Lightwing grounding

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

But with the lightwing the mod are not really a mod eg : rotax 532 s are to my know age no longer made so people replaced with 582 which is the same as a 532 same hp same weight same mounts apart from the numbers to my understanding !

Yes, you are correct - that the change is minimal and therefore should be able to be approved at the stroke of a pen. But it's still a modification.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

But with the lightwing the mod are not really a mod eg : rotax 532 s are to my know age no longer made so people replaced with 582 which is the same as a 532 same hp same weight same mounts apart from the numbers to my understanding !

IIRC the 582 has a larger bore & stroke than 532 and a different ignition

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Robert]

Why cant we have some sort of experimental catagory.

 

The americans seem to be able to put all sort of mods and engines on their aircraft even to GA built aircraft

 

 

[Teckair]

But with the lightwing the mod are not really a mod eg : rotax 532 s are to my know age no longer made so people replaced with 582 which is the same as a 532 same hp same weight same mounts apart from the numbers to my understanding !

That is another angle, as far as I know for a aircraft to remain certified you are supposed to be able to get factory made parts for it.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Yes, you are correct - that the change is minimal and therefore should be able to be approved at the stroke of a pen. But it's still a modification.

A stroke of a pen should not cost $$$ amount of money though !

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Why cant we have some sort of experimental catagory.The americans seem to be able to put all sort of mods and engines on their aircraft even to GA built aircraft

We DO have an experimental "category"; I say again, see http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/021/021c10.pdf. It's actually a bit more liberal than the American one. But it's not an alternative to getting proper airworthiness approval for a modification.

The mods you see on American GA built aircraft are almost all done via a Supplemental Type Certificate; there are thousands of them listed on the FAA website. Go look at CASR 1998 Part 21 subpart E. You're perfectly free to use that mechanism for any Australian-registered certificated aircraft; people do, but in the past that sort of thing was mostly done under CAR 35. The -503 Lightwing isn't certificated, so it can't have a supplement to the Type Certificate it doesn't have - but it CAN be modified under CASR Part 21M. But the process is not cheap, unless you can do most of the technical work for it yourself.

 

All you need to do is to put together a set of drawings and work instructions, plus a justification report (which could almost be a one-liner) and submit them to either CASA or a CASR 21M Authorised Person (there's a list of them on the CASA website). Don't know how to do that? Then it will cost something to have the 21M AP prepare it for you. It will likely cost about the same as having an accountant prepare your tax return.

 

Why wasn't that done way back when the 503 was replaced by a 532, and again when the 532 became a 582? Ask RAAus. They are the irresponsible party, plus the owners at the time. You have a legitimate basis for sueing RAAus for what you paid for the aircraft, I suspect - unless caveat emptor over-rules it. The sad fact is that RAA was presenting a facade of controlling its area in the Australian industry, whilst not actually doing so; and you are one of many victims of that. Be angry - be very angry, but be angry at the right party.

 

 

[Downunder]

I believe E24 aircraft are modified 24 rego aircraft, run under 19 rego rules. Mainly being not for hire/reward and training.

 

Some people may want to improve their aircraft but their hands are tied due to the manufacturer's permission required.

 

The RAA seem to be cracking down on people modding their 24 aircraft and there have been several articles in the mag about this.

 

Getting permission to mod/change parts or make additions may be difficult as then the manufacturer may see this as admitting the original parts are not up to scratch.

 

It seems to me a 24 manufacturer can dish up a crap on a plate and the Raa have no problem with this as long as the manufacturer takes responsibility.

 

I would like to see a process where an owner can make minor mods (eg. Adding a strobe light) by submitting an application with the RAA.

 

Adding obvious safety/reliability improvements should not be prevented.

 

 

[Yenn]

I am sure you could add a strobe light to a 24 reg plane, just have to do it in a way that doesn't affect its registration. If you want to have the ability to modify a plane then build your own. But you can't use it for training or other hiring out. Seems sensible to me.

 

 

[flyerme]

Ok a little more info. In 2003 owner x ( RAA/GA instructor and lvl 2) stripped the plane and rebuilt it. When it come to the new engine he contacted his nearest rotax dealer and asked for a replacement 532, and was told they have now become a 582 , same engine bigger bore and stroke.and that this was the replacement. He then fitted a 3 blade brolga and sent RAA the info stating the engine change, prop change(note original prop not made anymore) and colour change. This was excepted and the plane was registed . there was never a letter or mention of any engineering orders required! He believed no modifications had been made being a replacement for the 582 and as the prop was not avail anymore he sort in his opinion the safest prop option a 3blade brolga( very smooth, economical,loved it) IMO I feel RAA should organize with manafactures a way to resolve the issues with little to no cost to unsuspecting owners whome threw no fault of there own find themselves like me

 

,to be clear all that is required is a ph call to give credit card details and aircraft I'd. Then a order will be sent out. It's that simple!hmm but costs $495.

 

so that's $625 for this years rego! I got $130 reg and a 3blade brolga wonder if howie takes trade

 

. Lol thanks for your opinions,info and support guys I appreciate it emencly and being out here your opinions makes Me feel I'm not alone:thank you:

 

 

[Doug Evans]

IIRC the 582 has a larger bore & stroke than 532 and a different ignitionCheers

 

John

Witch in my opinion would greatly improve safety the new electronic of today far out weigh the single plugs and point sys on the 532 engines ;-)

Cheers Doug

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

A stroke of a pen should not cost $$$ amount of money though !

Why not? When you ask a CASR 21M Authorised person to approve a modification, you are asking him to take on legal liability for the design of the modification. Your tax accountant does not do that - he gets you to sign the return; he explicitly hands the liability back to you.

Why do you expect a professional engineer to take on the liability for what is in reality a pretty shonky modification with little or no documentation, for peanuts? Grow up; you sound like a petulant six-year old - "Gimme - I want".

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Ok a

Why not? When you ask a CASR 21M Authorised person to approve a modification, you are asking him to take on legal liability for the design of the modification. Your tax accountant does not do that - he gets you to sign the return; he explicitly hands the liability back to you.Why do you expect a professional engineer to take on the liability for what is in reality a pretty shonky modification with little or no documentation, for peanuts? Grow up; you sound like a petulant six-year old - "Gimme - I want".

Sorry mate but I don't have a problem with the engineer doing that but why is it that we have to do it with an aircraft that has been flying with the same engine in one case for over 20 years !

 

The case in hand there is no inspection or document required but a strike of a pen $495 is a bit much .

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Sorry mate but I don't have a problem with the engineer doing that but why is it that we have to do it with an aircraft that has been flying with the same engine in one case for over 20 years !The case in hand there is no inspection or document required but a strike of a pen $495 is a bit much .

You're arguing with the regulations, then? Sorry, can't help you there.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

You're arguing with the regulations, then? Sorry, can't help you there.

No I agree with regulation but why do we have to pay for the regulator mistake the aircraft has been flying for some time and the owner beleave he was flying a legal aircraft he has had checked when purchased and passed all the requirements checks !

In some case the past 20 years

 

But all of sudden they are telling these people that there aircraft is flying illegally then asking people to bear the cost of the administration stuff ups !

 

Do u think that is right " I don't think so "

 

Doug Evans

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

No I agree with regulation but why do we have to pay for the regulator mistake the aircraft has been flying for some time and the owner beleave he was flying a legal aircraft he has had checked when purchased and passed all the requirements checks !In some case the past 20 years

But all of sudden they are telling these people that there aircraft is flying illegally then asking people to bear the cost of the administration stuff ups !

 

Do u think that is right " I don't think so "

 

Doug Evans

No, of course it isn't. But it's not the fault of the engineer who will have to comply with his procedures manual in order to do what should have been done long ago. The aircraft IS flying illegally, and that should never have happened; RAA was negligent. Surely you can take it from there?

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Yes we should right a wrong but I am not having a go at the engineers they deserve to be payed but in saying that may be the system should waver or pick up the tab for the pass mistake too support our members ,

 

The idea of the RAA former AUF is affordable flying .

 

As I said the case in hand is about an aircraft that has been flying from the beginning " best part of 29 years " they have a safety record second to none and to my knowledge these aircraft only have 3 minor COA to there name.

 

So no one is asking to redesign any part of the aircraft just update a engine that has been replace with a update unit of the same !

 

Cheers Doug Evans

 

 

[pylon500]

Some observations;

 

I don't think production LightWings EVER came out with 503's?, only the prototype.

 

The whole concept that ultralighting was based on (I know, ultralights don't exist anymore) was operation by EXEMPTION, this was easier for CASA than actually writing rules just for us.

 

I think if you talk to Rotax, they would say the 582 is a REPLACEMENT for the 532, and can be set up just like the original, ie pull start, B box, no oil injection.

 

These would be the only REAL modifications when fitting a 582, of course a normal person would keep these newer features, but obviously a 'SAFETY' orientated person wouldn't dare add safety features that weren't being used in the dark ages....

 

What ever happened to 'SAFE HISTORY of OPERATION' ?

 

I sometimes get the impression that if CASA can destroy ultralighting enough, it will become small enough to lose it's potential voting voice and just do as it's told, ie become a cheaper, affordable, acceptable risk version of GA.

 

It would be interesting to know how many LightWings are in private use as opposed to school use?

 

The calls to allow LightWings into 19 should not be necessary as the aircraft, in it's various forms, and as approved under 95:25, has proven itself worthy.

 

Looks like Lee's My GR912 will have to sit in bits in the back of my hangar for longer till we figure out how far backwards I have to 'un-mod' it to become legal enough to be rebuilt and used for training again

 

Just had another thought, this thread should be in the General forums, or at least the Lightwing forums, so that ANY Lightwing owner can find this, not just those that log in...

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Just wondering, is this engineers report that is required something that all individual LW's will need or once it is done for one, that report can be used by RAAus as proof of compliance for all others with the same mod?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes we should right a wrong but I am not having a go at the engineers they deserve to be payed but in saying that may be the system should waver or pick up the tab for the pass mistake too support our members ,The idea of the RAA former AUF is affordable flying .

As I said the case in hand is about an aircraft that has been flying from the beginning " best part of 29 years " they have a safety record second to none and to my knowledge these aircraft only have 3 minor COA to there name.

 

So no one is asking to redesign any part of the aircraft just update a engine that has been replace with a update unit of the same !

 

Cheers Doug Evans

Well, that's between you (and quite a few other owners) and the RAA. No point in asking me, or crying on my shoulder; I was so disgusted by what I learned as an expert witness for Carol Smith, that I walked away from RAA - and I won't be coming back. I know people are trying to bail the boat out before it sinks, and I wish them well - but there are some people who should be shot for what was allowed to happen. I've given Trevor Bange what assistance I can offer. But RAA people have been living in cloud-cuckoo land for decades; it was inevitable that reality would someday intrude. You can't go back there. Go read my thread "caveat emptor". This forum is serving to put some daylight onto the scene, and to correct some very wrong-headed thinking, so I've been prepared to put time into it, despite not being a member.

 

However, people ultimately have to help themselves. You can't rely on an amateur association to spoon-feed you; they are trying to teach - but only you can do the learning. One may well wonder just what was going on in the past - because it was surely not in the members' best interests. It needs vigilance on the part of the members to keep it on the rails - and that means you need to stop pretending that the regulations don't apply to you, but learn what they really say.

 

Reading the regulations may put you to sleep - but it won't send you blind, any more that the RAA Mag. will.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Just wondering, is this engineers report that is required something that all individual LW's will need or once it is done for one, that report can be used by RAAus as proof of compliance for all others with the same mod?

If a group of you get together and give the engineer a bunch of serial numbers, he may be able to give a single approval for those serial numbers. This was certainly possible under CAR 35; I understand the scope for this may be less under CASR 21.M. I do know it is not permissible to give an "open" approval under CASR 21.M. (Progress, it's called)

 

 

[dodo]

If a group of you get together and give the engineer a bunch of serial numbers, he may be able to give a single approval for those serial numbers. This was certainly possible under CAR 35; I understand the scope for this may be less under CASR 21.M. I do know it is not permissible to give an "open" approval under CASR 21.M. (Progress, it's called)

This is the sort of approach and advice RA should be providing. RA must be well aware that a number of aircraft are now un-airworthy due to an error which was largely NOT the modifier's or current owners fault, and which is almost certainly not deliberate. And it is unreasonable to expect owners to have a better knowledge of the legislation than CASA and RA (I note that this issue seems to have been missed in the CASA registration audit - only found later!)

So why not use RA's expertise and organisation to try to get a simple solution?

 

Instead, RA seems to be shovelling it under the carpet and blaming owners.

 

dodo

 

 

[flyerme]

It is a mass engineering order for all lightwings that's how the engineering order price is kept low$475 low?

 

" yes we can do the order but it's expensive however we have been swamped with requests so are able to write up one order for all to keep the price down to only $495 just require credit card details and aircraft details"

 

 

[dodo]

I would be tempted to pay it, and send to the bill to RA, with a note pointing out that if they don't like it, they can either recover the bill from the original modifier, or take it off ten years of illegal rego payments.

 

dodo

 

 

[flyerme]

Hey yeh! Thanks for that pointing out:lost:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

So I wonder what is next in store? People certificates to fly next?. Sorry dude we lost your personal data so we don't recognise your endos. Pay up and do them again. I got a good story for this when it pops up in the future.

 

Any body see any problems for other types of aircraft similar to what is happening to the Lightwing? This is exactly why we have the RAAus, to catch this sort of thing and find a workable solution to keep things acceptably legal.

 

Interesting note that the tech managers that have allowed this are now employed by CASA. Has the newbie jumped ship yet?