Microlighters

I have recently chatted with Braam at CAA regarding sycamore's fitted with aluminium rotors. Leon de Lange has also been in contact with him. Herewith the latest discussion.

"Thanks for the emails. I had discussions with Pfumelani and we would like to understand what we need to discuss in order to prepare for such a meeting. I have drawn some of the Sycamore files and also looked at their manufacturing data. It would seem that they were only supposed to fit 29 or 31 ft rotors at the factory. We know of 33 ft rotors that were imported from Australia by Gary Butlion. The CAA requested engineering and certification data but received nothing as far as I could determine. What was said is that the Australian equivalent of the CAA has approved the rotors based on field data. After further enquiries it was found that this approval was granted for the 28 ft rotors that were used on single seaters used for cattle round-up. (No approval for 33 ft rotors) The SACAA does not grant approvals based on field data, engineering data is required for certification.

I had discussions with Stefan in the beginning of 2008 requesting the relevant data for the 33 ft rotors in order to update the Sycamore design file. This would have allowed us to approve the application for modifications for aircraft fitted with these rotors easier, because of the existing data set. Stefan told me at the time that it was sent to the CAA and that he could not find his set. (I could not find anything at the CAA so we are sitting with a stale mate). In the mean time the manufacturer of the blades passed away in New Zealand and his daughter took over the business.

I have also made contact with Johan von Ludwig at Wagtail Aviation. They have gone through the certification process for their 33 ft composite rotors and successfully concluded the process. The intention was for him to help the current owners to carry out the testing for the 33 ft Aluminium rotors and then compiling a dataset that can be used by all.

The current challenge is that it would appear that Chair/Sycamore is not in business anymore. (I cannot get hold of Stefan, Braam or anybody else at the factory.) We also do not know how and where the rotors are built. Is it in an approved facility where we can get a Certificate of Conformance? The next challenge will be to prove that all the rotors (33 ft Alu) were built to the same standard. This can only be ensured by a letter from the company with the serial numbers listed etc. This is required to ensure that the developed dataset is valid for all the rotors. If we do not have such a letter one will have to test each rotor set.

I have attached the application for approval of a modification. I think this could be a good starting point. The complete dataset will be required with the application.

We are ready to have a meeting with you but need to know what we have to prepare for. If you could draw up an agenda with discussion points we can prepare and set up a date. Feel free to make contact with Johan von Ludwig at 082 452 8194 or acrochem@mweb.co.za. to find out how far they got with their approach. We have had discussions with Johan regarding the way forward and would like to save time by ensuring that we do not re-invent the wheel every time an owner wants to know about the 33 ft rotors. If we know who the owners are we can collectively deal with all at the same time and conclude the process. I have asked Gary for a list of people that he supplied rotors to, but he have not yet supplied the list. Our problem is the fact that the rotors were fitted to aircraft without mod approvals, without updating the flight manuals, without signing it out in the airframe logbook etc. This means that the CAA issues the Authorities to Fly on a yearly basis, based on the documentation submitted. It would then seem that the information submitted is incorrect "

It would thus seem that the only way to go is to have the modification approved by ourselves. Those sycamore owners that are willing to take part in this process, please contact me on tonyda@iafrica.com. I have also clarified with Braam that the modification will be only be vaild for those sycamore units and pilots that take part in this process, as the collective team will own the intellectual property. This is to stop free riding by others.

Good Day All.

The CAA is currently revisiting the Sycamores and the rotors and rotor heads fitted to them. There has been discussions, where the CAA tried to understand the modification status of the various Sycamores, as on the register. Leon de Lange, spearheaded the owner team and basic discussions were planned with the Manager of Certification at the CAA (Pfumelani Ndala) in order to clear the issue.

At the time it was decided to focus on the integrity of the owners and AP's and trust the documents submitted. It has recently come to the CAA's attention that the information submitted was not always truthfull. (Rotors changed without any paperwork). The owners were issued the ATF based on the submitted documents, although the rotors were changed without modification approval or logbook entries. (The owners knew this, but it was not visible to the CAA due to the lack of supplied documents) It is illegal to fly with unapproved modifications, even if you have a valid ATF. Remember the validity of the ATF is coupled to the aircraft status through the reference to the various parts in the legislation. These must be complied with at all times. See Part 24 and 94 amongst others

Some logbooks were inspected and it was found that Stefan Grove through the factory did exchange some rotors and that that the modification process were followed. The modification was applied for and logbook entries were made.

CAA is now faced with a situation were they need to proceed further with this. The options may be to ask the owner/AP for a report on the Rotor System for compliance to the build standard, or to ground all the Sycamore aircraft and request an inspection.

Herewith the documentation thread followed at the CAA where the principle of voluntry compliance and trusting the signatures of the owner and AP was used.

The statement made by the owner on Form CA 103-03

4. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS

This is to certify that to the best of my (our) knowledge, all data contained in this application is correct and that the above-mentioned aircraft complies
in all respects with the applicable requirements of the "Provisions" and any other requirements of which I/ we have been notified by the Commissioner
for Civil Aviation.
The aircraft has now flown a total of ……………………………….……………………. hours and the logbook accurately reflects all the flying hours
and maintenance history of the aircraft. I / we therefore apply for the aircraft to be issued with an Authority to Fly.
………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………….…………………………………
Signature of owner (s) /agent Date

and also the statement made by the AP on Form CA 103-04

7.3 All modifications have been approved by the Commissioner Yes

8. An annual inspection of the aircraft was made on (date)………………………………and the aircraft is serviceable and the
requirements of Document LSI have been complied with and was certified in the logbook to be in an airworthy condition.
Date of last flight .....................………………………....... and if applicable hours by which annual inspection was
overflown ………………. hours.
9. This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, all data contained in this notification is correct and that the
above-mentioned aircraft complies in all respects with the applicable requirements of the "Provisions" and any
other requirements of which I/ we have been notified by the Commissioner for Civil Aviation. The aircraft has
now flown a total of ……………………………….………… hours and the logbook accurately reflects all the
flying hours and maintenance history of the aircraft. A copy of the last page of the logbook and this notification
will be dispatched to the Commissioner within 48 hours.

Certified by............................…………….…………………..….. Signature .…..............……………………........

Date : ..............………………….. Place : ...………..………........ Licence no/Approval stamp:............……

The ATF is the issued by the Authority with the following proviso

3.The above mentioned aircraft is hereby issued with an authority to fly in terms of Part 24.02.03 of Civil Aviation Regulations 1997, as amended with respect to the aircraft detailed in paragraph 2 of this permit. This permit replaces the requirement for the issue of a certificate of airworthiness in terms of regulation 21.08.1A
4.4 All the requirements of Part 24 and Part 94 of the Civil Aviation Regulations, 1997, as amended, are met.

Parts 24 and 94 can be found on http://www.caa.co.za, look under Acts and Regulations.

Leon and Johan von Ludwig has tried to muster all the affected owners to work on a combined solution. It would seem that nothing has transpired thus far.

Are there any solutions from the forum, as the CAA would not like to resolve the matter from a regulatory point of view.

Your input will be highly appreciated.

Greetings and fly safely
Braam Hechter

Any feedback?

So only 29ft or 31ft rotors were legit for the Sycamore?

Here's an easy mod for those sycamore owners with 33ft rotors....

Dave, you come near RDR with that hacksaw I'll put John Boucher on you.
If you do choose to go that way on other machines, dont forget to get CAA approval for the mod

For the record... My Sycamore, ZU-RDR, has a factory fitted 31ft Aluminium rotor from Advanced Kinetics and the logbook and serial number etc reflect this.

I was given a copy of the letter sent to CAA by Chayair/Sycamore at the time the approval was requested and granted and therefore believe that my machine is compliant. I hope this is still the case?

I am eager and willing to assist in providing copies of the documents that I have should they be required although they are by no means engineering specs.

Druk net op my nommer en ek stuur dit aan.

Rgds

Len

Yeeeehaaaa - I have "eventually" received the ATF for the sycamore with the ali rotors - after nearly 18 months of to-ing and fro-ing. Thanks to Braam and Andre for their resilience in helping with this, and especially to Johan from Wagtail. Good luck to all you other fellows!! Now to get it into the air.............

Good Day All.
I trust you are doing well and looking at a relaxing weekend.
There has been an accident on the 17 th of October 2013, where the pilot of a Sycamore heard a sudden loud noise. Following the noise, the gyrocopter immediately pitched nose down and the propeller tips struck the lower support beam structure. The pilot stated that he had difficulty controlling the gyro-copter from then onward. He had identified a gravel road below and with the control available to him was able to execute a forced landing but touched down hard resulting in substantial damage. Nobody was injured in the accident. Following an assessment of the structure it would appear that the main mast assembly had bent backwards slightly during flight. The rotor head is also under investigation. (Look under the Sycamore accident thread) There may be some unusual wear on the components.
There is an investigation into the Sycamore fleet and it would seem that from reading the Pilot Operating Handbook, which limits the gyro to a MAUW of 450 kg, there is the possibility that Sycamores are operated beyond the design limitations. After investigating the design and the strength of the mast and rotor head, it would seem that the design limits will be exceeded if the gyro is operated beyond the 450kg and with a rotor larger than the rotor as was fitted at the factory. It would also seem that rotors were changed in the fleet without going through the modification process. This poses a threat, and some owners may be operating gyros without understanding the status of the aircraft. Some Approved Persons are also signing out the gyros serviceable without the gyro adhering to the design standard.
There are gyros that were modified with a stronger mast and improved rotor head to absorb all the inherent loading. These modification were approved by the CAA after a thorough engineering / certification process.
It is suggested that Sycamore owners ascertain themselves of the status of their aircraft baseline. A formal writ will be issued by the CAA shortly.
Greetings
Braam Hechter

Hi Braam

How can the MAUW be 450 kg and empty weight 380 kg ? This gives you a 70 kg pilot with no fuel.

Is this not a legacy issue from the first registrations when microlights were limited to 450 kg and subsequently increased to 600 kg ?

T-bird

They must just quickly do the mod, no biggy

Before Rotor Mod: After Rotor Mod:

DOT...................DOT VERY CLEVER
SCARY PILOT

I have a set of Sycamore doors for anyone who is having problems keeping his chickens inside the cockpit of his gyro in the back yard.....
Seriously, I do have a set which can be collected for free at Eagles Creek, and you can have the original pre-rotator and flexible cable too if you need a spare.

Henni will come to pick it up.He lost a set at Wagtail.He will call.Thanks Rampant Rat.Hope you will be happy with the Trojan.
SCARY PILOT

braam hechter wrote:Good Day All.
I trust you are doing well and looking at a relaxing weekend.
There has been an accident on the 17 th of October 2013, where the pilot of a Sycamore heard a sudden loud noise. Following the noise, the gyrocopter immediately pitched nose down and the propeller tips struck the lower support beam structure. The pilot stated that he had difficulty controlling the gyro-copter from then onward. He had identified a gravel road below and with the control available to him was able to execute a forced landing but touched down hard resulting in substantial damage. Nobody was injured in the accident. Following an assessment of the structure it would appear that the main mast assembly had bent backwards slightly during flight. The rotor head is also under investigation. (Look under the Sycamore accident thread) There may be some unusual wear on the components.
There is an investigation into the Sycamore fleet and it would seem that from reading the Pilot Operating Handbook, which limits the gyro to a MAUW of 450 kg, there is the possibility that Sycamores are operated beyond the design limitations. After investigating the design and the strength of the mast and rotor head, it would seem that the design limits will be exceeded if the gyro is operated beyond the 450kg and with a rotor larger than the rotor as was fitted at the factory. It would also seem that rotors were changed in the fleet without going through the modification process. This poses a threat, and some owners may be operating gyros without understanding the status of the aircraft. Some Approved Persons are also signing out the gyros serviceable without the gyro adhering to the design standard.
There are gyros that were modified with a stronger mast and improved rotor head to absorb all the inherent loading. These modification were approved by the CAA after a thorough engineering / certification process.
It is suggested that Sycamore owners ascertain themselves of the status of their aircraft baseline. A formal writ will be issued by the CAA shortly.
Greetings
Braam Hechter

i Have requested that Braam Hechter publish the failure of the mast/rotorhead report by CAA on this forum,with all the relevant photo's and documents.This investigation is still ongoing but should be available in two weeks.Please correct me if i am wrong.Thank you Braam.
SCARY PILOT

Good Day All.

Sorry Frans, you have inaccurate information. The Accident Investigation Division at Department of Transport will make the report public when they are finished with their investigation.

Greetings
Braam

Thank you for the correction Braam.Really appreciate that.
SCARY PILOT