YSBK: Another aircraft down but safe
Perhaps there is confusion regarding the causes of both and which is which... by all means, if you have a cause other than what has been posted, post it. It's not like anyone got hurt, so it doesn't matter.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 43 S
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultralight engines
Can't comment on the Jab's but we are trialling an ultralight manufactured in Italy with a liquid cooled Rotax engine.One thing that surprises me is the absence of a coolant temp. gauge.
I understand that oil temp will eventually indicate core temperature of the engine and the relevance of CHT's, but I would have thought a coolant temp gauge would indicate more quickly any pending overheating issues which incidently this aircraft has had.
It also has a difficult to view / access coolant surge tank and relating back to my heavy machinery backround a low coolant level indicator wouldn't cost much or add much weight.
Other than these problems it is a well built fun flying machine.
Will be interesting to see the results of the 2 Jab. failures.
I understand that oil temp will eventually indicate core temperature of the engine and the relevance of CHT's, but I would have thought a coolant temp gauge would indicate more quickly any pending overheating issues which incidently this aircraft has had.
It also has a difficult to view / access coolant surge tank and relating back to my heavy machinery backround a low coolant level indicator wouldn't cost much or add much weight.
Other than these problems it is a well built fun flying machine.
Will be interesting to see the results of the 2 Jab. failures.
The good thing about the Rotax 912 is that it can actually run without coolant at all, but generally not over 4,500rpm. The coolant is moreso to avoid shock cooling, rather than full-time cooling of the engine.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I occasionally fly a Sportstar with a rotax 912 and it has a cylinder head temp gauge - this is a surrogate for your coolant temp since its only the cylinder heads that are liquid cooled, the barrels are air cooled, and of course you get some cooling effect from your oil cooler as well..
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-HYY
Does anyone have any more news about the crash of VH-HYY, the Cirrus north of Hoxton Park? I'm interested to know about why the pilot stated a plan to use the ballistic chute, then apparently made a landing in a paddock. Did he change his mind or did the chute fail?
Crosshair
Crosshair
Too low
I heard that an attempt to deploy had occurred, however the aircraft was too low for a complete successful deployment. I understand (stand corrected) that one needs to be at least 2,500 feet for the system to correctly operate.
Perhaps any Cirrus drivers out there can elaborate.
JT
Perhaps any Cirrus drivers out there can elaborate.
JT
Last edited by Jenna Talia; 17th Feb 2007 at 06:33.
Not sure if it's related, however CASA just mailed out an advisory for all Cirrus owners regarding fuel contamination which has caused damage in more than one Cirrus's... might be related?
I recall an earlier post suggesting that the aircraft had just been returned to service after a prop-strike.
I recall an earlier post suggesting that the aircraft had just been returned to service after a prop-strike.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum CAPS Altitude
From the SR22 POH:
***
Deployment Altitude
No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the
actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the
airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as
other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a
successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the
demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a
stabilized parachute is 920 feet.
Altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency.
Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come
almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful
deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the
only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the
system without delay.
***
***
Deployment Altitude
No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the
actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the
airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as
other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a
successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the
demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a
stabilized parachute is 920 feet.
Altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency.
Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come
almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful
deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the
only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the
system without delay.
***
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 51
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went booked a flight in a Jabiru from YSBK very recently. The regos of the two Jabirus is (are?) very similar, in fact the two aircraft are almost identical. Shortly after the aforementioned incident occurred, I was rung up and told that the aircraft is no longer available for hire, until after it has travelled to Queensland for an 'upgrade.' Something to do with the cooling system for the engine.
Coincidence?
Coincidence?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re VH-HYY
From what I've heard over the last couple of weeks the chute did not deploy correctly - I've heard two versions ranging from the chute wrapping around the tail, the other that it did not deploy at all.
I also heard that the engine failure was caused by running out of fuel, probably brought on by a fuel leak.
From what I've heard over the last couple of weeks the chute did not deploy correctly - I've heard two versions ranging from the chute wrapping around the tail, the other that it did not deploy at all.
I also heard that the engine failure was caused by running out of fuel, probably brought on by a fuel leak.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: waverley nsw
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are darkish marks on the side of the aircraft beside the hatch the rocket fired from, so that part worked, don't know if the 'chute opened though.. the aircraft certainly hit the deck hard!
Me thinks the "cooling system" upgrade to the Jabiru is the rebuild of 1 or 2 or more cylinders with new valves!
There is no upgrade available for the J160 cooling system.
Sounds like they are blaming the damage on cooling.
I'm surprised that after everyone posted on here about how the engine wasn't overheated, that the operator has said that they are getting a cooling upgrade.
When the big aircraft operators realise that Jabs and smaller aircraft are the training machines of the future, hopefully everyone will become more educated on how to drive them.
There is no upgrade available for the J160 cooling system.
Sounds like they are blaming the damage on cooling.
I'm surprised that after everyone posted on here about how the engine wasn't overheated, that the operator has said that they are getting a cooling upgrade.
When the big aircraft operators realise that Jabs and smaller aircraft are the training machines of the future, hopefully everyone will become more educated on how to drive them.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Jab engine may well have been overheated - I don't think anybody is disputing that. The dispute was about whether the pilots took off with an indication of that, and whether the aeroplane was operated outside the operating handbook. Neither of those things are the case.
If there is some special technique required to fly these aeroplanes, where is it written in the POH? How else would pilots be educated?
It seems fairly clear that the aeroplane isn't designed for heavy training use. Two engine failures in a week with no prior indications is an abysmal record for any aircraft type. Think they'd be better off leaving recreational aeroplanes where they belong before someone gets killed.
If there is some special technique required to fly these aeroplanes, where is it written in the POH? How else would pilots be educated?
It seems fairly clear that the aeroplane isn't designed for heavy training use. Two engine failures in a week with no prior indications is an abysmal record for any aircraft type. Think they'd be better off leaving recreational aeroplanes where they belong before someone gets killed.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear Off,
"It seems fairly clear that the aeroplane isn't designed for heavy training use. Two engine failures in a week with no prior indications is an abysmal record for any aircraft type. Think they'd be better off leaving recreational aeroplanes where they belong before someone gets killed."
Mate keep ya gear on......if you had thought about this before opening your mouth, you may not have written such rubbish.
These aircraft and engine (albeit older sisters) have been used for training for years, both RAA and GA VH training. So that comment does not cut the mustard. Some, logging several thousands of hours, one I can think of is probably over 7000.
If that kind of failure rate = stop use....nothing would fly. has been the odd week when 2 x B737's have crashed, should we stop flying them. Didn't think so.
Upon reflection I am sure you would agree.
J
"It seems fairly clear that the aeroplane isn't designed for heavy training use. Two engine failures in a week with no prior indications is an abysmal record for any aircraft type. Think they'd be better off leaving recreational aeroplanes where they belong before someone gets killed."
Mate keep ya gear on......if you had thought about this before opening your mouth, you may not have written such rubbish.
These aircraft and engine (albeit older sisters) have been used for training for years, both RAA and GA VH training. So that comment does not cut the mustard. Some, logging several thousands of hours, one I can think of is probably over 7000.If that kind of failure rate = stop use....nothing would fly. has been the odd week when 2 x B737's have crashed, should we stop flying them. Didn't think so.
Upon reflection I am sure you would agree.
J
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If 737s were single engine aeroplanes with less than 100 hours on the clock and 40% of an operator's fleet had suffered engine failures in the space of a week, I very much doubt they would be flying them!
I'm not disputing that they're a good aeroplane - whilst I haven't flown them many times, I actually think they're very good - but any attempt to diminish the significance of these events is seriously misguided. My argument is that if this is what happens when they are operated as per the operating handbook, clearly something is wrong.
It doesn't matter where the problem lies - whether it's a procedural change that needs to be made or a design change is irrelevant. The point is that if nothing is done, there's nothing preventing the same thing happening a third or fourth time, and whoever the poor bugger is that's flying it might not have any good options available to save the situation.
I'm not disputing that they're a good aeroplane - whilst I haven't flown them many times, I actually think they're very good - but any attempt to diminish the significance of these events is seriously misguided. My argument is that if this is what happens when they are operated as per the operating handbook, clearly something is wrong.
It doesn't matter where the problem lies - whether it's a procedural change that needs to be made or a design change is irrelevant. The point is that if nothing is done, there's nothing preventing the same thing happening a third or fourth time, and whoever the poor bugger is that's flying it might not have any good options available to save the situation.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe some of the comments here!
Stop flying / ground an aircraft because there were 2 failure's in a short space of time? Get real! Sounds like a bunch of arm-chair Jabiru pilots!
As someone posted earlier there are hundreds of these aircraft flying and over 1,000 of their engines out there world wide in all conditions.
I know of a school that runs 6 of them and they weren't having engine failures at 100 hours. Last look two of them were over 1,600 hours, the other 2 around 1,200 and the remaining 2 were 800 and not one single engine issue from day 1, operating in temperatures up to and over 40 degrees. That being said there are many of them out there as J430 says with 5000 - 7000 hours and still going strong, albiet, probably not on the original engine. Bottom end on these engines can be as high as 4,500 hours, according to the head of the engine department.
The POH says 40 degrees maximum operating temperature at MTOW. There is however no mention or scale for operating at lower MTOW's.
I doubt that it was too hot for the aircraft.
As it's been said earlier, these engines come from a CAD / CAM design facility with state of the art milling machines, the likes of which are not used anywhere else in Australia. They are manufactured to exact tolerances and every one is identical.
A previous poster has suggested that he knew all about what happened, but when asked to call the factory for the facts, disappeared off the radar? What happened when he called, if he in fact did?
Stop flying / ground an aircraft because there were 2 failure's in a short space of time? Get real! Sounds like a bunch of arm-chair Jabiru pilots!
As someone posted earlier there are hundreds of these aircraft flying and over 1,000 of their engines out there world wide in all conditions.
I know of a school that runs 6 of them and they weren't having engine failures at 100 hours. Last look two of them were over 1,600 hours, the other 2 around 1,200 and the remaining 2 were 800 and not one single engine issue from day 1, operating in temperatures up to and over 40 degrees. That being said there are many of them out there as J430 says with 5000 - 7000 hours and still going strong, albiet, probably not on the original engine. Bottom end on these engines can be as high as 4,500 hours, according to the head of the engine department.
The POH says 40 degrees maximum operating temperature at MTOW. There is however no mention or scale for operating at lower MTOW's.
I doubt that it was too hot for the aircraft.
As it's been said earlier, these engines come from a CAD / CAM design facility with state of the art milling machines, the likes of which are not used anywhere else in Australia. They are manufactured to exact tolerances and every one is identical.
A previous poster has suggested that he knew all about what happened, but when asked to call the factory for the facts, disappeared off the radar? What happened when he called, if he in fact did?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
For those that are interested, I was at the factory last week. The Jabs in question are up there with modifications being made to the engine cowls to promote cooling of oil and the cylinder heads. Ducts and holes and scoops etc have been added all over the shop. I quizzed them on the cause of the cylinder failure's and the result was the way they were operated and the amount of time spent on the ground.
Personally I don't understand how so many of these aircraft are operating world wide in all temperatures exceeding their POH documented maximum, but yet 2 x J160's at Bankstown have been having problems. I know of a school that has clocked 5,000 hours in the last 3 years with nil issues, even with their highest hime J160 nearing 2,000 hours.
Personally I don't understand how so many of these aircraft are operating world wide in all temperatures exceeding their POH documented maximum, but yet 2 x J160's at Bankstown have been having problems. I know of a school that has clocked 5,000 hours in the last 3 years with nil issues, even with their highest hime J160 nearing 2,000 hours.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 51
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QNH1013.2 - thanks for getting back and confirming that I'm not making this stuff up.
If these aeroplanes are the training aircraft of the future, and I believe they are, wouldn't a study into why these failures occurred be warranted? There's a lot of ostrich-like behaviour in this thread, for reasons best known to the participants.
Myself, I'd be quite happy to fly in a Jabiru from Bankstown tomorrow - but I also recognise there is some weak link in the chain here, and we owe it to future aviators to pin it down. Isn't that what accident investigation is all about?
If these aeroplanes are the training aircraft of the future, and I believe they are, wouldn't a study into why these failures occurred be warranted? There's a lot of ostrich-like behaviour in this thread, for reasons best known to the participants.
Myself, I'd be quite happy to fly in a Jabiru from Bankstown tomorrow - but I also recognise there is some weak link in the chain here, and we owe it to future aviators to pin it down. Isn't that what accident investigation is all about?