Cranks

[John Young]

... those who dont have a Rotax maintance shedule call me and I will gladly send you one ....

Hi Leprachaun,

Have emailed you requesting a copy.

Thanks and regards
John Young
ZU-CIB

[skybound®]

Leprechaun - I agree with you wholeheartedly about the whine and winging part.

We as operators, should have paid more attention back in 2002. It would be unfair to apportion responsibility to volunteering committees. Each one of us has a responsibility when it comes to looking after the sport, and yes that means sometimes we have to do some work too - like reading Notams and legal notices. Had each one of us done that back in 2002 it would have given us 5 years to mutter over these issues and to have done something about it.

I have already offered my assistance and am going to see how far one can get with proposing amendments to this part 24.

Those who want to do the illegal thing - you will only hinder any chance we have in making things right. I am sure we will not be entertained if we are seen to being a bunch of cowboys.

[DieselFan]

Those who want to do the illegal thing - you will only hinder any chance we have in making things right. I am sure we will not be entertained if we are seen to being a bunch of cowboys.

I've got NO issue at all having the crank checked out at 300. We all want to fly safe aircraft and as long as the actual mm clearances are within spec we shouldn't have a problem? I'm sure most would agree on that.

HOWEVER, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding:

I'm sure those stating about flying illegally are protesting against having an AP change plugs, preflight etc. and no matter what change the crank at 300. As I mentioned earlier it doesn't matter what Rotax says the overhaul is at, the moment you are out of spec change it - in my opinion.

Another concern though is surely this will stifle innovation and prevent us from experimenting with other engines? Isn't that what "experimental" aircraft were all about?

Leprechuan what are your comments on JY's post?

[skybound®]

I'm sure those stating about flying illegally are protesting against having an AP change plugs, preflight etc.

Yup - dont think you will find any argument there. I am yet to find a single person happy with that. Those are the issues we need address.

In comparison to a TCA issue recently (12 year overhaul rule) - in the time that it took to have a regulation withdrawn, I did not hear a single owner suggesting being illegal, and for the few months that it took to get sorted, owners either complied or waited. I think we need keep the same composure. Keeping composure does not translate into agreeing with the regulation.

[John Young]

Dear All,

From the other thread - the below is definately worth a read ...

viewtopic.php?t=4681&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

In my opinion, Robert is a solid guy who knows what he is talking about - pity that he overseas at the moment.

Fellow Aviators,

I've been on the committee/board of MISASA and/or the Aero Club since 1997, mostly
looking after the finances. This made me a part of, or at least I had knowledge of the
regulation changes in question.

Let me try to give you some information or answers.

In the year 2000, all the questions on the table now, were referred to the LS1 document.
This LS1 documents was written some time in the 1970's and was totally outdated 30
years later. This is when the CAA/Aero Club/MISASA/EAA and other important role-players
got together and wrote the various new regulations, e.g.. Part 24, Part 96, Part 98.
In 2002, the then commissioner of Civil Aviation, Trevor Abrahams, wrote the new
regulations into operation. Ever since then, these regulations have been in use. The
sudden panic of the last few weeks is rather unfortunate and unfounded. However
understandable, due to the many grey area's, as well as leaving room for various
interpretations. There is no truth whatsoever that the entire South African NTC fleet
is about to be grounded or flying illegal, however the net around pilots with total
disregard for rules and regulations has now tightened tremendously, with prosecutions
being imminent.

Talking about specific issues, such as the 300 hrs engine overhaul. Yes, it may be
a blanket rule at the moment, as so many others (unchallenged in court yet) and
I don't think it will go there, as CAA and the Commissioner are approachable and
willing with amendments on special applications. They are definitely not unreasonable.
However it is the manufacturers/importers, or even operators right/duty to go and show
the commissioner for instance, a 582 engine on a trike requiring 40 HP only, could safely
be operated up to 600 hrs and thereafter receive an operator's manual amendment.

You will still be changing your plugs, oil, oil filters, etc in the future, as well as doing
minor repairs.

In conclusion: I personally do not loose any sleep about these new/old regulations. I
know the best possible solution will be found.

What really gets to me: With the tremendous knowledge and enthusiasm out there,
we're still ending up having to virtually con members into volunteering to join the
various committees.

Regards,
Robert Gassmann

[Andre]

Before we go too far, can anybody give us an estimate of what a 300/600 hour overall, crank inspection or replacement will cost. Maybe it is a drop in the oceon compare to your life

[Henni]

"I really dont appreciate Hennis issue on not logging his hours - - You will be the one that loses when you have an incident - Leprachaun"

Let's just put the record straight here - I did not for a moment state that I'm not logging my hours. I am proud of my flying hours as those hours, specifically piloting a very light aircraft in various weather conditions, taught me a lot. I have no desire to hide them.

However, we all are discussing some of the seemingly ridiculous regulations and what might just happen as a result of it, are we not? I even compared some of it to an "April Fool" situation & if I did not know the guys who posted a copy of these regulations from their previous postings, I might have well believed that this was nothing more than a April fool's joke.

Henni

[Boet]

Henni, Jaaa sorrie ou pel, for peeing on your battery, but this is not April, and this is NO joke. This is a lot of beurocrats ( and others) that wants to make a LOT of money out of these "rich buggers" that flies around in "expensive little aeroplanes." ( Some of us are.....and the toys ARE expensive??) BUT what about the rest? This is all very easy: Use / abuse your position to fill your own pockets. Make it a LAW, pass it thru Paliament so that it can be enforced. ( Do it fast and low profile so there will be less protest from the ones to be affected.)
The BAD news is: To do your "timex" @ 300 hour little cheap 2 stroke engine will set you back +_ 17k for a 503 and 30k for a 582. NOW see the glut of 2nd hand little aeries flood the market. The poor AP will be illegal if he signs your pride and joy out with more than 300 hrs on the crank. It has become a risk to be an AP.
I got the new Notams today. ( Jaaaaaa OK. Ek weet, nou eers??? Jaaa, maar ek bly lekker hier in die gatkant van die wereld??) There is an article, on the front page nogal, about "Non aviation parts" used in NTCA. F. Go read this yourself. Ek is nou so die moer in ek wil my eie stront onder die klippe steek.

[Henni]

Hi everyone,

When you do approach the 300 hour limit on your 582 and you are hesitant to spend the R30k as suggested, which would only be good for another 300 hours, what other engine options are available to take the place of the 582?

Apart from: viewtopic.php?t=4988&highlight= that is.

Any idea on price & other limitations?

By the way, if the crank would be o.k. after the first 300 hours, how much would such an inspection normally cost you? (without the need to replace the crank)

Henni

[bosbok]

If your rattex is sat,fit a mcbride motor.Apparently it goes like a bomb.

[Henni]

...fit a mcbride motor...

Whadat?

[bosbok]

It was manufactured by the CNA Yut Leak!Biggest disadvantage is that you can`t fly near a bar because it blows up!!But it`s ok because it`s all for the kozz!!

[Duck Rogers]

fit a mcbride motor

And you can drive it while under the influence

[skybound®]

Would suggest that before you spend any time or bux, wait for the outcome of next weeks CAA Industry Liaison meeting.

It has been suggested that an entire section of Part 24 has been omitted. What we have seen promulgated is for commercial operation of a NTCA. The omitted part of the reg, is the operation of a recreational NTCA.

[justin.schoeman]

If you want to avoid all the crap, and fly really cheap, how about this:

http://www.electraflyer.com/index.html

??

-justin