New 24 rule on the way

[BrendAn]

I got told tonight that after this week

24 reg owners will be able to register AC with 912 over 15 yrs

And can be used for training by the owner. I assume this means no annual marap.

Supposed to be info coming out next week.

[BrendAn]

It's been confirmed. 24 can now run on condition Without a marap.

 

[Freizeitpilot]

But not 23 ??  Will wait for the communique from RAAus.

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

But not 23 ??  Will wait for the communique from RAAus.

What are you talking about

[Freizeitpilot]

Would a 23 reg aircraft with a 15 yr old 912 attract the same dispensation as a 24 reg ?

[facthunter]

Where does this "On Condition" BS end up? It's not about  "just" wear. It's about dismantling and Inspection and detecting before failure. Non  destructive Crack and alignment checks. Replace Fatigue sensitive Parts. Same with Competition Engines. . Aero engines are built as light as possible, consistent with reliability... You don't use Gardner Diesels in Aeroplanes.  Nev

[BrendAn]

45 minutes ago, Freizeitpilot said:

Would a 23 reg aircraft with a 15 yr old 912 attract the same dispensation as a 24 reg ?

I only know what's been done for 24 reg. Nothing else 

[facthunter]

You think my comment is funny, do you BrendAn? That's SAD.  Nev

[BrendAn]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You think my comment is funny, do you BrendAn? That's SAD.  Nev

I only posted a new development for 24 reg aircraft, no need for negativity.

[BurnieM]

I thought 24 and 23 were both factory built ?

 

[facthunter]

 I'm questioning the rationale behind the Increasing application of the "On Condition" concept and it's overall possible effect on safety. TBOs these days are Just Made up whereas once they had to attain and continue to meet conditions encountered in the field. Inspections are the KEY to structural and Power plant safety.." On Condition" is superficial and must essentially be a lesser standard. Certainly not suitable to a professional  Commercial show.  More a "Permit to fly" thing.  Nev

[BurnieM]

Seems to be just aligning regs with what GA can do.

 

Still cannot have a school plane 'on condition' in RAAus which I understand you can do in GA.

 

[BrendAn]

48 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I thought 24 and 23 were both factory built ?

 

They might be working on 23 as well but as far as I know they only got 24 approved by casa this time.

[BrendAn]

54 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 I'm questioning the rationale behind the Increasing application of the "On Condition" concept and it's overall possible effect on safety. TBOs these days are Just Made up whereas once they had to attain and continue to meet conditions encountered in the field. Inspections are the KEY to structural and Power plant safety.." On Condition" is superficial and must essentially be a lesser standard. Certainly not suitable to a professional  Commercial show.  More a "Permit to fly" thing.  Nev

I understand where you are coming from but what they are implementing is a good thing for raaus members who have that category.  Like the gazelle that just got approved. He was up for a new engine because wal won't rebuild pre 2006 crankcases. Or he had to do an annual marap. His engine was rebuilt 300 hrs ago by a lame but without a Rotax certificate .

The storch I was talking about has a very well documented history and it has only done 500 hrs .  Runs like new.

There was a 912 uls advertised the other day with 2000 hrs and it was a 2022 year. A private person could fit that engine and be trouble free for the next 20 years.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 05:37 AM by BrendAn

[facthunter]

Engine seals cannot be assured for such extended times, and are critical on a 912 .The Rotax parts are too expensive.  On common aero engines wear rates are higher at higher hours often making the eventual overhaul more expensive. High hours engines are more sludgey making them more likely to fail on longer trips.. Higher hours engines have always been more failure prone. When a motor is removed and overhauled it still produces close to the rated power. It HAS to be able to do that . Aero engines operate at about 75% power most of the time and need full power to get into the air every time. No escaping that..  Military rated engines have much lower TBO's than the same engines used commercially. How the engine is operated has a big effect on it's life and reliability. Engines used only occasionally become pretty suspect . Stored engines should be inhibited and never just run now and again. Unless thoroughly warmed up (Usually about 45 mins air time) the motor will get  excessive moisture in the oil. NEVER ever just run it briefly and leave it for weeks. The worst thing you can do. Nev

[BrendAn]

45 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Engine seals cannot be assured for such extended times, and are critical on a 912 .The Rotax parts are too expensive.  On common aero engines wear rates are higher at higher hours often making the eventual overhaul more expensive. High hours engines are more sludgey making them more likely to fail on longer trips.. Higher hours engines have always been more failure prone. When a motor is removed and overhauled it still produces close to the rated power. It HAS to be able to do that . Aero engines operate at about 75% power most of the time and need full power to get into the air every time. No escaping that..  Military rated engines have much lower TBO's than the same engines used commercially. How the engine is operated has a big effect on it's life and reliability. Engines used only occasionally become pretty suspect . Stored engines should be inhibited and never just run now and again. Unless thoroughly warmed up (Usually about 45 mins air time) the motor will get  excessive moisture in the oil. NEVER ever just run it briefly and leave it for weeks. The worst thing you can do. Nev

You bring this up a lot. Can you stop please. Or put it on someone else's thread.

[facthunter]

It's NOT YOUR thread Brendon to decide what can and cannot be posted. You seem to possess some delusion of ownership and control.  My aim mainly is SAFETY. Nev

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It's NOT YOUR thread Brendon to decide what can and cannot be posted. You seem to possess some delusion of ownership and control.  My aim mainly is SAFETY. Nev

He's doing that on another runaway nutty thread because its safety advice. He wouldn't have to do it if RAA issued a document and the advice was in the document; but as far as I can sse this is another tell-tale thread that didn't wait for any official announcement. 

[BrendAn]

39 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

He's doing that on another runaway nutty thread because its safety advice. He wouldn't have to do it if RAA issued a document and the advice was in the document; but as far as I can sse this is another tell-tale thread that didn't wait for any official announcement. 

what are you going on about you wonderful human, sick to death of being run down by you. whats the nutty thread .

Edited Monday at 03:27 AM by BrendAn

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

It's NOT YOUR thread Brendon to decide what can and cannot be posted. You seem to possess some delusion of ownership and control.  My aim mainly is SAFETY. Nev

do what you want . better off not posting anything.  sick of getting attacked by forced induction

who contributes jack shit except for made up legal rubbish. 

Edited Monday at 03:28 AM by BrendAn

[facthunter]

WHO are you talking to. ???  I don't resemble that remark,  My stuff is good Gen based on personal experience. . Nev

[BrendAn]

On 19/05/2025 at 2:41 PM, facthunter said:

WHO are you talking to. ???  I don't resemble that remark,  My stuff is good Gen based on personal experience. . Nev

 

On 19/05/2025 at 2:41 PM, facthunter said:

WHO are you talking to. ???  I don't resemble that remark,  My stuff is good Gen based on personal experience. . Nev

it was aimed at turbo. calling me a nutter, he knows nothing about what i posted.

my info came from the head man himself, db.  if i posted something random i heard i would have called it a rumour.