Part 24 is active. Is you Authority to fly still valid?

[Tumbleweed]

Don't have a copy in front of me, but the Rotax manual states quite clearly in broad letters that although used in aircraft, is prone, or capable to have engine-outs and users must be aware of this.

[ICEMAN]

Will be interesting to see if anyone finds the small print.

[skybound®]

The fine print or the small print ?

[ICEMAN]

http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/p ... d04085.pdf

page 12 reads as follows:

WARNING: This engine, by its design, is subject to sudden stoppage.... (hmmm, thats nice to know , i wonder if the CAA have seen this? )


WARNING: This is not a certificed aircraft engine. It has not recieved any safety or durability testing and conforms to no aircraft standards. It is for use in experimental uncertified aircraft and vehicles ONLY in which engine failure will not compromise safety......... (noted , so please explain when an unplanned engine out is actually safe?)

User assumes all risks of use, and acknowledges by his use that he knows this engine is subject to sudden stoppage.


So in other words..... service it by the book, or dont service it by the book, when the fan at the back stops...... Rotax wash their hands of the situation with the "we told you so" approach.

[Henni]

Hi there,

I really, really had many, many engine failures in my younger days. These were normaly caused by fouled plugs, plug leads coming loose, many belt failures and even a top reduction pulley bearing seizure.

As for the plug failures, they were all my own fault as I neglected to change them on the prescribed hours.

Then, for a few years, I had nothing to fly with and when I returned back to flying, I was AMAZED to find that microlights were no longer flown wearing crash helmets, but using headphones only.

What am I trying to say? - As this sport grew older & much more matured, pilots started to give heed to the items being discussed here. And it WORKED! Crash helmets have been scrapped mostly, which was unthinkable only a few years ago.

BUT!!! And flame me now for this one... All of a sudden pilots and or instructors started to get killed when their engines quit on them. Why? I think that they've now become accustomed to rely on their engines under all cuircumstances, WHICH IS OUTRIGHTLY DANDEROUS!!!

So yes, maintaining one's engine WILL most definitively cause a more reliable engine, but don't jeopordize this by becoming over confident in a now much more reliable engine! They CAN still quit at any given time and if you read everything on this forumn, you will realise that they still do so at times without any warning.

Henni

[justin.schoeman]

http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/p ... d04085.pdf

page 12 reads as follows:

WARNING: This engine, by its design, is subject to sudden stoppage.... (hmmm, thats nice to know , i wonder if the CAA have seen this? )


WARNING: This is not a certificed aircraft engine. It has not recieved any safety or durability testing and conforms to no aircraft standards. It is for use in experimental uncertified aircraft and vehicles ONLY in which engine failure will not compromise safety......... (noted , so please explain when an unplanned engine out is actually safe?)

User assumes all risks of use, and acknowledges by his use that he knows this engine is subject to sudden stoppage.


So in other words..... service it by the book, or dont service it by the book, when the fan at the back stops...... Rotax wash their hands of the situation with the "we told you so" approach.

This is just a legality. Rotax has to wash their hands of this, as they carry no insurance on these engines.

If you really want, you can pay twice the price for the certificated version of the same engine. In this case, Rotax has paid the price difference to th insurance company - so if something does go wrong, they are covered.

If you aren't going to pay for the insurance, Rotax is going to pass all the risk to you.

-justin

[DieselFan]

you will realise that they still do so at times without any warning.

Henni

Apparently is most circumstances there was always a warning, just ignored though.

[ICEMAN]

Justin, yah i agree regarding certified and non certified engines and legalities, but the fact remains if you have a non certified motor (which im sure is most of us based on costs) and service it to the last letter, technically/ legally you are still no better off that the person who doesnt service it at all, the manufacturer simply says "sorry for you, we warned you it wasnt tested and will stop".

When bun fights breaks between customers and suppliers/ manufacturers, the manufacturer of any product usually wastes no time dredging up the "legalities".

My point is: are manufacuters of non certified motors prepared to give any sort of "gaurantee" to the pilot that services his motor religiously and by the book vs the one who doesnt? The answer is pretty clear in my previous post above- "Nope.... Non Certified- we warned you"


To go back to the original posting, the question was posed how many persons follow the service times and instructions to the letter:

Check out http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/p ... d00288.pdf

page 30: "ONLY qualified personnel trained for this engine are allowed to carry out maintainance and service work"..... in other words if you put plugs in, change a fuel filter or wash an airfilter yourself and are not deemed as "qualified" (although it doesnt specify the qualification criteria) you have technically not followed the service manual. Off the top of my head i would say this is at least 99.99% of NTCA pilots that i know that thus do not abide by the "official service and maintanance manual" from the manufacturer.


Heres another few examples from the service manual:

Re-torque cylinder head nuts and exhaust manifold screws every 2 hours! (ps remember that it must be by an "authorized" person only)......... i have never ever seen this done to every 2 hours of flying time, for schools that would mean twice a day.


Check piston sizes and inspect rings for free movement every 50 hours.............. how many pilots have this done for the firts time at the 300 hour mark, how many do it themselves, and how many of those are deemed as "suitably qualified"?


Measure fuel pump pressure every 75 hours....... how many times are we having an "qualified" person check this for us?


My point is not to advocate unsafe service practices or endorse poor maintainance routines, but rather to pose the questions (read: stir the pot ):

1) are we better protected legally by servicing at the prescibed times for a non certified motor- NO! (mechanically- presumably, but if the fan at the back stops its still your problem, they did after all warn you).

2) are we as pilots following the maufacturers recomendations when we change our own plugs or filters - NO- we immediately disolve any possible claim we may have had if its not done by a "qualified person", besides even if we did have a "qualified" person change our plugs it still wouldnt make a difference- Non certifed motor- remember these stop at any given time or place with no warning.

3) If we have an engine out despite having followed the services and maintanace manuals word for word are we covered by some sort of paragraph or wording or additonal "top up cover"..... NO- engine is non certifed and prone to stop suddenly- we did warn you!

So then, how many pilots follow the book to the very last letter.... and if so... WHY?



regards
fly safe


ps: who can tell that there is not much work happening at my place today

[skybound®]

page 30: "ONLY qualified personnel trained for this engine are allowed to carry out maintainance and service work"

That is scary Iceman. Which manual is this taken from?

Even on the 503/ 582 manual at the 300 hour mark it says to contact authorised Rotax service centre for Overhaul.

So the real question is - What are we to do about this?

I have asked CAA if this ruling is based on the still yet to be promulgated Part 24. If it is, then we need to begin some lobbying of the representative bodies to have Part 24 amended.

Just as a starter - if one looks at two paragraphs of 24:

“approved maintenance schedule” means a document, compiled by an owner or operator in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations, and approved by the Commissioner in terms of regulation 43.02.5 of Part 43, that prescribes in detail the inspections that need to be carried out in respect of an aircraft, its components, installed systems and equipment, and the intervals between such inspections; [1]



“approved person” means a natural person who has been authorised in terms of Part 66 by the Commissioner or the organisation approved for the purpose in terms of Part 149, as the case may be, to carry out maintenance on a non-type certificated aircraft in compliance with the applicable aircraft maintenance schedule, and includes the owner of an amateur-built or production-built aircraft that has been built by such owner in accordance with the provisions of Part 24.

If you can see where this is going, even if the manual of the actual motor does not state a qualified person is required to work on your motor, at the very least you will have to become an AP to do any work at all.

By the time we are finished - there will be little distinction between TCA and NTCA. In fact with 300 hour rebuilds on some motors a NTCA could actually become almost as expensive to operate as some TCAs.

So again - what are we to do?

[DieselFan]

Nice post ICEMAN and like I said it actually gets quite rediculous re the service intervals and I therefore doubt the accuracy of those who voted #1.

[skybound®]

I have some clarity from CAA. The response provided is indeed based on the yet to be promulgated part 24.

Part 24 is with the Department of Transport for final approval - which I believe is the last step in the process before promulgation. (I cant confirm ever remember seeing 24 out for comment, so not sure the CAA has in fact followed the prescribed route for promulgation of regs - but that is another debate - once promulgated takes a whole heap of other work to rescind it)

What I cant seem to understand is the lack of worry here regarding this regulation. Maybe someone needs to stir the fires a bit.

For a start could post under every single classified asking the owner if all maintenance has been carried out according to the manufacturers schedule. That will immediately devalue their aircraft - seeing as an AP will not be able to sign out an aircraft for it's ATF until all maintenance has been complied with. Maybe then just someone will begin to take some notice then?

MISASA members will probably be most affected by this. I am not current with them, not owning a NTCA or micro at present. I am a member of SAPFA, but feel this is more of a MISASA issue. Any comm members out here wishing to comment?

[skybound®]

A correction to my previous post.

To cut a long story short - Part 24 is basically in effect via part 11. Was a special arrangement made some time back. So if one wants to make changes now - it has to go the whole route - as in proposal to CARCOM etc.

The way I understand it as things are now according to regulations that are in effect - APs should not be signing out aircraft not maintained in accordance to the manufacturers recomendation, and any aircraft not maintained in accordance with the schedule are flying illegaly. That is currently 61% of our aircraft at the time of writing this.

Sheez - now I am starting to sound like the CAA.

Whether we agree or not, that is what is in effect, and by the lack of response here to this topic, I am guessing that a large percentage of pilots will continue to fly illegally.

[skybound®]

Have changed the topic heading.

Some of our local club guys are now showing signs of understanding the effect of this regulation as they now realise that their ATFs are now invalid and can no longer fly legally. Also the fact that the AP is also indicating his unwillingness (rightfully so) to break the regulations.

Still showing on the poll that 61% are continuing to fly illegally.

[Boet]

Jaaa fok. Hier word die pap nou weer warmer aangemaak as wat ek dit wil vreet. Ek het dan juis van my Piper Cherokee Warrior 161 ontslae geraak or die soort nonsens. Soos ek al tereg opgemerk het, " If it is not broken, why fix it?"
For crying out loud, gentlemen, WHY the crank on the 582 "must" be replaced on 300 hrs, beats the hell out of me.
Perhaps this is our own fault. Rotax did a questionaire a coupl`e years back, and asked how many hours have various owners done on their 582 crank-shafts. As not enough feed-back was received, Rotax decided on making it 300 hrs. Why. I dunno. They wanted to make it more. How about giving it another try, with ALL the feed-back we can possibly give them. We can only be helped if we help to help ourselves. :D

[lamercyfly]

Hi folk.

This can of worms could have been stopped in its tracks by MISASA. But, before we hammer the guys at MISASA, remember, it is a voluntary organization
I really mean it, I am not being sarcastic. I don't know how much longer the microlight pilots of South Africa think that a voluntary organization can look after their collective interests. I used to get embarrassed at how little microlight pilots want to pay for MISASA membership, but then they think 'some-one' will make sure laws like this do not sneak through. So, wake up guys, and be prepared to pay triple your membership fees so that MISASA can employ specialists to do the job's that require specialists. Like this one............

During my term of office, I had heated debates with Andre Swanepoel and Mike Cathro, about this part. MISASA was in favour of this damning legislation, and we have been sold down the river......

I refuse to abide by this nonsense. After 9 000 hours of introductory flights and 4 - 5000 hours of training (excluding the hours flown by other pilots at our airfield), I know what I am talking about in terms of what needs doing, and when it needs doing.........

The rotax manual is clear....they RECOMMEND compliance.

If you are interested, you can read all the advice they give, it is easily obtainable.

There are enough loopholes in the law, together with the RECOMMENDED rotax advice, to make a mockery of this nonsense.

By precedent we in South Africa have operated since the beginning, without complying to these punitive engine maintenance requirements, with negligable accidents. There is absolutely NO reason WHY CAA have passed these engine maintenance laws. There is NO precedent of ACCIDENT and DEATH which can be claimed to be sufficient cause to warrant having endorsed these engine maintenance requirments.

MISASA was asked to give input. MISASA could have rewritten it!!! That's the bottom line. I was Head of Training, and was up to my neck in my department. Like I said, I had heated debates, strongly defending the pilots right to choice, especially in trikes..........

I do not blame CAA. Sure, they came up with the draft laws, but then passed it on to Aero Club/MISASA for scrutinizing and feedback. The feedback they got was 'sure, go for it!'

It is not too late, as I am not aware that any of this legislation has been passed.

If you want advice on how to stop this from being legislated, and to get the ball rolling, you are wellcome to PM us and we will advise.

Later,