Part 24 : First issue to debate.

[Hot Stuff]

Beaver, Ditto

[John Waterson]

I agree that the Rotax manual should be used as a guideline.

On our 503, decoked every 150 hours using top grade semi synthetic oil, it was less than half way to spec at 450 hours. We all know that a well looked after 503 will run without stoppage to 1000 hours plus. Most importantly is how the engine is treated. Oils used, fuel pipes maintained/replaced, frequency of use, shock cooling descents, JETTING, and carburettor balance. An abused engine may well pack up in under the 300 hours.

I do not believe that pilot/owners should be allowed to do their own major servicing and repairs involving opening the crank case, removing the head or dismantling the timing, gearbox and ignition systems.

I think that all maintenance requiring partial or complete dismantling should be done by a person who is qualified and examined on the specific engine. Such a person should be an AP or AMO who is current, has been notified by the engine agent or manufacturer of any bulletins and has passed an examination on the maintenance and repair of that specific engine.

I think that an annual inspection by AP or AMO should at the very least include an engine ground run.

Remember, an instructor is not necessarily an AP or AMO. NTCA pilots and instructors are requesting semi commercial operations, flips, photography, sardine spotting, game counting etc and often requiring a passenger on board. We have a responsibility to the paying public to maintain a high standard of aircraft airworthiness. This does require some regulation. I recall the tragic death of a 10 year old at Morgan Bay who’s Mum and Dad had bought him a flip on a Trike, I recall also the tragic death of the French Photographer working for Le Gallete’ film crew on the Wild coast.

I don’t think changing oil and plugs or cleaning air filter requires a great deal more skill than mixing fuel for refuelling. Carb balancing and jet selection must also be able to be done by pilot/owners. I think that annual inspections and opening of engines is done too infrequently by owner/pilots to maintain any reasonable level of competence.

There should be an independent category for home made engines (VW’s cut in half , single ignition engines etc) Where the reliability of the engine is in question, such an aircraft should be restricted to pilot only and no flying over built areas.

[RudiGreyling]

<SNIP>

I do not believe that pilot/owners should be allowed to do their own major servicing and repairs involving opening the crank case, removing the head or dismantling the timing, gearbox and ignition systems.

I think that all maintenance requiring partial or complete dismantling should be done by a person who is qualified and examined on the specific engine. Such a person should be an AP or AMO who is current, has been notified by the engine agent or manufacturer of any bulletins and has passed an examination on the maintenance and repair of that specific engine.
<SNIP>

Hi John,

I respectfully disagree, I want the choice, I have opened my Rotax engine, redone it, I'm no AP or AMO. I did the research bought the tools and handled it with more care than I think an AP or AMO would. If I can then anyone willing to research and learn can. These Rotaxes are the simplicity themselves. Just like pilots if you take care and are disciplined you can do it.

Point in case, a fellow close friend and pilot had his engine completely redone by a reputable Rotax Shop. Shop forgot to to tighten his main jet. Result Engine out after +/- 2 hours of flight. Lucky for him a perfectly smooth landing in an open field. I landed next to him, inspected found main jet almost out, tighten it up, start up and take off, flying into the future for 100 hours more before he sold it.

Some people don't want to, and that's ok, just give us that want to, the choice.

Regards
Rudi

[Beaver 550]

Labour rate at an AMO is about R400.00 per hour. Not that cost is an issue. It is all about safety they say. It is about accountabilaty and traceablity. The only problem is the orginisations want to move the accountability to someone els. When they started with AMO's for tipe certified aircraft years ago we were told the AMO can afford to have insurance for claims against them. If they were intrested in Safety they would apoint more inspectors and deploy them into the field.

[John Waterson]

Hi Rudi

I have no doubt that you are as careful as you say and that you have the aptitude, ability and responsibility to ensure that your aircraft and engine are maintained in good serviceable condition. The problem lies with those who do not. I am all for freedom of choice, but such freedom of choice must never come at a cost to others. It is the trusting and often ignorant passenger:- friend, girlfriend, child or trainee pilot for that matter who need protection.
Take a 19 year old who has bought himself one of the many second hand trikes that are so often left corroding in a hangar some place. He may not have fixed a bicycle or a lawnmower in his life before. He probably does not have money to throw around so opts to do a bit of his own maintenance and repair work. It will only takes one small error or omission, through lack of knowledge, skill or training and it could be your daughter, brother or friend gliding or even worse falling to earth with a quiet Reliable Rotax behind them.

The point that I am making is that the pilot is generally in an informed position to make choices. If he screws up it is his problem. What about the passenger’s choices. Under your set of rules or no rules we should not be allowed to carry passengers. In a reasonably regulated environment, the risks are lessened and the passenger afforded some level of protection.

[Barnstormer]

Rudi

Well put. I agree.

John. Yes and No. I see your point.

But, think of it this way: Even if the 19-year you describe had everything done by a OMA/AP and he uses dirty petrol or fiddles a bit anyway because he is curios and never had the exposure, so he is actually experimenting, something can go wrong. Rather give him responsibility from the start, then he would be more keen to ask for help and advice.

I once was in a terrible accident with a French car... the airbag didn't work. Car was ONLY serviced by the pros, on time, every time and it was quite new.
Now, something went wrong because the dude who put the darn airbag in didn't care much in my opinion. I probably would have been better of if I read up on the subject, asked a knowledgeable mate to assist and install myself.

BTW, I had another car from that manufacturer which broke a rocker in the same year. Guess what they said? Sorry, it has happened before and yes it wasn't your fault and yes the car did have low mileage but this is not covered by the warranty.

Thus: Sh!t happens when you trust other people to do things the right way. Rely on yourself if your life is on the line. But don't be stupid, read up, get advice and let someone knowledgeable help.

2c

[drothman]

Brainstormer

I fully agree with you. When your own life is at stake and you know it, (specially for those of us with family) you put safety first. Safety starts from the time that you fill your tank with pertol till the time you park your trike in the hangar. Yes there are rocket science wannebies out there and whether you like it or not they will try something stupid someday and maybe just maybe get away with it. Just look on the road tomorrow morning when you go to work. They are even on the road travelling to work next to you. (lucky no trike-taxis yet )

But it might not be a bad idea to actually make all pilots more aware of safety isues. Even if you print out a poster of the Sugested Rotax maintenance shedule, laminate it and put it in your hangar to make all aware of things that need to be changed and when. If you see that there might be someone in your hanger with "Maintenance" isues, rather make him a checklist for his trike (based on the preflight stuff you recieved from your instructor when you did your MPL.......remember that piece of paper ) and give it to him as a birthday present or something. That way he won't feel offended (as a lot of us often do) and he might just actually learn something. Today we live in a country of democracy and choice. (no I am not a politician) If you don't have the propper knowledge to work on your engine or feel uncomfortable, then you have a choice to take it to someone who has the knowledge. Me personally......as flying is my passion, I have made a study of all documentation and technical stuff I can find about the Rotax engine. (actually not so complicated....log on to www.rotax-owner.com and register then they send it to you). I have made a point of it to regularly go through all the service docs and stuff. I choose to do it myself as I only trust my own work. (My choice......democracy).
Lets educate and help rather that condone and try and put people in cages.
Hell there is enough rubbish going around everyday so that we dont have to stuff up our little weekend time of flying as well.

Dave you have our full support!

Derik
@Harties

[skybound®]

Safety starts from the time that you fill your tank with pertol till the time you park your trike in the hangar.

Safety starts at home - making sure you are up to date with Notams, wx reports etc

[RudiGreyling]

<SNIP>
Lets educate and help rather that condone and try and put people in cages.
<SNIP>

Point in case:
503 Tear Down: viewtopic.php?t=2057
Carb Tear Down:viewtopic.php?t=2129

Done last year and lost in the old post archives...My Pleasure
Rudi

[FAWGie]

I don't think that regulation solves the problem, because there will always be those that will "tinker"....

I think it should be up to the individual to decide and as a responsible pilot, let an AP/AMO do the maintenance if they are not of sufficient technical level or personally time restricted.

The annual inspection should be comprehensive to declare the aircraft airworthy or not and should include engine runs, etc.... (AMO's have to do a flight test on the aircraft before release) It should be the responsibility of the AP/AMO during that annual inspection to determine that the required standard is maintained.....

[lamercyfly]

The new part 24 Technical standards do have an inspection check-list which the AP has to use......and it does cover an engine run-up.

Pretty similar to the inspection checklist which I received when I did my MISASA AP course............

see SA-CATS-NTCA Annexure A (page NTCA 42)

What it does not require is a test flight.........

I personally think that a trike should be test flown, just to tweak it and make sure it has no horrible stall or turn or handling characteristics........

What it has also left out on a flex wing, is the checking of all battons to batton profile.......

There is still so much work to be done........Aish.......

[Beaver 550]

I agree : education, disipline, common sense and pride in doing the the right thing. If you do not know what is right ask someone that knows.

[John Waterson]

Thanks guys for the responses. As I started out, “I am all for freedom of choice….”. You must remember that the participants in this debate are obviously familiar with their a/c engines. The ones keeping quiet are a bit skaam to chirp as they will not want to be shown up. Personally I have always been in attendance when our AP is working on our a/c. Firstly he will do an excellent job if his customer is peering over his shoulder and secondly, it is the perfect opportunity to learn from one another. I have obviously learnt a great deal more from him than he from me. I still maintain that some regulation is necessary in the interests of public and aviation safety.

Call me a CAA Boetie if you wish, but the primary function of CAA is to ensure aviation and public safety. If you want to be seen by CAA to be acting in the public interest you will have to show a willingness to see the picture from the regulators perspective. To condemn regulation on the one hand and then to ask for self regulation on the other is a contradiction. The AP system needs to be considered as well. If we have 3000 NTCA aircraft flying and we have 300 AP’s and all that AP’s are required to do is Annual Inspections, how many technicians are going to bother to do an AP course or remain current? I believe that the AP system is not sustainable without obligatory AP participation in maintenance and repair.

To draw comparisons with risks of driving a car is not what we are after here. Your car will stop at the road side 99 times out of 100 when you encounter a problem. Not so the aircraft. We all know exactly how bad South Africa’s accident record has been in the past year or so, Certified and NTCA. CAA were not responsible for these accidents.

[DieselFan]

South Africa’s accident record has been in the past year or so, Certified and NTCA. CAA were not responsible for these accidents.

So are the AP's to blame? I knew nothing about Rotax engines when I got my lic, but was FORCED to learn VERY fast as my experience with 2 AP's over the first 3 months meant if I was to stay in the air I had to learn about my engine. I then downloaded as many tech manuals and schedules as possible - forum helped loads to. Thanks Rudi!

I'm for self maintenance and an AP should only be used for the ATF and when the pilot doesn't feel comfortable.

I've seen a plane get AP'd by the manfacturer and passed only to find a couple cracks here and there, broken shocks and couple wing concerns. Plane was then stripped and inspected personally with a toothcomb. My confidence in AP's or qualified people is very low - sorry but thats my experience.

I would trust a passionate person / friend / hanger mate before I trust a piece of paper emphasis on passionate.

[lamercyfly]

Hi John.

I think that you are maybe forgetting that this page is the microlighters and a couple of gyros page. AVCOM is dealing with the rest of NTCA.

What we are talking about, is mostly microlight issues, and this does not include what will become LSA.

Bear this in mind, and I think you may alter your opinion slightly in our favour

trikes and true fixed wing microlights (think Bantam, Skyranger'w with 582 motors, pioneer flightstars, Thunderbirds , quick-silvers, old MAC CDL's etc., ) really don't need AMO's and Strict maintenance schedules.......They just simply don't.......And this will be motivated in the interest of safety......

Kind regards, and thank you too for your valuable input. I am sure we have all had our thinking caps on over the past 10 days