deadstick

Sorry guys, but I do have to agree with Bill in that we tend to cause a lot of grief to others at times, or being to critical maybe.When I first read the story I felt for the guy looking at the aircraft, I also felt for the seller. I haven't a clue who the seller is, and don't know his mentality. But for what it's worth -

 

*A private add (I believe)

 

*He was told from the engine recon place (Flood's) that it was ok. Pulled down and checked out, (within new tolerances)

 

*He was forth coming with information when asked, not all of us are lawyers/solicitors so have trouble making everything we write for the learnered generation.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd get a new engine overhauled. So if he asked about the hrs, and he said it had done 270 hrs TT since overhaul, I (myself) would automatically think it has done a lot more hrs, or isn't a new engine (from new) for that matter. Sure it wasn't stated in the add, but I guess that is why they supply their contact details?

 

At least this chap is honest, he didn't "pre-warm" the engine so when the buyer turned up it sounded all rosy and started first pop. It is easy to look down on a person just because it took a bit to start - there is usually a pretty simple reason for that. (like I said I'd certainly give the guy credit for waiting till the buyer turned up before he did anything)

 

The airswitch is a common thing - as has been fully covered I believe. In my personal opinion he should have one for the engine also, but it is a registered aircraft, It has to pass an approval for all registration purposes, so it must have been deemed ok. (you'd think!)

 

I'm a mechanic, and have pulled down many an engine - and at times some components were still within high running tolerance so you don't replace them. You could, but there is no point, really.

 

Once we finish the rebuild, that engine/whatever is now deemed fully reconditioned. In other words "It is all within 'new' tolerances". Even if some parts weren't replaced.

 

Like I said, if the guy has openly stated when asked about the hrs and said it was from overhaul, it implies that it certainly isn't 270 TT from "out of the box" (so to speak).

 

Not going against you Bacchus, you were asking genuine questions, and I hope you've had them answered. But like Bill and some others, I think we could be giving the seller a bit of a hard time for something that really isn't as big an issue as you may think.

 

Is it?! ;)

You state above that infomation wasn't placed in the add but number was provided, so what?

If I was selling a new car with a rebuilt engine I wouldn't tell you unless you asked me ( has it been rebuilt). The OP was under the impression that the airframe and the engine had done 270 TT since new and it wasn't till he noticed some discrepencies that he questioned the age/hours on the engine deceptive advert? mmmm I would think so.

Your total post above and this quote is confusing to me

Quote

I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd get a new engine overhauled. So if he asked about the hrs, and he said it had done 270 hrs TT since overhaul, I (myself) would automatically think it has done a lot more hrs, or isn't a new engine (from new) for that matter. Sure it wasn't stated in the add, but I guess that is why they supply their contact details?

End quote

No it wasnt stated in the add, and that is just random, did the seller state since overhaul?

Mate if I was advertising my aircraft with 270 hrs TT and the engine had been overhauled I would state, in the add, engine tt since overhaul 270. I would prolly state hours to run as well, makes it clear that the engine was not new with the aircraft. And that is what this thread is about a statement that prayes on assumption.

Are we really causing grief? or being too critical? opinionated? maybe but not mean or nasty,

The ID of the seller has been changed and so have the details so its now a hypothetical and not defamitory or disrespectfull.

(comment removed) - Mod

Nice work Rach, if I find the scotch can I keep it? lol, wont last long between me and Motz!!!

The E1 would have been my choice if it could monitor 12 channels I really want CHT and EGT as these Jabiru 3300's are finicky things and really need monitoring.

Has anyone used one of these on a Jab before? MGL TC-3 12-channel Thermocouple Monitor: eBay Motors (item 180419520600 end time Jul-10-10 19:40:26 PDT)

Yes mate that was the next point of call, and yes they are being honed today and was toying with the irea of ordering 6 newies.

Can anyone advise what the individual cylinders will cost me, I am haveing all 6 old ones honed tomorrow and want to know the damage should one be rejected.

anyone know how mucha new cylinder is from Jab for the 3300?

Well how wrong was I, after running it today with someone to assist and spot the smoke it was in fact coming from the oil breather for the crank case indicating some blow by. off with the heads and the barrels and number 2 has a stuck ring from carbon and some of the bores are glazed up damn it. so off to the machin shop tomoz for a very lite hone and some new rings. Bloody hell I hope this is not a habit with this engine.....

Ok no probs....:thumb_up:

I have a J230D with the 3300 fitted, engine has 239 hours on the clock and is blowing smoke. started on sunday and its not too thick, I think its a valve guide as if it sits for a while and then you start it it takes about 10-20 second to start smoking and I think its because it takes a while for the oil to vill the rocker cover. What I am interested in knowing is: has anyone else experienced this and if so what caused it? at this stage I am expecting to find that it is lean as the exhaust colour is very white and when I pulled the rocker covers off there is a bit of carbon build up and coked oil on the front cylinders while the rear is clean. I have not found which cylinder it is yet and hopefully will know tomorrow, my plane was to pull the exhaust run the engine and ID the smokey cylinder then remove the head and inspect. If it is from lean running do all the heads if another cause just do this one. Any advice guys/girls?

LOL, makes me think of confucious...

Deadstick and All,I really don't care what a "tech manager" says, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations/ Civil Aviation Orders/CAAPs/CASRs/ACs trump any "opinions", tech. manager ,wreck manager or anybody else.

 

If you are saying that you have been advised otherwise by somebody holding a tech. position with any organization, email me with the details, and I will sort it out quick smart. That goes for any of the self administrative bodies.

 

The Act and Regulations definitions are really quite simple and unambiguous on this point, but apparently not simple enough for some.

 

They are what they are, and not subject to "variation by opinion", no matter how passionately and misguidedly the said opinion is held.

 

I have given you the precise references in the Act and the Regulations, and a couple of examples of how it works, just what more do you need to verify what the law actually says ---- and not what somebody thinks it says.

 

I strongly suggest you forget "what you were told", "what you were given to understand" and any variation thereof, and actually acquaint yourself with the law.

 

L-A-W as in LAW.

 

If the posted speed limit is 60km per hour, it is 60 kph, there is no room for an opinion that it is something else. If your limiting weight for your aircraft ids 544 kg, it is 544 kg, an "opinion" does not make it any different, the regulated AUW is 544 kg., end of story.

 

This is Criminal Law (all aviation law is criminal law in Australia) and the penalties are severe, both under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Crimes Act 1900, and generally are Strict Liability Offenses.

 

To understand Strict Liability see Division 6, S.6.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995.

 

But on topic it does sound like the plane was mis-represented and if true should be reported

 

Deadstick,

 

If you are so certain that you are right, and the Act and Regulations are wrong, and as RAOz only administers "the regulations" (including exemptions) for CASA, for the aircraft covered by RAOz, I suggest you write to your local CASA office, copy CASA Compliance and Enforcement (whatever their current name) in Canberra/Brisbane, copy CEO/RAOz, and make your accusations.

 

The current CEO of RAOz is an ex-CASA/CAA/DCA man, ie; an immense knowledge of the basic aviation law, try him with your opinion that the Act and Regulations don't mean what they say.

 

As the CASA Director of Aviation Safety and CEO, John McCormick is a "black letter law" man, I suggest you copy him in as well.

 

And see just how far you get.

 

From an engineering/airworthiness standpoint, with reference to fatigue life, you are equally incorrect, but I suppose you are, at least, consistent. No RAOz type aircraft, to my knowledge, has a design fatigue life, and none of these aircraft are included (last time I looked) in the CASA Fatigue Life Airworthiness Directive.

 

As you would expect,DJP is correct in what he says, these regulations have been the same for many years, the names of the Act and Regulations have changed from the old Air Navigation Act 1920 and associated Air Navigation Orders.

 

At least one of the documents DJP mentioned has been repealed, but its content is reflected in new documents. We still have an Air Navigation Act 1920 and Air Navigation Regulations (with which every pilot should be acquainted, particularly re. noise), but pre and post 1988, they are quite different in content.

 

DJP also helpfully and correctly defines "calender time", (not previously part of this thread) as it can apply to engine and prop. overhauls, and anywhere else a calender time may be limiting ---- but remember a day is a day, a year is a year, and neither are varied in length by opinions or understandings.

 

It's all in plain vanilla BLACK LETTER LAW.

 

But, Hey!!, you know better than the law, so carry on !!

 

Because CASA or other enforcement is relatively rare in aviation, it always comes as a great shock to a person, when they cop a big fine, or jail time (as happened to an AUF member in Queensland), license suspension or other penalty, for doing what they did for years, in the mistaken belief that what they were doing was lawful.

 

Just look at some of the unlawful behavior of several pilots at the last Natfly, who really spoiled it for the majority. I'll bet they thought what they were doing was OK. Oh!! Boy!!, were they wrong.

 

Regards,

Bill bill bill, what the?must be a good view from that horse your on, am I or anyone else referred to in this text deserving of such a spray? I have said the aircraft was misrepresented as Bachus stated, it and the engine were advertised as 270 TIS not since overhaul and that info was discovered post inspection. At no time did I question the definition of Time in service or airtime. When I was an engineer and studying at RMIT, vibration from the engine was concidered as fatigue and was included as a variable in calculating A/F life, but am more than happy for you to correct me if I have it wrong. So trying to decipher the text above are you saying that maintenance should only be scheduled from air time? even though a manufacturer may say different? as when I started serviceing my first Jab I rang them and asked and guess what I was told, Hobbs as this is what they fit as standard. The Tech manager of RA-AUS told me last week that it does not matter what type of meter you use for maintenance of RA-AUS aircraft as long as it is used from go to whoa and as long as the manufacturer does not say different. And in this case they did. so shoot me pal!

On the fatugue life issue I can assure you from the gazelle the jabs and the sport star I work on they have a fatigue life, it is in their manuals.

some really constructive comments here Bill:

But, Hey!!, you know better than the law, so carry on !!

From an engineering/airworthiness standpoint, with reference to fatigue life, you are equally incorrect, but I suppose you are, at least, consistent

The Act and Regulations definitions are really quite simple and unambiguous on this point, but apparently not simple enough for some.

Are you always this nasty or have I bought it out in you? we are all friends on this site and given that letters dont represent tone in a conversation, wind it back a bit please. I have not said anything that is personal or nasty toward you so why be a hard XXXX? but your call I guess

DK :kboom:

As per previous post for RA-AUS A/C it doesnt matter what type of meter is used for maintenance scheduleing provided it is the same type that was used at the start (confirmed by the tech manager) , with the exception of manufacturers requirements. I for one will conduct maintenance on Hobbs time as engine vibe is fatigue to the airframe and equipment, over cautious, maybe but given the 10-15% difference from airswitch and tach time you could have at the airframe life limit (lets say 5000 hrs) an airframe that has fatigued to 5500-5750 hrs, does not and never will make sence from an engineering perspective to ignore this fact. But on topic it does sound like the plane was mis-represented and if true should be reported

Folks,Firstly, a bulk strip of an engine, and finding all components within service limits (which is not the same as "new") inspecting as per manufacturers instructions and bulletins, then reassembly and test run is a legitimate overhaul, even though it is not to "new" tolerances.

 

A log book for a certified engine should reflect both time since new and time since overhaul, but the time since new or total time in service does not necessarily have to be recorded, unless a manufacturer dictates otherwise. For props in certified aircraft, unless the manufacturer puts an hours or cycles limit on the prop, only time since overhaul is generally recorded.

 

Secondly, for airframe, engine and prop. maintenance, air time is what is recorded. Wheels off to wheels on --- that's air time.

 

Thirdly, brakes off for the start of taxi out to brakes on for shutdown is the time to log for a pilots log book. Depending on the taxi time, your pilot log book and the aeroplane log book can be very different for the same sortie, and still quite legal.

 

Them's the (CASA and the rest of the world) rules for certified aircraft, and there is no reason to apply more restrictive (with the increased costs) rules to un-certified aircraft.

 

All the variations of "tacho hours", oil switch Hobbs meters etc. are not relevant to the above. If tacho/oil switch hours are used by a club or whoever for charging for aircraft use, that is their business, nobody is forcing you to hire an aeroplane.

 

Regards,

thanks for the input and can you point me to a reference for the sentence highlighted above (and dont think I am being a smart **** I am genuinely intregued in finding it). Also I am not implieing we need to be more restrictive as the aircraft in question are the certified for hire "24" rego planes and should be treated as such. As far as I am aware there is no legislation both RAA and CASA that stipulates maintenance should be conducted by any specific type of meter but I am sure that it is written somewhere that it must be the same meter used for its entire life, individually the manufacturer can stipulate that maintenance must be conducted on XXX type of hours and I can assure you that Wheels off to wheels on is not what Jabiru stipulate for maintenance scheduling it is Hobbs taken off OIL pressure.

Seems like Bacchus has made a wise decision on this one....

Sorry to upset your soup deadstick!!all i'm suggesting is that the report will not detect these problems.....many inspections are done in paddocks...the chance/likelyhood of a leakdown check is zero.

Mate! I am an L2 and I can assure you if I was conducting said inspection in a paddock I would have the appropriate tools with me and the buyer should expect professionalism for their dollar. If the specialist tools were not available in this hypothetical paddock and they were needed, the condition report would not progress past this point until they were available. The report will detect the problems that were indicated, a couple of leading facts on this one, 1. the inspection of the books, (airframe, engine and prop) would have highlighted this descrepincy to the inspector.

2. The engine not wanting to start is an indication it needs attention for sure( reasons sinister and not so included)

Upsetting my soup is a term I havent heard before, LOL. but rest assured my soup is not upset I just thought the tone in your statement was a little too authoritarian.

I guess the meter thing can be argued one way or another as seen on this thread ,my real issue is going to see an aicraft advertised with 270 TT to find the engine

 

has done coniderably more.

 

And the very loose use of the term " Overhaul " which was used !

 

No Bugger it call , a spade a spade , It was a Lie .

 

No Deadstick , I am no longer considering the Aircraft , and I did not get to

 

look at written records as when eventually told of additional 1100 hrs that was the

 

end of that.

 

He has been made aware , if advert continues in current form , The governing body

 

whom presides over this aircraft will be advised.

Report the incident anyway mate RAA need this info to keep this sort of crap out of the headlines

Wow that sounds a bit demanding CFICARE (not capitals cause im yelling) but OK, check the list at http://www.auf.asn.au/docs/tech/Aircraft%20Condition%20Report.pdf

in particular the engine section, whilst I concede it is not a performance run it should be noted that any irregularities like as the OP mentioned, 'hard starting' would lead to a competant L2 conducting a leak down and further examination.

And yes I know there are a thousand and one variables but the inspection is really only as good as the inspector and I think RA-AUS and CASA don't just hand out Maintenance authorities.

Tell me how a L2 pre-purchase inspection will detect a 'klapped-out' engine....

Meter Recording triggers;

Hobbs= oil pressure, vibration. ie engine running correct method for maintenance scheduling

Tacho= engine operating above preset RPM used for clubs to increase their profit

Airswitch= above set speed or from a weight on wheels micro switch

A meter connected to the master switch is a complete waste of time unless we are recording avionics use time.

Bachus, if you are serious about this aircraft have it inspected by an L2 or lame and make them aware of your concerns, a $100 for the inspection will save you thousands on a crap investment. Also if the L2 or Lame discovers it is fact then they are duty bound to report it to the authority covering registration.

meters

Aircraft hour meter is just that, hooked up to oil pressure (HOBBS) it records airframe use and is used to schedule maintenance on airframe and engine. The idea of airswitch meters and Tacho is so the club only pays for flight time and not warm up and taxi. Some switchs are incorrectly hooked up to mains power and this reflects battery usage and not actual airframe time hence ripping owners off on airframe maintenance. Clubs generally charge on oil pressure and pay on airswitch (> 30 knots) the difference between tacho and airswitch one uses airspeed and the other starts counting above a preset RPM hence stopps running when on final,taxi, idle etc making a larger gap between that charged to the pilot and that payed to the owner. Those that are using and airswitch or tach meter for engine maintenance cycles are not complying with the manufacturers guidelines. my 2 cents!

And Tomo whenever the engine is running the airframe hrs should be cycling as vibration is just one of the engineering conciderations encompassed when an airframe is given a life time limit.

Pretty depressing...With the hr meter, that one is an airframe hr meter that starts up with airspeed. It should have another for engine time. If not, well... who knows what it's done.

Nowra Competition day/ get together

A competition day is scheduled for 19th June at Jaspers brush airfield www.scrfc.com.au , everyone is invited and a free roast lunch is provided. competitions include;

1. Spot landing – The pilot is to land as close to, but not before the line marked on the runway.
    
    
   
2. Spot forced landing – After climbing to 2000ft, engine power will be reduced to idle and the pilot must carry out a forced landing on a designated runway, aiming to land as close to, but not before the marked line.
    
    
   
3. Perfect circuit – Fly a perfect circuit, points will be deducted for errors (eg: within 50ft on downwind). The circuit marking criteria will be available to view before the flight.
    
    
   
4. Short field landing - A full-stop landing, touching down after the marked line, aircraft stopping closest to the line wins
    
    
   

Sorry for the short notice but please, come over to Nowra, say Gday and take part in a fun days activities.

Regards,

D-K

Yes thanks I work at an airbase so scratched some up after speaking to the right eople

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone has experience fitting the Dynon D10A, I have a Jab 230D with the option1 panel but would like to fit the D10A to make it an option 2 panel. What I am interested in is, do I need to buy the optional harness from dynon or will it just slot in with the original wiring?

Hello was wondering if anyone has purchased a Dynon D10A from anywhere and if they have a price as I am thinking of buying a Jab and it has the option 1 dash with no AI or DG so was thinking of retrofitting one of these units.

Thanks

balance

Thanks for the reply's, I am certain it has to do with balance after testing yesterday on a 1.5 hr flight I noticed the aircraft is out of balance it wants to roll left and slip so every time I was looking around when my eyes were back inside it would be slightly out.

Need help finding a part number, can anyone tell me the partnumbers for the cam lock recepticles in the lower engine cowl also the cam lock p/number and how many I need.Also a Place to order them from would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance...