flyerme Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 I do NOT expect them to just let it go!!!I expect them to fix the mistakes THEY MADE. L2 inspection that was done included the extensive log book history and detailing all work since 1989 including several transfer copies showing the APPROVED Brolga prop clearly on them,there has been a number of DIFFERENT Tech guys whome all approved the tranfer's and reg.. So its 100% RAA mistake NOW, as I have purchaced a REGISTED plane that RAA approved several times. If they don,t want to take resposibility make sure ALL certified a/c are sold with an APPROVED engineer order to cover them selvs. But they allowed an" Illegally modified plane " to not only be registed and re registed for some 20 years but to be sold to an unsuspecting pensioner who pays a fee for RAA to do there job RIGHT. What you fail to see/know is RAA new about these problems and allowed them to continue and aircraft to be sold...BIG MISTAKE RAA. As mentioned I have spoken in length to our family sollisitor and Legally It does not matter whome ,where and when the The prop was fitted but the fact that is was APPROVED by RAA without proper documentation sevreal times and now there mistake has been found they are trying to make ME pay for there stuff up. All cases may not be the same but in my case its suggested that RAA pay for all exspences occured in order to rectify there mistake (paperwork).FAIR ENOUGH I believe. It Would be completely different if the Prop (clearly approved on all the tranfers) was the original Prop but its clearly noted as the current Brolga 3 blade... Nice of them to keep my tranfer payment by the way. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nunans Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 If the aircraft has been flown since '89 with a brolga three blade and had no issues then it seems the particular prop currently fitted isn't the problem, instead the problem is the BS rule which states that the only prop allowed on a lightwing is some (guessing here) wooden no longer available prop which isn't as good as the one that's pulling the plane around today. The right way to make it "legal" is not to blindly follow the rules just because "them's the rules" as the GA suckers are forced to but instead Raa (including us flying members) should be pushing to change the rules to include other better performing and more readily available props aswell as the original. The other good suggestion above is to allow a one way rego prefix change to 19 then you can do what you want... It would probably depreciate the aircraft a bit though I'm not as clear on the rego's as I'd like to be but are 19 and 10 the only classes which don't allow the training/hire and reward use? In any case FM I agree the problem isn't your doing and you are just the unlucky person who is trying to transfer the rego for the first time AFTER the audit failures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 If the aircraft has been flown since '89 with a brolga three blade and had no issues then it seems the particular prop currently fitted isn't the problem, instead the problem is the BS rule which states that the only prop allowed on a lightwing is some (guessing here) wooden no longer available prop which isn't as good as the one that's pulling the plane around today.The right way to make it "legal" is not to blindly follow the rules just because "them's the rules" as the GA suckers are forced to but instead Raa (including us flying members) should be pushing to change the rules to include other better performing and more readily available props aswell as the original. The other good suggestion above is to allow a one way rego prefix change to 19 then you can do what you want... It would probably depreciate the aircraft a bit though I'm not as clear on the rego's as I'd like to be but are 19 and 10 the only classes which don't allow the training/hire and reward use? In any case FM I agree the problem isn't your doing and you are just the unlucky person who is trying to transfer the rego for the first time AFTER the audit failures GA suckers! Sadly the stupid rules you speak of have been written in the blood of pilots over the last 100 years or so! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPN Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 GA suckers! Sadly the stupid rules you speak of have been written in the blood of pilots over the last 100 years or so! I could not agree more MM. People breaking the rules is more than half the reason we, (RA Aus) is in the state (s..t) we are in now. Do the crime, do the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The other good suggestion above is to allow a one way rego prefix change to 19 then you can do what you want... Sorry but you are technically incorrect, the only time you can do what you want is if you are the original builder.......19 registered as a subsequent owner does not allow you to do what you want....... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 ..... should be pushing to change the rules to include other better performing and more readily available props aswell as the original. the rules do not prevent other props from being fitted, just require substantiation that it is as good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I was around when the previous owner of bolly props was going through the certification process for the prop that is fitted to the airborne trike.....He had to spin that sucker way faster than it will on a 912 so an old holden V8 was used (much more HP than a 912) and it could barely get the speed to that needed. The prop was also operating way outside its intended use specifications and as such had to enclosed in a cage.....bottom line, a fair bit of expense and a lot of time to approve the prop on a single aircraft....... Certifying a prop aounds easy but in reality isnt...... I also recall hearing about a (previous owner) bolly prop being fitted to a Jabby 4 cyl at Truro Flats......In the air one of the blades felt the need to be free of the hub.....the resulting disaster shook off the carby which was good cause the engine then stopped...God alone knows what the outcome would have been had it continued for a few more revolutions......... Bottom line changing a propo sounds easy, yet there are examples of where an incorrect choice (ignorance of certain characteristics of the engine/gearbox requirements etc) can generate a fatality when the engine/gearbox feels the need to depart the aeroplane........ Not suggesting that is the case here, but someone who knows must be able to certify that all is going to be Ok with a replacement Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nunans Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 True, the rules come about as a way to make sure the incident doesn't happen again, but surely you can agree that there are lots of them which don't necessarily contribute to the safety of all aircraft they are applied to and this prop is one example. What about common sense? I suppose I'm not taking into account that the aircraft in question is certified and that's why all the dramas. I just wish the RA aircraft weren't being dragged into the same rules hangar as the GA types. If we're going to be scrutinised to the same degree as every other VH plane out there then we might as well lift the 600kg, 2pob, OCTA, day vfr limits etc. I thought in exchange for the limitations we got the exemptions, but maybe not as much with the certified rego's Metalman, No offence was intended toward the GA suckers ;) and I understand that high standards are required to ensure safety and CASA delivers this to the VH aircraft by making the rules and requiring compliance to those rules at any cost, but RA really is supposed to be different, we are not required to be pilot trained to the same extent, our aircraft are not required to be maintained by people with as high qualification, and as a result it's cheaper to operate an RA reg plane and it's cheaper to learn to fly RA aircraft. In exchange we accept the limits of operation and take additional care in our activities to ensure our own safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 .... dragged into the same rules? To the contrary, those rules have always applied .... RAA has exemptions from specified rules. (I have certified a number of wooden props, a bit of work but fairly straightforward. Testing at 10% overspeed is one option to do it. I have also done the work to get props approved on specific aircraft.) GA suckers? Bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 So just how many problems have there been in the past 20 years, from aircraft fitted with props, not approved by the manufacturer ?????..........lets get to the nitty gritty here !...idealists, walk away ..we're talking reality, and cold hard facts here folks.....lets have the details !.....otherwise CASA is blowing warm air up our collective arsxs once again in the name of control !....I mean really, wouldn't their time be better spent looking at a certain 'CASA certified" engine manufacturer in this country, whose failure rate is much higher than it should be, and keeps putting aircraft into emergency landing situations ????.................That folks is a real safety issue.......................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The principle is very straightforward - if you don't want the limitations associated with a certified aircraft then go Experimental. CASA's rules on this subject are more liberal than in many other countries.That same person can approve changes. What if that person is unknown, far away or has fallen off his twig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pylon500 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I feel that very few of the mass produced props out there that we use are actually 'Certified'. Sure many of them have been well 'tested', and the odd one or two have come up wanting, but on the whole they all work, just some better than others. The talk of just dropping a 24-, 55-, 24- aircraft to a 19- is pointless. As said, most of the aircraft here with problems are older models that have worn out their props, or the owner/operators have decided to fit a more efficient, economical, quieter prop. Not to beat around the bush, but anyone that flies a Skyfox/Gazelle will tell you the original 'lump of wood' can be well out classed by even a Brolga. Many people building 19- Jabiru powered aircraft will opt for the Sensenich prop, if they can afford it. Aeroprakt could not guarantee supply of the Kiev props, so approved Warp Drives, many now think the Foxbat performs better with the Warp..... As I said before, this is blowing out of proportion. What we really need (with our 10,000 members) is to get another exemption (for ALL ultralights) regarding the technical status of the propellors we use. As a side question, how many actually use 'aircraft' grade tires on their planes? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Words of wisdom Pylon, or for that matter who actually knows what type of tyre your aircraft came out of the factory with..other than the size ?...I bet even the original manufacturer wouldn't even bother keeping that info on file, not that it matters a diddly twit anyway .............................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Words of wisdom Pylon, or for that matter who actually knows what type of tyre your aircraft came out of the factory with..other than the size ?...I bet even the original manufacturer wouldn't even bother keeping that info on file, not that it matters a diddly twit anyway .............................................Maj... I care Major!!! Ive heard that you dont want a wheelbarrow tyre, wheelbarrowing a UL Im told is bad and will cause tears.....As such as long as its not a wheelbarrow tyre all good!! Apart from the fact that I liek 10ply and 10ply wheelbarrow tyres are apparently hard to come by....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have quite a few hours on wheelbarrow tires Andy, and don't recall them being a problem...and very nice to grab hold off when you needed additional stopping power (Lazair-original equipment wheelbarrow tires !)...........................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The narrow spoked bike wheel was a lot easier to grab. The later tundra ones are a little wider makes it a bit harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have quite a few hours on wheelbarrow tires Andy, and don't recall them being a problem...and very nice to grab hold off when you needed additional stopping power (Lazair-original equipment wheelbarrow tires !)...........................Maj... just trying to introduce a bit of levity.......as you know wheelbarrowing an ultralight (with nosewheel) on the front wheel is generally bad...hence my aversion to wheelbarrow tyres......sorry.....back to normal agitation...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAJabiruflyer Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I do NOT expect them to just let it go!!!I expect them to fix the mistakes THEY MADE.L2 inspection that was done included the extensive log book history and detailing all work since 1989 including several transfer copies showing the APPROVED Brolga prop clearly on them,there has been a number of DIFFERENT Tech guys whome all approved the tranfer's and reg.. So its 100% RAA mistake NOW, as I have purchaced a REGISTED plane that RAA approved several times. If they don,t want to take resposibility make sure ALL certified a/c are sold with an APPROVED engineer order to cover them selvs. But they allowed an" Illegally modified plane " to not only be registed and re registed for some 20 years but to be sold to an unsuspecting pensioner who pays a fee for RAA to do there job RIGHT. What you fail to see/know is RAA new about these problems and allowed them to continue and aircraft to be sold...BIG MISTAKE RAA. As mentioned I have spoken in length to our family sollisitor and Legally It does not matter whome ,where and when the The prop was fitted but the fact that is was APPROVED by RAA without proper documentation sevreal times and now there mistake has been found they are trying to make ME pay for there stuff up. All cases may not be the same but in my case its suggested that RAA pay for all exspences occured in order to rectify there mistake (paperwork).FAIR ENOUGH I believe. It Would be completely different if the Prop (clearly approved on all the tranfers) was the original Prop but its clearly noted as the current Brolga 3 blade... Nice of them to keep my tranfer payment by the way. I have to ask, how does a pensioner afford to buy (and run) a plane? I work full time and don't have the cash to buy one :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Trying to get an exemption re approved props is one thing................BUT if you want to fly now then the current rules need to be complied with - just a reality all be inconvenient/difficult in some situations. Off track as far as complying with an audit NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerme Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have to ask, how does a pensioner afford to buy (and run) a plane? I work full time and don't have the cash to buy one :( thats pretty rude!!!!!!!but ill bite- for the record ,its not rocket science!!! its called SACRIFICE ...Bye a cheaper house!!!! or one with less rent!! move to the middle of know where , where housing is cheap as chips. Drive a beat up old bomb instead of your flash car!!!! and sell all the crap you don't use like I did ( my motor cycle -gone- My exspensive car gone,boat etc.). If you want something bad enough anyone can have it with a little determination and smarts..My first plane cost $2500 and cost nothing but some fuel and oil to run - and you can,t afford a plane on a full time wage? dont aim for an RV! aim for a Grass hopper! Secondly- I worked damn hard and I mean WORKED to achieve what I have. In my last days of hard labour I was involved in an site accident which left me crippled. I then sold up my bobcat and tipper business and the rest is history A year and a half go my Wife past away (48yo) from a terminal illness and it was her dying wish that I live out my dream of flying with my son. I believe anything is achievable if you REALLY want it bad enough.. You'd be suprised how many of us owners are pensioners.. Does that clear it up for you? 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Flyerme, You have summed it up. A question of priorities. What you have outlined was my approach too. You cut costs of other things right down. Trouble with that is your eggs are all in the one basket and things like administration hiccups ruin your flying plans. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metalman Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Sorry you felt you had to answer that mate, Met 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Andy, yes I did get the gist of your wheelbarrow reference, but chose not to take it further for obvious reasons !............................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have to ask, how does a pensioner afford to buy (and run) a plane? I work full time and don't have the cash to buy one :( Snide, irrelevant and totally unconnected to the thread Jab. Poor form and none of your damn business! 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 FM I really think you should find out which prop is the correct one and get hold of one and fit it drawing attention to the situation on here could make things worse. I have a two blade wooden prop which you could have but I am sure it would not be the right pitch as it was off a 503 Thruster which was less HP and slower speed, but someone out there most likely will have the right one. First you need to find out what is the right prop for your plane. If I was you I would prefer a wooden prop anyway as I know of two instances where Brolgas threw blades in the early days at one time they were grounded. You may feel wronged by RAAus but you are one of many with this sort of problem. I am not sure who in RAAus decided to turn a blind eye to non flying school certified aircraft being modified illegally but it should never have happened. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now