Cranks

[Henni]

Hi Justin,

Hi hear you & agree with what you are saying. However:

1. Not all of us can outrightly afford a 912 powered microlight. The hourly costs comes out of our monthly income which is much more manageble.

2. Microlighting started off as being grass root aviation - i.o.w. it made flying possible for those that could not previously afford it.

Thus, should the sport now once again only be available to the spoiled and the rich? I for one don't think so. I love flying and at this stage I can only afford a 5xx series and the law should make provision for the "less priveledged" also - PERIOD!

Either this or create a completely new category that once again caters for grass root aviation. Then at least we'll have another few years to our disposal before even this new category becomes too sophisticated or commercialized once again (as has been & always will be the case).

My 2c on this.

Henni

[skybound®]

Huge confusion exists (in my case anyway).

I would like one source for all the facts in terms of these examples -

1. What am I legally allowed to do in terms of work on my trike? Tyre pressures only?

2. What exactly is required at 300 hours?

3. Language proficiency at renewal time?

4. Flight test at renewal time (regardless of hours or currency [hours last 12 months])?

5. Weight & balance checks for weight shift microlights?

6. Etc.

I see the guys on Avcom are also confused. They also can't find the changes to the regulations.

I believe that the background to all this is that the SACAA were challenged with “So what are you doing to make flying safer in South Africa”.

Regards
John ZU-CIB

Juslike John - you dont want much do you ?

I think each one of those questions can support it's own thread.
I will try and provide some info regarding your first question - my interpretation of the below regs is that we are quite limited in what we can do maintenance wise unless we are an AP or AME. I would like some debate as cvh:. seems to disagree with my interpretation.

43.02.2 PERSONS TO CARRY OUT MAINTENANCE [43.02.1]
1. Pilots
The maintenance that the holder of a pilot licence, other than a student pilot licence
or learner’s certificate, with an appropriate rating issued in terms of
Part 61 or Part 62 may carry out is limited to the following items on an aeroplane
with a maximum certificated mass of 5 700 kg or less or a maximum approved
passenger seating configuration of nine seats or a helicopter with a maximum
certificated mass of 3 175 kg or less or a maximum approved passenger seating
configuration of nine seats:
(1) Emergency/en route maintenance comprising of the following, provided
that only approved materials, parts and components are used:
(a) changing of tyres and tubes and repairing punctures;
(b) servicing landing gear shock struts with air;
(c) correcting defective locking wire and split pins;
(d) replenishing hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic fluid reservoir;
(e) small simple repairs to fairings, non-structural cover plates and
cowlings by means of stop drilling cracks and fitting small
patches or reinforcements which will not change contours or
interfere with proper airflow;
(f) replacing side windows where such work does not interfere
with the primary system;
(g) replacing safety belts;
(h) replacing seats or seat parts where such work does not involve
any removal, dismantling or interference with a primary structure
system;
(i) replacing pre-fabricated fuel and oil lines, provided that a fuel
flow check is carried out in accordance with TS 43.02.8, Section
A.2(6) “fuel flow checks”;
(j) replacing any electrical bulb, reflector, lens or fuse of navigation
and landing lights;
(k) replacing or cleaning spark plugs and setting spark plug gaps;
(l) cleaning fuel and oil strainers;
(m) replacing batteries and checking fluid level and specific gravity;
(n) replacing tail wheels and tail-wheel springs;
(o) changing engine oil;
(p) removing and installing such dual controls as is designed for
easy removal and installation;
(q) replacing the following instruments by others of the same type
which have such markings as may be indicated in the appropriate
owners manual:
(i) airspeed indicator;
(ii) altimeter;
(iii) engine speed indicator for each engine;
(iv) oil pressure gauge for each engine; and
(v) fuel contents gauge.
Provided that a pitot static check is carried out in accordance
with TS 43.02.9 for subparagraphs (i) and (ii) above;

and

24.03.1(2) The Approved Maintenance Schedule, referred to in sub-regulation
(1), shall-
(a) prescribe which Approved Person(s) with the appropriate repair
rating, which licensed AMEs and which approved AMOs may carry out
maintenance on the aircraft;

[John Young]

Emergency/en route maintenance ... only

Did some reading up on the subject last night .... situation very grave ...

Part 143 022 00.2(a, b & g) The pilot’s “right” to carry out pre-flight inspections was a “privilege” which is now also outsourced to an AP, AMO, AME by law.

Part 145 674 3.02.2(q, v, & y) No pilot shall add fuel and/or oil to any Microlight without being properly supervised by an AP, AMO, AME.

Part 199 786 543 3.02.2(l, n & o) No pilot shall start his Microlight unless a certified AP, AMO, AME has performed 3 solo circuits prior to the pilot being allowed to engage usual start-up procedures under supervision. Should the pilot wish to fly the Microlight, then the said AP, AMO, AME must perform a minimum of 5 solo circuits.

Regards
John ZU-CIB

[nicow]

This is a joke!
Nico

[Henni]

This is April & not July, right?

Crank failure solution = simple; Just don't log every hour that you fly, that way your crank will last longer - pity but true. What have they once again done to grass root aviation?

Seeing that it's April then:

Part blah blah blah 00.2(a, b & g) The Taxi owner's “right” to carry out pre-drive inspections was a “privilege” which is now also outsourced to an traffic officer by law.

Part blah blah blah 3.02.2(q, v, & y) No taxi driver shall add fuel and/or oil to any taxi without being properly supervised by an traffic officer.

Part blah blah blah 3.02.2(l, n & o) No taxi driver shall start his taxi unless a certified traffic officer has performed 3 trips prior to the taxi driver being allowed to engage usual start-up procedures under supervision. Should the taxi driver wish to use the said taxi for commercial purposes, then the said traffic officer must first perform a minimum of 5 trips.

Seems to me that, because microlights are the cause of far more innocent deaths than taxis, that the public should also have the right to be protected from foreign objects falling from the sky & hence this new regulation.

Let's get serious & grow up, won't we!

[skybound®]

Henni you forgot:

Part blah blah blah 00.2(b,r,a,k,e) The Taxi owner's must replace their cardboard brake pads every 6 months.

[Dish]

Well my 2c on the matter is that as soon as they enforce this you will just find soooo many guys flying illegally ?? Seems to me that the minute they try and enforce rules on taxi's the okes just dont give a crap and do whatever they want anyway... its disgusting,

So - What if anything can we do ???

[Massimo]

Strike people strike.

[Andre]

Problem is the insurance companies (life cover, accident cover) will have a field day if these new stupid rules come into play.
This will give them the escape route not to pay out if something happens to you or your aerie. No matter what ! we are screwed. I think the bureaucrates are trying to do everything to make us give up our passion

[DieselFan]

Considering the 912 option how much would the overhaul cost? It was interesting to read that according to the 2002 stats in the US and according to the amount of accidents directly related to engine problems

So of the accidents caused by engine problems per engine type
28% 2 strokers
29% Auto/car engines
17% 4 Strokers inc HKS, 912
16% Certified engines like Lycoming etc.

Just interesting.

[Aerosan]

yes, Andre, the insurance companies (life cover) is my biggest issue as well. As soon as the hear microlight they see dollar signs chances are definatly in their favour.
For the record I will fly illegal as I will not be able to afford or justify the costs involved should it all come true.

[Andre]

I think most of us will have to do that (fly under the radar) So the question is now are all these new proposed rules and regulations going to improve flight safety or make it more dangerous and illigal because most of us cannot afford to do it by the book

[Dish]

As a complete rookie, I have to repeat my question of earlier - But before i do...

I am following something that we all have which is a passion for flying and to fly - I am a new prospective pilot. Im about to (hopefully) go solo on a challenger aircraft that is / was meticulously maintained by the previous owner and is now owned and loved by me. No short cuts. The entire engine was done (including the damn crank) at 300 hours, which was 50 hours ago. Does this mean after another two hundred and fifty hours, in my next overhaul, i HAVE TO do the crank irrespective of what it looks like.

Does it also mean that if i want to have a flight (once qualified) i have to have an approved person fly my plane before i can take off..

Does it mean that every slight adjustment must be made by an approved person

Gents - if the way i read it is correct, this will Kill the sport. It will destroy the value of our planes and it will leave us in the same position as the lads who journeyed to dubai and saw hangars full of rotting wasted planes because of some bull%^&& that prevented them from flying.
( i speak under correction about it being dubai, it might have been elsewhere, it was a thread on this site)

Something must be done. Where is MISASA. ?? Where are the lawyers amongst us who can advise us on an action

Of course if im reading it wrong then tell me to shut up.
:D

[John Young]

Does it also mean that if i want to have a flight (once qualified) i have to have an approved person fly my plane before i can take off.

Hi Dish,

The answer is NO.

My tongue in cheek post was aimed at asking “Where will this cr@p eventually end up and / or lead to ….. ”

I don’t know the solution or the way forward, but many ZU-UFO’s under the radar won’t solve the problem.

Regards
John ZU-CIB

[Leprachaun]

It seems as if there is a lot of confusion out there.
I am amased - truley amased when there is a MISASA meeting to select the new committee to assist in moving forward with CAA and others only 25 folks pitch - Now when there is an issue which is going to cost you all lots of money out there you winge and whine -
The answer is simple stick to the rules - those who dont have a Rotax maintance shedule call me and I will gladly send you one - Inspect - and I repeat myself once again - inspect as per shedule - if the crank is within spec continue - you as pilot in command is stillresponsible for the safety of the plane as well as your passengers . I have opened a 582 at 300 hours and found the crank buggered and on other ocasions I have rebuilt a 582with 2346 hours on the clock well within spec .
MISASA is as strong as the team you select , They can only do so much , no one has ever been paid for their services whiles a committee member ,
MISASA can only do so much on a limited budget - fewer members less money - you only get what you pay for - I am a AP and have rebuilt and inspected many Trike swith plenty hours , but always stayed within the "law" - enter in the logbook inspections etc _ I really dont appreciate Hennis issue on not logging his hours - - You will be the one that loses when you have an incident - Leprachaun