Jan 2008

[Ou Man]

That’s it then…I’m grounded!!!!

[Wargames]

As I get it, this regulation was enforced on a "test" basis during 2006 & 2007.

Few questions:
1. What was tested during that period??
2. What happened during that time that created a thought that this should be enforced??
3. Why wasn't this handled back then??

I'm not flying that long, and hence only heard of this september 2007. And as this stand, I'm grounded for a while. The only thing working in my favour is the bad weather. I would not have been flying anyway.

[skybound®]

Hi Wargames

My understanding is that the 'test' of Part 24 (as promulgated) has been in effect since November 2002.

I heard that there were a few cases where owners threatened legal action on CAA if the regs were truly tested as the owners beleived that the test ( the process allowed to the commish in Part 11 of the regulations) was unlawfull, and hence the CAA were nervous to truly test the regs.

As to why nothing got done to change them - I still reckon owing to the committee based type structures that we have in place, a lack of continuity may have been part of the cause. The 2001 and 2002 committees had done some work and had made recomendations. This seems to have been lost thru committee changes and looks like nobody was able to retrieve these notes or find minutes of meetings where discussions took place.

The larger part is the general apathy of US - the grassroots okes. Either that or a sincere lack of belief.

It is the old addage of everybody's business is nobody's business. The representative bodies commitees are made up of 'fallable', grassroots aviators - just like any one of us. Sometimes we expect or assume that they are on top of every single issue - which in itself is not fair. Each one of us needs to have some responsibility and understand what is happening in our environment and to keep abreast of any developments and raise the issues when they arise.

In fact very few others even got involved in May/June when we first started debating some of these issues (even before promulgation). Why did people not make more noise then and only wait until 99? If no one complains or raises the issues - our representative bodies will interpret our silence as there being no issues.

[Wargames]

Hi Skybound,

I'm a bit amazed at the 2002 part. I thought it was 2006.

You are right about everybody expecting his neighbour to do the job though.

My big question is: Did the CAA do their bit and opened up a few engines to test the wear and tear on cranks during the "test" period. What did they "test"??

I did not hear of any incident/accident where a plane was downed due to crank issues. Why now suddenly after SIX years?

It is just strange. Thats all.

Can I risk to go flying with my crank not changed??

[RudiGreyling]

<SNIP>

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)?

Hi SKybound,

With the Aeroclub statement to AP's to do their work, I think this is exactly what is going to happen.

If I were AP I would write something, but what exactly I don't know, but that is besides the point....

What CAA is going to do when they see this entry is then the determining factor...If they refuse ATF then it is going to go to Aeroclub, becuase now you have evidence of a canceled ATF, then guidelines to regulations are going to be expedited, or an statement from CAA would be forth coming.

For reference, A friend and frequent Microlighter.co.za visitor took his plane to AP with 400+ hours on motor last October. I can't remember the exact statement in his log book, but the AP made an entry about it. CAA looked at it and said as long as he is not commercial it should be OK. Now I am giving you this info 2nd hand...I'll email him and see if he is willing to openly talk about it.

I think there are a couple of cases like this where the guys are just so glad they got their ATF they are not willing to speak openly about it, in 'fear of prosecution' or withdrawal.

Regards
Rudi

[skybound®]

Hi Wargames

The CAA unfortunately are not the ones responsible to do the tests. If we seek a deviation from the recomended maintenance, it is up to the agent/manufacturer or even us to do the tests and submit the supporting information.

I believe Rotax (not SA Agent but the big Rotax factory) about 3 or more years back did try and get some data from owners worldwide regarding crank replacements, but the participation from the owners was not sufficient for them to motivate changing the hours.

I heard from our local AP last week that there are some SA accident stats that can be attributed to broken cranks and that there were injuries. This information he got from the AP section at Aero Club. This does not bode well for us.

[Wargames]

No, that does not sound positive at all.

Thanks anyway, I understand a lot more now. With speciffics to the fact that I am grounded at this stage.

Regards,

[lamercyfly]

Hi Sky.......

I do not agree with your reasoning in your last para.

......The failures of our cranks pale into insignificance when compared to certified aircraft engine failures......... and no fatalities that I am aware of in failed cranks......and my calculated guess is that most probably as much as half of those failed cranks failed within 150hours!

Not a statistic that I will support to enforce mandatory crank replacements at 300 hours.........

Thanks for your untiring, valuable contributions to the issues surrounding part 24.

Regards.

[Smiley]

Hello everyone, Rudi is referring to me.

I recently bought my trike with ±480 hours on the motor.

The AP was happy to sign it out, but mentioned in the logbook that the motor passed its TBO.

At CAA I did my change of ownership which co-inside with a new Authority to fly that must be issued.

Andre Swanepoel was happy to approve the paperwork but did mention if the plane was in commercial use or training school activity, he would not approve the Authority to fly. As the plane is only there for my private use, he was happy to approve it.

He did mention that after 300 hours, if an AP approves the plane, the AP will be held liable if anything should happen. Rotax and CAA will not take any liability

Regards

[RudiGreyling]

Thanks Smiley, and the plot thickens.... ...or is it we are running in circles....

[skybound®]

Thanks Rudi.

Owners should not be scared of revealing - rather be aware of the risk before there is an accident/incident.

I do not believe that owing to the CAA issuing ATFs can be held as a true test case or setting a precedent - perhaps they are not reading the log book entries and relying on the form that the AP signed. The AP's signature on the inspection form (CA103-4) is certifying the aircraft to be airworthy in accordance with the regulations after all and I doubt the CAA would be held accountable for placing reliance on this form. I would bet an unsigned form would lead to no ATF being issued.

It may also be wirthwhile re-reading the response I got from the CAA last year in May 2007 when this whole debarcle started - that statement is pretty clear:
http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21243

What are the APs using as their alternative interpretation of the regulation in order to sign CA103-4.

BTW I know you are only the messenger - so please do not take this a shooting the messenger or that any of our frustrations are directed at any individual. We are all in the same boat.

[skybound®]

Yeah David - not happy with the statistic either - at least gives us an idea that there is a need to really ensure that any motivation is well substantiated with concrete facts.

[Wargames]

One thing that worries me the most about this Part 24 thing, is that the rules that seems to be laid down, has got so many loose ends. And currently we are strangling our necks in it.

Surely there must be someone at CAA who can explain this, or we must ask a representative to ask CAA to take this part of their books until someone can write a proper set of do's and do not's.

This has caused more havoc the last few months, and it all over unclear rules. You can't have a set for commercial/training planes and an other set for recreational flyers.

One other thing that bothers me. Surely the CAA must take some responsibility on themselves to enforce the law. But to say that it is the responsibility of the AP, and that in the case something dreadfull happening, the AP will be liable, is a statement that goes beyond my imagination. CAA should not approve a ATF if the plane is not airworthy. And then take the matter to the AP. Why wait for a crash to happen before sorting out this business.

I don't want stricter rules on this, as it is I am grounded due to my crank, but I(we) just want some clarity on this issue.

Regards,

[skybound®]

He did mention that after 300 hours, if an AP approves the plane, the AP will be held liable if anything should happen. Rotax and CAA will not take any liability

Thanks Smiley. In there lies the crux. So back to begin - do not collect R200 or take a Chance card - just hope you got your get out of jail free card .....

[skybound®]

One thing that worries me the most about this Part 24 thing, is that the rules that seems to be laid down, has got so many loose ends. And currently we are strangling our necks in it.

Hit the nail on the head. It is not only interpretational issues that we are faced with but also structural issues.

For instance how can an AP even exist? The regulations state that AP must be approved by the commissioner or a Part 149 organisation. There is no Part 149 organisation, and I would hazzard a guess that no AP has papers that have been issued by CAA. One could argue that the CAA has delegated it to Aero Club (not designated it), but where is such provision in the regs to allow delegation? Clearly not in the flying public's interest to challenge this and only mentioned as an example as to how ill prepared the entire industry is for the new regs.

I asked CAA for a roadshow on numerous occasions last year to help explain the issues that face us. Deafening silence was the response and only a small Part 61 roadshow was performed for ATOs.