Time & hours

[johnr]

62

Hi All,  This is a question & I might not want to know the answer, Most of the CTs are fitted with a 2000 hr lifed Rotax or can be upgraded to allow 2000 hrs, am I correct to also believe that the other limit is 10 years & at the end of either a full recondition is required by Rotax.

There must be quite a few CTsw that are near end of life if that is  correct, mine being one of them.

 

It is possible in Australia to go past the 10 years "on condition" in a different registration catergory but I doubt if LSA is allowed.

Will the  transfer into LSA experimental  allow the 10 year expiry to be changed to allow continued flight on  "condition " .

I know of one other same age as mine that has around the 500 hrs which is only 25% of the approved life but with less than a year left.

John

[Roger Lee]

12 years or 1500 hrs.

15 years or 2000 hrs.

 

 

 

If all is good with the engine just go on condition if your regs allow you to.

[ctfarmer]

Hello John,

 

As i am led to understand, in Australia regarding LSA category, if Flight Design allow you to run on condition, you are allowed to.

 

You could confirm this with Recreational Aviation Australia. What i understand with LSA, both CASA and RAA cede to the manufactures directives. If FD allow you to run on condition then you may.

 

I will add that i have not personally confirmed this to be fact, merely what i have been told.

 

If this is the case, will FD allow you to run on condition?

[Roger Lee]

FD nor Rotax hasn't any say so with On condition inspections. This is strictly up to each country's aircraft regulations. FD or Rotax can not make regulations contrary to each country's regulations. If companies could do this then MFG's all over the world could ignore regulations and do whatever they wanted and everyone could have a different set of regulation specs set forward by the MFG. That would be a nightmare.

[Anticept]

Manufacturers already do make all sorts of recommendations. The issue is that manufacturers might take advantage of regulations with an attitude of "Do this because you have to". The nice thing about the aftermarket in cars, is it helps to provide competition against OEMs and control pricing. In aviation, since we are safety concious, it creates a problem: trying to track compatibility and safety with all the parts and mods with any sort of QC. The higher the QC, the lower the competition since barrier to entry is high. In the distant past, things were a lot more lenient, and a huge amount of countefeit parts were flooding the market and putting a lot of people in danger. 60 minutes had an interview with a parts runner, he said he made more money than drug runners do crossing the mexican border, and without the legal ramifications because traceability enforcement wasn't in place yet. Anyways, QC is higher now, but I cannot ever agree with giving a manufacturer complete control and backing of the regulation to enforce it.

[Doug Hereford]

I agree with previous posts. One exception to a non-mandatory TBO would be a Safety Directive. In the US, this is a continued airworthiness requirement of the "SLSA aircraft" manufacturer. Technically speaking, FD could issue a Safety Directive which could place a mandatory overhaul requirement on their powerplant. They would first have a burden to prove that this requirement was actually issued to correct an unsafe condition.

I mention it to illustrate the point that Safety Directives should always be considered when determining what is actually "required" vs what is recommended. In my opinion, it would be highly unlikely that one would see a safety directive that mandated "overhaul" of an engine. A more likely possibility would be, a Safety Directive that mandated a certain very invasive  inspection, the act of which would make "overhaul" in conjunction with it an economic smart move.

 

Doug Hereford

[Anticept]

I do find it odd that we place the burden on Flight Design, when it has been customary for engines to be controlled my their own manufacturer. I know it's the way regulations are written, but it is still strange.

[Doug Hereford]

Yes,

I think the expectation is that the Aircraft MFG will be in close communication with the rest of their vendors (engines, props, accessories, ETC.........). In my opinion, however, the FAA is doing a poor job of ensuring that this is the case in the SLSA world (as evidenced by the numerous SLSA aircraft out there with AD's and possibly Airworthiness Limitations against them, for which the SLSA MFG is silent).

 

Doug Hereford

[Anticept]

Because the FAA wants to be hands off of LSA. There is a bit of a conundrum. If they step in even with just a toe, and something happens, they will be drug all the way in kicking and screaming. But, if they stay far away from the issues, and something happens, they can walk in and whiteknight the issue.

 

The administration is a reflection of the political climate, it doesn't matter how involved or uninvolved you are; everyone complains, some spread extreme hate and fear, and the people who are trying to do a good job get pushed out for not being "steadfast" enough.