Microlighters

Just thought I would share with you guys out there my situation. I submitted by fax all the details to CAA yesterday for my annual authority to fly renewal.... I had an amazing very quick response. Recieved a call from Mike Cathro personally this morning to say that my plane will not be issued an authority to fly as my 503 Rotax has exeeded the 300 hour overhaul. I presently have 487 hours. He said that they are trying to push the hours to 600 with CAA but this might only come through at the end of this month. He also told me that my plane has been flown illegaly for the past 187 hours. Another thing when the motor is going to be overhauled you are not allowed to do it yourself it HAS to be done by an approved person or Rotax themselves. This is not a personal attack on anybody but just letting you know the lie of the land. Bottom line that's it don't fly or cough up!

One step closer to creating an illegal flying public

It's not just the fact that there is currently an unjust law, it's also the sheer abandon and glee by which it is applied.

He also told me that my plane has been flown illegaly for the past 187 hours

.... and this is my MAJOR issue with the "new" system as your last ATF was probably issued within this same "illegal" period with a blind eye turned by the powers........ now its your problem/fault...

Have I missed something(s)? Thought the crank overhaul thing was NOT applicable to 503's?!

Renier wrote:Have I missed something(s)? Thought the crank overhaul thing was NOT applicable to 503's?!

I thought the same thing!!

Only explenation I can think of, is that they want the 503 to be opened up, checked, measured, and put back together. How stupid would that be??

And I thought I was flying legally??!!??

Just to post my own reply. I know of a company who is going to loose a lot of sales!

Damb Bugger - my Hobbs just stopped working!

Wargames wrote:Only explenation I can think of, is that they want the 503 to be opened up, checked, measured, and put back together. How stupid would that be??

Yes, even though the crank does not have to be replaced you still have to have the engine opened and raped by an AMO, repair centre or recognised AP, who will generally insist in charging you the cost of a small farm only to be closed and fail within the first hour.


In reality this means if your plane has NOT been maintained in the past in accordance to the new law, your log book has not been updated, you have gone over 300 hours, then even though you think you have a valid ATF in fact you are illegal. The fact that 2 years ago you were not required to perform the 300 hour overhaul and had an AP sign out your plane on inspection, means absolutely nothing. You are illegal

You either have to wait until the newer regulations are passed (it could be the 600/750 hour revised maintenance proposal misasa has put forward) or something else. I am not sure about any decisions on the self maintenance bit tho'.

Otherwise, hire an AP, who is recognised, to take your motor out, send it to an authorised repair centre, pay copius quantities of cash, receive overhauled motor, hire an AP to reinstall it, Have the logbook updated by all the relevant parties and apply for another ATF.

That's it, you have bought yourself a few hours, until the AP you hire'd needs to check your spark plugs.

You could also unwittingly not read this message and be blissfully unaware of the legality of your situation of course. I mean I am not forcing you to read this.

So who's asking or pushing for 600 hours, our beloved misasa?

Misasa are asking for first open inspection to be at 600 hours for the 582 and at 750 hours for the 503. At this stage the crank needs to be checked and if found within specification re-installed.

A statement to this effect is expected as per usual by the end of the month. They did not specifiy which month, just the end of it.

CAA cannot force me to endanger my life by opening my engine. They will have to prove in court (after catching me flying) that there are more engine crank failure situations from non-checked engines than from opened engines.

Besides, isn't it cheaper to pay the fine than overall the engine.......

Gadget wrote:Besides, isn't it cheaper to pay the fine than overall the engine.......

Of course you are asking this hyperthetically aren't you Gadget

Gadget wrote:CAA cannot force me to endanger my life by opening my engine. They will have to prove in court (after catching me flying) that there are more engine crank failure situations from non-checked engines than from opened engines.

Besides, isn't it cheaper to pay the fine than overall the engine.......

Hi Gadget,

All depends on the amount of times they catch you. As long as we fly together and share a beer, I won't tell.

Now see wargames, you're my kinda guy. As long as there is beer involved.

We will just have to pitch the tower and get a lookout that can warn us if someone is on the airfield that is not supposed to be there. We need to work out a code word. I mean, we do have about 60 odd airfields in the area.

Now here is a question, if i drive my trike of table mountain without using the engine and glide down and land on an airfield, can they still charge me cause the engine is still attached, although not used? Or do you have to land with the engine running for them to be able to charge you. I will become one of the best engine out landers in the country man.

Uncle Duif, how about some sensible input form you on this mess.

If I do overhaul the motor...think! I will pass that entire cost over to the next buyer..in other words my plane will go up in price to the some of whatever it cost me.