Engine failure 4Hrs after 8yr/450hr service

[georgeh]

R20 000 later. R7500.00 on the 503 and the rest on wing and kart for an ATF. I am now after 8weeks and after many hours pondering about the whole incident, PISSED OFF. I was in my forth hour of dual instruction, conversion from fixed wing to WCM when the engine failed on the climb out, with "no option" but "to turn back the trike is going to cost a lot more than R20 000 to repair. From doing a lot of time on "microlighters" i have come across this "FAR TO MANY" times. My Trike was not insured and it will all be for my bill to repair it.
Does anyone know if there is any recall on the AP that done the motor? I have heard that through the AP and Aeroclubs insurance it is possible to make a claim. If there is no recall on this then why can we not look after our own motors? I am putting my life in someone elses hands when i give the my motor in for servicing.
This was due to big end failure. Proof to me again, why mess with something that was working perfectly fine. AND again."HOW CAN YOU CHECK A CRANKSHAFT" A LOT OF CRAP. I have rebuilt crankshafts to prevent failure and the rebuilt one lasted less then 2hrs, and the one that was replaced lasted 2 racing seasons

[nicow]

I'll also be pissed...

[Boet]

Hoooo nou waggebietjie daar waita bit. Tel us more. How many hrs did the 503 have on it when it was overhauled? Was the crank replaced? What else was replaced? Like you remarked. :If it is not broken, WHY fix it?

[topflight]

All these inspections are about money (out of your pocket). We have read about this on this forum more than a 100 times that after a service there is problems with the engine.

georgeh wrote:
I have rebuilt crankshafts to prevent failure and the rebuilt one lasted less then 2hrs, and the one that was replaced lasted 2 racing seasons

Is the current crankshaft a new one or a rebuild?

[Air Hog]

The Moral of the story: NEVER use a rebuild Anything on an aircraft. Your life cannot be rebuilded

[georgeh]

SORRY a little mistake. "I raced with a crank shaft 2 racing seasons and it lasted, when I rebuilt it it only lasted 2hrs." So, goes to show, even new components can fail!!! I don't have my log book with me. Was +- 420hrs. Crank was not replaced, it was the original one. "WAS SUPPOSED HAVE BEEN CHECKED" I still want someone to show me a way of checking a crank and can confidently say its good for X amount of hours. What Bull sh1t!!!!! Yes, it's all about money. So how do you account for R7500 with all the petty things fan belt, jets, needle and seat, gaskets, carb rubbers etc etc and then ENGINE FAILURE.
To me, with a 2stroke you can't predict very much, NEW OR OLD, you take the same risk. Play by the rules and you still get burned. If this was my choice i would have had my crank rebuilt by professionls at less than half the price of a new one. And spares are available to have them rebuilt. How many new motors do we know of that have not made it past the running in procedures????
Please, don't misinterpret anything, I don't disagree with most of the rules and regulations, but these guys who want to make these RULES, should then be held accountable. If i get burned with MY OWN FIRE it will be my own fault, but when I get burned with SOMEONE ELSES fire I TAKE IT PERSONALLY!!!!!! WHAT MAKES THESE PEOPLE GOD????

[kloot piloot]

georgeh, welcome to the club ! My healthy 503 donkey died after the doctor "fixed" it because the doctor said it should be "looked" at when it has 300 hrs.

I've taken the same matter as high as I could with CAA, but a MISASA friendly officer scuttered my accident report.

There are several MISASA committee members on this forum. It is time that they, our the MISASA committee with the likes of Leprachaun (MISASA Safety Officer) and Morph run and react to these type of threads on behalve of their members. They should have called you by now to enquire urgently what happened in order to prevent another similar incident. Yet ...

George, you and I (see ZU-AZP elsewhere on this forum and on AVCOM) are forced to file accident / incident reports. Capt. Colin Jordaan wrote to me that these "reports are to interact with you, the affected pilot, to assist and determine cause and minimize risk of possible future occurences to you, and general aviation".

What did MISASA do about my long standing question ? It has been here on a public forum for more than 2 years now ? The least I expected from from my MISASA Safety Officer on this forum (and CAA on receipt of my accident report) to have been in contact with me.

George, someone known to MISASA worked on your engine and they wrecked it. Do not expect MISASA's assistance.

Alex, your work has been cut out as well. Are you a qualified Rotax Service agent by now ?

I feel for you.

[kloot piloot]

Oops,

My quote above "I feel for you" was meant for georgeh.

[Bundy]

Hi Guys,

Sorry about your misfortune George/Kloot.

I agree with most of what you guys are saying about the "crank check" which I would love to see demonstrated because I can also not see how any AP can give a 100% correct diagnosis on it ??? Please can you clarify George if the crank that failed was a re build or a new one as it is not clear from your post?

The point I would like to make is that I find it highly irregular that the regulations state that the crank check be done as early as they do in the engines lifespan? It would be the equivallent of your car having to be completely stripped at 80 000KM to "Check the Crank"???? Who the hell does that on a well maintained vehicle?

I would do away with this silly crank check at 450Hrs and rather support a full and compulsory crank replacement at say 750 Hrs? I think it will acctually result in a major reduction in the total no of engine failures! There is absolutely no good reason to do "open heart surgery" on an engine that has been running perfectly for 450hrs!

I dont agree with the general statements about Misasa though? Be carefull not to paint the whole organisation with one brush. They have acctually done a very good job with the new CARs that they are proposing, especially the section dealing with line maintenance whish will help us pilots a lot! Remember also that it is the engine manufacturer who dictates when a crank has to be inspected.. not Misasa. Without Misasa, you would have no voice to take the manufacturer on about it?

I do think though that a least an enqiery should be done when an engine fails so soon after "regular" maintenance! These AP's must also accept some responsibility for issues like this?

[Bundy]

The Moral of the story: NEVER use a rebuild Anything on an aircraft. Your life cannot be rebuilded

I agree!

[mcfly]

You have full redress under the Consumer Protection Act.

[georgeh]

My crankshaft was not replaced, it was checked and was "supposed" to have been good and didn't need replacing.
What gets my blood pressure up is that we are not allowed to have our cranks rebuilt, "at a fraction of the cost of a new one" which will be a lot safer than putting a 400hr crankshaft back. We have top quality engine and crank rebuilders in this country quite capable of rebuilding a quality crank, AND, are there any GUARANTEES on a new cranshaft? AND we are not all poopalls and can rebuild our own engines, and at least then I'll have peace of mind. Right now i sweat every time i take off. No one will ever understand untill it happens to them. That's when you will realise most of the rules will get thrown out the window and you will also realise how unsafe a lot of our runways are!!!!!!
Once again, if you dont know what you doing "DONT TRY DO IT YOURSELF" Find the RIGHT AP to do it for you.

[MADDOG]

Hi George

Sorry to hear of your misfortune, but please can you help by adding a bit more information regarding the typical usage and maintenance of you 503. I think you may just be a bit harsh on you AP.

My take on the whole Rotax crankshaft issue is that we are living with a compromise at best. The 300 hour mandatory throw away as originally on the cards was way over the top, and the whole issue got very emotional. Some brave unselfish guys from MISASA stepped up to the plate and negotiated the compromise as we now follow. The whole issue of Crankshaft failures and how best to deal with them is - in my opinion - still not fully understood.

The crankshafts themselves have failed due to fatigue, but this is a rear failure. Most of the problems are big end bearing failures as you report here. Big ends failure for only one reason - the needle roller skids. The skidding may have many causes and it is here that we need to start asking questions.

The reasons I know of for rollers skidding are:
Incorrect oils or oils additive (PTFE etc.)
clearance too tight - full power without proper warm up period.
foreign matter in bearing. - this is the difficult one.

Crap gets into the bearing for many reasons. Dusty working environment. Poor filters. Poor maintenance of filters. Poor maintenance procedures (trike outside during when cleaning filters and the wind blows some crap into the carbs). Rust on bearing due to long period of storage. And also the controversial one - crap get in during the mandatory inspection.
When the bearing wears, not all the particles are washed away by the fuel charge. Some bits of bearing/cage will build up on the bearing just next to the roller raceway area and will will be stuck there by the residual oil present. When the bearing gets pulled/pushed and manipulated to try get a clearance reading, some of these particles get dislodged and fall into the bearing. Even worse is when the local AP assistant tries cleaning the thing manually with degreaser and a brush.

For this reason, I am of the opinion that the mandatory inspection most likely causes more harm than it does good. I would like to see the bearing left alone until it is replaced. The 2 stroke racing people regularly replace the big end, pin and rod at a fraction of the crank price. (I am not aware of anyone replacing the entire crank unless it was completely broken)

Is 600 hours the correct time to replace? Who knows? Some 503s up on the reef have run in excess of 2000 hours without failure. Perhaps you would share some oil, filter, storage history as per my ramblings above so the I may get a better idea
for this failure.

Thanks

[alanmack]

There are several MISASA committee members on this forum. It is time that they, our the MISASA committee with the likes of Leprachaun (MISASA Safety Officer) and Morph run and react to these type of threads on behalve of their members. They should have called you by now to enquire urgently what happened in order to prevent another similar incident.

The committee offer their time for the benefit of members without asking for thanks or even acknowledgment. Most in fact accept that all they can expect is moans from those that want more for their R300. R300 of the R570 gets paid to MISASA who pay the VAT over and then well, as the few that get involved know, they give it all back to the members. At the moment we are really battling to cover the ground and we are short of volunteers but the demands of the members and the continuous moans means it is a tough job to convince anyone to step up and help. We have a vacancy for the development position and ( as you know) Morph has just stepped down (for valid personal reasons) and a few others are currently thinking of calling it a day - I have to tell you I so nearly quit last week also. I probably would have but there was nobody to complain to anyway!

We get many a request for more to be done so we moved our last meeting in Gauteng to Panorama and offered a free braai etc - Go on have a guess, how many do you think came along? Next try this - however I must say that the response was a huge improvement on the Panorama attendance - So, again in response to calls for more interaction with others that fly I organised a joint hanger talk evening with the EAA - I even put a note on the cover of the magazine - 1st time ever! Then I phoned for an afternoon and so did another committee member. Ok have another guess - how many pitched? The answer is that about 60 EAA members were there and 4 microlighters arrived - of the 4 - two were there as they were members of the EAA. It really is fun to be on the committee - why not join?

Back to the thread -

Leprachaun (MISASA Safety Officer)

and the complaints about him. Let me start with the good that he does. He spends a minimum of a half a day a week at the CAA on behalf of members. I really do not see us getting anyone else to do this - but maybe I'm wrong - why not volunteer?

Next - the matter of an alleged bad service - whether it be with new or used parts etc. is irrelevant. I have personally experienced more issues over the years than those noted on this thread and if ever you come to a meeting ( or send someone to) I'll share my war stories with you. Hear (sic) is my personal "learn't the hard way" advice. You fly an NTCA aircraft. The parts are not certified and the workmanship is also not certified. In fact, Rotax advise that their engines are not suitable for aircraft so what does it matter if the part is new or used? From a liability point of view, if you seek liability protection you need to fly a certified aircraft. What do I know about Alex's abilities? Well I did the Rotax "engineers" course with him and have to tell you that he was, in my opinion the most knowledgeable guy in the lectures and in the practicals on the workbench. I can also tell you that he allways steps up and volunteers to help whenever he can. So, I openly support Alex - it's not a cover up attempt - it is the way I feel - he actually cares and does his best - always - and in a draw between bad workmanship or spares failure - I would place my confidence and flight safety in his hands - any day of the week.

So, there you have it - an opinion - from a "Committee Member" who frequents the forum from time to time in a totally unofficial capacity. Stirrer is the "Official" mouth piece of the committee but I'm sure you have read the minutes on the MISASA website - so my apologies to those that have.

The deadline for content for the next mag was 1 April - have a guess how many pages have been sent in? < BUT > I did get a response today - my ear was chewed by the "Official" scribe for a Province who said he did not know who to send articles and photos to as the website and magazine gave him no clues on this - you be the judge on this? He has not sent in content for ages but has over the years contributed from time to time but I must be wrong - so I apologised > for maybe he is right and my e-mail address is unknown and not listed anywhere!

Go on - join the Committee it's fun to serve the members - you'll have a ball!

Fly safe

[John Boucher]

I have tried to remain quiet on this thread for very good reason but seeing that Alan has broken the ice...

Yes, I have taken over Greg's (MORPH) portfolio as Communications Officer. So I manage the PRO side and the Internal Communications side. Why? Someone has to do it but I have to echo Alan's comments - am getting a tad "gatvol" for this idea that members own the committee and wish to fling slanderous accusations around. I do this voluntarily... if you think you can do better - step right up sir! May I remind you that this is a public forum and should one choose the path of mudslinging, one has to accept the the mud that inevitably WILL be thrown back - hence "The Stirrer" label. Now, diplomacy ain't my forte... that is the talent our chairman Donald Hicks was blessed with

This thread was intended to focus on the issue at hand and that of an engine failure after an AP has worked on it. I used to race two-strokes and was quite a fundi on them. You could on the day tell me nothing about expansion boxes, header lengths, taper angles, exhaust port timing (yes that's right!), scavenging angles, Reed valve modification etc. One thing I learnt was that "if it ain't broke, then don't try and fix it..." Well, my motorcycles weren't governed by manufacturers such as ROTAX or official bodies such as CAA, RAASA & MISASA. So, the rules imposed by these bodies is what counts I'm afraid and I too have to abide by them and which I do.

The following -Kindly go and read the following thread of a 503 that lies under the Accident & Incident thread - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15395&start=15

Our appreciation to BUNDY & MADDOG (also from the racing fraternity) for being able to identify the plight we find ourselves in.... MADDOG has neatly put out a technical explanation that I personally think places some perspective on the issue.

Bundy wrote:

I dont agree with the general statements about Misasa though? Be carefull not to paint the whole organisation with one brush. They have acctually done a very good job with the new CARs that they are proposing, especially the section dealing with line maintenance whish will help us pilots a lot! Remember also that it is the engine manufacturer who dictates when a crank has to be inspected.. not Misasa. Without Misasa, you would have no voice to take the manufacturer on about it?

MADDOG wrote:

Some brave unselfish guys from MISASA stepped up to the plate and negotiated the compromise as we now follow.

@mcfly
As for the CPA, this happened prior to 1st April 2011 so your comment may not be entirely correct. We are however concerned as to how this will affect all business... including sir - AP's refusing to stay in business due to slanderous accusations and claims. I wonder how many AP's are going to want to work on an engine in days to come. So, I would be extremely concerned about the prevailing situation. I do believe that one will have to prove negligence - not so?

Just for the record... my Cheetah with a 582 fitted went to Rainbow for a dolly up. Prior to this, the aircraft had stood for almost 3 years. The engine was run intensely for 10 hours prior to the ferry flight from Kimberley to Springs. Why, I am well aware of possible failures after an engine has been worked on. The flight was uneventful bar a minor problem with the carbs. This engine has now been opened up, decoked, gearbox refurbed, carbs set etc. and again I am hyper sensitive to the fact it has to be flown back after "invasive" work done. I am thus not carefree, irresponsible or oblivious to the fact it could fail!

So, you are most welcome to contact Walter or Mike and hear from a third party what my stance is on SAFETY and that what it entails....!