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

[Xyster]

EDITED BY MODS AS INAPPROPRIATE TO THIS FORUM

[skybound®]

Wow! Thats quite a list Iceman

I will do the best with the info that I have (although I am no official and have no microphone )

1) Do 503`s need religious 300hr replacements or not?- read back- some say definately/ some say not applicable
2) Do 582`s need religious 300hr replacements or not?- once again some say yes- some say depends- some say "wait for the final outcome"

I have done some concrete research on this and can see where the confusion comes in and perhaps one of the reasons no direct answer (with documented proof) is forthcoming.

The general maintenance plan published in 1994 was only specific to the 462, 532 & 582 engines. This was updated in 1999 and includes 447, 503 and both versions of the 582.

The 1994 version defined the overhaul as

10) Contact Rotax Distributor or service centre
ATTENTION: Basically all bearings and gaskets and the crankshaft is renewed at general overhaul. All other parts which are subject to wear and 60% of the wear limit is reached have to be renewed too.

The 1999 version of the same document is silent regarding a definition of a general overhaul, but IMHO is probably so owing to the practices that were already in place and Rotax assumed that their service centres knew by that stage what a General Overhaul consisted of.

The fact that it is a single document covering the 503 and 582 would suggest that the statement of 503s not requiring a crank change may in fact be incorrect as there is no distinction in the maintenance plan.

The 1999 issue also brought the 5 year period in to play.

3) Are ATF`s issued last year (that exceeded 300hrs) automatically considered null and void as of 01/01/2008?- Where is the supporting notifications to owners on this one?- are we grounded or not coz i still see plenty trikes flying daily.

No they will not become null & void. In fact the ATFs are of no real consequence other than indicating that a 3rd party has inpected your aircraft (AP) and it was deemed to be airworthy at that inspection.

The deciding factor as it has always been - the aircraft must be airworthy before every flight.

It is the definition of airworthy that has changed on 1 Jan 2008, and will be the deciding factor if the aircraft can legally be flown. To be airworthy - aircraft must have been maintained in accordance with the maintenance manual.

4) Do we need an approved person to change a plug or hose clamp or not?- once again i still see MPLs meticulously changing their own plugs, oil and filters- are they all wrong, ingnoring the law- or waiting for instruction.

Ignorance, ignoring, who knows - but according to the current regulations unless they are APs they may not do their own maintenance.

Read 24.03.1, 43.02.2 and CATS-GMR-11 and you will see.

5) If the issue is closed and written in stone, what excatly are the role players, agents and CAA meeting about (previous and upcoming)?

To try and re-write another set of words on a more logical stone

6) If the 300hr replacement period is cast in stone, why has it been disregarded for so long and ATF been issued?

Many factors. APs never enforced it and probably more so, the CAA were not entirely on a rock platform to enforce Part 24 before 1 Jan 2008. Part 24 has been in place since 2002 as it was brought in through a special procedure in Part 11. Some owners back then threatened CAA if they ever enforced its content. CAA knowing that it had not gone the full promulgation process were probably not keen to go to court on it.

7) Will all other discepencies be immediately addressed eg NGK plugs, in the same manner as the cranks?

I am not sure on how prescriptive the law or a maintenace manual can be on consumables. I dont beleive there is any text or suggestions that you cannot use different brands of consumables.

If the 300hr is cast in stone, then whats all the speculation about increasing "life" to perhaps 450hrs?

Extensions have been allowed in the past even on type certified aircraft. No harm in a bunch of guys trying to get CAA to consider an extension on the crank. If I was them, they should also include other items like spark plugs.

Hope that helps some and is only my un-official 2c worth using as many of real concrete facts.

[Xyster]

EDITED BY MODS AS INAPPROPRIATE TO THIS FORUM

Dear Mods,
Sorry for asking but how can a reply/reaction on a previous post be inapropriate to this forum?

We as a microlight community is standing to loose thousands of rands in this situation. The only guy to gain financially by this is arrogant enough to call us babies because we don't want to part that easily with our money.

I only want to show that the actual problem don't come from our beloved CAA but from Rotax and it's sole agent in SA.

Please EDIT if you need but don't remove it completly.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Morph, Speak to Mike Cathro.

If your 503 has more than 300 hours on it without a crank change you will not receive an ATF. The 300 hours crank rule applies to all 2 stroke Rotax engines according to CAA.

My advice is we need to start looking at alernative automotive engines that dont have a maintenance schedule set in stone. That way you can write your own schedule and not have to worry

While I can confirm what Chunky says (verbally not in writing), the one begging question remains..... WHY CAN I NOT RUN MY ROTAX LIKE I WANT TO IF I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT LIABILITY - THE AERIE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR C OF A IN ANICASE? (ie remove dataplate and thus it no longer covered by warranty etc...) Why force the microlight frat to replace a reliable engine with a K@K (or still to be proved homebuilt) one. (582 for automotive engines) Again the fact that they are now choosing to enforce the 300hr issue is BULLSHIT - End of story. Say what you will CAA are to blame. Nothing has changed since 1/1/08 OTHER than CAA's interpretation and enforcement of the RATTEX MANUAL which is aimed at limiting liability in USA where lawsuits are big business. I again fail to see the logic or motive behind it. ICAO does not govern microlights and thus this has nothing to do with the ICAO audit. Where does the guy who builds his own trike fit into all of this? He does 40hrs proving and then he never has to overhaul his engine if he so chooses? WTF. Someone has lost the plot......

THe inspectors have been employed to do a job. Maybe they can shed some light as to why the change of interpretation and enforcement of the 300hr issue. IT IS THE LAW IS A K@K REAON AS IT HAS BEEN THE LAW FOR SOME TIME AND WAS NOT DONE WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE...

PS
The 5 year thing will def become an issue. If it in the maunal they will NEVER be able to justify enforcing it selectively. That beg's the question. If you fly less than 300hrs in 5 years then you in same boat... US LIABILITY SYSTEM is not applicable here. WHY WHY WHY... I spent a most frustrating week with CAA last week and all my things were in order and I knew exactly what they were looking for. I can't imagine the frustration trying to deal with this issue....

[RV4ker (RIP)]

EDITED BY MODS AS INAPPROPRIATE TO THIS FORUM

Wasn't me

[skybound®]

...which is aimed at limiting liability in USA where lawsuits are big business.

And even worse - they dont even have to comply with the maintenance manual in that country

Even a privately owned type certified aircraft can be operated past TBO in the USA and overhauled on condition.

I think we need to push that point to CAA about that owners could very well start a move to 'experimental' engines - and individual experimentation. That cannot be entirely good for safety.

I beleive we should still hold our faith in the process that is in motion and hopefully some sense will prevail at the Carcom meeting at end of this month.

[Wargames]

There has been a lot said on this forum about this topic, and as I see the following:

• Everybody loves flying and all of us would like to do so legally

Now the problem comes with the part were we as a group do not stand together. We are devided into 2 groups.

• The group that can afford the TBO and will do so to be legal.

• The group that don't have the finances to do the TBO, but who want to be legal.

This is the part we must make a decision and stick with it.

I would like that everybody refrain to do the TBO untill all is sorted out between Aeroclub and CAA with regards to the rotax manual. If 50% of the rotax owners do their overhaul out of free will, that will give Aeroclub no foot to stand on, but if everyone refrain, Then we can tell CAA that nobody is happy about the current reading of part 24 and that they must make plan and change it back to where it is suppose to be, an Experimental/sport/fun category.

This is just an proposal, but I do believe it is the way to go.

Like to hear what the thoughts are on this!!

[John Boucher]

Wargames

I love to agree with you on the boycott side. My aircraft is being used for training purposes. If it does not fly, I might as well let Wesbank take it back! There was a time when CXO was doing close on to 300 hours per annum and this equates to some serious costs.

I dry leased my plane as to not lose it in the entangled web of divorce & possibly to get enough funds raised to TBO the engine. Enter the Circus Against Aviation and some bright spark that should have lost his path down the main stream of Eskom and have his lights kicked out and someone I can compare to the coniving mannerisms of my suing wife's lawyer! Eish..... sorry about that.... tis true though!

I would love to agree on boycotting... but if I do, I lose my plane! Methinks the same should be done on 300 hours as is on 150 hours and if the crank is found to be in spec - leave the bloody thing in!!!!

That is why I would rather look at alternatives such as Jabi, 912 & possibly the diesel Smarts & Raptor 105.

[Wargames]

I love to agree with you on the boycott side. My aircraft is being used for training purposes. If it does not fly, I might as well let Wesbank take it back! There was a time when CXO was doing close on to 300 hours per annum and this equates to some serious costs.

Bad Nav,

Surely there will always be guys that do such things for a living, and for that reason only I do understand your situation. I do agree with you on your statement of 150 hours check, and to duplicate the method at 300 hours. It only makes sense.

Now surely the instructors and okes making a living out of flying in our category is in the minimum, and is only good practice to have your planes in good shape. But the other guys must stand together to keep NTCA just that.

The irony for me lies in the following:

• Rotax manual states that the engine, due to its design, is subject to suddden stopages.

Now because of this problem, we must service our engines and TBO at 300, to do what?? Stop it from stopping on us in midair??

I just do not understand that!

[skidmark]

Can you imagine the rush? The stock loading at our local agent is going to be a joke if this what it's said to be... How many 503's and 582's do they have out there? . Our local agent has only but been extremely helpful to me in the past and I hold no bone s with them. But this is going to ground the majority of us and push prices through the roof. We are already a nation under pressure this just makes it worse. Correct me should I be out of line when was the last accident fatal or not from a failed crank? I don't know because I haven't heard of one. I may be out of touch on that one. I've got 487 hours on my 503 and she hasn't missed a beat. Now I can't sell her because of this. I bought it at 452 hrs and it had not done a overhaul AND I WAS GIVEN an authourity to fly! Now they want to punish the AP's. Please get this story sorted as nobody seems to know what the heck is going on. CAA a re very happy to cash my check ...THEN refuse my authority to fly...?????????? You can have my money when I have my goods!

[Leprachaun]

I just wonder how many government officials are employed/ owners of AMOs, ???
A direct conflict of business practices , I wonder................ ??
Nice way to generate extra income, specially if times are tough - I visited the Rotax guys last week and nowhere does it state to replace the crank of the 503 in the maintenance manual , they confirmed , check at 300 hours!
So I rest my case , maybe some legal eagles can look into the conflict of business practices here , Leprachaun.

[skybound®]

Other than the 462, 532 & 582 manual from 1994 which does define the overhaul stating that the crank is to be replaced on those motors, I have not seen any later definition. Any chance someone has that?

If one looks at the costs of the actual crank, it may only account for as little as 30% of the 300 hour overhaul cost. Added to that the other 39 items that now require maintenance may also make the overhaul item insignificant in the total scheme of things.

Dont get hung up on the crank replacement cost alone. Maybe time to cost those 39 other items.

[Aerosan]

Who do I speak to at the CAA regarding my Rotax 643 engine and how to interpret the original Ski-do owners manual that says bugger all about crank, spark plug or any other replacement.

[ZULU1]

Gentlemen..

I also have been watching this topic, obviously we are all obvious of the basic facts. It just makes flying with a Rotax expensive.

My thoughts are quite simple:

I don't think its possible to negotiate out of this one, (hopefully I maybe wrong).

I owned a 582 a while back and studied it in detail, its not a complicated piece of kit. Maybe with the help of Niren and some other forum Engineers we could come up with a simple and economical way of splitting the crank, measuring and a Xray procedure. Bearing replacement and possibly rebranding 582/za as a drop in local economical short block.

If this was cheap enough to do then a 300 hr rush wouldn't be a disaster. some legal eagles could write a "revised" owners manual and with a few amos around. Create a reasonable alternative. I see that certain bike service centres in Gauteng offer a crank rebuild service for about R6k. Same technology..

I am prepared to give it a go and I am sure that Niren could source the bearings for the project from Rotax. Failing that then we have sufficient resources available to us to arrange to manufacture same.

Maybe then use the wealth of negotiating skills (in conjunction with Niren) on the forum to rather get a local "acceptable" alternative than to beat a closed door down ?? This way we as "pilots" are at least showing good will to the powers at CAA.


We are not beaten yet..my years of industrial design and manufacturing skills have taught me the fundamentals. there must be a better way !!

Zulu1

[Miskiet]

There is - Hirth engines have a 1000 hr crank life!