vote on engine maintenance schedule

[Alex]

Hi Guys

I agree its rubbish to change a crank on 300 hours, I flue my 582 to 1100 hours and then rather replaced the engine.

I run JAG Air Africa and I just would like to see that new students get trained more on the maintenance side of a microlight and its importance! Some guys don’t know when to do a services and what to do! We here have started to show and teach our students the importance of maintaining a microlight. I would like to see this happen in more schools over SA.

I would like to bring the following example to CAA s attention, if they want us to keep to the manual and let us pay for all this and let it be done by the right people APs then make the PPL and MPL laws the same. Like flying over built up areas.

[lamercyfly]

Wow! 80 votes cast. Great. Aim is to crack 100..

I then have absolutely no doubt of the success of the exercise to enforce our rights.

By the way, this page is for voting only.

Please post comments on the issue on the current page for this. See Part 24 - engine maintenance schedule.

By commenting on this page, you are creating 2 pages which are discussing exactly the same thing........confusing.

reserve comments on this page to simply "I agree" or "I dissagree".

Otherwise you are wellcome to remain anonymous.

Regards.

[RudiGreyling]

When the approved maufacturers manuel clearly states that the engine is "prone to stop at anytime or place without warning" and is not endorsed as an aircraft engine then why all the fuss from the CAA powers to RTFM.......

Yip ditto, saw it last night again when I went through my manual.
Then we fit NGK spark plugs with a picture of a trike and big red cross over it on the box meaning it is not suppose to be used for aviation.
Don't forget the Autocar fuel filter i.e. M Benz.

Now let me see...hmmm critical components in the engine, the ignition system i.e. spark plugs and fuel delivery i.e. Fuel filter is not intended to be used for Aviation...WTF?

Then a little further on in the Rotax Manuel they recommend you follow the maintenance schedule to avoid "sudden stoppage" WTF? contradicting themselves.

Even if you do everything CAA wants you to do and you prang I think the lawyers is going to have a field day with these contradictions and non Aviation Parts.

Regards
Rudi

[John Waterson]

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

On our 503, decoked every 150 hours using a 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 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 engineer who is current, who 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.

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.

[Byron]

I believe that the 300 hour TBO recommended by Rotax should only be used as a guide.

[MidlifeCrisis]

I agree manual should be only a guide line to maintenance, I have heard of many cases of motors doing over 500 hrs before opening for inspection.

[Henni]

Where the reliability of the engine is in question, such an aircraft should be restricted to ...no flying over built areas.

John, this is already the case for microlights. Why then still insist that only a qualified engineer be allowed to work on it?

Henni

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Where the reliability of the engine is in question, such an aircraft should be restricted to ...no flying over built areas.

John, this is already the case for microlights. Why then still insist that only a qualified engineer be allowed to work on it?

Henni

Must it be as reliable as Nationwide's 737 engine :D

Microlights are not prohibited by law to fly over built-up areas. That is a restriction the CAA engineering departement adds from time to time on the Authorities to Fly.

[Pierrevdw]

I Agree, the manual should be a guideline only - afterall, I am the first VIP on the aircraft, my safety is the first concern

[Bushveld Blue]

I am new to the game - but I most certainly agree!!

[JontyE]

Hi All,

People this is a recreational sport we do it because we love it not to gain commercially from it, we fly more than any other section of aviation because it costs us less and we gain personal gratification and satisfaction and are proud microlight aviators. I would like to see the sport grow, the way to do this is simple: SAFTEY FIRST, keep it as cost effective as possible, and make it enjoyable so people want to join the sport we love. I've been a microlight aviator for many years now and still do not understand and am ashamed to see how the old school could have so much influence on our recreational sport trying constantly to commercialize it. I am an instructor for 11 years now with 99% of my hours on rotax engines and YES I have had engine failures but can assure you this was not due to poor maintenance nor failing to do a TBO on the engines at 300 hours, the only cause was FUEL CONTAMINATION. If the motivation behind this is SAFTEY then I would like to see statistics of engines failing due to the absence of a TBO at 300 Hours. Is everyone aware that the 912 TBO was changed from 1200 to 1500, and I think the same should be done for the 503 and 582, out of experience I can assure that a TBO at 300 Hours is premature and is a waste of time and money however I would agree to a TBO of 800 hours. The pole should be on extending the TBO interval due to its excellent track record, rather than enforcing manufacturer’s guidelines.

Please open a pole to agree on extending the TBO of the 503 and 582 to 800 hours?

[Henni]

out of experience I can assure that a TBO at 300 Hours is premature and is a waste of time and money however I would agree to a TBO of 800 hours

Hi JontyE - I cannot agree more! Thank you for sharing your experience. I've also had many, but really many engine outs in the past and they were always the effect of:

1. Mostly fouled plugs - Purely my neglegence when I was younger!
2. Some broken vbelts
3. Once only reduction drive top pulley seizure

None of those would have been prevented by a 300 hour TBO.

Regards,
Henni

[lamercyfly]

Hi JontyE.

Thanks for contributing your experience....

Changing the Maintenance Schedule, which originates from Rotax, is not as easy as it sounds.

Unfortunatley, unless it comes directly from Rotax, it will only affect the person who applies for it.

The easiest manner to address this problem is to change the laws to "maintenance on condition" or to "guideline only".

I am pushing hard for "guideline only".

Calling for a vote or poll is not really necessary now, as everyone is outspoken in riducule of the 300hr TBO, so we know the result will be in excess of 90% in favour of changing it.

What is interesting is that the current Commissioner did a microlight MPL on trikes. He learnt at microland. He understands our issues.......

Regards.

[Tobie]

I agree.

[Boet]

Agree.