If you could change One thing about you CT

[chanik]

I agree on the seats; will try the foam idea. I wanted armrests so used some of this looped, strap webbing I have to make this band. It hooks on the front bar and the wing-bolt handle. Helps alot on the 6-7hr flights I prefer to do.

[wlfpckrs]

Seat comfort!

[airhound]

I agree on the seats; will try the foam idea. I wanted armrests so used some of this looped, strap webbing I have to make this band. It hooks on the front bar and the wing-bolt handle. Helps alot on the 6-7hr flights I prefer to do.

Hey Chanik,

I'm a long range wanna be....What about those 6-7 hour flights, are you up and auto pilot on on those or do you hand fly for hours on end? How is hand flying in less that smooth air for greater periods of time...?? Thanks for any insite you'd care to share. Doug in IL

[ozairangel]

Seat comfort!

Further to my earlier remark about seat comfort, I really feel that this machine needs armrests or seat that wrap further around ones back in order to transfer aircraft movement to your body. To me this would assist greatly in a more responsive reaction to aircraft movement, particulary in very rough air........!

[chanik]

I've never tried 6+ hrs without the AP. I had to forego it once flying back from Phoenix to Palo Alto because the turbulence was really bad but that trip was very exhausting. I suppose the trick in smooth air would be to get the trim just right so that one mostly wouldn't need to hold the stick. I also use a little thermarest foam pillow to help cushion the seat more.

[sandpiper]

When I had the carpeting put in I also had them add some foam to the seat. That's pretty good most of the time but if I want more I also have a 1" Oregon Aero pad that sits on the seat. That allows me to go about 2 hours before my back and neck pain takes over.

[coppercity]

I have done long flights in my SW and now new LS with and without the autopilot, and I have to say the autopilot really cuts down on the fatigue both mental and physical. Seat comfort is a major factor in any airplane. I had added several layers of "ear" foam to my SW that helped a lot. Our new LS has the pump up lumbar and lower seat pads that help a lot. I also add a couple strips of grip tape forward of the seat just to be able to pull my feet up and not have them slide down the floor. Change position and stretching the legs out once in awhile makes a difference. Travel Johns are a must as well!

[airhound]

Thanks Chanik and Coppercity

 

Any dif other than seat between SW and LS on long XC?

[207WF]

I am still going with a fuel injected 912 as my number 1. WF

[Jim]

Owner preventive maintenance privileges consistent with standard cert aircraft.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Jim,

 

With the new FAA ruling against Rotax required schooling you have those privileges.

[Jim]

Hi Jim,

 

With the new FAA ruling against Rotax required schooling you have those privileges.

 

Do you have some paperwork that talks about that?

[Roger Lee]

The test case was an A&P that purposefully set himself up to get tagged by the FAA and to challenge the Rotax schooling declaration. He wanted to take it to the FAA legal dept. At first they suspended him, but re-instated him later. The FAA ruled in his favor and he was told he did not need to go to a specific Rotax school so long as he had some training on a Rotax (anyone could teach him), the proper tools (some are Rotax specific) and the manuals and access to the SB's. If he fails to do these items then the FAA says he would be in violation. No official paperwork out for the public yet from the FAA, but the case is over. Hopefully something will come out before we are all too old to read. LOL

So you can do preventive maint. as spelled out in the FAR's so long as some one (anyone) gives you some instruction, you have the proper tools and the manuals.

 

Hold on there Hass, not so fast! There is always two sides of a coin.

 

Rotax does have the right to impose some of their own rules and they have.

1. if someone that is not authorized by Rotax works on your engine then you will loose any warranty you have. If you are out of warranty then your clear. (so far, until #2 &3)

2. If you have a warranty issue Rotax will not pay anyone except an authorized Rotax repairman to do the work or pay for any parts or labor.

3. If they have a re-call on a part (like the fuel pump or gear set) they will not cover any labor or parts if someone other than an authorized repairman does the work.

 

 

So the answer is yes you can do preventive maint., but be informed before you allow yourself or someone else do the work.

 

Bottom line is take the time to read a manual and know exactly what you are doing and don't think because someone knows a car, motorcycle or GA engine that you or they know the right way to do something on a Rotax. I can't even begin to count the times someone in their CT comes here and I have to fix something an untrained A&P did.

Please read the manual that pertains to your work and if your A&P doesn't have the Rotax manuals or SB's find someone else.

 

 

Clear as mud isn't it.

[Jim]

I find this quite interesting. I've attached a document that I wrote and sent to FD back in February. Tom Pheghiny forwarded it to Phil Lockwood and Dean Vogel at Aerotechnical Institute and the result was a rather scathing "we already had this discussion" and "Mr. Stewart can take his airplane to E-LSA if he doesn't like it" reply. Carol Carpenter chimed in and has done some interesting dancing on both sides of the issue.

 

Given the hostility that the document produced, I didn't take the issue further. Needless to say, I'm very pleased to see that it looks like the situation will be resolved in a way favorable to owners and A&P's.

 

S-LSA owners should be aware of these issues and perhaps organize an owner's group to monitor and provide feedback to both ASTM and the FAA on issues such as this.

Harmonize.pdf

[Roger Lee]

My personal soapbox, ( someone's opinion may differ and that's ok)

 

 

The problem with this is going to be that any one will be able work on the Rotax in certain areas and all of the liability will fall directly on the owner and A&P. The reason it will be worse is that at least now someone had to get some real training, now it can be hodge podge. Many will take this as a step further and have really no training. If the owner allows some one that isn't qualified to work on the plane they get cited as well as the A&P. With all the things I have fixed and pointed out to the owners as far as untrained individuals (owners or mechanics) working on a Rotax it will get worse now. In the old days I wouldn't have agreed with my own statement, but it was out of ignorance and now I have been enlightened I truly know better since I have been on both sides of the coin.

I'm not even saying a trained person can't make a mistake, but with little to no training the odds go way up. I don't ever have a problem with some one getting trained and it doesn't necessarily have to be Rotax, but you need some training and too many people don't bother and are the loudest to scream foul if something happens. To me it's a clear case of you get what you pay for.

 

 

No matter what the ruling no one should work on any plane without the proper training for that specific task, doesn't matter what category or ELSA , SLSA or GA.

 

Carol Carpenter and the FAA both said it may be legal, but not a smart idea.

 

 

Bottom line with this entire discussion is to get educated whether it is the owner or mechanic, there is no substitute.

This entire discussion from FAA down to the owners and mechanics amounts to only one thing, MONEY someone didn't want to pay.

 

Ok, I'm off my soapbox. back to stripping carpet out for new tile. Boy what fun!

[Jim]

It's not about money, Roger. It's about FAR 43.3(g) and treating S-LSA like the rest of aviation. A&P's do not have a regulatory requirement to have formal factory training on a Rolls-Royce Trent turbofan engine and they shouldn't on a Rotax.

[sandpiper]

Jim - not that I disagree with your point but, wasn't it the Trent on the A380 that had issues due to improper maintenance technique?

[Jim]

It was one of the Trent family, but it is a design issue, not maintenance.

[S3flyer]

I have to side with Jim in that there should not be a regulatory requirement to require Rotax-certification to work on a Rotax. That being said, I would not hire an A&P to work on MY Rotax that is not certified and current in his/her Rotax-specific training. But that's my choice -- others may choose differently and should be able to do so.

 

I wonder how this fits with the ASTM standards where pretty much the S-LSA maintenance manual is the final authority on all service/maintenance which typically says who can do what. Mine allows the owner, if properly trained by the dealer or manufacturer, to do quite a bit of light maintenance that exceeds the FARs. It also specific states that the Rotax maintenance manual supercedes the owner manual if there are conflicts. So, if the Rotax manual says only Rotax-certified mechanics can work on the engine then what happens if a 'normal' A&P does work (as per the FAA)? Is the S-LSA no longer airworthy?

[Roger Lee]

Some of the LSA manuals and rules from the MFG's are wrong. I have found a few and told the MFG's. The most responsive of these was Remos that fixed the error in less than 8 hrs. and had me re-read the manual and look for further errors. The MFG can not give away more rights than what the FAR's or ASTM standards give.

If I can remember I'm going to call Edsel Ford at the FAA Monday and get a little better ruling on some of this. If I forget remind me.

 

 

 

S3flyer,

 

With the new ruling I would not think that phrase in the Rotax manual will stand up any longer, but remember nothing in print from the FAA has come out yet. I think this ruling may give the insurance more latitude not to pay because you now have more ways to screw up. This may also give the FAA more chances to reach out and touch someone? All of this is a wait and see. There will definitely be some jocking around some as the dust settles.

[airhound]

Question about this great discussion regarding FAA ROTAX maintenance ruling. Do we agree, 'If one is prone to Have to Ask-How Much?, then aircraft ownership (maintenance and operations) might not be the wisest decision'? I have to admit, for the amount of joy/use I get out of my SW, I have a couple of 'I wished I'd knowns' regarding big ticket maintenance items about our category so I could have factored the costs into my decision. BRS/Hose Replacement. Just lack of foresight I suppose.

 

Doug in IL.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Doug,

 

I would speculate most of us are in the same boat, but we love to fly and experience life and sometimes it's not the cheapest seat in the house.

[bruno dias]

well I have no plane, I have yet to finish the license

here in Portugal there is only one model of these I think, is a ct2k

 

I think it should be changed to open the way to the plane, I think there should be a handle on the outside, instead of putting his hand into the air

 

and I think that access the luggage should be better, the idea of ​​indoor and outdoor access is good, but the doors seem small to some kind of baggage, baggage that we use for example when traveling on airlines

 

should be more like the sirius tl3000 only has access to inside, but enter any type of bag

 

anyone have the measurements of the door of the luggage?

and measures for access behind the seats?

 

Excuse the English, I used the google translator

[Jacques]

 

anyone have the measurements of the door of the luggage?

and measures for access behind the seats?

 

 

 

20 x 14 inch each are the access behind the seats

16 x 18 inch each are the outside luguage doors

 

that's on SW [ 2K is the same]

 

plenty of space.

 

with the right seat in the luguage compartment, I have carried .skis, ladder, engine

 

some even sleep in it

[bruno dias]

20cm x 14cm seems to me a little

I expect there a 50cm