The hurry up and find out report.


http://www.transport.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=H5BhQx-ltpM%3D&tabid=644&mid=1598

Band a lot, could you re-post the link please? Doesn't want to work for me. It could be my lack of computer skills. :ugh:

To suggest that a Jabiru is a great aircraft because it survives well in an accident if and or when the engine fails is laughable, particularly if it fails more often.

The logic is flawed. Which is the better aircraft? - if you will probably die when the engine stops in a Lancair, then the Jabiru is safer because if the engine stops and you crash you probably won't die !! ??

PS I own a Jabiru and think it's a great aircraft, however the "for" arguments I hear about the engines and perceived airframe safety are laughable at best.

Here is the link:
http://www.transport.gov.za/LinkClic...d=644&mid=1598

The aircraft in the article is clearly a Jabiru.

Sorry, need to copy and paste into browser to open.


Or use squawks link!

What's "laughable" is your "logic", Squawk.

If lots of Jabirus are involved in forced landings and there are fatalities during those landings, the questions as to whether this indicates an "unsafe" aircraft depends on the number of aircraft in the fleet, the number hours flown and the cause of the forced landings.

If most of the forced landings are precipitated by engine failures due to poor maintenance or operational procedures, and most of the fatalities during forced landings are caused by poor handling during the forced landing, I'm not sure why that's the manufacturer's problem.

Squawk7700,

You say that you own a Jabiru and reckon that it's a great aircraft.

"PS I own a Jabiru and think it's a great aircraft, however the "for" arguments I hear about the engines and perceived airframe safety are laughable at best."

(I've only had one flight in a Jabiru, owned by a friend at YGAW. And from the right hand seat. I found the aircraft to be easy to fly and very stable. The centre stick was a new thing for me. But the aircraft is completely benign, if flown within its operating parameters.)

I'm clearly missing something here?? :confused:

So how do you dare fly your Jabiru with what you know? :E

You're starting to confuse me... long story short....

It seems that many don't care about an unreliable engine regardless of the reason for the fault causing the failure, because the airframe is "safe" so it doesn't matter if you crash as you aren't likely to die.


They are not really amazingly easy to fly, they have a few idiosyncrasies of their own, but mainly around takeoff, landing, nose wheel and crosswind operations. Compared to perhaps a more benign Tecnam or Foxbat or similar.

Not all Jabirus have Jabiru engines

True. The one that I flew in has a Rotax.

There are 3 issues here.
First is Jabiru engine reliability. Statistics show that when properly compared with other engines is just as good or better.

The second issue is the accusation that many don't care about unreliability regardless of the cause. I think the cause is highly important because most of the causes of Jab engine failures were not the manufactures fault and therefore avoidable. Of the 40 engine incidents CASA cited to virtually ground Jabiru 28 were avoidable and had nothing to do with the manufacturer.
I am happy to not run out of fuel, not hit powerlines , not stall close to the ground , to do thorough pre flights , to carry out proper maintenance including upgrades and to follow operating recommendations.

The third issue is that of survivability should something beyond my control happen (as it can with any aircraft) The track record for Jabiru would suggest that it is very well built and more survivable than many others in the same category.

Mcoates are you finding it easier to make lazy, broad, damming statements than it is to present actual facts from qualified investigators reports.

I'm probably 'Stupid' but I'm still waiting for your numerous properly documented examples of fatalities in Jabiru aircraft due to engine failure caused by the manufacturer.

It's a bit hard when the investigations are not all complete, whilst often taking years to be published, if at all (if history is anything to go by). There are currently Jab powered Raaus investigations under way. Some of us may know the cause in advance.... some of us may not.... just sayin'

You are quite correct Squawk. It is also very unfair. It is unfair to potential buyers and current owners who don't know what really happened in any given accident. Owners wonder if they should keep flying and potential buyers hold off until the facts are known.

It is also highly unfair to the manufacturer. Long delays in accident reports mean they have to suffer the effect of every half baked theory put out in the blogosphere based usually on hearsay coupled with little or no engineering knowledge.
If it turns out that there is a factory problem long delays in accident reports mean it takes longer before the problem is addressed. Again unfair to both customer and manufacturer.

Yep, of course you are quite correct. The aviation community around Aus woke up one sunny morning and decided "today we're going to trash Jabiru" and promptly made up a whole series of bs stories and spread them far and wide. Jab of course has suffered a horrendous run of poor luck and every one that ended up having an unplanned nap in a paddock somewhere, is perfectly justifiable thanks to the bunch of grubby oiks that somehow choose to fly/maintain Jabs and do truly horrible things to make them break, but don't do the same to other types of engines. Or of course one could resort to the good old bush philosopher's position of "if it walks like a duck ....etc".

Interesting how this topic always reads like the playbook from a reputation recovery specialist, with one or two vociferous name-callers trying to throw enough dust into the air so as to obscure a self evident truth.

Oh really?.

Cirrus went through an equivalent thing, but at least had the advantage of being bigger and therefore more able to weather the statistical storm.

Lots of accidents and about double the percentage of fatal accidents than comparable aircraft, despite all the 'safety features'.

But then when you analyse the number of them flying and the experience levels of the people flying them, you come to a more objective understanding of the 'safety' of the Cirrus compared to other types. If all those people had bought a Cessna 210 or Bonanza (or Jabiru) instead, there would have been an equivalent spike in the number of accidents and the percentage of fatalities during those accidents.

Would that have 'proved' those other aircraft types to be 'unsafe'? I think not.

Cirrus became the 21st century 'Doctor Killer' a label formally attached to Cessna 210s and Bonanzas. Funny how the accident rate of all 3 of these aircraft improved markedly with better aircraft specific pilot training.:=

Can't say I have ever heard the "Dr Killer" label applied to the C210.:confused:

You mean my three circuits in a 210 were not enough? :E

Dr :8

You probably learned on the job like most of the rest of us back then. I must say there are safer ways to become very comfortable with a C210 but probably not as memorable.

On a lighter note a pilot that sometimes posts here but will remain nameless (no not me this time) received the usual 3 circuit endorsement and then set off some distance for home at 10k feet. He commenced descent to his sea level home strip at the same spot he always used for a C172. Result. One very red face as he arrived over the top at 6,000feet and had to sneak off away from the circuit and wash off 5,000 unwanted feet. All that was 44 years ago. He and I know a lot more about C210s these days.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

Might be some spare parts here...

Offers Invited - Camit/Jabiru Aircraft Engine Components

The manufacturing stuff...

http://www.graysonline.com/sale/7015...ility?spr=true

No wonder they went broke. Those CNC machines are expensive. I wonder what CAMITS break even sales numbers were?