Jan 2008

[skybound®]

Chunky don't you know the rules of multiple choice - must always be 5 options . You missed:

D: Pilot/Owner or Estate
E: All of the above

[RudiGreyling]

Hi Chunky and Skybound,

I am sorry but I don't read what you read in the statements.

My interpretation is as follow:
1) There is a 'perceived' crank issue,
2) This is caused by the regulation not being supported by guidance material, which needs to be resolved urgently
3) Aeroclub is not aware of any ATF withheld by CAA due to this.
4) Aeroclub is not aware of any AP under threat of prosecution due to this

So Aeroclub advises AP's to conduct inspections as they have done...'in the past?'

Now what it does NOT say, but what I ASSUME...
If you aware of any ATF withheld by CAA OR any AP not wanting to sign out plane due to crank problem, you need to contact AEROCLUB. I guess it will be MISASA first who can pass it on to Aeroclub.

Not member of Misasa or Aeroclub, then sorry you'll have to wait in que, till others resolve for you, since CAA only deals with Aeroclub

Kind Regards
Rudi

[skybound®]

So Aeroclub advises AP's to conduct inspections as they have done...'in the past?'

This is the bit causing confusion. Are Aeroclub saying that an AP can sign out an aircraft that has not been maintained according to it's maintenance schedule? (As this is what they did 'in the past')

[Duck Rogers]

So Aeroclub advises AP's to conduct inspections as they have done...'in the past?'

This is the bit causing confusion. Are Aeroclub saying that an AP can sign out an aircraft that has not been maintained according to it's maintenance schedule? (As this is what they did 'in the past')

No, I think they're talking specifically about crank replacements. At least that's what I'm reading.

[RudiGreyling]

This from SAMICRO, since it is in the public domain and Robert is friend of mine, I guess he won't mind me repeating here:

SAMICRO
3. Court Application
Posted by: "Arma Electrical cc"
Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:45 am (PST)
This morning, I went to see an attorney, specializing in aviation matters, to instruct him to bring about an urgent court application regarding certain sections of Part 24.

My actions were based on the fear of moral responsibility towards the dependants of a microlight accident. In a case were the life insurance would not pay out, because of non-compliance with regulations. After all, I've been one of the guys saying: "Not to worry!"

Armed with all the emails of the various groups, I was ready to present my case.

The long & short of it:
The attorney was aware of the situation and felt that even after my presentation the application would be a waste of time and money.

I don't want to go into details, but the way the rules, regulations and laws were interpreted and implemented in the past few years would give us enough backing to defend any forthcoming cases. Meaning if you operated within the law up until now, you not only did the right thing, but gave yourselves peace of mind for the future.

What's next?
The CAA, Aero Club and various other parties are hard at work trashing out various obstacles in the regulations.

In the meantime, safe flying and keep your "nose" clean.
Robert Gassmann

[Chunky]

Like I said before, the CAA are not going to change this rule, we are wasting our time trying.

Time to start saving up for those 300 hour crank changes.

[Ou Man]

With all the discussions etc. regarding Part 24 up till now, I must come to the conclusion that I’m flying illegal due to the fact that my 503 has 480 on the clock without a new crank. Also spoke to many and believe me, if you speak to 10 people, you will end up with 12 opinions.
I don’t want to give up flying, so what is my next step?
1)Find someone who can lawfully open my 503, check every part and replace crank and probably rings and bearings.(Who can it be?)
2) Wait a while and see if CAA changes their stand?

Considering my family and possible other people involved, I won’t consider flying illegal.

If I go #1, what will it cost me??

[Big-D]

All I can say is I have 110 hours on my 582 and the way things look now, this is the last Rotax engine I will ever fly When I have to replace the crank I would rather go for an alternative engine (And there are a few good alternatives)

D

[RudiGreyling]

Bliksem, I dont get it???

All these negative comments ?!?!
Is it just me that see the light at the end of the tunnel ?!?!

EVEN after Aeroclub information releases and
EVEN after a well respected flyer has gone to the attorneys?

Is there anyone here who's ATF has been refused by CAA lately due to crank being 'over' hours?
(I am not talking an AP not wanting to sign it out, I'm talking CAA refusing?)

There is enough proof here, contradicting writing in Rotax manual, and history to make CAA re-consider this crank rule. The guys are working on it, be positive. I think it WILL be amended somehow. It is got to, lot of new appointments at CAA and new task force to ensure NTCA DOES NOT GET over regulated. Read posts on avcom about it, See Aeroclub information release. What more do you need ?!?!

Lastly if you get in hot water, an attorney said there is enough evidence to build a good case for YOU.

Just ensure you are legal in all other aspects, have an ATF and your license valid.

Time will tell!

Regards
Rudi

[Big-D]

Point taken. I too hope that things work out, but the thought of having to splash out alot of unneccesary cash is scary.

Rudi - Jy is reg - Kom ons wag en kyk en wees dankbaar daar is mense wat hard probeer help

D

[Wargames]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to microlighters.co.za although I've been flying for a while. After reading most of comments, I must admit that I was a bit confused at first.

I have a 503DI windlass with +- 420 hours on engine(original crank). I did get a new ATF in 09/2007. Surely if they were going to enforce this 300hour rule, they would have rejected my aircraft then. With only 3 months of year left, they would have known that I would fly 9 months in 2008 with that ATF.

My Question: Can I go and fly "legally" with all other maintenance done on aircraft with valid ATF except a new crank without feeling guilty about this controversial decision

I do agree with Rudi that we should stay positive and help resolve the problem. Anybody with common sense can see that this will kill the majority of microlighters, including myself, and as I read it, the "indestructable" ROTAX".

Regards,

[Duck Rogers]

Like I said before, the CAA are not going to change this rule, we are wasting our time trying.

Time to start saving up for those 300 hour crank changes.

That's a defeatist attitude
Me, I'm not saving up for nothing.

[skybound®]

Is there anyone here who's ATF has been refused by CAA lately due to crank being 'over' hours?

Lastly if you get in hot water, an attorney said there is enough evidence to build a good case for YOU.

Just ensure you are legal in all other aspects, have an ATF and your license valid.

Sorry Rudi, I am going to respectfully disagree.

An ATF will not be refused by CAA if the AP has signed it out - they are placing reliance on the the AP system and that it has been signed out in an airworthy condition and that the regulations have been followed by the AP in so determining. Also existing ATFs are only valid whilst the aircraft is airworthy.

By regulation, if the aircraft has not been maintained according to the maintenenance schedule, the aircraft is no longer in an airworthy state and the pilot is responsible for checking this before every flight. (this is even printed on the latest ATFs issued)

I would not want to be the person in hot water and have to have an attorney help me - this will cost more money than the maintenance required to remain legal - even if successful in a legal case and costs awarded. Litigation is only for the brave in SA.

Call me a doubting Thomas, but until I see an official relaxation in the regulations by the law maker (Notam or other official notice), one cannot just toss the regulation aside and say it does not exist.

[RudiGreyling]

Hi Skybound,

I think what Aeroclub and Attorney is trying to say, is you can't say we may have a problem, or there is perceived problem, when there is no actual case to deal with where an ATF has been refused due to crank or microlight maintenance issues.

Conversely The lawmaker can't issue ATFs knowingly it will put you in transgression of the law either.

The precedent has been set.

In the mean time confusion reigns, hope it gets sorted out soon.
Meantime keep your 'nose clean' whatever that means to you.

Kind Regards
Rudi

[skybound®]

I am trying to see it from that angle, but struggling somewhat.

If my understanding is correct, it is being suggested that there may be an alternative interpretation to the regulations and as long as you can defend that interpretation, then when faced with a legal issue - then you take it to court and have the court do the interpretation based on the evidence presented to support the interpretation.

My problem for understanding this approach is that there has not been any backed up alternative interpretations to the regulation, and if you do wish to take this approach - one must be prepared to take the litigative route if taken on by the law maker. (Add to pre-flight check - Prepared to do legal battle )

Also the other problem to taking this approach is that if I have had an accident, I may not have the resources to pay for my own medical or repair damage until the litigative process is sorted out. Also a court may not at the end of the day rule in my favour.

If there is an alternative interpretation, would it not be far less risky to send in an application for an ATF with the AP stating that the engine is Timex and lets get the court issue over and done with before anyone gets hurt (financially)?