The effect of the audit..dang!!!

[flyerme]

Ok I have recently sent in my transfer papers and received a letter back Stating "at this stage

 

we can not complete the transfer as the aircraft has a propeller fitted that is not the original.. "We (RAA) require an engineering order for the fitment of the brolga prop"?

 

Now we are talking about a 1983 factory built lightwing gr 582.I called the ex-owner and he told me he transfered the reg with no worries with the brolga prop on .So I called The G.A CFI and aircraft engineer whom did the full rebuild in 2009(for his 15 yo son) and he said 'WTF are they on about?" He said the prop was fitted when he bought it and tranfered to his name then later to his sons name (all with this prop) He said its has to be this audit ..

 

Will call Howie at ALW and find out what the original prop was (2 blade wooden).

 

Rang RAA and was told that the paperwork has to be updated and as its a certified factory built A/C it requires an engineer to "modify the propeller from original configuration) and that the B rolga 3 blade prop must have been fitted illegally

 

. Sounding like a real head ache.

 

 

[Riley]

Ok I have recently sent in my transfer papers and received a letter back Stating "at this stagewe can not complete the transfer as the aircraft has a propeller fitted that is not the original.. "We (RAA) require an engineering order for the fitment of the brolga prop"?

Now we are talking about a 1983 factory built lightwing gr 582.I called the ex-owner and he told me he transfered the reg with no worries with the brolga prop on .So I called The G.A CFI and aircraft engineer whom did the full rebuild in 2009(for his 15 yo son) and he said 'WTF are they on about?" He said the prop was fitted when he bought it and tranfered to his name then later to his sons name (all with this prop) He said its has to be this audit ..

 

Will call Howie at ALW and find out what the original prop was (2 blade wooden).

 

Rang RAA and was told that the paperwork has to be updated and as its a certified factory built A/C it requires an engineer to "modify the propeller from original configuration) and that the B rolga 3 blade prop must have been fitted illegally

 

. Sounding like a real head ache.

OK, I am not wearing the L2 hat. You 'borrow' a wooden 2 blade certified propellor fm anyone, you take photos of the Gr582 with the politically-correct prop fitted, you dot the 'eyes' & cross the "tees' with all the other fiddely audit-inspired and suddenly-necessary bureaucratic requirements and submit to Fyshwick. Once that's accomplished, return the certified prop to your mate, refit the Brolga that's been happily flying the little machine all these years and then polish (but don't fly) your aircraft. When the renewed registration is in your hot little hands you continue to operate your aircraft as normal "but not for hire or reward". Alternatively, you could spend thousands of dollars getting an engineering report stating that the aircraft can safely operate with a 3 blade Brolga or (equally as stupid and distasteful) re-register the kite as a Cat 19 experimental. Disclaimer: I definately did not post any of the preceeding post. My Chinese mother-in-law controls my bank account and I do not spikka da inglish. Welcome to the nanny state. And despite all of the above - best wishes to you and you family for a happy and enjoyable new year. cheers riley

 

 

[flyerme]

OK, I am not wearing the L2 hat. You 'borrow' a wooden 2 blade certified propellor fm anyone, you take photos of the Gr582 with the politically-correct prop fitted, you dot the 'eyes' & cross the "tees' with all the other fiddely audit-inspired and suddenly-necessary bureaucratic requirements and submit to Fyshwick. Once that's accomplished, return the certified prop to your mate, refit the Brolga that's been happily flying the little machine all these years and then polish (but don't fly) your aircraft. When the renewed registration is in your hot little hands you continue to operate your aircraft as normal "but not for hire or reward". Alternatively, you could spend thousands of dollars getting an engineering report stating that the aircraft can safely operate with a 3 blade Brolga or (equally as stupid and distasteful) re-register the kite as a Cat 19 experimental. Disclaimer: I definately did not post any of the preceeding post. My Chinese mother-in-law controls my bank account and I do not spikka da inglish. Welcome to the nanny state. And despite all of the above - best wishes to you and you family for a happy and enjoyable new year. cheers riley

problem is they want: make,serial/ id number ?,diameter and pitch,photo,or the engineer order. So will contact Howard and find out what the original prop was first.

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

The principle is quite simple; if you make any "major modification" to an aircraft after it first received its C of A, then you require paperwork from an approved source that authorises the change. That goes for experimental aircraft as well.

 

You get to choose, mix and match, etc. right up to the C of A issue, at least in experimental. However once an approved person has issued the C of A that is the end of it.

 

To do otherwise destroys any chain of responsibility for the configuration of the aircraft and of course the integrity of the C of A.

 

Either get the paperwork, restore the aircraft to its original configuration or get a new C of A.

 

Alternatively, try and argue what the term "major modification" means.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Isn't this sort of thing just the law as required by CASA? My understanding is that it should not have been allowed in the first place (legally).

 

I see this sort of thing as RAA just cleaning up their records to comply with CASA's requirements, as painful as it might be.

 

As for putting a complying prop on for registration and then changing it - why bother registering it - Would in effect be the same.

 

I read into the problems being faced by some was caused by RAA not being strict enough (I.e. a little CASA) in the first place.

 

As was suggested elsewhere to hand over to CASA all regulating "You know not what you say" RAA is a walk in the park compared with the dept of name changes.

 

 

[metalman]

As annoying as it is , it's an illegal modification , welcome to CASA's way , I reckon they'll be this sort of stuff going on everywhere at the moment, I'd heard the previous ( before the last one) tech manager was approving mods to aircraft with just " do it and tell know one" attitude!

 

The other problem with just putting the right prop on there for the photos is that once you swap it back you are legally no longer registered OR insured and if something goes wrong you will be in a world of hurt, it really sucks to be the one stuck with the problem but your not alone. I received advice to lie on my rego application, all fine till thi sh!t hits the fan, hence I've had to go a different way with my aircraft

 

Met

 

 

[pylon500]

This has been a problem for a long time, ask anyone with a Skyfox/Gazelle.

 

Obviously all our rules are just variations of CASA's, and the GA world with it's low rpm, high torque engines has many problems with it's usually heavy propellors.

 

The reality is, as I see it, is that a propellor on a plane, is like a tire on a car.

 

It is the prime motive force for the vehicle, so as long as we fit the right diameter and width, regardless of the manufacturer, the police are happy.

 

If someone builds their own aircraft, they can optimise the prop to suit their performance and budget.

 

Manufacturers however, tend to look more at the budget (profit margin) and often select a cheaper (or home made) prop.

 

Unfortunately the aircraft then gets 'certified' with this average prop, and we all suffer.

 

What we should be doing is getting RAAus to lobby back at CASA, and have the requirements for propellors removed from the certification process.

 

I mean, no one worries about which brand of tires you fit to your aircraft, many people change over to decent radios, many people have their own ideas on which oils to use, short people situ on non certified cushions, etc, etc.

 

If we get stuck with the 'every certified nut and bolt' system that GA suffers, then we've basically lost the game.

 

As for the Lighting, Howie has supplied aircraft with GSC props, Catto props, 'Home Brand' pieces of wood (not worth calling props) and Bolly props, from the factory.

 

I know of MANY Lightwings that have had Brolga and Warp Drive props, and really, we should be able to get these approved simply through proof of safe history of operation over the years, without having to go the route of Reg 35 engineers signing them off.

 

This latest witch hunt has the threat of grounding a huge number of 'slightly improved' aircraft, that have been flying safely this way for years.

 

 

[djpacro]

The principle is very straightforward - if you don't want the limitations associated with a certified aircraft then go Experimental. CASA's rules on this subject are more liberal than in many other countries.

 

You get to choose, mix and match, etc. right up to the C of A issue, at least in experimental. However once an approved person has issued the C of A that is the end of it.

That same person can approve changes.

 

 

[dodo]

If that model Lightwing was provided from the factory with a prop like yours, it may be as simple as getting an L2 to sign off that it was fitted correctly. The L2 might want to remove and refit to be confident.

 

Note: I am not sure of the accuracy of that advice. Howie at Linghwing might know better, and the Technical Manager might be able to suggest a relatively simple and inexpensive way of making your aircraft conform.

 

I suspect the trivial issues out of the audit have been largely quantified, and now we are getting to the moderately difficult. God knows what will happen, or how long it will take to deal with the really complex or intractable issues!

 

dodo

 

 

[metalman]

This has been a problem for a long time, ask anyone with a Skyfox/Gazelle.Obviously all our rules are just variations of CASA's, and the GA world with it's low rpm, high torque engines has many problems with it's usually heavy propellors.

The reality is, as I see it, is that a propellor on a plane, is like a tire on a car.

 

It is the prime motive force for the vehicle, so as long as we fit the right diameter and width, regardless of the manufacturer, the police are happy.

 

If someone builds their own aircraft, they can optimise the prop to suit their performance and budget.

 

Manufacturers however, tend to look more at the budget (profit margin) and often select a cheaper (or home made) prop.

 

Unfortunately the aircraft then gets 'certified' with this average prop, and we all suffer.

 

What we should be doing is getting RAAus to lobby back at CASA, and have the requirements for propellors removed from the certification process.

 

I mean, no one worries about which brand of tires you fit to your aircraft, many people change over to decent radios, many people have their own ideas on which oils to use, short people situ on non certified cushions, etc, etc.

 

If we get stuck with the 'every certified nut and bolt' system that GA suffers, then we've basically lost the game.

 

As for the Lighting, Howie has supplied aircraft with GSC props, Catto props, 'Home Brand' pieces of wood (not worth calling props) and Bolly props, from the factory.

 

I know of MANY Lightwings that have had Brolga and Warp Drive props, and really, we should be able to get these approved simply through proof of safe history of operation over the years, without having to go the route of Reg 35 engineers signing them off.

 

This latest witch hunt has the threat of grounding a huge number of 'slightly improved' aircraft, that have been flying safely this way for years.

And this is why we've had our wings clipped, we seem to treat the rules as if they don't apply to us, certification is more than a list of parts , it's ensuring that every aircraft is exactly the same , they will all behave the same , the quality is the same, every part is traceable, the alternative is crap like the Morgan aircraft with bad build quality, shoddy mods and subsequent groundings ,it does suck when a factory disappears but we have approved persons to deal with the issues

Met

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

OK, CASA for one is under considerable strain right now over it's own existance, with considerable cuts in their financing from the Government. Hiring is on hold etc, etc. They have responded to this by actually getting off their arsxx for a change, going out and showing that they can do things. There have been at least two small operators taken out of service (Hardys' and Barrier), our RAAus shimozal, and all sorts of other rubbish going on to promote their profile in the eyes of the public and their boss, the government. We are an easy one for them. And boy don't it look good in the eyes of some that these bloody ultralights are finnally being bought into line !! Big points for sure.

 

Additional to that, some years ago a new rule came in that a CASA inspector signing off on an inspection or audit, can now personally be sued over issues relating to that signiture. Read: jailtime for the CASA person when/if the shit hits the fan !.....which is the way it should be IMOP.

 

The RAAus audit sign-off is done by one inspector on behalf of the Department...would you want to be the one signing off for all UL activity in this country ??.....

 

As far as props go, it came out in past years that a prop could be fitted to an aircraft if that prop was an approved type for the engine, and approved as a suitable fitment to that engine. This is common practise throughout the rest of the world. We have to be different of course.

 

I recently asked the now ex-techie a couple of times by Email, where we stood with Brolga props now that the manufacturer is no longer around (applies to other brands also). I wanted to fit a Bolly in it's place on a 582 Drifter as a suitable (and very successfull) alternative...............no reply on both counts.

 

CASA has to acknowledge this problem with props. Many of the Allsize props fitted as standard on many aircraft are no longer available...props do wear out , they don't go on forever !... As we all know there are many more than suitable alternatives available to us, and we have the experience and ability to assess them as suitable replacements for our aircraft. And just to muddy the water further what about all the homebuilt Savvys for instance with whatever prop suits the builder at the time, which is another situation that we all know has worked perfectly as an example that we do know what we are doing...........................................Maj...

 

 

[flyerme]

Should point out My plane has not yet been grounded!!!!!!!! It simply can not be transferred over to me . Problem for RAA is if anything were to happen THEY are liable as THEY already approved the rego a number of times..Bottom line is " yes you can fly it but we rather you didn't untill the paperwork is in order" .

 

I have traced this prop as far back as 1989 so its been on there a while now,Being a pensioner I WONT be spending money (I don't have)on a paperwork issue derived from RAA,s miss management.My argumant is simple :I purchaced a currently registed A/c Believing that as RAA had registed it , it has to be good! OK if the old owner tranfered it with the original prop ,then fine ,BUT RAA registed it with the current prop(Brolga 3 blade) and have done so for some 20 years.I come along, purchace the CURRENTLY RAA REGISTED A/C then they tell me Oh you cant transfer it we made a mistake and its not the original prop certified..NOW HANG ON THERE,You already approved the prop by registing the plane so why should I foot the bill for RAA's mistake? im told, I SHOULDN,T as its there mistake and as I dont have money (pensioner) Im adviced to seek legal advice as this most certainatly should not cost me..makes sence to me!!!!! ,you make the mistake.You pay for it..Heres the thing: you cant register a vehicle for a number of years and whilst the vehicle is STILL registed decide ..oops we made a mistake sorry cant transferr it with out you spending more money,we could be liable..NO YOU ARE LIABLE............Would I have bought it if I new what was coming? No way..Not happy RAA NOT AT ALL!!!!

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Further on Props:.....Rotax or any other engine manufacturer for that matter, have never recommended any particular prop on any of their engines.

 

They simply state that a propellor may be fitted that will allow the normal operating, and full rpms required, for suitable operation of the engine !....(or words to that effect)

 

It is not only the propellor that drags the aircraft up that slope....it is the engine/propellor combination, and CASA need to realize and acknowledge that fact. When CASA certifies a factory-built or approved aircraft in this country they need to insert the words...' An engine/ propellor combination suitable to the operational requirements of the aircraft may be fitted, and is approved'...............................................................................................Maj...

 

 

[djpacro]

Engine certification stops at the engine. Props are also certified as a stand-alone item. Aircraft certification is for the specific airframe/engine/prop combination - it was ever so.

 

 

[rankamateur]

Many of the Allsize props fitted as standard on many aircraft are no longer available...props do wear out , they don't go on forever !... As we all know there are many more than suitable alternatives available to us, and we have the experience and ability to assess them as suitable replacements for our aircraft.

Isn't this a magnificent niche opportunity for Australian made Bolly to organise certification of alternatives for these orphaned types, instead of each owner paying to certify individual installations. While ICP promote French DUC props they were able to approve Bolly and Airmaster hubs for factory built Savannahs so that gives home builders some more factory approved alternatives to improve performance.

 

 

[facthunter]

Certifying props is a complicated process. Perhaps we are a little "blaise" about props. If you chuck a blade you are in trouble particularly on a thing like a drifter. Harmonics ( vibrations) are the problem. I've been watching people put non standard props on gazelle's, even those used for training. This is a no-no, but why can't the "19" category be available. A one way trip though. No coming back. You can't wave a magic wand over something and retrospectively apply the servicing and inspections that weren't done. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

TThe reality is, as I see it, is that a propellor on a plane, is like a tire on a car.

It is the prime motive force for the vehicle, so as long as we fit the right diameter and width, regardless of the manufacturer, the police are happy.

Not since the early '90's which is why you see highway tyres on high speed (nearly all) 4WD's, not withstanding that a lot of people breach the ADR and put their safety at risk with tyres not designed for the vehicle's speed capacity.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Additional to that, some years ago a new rule came in that a CASA inspector signing off on an inspection or audit, can now personally be sued over issues relating to that signiture. Read: jailtime for the CASA person when/if the **** hits the fan !.....which is the way it should be IMOP.

That's the public liability change I've mentioned a few times Major.

 

He only gets jailtime if he's culpably negligent, as in if he saw a non conforming prop on an aircraft, the pilot gave him a few slabs and he signed it off. Thast's pretty easy for him to avoid, but if he simply didn't notice, or accidentally signed off something by mistake, that's contributory negligence and he and CASA would be sued. It makes a lot of sense for CASA to have one inspector who is prepared to take the few hits that might occur, and I presume to subsidise any penalties, rather than, as many Government Departments did, simply walk away and leave the lawsuits to the unsuspecting.

 

 

[crashley]

Sorry to hear of your problems transfering the rego to your name but just because it was ILLEGALY registered before doesnt mean it should be allowed to continue in that state now. Just because in the past RAA wasnt aware of the prop change doesnt make it their problem now. Were they told the prop had been changed. Even if they were I am sorry but the problem is yours

 

It is about time we in the RAA realised that we are given a lots of concessions in the aeroplane world. Speak to someone who is trying to register a GA type aeroplane and see what problems they encounter There is a saying that you cant fly until the paper work weighs the same as the aeroplane !!!!!

 

And as Metalman says some people seem to treat rules as something to be ignored if we choose to, and that is what got us into this problem in the first place Yes us not casa not RAA but us by not playing by the the rules how many people have altered 24 registered planes without approval how many people fly overweight planes or unregistered planes how many fly without a current BFR

 

COME ON EVERYONE START PLAYING BY THE RULES BEFORE CASA REALLY FLEXES ITS MUSCLES

 

 

[Riley]

Should point out My plane has not yet been grounded!!!!!!!! It simply can not be transferred over to me . Problem for RAA is if anything were to happen THEY are liable as THEY already approved the rego a number of times..Bottom line is " yes you can fly it but we rather you didn't untill the paperwork is in order" .I have traced this prop as far back as 1989 so its been on there a while now,Being a pensioner I WONT be spending money (I don't have)on a paperwork issue derived from RAA,s miss management.My argumant is simple :I purchaced a currently registed A/c Believing that as RAA had registed it , it has to be good! OK if the old owner tranfered it with the original prop ,then fine ,BUT RAA registed it with the current prop(Brolga 3 blade) and have done so for some 20 years.I come along, purchace the CURRENTLY RAA REGISTED A/C then they tell me Oh you cant transfer it we made a mistake and its not the original prop certified..NOW HANG ON THERE,You already approved the prop by registing the plane so why should I foot the bill for RAA's mistake? im told, I SHOULDN,T as its there mistake and as I dont have money (pensioner) Im adviced to seek legal advice as this most certainatly should not cost me..makes sence to me!!!!! ,you make the mistake.You pay for it..Heres the thing: you cant register a vehicle for a number of years and whilst the vehicle is STILL registed decide ..oops we made a mistake sorry cant transferr it with out you spending more money,we could be liable..NO YOU ARE LIABLE............Would I have bought it if I new what was coming? No way..Not happy RAA NOT AT ALL!!!!

If it's any consolation FM, you have company in your misery. I too, have been left sitting in the sin bin with a currently registered new (old) aircraft that RAA would "prefer that you don't fly" due to their inability/failure to action the necessary change of ownership (and there are no problems yet identified by them as regards the airworthiness history of the aircraft or the completeness of the dossier). I pulled funds from an income-earning investment to purchase a RAA-registered aircraft that had 320 hrs on a complete professional zero-timed restoration. A squeaky clean transfer-of-ownership file complete with the transfer fee was handed over the counter at Fyshwick offices on 6 Nov, and advice was given that the computor was down and it would be actioned in a couple of days. Now, a couple of months later, the only action that has taken place is that they have cashed my transfer fee cheque! In short, it is costing me more than $44.00 each week for a dead donkey since this incompetance has surfaced and they can't (or won't) tell me how long it will continue! Will RAAus extend my annual registration period to offset the time that I've paid for in advance but have been unable to fly....? Will RAAus re-imburse me for the lost income that would have been earned had I not purchased what they have turned into a 'Hangar Queen'? I don't fancy my chances and certainly haven't had any response to my multiple emails to our illustrious Treasurer requesting his recognition and assurance of same. The sing song from Runciman & Co is 'we inherited this un-expected mess' - irrespective of what little credit they obviously give to member's IQ, I don't think I'm stupid enough to accept that as an answer. And FlyerMe, for you & I it's comparatively small change and personal inconvenience - spare a thought for those shoe-string FTFs who are really getting king hit by this compounded incompetance. I expectorate!!!

 

 

[flyerme]

[but us by not playing by the the rules how many people have altered 24 registered planes without approval how many people fly overweight planes or unregistered planes how many fly without a current BFR

 

COME ON EVERYONE START PLAYING BY THE RULES BEFORE CASA REALLY FLEXES ITS MUSCLES

 

My planes 25 reg,I have NEVER "broke the rules",The prop was fitted around 1989 and has had 6 transfer of ownership all have Stated on both the transfer papers and all airworthies that a Brolga 3 blade was fitted.

 

So this is 100% RAA's mistake and if they don,t want responsibility then its simple.......... If a plane registed with them (currently)is to be sold with reg then the seller SHOULD supply a airworthy certificate performed by RAA (thats performed not APROVED)...As the $200 l2 airworthy inspection I paid for is worthless.....

 

Even the L2 is not happy with the way there handling it.As he has emailed them with all the info on the history and copies of prior tranfers (highlighting the BROLGA PROP noted on each and very tranfer) from 1989 .

 

So how should it work?= RAA take responsibilty for your neglegence and Right the wrong YOU allowed..NOT ME>>>> from now on I believe Like eastern car reg to sell a certified plane thats holds current reg the seller (weather it be me in the future {next week lol)) must supply an RAA ENGINEER Airwothy certificate/order ..SIMPLE as this would not have occured.

 

what was the point of supplying the airworthy certifcate anyway?If they dont count I want my money back and so does my L2 whome feels RAA are passing the buck?

 

I just wanna fly :(

 

 

[flyerme]

message from my l2 AND old CFI.

 

[12/31/2012 9:45:24 PM] we have sent a number of emails and will call wednesday,I know why the R A Aus are doing this, part of the CASA audit, but I just do not understand why they are doing this in this manner?, most of the older aircraft all have changed prop because of the original prop makers are out of business because the NEW props are better. CASA are just a bunch of box tickers and our head office are letting them get away with it, we are supposed to be 10000 members , no way would CASA shut down R A Us and expect to get away with 10000 people with no governing body, I wonder how many more people will be screwed around, what a great start to the New Year.

 

 

[Teckair]

First thing you should do is ring Howard as I understand it the manufacturer is required to supply parts and information for certified aircraft they produce. The ACR (Aircraft Condition Report) is required for registration transfer and is not a airworthy certificate.

 

 

[crashley]

HI as I stated before just because it got through illegally before doesnt mean that it can continue that way. RAA has finally picked up this problem and there will be a way to fix it you will have to work with them to find a solution. Do you expect them to ignore the problem with the current problems with CASA And yes unfortunately the L2 inspection is worthless as it appears he has not checked the paper work properly to see if the prop fitted has been approved and as I said unfortunately you have inherited a problem but there will be a solution This is not a 100% RAA problem just a problem that has gone undetected since the prop was changed the first time without the correct procedures being followed

 

 

[frank marriott]

If it is not "legal" then because a previous tech manager let it happen does not make it legal now. If all the complaints of incompetance are taken into account then can you blame someone now for being cautious and dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

 

A lot of the problems are from us and the approach of getting away with something which should not happen has come home to rest - It will only get harder and more compliant with the LAW.

 

A new administration will not change that - the only difference will be if it doesn't comply it will not happen [what is apparently happening now]