Aircraft down near Camden, Nattai NP
 

Just caught then of of a news flash. Aircraft down near Camden in Nattai NP. Aircraft ditched in the river, both pilot and pax ok and winched to safety by Air Ambulance Rescue Chopper.

Couldn't see what type the aircraft was other than high winged.

Glad all are ok.

Cheers
CB

News report as above, with a/c in the water.

They just interviewed the pilot.

"Complete engine failure at 3500ft, aimed for the swamp and put it down in the trees/river."

Cheers
CB

Another bloody Jab!

Not according to the ABC newsite, they reckon it's a "Jamaroo"

Tipsy:ok:

Naaah....all light aircraft are Cessnas, dontcha know:E

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-02/light-plane-crashes-in-camden-national-park/6368774

its a Jab.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...f35afaf002bbfb

http://resources1.news.com.au/images...70bc6357a8.jpg

If your going over tiger country, dont do it in a Jabiru, if your going to have an engine failure over tiger country, do it in a Jabiru.

Jabiru J160D. Not good news for Jabiru. I hope the passenger had signed the waiver!

An absolute testament to the strength and crash worthiness of the Jabiru.

No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au

Bugger, I see for once someone has been doing their homework, para at end about CASA's restrictions on Jabs and why.:hmm:

Poor Jabirus. It's about time for a PT6 upgrade. Unless it was just a simple case of too much air in the fuel tank?

Mmm
 

Wonder if it's " another raa" wonder if it's another jab ?? Just wondering ,,,,,,

Ultralights...thats very witty...! I'll remember that one.
:D

Couple of small repairs...good as new!

Kaz

Bit of polish, that'll buff out.......

A rotax 912, in a J120 airframe, would possibly be the safest aircraft in the skies..
As much as their engines are given a lot of bad press, the same cant be said for their airframes, almost indestructible.

Are there any Jabs with Rotax in them?? I'd love to have a crack in one if there is.

there are a few, but all homebuilt. with the new regs regarding mods to homebuilts and factory RAAus aircraft, you might see a few factory built rego Jabs no undergoing a few mods to change engine type.

A Jab with a Rotax seems to be a no brainer. I'm amazed at how robust the airframes of these things are :ok:

Not so robust going by the pictures above. It looks pretty faarrkked to me.

How many Cessnas have crashed in similar circumstances and the pax have walked away?

Smashing up is part of the crash worthiness, like a new car versus an EH Holden. A Cessna is the EH Holden in this instance.

i think the cab design goes a long way to helping with survivability of a Jabiru, the fixed seating position is quite a long way from the panel, so when you do stop suddenly, with good seat belts, you will be hard pressed to impact your head on the instrument panel.

The central support from firewall to rear of seat part bulkhead (the one with stick, brakes etc) would have to help too

Are you seriously implying that a jabiru is a better aircraft than a Cessna to have an accident in?

Cessna's have been crashing in similar circumstances for years and people have been walking away....

In my humble opinion the jab owners have less brain to get damaged:E

More of them have crashed (percentage wise) than Cessnas, so yes, they probably are implying that :E

You guys need to brush up on your statistics 101 if you are telling us that a higher percentage of Jabirus have crashed than Cessnas.

More people have died or been seriously in Cessnas versus Jabirus at a ratio of potentially 100's to 1, considering in Australia that there have been approximately 4 fatalities across 2 fatal Jabiru crashes. (Happy to be corrected on the exact number).

Taking the p!ss XXX

Off the topic a wee bit, have Jabiru been able to come up with any solutions to the engine problems?

A number of service bulletins have been released as well as calculations around risk profile to indicate if engine work is required. Service intervals have been changed (more frequent) and there's more to come. It appears that high risk engines such as those in flying schools are being targeted (a logical approach) and there's more to come... There is no silver bullet to date unfortunately.

That's good news S7700

Since the engine-failure has precipitated this forced-landing, I for one would like to know:-

1. How many hours were on the engine,
2. What modification-level was the engine,
3. When was the engine last maintained, and by whom,
4. what was the nature of the last major engine maintenance, and the last logged engine mantenance of any nature.

Here's why.

The little 2.2L Jab engine is becoming a tough little tacker, but I've yet to have one give more than about 650 hours without major issues, which prompts my first question. They are getting better with every "incarnation", and they are an engine that likes to rev freely rather than lug. I've had two partial engine-failures, due to through-bolts or studs failing, and in both instances the egine ran long enough to get me safely back to a runway. One engine, with a broken stud, did three full-power takeoffs before falling oil-pressure and increasing roughness brought a prudent halt to proceedings. Others have had instantaneous failures, well-documented.

Because of multiple service bulleteins there are a large number of different modification-levels of Jab engine. As engines cycle through the Jab engine shop, they are upgraded to the latest mod-level, but this is a time-consuming process and takes many years to bring the fleet up to any sort of common-level - by which time further bulletins had added the possibility of even more variations. (This problem is not unique to Jabiru engines.)

Any machine is only as good as the maintenance it gets and the way it is operated. Jab engines are maintenance-intensive, but the tooling and consumables are not expensive, or exotic. Jabiru don't gouge on their engine parts either...they want their fleet in the air, not on the ground being worked on. Hence my third question. Bear in mind that home-built Jabirus can have their engines maintained by the builder himself, whereas factory built Jabs require a LAME or an RA-Aus Level 2 Engineer to work on them. Maintenance standards are therefore likely to vary somewhat, in both directions.

Finally, my fourth question seeks to establish what the overall condition of the engine was, when the last major work was done on it (top-end overhaul, cylinders honed and new rings, valves replaced, that sort of thing) and what was the last maintenance done on the engine (oil and filter change perhaps). In particular, I'm interested to see if this was possibly a "maintenance-induced" failure.

The airframe concerned (the J160) is a phenomenally tough and pretty much vice-free airframe and excellent for training students. The crashed unit is repairable (by Jabiru) but the insurance company may have other ideas.

Two crew survived, uninjured, got out and walked away. The PLB also showed its value. Well done to all concerned, and the the rescuers, heartfelt thanks. A good result all round.

An aeroplane that has always intrigued me and recently I had the chance to fly one. VH registered and recently fitted with a new engine following an engine failure and forced landing.
Quite a pleasant little thing to fly and performed better than I thought it would but the throttle was under the seat between your legs! I have seen some strange things in my flying life but this would have to be the strangest.
I suppose once the engine fails, clutching your private parts as one descends through the tree tops is probably not a bad idea.

The throttle moved to a dash mount somewhere around 2005 models onwards or thereabouts. I used to find it quite comfortable and a natural place for your hand to sit :-) I remember taking up an aerobatic pilot for a spin, it was his first time in the aircraft with the seat base mounted throttle. He pulled us into a barrel roll, half fell out the bottom, reached for the throttle on the dash, however it wasn't there, thus VNE arrived far too quickly. Lesson learned; he still talks about that throttle mounting a number of years later.

With almost all engine failures (that was prt of CASA limitations descisions) in L2 and LAME maintained, it doesnt bode too well for that system.

All training engines to be spilt and fitted with new thoughbolts at 500hrs
Not new models as they hve them already
The assessment and head removal inspection SB was out before the CASA action.
There is a problem with so many variations and staus of engines out there it complicates dignosis.
But they are cheap and easy to work on

There is now a process for RAA experimentals to modify to different engines if required. Even some good looking Camit ones getting around.

Quote Criticalmass: whereas factory built Jabs require a LAME or an RA-Aus Level 2 Engineer to work on them.

Not true, if a factory built plane is used privately, eg not for training then you can do your own maintenance. If the same plane is used in a flying school then it must be level 2 or higher maintained.

I could be wrong, but if you are maintaining a privately operated RAAus aircraft IAW the manufacturers schedule, and the manufacturer says you need to be an L2 - I think you've got to comply. If you're an L1 you're not following the manufacturers schedule.

Jab did that a while back in anticipation of an RAA ops manual amendment that never happened. Allegedly it's not set in stone and owners should check with the manufacturer for further clarification.

Its also changed on latest manuals.....everyone has read them havent they?

I was speaking Factory Built RAA generically (both UL and LSA) and not just from a Jabiru perspective.

You are right mcoates. That has always been one of the draw cards of RAAus. You can work on your own aircraft. There is no need to have built it. If the factory mandated L2 only they wouldn't sell too many to private owners.