Part 24 is active. Is you Authority to fly still valid?

[skybound®]

We have all heard of our mates saying - ahh no, not going to service or crack open a working engine at the 300 hour mark - will worry about that when it gets to 1,000 hours. Spark plugs - change at 25 hours - gotta be kidding - that was only true for old single ignition motors and older spark plug technology.

Looks like according to CAA that if you have not followed the manufacturers recomendations your authority to fly is invalid. Also I guess that the AP who signs it out could also land up in hot water if he signed it out without the evidence to support that the NTCA has been maintained according to the manufacturers schedule.

Current Rotax documentation specifies change of plugs at 25 hours and a overhaul at 300 hours. I am wondering how many aircraft are maintained to that level.

[DieselFan]

I think before people click on the first item, we should post the full rotax schedule! I personally know of two guys who thought they were up there with the pedans and after the truth was revealed...they'd now be a option 2.

[Henni]

Looks like according to CAA that if you have not followed the manufacturers recomendations your authority to fly is invalid.

Also I guess that the AP who signs it out could also land up in hot water if he signed it out without the evidence to support that the NTCA has been maintained according to the manufacturers schedule.

Do you really think that anyone would openly admit to not complying to any of these?

Henni

[skybound®]

Got this one - not 100% sure it is the current one - but am sure it must be pretty close.

http://www.rotax-owner.com/si_tb_info/s ... /3ul91.pdf

[skybound®]

Looks like according to CAA that if you have not followed the manufacturers recomendations your authority to fly is invalid.

Also I guess that the AP who signs it out could also land up in hot water if he signed it out without the evidence to support that the NTCA has been maintained according to the manufacturers schedule.

Do you really think that anyone would openly admit to not complying to any of these?

Henni

Yes, even on this forum. If you read viewtopic.php?t=4561 by implacation items are not being checked according to the schedule.

I have even heard people brag about how good their motors are when they opened them for the first time at 1000 hours.

Our local AP was at a conference the other day, and the message he got is that APs are going to be under more presure to ensure the aircraft that are signed out by them are maintained in accordance with manufacturers requirements.

[DieselFan]

APs are going to be under more presure to ensure the aircraft that are signed out by them are maintained in accordance with manufacturers requirements.

I can see a surge of rotax 2 strokes for sale...

[skybound®]

I can see a surge of rotax 2 strokes for sale...

Not sure that this hot potato only relates to the 2 stroke guys. I know of a few people that have put timex Continental and Lycomings into their homebuilt aeries. Even know of a C150 re-registered as a K150 to try and get around timex issues.

I am wondering if they as the homebuilder re-write the manufacturers specification, allowing the motor to go past it's manufacturers recomended times. After all with a homebuilt - the homebuilder is the aircraft 'manufacturer' and I guess with them being one off's the liability is limited.

On the other hand, the factory built NTCAs, the manufacturer simply add the engine manufacturer's maintenance schedule to their documentation. Can't see any of the factories being bold enough to increase time limits on components etc.

[KFA]

I think that for the most part the manufacturers are overly cautious(spelling?) with the TBO because they can not know how the engine is being treated. If all external checks like compression, blowby, radiator pressure etc are within spec's I can see no reason for a perfectly working engine to be opened.

[ICEMAN]

My AP mentioned that somewhere in the rotax documentation fineprint in very very very small letters, it states somewhere that the product (ie the rotax motor) is not intended for aviation purposes.......... that being the case then surely if the CAA want to run everything to the letter wrt motor maintainance and AP`s they can start by grounding every ntca with a rotax in it.... can anyone confirm this rumour or do we need to get the mythbusters onto it?


His advice regarding opening it up without good reason is if the motor "aint itching" and everything is within normal ranges, then "dont scratch"!!!

Just for the record, my plugs are done every 12hrs!


Now that ive grounded every rotax in SA , and blown everyones life insurance cover , its time for Coat, Hat, Door

[Boet]

So, if it is not broken? I do not fix it????

[ICEMAN]

Boet unless of course it is showing signs of wear and tear (according to my AP )

But i would still like to know if anyone has actually seen the alleged small print regarding aviation usage of the rotax, it could stir a lively bunfight on the forum .........

[DieselFan]

My AP mentioned that somewhere in the rotax documentation fineprint in very very very small letters, it states somewhere that the product (ie the rotax motor) is not intended for aviation purposes.......... that being the case then surely if the CAA want to run everything to the letter wrt motor maintainance and AP`s they can start by grounding every ntca with a rotax in it.... can anyone confirm this rumour or do we need to get the mythbusters onto it?

Dunno about engine but I can tell you the NGK BR8ES plugs DEFINITELY have a picture showing a microlight with a big X through it - so without plugs do fly we'd be grounded anyway - Do I smell a diesel engine?

A while back I was tempted to ask the same question, SkyBound "Who keeps to the manual?" but I was scared at opening up a can of worms. I know of some guys changing plugs at 150+, altho they carry out regular inspections. At the same time I've met a guy who has had 3 engine outs in the last 12 years, cause - Oil on air filter caused blockage...

I suppose you could also get to a point where you service so often you're bound to break something during the routine? We'd spend a hang of a lot more hours working on the engine than flying so it's not just a money issue but time too.

I will get the pdf from home tonight for those to see. It involves changing the exhaust springs quite often, through to fuel piping etc. In my opinion it almost becomes a catch 22 in terms of safety. If we had to stick to the T then many wouldn't be able to afford to fly as often and the sport could die down or shrink - we'd have more statues. I know of some guys who want an AP to do all the maintenance (Accountants some are ) and at the same time if they had to stick to T, couldn't afford to pay the guy as often thereby flying less.

This is a rather deep issue.

[Tailspin]

I found that sometimes i have somone help me service the Aircraft, this brings a fresh pair of Eyes into the equation when you will sometimes miss the small things that can lead to a major pain at the end of the day where if somebody spots an iffy then it is good to look immediately at it. Also if doing a servce or something have a buddy check your piping and sefety wires and all that like a preflight. Works for me

[skybound®]

So it does look like a large percentage of pilots are flying their aircraft illegally

Don't get me wrong - I believe the ruling/law is ridiculous. For instance in the USA, if you are a private owner (not commercial or for reward) you are allowed to fly your Type Certified Aircraft past it's TBO, and replace/overhaul based on inspection. Now here in SA we want to be more restrictive on our NTCAs. Go figure

The problem comes in that if you choose to ignore it and now fly without a valid Authority to fly, then eventually some will say, why have a licence at all. I am already flying illegally, so why bother with any legalities at all. At the very least they may stop having annual inspections as APs will probably not sign it out any longer.

Also if you have an accident and injure a pax or someone on the ground, you could end up in court at the nasty end of a liable case. Dont say it doesn't happen, we have already seen that there is already such a court case in our midst. Worse still you could find your own insurances not paying out too.

This is a rather deep issue.

DF, I couldn't agree more - I too was nervous about asking the CAA - in fact took me a few months to summon up the courage to ask them in fear of the reply. I have had the reply for just over a week, and was afraid of those cans of worms.

What needs to happen is to change the regs/rulings.

[ICEMAN]

My AP mentioned that somewhere in the rotax documentation fineprint in very very very small letters, it states somewhere that the product (ie the rotax motor) is not intended for aviation purposes.......... that being the case then surely if the CAA want to run everything to the letter wrt motor maintainance and AP`s they can start by grounding every ntca with a rotax in it.... can anyone confirm this rumour or do we need to get the mythbusters onto it?

Still no response from any official agents on this urban legend ...... i was expecting to be in a pair of cement shoes or in a car boot by now for the question.............

Popcorn- CHECKED
Coke- CHECKED
Flamesuit- ON!