CASA Proposes To Restrict Jabiru Engines

Oh, definitely. I used an RV and a C-172 for an example. The FAA doesn't specify an aircraft type...those are the estimates used for homebuilt and production-type GA aircraft, not just those types. 29 hours/year for homebuilts, 200 hours/year for production-type aircraft.

The problem is, we have no insight into *how* those numbers are generated. When I talked to the FAA and Nall Report folks a few years back, it was a combination of survey results and estimates (ha!) on how many homebuilts are inactive.

Now that roughly 1/4th the homebuilt fleet has been removed from the registry via the re-registration process, do you want to bet that the assumptions didn't change?

Yeah, those numbers are skewed IMO. I don't know of any people that fly certified planes that make 200 hours a year outside of training facilities. It seems to me there are nearly as many certified planes sitting as ramp queens, or as hangar furniture as there is with E/AB.
 
Possible true in the US, but certainly NOT true world wide.

If it's got pistons and it makes money (outside from CFIing) chances are it's ether a lycoming or continental, minus a few pratts still chugging around.
 
I got curious as to whether the Australian Transportation Safety Board had downloadable records like the US's NTSB. Turns out they do, but not at the same level of detail. They include the accidents/incidents, and major information, but don't include what type of engine was installed.

On the assumption that Jabiru aircraft had Jabiru engines, I sorted on that aircraft type.

In a one-year period (Oct 13 to Oct 14) there were 35 Jabiru accidents. Eleven of these involved engine failures other than pilot-induced (fuel starvation). Four of these were in the "Undetermined" category, though some might still be under investigation.

All the rest...seven accidents...were due to internal failures of the Jabriu engine. Five were due to broken through-bolts.

Seems to me that if a particular engine type suffered five identical failures within a year, the FAA would take action as well....

Ron Wanttaja
 
I got curious as to whether the Australian Transportation Safety Board had downloadable records like the US's NTSB. Turns out they do, but not at the same level of detail. They include the accidents/incidents, and major information, but don't include what type of engine was installed.

On the assumption that Jabiru aircraft had Jabiru engines, I sorted on that aircraft type.

In a one-year period (Oct 13 to Oct 14) there were 35 Jabiru accidents. Eleven of these involved engine failures other than pilot-induced (fuel starvation). Four of these were in the "Undetermined" category, though some might still be under investigation.

All the rest...seven accidents...were due to internal failures of the Jabriu engine. Five were due to broken through-bolts.

Seems to me that if a particular engine type suffered five identical failures within a year, the FAA would take action as well....

Ron Wanttaja

"Ahhh, no wakkas with that engine mate, she be right.":D I keep trying to warn people not to buy something designed and built in a country where the manufacturing ethos is "She be right mate.":rofl:
 
If it's got pistons and it makes money (outside from CFIing) chances are it's ether a lycoming or continental, minus a few pratts still chugging around.

Not world wide. ;)

The rest of the world has modernized their GA fleet, we have not.
 
If it's got pistons and it makes money (outside from CFIing) chances are it's ether a lycoming or continental, minus a few pratts still chugging around.
You'd be surprised. In places like Russia they love their Thielerts. Some people even manage to make ends meet with SMA/Safran diesels despite the costs, becase they have NO GASOLINE at many of their airports. Others fly with car gas and Rotax. There's also a number of inline-six engines from Czechs, and the ubiqutous M-14P (that one needs airplane gas, however). The biggest fleet of Lycs there is actually installed in R-22 and R-44 helos.
 
Back
Top