Is this the end of microlighting in S.A. ?

[skyvan]

Sorry Niren, that post is quite emotional. That is unnecessary. You do know that the guys are venting. CAA are enforcing something that most guys see as unnecessary.

Your outburst about "babies", being the guys who have supported you for all these years, allowing you the opportunity to support them, is unlikely to gain you any friends.

Just as well my Bushbaby will have a 912, but since I'm just a baby, I'll buy straight from the manufacturer

[Wargames]

THIS MESSAGE IS IN MY PERSONAL CAPACITY!
I have been reading most of the comments for some time now, while I symphathise with most you and understand that your comments are based on emotion, I can no longer tolerate the offending comments being made.
I am now very annoyed!

In my 18 years of working with Rotax engines and with most of you, I have never been so insulted as I have been recently. Rotax and Aviation Engines has been an excellent product and been most instrumental in the development of this market. I have always worked extremely hard to support all of you in whatever your requirements, even in cases where we haven't even supplied the engines, with warranty, FREE telephonic support, etc.

We hold stock of all parts, provide training, do the warranty for you guys, technical support, etc ..........and now you want to go to HKS/Jabiru, VW.............you do it, get the support from those engine manufacturers that you'll have been enjoying from us for all the years, I want to see that, I will inform my Son, he would perhaps also still be waiting, yes thats how confident I am. I challenge any other engine manufacturer to provide the service and support that Aviation Engines and I have been doing so far.

We have been working very hard recently in an attenpt to resolve these issues with CAA to look after YOU, our customer!

I think that you guys have been behaving like a bunch of babies..........come guys lets be objective about it, work with CAA, find common ground, they too have a job to do.

I get calls all the time from people asking for information that is contained in the manuls.............just shows how many of you have actually read the manuals!

How many of you still have the Operators Manual with you? Let alone read it!
How many of you know exactly what the maintenance requirements are?
How many of you actually possess a torque wrench? Yes you want to do your own maintenance.
How many of you (including AP's) know how to measure the pistons and cylinders and the use of a bore gauge?

How many of your do 300 hours in five years? Most of you probaly spend more in that time maintaining your car.

I want each of you to call me or e-mail me directly about your concerns and I will address your concerns in a mature and objective manner.

I have to work for my money, I am just so amazed at how much time people have for whining, it's unbelieveble!

To all you BABIES, continue on the forum. I will now ignore the forum and attend to genuine enquiries directed to me. My cell phone number is 083 630 9406, call me.

Hi Niren,

Thanks. I think this is positive. This is not sarcastic!!

Most of the emotion that you saw on this forum is probably uninformed. Uninformed about what actualy stands in the maintenance manual about the TBO of the seperate rotax engines. In my manual there stands to contact a service provider, meaning you guys(A-E). Now you can call us uninformed, because that is what it is.

We learned today through misasa website that a crank change on 503 is not compulsory, and must be done when needed. Why didn't you help us a few weeks ago when this question was asked??

This is our consern as well, I have been using a Rotax for a while now, and happy with the engine. It is the procedures that worry us.

Now, all emotion aside, Please provide on this forum a complete list of parts to be changed for each engine, and I guarentee that most of this wining would start to change. We are just a bunch of "BABIES" left in a dark room and told to sleep, while the "PARENTS" sort out the problem. We would also like to be informed. Thats all. And I think everybody will confirm this.

Thank you for all you did. This forum is not critisizing you oaks, we are just letting loose of a bit emotion, and then we all feel better.

No hard feelings!!

Safe flying.

Regards,

[Morph]

Niren,

This has nothing to do with the sales and service Aviation Engines provides to the market. If you sold HKS, Hirth, Jabiru, you would still provide the excellent quality of service you have always provided. The issue is with CAA, a governing body who have taken upon themselves the need to police how I maintain my engine. The problem is also not with Rotax. The problem is with how CAA are interpreting the Rotax manuals

The BABIES here are your customers, past and future.

We all love the product, just not the regime

[Aerosan]

I agree with Morh, Nirren.

I have in the past only received good service as well as a friendly smile whenever I had to make contact whether it be going to your shop or phoning there. I, and Im sure many more here, have no problem with AE, the staff or yourself.
My problem is simply that I cannot afford this type of flying. I have build,run and maintained many a race bike engine. I do know what a bore gauge and even a freestate vernier is. The 582,618 range of engines is a simple enigine that has more than proved that it is capable of running more than a 1000 hours without a crank replacement, or any other problem. If I now change to a ski-do motor or VW or whatever, it will not be your fault. It will simply be a financial decision. At this moment I own a ski-do motor, as well a 80 hp vw motor. I now have to make a choice.

My2c

[Ranger]

Niren
We ARE emotional. We all love flying and for most of us microlighting is an affordable way to accomplishing our love of flying. Will changing a crank at 300 hrs make us better, safer pilots? Statistically I don't think so. We are all well aware of the risks associated with flying and we've accepted the warning on the box that says the engine can stop at any time. I'm also well aware that sticking my fingers into a wall socket is harmfull to my health, as is smoking. It can be RECOMMENDED that I don't do these things but in the end it's my choice. I think that what most guys are saying is DON"T TAMPER WITH IT IF IT AIN"T BROKEN.

As far as I can pick up on what i've read on this forum is that no-one is bashing anybody personnaly. The uncertainty as to the future of our beloved sport is a shock to the system and of course there's going to be emotional reaction. As for the whining. If the guys feel they are being treated like BABIES then what do you expect.
We have no idea how CAA has interpreted the manuals and as yet no clear answer has been had from anyone.

Most of the microlights flying are fitted with rotax motors and I think they are BRILLIANT motors that have proven themselves over and over again.
If the powers that be have the same faith in the motors as we have then there would never have been any need for all this hoo haa.

I know I can't speak for everyone but this is what i've picked up speaking to the guys in my circle of pilot friends.

One question.
Is it recommende or compulsory to change the crank in a 503 at 300hrs?

[lamercyfly]

The comments regarding CAA's arrogant attitude towards part24 and the 300hr crank issue are naive, to say the least.

I, personally, will not stand for any arrogance from any employee at CAA.

That said, I am not interested in any changes to any schedule. That is one way forward for folk who feel that it is required of us to subject ourselves to ignorance.

I object, with contempt, the current wording of part 24. It shows absolute lack of understanding, and I would venture to say it was written without any knowledge of the industry. The fact that it was given to us (the industry) for input, means nothing. It never was released to the pilots. It stopped at Misasa. That much is public knowledge. But I am not even interested in dissecting that fact.

The fact that the LS/1 document actually dealt with microlight weight-shift aircraft just fine, and was in fact a very fine document which needed very, very little if any changes for microlighting, is my point of departure.

I want LS/1 , for weight-shift microlights, replaced with immediate effect, until such time that proper consultation has taken place.

I will not stand for less.

I will spend the week-end deliberating on the issues at stake, for me personally, and will issue a statement on this forum on Monday, with regard to my intended course of action.

Have a lekka week-end, all of you, and stop getting riled - yes, you too Niren(my walking-talking Rotax Manual - it was easier to call you when my hands were dirty )

And on this note, I want to state that NO SERVICE AGENT HAS EVER GIVEN THE CONSISTENTLY RELIABLE AND FANTASTIC SERVICE THAT NIREN AND AVIATION ENGINES HAS GIVEN ME, AND STILL GIVES TO ME.

Thankyou Niren.

Regards.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Nirren
Keep the faith. Issue I don't think is with you, Mike or AE, but rather with the fact that CAA are now moving the goal posts and thus putting the Rotax product at a severe disadvantage vs the norm that has been around for so long. My dealing (although few) have been hugely positive with both you and AE. Emotions aside the fact of the matter is that CAA are "costing" the 582 out of the market. It has nothing to do with reliability or liability. I fail to see what they are trying to achieve, but what do I know. I just drive them...

Maybe I am plukking a lat for myself here, but is this not very similar to the Lycoming 12 year O/H saga on the TCA aeries. Surely sanity will prevail as it did then.

[zucac]

Niren thanks for what you have done in the past.
WE NEED YOU
BUT
1] why were you so quite for so long.
2] can you help us.
3]will you stand up AGAINST your head office.

Brett Hill

[Duck Rogers]

............I will be accepting RATTEX trade-ins :D .....

Now now Rudi
What you gonna do with all those Rotaxes without cranks?
See this post here: viewtopic.php?t=6482
I was in first..........you snooze, you l.......well, you only have half a engine :D

[Windsock]

This crank issue is still bugging me, and an emotional response from the local agent does not change anything.
It will be interesting to know why Ratex recommended the replacement of the 582 crank at 300hrs. Is this based on failure history, or results obtained through fracture mechanics – either way point to a weak design, or manufacturing problem.
The question then is why don’t they redesign the crank, or increase the safety factor – or is this a way to ensure a guaranteed income from maintenance after 300hrs………??
Replacement of a crank at 300hrs is no guarantee against failure; a new crank can fail after 2hrs, just as an “old” crank can probably run forever (excluding normal wear)
Unfortunately this recommendation was written into the owner’s manual, which now is at the expense of the owner. Fortunately I do not own a 582, but if I ever have to invest in an engine again, I will certainly not start my search at Ratex!
When I owned a 582 I always had issues about the unrealistically inflated prices charged for spares, this will make it even less affordable for 582 owners out there………
It remains our right as consumers to question issues that affects the spending of our hard earned cash - and if raising a concern classify me as a "Baby", then so be it!

[RV4ker (RIP)]

It will be interesting to know why Ratex recommended the replacement of the 582 crank at 300hrs. Is this based on failure history, or results obtained through fracture mechanics – either way point to a weak design, or manufacturing problem.

LIABILITY - US legal system is a strange beast and anything aviation is over engineered and "under rated" to stay out of court. (eg. a pissed pilot flies drunk and kills himself and Cessna loose the huge lawsuit which followed - Over simplified, but in USA they can sue anyone for anything and thus the companies "cover" themselves). That the only reason. We have seen on the hrs thread that local eg's have 3-4x the 300hr limit on them without a problem.

[Rudix]

............I will be accepting RATTEX trade-ins :D .....

Now now Rudi
What you gonna do with all those Rotaxes without cranks?
See this post here: viewtopic.php?t=6482
I was in first..........you snooze, you l.......well, you only have half a engine :D

:D :D

I won't have a problem getting rid of the Rattexes :D (But they won't be called that anymore.....)

Or maybe I should sell "special" Rotax cranks, with a note that you don't EVER have to replace them unless they are damaged ?

I think the main reason they want you to replace the crank is because of the bearings, but we all know the bearing life is more dependent on how often you fly, not how much.

[rainier]

Sorry - I just got to get in here.
Rotax 582 crank failures. (I know this post has little to do with the CAA - or has it ?)

As many of you know, I used to live and fly in Joburg before moving to the Cape.
Due to our business of making instruments we get great (but unintended) feedback from not only S.A. engine owners but from all over the World.

Now, there is something very peculiar that has been bothering me.

582 crank failures in Joburg do happen - but the occurence seems "spotty" if that is the right word. Most interestingly - I do not seem to be able to tie these to the magic "300" hour number. Any of these failures (and some I replaced the crank myself) happened before reaching 300 hours, usualy long before that (80 hours seems to be a favourite). To my limited view, it appears that once an engine had reached the 300, it was likely to go on for a long time still after that.

Now, if you want to go to a place in South Africa that seems to have LOTS of crank failures you go to Natal. I'm sure Natalians will support me on this one.

If you want to go to some place where there are NO crank failures, you go to the Cape.

So what gives ?
Capies don't fly because of the weather ? Wrong. Yes, overall there are fewer 582 here - but they still don't fail - at least not the cranks.

It took me a while to figure this out after I moved to the Winelands. Capies don't buy expensive oils. They don't buy oil for aircooled engines either. They use outboard oil. I got a funny look from one years back when I took out my bottle of Caltex TT (note: not the TTS). Followed by a long explanation as to why I am stupid and why it will take me seven years to become a Capie and BTW, go hide that oil or else I'll make a fool of myself.
Well, something to that effect anyway.

I'm converted now. It's outboard for me. After all - anything that quite obviously can make these outboard engines last in the most corrosive environment on Earth can't be that bad.

Yes, I am aware of the part in the Rotax manual where it states "no outboard oil". But I can't argue with the Capies...

Now- I know the CAA (or anybody else for that matter) will hardly listen to me, but me thinks we are all stuck up on the hour limit for a piece of metal - and COMPLETELY IGNORING WHY IT FAILS.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

[Wargames]

Capies don't buy expensive oils. They don't buy oil for aircooled engines either. They use outboard oil.

Reinier, Any reason you figured between the different oil types that could be causing the problem??

Just doesn't make sense to me.

Another question: Could you see a patern between premix and autolube crank problems??

[rainier]

Capies don't buy expensive oils. They don't buy oil for aircooled engines either. They use outboard oil.

Reinier, Any reason you figured between the different oil types that could be causing the problem??

Just doesn't make sense to me.

Another question: Could you see a patern between premix and autolube crank problems??

Well, this belongs in a different thread I think.
For one thing - oils come in different viscosity ratings and that directly influences how well the oil sticks to the metal and protects it. Marine oil have higher viscocities. I am also amazed at how clean it burns - zero carbon, no sticky rings (I use Castrol Super Outboard). Pointless to even think about a decarb.
Anyway, any "fancy" oil is created to be as low viscosity as possible or else you can't use it on high reving engines. Exactly what you need for the 583 engine used in Sea-doos and Ski-doos (they go to 9500 RPM or therabouts). Our 582 is so horribly detuned to get the torque curve flat we rarely go over 6500 (The 582 is actually a 90 Hp engine - known as the 583).
6500 ? Well that is not all that different to most outboards...
The manual BTW, is a direct copy in many parts of the 583 engine - I don't think Rotax bothered too much in adapting it to the 582.

Yes, there is a clear argument in favour of the autolube. If you premix, all you are doing is increasing the viscosity of the fuel itself. The oil disolves completely. Did you know that you can run a 582 without oil ? Yes, you can. Fuel itself is light oil and in pure form good enough for lower RPM. You only need the higher viscocity for higher RPM to prevent the light oil film from rupturing.
Autolube lubricates your engine COMPLETELY different. There is almost no mixing of fuel and oil. Oil enters your crankcase in little droplets (it does not "carburate"). Here it is ejected by simple centrifugal motion of the gas flow towards the walls of the crank and the bottom of the pistons. The oil is fresh, undiluted and can do a much better job. In case of premix - most of the oil nevert gets to do anything useful and simply burns up without ever having touched anything metal.

The downside of oil injection is that most don't monitor their oil consumption (which should be logged in your book) and will never notice if there is a problem. "Wow, look at how little oil I need" is not a good thing.

Premix also needs to be fresh - most of the muti compounds that the refinery adds are broken down by the fuel. This includes detergents that are added to prevent ring sticking and carbon build up.

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics