Confused about “on condition”

[Bill3558]

My new to me 2008 CTLS is due for annual, rocket replacement, chute repack and 5 year rubber next month. I know it’s going to be a big bill, but I budgeted for it. 
I talked to Lockwood in Sebring. When I told him the rubber is a year overdue he said I was flying the plane illegally. 
Is that correct?  I thought an owner could fly it on condition. 
He also said FD requires engine mount replacements at 5 years.  
That was news to the guy that did the last annual. He was just going to do the hoses. 
I have a call in with FD but got voice mail. 
Appreciate any advice.  

[Roger Lee]

No he's not correct and this has been researched by several people including myself at nauseum. Rotax can not make the rules and regs for the US. Period. That is done by the FAA. I wish Lockwood would do better research and call the FAA for better guidance. These are all recommendations from FD and Rotax and SHOULD be done, but are not legally binding.  The key words here is legally binding. The FAA also called the insurance companies back when this was even more a hot topic and the insurance companies said they would follow what the FAA says. Depending on who does your rubber replacement and their hourly shop rate and with the things you have mentioned above it will cost anywhere from $7500 - $9K. The chute and rocket right now is 3 weeks and $3250 just for the BRS folks. I just did the exact same type maint. on a 2008 CTLS. He had it all done. I'm still waiting for the chute.

Lockwood is also wrong about the TBO. They will refuse to work on your plane if it has timed out unless you want to give them $14K+ to overhaul your engine which the FAR's and the FAA says you can go on condition. To me some of their demands are just all about money. A lot of  people have gotten away from Lockwood. I read about it or have people call me all the time about them.

Years ago:

Legally the FAA had issues with Rotax SB's being mandatory since we deal with SD's for mandatory work in the US. It was supposed to have been ruled on by the FAA legal over a 1-2 years ago which never happened. At first the FAA said they weren't binding, but I was told by the two top LSA folks that they got it wrong and may be changing their stance, but nothing has come out.

p.s.

The rubber engine mounts should be done at hose change. 

[Bill3558]

Thank you Roger.  I may still take it to Lockwood though because my guy has never done engine mounts and only 3 hose jobs. 
Speaking of the chute,  can you legally fly with an outdated chute?   
 

[FlyingMonkey]

23 hours ago, Bill3558 said:

Thank you Roger.  I may still take it to Lockwood though because my guy has never done engine mounts and only 3 hose jobs. 
Speaking of the chute,  can you legally fly with an outdated chute?   
 

The engine mount isolators are child's play to swap...if your guy can do a hose change, he can sleep through swapping the mounts.

[Roger Lee]

4 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

The engine mount isolators are child's play to swap...if your guy can do a hose change, he can sleep through swapping the mounts.

If he pulls the engine.  

[FlyingMonkey]

12 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

If he pulls the engine.  

True, but I don't know how you get to those back hoses without swinging the engine away.  The big coolant hose one the back right side and the fuel lines going to the firewall are really tight to get to.  You'd need some illegal child labor to get a hand in there. 

[Roger Lee]

" You'd need some illegal child labor to get a hand in there."

That's how I work in the tail section. A third grader. LOL

[FlyingMonkey]

3 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

" You'd need some illegal child labor to get a hand in there."

That's how I work in the tail section. A third grader. LOL

I've seen your meat hooks.  I believe it.

[sandpiper]

My first hose change was done with the engine on the plane. The next one 5 years later I pulled the engine so I could do the motor mounts which, by the way, looked fine.

To me, if you are not doing the mounts, it's a trade off which way you go.

I can also change the fuel sight tubes without pulling the wings. Again, a trade off. My wings are a b*#^h to put back on.

I know Roger is going to call me inept but thats OK. Maybe thats why when I call him he answers with "what did you break this time?"

[Andy]

Gents,

I e-mailed Arian Foldan about this issue, especially after looking at the FAA legal opinion issued in 2015 (Keller) that said TBO had to be followed.  After reading it, it still wasn't clear to me whether there was wiggle room as has been discussed here.  I have included the text of my e-mail and his response: 

My e-mail to him is below:

"I’m trying to get some clarity on Flight Design’s stance concerning the Rotax 912 ULS calendar life limit and whether Flight Design, which is the manufacturer of the aircraft, considers the TBO hourly and calendar life limits as mandatory.   Depending on which FAA legal opinion you look at, you can find opinions stating they are or are not hard limits (with the Keller opinion in 2015 appearing to be the most restrictive).  Most language in the opinions refer to the manufacturer; generally, that term is reserved for the aircraft manufacturer, which is why I’m asking the question.  The only thing I remember seeing from Flight Design is an admonition stating you “may” have to abide by the Rotax requirements (which have, in the past, been trumped by FAA legalities, such as the requirements for Rotax schooling for aviation maintainers).

Depending on whom you’re talking to within the CT community, some feel that flying on condition (as part 91 operators not for hire can do) past any part of a TBO is acceptable and some are saying that the calendar life restriction (15 years) is a hard limit and the only way to deal with it is to overhaul or replace your engine or convert to ELSA.   The import of the answer to this question has a strong affect on any Rotax powered LSA in the market since if the calendar life restriction is “hard”, then every Rotax sold is on a clock to have the engine replaced or overhauled at that limit.   In my case, I am just now hitting 1000 hours total time on the aircraft and engine, have followed all the Rotax guidelines, and see no compelling reason to replace or overhaul the engine next year as would be required. Secondly, it has stopped me from buying any Rotax powered LSA to employ as a trainer, since the newer models are financially out of reach and the engine replacement possibility to maintain SLSA status adds to my costs by $20K.  Personally, I’d rather not take my aircraft ELSA if I can avoid it, which is why I’m asking the question. 

Here's his response:

Flight Design has not issued any overriding information on engine overhaul requirements.  This means we have to defer to Rotax.  In the maintenance manual, they specify requirements:



The verbiage presented there means that it is required by Rotax.  Which leads us to the next part: does that mean it is legally required?  The short answer is yes.  Here is where it can get confusing.
 

The FAA, in creating the light sport aircraft rules, defers to the ASTM for manufacturing requirements.  They also defer to the manufacturer for continued airworthiness requirements.  In normal category aircraft, the FAA governs all of the manufacture and airworthiness requirements for any aircraft.  So they will create rules based on their requirements.  Since they do not govern those things for light sport aircraft, they defer, and say that anything the manufacturer requires is legally required.

The reason this does not apply to maintenance personnel is because the FAA directly governs that side of things.  The manufacturer, for instance, cannot issue an A&P or LSRM certificate.  That means they can't govern requirements for those certificate holders.

The only way to get this changed would be to petition Flight Design to create a continued airworthiness program for the engine beyond calendar TBO.  If members of the community want to put something together, I would be happy to present it to FD.

Me again:  Looks to me like there's an opportunity to try to get "flying on condition" all tied up in a bow, assuming that FD sees benefit in doing it and can skirt liability to their satisfaction.  

Andy  

[Tom Baker]

Andy, you should ask what specific verbiage in the manual indicates that you have to follow Rotax's overhaul times. 

[Roger Lee]

"The verbiage presented there means that it is required by Rotax.  Which leads us to the next part: does that mean it is legally required?  The short answer is yes.  Here is where it can get confusing."

The short answer is NO because Rotax does not mandate rules, regs and FAR's for the US. Only the FAA does. No MFG can override what is in print from the FAA and when the aircraft and engine people put something in print it MUST fall within the scope of the FAR's. It can not undermine or over reach what's in the US FAR's.

" the FAA governs all of the manufacture and airworthiness requirements for any aircraft"

He says it right here.

I sent Arian this and it is clear in that document. I don't understand why anyone thinks Rotax can over ride the FAA in the US. 

"Since they do not govern those things for light sport aircraft, they defer, and say that anything the manufacturer requires is legally required."

Again aircraft MFG's can not over ride the FAR's. According to Arian's interpretation the aircraft MFG and Rotax can demand anything and the FAA would have no say so. You don't get it both ways.

The FAR's do apply to light sport, but not when it talks directly about certified. The certified rules and LSA have cross overs in the rules and difference that separate them.

 

Ask Arian to show you in the FAR's where you have to do a TBO, but make sure he reads the last statement in the FAR's about TBO.

[Jim Meade]

Would these references have any bearing? 

CTLS Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Manual

5.2 Rotax 912ULS Engine For engine inspection and maintenance refer to the valid original Rotax manuals. Initial manuals are supplied with the aircraft: • Operator’s Manual for all versions of ROTAX 912; • Maintenance Manual (Line Maintenance ) for ROTAX Engine Type 912 Series; • Maintenance Manual II (Heavy-Maintenance) for ROTAX Engine Type 912 Series.

CTSW Is virtually identical; same paragraph number.

What does "refer to" mean?  I have no clue.  Maybe means "use as the source of guidance", maybe means "take it under advisement".  Tom asked for verbiage, this is tossed out as a candidate.  I am not defending it; I have no dog in this fight, since I have ELSA.

[sandpiper]

When my 15 years are up, if I still own the aircraft, I will simply change to ELSA if this is still an issue. I will not be spending $20K to replace a perfectly good engine.

[Andy]

I have attached the 2015 Keller FAA legal opinion that also steers in the direction that for LSA TBO is mandatory.   The solution Arian proposes would address the issues that the opinion writer has about moving past the TBO.  I take it from the responses here, there's not much interest in working up a program to pitch; and as a private owner going ELSA is in some ways a better solution.  If there is no formal program for going past TBO by next year, I'm going to take mine to ELSA to avoid any possible entanglements.  As the airplane ages, it'll probably make it easier to keep it flying anyway.    

My cut is that the FAA tends to defer to the aircraft manufacturer because of how they have implemented the LSA rules, so if Arian has truly captured where FD has come down, then it's going to be more risk than I want to take by remaining SLSA.  I'd love to see an effort made to come up with a "flying past conditional" program because I believe it would be good for the whole LSA community.  From the way he responded, though, I take it we'd have to come up with a proposal.  Admittedly, it might be more hassle and expense than simply going ELSA, but then I'm thinking about the training and resale market as well.   Still, I'm willing to work on something if there's enough interest, though I certainly don't have the expertise to do it by myself.  PM me if you think you'd like to press forward with something, and we'll see if we can get enough resources to go forward. 

Keller - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf

[Tom Baker]

8 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

Would these references have any bearing? 

CTLS Maintenance and Inspection Procedures Manual

5.2 Rotax 912ULS Engine For engine inspection and maintenance refer to the valid original Rotax manuals. Initial manuals are supplied with the aircraft: • Operator’s Manual for all versions of ROTAX 912; • Maintenance Manual (Line Maintenance ) for ROTAX Engine Type 912 Series; • Maintenance Manual II (Heavy-Maintenance) for ROTAX Engine Type 912 Series.

CTSW Is virtually identical; same paragraph number.

What does "refer to" mean?  I have no clue.  Maybe means "use as the source of guidance", maybe means "take it under advisement".  Tom asked for verbiage, this is tossed out as a candidate.  I am not defending it; I have no dog in this fight, since I have ELSA.

My take is if I am performing an inspection I have to follow the Rotax manual, and any maintenance I perform I have to follow the Rotax manual. Rotax does not include a check for TBO in their inspection checklist, and TBO is not performing maintenance. 

I have looked at the Rotax manual for TBO. Yes they publish a time and calendar months for TBO, but this is just a recommended time based on normal operating conditions. It also says to look to the aircraft manufacture and the local aviation authority for what "normal" is. No place that I saw said that in "MUST" be followed. Now the rubber replacement is a little different, because Rotax ties it in with the aircraft inspection, and says it MUST be done along with the inspection requirements.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would feel good about defending my position.

[Roger Lee]

Your on condition items is the checklist. FAA told me these things directly on the phone more than once since this topic has come up numerous times and directed me to the FAR's that allow it.  Plus going ELSA may be even more restrictive depending on how the DAR writes it up in the new Operating Limitations.

Show me in the FAA legal documentation below that you are legally bound to do a Rotax TBO and can not deviate from that.

First letter from the FAA.

"This responds to your e-mail dated March 14,2013 in which you requested a determination
as to whether information contained in the maintenance manuals for aircraft issued special
airworthiness certificates in the light-sport category (S-LSA) is mandatory. You specifically
question whether component replacement and engine overhaul times specified by
manufacturers as being mandatory must be complied with.
The rules applicable to the performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,
and alteration ofS-LSA are contained in part 43 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). Section 43.13 sets forth the performance rules applicable to persons performing
work on these aircraft. Paragraph (a) of that section specifically states that:
Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on
an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques,
and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or
other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator,
except as noted in § 43.16. I Part 43 does not mandate that a person specifically perform maintenance, alteration,
or preventive maintenance solely in accordance with those instructions specified in a
manufacturer's maintenance manual. It also permits a person to perform such work in
accordance with other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the                                                                The administrator is the FAA.
Administrator."

Another right from the FAA:

"The rules applicable to the performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding,
and alteration ofS-LSA are contained in part 43 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). Section 43.13 sets forth the performance rules applicable to persons performing
work on these aircraft. Paragraph (a) of that section specifically states that:
Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on
an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques,
and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or
other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator,
except as noted in § 43.16. I
Part 43 does not mandate that a person specifically perform maintenance, alteration,
or preventive maintenance solely in accordance with those instructions specified in a
manufacturer's maintenance manual. It also permits a person to perform such work in
accordance with other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the
Administrator.

 

More from the FAA legal:

":The FAA recognizes that some manufacturers have placed what they deem "mandatory"
replacement or overhaul times in their maintenance manuals for S-LSA and that these
provisions may be consistent with consensus standards accepted by the FAA. While
following the intervals set forth in the maintenance manuals is an acceptable means of                                                This paragraph says you are allowed to do it either way.
maintaining the aircraft under § 43.13(a), a maintenance provider may use another method
that is acceptable to the FAA. The intervals specified in maintenance manuals for S-LSA,
therefore, are not per se mandatory. Consequently, a maintenance provider may develop an
alternative that is acceptable to the FAA and maintain an S-LSA in accordance with those
provisions.
This interpretation was prepared by Paul Greer, an attorney in the Regulations Division of
the Office of the Chief Counsel, and was coordinated with the Aircraft Maintenance Division
(AFS-300) of the Flight Standards Service. If you have additional questions regarding this
matter, please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073.
ar"

 

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

I don't have a dog in this race, but understand how murky the question is.  Had a thought I'll toss into the ring, what is the position of the insurance companies - they are full of lawyers / legal opinions, one would think they've formed a stance on this as a large chunk of fleet is growing beyond the 15 year mark each day.

It seems to me the FAA would not be coming down on someone flying an engine beyond 15 years, when I was allowed to fly my O-200 with 50+ years never having a major and a case that  had never been opened.  I know PMA & TSO v/s LSA ASTM, just sharing a thought for big picture - you know how many OLD engines and airframes are still flying.

[Roger Lee]

Just now, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

I don't have a dog in this race, but understand how murky the question is.  Had a thought I'll toss into the ring, what is the position of the insurance companies - they are full of lawyers / legal opinions, one would think they've formed a stance on this as a large chunk of fleet is growing beyond the 15 year mark each day.

It seems to me the FAA would not be coming down on someone flying an engine beyond 15 years, when I was allowed to fly my O-200 with 50+ years never having a major and a case that  had never been opened.  I know PMA & TSO v/s LSA ASTM, just sharing a thought for big picture - you know how many OLD engines and airframes are still flying.

LOL Your dog just jumped into the arena.

When I researched this with the FAA they told me they talked with the insurance companies and the insurance companies would go along with whatever the FAA said. Insurance companies in this arena don't make their own interpretations, but stick with what the FAA rules determine.

[airhound]

Greetings and Salutations fellow head scratchers. A couple questions to help me decide to buy an older FD and change to ELSA based on the foregoing discussion.

If Flight Training is not the primary use of SLSA, then:

-Today, do SLSA, especially FD, make up a substantial number of the US Flight Training Fleet or did the numbers not pan out? Maybe Basic Med had an impact. 

-Is ELSA being considered by FAA for flight instruction?

-Is going from SLSA to ELSA that big of a value hit these days on older Aircraft?

ELSA can enable a pilot/owner to become more knowledgeable about the AW condition of their machine and have some latitude to prioritize and perform maintenance items and inspection for their aircraft, if they take the weekend course. Shoot, why not ELSA, if business isn’t the main reason for ownership?
 

 

 

and decide maintenance priorities.

 

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

I view ELSA as all positive, you'll find the values of CT's are the same regardless of certificate type, there is zero hit that I've seen.  Same story with insurance carriers, no difference on that note either.  Now, if an owner was over their head on work they were performing, and logs are questionable, that might penalize them when selling because of unknown risks.  I talked to a couple sellers back in the day that had converted to Exp Cat, I was hoping to buy one already converted.  The couple I talked to were over the 5 year rubber, chute repack expired, etc.  I avoided going to look at those planes even though they may have been a fit - it spoke to me they were skimping on maintenance and what else was being neglected, plus the price was not reflecting those situations so was an easy call.

I think you're possibly asking the flight training question on rental, I don't see that likely.  However, taking instruction in the aircraft you own is no issue.

[airhound]

Darrell, did you do the SLSA/ELSA process yourself? If so, would like to go voice about it, if possible?

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

Yes, at time of purchase it was arranged the same day.  There is not much to it, main points are the airplane must have had the annual inspection in preceding 30 days, and it cost me I believe $300, the placard on panel is changed along with the "experimental" decals replacing "light sport" on the door.  A new AW cert is provided, and that's about it.  I contacted my FSDO about using them when I returned with the airplane following purchase, they were engaged and willing to help but I was fortunate to find out a DAR was on the field I bought plane and he was able to take care of process within a couple of hours.  Like others have mentioned, pay attention to what limitations are placed on aircraft - mine was written up very broad such as allowing IFR flight if properly equipped.

[sandpiper]

I insure with Falcon. Full insurance on my CTSW which is still S-LSA, and builders insurance on my RV-12 project which will be E-LSA.

A few years ago I asked Falcon what would be the insurance impact of changing the CTSW to E-LSA. I think they said I would not be renewed, or dropped,  if I did that. I then asked about the -12. Would they drop me when it became flyable? He said no because it was always intended to be E-LSA whereas the CTSW was always intended to be S-LSA.

I told him this did not make sense. He agreed but said this was the answer he got when he asked the question.

I think I posted this on this forum when it was still fresh in my mind but I can't find it.. I can't say for sure it was Falcon but I do remember the part of needing to find a new carrier.

I know several on this forum have made the switch. Did any of you have a similar problem?

Also, I trust that none of you will comment about why I am 10 years into a 2 year build on my -12 and still not finished. Right? Short answer is I have lost interest and I'm about to put it on the market.

[airhound]

43 minutes ago, GrassStripFlyBoy said:

Yes, at time of purchase it was arranged the same day.  There is not much to it, main points are the airplane must have had the annual inspection in preceding 30 days, and it cost me I believe $300, the placard on panel is changed along with the "experimental" decals replacing "light sport" on the door.  A new AW cert is provided, and that's about it.  I contacted my FSDO about using them when I returned with the airplane following purchase, they were engaged and willing to help but I was fortunate to find out a DAR was on the field I bought plane and he was able to take care of process within a couple of hours.  Like others have mentioned, pay attention to what limitations are placed on aircraft - mine was written up very broad such as allowing IFR flight if properly equipped.

All good gouge, thank you and sandpiper!