Am I missing something ?

[Guest davidh10]

Bacchus;

 

The misdescription could conceivably be ignorance, but does not sound like it. Now that the seller has been informed by you, if he does not now change the advertisement, he should be reported to Consumer Affairs for misrepresentation of goods for sale. I also think that the body responsible for registering the aircraft should also be made aware of the situation, as the registration records may also be ...errr inaccurate.

 

 

[deadstick]

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.

 

 

[bacchus]

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.

 

 

[deadstick]

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....

[deadstick]

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

 

 

[deadstick]

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.

 

 

[jetjr]

proper "TACH time" is running whenever the engine is going (oil Press up) AND is weighted according to engine speed so is the most accurate for servicing of engine.

 

Only EMS/EFIS setups have this I think.

 

They also have TOTAL time which is oil pressure started and stopped. ie clock runs at normal set speed all the time.

 

All other ways of starting/stopping clocks (air sw, Oil Pressure, tach over certain rpm, gear up etc etc) are ways to try to emulate this methods and are often used to "cheat" time for various reasons, some reasons are OK. Also can be abused.

 

Should only use switched methods if there are 2 clocks.

 

Clocks switched on master sw are asking for problems.

 

 

[farri]

Best of all when I asked what parts were replaced in the overhaul and could I view the invoice , I was told it was actually an " inspection " and as all was in good condition

the engine was re assembled with no new parts required !!

 

So I asked where he sourced the engine and he advised that he bought it second hand and it had done " about 1100 hrs " when he bought it ! To me that means the engine has done about 1370 hrs NOT 270 Total Time !! Am I going over the top ? Or is this normal ?

In my opinion,you are correct and no you`re not going over the top.

 

Normal, .

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

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,

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

I do agree with all of you that this engine was missrepresented and the correct engine hours should be stated . I for one would be very angry if I was the one buying this A/C and later found out the whole story. Whilst all engines do wear out after a certain time I would still make the point that I'd rather have an engine with say a 1000 hours that has been warmed up properly than one with 200 where the owner could not be bothered with the warm up as is the case so often when I watch them. They start them up and gun'em to taxy straight away to the RWY do their run up and go. This hard running on a cold engine will do more harm than many hours on a hot one.

 

Having said all this as I said it would still XXXX me off buying a plane with a missrepresented engine. Also as in this case the Rotax should "look" a lot older than 270 hours as the paint fades etc .

 

fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[bacchus]

G'day Walter ,

 

You must be up watching the cricket as well !

 

You are quite right as when the Cowls came off the spider senses started to tingle ,

 

it looked nothing like a 330 hr rotax I viewed yesterday , almost brand new and the aircraft books were immaculate , 50 hr services , all completed by the resident L2 ( who was available to talk to ) and signed/stamped , original import doc,s etc, etc, etc.

 

The aircraft a credit to it's owner !! ( an older person and a true gentleman ) My faith and excitement restored , we await favourable conditions for a test flight .

 

A few lessons learned for myself

 

If it loooks too good to be true , it probably is.

 

And things happen for a reason , this aircraft was not for me !

 

 

[deadstick]

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,

Gday Bill,

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....

 

 

[dazza 38]

HI All, i dont have a problem with maintenance being carried out via Tacho, or air switch. I have a problem with this guy telling Bacchus, that the airswitch comes on at 60 knots.I have heared of GA aircraft being set at 40 knots.But a Ultralight at 60 knots ?

 

Anyway with Tacho, it works both ways.If it is set as most accurate eg- Archer i think was 2400 RPM( somewhere around there). If you fly the a/c at above that RPM , the tach will be counting Faster than a minute for a minute. Or slower when below that set figure.In this case 2400 RPM. Thats how i understand it .

 

I think it is a good way of telling, how a hirer has been flying the plane.If it comes back from a long NAV, and the Tach time is greater than the Hobbs/Vdo time, it means that the a/c and engine has been getting a flogging.It had been consistently been operating over the set RPM, in my eg- over 2400 RPM.

 

I think generally Tacho time is about 10 to 15 percent less than Hobbs time, maybe up to 20% if used at a busy airfield where taxi times etc takes longer.

 

This is how understand it, but i could be leading people up the garden path, if im incorrect please correct me.

 

HI Deadstick, the jabiru that used to be at skyfox flight training in 1997, was 55-922, it was originaly fitted with the 1600 motor, its hour metre was turned on with the master, after the engine kept xxxxing its self every couple of weeks, it was retrofitted with one of the very first 2200 engines.It wasnt much better. As you have pointed out, its good to here that the newer models have hobbs on a oil pressure sw. Kind Regards Daryl

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Deadstick,

 

Flight time :

 

(what you put in your pilot log book) is defined in the

 

Civil Aviation Act 1988, as amended up to Act. 8 of 2010;

 

S.2 Interpretations.

 

The definition is repeated in Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 2.

 

Time in Service:

 

is the time for maintenance recording (I have referred to

 

"air time",shorthand for "time in service") and is defined in CAR 2.

 

Wheels up to wheels down, or what FAA call "time off" to "time on".

 

When I refer to a "certified aircraft", as in my previous post, I am referring to an aircraft with an ICAO Annex 8 C.of A, one issued per. CASR 21, or an Australian validation of a C.of A issued by the original country of certification, assuming the country is a signatory to the Chicago Convention 1944. Further, by certified aircraft I mean a fixed wing aircraft that is certified to CASR 23 or 25, or has a validation of an original country of origin C.of A the equivalent of the above.

 

For "certified engine", I am referring to an engine certified under CASR 32 or 33.

 

The Australian CASR 32 allows aircraft engines certified to JAR 22, Subpart H the status of a certified engine. Plus the equivalent provisos for a certified aircraft.

 

No Experimental, Primary, Intermediate, Restricted or Limited Category aircraft per. CASR Part 21, RAOz registered aircraft or LSA fits the above. This includes some small aircraft, previously registered VH-, formerly with a standard C.of A, now registered with the RAOz.

 

This should not be confused with certain provisions available to the RAOz to allow certain airframe/engine combinations to fly over a populace area (whatever populace area is -see previous post) or conduct certain defined operations with 24- or other RAOz registered aircraft. The RAOz Operations Manual defines the requirements. There are similar provisions for all un-certified aircraft in AU.

 

If Jabiru have a Manufacture's Maintenance Schedule that requires airframe and/or engine maintenance based on "engine on to engine off" time by an oil switch activated Hobbs or similar, and you elect to maintain the aircraft to the Manufacturer's Schedule (probably a requirement to not void any warranty) that's a valid election.

 

It doesn't change the definition of "flight time" or "time in service", unless Jabiru has a Legislative Instrument that says something like:

 

"For the purposes of recording --- time in service ---- time in service shall be defined as ----- Hobbs meter etc."

 

I very much doubt if Rod would bother to go to that trouble, when there is no need.

 

If I had such an aircraft, at least for the airframe I would be establishing a conventional time recording for maintenance purposes.

 

I don't really want to get into the fine print of whatever other options you might have, but there are a number of alternatives.

 

Folks,

 

As to the "opinions" of various posters on this thread about the situation that started the thread, tread carefully, some of the posts are defamatory. That the seller hasn't been named does not matter, if the seller can be identified. That you are using screen names, avatars or whatever makes no difference to the defamation.

 

I have already tried to explain why the engine involved could legitimately be described as "overhauled", and hours were quoted from last overhaul. Some of you might have your own opinions,that is all they are, your opinions. Opinions that do not accord with legislation and industry standard practice. Those kind of opinions are not what a court will look at, as a defense, in deciding if defamation has taken place.

 

Under the circumstances originally described, to publicly impute improper and dishonest behavior to the seller is putting you on very dangerous ground.

 

Regards,

 

PS:

 

Why "60 kt" --- because a very cheap and reliable non-adjustable pressure switch to plumb in to the pitot is available --- set at the equivalent of ISA (Standard Atmosphere) sea level +/-0 for 60 kt.

 

On most (every one I have come across) larger aircraft with an "approve automatic time recording system", the parking brake lever actuates the "off blox" and "on blox" recording, the main gear squat switches actuate the "time off" and "time on" recording.

 

Thus, in a B747-400 at gross weight, the air time of will start recording at about 180 kt, and finish at touchdown. On a typical KJFK to KLAX leg, the air time and the blox time will differ by hours, depending on the congestion at Kennedy.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

Bill beat me to it - he knows this subject better than I - take his advice before mine any day.

 

Been a while since I have had to look this up - the calculation of flight time is all through the legislation (would be lovely to have it in one place - even spelt out in the VFR guide - would help). Here is the definition of flight time from the Civil Aviation Orders Part 48

 

flight time means the total time from the moment when the aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight.

 

ie chock to chock - flight time is what is recorded in the log book. There are set % tolerances between what goes in the log book and what goes in the maintenance release which is tacho time.

 

Maintenance / engine time - I have to find it in the legislation first before you can quote me... The memory is getting a little dim.

 

Sue

 

 

[bacchus]

As I attempt to find literal meanings for the terms used verbally and by e'mail I too would like to

 

source the correct information from one location.

 

Rotax describe a dismantling of the engine , inspection , ( if condition is within factory wear limits ) and re construction as

 

A " Tear Down " and to be produced is a Tear Down Report.

 

The only reference to " Overhaul " I can find is the Oxford via Wikipedia definition " Overhaul " To modernize , repair , renovate or revise completely

 

I am still of the opinion that this does not constitute an overhaul at all , however , as it is his site , should the Moderator consider anybody has been defamed in this discussion then I urge him

 

to delete entries from anyone as he sees fit

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Vizla,

 

What goes in the MT is I said above, wheels off to wheels on. See the definitions in CAR 2, Time In Service aka air time.

 

No %, no tacho time,just the actual time from the wheels off the ground at takeoff to wheels on the ground at the end of the flight ----- there is absolutely NO fixed relationship between "flight time" and "time in service".

 

It is "time in service" , aka air time, that goes on the MR.

 

That is why I gave the example of the New York to Los Angeles sector, where I have had as much as a "flight time" up to 4 hours more than "air time" (time in service) because of summer time delays taxing at at Kennedy.

 

For a scheduled blox time of a bit over 4 fours hours, I have (frequently) had a logged flight time of over 8 hours, 4+ hours taxi time, but "time in service" (air time) close to the flight plan sector time ---- once we got going.

 

If you taxi out to the runup bay for 30 minutes of post maintenance engine runs, no time goes on the MR, no time comes off the time in service for the engine or aircraft, because you never got airborne, likewise a pilot can't log the time, because you were not taxing out for the purpose of flight.

 

If you do taxi out for the purpose of flight, and find a problem doing the runup or similar, and taxi back, without ever getting in the air, you can log that as flight time.

 

Best one I ever saw was a chap log almost 4 hours in one day, without ever getting in the air. Why and how --- that's for another time, and it was all legal --- in his case, flight time logged as pilot in command.

 

Simple, really, like everything in "the rules" !!

 

(Just so there is no constructive misinterpretation, that last bit is supposed to be very tongue-in-cheek)

 

Regards,

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Bacchus,

 

The definitions for an "engine overhaul" are (once again) in the CARs.

 

There is quite a good CAAPs explaining the difference between an overhaul to OEM (factory new) limits and a service overhaul --- ie: an overhaul with all components within service limits, but not new components. Only components worn beyond service limits are replaced.

 

If you buy a "factory re-manufactured" engine from either Lycoming or Continental, important bits like the crankcase may have done thousands of hours, but the logs that come with the engine will show zero time, you will have no idea of the total hours in service (TIS) of any of the components ---- unless they are a component with a life limit less than the recommended TBO for the engine --- a very unusual thing for a piston engine.

 

There are some very interesting "dis-connects" between the manufacturers overhaul instructions, and what legally happens in practice, and what qualifies as a re-build (say, after a prop strike) and what is legally zero-timing an engine --- when an insurance company is involved, it gets "doubly interesting".

 

All the talk of "re-manufactured to factory new tolerances" is "technically correct", but what you get is not the same as a "new manufacture" engine --- ie: all components are first life.

 

On the other hand, with an overhaul to service standards, it is common (but not necessarily legally required) to show the total time in service, to which you will add the time since the last overhaul as you use the engine --- ie: the engine will (maybe) come with a log book the that show TIS and 0 hours TSO.

 

One of the reasons I prefer an "overhaul" from a reputable overhaul shop (and there are some very good ones in AU, and some not so), rather than a "factory re-manufacture" is that I am likely to have a much better idea of the TIS of all the major components.

 

I can't comment on a Rotax because I don't have a manual, so I can't translate into bureaucratese.

 

Regards,

 

 

[djpacro]

From the CASA website (Airworthiness Articles ... AAC 1-21 Calendar Time in Service):

 

"The term "time in service" is clearly defined (CAO part 100.5.0; AAC article 198-2 refers) and is reasonably well understood. To reiterate, aircraft time in service is the "time from the moment the aircraft leaves the ground on a flight until it touches the ground just prior to the end of that flight". It is normally measured in hours. Total time in service is the cumulative time so recorded.

 

"Calendar time in service" is intended to mean the total elapsed time since the aircraft, or component, first entered service. For an aircraft, this would normally mean time since manufacture; for a component it normally means time since the component was first installed on an aircraft. It does not include prior storage time. This calendar time then runs continuously, without interruption for, for example, periods when the aircraft (or component) is temporarily removed from service.

 

........ manufacturers' service documents which specify calendar time in service limits. Many of these documents give separate limitations on prior storage time, and additional maintenance requirements if those limits are exceeded. .......

 

There may be particular instances where manufacturers' requirements may allow some variations from this general interpretation. For example, maintenance documents may allow a particular component to be removed from service, properly treated or inhibited for storage, and returned to service at a later date, and the storage time not be included in the "calendar time in service". Where such provision is made it will normally be respected; if there is any doubt, each case will be assessed and treated on its merits. "

 

I was unable to find AAC 198-2 on the CASA website however I obtained one back in 2001:

 

"This article replaces AAAC 120-5, and is in response to requests from industry to clarify the situation regarding the various methods used to record time in service for aircraft operating in the general aviation industry. .........."

 

It goes on to describe the methods which may be used to record TIS.

 

Watch time as noted by the pilot.

 

An "approved automatic time recording instrument, installed so that it will record an elapsed time that is equal to or greater than the defined "time in service" ...

 

engine oil pressure switches; airspeed switches (including external vanes); main landing gear squat switches; and/or mechanical tachometers that also record engine hours. ...

 

In all cases, however, modifications are to be approved by the Department."

 

This was an old document even when CASA sent it to me but still valid I guess as the website refers to it.

 

"In all cases where recording of time in service is achieved through use of an instrument which records a greater time than the defined "time in service" eg: mechanical tachometer, no reduction or factoring of recorded hours for maintenance purposes shall be made."

 

It also mentions that if the instrument fails then you need to revert to watch time.

 

 

[deadstick]

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

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

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,

 

 

[djpacro]

Its good to be conservative and the Hobbs is acceptable.

 

If a fatigue life has been determined then it would have provided for that associated ground running time and the specified safe life uses a large scatter factor. Of course you can run into fatigue problems by operating differently to what was considered in determining that fatigue life.

 

If operating a little aeroplane which is not required to have any fatigue analysis done then to be cautious you might like to stay a long way behind the fleet leader in total time in service.

 

 

[facthunter]

Small point.

 

If we are referring to organisations , can we use the proper designation in the interests of accuracy? Why RAOZ? You won't find a CEO RAOZ. Better to look for the CEO RAAus, or am I missing something? Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

You are Nev - there's a vibrant Confusion Industry out there.

 

 

[deadstick]

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: