, the 2,200cc 4 cylinder . This has to be broken down as well , just using the term 'Jabiru engines' is far too generic to be able to disseminate any data that would justify any possible knee-jerk reactions in the UK.
Also , Rotax's customer policy precludes alot of in-depth customer maintenance actions with their rather 'closed shop' type of attitude.
A colleagues 912 which had a slight misfire was diagnosed after several maint. inputs that it had rounded off cam lobes. Subsequent enquiries to Rotax regarding purchasing a replacement camshaft and followers resulted in a complete rebuff, as all they could supply was a complete new engine . This was here in the UK , so If Rotax have the same degree of 'customer commitment' in Australia , then Rod's Jab/Rotax comparison figures are fairly meaningless if easily repairable defects are seen as a means of flogging the customer a brand new engine every time ones Rotax goes on the blink.
I have since been led to believe that this was not an isolated case either.

So, is the Jabiru 66%m less reliable that the Rotax ? Possibly , but let's look at the whole scenario first before suggesting , "Will the LAA act on Australian restrictions".

[Brian Hope]

LAA Engineering is currently assessing this issue and will, in due course, comment on whether or not it will impact on the operating procedures and/or limitations of UK registered Jabiru engined aircraft. I am not a member of the Engineering team so am not able, nor would I wish to comment on what the outcome of its assessment may be, other than I have every faith in its ability to come up with a sensible and pragmatic decision.
Personally I think Rod’s reliance on Australian statistics to justify the comment 'Looks like the Jab is around 66 percent less reliable than Rotax'. is at best simplistic. They may well show that in Australia the engine has proven to have had more accidents attributed to it than have other types, but that is not necessarily replicated elsewhere. I am not saying it is or it isn’t, simply that brush-stroke statements based on limited statistical evidence are unsafe. Chris has already mentioned that the operating conditions and culture are different in Australia than here in the UK, and that may well have some bearing on the statistics.
Quite probably the airworthiness regime for non-certified aircraft in Australia may also have some bearing on the safety implications. Here in the UK the Jabiru is operated in aircraft that fall within the LAA (in the main) and the BMAA Permit to Fly regimes. I can only speak about the LAA because that is the organisation I have best knowledge of, but the LAA and BMAA engineering departments do share information and discuss problems that jointly affect aircraft, engines, props etc on their fleets.
When a Jabiru engine is installed in an LAA aircraft, the LAA Engineering Department check the way it is installed as part of the initial ‘first of type’, as part of the individual aircraft build or as a retrospective mod, often by assessing photographs and checklists etc. An LAA inspector checks the job at first hand, using his inspector’s guide book which includes specific Jabiru advice. A flight test is carried out, authorised by LAA Engineering in which the pilot is established to be suitably experienced and is usually pre-briefed about special Jabiru engine issues by HQ. The aircraft has to do a number of hours within a test regime (usually five hours) to let it settle in and to give time to fine tune the installation. A detailed 14 page test report is submitted to LAA Engineering, the test results are checked by LAA Engineering and the aeroplane only gets its permit if results are satisfactory.

When a technical issue arises the LAA Engineering Department assesses the risk of it being a potential fleet-wide issue and where that is a probability, advise or mandate a procedural (a hundred hour inspection of a component for example) or a more technical (remove existing bolts and fit new ones with a drop of a specific thread-lock compound, for example) change depending on the severity of the problem. Owners and Inspectors are made aware of the issue and the remedial advice is monitored to ensure it has the desired effect. The LAA’s informal, independent and often entertaining ‘Safety Spot’ column has become a very effective method of spreading news of recent issues and findings among owners, so much more palatable than dry service bulletins and advisories. All this is part of LAA Engineering’s policy of encouraging owners to get involved in the technicalities of their aircraft, but in an informed manner, and spreading the idea that learning about technicalities is part and parcel of aircraft ownership.

Quite often significant feedback is received when this kind of action is taken, adding further to the store of knowledge LAA has on the problem. I should add that where at all possible, there is exchange of information between manufacturers (either directly or via a UK agent) and the LAA engineers. When Jabiru engine problems first started to occur in the UK about ten years ago, Francis Donaldson, LAA’s Chief Engineer went to Australia and spent several days with Jabiru looking at the engine at all stages of construction, talking through all the issues with senior staff and gleaning every scrap of advice he could, which was then passed on to owners in a detailed advice letter covering many aspects of its operation.

So, what we have here in the UK is both a robust initial airworthiness checking system and a continuing airworthiness procedure where technical issues are followed up, investigated, acted upon and monitored to ensure that they do not become an ongoing problem that causes a long succession of similar incidents throughout the fleet

In Australia the operating regime of this type of aircraft is more in line with the US Experimental category where owners are, to a large extent, left to their own devices. When such freedoms are given, there is a significant shift in responsibility that goes with it. In an ideal world owners/operators would make themselves aware of recurring problems in the fleet and manufacturers would take a proactive attitude to dissemination of information. We do not live in an ideal world though, and for any number of reasons, the continuing airworthiness chain gets broken. Manufacturers disappear, or because their product is uncertified take a ‘sell it and forget it’ attitude. Aircraft ownership changes and the new owner has little understanding of the ‘system’ under which the aircraft should be operated. Dare I suggest that some owners take a somewhat laissez-faire attitude to continuing airworthiness and even regular maintenance? Result, the potential for a technical problem to go unnoticed within the fleet and continue to cause mishap.
So, CASA may well have a very different problem to deal with than we in the UK, where we have effectively taken a much more proactive attitude to overseeing the operation of non-certified aircraft. Each system has its advocates, and I am not going to get into the politics of that discussion. All I will say is that between certified and Experimental is what I believe to be an eminently sensible LAA Permit to Fly regime that gives us as near the best of both worlds that we could ever hope for.

[Rod1]

Just to clarify;

I made the original post because both my local friends with Jab engines knew nothing about the issue in Aus and were somewhat alarmed by the official document from the Australian regulator.

I made no suggestions - only asked the question re what, if anything, the LAA were considering.

To the best of my knowledge the information is all official, from the Australian regulator.

I have no idea how this will impact the UK owners, hence my question to the LAA.

Hope Jab can sort it all out ASAP.

Rod1

[Chris Martyr]

To really clarify the matter, it would be best if Rod explained to his Friends with Jabiru's that they shouldn't listen to alarmist scare-mongering , and surely the most effective way of allaying their [unnecessary] apprehension would have been for them to contact LAA , Turweston directly .

Rod says that he was making no suggestions . Apart from ,"Will the LAA act on Australian restrictions", which the reader could have mis-construed as implying that the LAA were dragging their feet .
Also , "Jabiru being 66% less reliable than a Rotax" . But apart from those two , which sounded pretty unambiguous to me, there were no suggestions.
He has no idea how this will affect UK jabiru users , hence the question to the LAA . But it wasn't put to the LAA was it ! It was put on the Forum, which is a different matter completely and just leaves it wide open for the world and his mother-in-law to add even more alarmist speculation . Luckily , Brian was on hand and very kindly must have spent at least two hours of his Sunday putting a response together .
I'm sure that most active LAA'ers have better things to do on a Sunday than have to respond to speculative , forum-filling chewing gum that some interpret as "lively debate".

[Bob F]

I was a little taken aback by the tone of some of the replies to Rod's post. The fact that Rod posted this at least brought it to a wider audience, it may all be exaggerated but at least more Jab owners will pick up on it.

[Paul Hendry-Smith]

Rod1, who I think really works as disaster, scandle and gossip advisor to News of the World, has I am afraid caused a whole load of unnecessary grief to Jab aircraft and engine owners without doing the necessary background work.

The cut and paste boy wonder has picked up on half a story without understanding the politics and reality of what has been going on behind the scenes in Oz, I don't know if Rod1 spoke in person to CASA he certainly hasn't spoken to Rod Stiff, I did this morning and got a fuller explanation, I'm still going to be flying behind Jab engines.

I have quite a few hours behind Jab engines, as do some local aviators, we even look after some and I have to say that whilst they have had some bad press ( some of it quite rightly, but so do other manufacturers ) they are, when installed and maintained correctly pretty reliable lumps. The biggest issues occur when builders and installers think they they "know better" than the designer and manufacturer, and that they don't need to follow quite specific install and maintenance instructions.


The CASA dictate was never issued and is not likely to be, politics, ego's and hidden agendas are at play here, subjects that we wouldn't understand or even contemplate are in play.

It is best we do not augment issues and talk up a crap storm that doesn't exist or is being adequately dealt with by the parties involved on the other side of the world.

Now, my question has to be why is Rod1 still claiming anonymity , everybody else plays by the rules, why oh why does the moderator put up with this???? Either enforce the rules or drop them, please.

Paul

[ian herdis]

Bob.

I have to agree indeed it seems to getting far too personal now. There are often calls to make more use of our forum I don't think this is the way to encourage use of this facility.

Rod posted information which I would certainly want to know about if I operated a Jabiru engine.

The link clearly states that this is currently only a proposal.

This information is on the home page of Kitplanes magazine perhaps the publishers of this excellent publication should be similarly berated.

Ian

[Paul Hendry-Smith]

Ian, if you are going to pull the pin out of the grenade and launch it into the community make sure you have got both sides of the story. Forums are great but ambulance chasing and gossip mongering are counter productive. These acts normally involve people to waste a load of time they don't have, get inundated with questions they don't need to answer and could potentially devalue perfectly good aircraft and engines as a minimum that doesn't even take into account the damage it can do to the manufacturer.

Think before you post is all I ask.

[Brian Hope]

Whilst I agree with Paul that it would be nice if these sorts of issues could be fully resolved before they 'go global', unfortunately that isn't the way in today's instant information world. The news of the CASA/Jabiru 'disagreement' was pretty much everywhere within hours of its announcement, and it is not unreasonable to expect that owners of Jabs might be concerned. Rod was doing no more than many other 'forumites' around the globe, flagging up this issue on a forum so that Jabiru owners were aware that there was something in the wind. I wasn't happy about the comparison of failure data based on limited statistics and said so in an earlier post, but I think it's a bit hard berating Rod for simply drawing people's attention to the issue. The blame, if there is any, falls not on the shoulders of those who disseminate the news, but on those who create it and then discover that they may have acted in haste only to repent in leisure. Let us hope that 'going forward' this matter is consigned to history asap (the idioms and 'management speak' included for your personal pleasure Paul ).

[Chris Martyr]

In Rods defence , yes it is good to know what is happening in other parts of the globe to other users of Jabirus and he did nothing wrong in posting this on here.
Unfortunately, it wasn't a very well worded post , containing a couple of ill thought through comments and a load of figures that could have been transposed to mean anything.

My first reaction upon reading the OP was to try and diffuse what I saw as a somewhat sensationalist piece of mis-information which only served to cause unnecessary angst among Jabiru owners.
Luckily Brian Hope also came along with further solid facts to clear any potential mudded waters amongst the UK Jabiru community.
The great thing about this forum is that it is fairly quiet and genteel and a reflection of the LAA's membership in general . But with a massive amount of resources , knowledge and experience on hand when necessary .
Pretty much all aviation issues are dealt with on the basis of proper collated data with this one being no exception .

And a million apologies for this one,,,,,,,but Paul is right , the anonymity rule does still apply .

[Brian Hope]

Genteel, yes I like that. Compact and bijou I am unfortunately not, but genteel I'll go along with!