No argument from me
that Jabiru's historical generally un-co-operative attitude has
been a large factor in the present situation, Michael although I
also understand that their airframe and engine plants are
regularly audited by CASA inspectors, so CASA can hardly claim
its hands are totally clean either.
My principle concern, based on 38 year's experiernce and
expertise in administrative law, is that the process followed by
CASA in this instance is fundamentally flawed.
I don't think we should continue to tie up this group with this
discussion. You have alerted the group to the issue, I have
merely attempted to balance the coverage. We will see what
happens in June.
Bill
On 27/03/2015 10:42 AM, Michael Coates
mcoates@... [X-Air_Ultralight_Aircraft] wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hello Bill,
the restrictions were imposed on jabiru due to an increased
rate of engine failures. When CASA did their preliminary
investigations and nobody knows the real background
information there were something like six times more engine
failures in jabiru engines than there were in Rotax engines
(including the two strokes) and there were something like five
times the amount of Rotax engines in service than there are
jabiru engines. (if my memory serves me correctly because this
was almost 4 months ago)
This really made the failure rate absolutely lopsided against
jabiru. I personally feel that the majority of this situation
and the restrictions could have been knocked on the head at
the very beginning if the engine manufacturer would have
cooperated with the different regulators but they chose
to basically ignore them based on their Facebook site
The RAA statement is here...
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 cant provide further information at
this point.
Bill Maxwell wrmaxwell@...
[X-Air_Ultralight_Aircraft] wrote, On 27/03/2015 9:35 AM:
Geoffrey,
it's a long and complex story that really does require
considerable reading and research to get any reasonable
understanding. I could give you my interpretation of the
background it would only be my view. I suggest you take
a look at the material available on - the
RAAust being our self-administration body that covers
the bulk of the Jabiru fleet in Australia - the yahoo
jairuengines group and elsewhere. A google search should
throw up heaps more.
I can say with absolute authority that the legislative
instrument that imposed the limitations has an automatic
sunset clause. It will cease to have effect on the.
nominated June date, as a matter of Australian law.
Whether it is replaced by another remains to be seen but
I have to observe that introducing such a major set of
restrictions for just a 7 month period seems in itself
an inadequate resonse to a situation if the severity of
concern was sufficient to justify the restrictions in
the first instance.
Bill
On 27/03/2015 9:54 AM, Geoffrey gbgartshore@...
[X-Air_Ultralight_Aircraft] wrote:
What does that mean? Have fixes been identified? Or
will amended restrictions be identified?
Geoff Gartshore
But
in total fairness you should also read up on the
background to the making of those restrictions
and note that they expire automatically in June
this year.
On 27/03/2015 8:05 AM,
Michael Coates mcoates@...
[X-Air_Ultralight_Aircraft] wrote:
Hello
all, on paper the jabiru is a great engine but
in the field it does have other issues.
Many of you in other parts of the world may not
be aware of the very heavy restrictions put in
place for the engine operations and manufacture
by the CAA in Australia just before Christmas.
If you are not already aware of these problems
could I suggest a quick Internet search to pull up
the relevant details
I use the Jab 2200 on my Hawk. Works great
just make sure you keep it cool have good
airflow
-------- Original message --------
Date:03-26-2015 5:13 PM (GMT-04:00)
Subject: Re: X-Air Ultralight Aircraft Re:
Falcon or Standard HELP !!!!
read here two guys pointing out best of
best
Ray
You didn't mention........no gear box ,no
oil cooler, running at 2x the rpms, more gas
all is more weight , not to mention 76 hose
connections to support the systems, then
there is the 100's of updated rotax issuses.
I am sure I missed some pluses also , and we
all realize ,each has his own thoughts
Love the combo T & J
Dave
I love my Tornado, especially with the
Jabiru. I believe they are a perfect
match. The Jab only burns about 3gph, no
oil mixing, no radiator, runs very strong.
I have worked on both my Jabirus and they
are great for the wrench head with some
experience who wants to save bundles doing
his own work. The work I did was a re-ring
job on both engines due to cylinder
corrosion from improper storage and lack of
use. You have to run them or at least turn
the prop every week.
My T-II is a great handling plane, can turn
on a dime, climbs great, and is very
forgiving of crappy landings. Only downside
is they are very pitch sensitive and can
scare the crapola out of you on landing if
you have not flown one before.
I had the engine quit due to a previous
owner using silicone in the fuel tank and
landed in a VERY muddy farm field and the
plane was completely undamaged, except for
needing a thourough cleaning.
I built my T-S because I got a great deal
and wanted the extra room and the bells and
whistles that came with it.
The only thing I do not like is the tandem
seating, because I think passengers are more
at ease when next to you.
Ray Henrie T-II 9079R T-S 1776E
4TN9
I've had a standard on a 582 for 4 years and
have very much enjoyed it. Very stable and a
great climber. A bit frustrated in a
headwind now and the 2 stroke limitations on
distance. Has anyone advice for me on
converting it to a Jabiru or 912? Is it
worth it or a waste of time and effort?
Gwyn
On 26/03/2015 09:29, avia1or01@...
[X-Air_Ultralight_Aircraft] wrote:
I've been flying a 912 Falcon for a year
and am loving it.
When buying I was advised that the flaps
are a waste of time and I should get a
standard, however when a 912 Falcon came
on the market I had to have it.
Supposedly the F is slightly faster but
if you want fast this is completely the
wrong plane as both tootle along at 50 to
60 knots.
I have never used the flaps, there seems
to be no point in them. It leaps of the
ground like an excited puppy so I don't
need them for take off and it lands in a
very short space so I don't need them for
landing. I guess they would be handy if
I was trying to do an emergency landing in
somebodies garden.
If I was buying I would ignore whether its
an Falcon or a standard and concentrate on
more important things such as the engine
and condition. Either aircraft is a
fantastic machine, very safe and
predictable. They are als o by aeroplane
standards very easy and cheap to maintain.
I bought the whole aircraft for less than
our group Cessna cost for its annual.
Do take a test flight and get the aircraft
checked over before buying it.
Regards,
Jon
With regards, Michael Coates
Company Director X-Air Australia
Gold Coast, Australia.
PIPISTREL AIRCRAFT DEALER OF THE YEAR 2012
Winner of the EAA August Raspet Award 2012
mailto:mcoates@...
skype name: xcomavionics
Please note: because of the volume of e-mail we are now receiving our replies are done using voice recognition software in an effort to speed up the reply process. Sometimes the voice recognition program inserts silly words or doesn't actually do what it is meant to do. Occasionally these mistakes get through our quick proofreading of each e-mail sent, so please accept my apologies if the odd mistake gets through.
Main Web Site:
XCOM Web Site:
Pipistrel Web Site:
Legal Notice: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended only to be read by the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
No one is authorized to copy, use, disclose, distribute or rely on this information for any purpose whatsoever. If this communication has been sent to you in error, please email the sender and delete the message.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you long to return."
With regards, Michael Coates
Company Director X-Air Australia
Gold Coast, Australia.
PIPISTREL AIRCRAFT DEALER OF THE YEAR 2012
Winner of the EAA August Raspet Award 2012
mailto:mcoates@...
skype name: xcomavionics
Please note: because of the volume of e-mail we are now receiving our replies are done using voice recognition software in an effort to speed up the reply process. Sometimes the voice recognition program inserts silly words or doesn't actually do what it is meant to do. Occasionally these mistakes get through our quick proofreading of each e-mail sent, so please accept my apologies if the odd mistake gets through.
Main Web Site:
XCOM Web Site:
Pipistrel Web Site:
Legal Notice: The information contained in this email is confidential and intended only to be read by the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
No one is authorized to copy, use, disclose, distribute or rely on this information for any purpose whatsoever. If this communication has been sent to you in error, please email the sender and delete the message.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you long to return."
|