motzartmerv Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 What exactly are we meant to be looking at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 A list of awb's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Never mind. I found it . Thank you. Some incorrectly fitted cht gauges in some instillations.. Not much concern there, but thanks for the heads up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Never mind. I found it . Thank you. Some incorrectly fitted cht gauges in some instillations..Not much concern there, but thanks for the heads up. Wow that's a big dangerous stuff up on a Rotax....CHT on the wrong cylinder...I see It all the time......... Wow...makes Absolutly no difference by the way. Wally at B Floods recommends it on the # 2 cyl. Phew....had me scared there for a moment !..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I understand what you are thinking but you need to understand a few serious point. CASA set this up and made the requirements and approved or CASA delegates approved, the Jabiru 2200 engine was CERTIFIED by CASA and if they saw a problem what have they being doing for 20 years. CASA in regard to LSA should and MUST work with industry, their current antics are in breach in my opinion ! I have a document Light Sport Aircraft, airworthiness requirements, SAAA authorised person familiarisation training, Southport Qld. 23rd Sept 2006. It has a picture of a Foxcon Terrier on it. It is an Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority document. If you saw this document you would laugh at what CASA has done. The document I have is the real deal. It say CASA responsible for- Approving LSA standards. -Participate with industry in periodically reviewing LSA standards. -overseeing authorised persons who issue certificates of airworthiness. - registration of aircraft if CASA registered. -impose conditions or directions, if necessary, in the interest of safety. ASTM standards, where is the committee of manufacturers, aviation sport bodies and regulators ? They were meant to be represented internationally ! It says! CASA may impose additional operating limitations in the interest of safety. - CASA must give this to each registered operator of the aircraft. HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED BY CASA, The first LSA had an Adjustable prop in front of CASA who inspected it ! Then they decide it not ok ! The document makes no mention of ATSM on props as there is non on tyres or other accessories ! The Foxcon was deregistered LSA as per a letter to an owner from RAA A recent audit and associated follow up action revealed that the Foxcon Terrier aircraft fitted with an auto engine and belt reduction propeller drive, does not comply with LSA standards and therefore, the aircraft does not qualify for LSA (24----) registration. Regretfully, from today ------ 2012 the special certificate of airworthiness originally issued for the aircraft is invalid therefore. Etc. The Terrier was a 2006 model, so 6 years later they change their mind ! Suddenly discovered an auto engine in it ! CASA created this mess and I'm not falling for their ridiculous games ! They will undo the damage they have done at their expense, if you think I'm wrong see what plane is available to buy or hire when our dollar is 50c US. Before you tag this funny be sure to understand what is going on, our right to fly with minimum regulation is threatened. I own a J230 , I have flown foxcon Terriers and I have many hours in Morgan Siera's. I am not for one minute saying these aircraft have no faults, but tell me what is perfect ! CASA did not help or liaise, it waved its big stick and crushed them ! The mistake I believe you have made is understanding LSA. The OEM specifies that the aircraft meets one of the acceptable LSA standards. If none of the standards allow for the engine/ belt drive configuration then how is that anyone's fault but the manufacturer? I believe in times recent an audit by CASA of some LSA manufacturers in Australia identified that at least one of the manufacturers didn't even own a copy of the applicable standards but was happy to specify that their aircraft met it, despite being unable to show any requirements analysis done in house or by consultant ( which to me would be the one barely acceptable way that an OEM could claim that copies of the standard are not required to be held by them) showing the standards are met. Caveat emptor. If it's claimed to be LSA ask the question before paying the money as to what standard it meets and how the manufacturer determined compliance! Andy Personal views above only nothing to do with RAAus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I subscribe to the CASA mailing lists and therefore receive ad's for everything up to A380 and this afternoon received an email with the following :- ad.easa.Europa.eu/ad/2014-34 and referred to:- www.casa.gov.au/airworth/awb/index.htm Read it and weep, We really do need to unite over these issues, not pull each other apart, CASA can do that well enough without our help! Try http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2014-34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Wow that's a big dangerous stuff up on a Rotax....CHT on the wrong cylinder...I see It all the time......... Wow...makes Absolutly no difference by the way. Wally at B Floods recommends it on the # 2 cyl. Phew....had me scared there for a moment !..... I don't think you understood Maj, the difference is the new heads now have the sender unit immersed in coolant and measures coolant temperature where as the heads on your lightwing have CHT probes. With different max temp range for each type! Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I don't think you understood Maj, the difference is the new heads now have the sender unit immersed in coolant and measures coolant temperature where as the heads on your lightwing have CHT probes. With different max temp range for each type! Tom Tom it has always been referred to as CHT however it is actually coolant temperature not a true CHT as suggested. A true CHT probe would pick up the cyl head temp closer to the spark plug which is generally the hottest area of a cylinder head. I have read the applicable documents and certainly don't see it as a major safety concern other than requiring the remarking of the upper range temp limits. You should know yourself as an operator that these engines rarely go anywhere near the upper limits anyway when set up correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Tom it has always been referred to as CHT however it is actually coolant temperature not a true CHT as suggested. Not according to Rotax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Not according to Rotax. They are water- cooled heads so the temperature of the heads are going to be the temperature of the water regardless of what Rotax calls it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planesmaker Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 They are water- cooled heads so the temperature of the heads are going to be the temperature of the water regardless of what Rotax calls it. I don't disagree. (Oops a double negative! my mother would not be impressed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I don't disagree. (Oops a double negative! my mother would not be impressed) No, not quite. You might no agree but you certainly don't disagree. It is a valid term and is more likely to be akin to conditional agreement eg "CASA is making a total ballsup of Rec Aviation" ... "well I don't disagree, but ...." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I thought I was wrong once but then I realised I was mistaken....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I find, as I get older, that I know more and more about less and less. Eventually I will know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.... 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The mistake I believe you have made is understanding LSA. The OEM specifies that the aircraft meets one of the acceptable LSA standards. If none of the standards allow for the engine/ belt drive configuration then how is that anyone's fault but the manufacturer?I believe in times recent an audit by CASA of some LSA manufacturers in Australia identified that at least one of the manufacturers didn't even own a copy of the applicable standards but was happy to specify that their aircraft met it, despite being unable to show any requirements analysis done in house or by consultant ( which to me would be the one barely acceptable way that an OEM could claim that copies of the standard are not required to be held by them) showing the standards are met. Caveat emptor. If it's claimed to be LSA ask the question before paying the money as to what standard it meets and how the manufacturer determined compliance! Andy Personal views above only nothing to do with RAAus Andy, in 2007 I went to the Foxcon factory and met Helmut, we discussed the fact it didn't have dual plugs and he said the dual redundant ignition on the Terrier meet the standards for LSA, I don't know if anywhere it say two spark plugs per cylinder but it did have dual a ignition system. The belt drive is up to the manufacturer to state it meets the standards, Helmut said he had done the LSA course. I flew with Helmut and enjoyed the plane, I have a friend who has one and since it became 19 rego he has made some refinements and is a nice plane. Regardless if Helmut was right or wrong I think that CASA and RAA should have helped and work with Australian manufacturers, The CEO of RAA at the time was not good for our organisation and we are suffering for this still. The current CASA tactics are not helping, they seem to be absorbed in their power to destroy, if their tactics fix jabiru problems I would be surprised, (and happy ! ) A few years ago an experienced L2 was doing repairs on a crashed European LSA and his comment were that it was a Bunnings plane as everything for it could come from bunnings including bolts. I'm arguing the point of CASA's ways because it seems to destroy our manufacturers ! http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/newspics/0508-ATSM-LSA-ENGINE-STANDARDS.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Helmut - last name, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If your got a spare $38 US you can read the ATSM for LSA engines, but engines that meet FAA FAR 33. And I'm sure there are other certified codes that meet standards. http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2339.htm Helmut - last name, please? Kley - what's that got to do with anything ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Aha, different Helmut - which is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Good Helmut, Bad Helmut. Where is the bad one lurking? Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Hmm, I need to be careful on this one... A local to me. email me for more info; I'll not put it on any public forum. Suffice it to say he's known in the local aviation community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I remember when you could ride a Motorcycle legally without a Helmut. Nev 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEM Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 This reply received from the Minister. Dear Sir/Madam l thank you for your correspondence regarding operational limitations for aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines announced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). l fully appreciate that these operational limitations will have an impact on Jabiru and the many owners and operators of aircraft fitted with Jabiru engines. However CASA regards these limitations as necessary following a significant number of Jabiru engine failures as a precautionary safety step to reduce potential risk exposure to passengers. student pilots and persons on the ground. I am advised by CASA that the limitations which have becn put in place were developed after consultation with the aviation community including comments from kcy stakeholders such as Jabiru, Recreational Aviation Australia and the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia. A copy of the limitations can bc found on CASA`s wcbsitc at: www.casa.gov.au and came into effect on 23 December 2014. On thc basis of suggcstions rcccivcd from a number of key stakeholders during the consultation process, CASA has also advised that it will review these limitations early in 2015. I have asked CASA to undertake this review expeditiously. Yours sincerely WARREN TRUSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS71 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Good on you JEM for writing to the Minister. I note 'significant number' is once again given a run. No surprise that the Minister is endorsing the actions of CASA also. I'm impressed that the letter ends in a faux positive way too. Thanks again for writing to the Minister, I didn't but I'm grateful that you and others have. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Note Dear Sir/ madam... Generic auto reply. I'd disagree with the statement that casa consulted with stakeholders tho, or was the original draft and subsequent call for depositions considerd " consulting"? The ballet goes on. The recent SB for " school aircraft" deserves a good look too. Seems to be a patch up job, but at least the action seems to be inspiring ... Action... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJS71 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Yes you're spot on Merv, but this is unfortunately what we've come to expect from our elected officials, at all levels of Government. Nevertheless, it's engaging a civil servant, getting them to produce something tangible. Even if it leaves a bad taste 'so to speak'! Shame you compared this farsical situation to a ballet though...some will think we're uncultured swill. Hahaha Definitely more like an episode of yes Minister, don't you think? What's frightening to me is the lowering of sale prices of Jabs currently for sale on the Interweb. I fly someone else's Jabiru and I really hope for them that this mess gets sorted soon. 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