Jabiru engine failures

[Squawk7700]

To put it another way nothing that that Barrier, Polar and many others ever meant a thing. Unless its quashed right now Jabiru is finished, to be followed by the experimental fleet in short order.

Where did you hear that Sunny and aren't you building an experimental aircraft right now?

[Eddie Dean]

Seems a fair bit of hyperbole written on this thread.
Are we sure CASA wants to shut down RAA?

[Andy_RR]

It doesn't matter if they want to or not, Eddie, if the effect is the same

[Sunfish]

Sqwawk7700, it may never be registered the way things are playing now. It has cost me about $85,000 so far, and probably another $10,000 for radios, transponder, paint and incidentals to come, but it has been worth it for the Three years of therapy building it has given me while my partner was dying of cancer.

I can afford to put a chainsaw through the airframe if I have to.

My recent experience of flying schools, flying clubs, etc. is that they are
far from happy places these days either and the stress levels of the RAA and SAAA are way up in my opinion thanks to deliberate CASA destabilisation.

The Jabiru event is as far as I can tell the opening shot in the final battle to destroy private and GA in favour of property development and jobs for life for former RAAF pilots.

My own personal question is "is it worthwhile to persist in aviation when it is clear that every mans hand is raised against it?" Anyway I'm having a few weeks off in Thailand at present, tomorrow I'm chartering a forty foot yacht for a week.

As for the SAAA, it now exists at CASA's pleasure if the Jabiru extinction is allowed to stand because it sets a precedent that any asset can be targeted anytime, anywhere and for any reason with only a little file stacking required to convince the Lilly livered AAT.

The SAAA is vulnerable because it exists thanks to a series of exemptions to regulations that must be renewed by CASA every Two years. The most important currently is the exemption permitting owner/builder maintenance. CASA had a "trial run" last year(?). And let the exemption expire without renewal for a few weeks - causing massive heartburn and probably a few heart attacks among grounded owners.

To put that another way, CASA can kill that sector by doing absolutely nothing- just decline to issue new exemptions.

[Oracle1]

26th November 2014

Hello Jabiru Fleet,

As you are aware CASA has issued a draft proposal to place operational limitations on Jabiru Aircraft.
At a regulatory level Jabiru are communicating with CASA management and the Minister. CASA’s proposed document is virtually unprecedented in content and approach. We have sent our response. In summary:-

“The proposed instrument concerning operating limitations for Jabiru powered aircraft should be withdrawn immediately and without reservation.”

At an operational level we are having regular talks with CASA and the RA-Aus to improve communications and develop better methods and processes for managing the relationship between Regulator, Administrator and Manufacturer. At heart we all want a vibrant, active and safe recreational aviation sector and Jabiru are committed to doing what we can to achieve this.

At a technical level Jabiru’s engineers and staff are liaising with their CASA contacts and are making steady progress working through the items on the technical agenda. For many obvious reasons Jabiru does not conduct R&D in public nor publish every internal engineering report, however in the last 12 months 153 drawing revisions have been made along with revisions to many operating, maintenance, technical and overhaul manuals. 3 Service Letters or Bulletins (or their LSA category equivalents) have been published and 25 people have visited Jabiru for maintenance training. All of this work has been carried out with the one goal of improving the reliability and ultimately the safety of our products.

At a grass-roots level we have contacted many operating flying schools, asking them for information which will help us gather essential data to assess the currency of their configuration. This information will form a very important tool for us and we strongly urge people to take the time to provide the information as fully as possible. We are also appealing to people to keep flying and enjoying their aircraft!

Overall, Jabiru is moving forward and embarking on a program of positive changes. You will see regular technical and engineering updates for engines and airframes. Jabiru conducts engine maintenance courses and we will run more courses, more often. Communications at all levels will be improved.

In accordance with the CASA website the consultation period on the proposed instrument has been extended until 27 November 2014 and all submissions should be forwarded to [email protected] - Only 1 day left!

While Jabiru and the RA-Aus work on the formal agenda with CASA we encourage members, businesses, owners and operators to contact federal and local members of parliament to provide input regarding the CASA imposed restrictions, detailing potential financial impacts or distress, loss of potential customers, negative effects on employment, reputational damage, etc. Your federal member details can be found at Home ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au) with state and local details available at the relevant government website.

Finally, some food for thought: Records given to CASA for this year indicated 40 engine incidents. Of these incidents there have been twelve engine stoppages in flight resulting in forced landings. No serious injuries or fatalities were recorded. Nearly 41,800 hours were flown in Jabirus in Australia in that time with 92,700 flights.

It has been a very difficult and stressful time for Jabiru and it’s not over yet. However, as we drove to work today we saw a 20-year-old Jabiru LSA flying circuits and training its latest pilot. It helps to know that that little plane has probably trained at least 200 people in its life so far, that there are plenty of Jabirus in schools worldwide and there are a lot of smiles per hour happening because of Jabiru. That’s what we’re here for.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Can't copy the link in on my phone. Flight global has an article title 'CASA accused of "misconduct" by Australia's light aircraft association'.

[Jabawocky]

Accused?

It is for certain. And they know it. Problem is the mud thrown will stick despite the many design changes and improvements that have been introduced in recent times. The major ones I was not even aware of.

Doing some research of my own unlike CASA, proved very interesting indeed. Time will tell how these changes will go in the field.

[Aussie Bob]

"Accused". A very tame responce indeed by folk who appear more wary of their position than their obligations to their members.

Sometimes I wish RAA, AOPA and the like would say it how it is instead of trying the appeasing gently gently approach.

[Joe Dallas]

The Link to Australia's light aircraft association


CASA accused of 'misconduct' by Australia's light aircraft association - 12/1/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/casa-accused-of-39misconduct39-by-australia39s-light-aircraft-406591/)

[flightstick]

Some interesting reading:

Air/ fuel Ratio
In most spark ignition, internal combustion engines, the mixture is combustible within an AFR (air/fuel ratio) range of roughly 9 to 1 to about 17 to 1. 9 being very rich, 17 being very lean. 14.7 is the stoichiometric ratio (chemically correct) for lowest emissions. Best power is obtained at around 12.5 for most naturally aspirated engines.
Pistons
Most automotive engines produced today have cast aluminum pistons as opposed to forged aluminum pistons used in race applications where engines produce high continuous hp levels. Forged pistons transfer heat much faster than cast ones and retain their strength at higher temperatures however, the increased fitting clearances required makes them an unattractive choice for production car engines where noise, emissions and longevity are important and the average hp is relatively low in the automotive application. Aluminum loses approximately 50% of its strength at 400F and this is a pretty typical temperature for a piston crown operating at medium to high power settings. The strength rapidly diminishes above 500-550F so they cannot be allowed to get this hot or deformation and fatigue will set in due to the high pressure they are subjected to. In other words, they can become somewhat plastic and weak if they get too hot.
Pistons are usually the first parts to fail from excessive thermal loads on automotive engines. The solution to this for almost all auto OEMs is to run the AFR very rich at WOT (wide open throttle) and high rpms corresponding to high hp output. The excess fuel drops the combustion temperatures, EGTs and cools the piston crowns themselves, keeping them within their safe thermal limits. While best power is obtained with AFRs around 12.5, most OEMs run the AFRs at between 10.5 to 11.2 at WOT. This is where you need to tune your AFRs also. While there will be a slight hp loss and you'll use more fuel, this is the only way the pistons will survive for very long running at continuous high power settings. I suggest a nominal target of 10.5 to 11.0 for power settings above about 75% and no leaner than 11.5 from 50% to 75% power. I'd also mention that detonation is most likely to happen at AFRs of around 12.5 as well if there is excessive spark timing and/or low octane fuel.
Valves
Automotive engine valves and seats vary in material and quality between engine types and brands. Again, these parts have thermal limits and high EGTs can decrease the life of these components. Rich mixtures decrease EGTs and exhaust valve temperatures. While most valve failures are slow and gradual compared to piston failures, we don't want degradation here either.


We have the capability of checking Lamda against EGT, never thought of doing this might be interesting to see the relation between the two.

[flightstick]

WE HAVE ... Throttle body installed and direct port injection, :ok: have the data to prove the system works for us ....unleaded 95 octane fuels....Have a very happy Jabi Motor. With lean or rich mixture control in flight.

check out.......

AvCom ? View topic - Electronic Fuel Injection (http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=137074&start=210)

[Kharon]

But; things changed Dec 01, 2014. IMO Jabiru could demand and, probably receive a new deal, given the facts. Perhaps if the affected parties all got together and presented a united, consolidated, comprehensive, cohesive, no pulled punches report to the new board; who knows.

Every time someone has their cage rattled; see what was promised and point out to the 'rattler' that the action they propose is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Truss acceptance of the Rev. Forsyths' little shopping list. None of the promised changes will happen if industry does not pull it's weight and make things happen. Jabiru can now dispense with the old method of simply copping it. Use the words to insist on an new deal, fresh eyes and proper homework being presented to Skidmore and his board. Make the buggers work.

'Jab' handled properly could do more to decimate the remnants of the McComic supported bastardry than Pel Air did. For starters, it's jobs and export $$ CASA intend to remove, that has legs. Prove the 'facts and circumstances' to be incorrect and take them directly to 'the man', argue the case and prove the vendetta was all about the CASA antagonist covering his arse, lest the duck-ups from his previous jobs reflect badly on his future well being. This is now contrary to the stated government policy of change. The tools are there, just pick 'em up and use them; without fear.

Just saying –

Mind you, I'd say just about anything to break the endless cycle of ROP/LOP 'discussions'...:D...:E

[Jabawocky]

flightstick,

welcome and a very interesting post indeed.

I think if I may, a few subtle corrections and educational points, as you may have some assumptions based on correlation not causation.

he excess fuel drops the combustion temperatures, EGTs and cools the piston crowns themselves, keeping them within their safe thermal limits.
The extra fuel delays the peak pressure by slowing the speed of the flame front. This means the peak occurs further from TDC, in a larger volume and thus a lower peak pressure. It is the peak pressure that determines the CHT and piston temperature. There is a bunch more explanation, happy to do it via phone Skype or in class, but that might be a long way for you to travel.

these parts have thermal limits and high EGTs can decrease the life of these components. Rich mixtures decrease EGTs and exhaust valve temperatures.

You are on the right track, just correlation is confused with causation. The actual EGT is not the problem. In fact as funny as it sounds, the valve and seat temperatures are cooler at peak EGT than they are at 50dF ROP or as you approach best power (12.5-13.5 roughly).

It is not the temperature of the valve, it is the distortion of the head and valve components and subsequent valve guide wear that causes the valve to not seat nicely, and thus the "rattling into place" that stresses the valve and breaks the head off.

Here are a few graphs that contain much of the knowledge that has been passed down.

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Burntime_zps26258da6.png

http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab58/jaba430/Landmarksgraph_zpsbfb07cbb.gif

Just to finish off, if you can control your fuel injection on each individual cylinder to match the air intake (volumetric) and maintain an AFR that is consistent across all 4 or 6 cylinders, and do this in real time closed loop, you will not only have a wonderfully smooth Jab engine but one that will run Lean Of Peak at the top of the brown BSFC curve above, all day long and with superb reliability.

I would be interested to chat with you about it if you can. You can use a Lamda probe or EGT for feedback. But the Lamda probe would make the processing easier, but cost a lot more.

Cheers

David Brown

[flightstick]

David,

Thanks for that explanation. I have a better understanding now. For me this is a steep learning curve. Just a quick change in subject. Im not particularly interested in all the BS going on with JAb . Why stress over something that is totally out of my control. Whatever happens happens. We that's my son and myself decided to go for it ourselves and try and make our J400 " Robust " to suite our mission which is touring, not flying around the patch. We wanted efficiency and reliability. We all know that cooling, engine management, fuel delivery is the key. I think we have managed this. We have gone from Avgas to Mogas successfully without an issue. We are able to control cooling , fuel flow to a point, right now we working on baffling/ ducting with some success.

Anyway the system does not allow the injectors to be individually tuned, they are pulsed in pairs. The main problem on some engines such as the Jab is that the intake manifold probably does not flow equal amounts of air so the AFR is slightly different in each cylinder, even with EFI. Some expensive systems like Motec allow individual cylinder trim for fuel but they are over $4K for the ECU I believe. Programming becomes very complex as the trim amount may vary with rpm and throttle opening. EGTs may not be a totally reliable guide for tuning either.Only way to do this is to change an injector to suite the data. I did request this from the developers but as you well know development and RD costs dearly. We have a Lamda sensor in the system sits about 20 cm on the exit side of the exhaust so its an accumulative reading of exhaust gases. The software does allow for O2 logging which is particularly useful for the WOT settings and cruise settings. Basically the system is mapped on the ground to WOT every 250 RPM using an external lamda probe, LM 2 . The fine tuning is done in flight by adjusting the mixtures and computing the differences . No changes are made in flight. All done in the map programming.

Anyway would really like to chat, don't think this is the place send me an email with your skype contact and we can knock heads.


cheers


Gary

[Jetjr]

The efi setups dont do individual injection
Shouldnt airflow be same for each one and therefore equal onjector output be adequate?
Normal issues are uneven fuel distribution

[Jabawocky]

Jetjr,

Yes that is the "ideal outcome" and even a Lycming or Continental does not have equal air flow. That is the problem with mainstream aero engines. They all spray equal fuel but the air part of the ratio is not perfect. Usually the fuel is, or close enough.

The problem is fixing the air in is the difficult thing, so it i.e. easier to fix the fuel thing.

That above = George Braly & the GAMIjector.


Now back to your last post, that is why equal electronic injection is not the answer.

Hope that helps.

:ok:

[Sunfish]

Jabiru have just let off a Cylinder head inspection program:

http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/JSL014-1_Jabiru_Cylinder_Head_Inspection_4.pdf


The through bolt business was dealt with last year, assuming that fix was effective:

http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/JSB031-2_Engine_Through_Bolts.pdf


It is difficult to understand what more Jabiru can do to satisfy CASA in the short term.

The question now seems to me to be if CASA will unconditionally withdraw its proposed regulation.

If it does, the next question is what CASA might do to try and rebuild any semblance of trust and cooperation with industry, since, arguably, threatening the existence of Jabiru ( and the owners of 2000 odd aircraft) marks a new low point in its behaviour.

[kaz3g]

Research investigation into the reliability of light sport aeroplane engines (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107.aspx)

[Sunfish]

Since CASA and ATSB are working hand in glove thanks to their memorandum of understanding, the ATSB conclusions from any report into such matters as engine failures are tainted and can safely be ignored as evidenced by the ATSBs disgraceful performance - on - demand Pel - Air ditching report.

To put that another way, we already know what the ATSB is going to report; - that Jabiru engines are lethally unsafe. That is what CASA have already pronounced.

Great Christmas present for the Jabiru workers, pink slips and a referral to Centrelink..

[Blueyonda]

The graphs from ATSB show Jabiru well in the lead when it comes to rate per 000's. If you take Jabiru out of the equation there will always be a particular engine that will be less reliable than others. So, what is the acceptable risk of failure for any one of these engines? Until CASA locks itself into a position of acceptable risk on this matter, this argument could go on forever with the ever changing goalposts afforded by being non-committal.

[Creampuff]

Excellent question, Blueyonda.

It again highlights the fundamental flaw in the structure of aviation regulation in Australia.

CASA is not competent to decide what the acceptable risk is.

The decision is a political decision, not a technical decision.

The decision requires consideration of matters that CASA does not know and cannot find out.

The only option CASA has to deal with “safety” issues is to make the standards ever-more-stringent, without knowing or caring about the opportunity costs.

ATSB could dust off the junk science that was the original investigation into the Whyalla tragedy. Perhaps Jabiru engines have over-dosed on lead oxybromide and swirl marks on the top of the pistons… :rolleyes:

[Blueyonda]

This investigation is ongoing and will analyse a number of additional aspects including, but not limited to:
a comparison between VH-registered light sport aircraft with the same engine models;
a comparison of factory built and amateur-build aircraft;
an analysis of the different engine models from Jabiru and Rotax;
an analysis of the engine failures with respect to both the total engine hours and the hours since last service;
an examination of the causes of the failures, to identify any potential systemic failure mechanisms;
an examination of the effect recent engine changes made by Jabiru have affected engine failures and malfunctions.

On the surface, it appears the current target is RAA engines and RAA engines that are creeping into the VH / GA domain. If conventional GA engines are in a happy place in CASA's eyes then what is their acceptable level of risk. Can there be 2 levels of acceptable risk, 1 for GA and for RAA? This just serves to discriminate by focusing on RAA in my opinion. I'm not suggesting this situation need not be looked at, however, there needs to be a benchmark set so goals can be achieved in the short term.

Out of interest, if you take GA Jabiru and Rotax engines out of the annual ATSB statistics, do stats for conventional GA engines improve or deteriorate?

[Stikybeke]

Well on a slightly different note however still theoretically relevant, I guess another comparative between RA-Aus vs CASA ways of dealing with acceptable risk would be that as adopted by RA-Aus with respect towards Pilots medicals, which is (as copied from the RA-Aus website):

An aviation medical certificate is not required but an RA-Aus pilot must be medically fit to a standard equivalent to that required to hold a private motor vehicle driver’s licence in Australia. It is the responsibility of all Pilot Certificate holders to report to RA-Aus any change in their health status which would cause them to be below that minimum health standard required.

Now if (when dumbed down) the definition of risk basically is "The effect of uncertainty on objectives.." and taking this context when balanced against the plethora of CASA medical requirements for flight under the VFR I just wonder which is the more prudent mechanism for management of an acceptable risk of a pilot's medical status for example.

I guess the same definitive could be used with this engine argument. But then again I'm only guessing, hang on, guessing and risk management? Surely not....

Stiky
:confused:

[tecman]

Fair-minded aviation consumers can only welcome the ATSB analysis and publication. As I've said a number of times, the scandal has been that even the top-level comparative stats have not been openly available, having been hidden in the RA Aus mire. I made my own choice based on what data I could pull together myself, and if having this present data available leads to others more easily doing the same, that's progress.

I don't expect anyone else (incl. CASA) to make the choice on my behalf but if there's a clear outlier in terms of unreliability at a given state of the engine art, I don't have a problem with the national aviation safety body highlighting the issue and pushing for the improvement that both RA Aus and the manufacturer had previous opportunities to achieve.

Operating my Rotax-powered VLA as a VH machine, I suspect that I have still taken a (hopefully small) hit in reliability relative to traditional aero engines in the other aircraft I fly, but it's a corner of the operational space that might yield some interesting stats, assuming there are more than a handful of aircraft included in the Rotax/VH category. I'll be interested to see what the continuing ATSB analysis comes up with, not because I think there's any magic reliability cut-off but because I want the opportunity to make choices on the best data available.

[Creampuff]

Let me fix the opening sentences for you:Fair-minded aviation consumers can only welcome an objective analysis by disinterested experts, and publication of their peer-reviewed findings. It is to be hoped that the ATSB has the necessary corporate integrity and competence to do that. …

[Squawk7700]

I can't believe that took so long to produce, I could have written it up in a couple of hours.

[Jetjr]

Probably exactly what happened after CASA sent them the brief

[Oracle1]

Operating my Rotax-powered VLA as a VH machine, I suspect that I have still taken a (hopefully small) hit in reliability relative to traditional aero engines in the other aircraft I fly, but it's a corner of the operational space that might yield some interesting stats, assuming there are more than a handful of aircraft included in the Rotax/VH category.

I have probably tens of thousands of hours of Rotax time with my signature on it. (maintenance) I will take the Rotax over the American air cooled engines any day and twice on Sunday

[Arnold E]

I have probably tens of thousands of hours of Rotax time with my signature on it. (maintenance) I will take the Rotax over the American air cooled engines any day and twice on Sunday

A brave statement indeed.

[tecman]

Oracle, I take your comments to mean you're speaking from a maintenance perspective and that you don't have a workshop full of burnt Rotax cly's ;). As I said, I'm comfortable with my choice but nonetheless interested in your observation. The reason I'd like to see the stats for the VH Rotaxes is that I suspect the maintenance regime is significant. If it goes the way conventional wisdom would predict (VH = more and/or better maintenance), the resultant Rotax rate might indeed be better than the other engines, the 'contaminating' stats from less expert maintenance regimes having been removed.

Of course it might go the other way, opening a whole other can of worms!

[LeadSled]

----- the 'contaminating' stats from less expert maintenance regimes having been removed.

Folks,
This raises the issue of where the "expert" maintenance is to be found. In my experience, by far the great majority of owner/maintainers do a very high standard job --- on the whole aircraft.
After all, this is dictated by self interest, if nothing else, they will be flying in said flying machines. But it is not just self interest, it is pride and enthusiasm for their aircraft.
I do not want to malign LAMEs in general, but there are some real roughies about.
Tootle pip!!

[Ultralights]

I never knew rotax printed different maintenance schedules for engines fitted to Vh regoed aircraft... i cant find the GA maintenance schedule anywhere thats different to my schedule...

[tecman]

Don't think they do, UL. I suspect my certified 912 S2 schedule looks just like the UL versions. My point was mainly about using the stats to see if conventional wisdom (LAME = better maintenance) was supported.

I take little on trust these days, LS, having seen seen pretty agricultural maintenance practices in all regimes. But for all of the frustrations, I still prefer to have my bug smasher annuals done by a LAME, despite other potential options for the particular aircraft. I agree, though, that finding the right LAME is not trivial, especially when VLA/LSA engines are involved.

[Squawk7700]

A little birdie tweeted to me that we might be headed for a 4:30pm Chrismas Eve time-bomb on this one with Christmas eve for most of the corporate world being today :{

[Sunfish]

A CASA Christmas gift to Jabiru would be positive proof that the entrenched culture of CASA is going to be very difficult to change.

[Draggertail]

Here it is. Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Precautions for Jabiru powered aircraft (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102352)

[KRviator]

Here's (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/media/download/casa14292.docx) the actual legislative instrument, number CASA 292/14. Or at least it will be when it becomes legislation.

One of the requirements is a signed statement, substantially like the one below, before you may carry a passenger in your now-all-but-worthless plastic parrot.

So long, Jabiru.

​​‘I, [insert name] ​, PROPOSE TO TAKE A FLIGHT IN THE AIRCRAFT IDENTIFIED AS [insert registration information] (THE AIRCRAFT). I AM AWARE THAT THE CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY (CASA) HAS DATA INDICATING THAT THE TYPE OF ENGINE USED IN THE AIRCRAFT HAS SUFFERED A HIGH NUMBER OF FAILURES AND RELIABILITY PROBLEMS.

​​‘I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CASA HAS IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE AIRCRAFT TO PROTECT PERSONS ON THE GROUND NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATON OF THE AIRCRAFT, UNINFORMED PASSENGERS AND TRAINEE PILOTS. THOSE LIMITATIONS ALSO HELP PASSENGERS AND TRAINEE PILOTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE RISK OF FLIGHTS IN THE AIRCRAFT.

​​‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT, ALTHOUGH MOST JABIRU ENGINES OPERATE NORMALLY, THERE IS AN ABNORMAL RISK THE ENGINE IN THE AIRCRAFT WILL MALFUNCTION.

​​‘I ACCEPT THE RISK OF BEING INJURED OR KILLED IN THE EVENT OF AN ENGINE MALFUNCTION DURING FLIGHT, NOTING THAT:
‘(A)​THE AIRCRAFT MUST BE FLOWN AWAY FROM PEOPLE ON THE GROUND (AND BUILDINGS), EVEN IF THAT MEANS AN EMERGENCY LANDING AT A LOCATION THAT IS LESS SAFE FOR THAT PURPOSE; AND
‘(B)​THE SAFETY OF AN EMERGENCY LANDING CANNOT BE GUARANTEED EVEN IF THERE IS A SUITABLE LANDING LOCATION.

​​‘I NOTE CASA’S ADVICE THAT I SHOULD NOT FLY IN THE AIRCRAFT IF I AM NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE HEIGHTENED RISK INVOLVED.

​​‘I ACCEPT THE RISK NOTING THAT THE ENGINE MANUFACTURER IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND FIX THE ENGINE ISSUES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

​​‘I AM AWARE THAT CASA REQUIRES MY SIGNATURE ON THIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE FLIGHT MAY COMMENCE.

[Squawk7700]

Interesting. So Jabiru engined operators in Bankstown and Moorabbin for example have until January 31st 2015 to go elsewhere.

Someone told me that this would happen well over a year ago. Interesting that it started out far more harsh than this and ended up back at what I was told back then.

[porch monkey]

Interesting, and as a method for "shifting liability", worthless.

[triton140]

I just love this bit of arse covering:

These figures follow reported engine-related events in 2012 and 2013, although CAsA has only recently become aware of the full scope of the issues that appear to have occurred during that period through provision of data from a number of additional sources.

Shirley a competent regulator should be well apprised of safety issues? Or is that too much to expect, or maybe the regulator is incompetent?

The Explanatory Statement makes many assertions without any data to back them up - surely they could give us some statistics to support their draconian regulation.

At least we don't have to deal with the Friday afternoon fax any more, it's now the Saturday afternoon press release. Well done PG!

[Draggertail]

This is just CASA's way of keeping pressure on Jabiru to come up with a solution which will satisfy CASA enough to drop the restrictions.

So, now the lawyers will get involved or Jabiru will go broke or both.

[Oracle1]

These restrictions are far less draconian than originally planned and maintain the ethos of light sport aviation, eg I fly at less cost but I accept the risk.

Flying above populous areas only if you can glide clear, Day VFR, etc are all standard existing rules in RAA.

Informing a prospective student gives them a cue to make an assessment of the risks, and is really just a paper shuffling exercise. Forced landing practice before and after solo is basic stuff that every student should be drilled with. It seems the only group who's aircraft will lose privileges are those with letters on the side? Surely this is a lesser number of the Jabiru fleet. If so why did CASA accept GA certification of the engines in the first place?

Hate to say it but I think CASA got this one just about right, given the known issues with the engine and Jabiru's recalcitrance in fixing them. The real question is how will the issues be resolved. CASA says it may review and relax the restrictions early in the new year but I fail to see how any statistical case for this can be made in such a short time, this is probably just a placatory move to delay litigation by owners.

I wonder if CASA might have been muzzled?

[Sunfish]

Death sentence for Jabiru. No future sales are possible. CASA says jabirus are death traps.


But the question, CASA, is death trap compared to what?

There can be no relaxation in future because that would require "negative evidence" and the only amount that could satisfy the lawyers is a full FAA certification which is impossibly expensive.

Jabiru will not reopen in the new year. CASA continues its tradition of killing an aviation business every Christmas.

Furthermore CASA has just set a precedent. It can libel any business or thing it likes. How about Vans aircraft CASA? A lot of them have fatal crashes.

[Aussie Bob]

Hate to say it but I think CASA got this one just about right

Sage words Oracle but I ask; got it right on what evidence? Got it right for which engine ... all of them including the latest version it seems? Sorry Oracle, I disagree, casa as usual got it wrong and overreacted. A disgusting restriction on an Australian manufacturer who has succeeded despite all odds.

Given the evolution of this engine, the latest version should be exempt save for perhaps a reduction in TBO.

[Squawk7700]

A little melodramatic there Sunfish as usual.

They will re-open as per normal on Jabuary 5th.

Why scrap arguably some of the worlds best airframes when they could simply be re-engined if it came to that? They don't owe anyone any money and are a strong company. One of the benefits of an LSA and kit manufacturer is self-certification so they "simply" sign-off the new install or kit builders simply fit an engine of their choice - No significant CASA involvement required :ok:

It's just an engine, not the end of the world.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Aussie Bob,

I think CASA got it about right. What do you think they should do? They can't let things go on 'the same'.

Your thoughts on managing the known risks with these engines?

[Radix]

..........

[Oracle1]

Rod Stiff has been warned many times by highly qualified engineers of the problems with the engine that are easily identified by known mathematical theory such resonance issues within the engine. This stuff is not cutting edge and is common knowledge amongst the fraternity.

Reliability is achieved in engineering by research and development, generally but not always the more money you spend the better the result. The engine was developed on a shoestring budget and it's time to face the fact that a more intensive, expensive solution is required. There is no doubt the engine has evolved and improved but glaring issues still exist.

CASA had to do something and the result is CASA protecting the integrity of the VH rego. Not much has changed if you fly with numbers, but if you want to fly VH, you pay your extra money for the certification regime and the perceived safety that it delivers. CASA has effectively put VH registered Jabiru powered aircraft in the same operating regime as RAA.

In fact it's refreshing that CASA have respected the right of avaitors to kill themselves in a manner in which they see fit, just as long as they don't harm others in the process. I have NO love for CASA but in this case I think they got it about right.

[thorn bird]

Oracle, I guess then the best thing would be to sell the rights to china,or the Indians. Let them make them and buy the engines from them.
Not much point banging your head against a brick wall in Australia, look what happened to the Airvan, better to walk away with a few bucks than be in constant conflict with a bureaucracy determined to shut you down.

[rutan around]

Rod Stiff has been warned many times by highly qualified engineers of the problems with the engine that are easily identified by known mathematical theory such resonance issues within the engine.Oracle 1

Could you shed some more light on the resonance issues. I havn't had any hands on experience with Jabiru engines but I have 'heard' that resonance can be a problem if any prop other than a wooden one is used and that Jabiru only approves wooden props.

I 'heard' that the flexible nature of a wooden prop acts as a quill shaft or as a torsional balance . If you use a fairly inflexible composite or worse a metal prop things will break inside the engine. I'm sure you would have knowledge pertaining to this and will be able to clarify the situation.

[Oracle1]

Squawk7700

Why scrap arguably some of the worlds best airframes when they could simply be re-engined if it came to that?

Absolutely spot on. My choice for a personal transport machine is a J200 fitted with a Rotax 914 Turbo. Its been done by a guy in Tumut with excellent results.

One of the benefits of an LSA and kit manufacturer is self-certification so they "simply" sign-off the new install or kit builders simply fit an engine of their choice

A double edged sword. It can reduce costs and red tape in implementing engineering fixes and updates but can be manipulated by manufacturers for commercial reasons, such as excluding other parts manufacturers or to introduce changes that have not been tested comprehensively, something Jabiru is well known for.

Aussie Bob

Sorry Oracle, I disagree, casa as usual got it wrong and overreacted. A disgusting restriction on an Australian manufacturer who has succeeded despite all odds.


I respect your opinion on this and I myself made phone calls in support to Truss's office, leaving the electoral officer in no doubt as to the ramifications of a CASA execution. I think in the prelude CASA's behaviour and release of documents was atrocious. My personal opinion is that CASA has been muzzled on this one, once the politicians realized the **** fight that would occur. Either that or CASA are trying to make us grateful that we only got two of the best not six. Threatening the owners (who can afford to have up to ninety grand lying around) of what is essentially a non commercially viable toy could quickly result in a messy class action and may still do. Flying schools conducting commercial training out of Bankstown, Moorabbin and Archerfield fall squarely within CASA's perceived turf, are not able to threaten CASA, and will be crushed. I support Jabiru and they have achieved miracles but one can never rest on your laurels. It is Rod Stiff's business and he can run it how he pleases, but eventually rising outside pressure must be acknowledged.


Thorn Bird

Oracle, I guess then the best thing would be to sell the rights to china,or the Indians. Let them make them and buy the engines from them.

Rest assured Stiff has already flirted with Chinese manufacturing. It was tried with the Drifter as well until cables started snapping while taxiing. Chinese manufacturing doesn't have the quality control quite yet but they have bought companies such as Mooney and Continental, be assured they will be reverse engineering until they can eliminate the West. Buy or steal, 250 years of engineering know how has been handed over on a platter by greedy plutocrats intent on making a cheap buck on the slave labour margin, leaving Western youth unproductive and aimless.

Finally and of the greatest interest,

Rutan Around,

I 'heard' that the flexible nature of a wooden prop acts as a quill shaft or as a torsional balance . If you use a fairly inflexible composite or worse a metal prop things will break inside the engine. I'm sure you would have knowledge pertaining to this and will be able to clarify the situation.

I thank you for this compliment but unfortunately, thanks to a misspent youth and mathematical ineptitude, I am but a glorified mechanic. However, unlike many of my fellows, I am obsessed with flying all things small and I have made concerted efforts to both understand and control the theoretical risks from a practical viewpoint. The conversation I had with one CAR35 engineer regarding the Jab engine and pertaining harmonics was many moons ago and I have long since lost interest in the engine. From memory the problem wasn't prop related, but don't quote me on that. If you wish to delve further I have PM'ed you the contact details of said gentleman, who is well known for his interest and charity in facilitating flying for the masses. I highly recommend his three DVD set on aircraft design which is presented in layman's terms, is highly informative and worth every penny.


Regarding wooden props,

Wooden props are well known for fatigue resistance and damping harmonic resonance due to the flexible nature of the material. (Just like a tree blowing in the wind, still many things we cant beat nature at). They have weaknesses as well such as structural integrity and swelling with humidity but composite sheathing and metal leading edges have begun to address some of the problems. Wood has become a material of choice in some highly advanced composite propellers such as MT, who's expertise is unquestioned. Wood is also lighter and has less momentum. Metal props have a tendency to propagate certain frequencies, when certain frequencies coincide amplification occurs and the energy has to be absorbed somewhere in the aircraft. Jabirus reasons for the choice of wooden prop include the properties mentioned but they also have commercial imperatives, including cost of manufacturing and testing. The wooden prop is also desirable (given the amount of low time pilots) in the event of a prop strike as the ends just shear off. Jabiru was testing a two blade composite prop with a swept foil. They had great success in the performance area but they found that the carbon fibre version was simply too stiff and they reverted to fibreglass. I don't know what came of this. Others have designed and fitted composite props to Jabiru engines, no one has died yet, but it is unknown whether this is by accident or design. I stress that no definitive answer can be reached on harmonics and the nodes at which it is present unless you hook up vibration sensors, collect data in multiple operating regimes, and have someone available who is able to interpret the results. I would like to know if Jabiru has conducted this exercise.


In conclusion harmonics is a little understood (by the unwashed masses) and highly dangerous phenomena which can destroy integral structures rapidly and with no warning. One example that comes to mind that completely dodged the brightest minds was the whirl mode on the Lockheed Electra, an aircraft that went on to give good service in specific roles, for a simplified explanation see here,

Lockheed L-188 Electra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-188_Electra)

Harmonics needs to be examined with the whole aircraft in mind. Early research into harmonics in GA aircraft caused some big surprises. The example that sticks in my mind was the testing of a certain engine and prop combination in an aluminium airframe. The combination promptly destroyed itself in testing, catching the engineers completely by surprise. The engine and prop combination was then tested in a different airframe with absolutely no problems. Then the original airframe was tested with another different engine and prop combination again no problem. Go figure, everything has a resonant frequency?

[Ndegi]

Hot off the presses and not even Christmas Eve


Precautions for Jabiru powered aircraft
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will place a set of precautionary operating limitations on aircraft powered by Jabiru engines.

These precautionary limitations follow a high number of Jabiru engine failures and power loss incidents, some of which resulted in aircraft forced landings.

More than 45 Jabiru engine failures or in-flight engine incidents have been reported in 2014, with CASA recently becoming aware of incidents in previous years.

Problems with Jabiru engines include failures of through bolts, flywheel bolts and valve train assemblies, as well as cylinder cracking.

The failures affect a range of Jabiru engine models and have occurred in aircraft used in different flying activities, although many have been reported in aircraft used for flying training.

CASA is currently working with Jabiru and other stakeholders to identify the causes of the engine problems and to implement appropriate solutions.

Causes being investigated include design and mechanical issues, how aircraft are flown, and maintenance-related issues.

While this investigative work is ongoing, the precautionary limitations are primarily intended to reduce risks for people on the ground and trainee pilots flying solo. The limitations also ensure that trainee pilots flying solo and passengers understand and accept the risk of a Jabiru engine failure.

The limitations:

Restrict flights to day time under the visual flight rules
Require aircraft to be flown so they can at all times glide clear of a populous area
Require passengers and trainee pilots flying solo to sign a statement saying they are aware of and accept the risk of an engine failure
Require trainee pilots to have recently and successfully completed engine failure exercises before solo flights.
CASA consulted with the aviation community on the Jabiru limitations, receiving more than 630 comments. Many pilots maintained they had the right to accept the risk of engine power loss and argued that this right should be extended to passengers and trainee pilots.

CASA revised the proposed limitations after taking account of the consultation comments and other relevant information, and considers that the limitations now to be made appropriately manage the safety risks.

A copy of the limitations. The limitations must be registered by the Australian Government Office of Parliamentary Counsel, at which time CASA will publish a further notice stating that the limitations are in force.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Require passengers and trainee pilots flying solo to sign a statement saying they are aware of and accept the risk of an engine failure

I wonder what risk exactly that one mitigates? :sad:

UTR

[thorn bird]

UTR,
the primary risk mitigated by anything CAsA does, decides, promulgates, decrees,
orders, threatens.... The "LIABILITY RISK MITIGATION"...That has become CAsA's primary function, which is why they should take the letter S out of their title.

[Squawk7700]

Thanks Ndegi, you are only 2 days late with the news! It's on the previous pages.

A number of operators have already started getting their aircraft out of Moorabbin and Soar have sourced alternate aircraft.

[Jabawocky]

Published this afternoon by RAAUS.

I have taken the highlighter pen to it just for fun.

As most people are aware, CASA published a draft instrument on 13 November 2014 which would have the effect of restricting the operations of aircraft with a Jabiru powerplant. This would affect more than 1000 RA-Aus registered aircraft and have an adverse impact on some two thirds of our flight training facilities.

Since the publication of this draft instrument RA-Aus has been working hard to understand the justification for these restrictions. We have, for some time, known that Jabiru engines have a higher tendency for failure than their Rotax counterpart and welcome any appropriate changes that would improve their reliability. We would also welcome any measures that result in improved reliability and safety of any aspect of our fleet. Having said this we are troubled by the process employed by CASA and especially the lack of transparency in terms of the implementation of these proposed measures.

RA-Aus has repeatedly requested the information used to justify statements made by CASA that claim the failure rate is increasing. We have also requested the analysis of said data in order to assess the veracity of these claims.

On 17 December 2014, almost five weeks after the draft instrument was published, RA-Aus received the data and was provided one, yes one, working day to respond. As one would expect we would have liked much more time to assess the data, understand the analysis and then form an opinion on the suitability of the proposed measures, however, regardless of taking some five weeks to provide the data, CASA allowed one day. In light of this our response was somewhat rushed.

Despite this, RA-Aus was able to note that the data provided to CASA on Jabiru engine failures only covered one partial year. The only time series data made available to us (although not provided to us) was via the ATSB. That is, no engine failure data beyond the beginning of 2014 was used by CASA to justify their position and they left us to infer what data the ATSB had provided.

With reference to the latter, RA-Aus has contested the validity of the ATSB data on the basis that it shows a decline in the hours flown by the RA-Aus fleet. This is in direct contrast to Government published figures which show a doubling in the number of hours flown since 2000.

This led us to a simple conclusion – 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.

RA-Aus’ position is, as stated above, that the failure rate of Jabiru engines is greater than that of Rotax engines but that it is not worsening as per the unsubstantiated statement made by CASA.

In light of this RA-Aus responded to CASA, within their incredibly tight and unrealistic timeframe, to state that we oppose their draft instrument and suggested an alternative approach to addressing the real concerns. While CASA acknowledged that our response had merit within 24 hours of receipt they proceeded with the restrictions without due consideration of our arguments.

While the restrictions imposed on our members are less stringent than those originally proposed, our opinion is that they are still inappropriate. Furthermore, CASA has remained evasive in terms of providing information relating to what rate of failures would be deemed acceptable and so we remain uninformed as to what point the restrictions will be lifted other than the statement on the CASA website regarding a review by CASA early in the New Year and the six month validity of the proposed Instrument. We will continue to work with CASA and Jabiru in an attempt to address these issues, however, we can’t provide further information at this point.

RA-Aus is extremely worried about these actions and what this may mean for private aviation in Australia. Being the fastest growing sector of aviation it concerns us that unilateral action has been taken by the regulator that is not backed up by robust evidence which suggests the action is justified. It worries us that this precedent has the potential for further restrictions that may not be warranted based on incomplete data, deficient analysis and/or misleading claims. We also have concerns about the implications of CASAs decision and what it means for all self-administered aviation organisations as Part 149 is implemented.

RA-Aus will focus our efforts on improving safety in our sector by reviewing training methods and practices, improving our education programs, communicating safety findings (where permitted by law) and so forth. We will also remain very focussed on the outcomes of CASAs recent actions, the Governments recent announcements about the recommendations of the ASRR report and continue to hold CASA to the same high standards that they demand of the aviation industry.

[727forever]

Well done to CASA, these engines have been a problem for a long time now and there were internal reasons why the RAA didn't act on the problem but at least now any passenger who gets into the Jab will be warned of the risks of engine failure with these badly designed engines, hopefully Jabiru will now take things seriously and get the problems sorted.

[Squawk7700]

The RAA do not have the authority to act... It doesn't work like that.

They did "act" though, they advised CASA that they should take action and they did.

[727forever]

Actually the RAA did the opposite, they vigorously opposed the actions proposed by CASA but one of the reasons might be that they didn't want to go against their sponsor and loose income themselves??


Jabiru has had years to sort this engine problem out but for some reason they haven't done so, I don't know why?? but their engines have a very bad name in the industry which is a shame because the airframe has no real issues. If they could retro fit the Rotax engine that would fix all their problems.


Anyway CASA has done what it had to do, companies go broke all the time and new companies start up, CASA shouldn't worry about the company and their profit margins or shareholders, they need to worry about the public that get in these RAA aircraft.


I don't always support CASA, but as many people in the industry have said they have got this one right.

[superdimona]

Whatever happened to Ultralights being about chainsaw engines and experimental designs? RAA should decide if they want to administer ultralights or GA-lite, and advocate rule changes accordingly.

[tecman]

I'm glad RA Aus are looking forward to a constructive role but I wouldn't be looking for any moral high ground in their past positions and actions in the Jabiru matter. I've already made some comments about the lack of publicly available statistical and other information for the recreational aviation consumer and, if RA Aus feel the ATSB anlaysis is flawed, they can put forward their own analysis. After all, if RA Aus has been doing its job, it has the best raw data available.

While I was mightily disappointed with the naivety and self-serving content of the Dec RA Aus letter to CASA, perhaps the dust has settled on the organizational musical chairs and there is a better future ahead. As a GA and RA Aus pilot I hope that's true, especially as the current arrangement gives RA Aus effective monopoly status in recreational licensing. Superficially, the RPL could be considered a challenge to that position but the RPL comes with enough strings attached to make the RA Aus path well worth preserving.

I have a lot of sympathy for the financial representations being made by RA Aus. If CASA expect them to run recreational aviation, there should be adequate funding provided for the job, without the reality or appearance of reliance on much industry sponsorship. In turn, I'd be keen to see more of any new funding, and my membership dollars, go on safety and technical functions of the organization. With any luck we've been through the nadir in those regards.

[Sunfish]

I see the usual axe grinders and fools have invaded this thread and there needs to be a return to the substance of the topic and the reason for its notoriety.

This is not about Jabiru engines per se, RAA in fighting and politics, Jabiru customer service or the personality of the company’s owner, it is about the high handed actions of CASA that threaten the existence of a large chunk of private aviation in this country!

I care not one whit about Jabiru engines but I do care very much about how, to the glee of some posters here, CASA is being allowed to trample over due process because they are setting a precedent that affects ALL of us. I care very much about that.

To put that another way in terms you might understand, today CASA attacks Jabiru with as the RAA letter points out, no due process, no rigorous and scientific data, just the half assed assertion that the engine is "unsafe" which is meaningless.

Furthermore, they justify this action by claiming a right to protect "people on the ground" from Jabirus falling out of the sky which is just insane. How many people have been killed in Australia on the ground by errant light aircraft since 1979 (Essendon crash)? Zero.

The CASA action is so wrong on so many levels that it must be strenuously opposed.

To put this into perspective how are you going to react when CASA decides to go on a crusade against the much loved Dynon Skyview instrument system using the same tactics as against Jabiru?

Don't any of you understand the nature of what is being done here? If they can do it to Jabiru they can do it to you.


Don't any of you understand that by this action, CASA is thumbing its nose at the conclusions of the Truss Aviation Review, its authors, contributors and the Australian Senate? Can there be any more obvious demonstration of the complete breakdown of trust in CASA than the action against Jabiru???

As for this being a temporary situation and a minor issue, I have explained that it isn't. Now that CASA has declared that Jabiru engines are a danger to the community, they cannot again become unrestricted without a mountain of evidence that they are safe, and that mountain has to be high enough to satisfy not engineers but CASAs lawyers, anyone care to guess how high? Mount Everest perhaps? I fail to see how these restrictions can ever be removed short of full certification testing which is prohibitively expensive.

By the way, although CASA cannot apply the "fit and proper person" test to Jabirus manager, I'll bet London to a brick that a condition of any relaxation of any restrictions will depend on the owner no longer having any active management role in the company.

If CASA was bound by the same strictures as the FAA to at least not harm the industry it regulates; this is what could have been done:

(1) CASA consults with Jabiru presenting a watertight safety case for action based on hard data.

(2) Jabiru issues a service bulletin and CASA and Jabiru make a joint statement requiring its completion as a necessary precaution.

(3) As the results of the SB inspections come in CASA and Jabiru make a joint analysis and report back to the aviation community on progress and further actions required.

(4) CASA and Jabiru report case closed.

[thorn bird]

Hear, bloody hear Sunny, well said!

[Aussie Bob]

Well said Sunny

When you get a clown like 727forever (an obvious troll) posting in CASA's favour on his very second post you wonder what is happening to both this forum and the industry. I am gobsmacked that anyone can support CASA on this issue. As others have pointed out, ultralights got underway with lawnmower engines. Now the RAA is popular for obvious reasons CASA want to reassert themselves despite handing over reins to an independent association.

Be very alarmed folks.

[Jabawocky]

Just happened to be having chat with a Barrister today, who happened to be right in the thick of the biggest inquiry we have seen.

His views on CASA, the way they behaved and continue to are very much aligned with the rest of us. He seemed to think the common belief here about outsourcing was appropriate also.

The whole aviation regulation and investigation industry needs scrapping and starting again, but none of us are surprised at that either.

[criticalmass]

I have a J160C (primary category, not LSA) Jabiru on cross-hire to an RA-Aus flying school. Here is my story...

The airframe has 1400 hours on it. It's now on its 4th Jabiru 2200 engine.

The first engine broke a through-bolt at 675 hours approx. It was maintained by a LAME/Level 2 and was maintained in accordance with the "Jabiru J160 and J170 Aircraft Service Manual". The through-bolt breakage happened without warning or any visible signs of fretting or oil-leakage around cylinder-bases. It happened just after reducing power at the beginnning of descent. The engine continued to run, albeit roughly and the pilot was reluctant to turn it off as the residual thrust was much-appreciated. It got the aircraft safely back to a runway, sustaining serious engine-damage but with no airframe damage or crew injuries.

The engine was overhauled (zero-timed) by Jabiru Aircraft Engines. For reasons which have never been explained they re-used one cylinder from the pair that were associated with the broken through-bolt. Within a few hours that cylinder had cracked around the base and the engine went back to Jabiru Aircraft engines for repair under warranty.

The third incarnation of the engine developed a habit of very rough running at high power settings shortly after being placed back into service. After several checks by the engineer the engine was removed and sent back to Jabiru Aircraft Engines. They were unable to duplicate the symptoms and returned the engine after some more work. The engine still exhibited the same behaviour. Eventually the cure was found to be in reducing the throttle-travel by approximately 1/4". No satisfactory cause for the symptoms was ever found...even swapping out the carburettor made no difference, and the throttle-stroke had not been altered since the engine had been removed. By now the aircraft had been off cross-hire for the best part of nine months. My financial losses were something I really didn't care to think about, and I just gritted my teeth and reminded myself "in time, this too shall pass."

After approximately another 600 hours or so this engine (in its fourth incarnation) broke a stud at the rear top of No. 4 cylinder, but continued to run and in fact performed three circuits before steadily reducing oil-pressure and more noise at takeoff-power than seemed normal made the pilot land and investigate. The engine was removed and top-end overhauled by Jabiru Aircraft Engines, who were extremely helpful and did their best to get the aircraft back in the air as quickly as possible.

(An aside:- Unfortunately, the courier delivering the engine after repair managed somehow to either hit the wooden box with a forklift, or drop it, because the repaired engine was received obviously damaged, and the wooden shipping-box was heavily damaged. It was returned for repair under warranty. Jabiru Aircraft Engines were again very helpful.)

As a result of all this, I have concluded the little Jabiru 2.2l engine is a tough piece of gear, inasmuch as it will often still run with a major failure, at least long enough to give the pilot a good chance of finding somewhere to carry out a forced-landing.

The Jabiru airframe is "unkillable", and has excellent handling for a training-aircraft, with the added benefit of being relatively low-maintenance due to the use of composites in its construction. (This applies to all models, not just the J160.)

For those two reasons, and the fact my Jabiru isn't LSA-registered, I will keep the aircraft on cross-hire, with all the attendant risks - and work with the restrictions placed on it for as long as they remain in place.

All I want is a Jabiru 2.2L engine which will get to 1000 hours for its top-end overhaul without throwing a valve, breaking a stud or breaking a through-bolt. All the 3.3L Jab engine-owners want is pretty much the same.

One problem I see is Jabiru engines are still "works-in-progress". As soon as they get a reliable design, they promptly go and change something and introduce a whole raft of new problems. The solid-lifter engines were pretty reliable units and many go to 2000 hours without any issues and are still running well when they are torn down and rebuilt. They are simple, with just enough parts in them to actually work.

The change to hollow push-rods and hydraulic lifters seemed (admittedly anecdotally) to be the beginning of the through-bolt issues. The change of manufacturers of exhaust-valves seemed to be marked by an outbreak of valve-failures. Machining valve-head clearance grooves in the latest pistons is a step in the right direction, but wouldn't buying a better quality exhaust-valve in the first place be a better one? I know Jabiru have to operate on the "no expense is spared to keep the cost down" principle, but I'd happily pay an extra hundred dollars if it meant my exhaust-valves would make it to 1000 hours before replacement, instead of some ridiculously short times before failure I have seen in two 3.3L Jabiru engines in my local area.

That said, I'm not an aircraft engine-designer, so what would I know anyway? I just fly them. In 700 hours behind Jabiru engines I have had 2 partial engine-failures. In 1100 hours behind Rotax 2-stroke engines I only had one. I don't know how many hours I have behind Rotax 912 engines (not all that many probably) but I've never had one fail me yet, nor do I expect to, but if any engine I am flying with fails, I have a plan.

I'm also a pragmatist. I don't have the luxury of being able to thunder on about CASA's high-handedness, or setting a dangerous precedent, or the legality or otherwise of the whole rattling affair. I have my own opinion on what CASA needs, but that is a subject for another time and another thread. Nor am I a statistician, so anything I might say about the reliability of CASA's data, or how it was sourced, collated and analysed has no merit - so I shan't comment there either.

However, I do know what I want, and what I don't want, when it comes to Jabiru aircraft. I don't want Jabiru Aircraft to fail, nor do I want to have Jabiru Aircraft Engines fail as a company. Neither do I want to re-engine my J160C with a Rotax 912 because there are significant weight penalties for doing so, and the Rotax is not the 2000-hour wonder everyone thinks it is. It might be a 1500-hour TBO engine, and there is also a years since manufacture limit on them as well...some 912s require a mandatory overhaul after 15 years, irrespective of hours run. The Rotax 912 is not a cheap engine to buy, it isn't cheap to repair, and not all are 2000-hour TBO engines.

I just want a reliable Jabiru engine which will make it to the 1000-hour top-end overhaul, and eventually to the 2000-hour rebuild. Surely that's not too much to ask...and I really don't care how this is obtained. I want a result, not procedures and limitations designed to placate the regulator and cover its ample posterior.

So, all I can do is live with the restrictions placed on my aircraft, and endure what has to be endured until this sorry affair is finally laid to rest. What has to come out of this is a better engine from Jabiru, otherwise this has been a massive exercise in futility reflecting little credit on just about all concerned.

"In time, this too shall pass."

[Arm out the window]

Wonderful well written summary there, criticalmass - hope you get your wish, seeing as it's Christmas and all!

[Squawk7700]

You might be "lucky" criticalmass not being LSA, as when Camit CAE certify their engine through CASA which hopefully isn't far away, you will be able to fit on to your aircraft or at least have an upgrade performed to the latest spec at a much lower cost than a new one. Unfortunately LSA owners won't get this luxury unless Jabiru signs off on it.

[Jetjr]

The limitation applies to experimental category too
Guess ill replace my 900 hr problem free 3300 with homemade triple mounted chainsaw based engine, then it will be limitation free and it appears CASA thinks more reliable?
Only one form to fill out I think

[criticalmass]

As the single-page waiver CASA require passengers in Jabiru-powered aircraft to read and sign (and return to CASA if a serious incident or accident occurs) is patently designed to cover CASA's generous posterior in case a Jabiru-powered aircraft falls out of the sky and hits a third-prty, or damages third-party property, a thought occurs...

What would the media reaction - and the CASA reaction - be, if people pasted hundreds of these waivers all over the walls of the building in which CASA has its headquarters, like the way posters advertising concerts, public meetings etc are slapped up on poles, walls etc?

Maybe the media exposure might bring this sorry affair to a wider audience. Just a random thought after a glass of a very good red wine. :E

[Squawk7700]

I'm confused and also not surprised.

The latest version of this instrument was released on Saturday December 20th saying that it needed to go before Parliament, however would be enforced by Christmas, but we all know parliament doesn't sit till late January. It has been suggested to me that CASA do not have the power to enforce such actions without parliamentary approval.

I then check the website today and find out that the instrument came into effect on 23rd December (practically Christmas Eve as we all predicted).

Does anyone else remember the reference to parliament? I should have screen captured it, doh :rolleyes:

How is an owner expected to know this and not break the law? I've seen no emails about it, nothing from CASA, zip. Is an owner / operator expected to check the latest media release section on the CASA website considering this instrument bans Jabirus operating into Bankstown for example. Too bad if you landed there and didn't know !

[Creampuff]

It's in force and remains in force unless:

- it's not tabled in parliament when it has to be - months away - or

- it's disallowed - unlikely.

Nobody knows what the combination of regulations, orders, exemptions, directions, MOSs etc means anymore.

Nobody.

[zanthrus]

Stuff up royal from CASA. Fly wherever you like in your Jabiru.

[thunderbird five]

Here you go squawkie, From the 20th Dec Explanatory Statement:
I did save it.


Legislative Instruments Act

Under paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act, regulations made for that provision may empower CASA to

issue instruments in relation to matters affecting the safe navigation and operation of aircraft. Under

subsection 98 (5AA) of the Act, an instrument issued under paragraph 98 (5A) (a) is a legislative

instrument if expressed to apply in relation to a class of persons or aircraft.

The instrument applies to classes of persons and aircraft. The instrument is, therefore, a legislative

instrument, subject to registration, and tabling and disallowance in the Parliament, under sections 24,
and 38 and 42, of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

[chasesunrise]

Apparently Jabiru have been aware of the issue with their engines for years and have chosen to ignore it.. Looking at their website there is no acknowledgment of what has been imposed by CASA on their engines. I guess 'ignorance is bliss'..

[Jetjr]

They havent ignored it, but brought in a heap of changes which have helped cloud the real cause. Some rushed and ill thought out. This might spawn a few more.
Contrary to what many home engineers think, it osnt an easy fix.
Some attitudes at the company sure havent helped.

CASA have worked with unverified raw data, even the source, RAA, think it is badly misrepresented. It applies to all aircraft even those in experimental catagory which is plain wrong.

Based upon comparisons to competitor brand, with no acceptable failire rate established. Some engines limited dont even have comparative engine offering.
There needs to be improvements but tis isnt the way to make it happen.

[Squawk7700]

It's an interesting approach by CASA.

If I were to operate a GA registered Jabiru powered aircraft, I would have no way of knowing that this has even happened. I happened to check the CASA Media Release section and noticed that this instrument came into effect on 23rd of December, but nothing has been sent out to operators by CASA so one could be blissfully unaware of this whole thing and then "illegally" fly into one of the prohibited areas or take flight without a passenger waiver in place.

[ChickenHouse]

Next one (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=177248), or just bad weather, what do you think?

[rutan around]

How is an inflight breakup related to engine problems ? One positive thing Jabirus are noted for is their structual strength. This is the first inflight breakup of a Jab that I've ever heard of.
Once when I visited Bundaberg I was fortunate enough to see them being structually tested to destruction in big hydraulic presses with gauges all over the place.Jabaru would be one of the few companies that go to the trouble and expense to thoroughly test aircraft sold in this class.

[Squawk7700]

YPyTIbuvLI8

This is well worth a watch if you are interested in the plight of Jabiru. It gets serious at the 11 minute mark. Makes you realise that you need your ducks in a row if you are intending to face such an inquiry.

[Jetjr]

Theres some porkies being submitted there - pretty serious place to discuss details you arent sure of
Good to see CASA under pressure for damage it has inflicted on Aust aviation businesses and aircraft owners

[triton140]

Makes you realise that you need your ducks in a row if you are intending to face such an inquiry.

Having been grilled twice by Senate committees they can be pretty intimidating especially for the unprepared and especially for the bureaucrat who has to respect Departmental correctness.

A bit more fun for the outsider, though, who can be a bit more adventurous if well prepared and briefed. :E

[Band a Lot]

Typical CASA a rule and demander of all.

[spinex]

The ATSB have weighed in to the debate;
Engine failures and malfunctions in light aeroplanes 2009 - 2014 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107_research)

[Andy_RR]

This graph would suggest the VH-registered maintenance regime is seriously inferior to that overseen by RAAus...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5769806/rid33-picture-7.jpeg?width=500&height=294.03973509933775

Perhaps the regulator of regulators should prevent one of the regulators from regulating above populated areas and without the regulated indemnifying the regulator from irregularities and failures in regulation...?

[Jabawocky]

Andy…..From the ground, the numbers do not stack up. ATSB do not have the REAL data. Even from anecdotal evidence I can tell that.

The secret here is knowing if your data looks and feels right to ensure the collective sensors are fully functional.

I put it to you that the reporting culture in the VH arena is far better (not perfect by any means) that it s in the RAA area. :ok:

[Styx75]

Andy_RR, Can you link a source for that graph?

[Squawk7700]

It appears you are reading that graph incorrectly perhaps.

Very few RA-Aus aircraft have Lycoming and Continental engines and likewise fewer GA aircraft have Rotax engines so the numbers do appear to stack up correctly in that graph. The heights of the bars appear to be largely meaningless.

16 Jab failures in GA.
114 Jab failures in RA-Aus.
The ratios seem about correct.

To Jabba's point, as for whether the total numbers are too high and should or shouldn't include certain events for example, remains to be seen.

Taking these statistics to use for comparative purposes between manufacturers seems to be the go versus trying to analyze the validity of the total numbers, under the assumption that all injustices are applied equally.

[Andy_RR]

Graph comes from ATSB website from link in spinex's post directly above.

Whether or not the data is bullshït or real doesn't really make the regulator's position a happy one, either way...

[outlandishoutlanding]

The height of the bar is the rate per 10,000 hours. So lycomings at 1.2 (VH), and RAA rego contis (but such low numbers that you can't really tell.

I wonder if the conti numbers only include things like the C85 in the super cub.

[Fred Gassit]

The RA/Lycoming bar is transparent because 4 of the 5 failures came from the one aircraft. Data may be misleading!

[Andy_RR]

I think it's open to much debate whether this data is reliable or not, but that hasn't stopped CAsA from stiffing Rod and his mates, so to speak...