dazza 38 Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 The skyfox Gazzelle has a 4000 hr, wing life with a inspection at every 500 hours, after that 4000 hr figure is reached.Thats my understanding anyway.Could be wrong though? AFAIK the sportstar was designed by the manufacturers to have a Airframe life based on the Harmony project based on around 11000 hrs. The tecnams i fly at the moment dont have a airframe life, as i am aware.As Djp put it, if a particular A/c doesnt have a specific airframe life, make sure you are not flying the a/c with the most hours on her, in the fleet.You might become the test pilot.I am putting this out there because things are not always what they seem.This is not having ago at anyone, i am trying to look at the big picture. Cheers guys
Bill Hamilton Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 DJP, Send me an email address, what might have been acceptable in the past doesn't cut it in the present "compliance" dominant style, in the current era of black letter law. Deadstick, Read what I have actually said across several post, then you will find I have already covered what you are raising as objections to or shortcomings in my comments, including how to handle a Manufacturer's Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (by whatever name), when a time different to time in service, TIS, is required. TIS for an engine is not TTIS, but can legitimately be quoted from the last overhaul. Folks, also make certain you are talking about a fatigue life, and whether it is a mandatory limitation in a non-certified aircraft, versus a program of decreased inspection intervals as TTIS for the airframe mounts. "Design" fatigue life in any aircraft means little, unless the airframe is subject to extensive rig testing as a part of establishing that fatigue life. DJP has already indirectly touched on this point. Regards,
sleemanj Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 If you're using an airswitch for time counting, which is perfectly fine, you want it to be calibrated so that it is right on flying speed (ie probably somewhere just above stall in the landing configuration), any ultralight is going to be flying well under 60. It's wheels up, to wheels down, 60 is more like "time in cruise" for most ultralights, that's not acceptable. An airswitch is quite a valid means of judging service life, because... 1. Under flying speed, engines are not likely working hard, if you idle an engine for 1500 hrs, you are likely not putting nearly as much wear on it as if you run it flat out for 1500, and the TBO estimate needs to be much closer to flat out than idle. 2. Manufacturers, unless otherwise noted in the documentation, account for this in the service life estimates, because; 3. As others have pointed out, thats what the rule makers around the world reckon it should be based on. It is important to remember that any manufacturers service life number is an estimate at the best of times, we hope a pretty conservative one (and this is usually true, evidenced by those who run on-condition far in excess of published service life). As for the "Overhaul", it comes down to if the mechanic who did it has "zero timed" it in the logbook, when they want it to be overhauled next, is it at 1650 hours total life or 3000. If it's not logged, then 1. find out why the hell not, and 2. treat it as if it never happened until you get confirmation from the engineer who did the "overhaul" as to if it was zero time or not. That said, replacing NOTHING at 1500 and zero timing... very unlikely. Replacing nothing and running on-condition for another 150 hrs... closer to reality.
ahlocks Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 ...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. Bill, Perhaps if you plan on having a bit to do with RAAus operations and aeroplanes, and not just VH tailed ones, you might want to have a look at this snippet of the L-A-W, law. http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao95/9555.pdf In particular, the handful of exemptions listed in section 3 and especially the general conditions of those exemptions contained in section 4, where you'll find these little gems at 4.1; (d) subject to the other conditions set out in this section, the aeroplane must be operated in accordance with the requirements of the RAA Operations Manual; (e) the aeroplane must be maintained in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in the RAA Technical Manual; Then crack open the RAAus technical manual to this page; http://raa.asn.au/techmanual/2-1.pdf Wow, looky that! The technical manager of RAAus is the go to guy for technical matters about RAA registered aeroplanes. :ah_oh: Who'd have thunked it?! :ne_nau: 'spose I could claim that; The Act and Regulations definitions are really quite simple and unambiguous on this point, but apparently not simple enough for some. But people might take that as being a bit of an autocrat.
pudestcon Posted June 27, 2010 Posted June 27, 2010 You are going to be in Steerage Class for a long time Ahlocks:laugh:
bacchus Posted June 28, 2010 Author Posted June 28, 2010 Thanks Ahlocks , A very informative post to say the least, seems you have found the defining and relevent regulations in this matter. Most on this site would hold the Tech Manager of the RAAUS in the highest regard , and deserving of the respect which comes with the office ! As thread starter I am sorry it has degenerated into what it has , not being lucky enough to enjoy flying as my primary source of income, I was genuinely seeking information in regards to purchasing an aircraft to continue this most wonderful hobby which the RAAUS has made available to me later in life ( better late than never ) I see Recreational Aviation has a huge upside and due to its growth ( which I was not aware of until I started training ) and have chosen to invest in commercially at the expense of other business interests with better current returns. As far as this thread is concerned, I thank ALL for your opinions , as healthy discussion can only lead to better education and clear muddy waters which I think has been done.
ahlocks Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 ... healthy discussion can only lead to better education and clear muddy waters which I think has been done. It's all good thought invoking stuff. :thumb_up: I will 'fess up though. I mainly had a burr up somewhere about the manner in which something was written. ;) Cheers!
motzartmerv Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Yes, information sharing is what we are about. Not pontificating and belittling.
facthunter Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 thread originators. Those who start threads , have no idea what direction they will go so should NEVER or at least RARELY feel responsible when the discussion gets a bit off the rails. The topic belongs to the forum once it is in there and running as everyone contributes in there own way. The written word does not always mean the same thing to all readers. Nev
dazza 38 Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Hi Bacchus, I am sorry for the part i played, Threads, sometimes one thing is said which leads to another and before we know it we are heading in a different direction. I think your thread here has been a excellent thread. It sort of becomes unavoidable, i think the when a thread gets long, with a lot of posts. Cheers
Bill Hamilton Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 ahlocks, I am well acquainted with legal framework of the exemptions that make the very existence of RAOz (or RAAu if you prefer) possible. Hopefully in the very near future, this legal framework will be far more effectively and clearly set out in CASR Part 103 and CASR Part 149, but don't hold your breath. Beyond the specific exemptions mentioned above, all the Australian aviation law, and relevant criminal law, applies to the operation of aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (or HGFA/GFA/ etc.) as Australian aircraft. That they are not VH- registered, and/or the pilot hold a "certificate" rather than a PPL or up, legally changes nothing. I am also well aware of the powers and duties of the Technical Manager, as described in the Operations Manual. None of that includes a power to change the the definitions of flight time or time in service. None of the above conflicts with the Tech. Manager's power to approve Systems of Maintenance (by whatever name) under the Operations Manual. However, that approval must, in itself, comply with the law, he can't make it up as he goes along. That an engine (or part or component) manufacturer may give instructions for continuing airworthiness based on a different time recording (Jabiru has been mentioned) does not change the definition of flight time or time in service. There is no such thing as "zero timing/zero timed" engine(s), short of a brand new engine, fresh out of the factory. "Zero timed" may (or may not) be a useful colloquial expression for an overhauled engine. However,it does not, in any way, describe one of the three possible processes that produce an overhauled engine. Notwithstanding the fact that the engine log shows zero time since overhaul. I have already given details of the three processes. TBO (time between overhaul) is more correctly/legally described as Manufacturer's Recommended Time Between Overhaul. It is not "mandatory", unless another regulation/legal approval imposes it. An example, for a certified engine, would be in use for operations regulated by CAR 206, but only then if it is Charter or Regular Public Transport. For certified aircraft see also AD/ENG 4. Clearly, all of the immediately above does not concern the aircraft, or engines, the subject of this thread. If you want to believe that stating the law as it is, as opposed to how you were "instructed/believed/were given to understand/any variation thereof" is pontificating, that's your privilege, but it doesn't change the law. As is very clear, I have no patience with arguments about a law that is clear and unambiguous, especially when it is with somebody who should have (indeed has a legal obligation to) read and understood that law, but wants to argue that it means something else. Most of the law that effects us in aviation is black letter law, and most breaches (rightly or wrongly) are strict liability offenses. It is always sad to witness the surprise, dismay, distress and, indeed, fear, when persons are faced with enforcement proceedings, having found out, in the hardest possible way, that "what they thought was OK/what was normal practice/what everybody else did" turned out to be none of the above ----especially when actually complying with the law was no more difficult than not complying. I witness it all to often. Unfortunately, the actions of CASA in the field seem to be blurring the proper separation of the duties of CASA, and the rights, obligation and duties of Recreational Aviation Australia, but if you are on the receiving end, that will not be a "get out of jail" card. There is absolutely no sense in giving "law enforcement" (which is not confined to RAOz or CASA, but may and often does include state police and other "authorities") a free kick. And then finding out that, once the facts are established, they have no real defense --- which is the whole point of strict liability offenses in the regulations --- bureaucratically quick, efficient and often terribly unjust and unfair enforcement. Regards,
motzartmerv Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Mmm..Interesting that you assumed I was talking about you. We all welcome learned people sharing thier views, as i said its what this site is all about. But sometimes the message you are trying to get across gets lost when people feel they are being spkone down to, and having thier opinions attacked. Just remember mate, this is a "recreational forum", not the AOPA. cheers
Guest ozzie Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Keep it coming Bill, any way you have to deliver it. Shame Tony Hayes is still not with us. a perfect team you two would have made. Ozzie
Tomo Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 What's da issue? Remember it only feels like a downing if there is a difference of opinion! ;) What I'm interested in, what defines our "Ultralight" or "Recreational" type aircraft now? I'm GA in a small sense, which is still recreational to me at this stage also? Saying this is a only Recreational forum, is like trying to say "we have different rules''. Which I spose we do in a sense, but they all originate from the "big" boss at some stage. Not trying to stand on any toes here, just curious. I fly rag and tube, and larger aircraft. The overall "airframe" rules on the rag and tube are quite different to say the ones on a Lightning, or Sportstar. Or aren't they?
motzartmerv Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Tomo, Mate, Where did i say anything about us having different rules?..My comment was about the way things are said in a friendly "recreational" forum. Dont look for stuff that aint there budds.
Bill Hamilton Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Motzartmerv, Could you please let us all know how you can have varying "opinions" and "ideas" on black and white law, particularly where strict liability criminal offenses are involved. As I said in one post, 60kph is 60 kph, there can be no "opinion" or "idea" about it, it is what it is. There can be no "opinions" about what a pilot logs, or what time in service is, it's black and white definitions, well tested in the courts. Whether you like it or not, because something is called recreational doesn't make the slightest difference, as far as aviation law is concerned, the only exemptions for "recreational" aviation (whatever that means) are the limited number of exemptions that make RAOz possible, and that is it. You are not exempt from any other relevant provisions of the aviation law, a point that does not seem to be well understood, based on some posts on this thread, and what I have seen at several recent fly-ins, where there were a number of GA and RAOz aircraft. Mind you, the observed operations of the GA aircraft did not reveal any better understanding of what they should have been doing, as opposed to what they were doing. Wonderful Australian trait, deny the message, shoot the messenger. As a rather observant colleague has said: Aviation wise, the difference between Americans and Australian is that, if the Yanks don't like something, they will fight to change it. Australians will just ignore it. And then whinge like all get-out when they get pulled up. Regards,
turboplanner Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 Bill, you eventually learn that on forums people DO have varying "opinions" and "ideas" on black and white law. It's particularly pronounced in aviation because of the hopelessly fragmented documentation and communication which comes from the people who should have been producing clear, concise, unambiguous, readable, easily found rules. I'd suggest the real thrust of the Bacchus thread related directly to the Trade Practices Act, with a simple solution, but we've all had a ball talking about mechanical things and being entertained.
davebutler Posted June 28, 2010 Posted June 28, 2010 What a lot of cp. There are generally 2 times taken in an aircraft: 1. Hobbs, actual time taken once the engine has started, sometimes switched by the oil pressure. The second is Tacho time, this is normally only acurate while the engine is running at cruise RPM or there abouts. Some flight schools charge on Hobbs time. The engine time is normally taken from the tacho. As far as zero timing an engine, I have always understood that this only happens when the engine has a major overhaul i.e. opened up and certain parts are replaced, others can be checked and used again if within tolorance and judged by the engineer to last until the next major overhaul. It is fine to open the engine check and close up if no fault is found but that certainly is not a major overhaul and does not zero time the engine. This is the sort of thing that gives us bad name when some unsuspecting, unknowing person buys this, has prang and our good name gets dragged through the mud. I say warn him to fix it or name & shame!!!
DarkSarcasm Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 I'd suggest the real thrust of the Bacchus thread related directly to the Trade Practices Act, with a simple solution Unless the person advertising is a Corporation, then the TPA wouldn't apply. Instead, as he's located in SA (I'm guessing?) the Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) would be the relevant one. Simple solution is this: Section 56(1) - A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. However, the guy selling it might be able to raise a defence under s88 that the contravention of s56 was due to a reasonable mistake or reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person. Perhaps it should be pointed out that he is potentially in contravention of the Fair Trading Act and that he should change his ad.
Bill Hamilton Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Turboplanner, In a rational world, and in a world of strict liability offenses criminal law, how can you possibly have an "opinion" that a simple definition of a technical term means anything else, than it clearly says. Do you understand the very limited defense to a strict liability offense under the Criminal Code? Particularly when the case law supports the statute meaning exactly what the statute primary and secondary legislation says, and is not subject to any alternative meaning ?? The definitions of "flight time" and "time in service" are simple and unambiguous. Certainly that is not true of much of our regulations, but in this case, there is no room for argument or opinion as to the regulatory meaning. What a lot of cp. davebutler, With all due respect, the above from your post is an accurate description of the content your post. Can I suggests that your use the legal references already supplied in previous posts, from the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Civil Aviation Regulations, to acquaint yourself with what is required to log pilot "flight time" and aeroplane or component "time in service". Then go and find out what an "engine overhaul" actually is, as opposed to what you obviously and, if I may say so, simplistically think it is. Or try telling the judge that the aviation law (no matter how difficult it might be) is "a lot of cp", and you are going to do it your way, and see how far that gets you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Going right back to the original post, that started this thread --- and the reason I even bothered to submit a post On the face of it, the aircraft owner did not legally misrepresent the engine overhaul, he was quite entitle to quote time in service since the last overhaul as total time since overhaul. That total time in service since new was different (and not time in service since overhaul) didn't make the original description wrong. Further, the work done on the engine at "overhaul" is, on the facts presented here, a legitimate overhaul. As I have previously stated, in my opinion (and I have some considerable lay experience in the area) a number of the posts were seriously defamatory of the owner /seller of the aircraft. If nothing else, this thread illustrates the general paucity of knowledge of something that is simple and straightforward. And the very widespread misunderstandings of the place (if any) of variously actuated "Hobbs" meters, "tacho time" recordings, club/hirer charging practices, versus what is required of you by regulation. Legislation, breaches of which carry heavy penalties, not limited to fines and possible jail, but quite severe limitations on future travel outside Australia --- as a number of pilots and engineers have found out the hard way ---- being deported on arrival in the US, should be much better known and understood. It is human nature that nobody much likes or appreciates finding out that they are wrong, look at the Vatican reaction to Galileo. But Galileo was right !! And in this case, the legal definitions are right, there are no other acceptable definitions of "flight time" and "time in service", no matter how long standing and passionately held is your belief to the contrary. None of it is rocket science. Regards,
turboplanner Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 I quite agree with you Bill, but you have to come to terms with forums where posters will disregard that. The answer is less ambiguous rules, and that's where you can make a difference.
Guest davidh10 Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 ...On the face of it, the aircraft owner did not legally misrepresent the engine overhaul, he was quite entitle to quote time in service since the last overhaul as total time since overhaul. That total time in service since new was different (and not time in service since overhaul) didn't make the original description wrong. Further, the work done on the engine at "overhaul" is, on the facts presented here, a legitimate overhaul. Regards, Bill; If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that "Aircraft advertised with 270 hrs TT" is unqualified, not being either TTIS or TTSO, and thus it is ambiguous rather than fallacious? The true meaning was only uncovered by a potential buyer questioning and probing. As posted, there was no mention of overhaul until the apparent discrepancy between engine condition and the advertised description was challenged at the inspection stage. I'll now look at advertisements with a new scepticism as to what "TT" may mean to the seller.
motzartmerv Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 Bill, would you like to "represent yourself" properly, and tell us, are you a lawyer?
DarkSarcasm Posted June 29, 2010 Posted June 29, 2010 What I don't understand is, and feel free to correct me, how the criminal law of Australia applies to this at all. This thread started as a discussion about how the seller was potentially misrepresenting the engine time in his advertisement. When I read the first post, my mind went to trade practices and misrepresentation in advertising. As I said before, as the seller is an individual, the Fair Trading Act would apply and he is possibly in contravention of s56 (if in SA). Section 56 states that a person shall not, in trade or commerce (i.e. selling), engage in conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. Even if he was entitled to advertise it as time since engine overhaul, the fact that he did not appear to specifically state this in his ad, that it was from engine overhaul rather than TTIS, can be argued to be potentially misleading or deceptive and can still arguably come under the section. While I haven't read the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for a couple of years and haven't as yet studied the Civil Aviation Act 1988 in detail, I am still unsure how criminal law applies to this situation. I am, however, keen to learn if you'd like to explain it to me Bill (preferably with section numbers and Acts if possible).
Recommended Posts