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

[RudiGreyling]

Bl!ksem, turn my back for 2 days busy with stuff and an explosion happens on this thread.

My opinion of course...
Don't point the finger at local Rotax agent, (He is trying to resolve it, it would be short sighted of him not to, short term gain vs long term business. He now has to find (non paying) hours in his day to sort this nonses out)

This is clearly at the foot of CAA who had changed the rules, amendments was studied and commented on by your governing body, then CAA ignored and changed it again without even Aeroclub being aware of it creating further confusion and irregularities.

Then when CAA was made aware of the stink again they were to busy with other things to sort us out before the deadline, and hence we stuck right in the midde of the mess.

Step in new inspectors, who say the law is the law and we will uphold it until changed.

You want to blame somebody blame CAA, but not too much becuase we still have to convince them to change it back to something reasonable, and you don't want to burn any bridges do you?!?!

It is a delicate situation. You can't tell someone he is an @ss if you need the @ss to help you down the line

OK, I am going away again for 2 days, looking forward to reading 5 new pages of debate on my return.

Regards
Rudi

[RudiGreyling]

PS: I forgot to add, it is not only us microlighting guys, it is all over NTCA. My Rv kit finaly received a builder's number, which means CAA agknowledges it as an accepted kit, now that I want to register (not asking for authority to fly yet, just to get registration number) now there is problems again! No-one can tell me what they are, but they took my money, told me my documents are correct, but sorry we can't register, but we don't know why. WTF is going on at CAA??? Sorry I can't ask that, since we need to build bridges not destroy them

[RudiGreyling]

Lastly I really like that Rotax 800R motor with 150HP, Being Rotax it shouold be good, detune it for 100HP for reliability, fancy a 912 100HP type gearbox on it, seems like an experiment that can go WILD. Too few hours in a day, too many things I wish I could try out.

[Dreamer]

Step in new inspectors, who say the law is the law and we will uphold it until changed

........has anyone inspected the inspectors?....just thinking , glass houses and all..

[John Boucher]

A note of commendation to Niren and with regards to his post on this thread and his proactive efforts re. 503/582 TBO's. (see below please!)

I think it is justified that we are cry babies.... who wouldn't ball his eyes out losing the love and joy of being able to get your arse into the sky?

Off the MISASA website.

Progress report on the aircraft maintenance and airworthiness issues.

At an industry liaison meeting recently, the new CAA CEO, Mr Colin Jordaan told Stan Oliver (Aero Club Chairman) and Neil de Lange (Aero Club GM) that he would like to see the problems with Part 24 (and other Parts affecting NTCA) resolved as speedily as possible and would assist the process by applying whatever measures necessary as soon as the amendments to the regulations are approved.

This afternoon (Thursday the 31st January) I attended a meeting with Neil de Lange and James Pitman, an experienced lawyer with an interest in aviation, where we addressed the most pressing issues affecting the maintenance and airworthiness of NTC aircraft. James brought a fresh eye to the problems and immediately identified some areas where he felt the CAA could put interim measures in place which would allow owners to undertake maintenance on their own aircraft. James has undertaken to assist MISASA and the Aero Club by drafting a letter to this effect which Neil will present to the NTCA task team at a meeting at the CAA offices this coming Tuesday.

Last night, Niren from Aviation Engines, sent a proposal to the Airworthiness Department of the CAA which will hopefully encourage the CAA to review the 300 hour crankshaft replacement issue for Rotax 582 engines and allow time extensions. For the 503 and other Rotax 2-stroke engines there is no requirement in any Rotax documentation which calls for the replacement of the crankshaft at an overhaul.

In summary - in the short term:
For Rotax 582 engine owners - we are hoping the CAA will allow extensions to the 300 hour crankshaft replacement schedule.
For Rotax 503 engine owners - the crankshaft only needs to be replaced if necessary.

As far as doing your own aircraft maintenance is concerned, we are working on the interpretation of the regulations and, all being well, are hopeful that owner maintenance will again be allowed within a few weeks. This could be subject to what is written in the aircraft maintenance manual though. (ie does your aircraft maintenance manual state that owner maintenance is allowed.)

In the long term:
Neil, James and I are formulating amendments to the regulations, which we will send out for comment within the next few weeks. These amendments will then be presented to CARCOM (Civil Aviation Regulation Committee) at their next sitting, on the 27th February, and hopefully be accepted in their entirety. Once that is done the CAA CEO has indicated that he will put the amendments into the regulations as quickly as possible (I guess within 2 months).

I will post more news as we progress.

Cheers,

Mike Blyth

[Oddball]

Please see, and respond to my new thread regarding a database for engines, listed under Hangar Talk.

viewtopic.php?t=6522

We do not have to split cranks, or change engines or any drastic thing like that if we can show that the general fleet experience shows a much longer engine life than is suggested by the manufacturer.

From my talks to Mike Blyth the CAA are quite willing to change things and if we have some real data to say why we would like to extend component life, based on our real life experience, so much the better.

No one suggests that we want to fly engines until they stop, we just want component life and maintenance schedules to be reasonable, based on how we use the engines.

The manufacturer, on the other hand, has to inform users of failures that may have occurred in unusual situations since they do not regulate how you use the engine. They thus have to arrange the maintenance schedules to the worst possible case.

So please see my thread and give me some data!

Jay

[rooikat]

Don't point the finger at local Rotax agent, (He is trying to resolve it, it would be short sighted of him not to, short term gain vs long term business. He now has to find (non paying) hours in his day to sort this nonses out)

This is clearly at the foot of CAA who had changed the rules, amendments was studied and commented on by your governing body, then CAA ignored and changed it again without even Aeroclub being aware of it creating further confusion and irregularities.

Then when CAA was made aware of the stink again they were to busy with other things to sort us out before the deadline, and hence we stuck right in the midde of the mess.

Rudi,

I am not yet an aircraft owner (was looking with diligence but now holding off until there is clarity on the issue) so my comments should be taken with that in mind.

However, if it states somewhere in the Rotax manual that the crank has to be replaced at 300 hours then it is surely the responsibility of the AP and the local Rotax agent to point this out to all Rotax engine owners.

Whether the pilots then flew beyond the legislated TBO and got busted would be a matter for them to sort out with their AP, CAA, lawyers, insurance companies and police. (Of course that last scenario doesn't help raise the esteem of experimental aviation in the eyes of the CAA ...)

But reading this thread it sounds like owners weren't informed about the crank rebuild rule, at least not a lot. Resulting in a huge and unpleasant surprise for Rotax owners come January 1.

I may have missed this in the thread but when did Rotax first state in the manual that the crank was to be replaced? Last year? Ten years ago?

Expecting the CAA to continue to turn a blind eye to a practice that contravened a statement in the engine manual was surely short-sighted?

But it raises another question: how many owners read the manual and was it their responsibility to point out to their AP/Rotax agent that the cranks needed rebuilding?

I find this whole saga utterly depressing, not least of all because it will kick grassroots aviation in the balls, hard.

Rooikat

[Morph]

Whether the pilots then flew beyond the legislated TBO and got busted would be a matter for them to sort out with their AP, CAA, lawyers, insurance companies and police. (Of course that last scenario doesn't help raise the esteem of experimental aviation in the eyes of the CAA ...)

Due to the fact that the aircraft is an experimental aircraft, non certified with an engine "prone to sudden stoppage" it is the choice of the owner to replace the crank or not, no-one else

But reading this thread it sounds like owners weren't informed about the crank rebuild rule, at least not a lot. Resulting in a huge and unpleasant surprise for Rotax owners come January 1.

No it has been around for ages, just never enforced by CAA before because the aircraft is experimental..............

I may have missed this in the thread but when did Rotax first state in the manual that the crank was to be replaced? Last year? Ten years ago?

1994 in the first edition of the 582 maintenance manual and never since, not even in the revised 1999 version of the manual.

Expecting the CAA to continue to turn a blind eye to a practice that contravened a statement in the engine manual was surely short-sighted?

Not a blind eye. If the aircraft was certified and/or carried passengers for gain then absolutely, expect very strict controls from CAA. In the case of experimental, the rest of the world's CAA/FAA allow for the owner's discretion and self maintenance. Our authority to fly specifies that we cannot fly above or near people etc so if the motors stop we only hurt ourselves and not the general public.

[craig]

ThIn summary - in the short term:
For Rotax 582 engine owners - we are hoping the CAA will allow extensions to the 300 hour crankshaft replacement schedule.
For Rotax 503 engine owners - the crankshaft only needs to be replaced if necessary.

anks Mike ,
your input looks positive ,just one concern ,define "replace if necessary" ie how would one know when it was necessary ,would this mean open and inspect.

[Morph]

Hoperfully you are experienced enough to do your self maintenance, otherwise an AP/AMO will be doing this for you

Use a crank tester to check the wear and movement on the crank (this is a vacuum gauge connected to the plug port). If out of spec replace

If the engine is opened for decoking, visually check the crank, look for corrosion etc. Your AP would know what to look for

[skybound®]

Please see, and respond to my new thread regarding a database for engines, listed under Hangar Talk.

viewtopic.php?t=6522

We do not have to split cranks, or change engines or any drastic thing like that if we can show that the general fleet experience shows a much longer engine life than is suggested by the manufacturer.

Oddball it would be interesting to also have the measurements of the cranks at the 150 and 300 hour inspections.

[rooikat]

Not a blind eye. If the aircraft was certified and/or carried passengers for gain then absolutely, expect very strict controls from CAA. In the case of experimental, the rest of the world's CAA/FAA allow for the owner's discretion and self maintenance. Our authority to fly specifies that we cannot fly above or near people etc so if the motors stop we only hurt ourselves and not the general public.

Thanks, Morph, I'm up to speed now, at least as far as non-commercial use goes.

But now here's a fuzzy area: what about trike airshow pilots, and flight schools which charge for "introductory" flights which are no more than sightseeing flips for groundpounders?

Is the way forward for those operators to suck up the 300-hour rule and swallow hard? I'm just curious. After all it was an introductory flight that has led me to this point where I am about to take up grassroots flying because I like to fly. Otherwise I'd be sitting on the ground with my (now long-lapsed) PPL and wishing that I'd gone into structured finance instead of journalism.

I believe the trike flying and other experimental aviation is where one lights the fires.

Thanks for getting me on track.

cheers

Rooikat

[rainier]

Still can't get over it.
Here we have a well developed engine that in it's current form, if properly operated, will give you a safe service life in excess of 1000 hours with minor maintenance and I can't use it beyond 5 years or 300 hours without incuring massive and unnessary costs for no reason - even to the extent of creating a possibly less reliable engine...

BUT I can slap on my lawnmower engine and have no restrictions like that...

Something's terribly wrong here or it is just me ?

I suppose, those that make and enforce the rules have little knowledge about these things - that is excusable in our new country, sort of. But when people protest, rapid investigation and corrective measures should be forthcoming immediately - if not, that is not excusable !

Oh well, let me get back to work before I got to get up and start the generator...

Rainier
CEO MGL Avionics

[Morph]

But now here's a fuzzy area: what about trike airshow pilots, and flight schools which charge for "introductory" flights which are no more than sightseeing flips for groundpounders?

Face it the highest chance of any private individual on seeing an accident is at an airshow. This is why they have a flying line and members of the public must stay well away. However these guys have special training and yes CAA would be very critical of their aircraft as they should be.

Introductory flights are commercial operations by a flight school and thus subject to the stricter controls. It's up to each training school to see whether they consider an intro flight as presales of their product, i.e. expecting to get a new student and thus subsidising this practise.

[DieselFan]

Introductory flights are commercial operations by a flight school and thus subject to the stricter controls. It's up to each training school to see whether they consider an intro flight as presales of their product, i.e. expecting to get a new student and thus subsidising this practise.

The biggest irony is engines used more often tend to be more reliable - see Mr Daniels' previous comments. So based on that it's almost logical to assume school planes have higher TBO's and private planes less? I know thats not what people want to hear but it's true to a point.

This is not taking the liablilty issues into account but based objectively on one simple question

Which is more reliable?
1. A well oiled regularly flown engine - read daily.
OR
2. Once a month, fuel not always new, dusty

Heck I've seen many low mileage cars (20k and less) run like dogs, perhaps only driven 5km per day? Yet others with 200k running smooth doing 100km per day.

There are guys in my own hangar who haven't flown in months / years and now they will get the benefit of a higher TBO yet the local school goes out of business due to quartely TBO's?

Just a different objective angle.