Lightwing grounding

[ave8rr]

Even if u rebuild from a compete tare down u can't I looked into this myself cause I was going to fit a vicking engine but was told can't do it .

Can some one please tell me how the Ibis Which is factory built and WAS registered 24-xxxx can now be registered 19-xxxx? These aircraft weren't 51% built by the owner. It seems to me that rules are being bent to suit as required.

Cheers

 

 

[Doug Evans]

Can some one please tell me how the Ibis Which is factory built and WAS registered 24-xxxx can now be registered 19-xxxx? These aircraft weren't 51% built by the owner. It seems to me that rules are being bent to suit as required.Cheers

Don't know mate ??

That what I was told when I was thinking of mounting a Viking engine too my lightwing because it 25 rego I can't change it ......

 

 

[Downunder]

Can some one please tell me how the Ibis Which is factory built and WAS registered 24-xxxx can now be registered 19-xxxx? These aircraft weren't 51% built by the owner. It seems to me that rules are being bent to suit as required.Cheers

I would have thought It would have gone E24-xxxx?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

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"

Ask somebody who has the necessary approval before you make that assumption. I retired out of that game two years ago, so I'm not fully current with the constraints.

 

 

[dodo]

Ask somebody who has the necessary approval before you make that assumption. I retired out of that game two years ago, so I'm not fully current with the constraints.

Yes, it would be ...disappointing(?) to get taken for another ride.

However, finding someone who can give a correct opinion seems to be one of the difficulties in this saga. Even if you find someone who can legally give that approval, will it stand the test of time?

 

dodo

 

 

[ave8rr]

I would have thought It would have gone E24-xxxx?

I believe "E"24 is for LSA only and is to cover changes when something like changing a propellor e.g. Installing a VP prop.

The Ibis was factory built but not LSA. Still can't see how what were 24 registered aircraft are now 19 after a long grounding.

 

Appears a "deal" was done. 19 is for amateur built!

 

 

[metalman]

I believe "E"24 is for LSA only and is to cover changes when something like changing a propellor e.g. Installing a VP prop.The Ibis was factory built but not LSA. Still can't see how what were 24 registered aircraft are now 19 after a long grounding.

 

Appears a "deal" was done. 19 is for amateur built!

I think they did a bit of a round about trip with them,,,went VH exp,,,,then into 19 reg,,,,in light of current dramas given the licence option I would've left them VH

Matty

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Yes, it would be ...disappointing(?) to get taken for another ride. However, finding someone who can give a correct opinion seems to be one of the difficulties in this saga. Even if you find someone who can legally give that approval, will it stand the test of time?

dodo

Normally, correctly-given airworthiness approvals remain valid indefinitely. If CASA has an issue with one, this normally surfaces early in the piece.

 

 

[airangel]

Anyone care to offer an opinion on a 19 registered Jab 160 fitted with a Rotax 912s. [has been , and is currently registered] what will RAA say about this ? in the revised pattern of thinking

 

 

[planesmaker]

The 19 registered jab 160 is probably a home built 160. They did make them as kits. Tom

 

 

[ozbear]

Guessing its a case of pass the buck? I really feel down and forced into a corner for something little Johnny did 11 years ago. I m still paying for the prop mistake made 11 year ago that had nothing to do with me (was not even a member)but cost me $1470. To make the plane "certified"and to renew the reg.so Why wasn't everything sorted last year?i don't get it. .?

The sad thing is the Brolga is a great prop I've had 2 three bladers on 582s and love them

 

 

[aj_richo]

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?

Ozzie... I have exactly that problem with endorsements. I designed and built a Robin 440 powered 95:10 taildragger, then flew it from 87 to 2003 , about 140 hours. My tailwheel endorsement diasappeared from my certificate a couple of years ago. Didnt worry about it until I started actively flying last year. In short tryed to get it back with logbook evidence etc. I now have to find a school with a 2-stroke LEGAL Lightwing and redo the the endorsement if I want to fly it again. Bah humbug!

 

 

[jetjr]

Ok, being a hard arse but, just like every other purchase we make, the responsibility to keep it compliant with changing laws is our problem.

 

RAA no doubt should have flagged it but that would mean a well qualified person with in-depth knowledge of type reviewing EVERY renewal, EVERY year. Reckon that might add plenty to renewal fee and its why RAA has had all the registration problems over last 2 yrs, basically werent doing it well enough.

 

Getting a renewal isnt an approval that its all legal, thats the owners/pilots problem.

 

I do understand and feel sorry for you and it isnt very fair, but Im not really OK with talk that RAA, being funded by members on this forum, should fund reparations to your aircraft cause it doesnt meet spec. Which as far as I can tell, are actually long standing regulations missed or ignored by previous owners.

 

Just because RAA overlooked the modification missed the problem doenst make it legal or safe, similarly just because its been flying for 20 yrs doesnt either. Thats the problem with certification and GA have always had exactly the same issue. Even commonsense upgrades cant be done without strict procedure.

 

Yep the previous owner suffered a big problem not being able to source a correct engine/prop so at that point the certs needed upgrading to maintain current airworthiness and use status. Subsequent sales were misleading and probably illegal.

 

I agree there should be an easy path to alter registration class which would allow the AC to keep flying but no longer in its original "privileges". 19 reg is probably the right place for it as the key restriction is not being able to train in it and you can alter and modify as a result. A factory built with modification surely similar to 51% factory assist in terms or risk and safety?

 

Wasnt aware this is just for owner builds, plenty there with second onwards owners who didnt build.

 

"Experimental" is a GA category but needs PPL and if you didn't build it full LAME maintenance so it isnt a great option.

 

 

[jetjr]

Anyone care to offer an opinion on a 19 registered Jab 160 fitted with a Rotax 912s. [has been , and is currently registered] what will RAA say about this ? in the revised pattern of thinking

If its 19 registered you can do pretty much what you like, cant train in it though.

Would be a nice aircraft assuming its done well and all balanced up.

 

Not quite clear what the revised thinking is? RAA is being pushed to administer what they always were supposed to be doing. Manufacturers and owners being caught up in the process based on what they thought was OK.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Ok, being a hard **** but, just like every other purchase we make, the responsibility to keep it compliant with changing laws is our problem.RAA no doubt should have flagged it but that would mean a well qualified person with in-depth knowledge of type reviewing EVERY renewal, EVERY year. Reckon that might add plenty to renewal fee and its why RAA has had all the registration problems over last 2 yrs, basically werent doing it well enough.

Getting a renewal isnt an approval that its all legal, thats the owners/pilots problem.

 

I do understand and feel sorry for you and it isnt very fair, but Im not really OK with talk that RAA, being funded by members on this forum, should fund reparations to your aircraft cause it doesnt meet spec. Which as far as I can tell, are actually long standing regulations missed or ignored by previous owners.

 

Just because RAA overlooked the modification missed the problem doenst make it legal or safe, similarly just because its been flying for 20 yrs doesnt either. Thats the problem with certification and GA have always had exactly the same issue. Even commonsense upgrades cant be done without strict procedure.

 

Yep the previous owner suffered a big problem not being able to source a correct engine/prop so at that point the certs needed upgrading to maintain current airworthiness and use status. Subsequent sales were misleading and probably illegal.

 

I agree there should be an easy path to alter registration class which would allow the AC to keep flying but no longer in its original "privileges". 19 reg is probably the right place for it as the key restriction is not being able to train in it and you can alter and modify as a result. A factory built with modification surely similar to 51% factory assist in terms or risk and safety?

 

Wasnt aware this is just for owner builds, plenty there with second onwards owners who didnt build.

 

"Experimental" is a GA category but needs PPL and if you didn't build it full LAME maintenance so it isnt a great option.

Right on all counts - except I think RAA has been negligent; the reason you give explains why, but it's not an excuse. Pursuing that is not likely to be worth the effort unfortunately; but it should be recognised that this is the case. Equally, the previous owners have also been negligent.

 

Having said that, may I respectfully point out that the "drifting" behaviour of both RAA airworthiness status and of RAA pilot certificate endorsements would not have occurred if AUF/RAA had not set out to "simplify" the whole business by eliminating both the Certificate of Airworthiness and the pilot licence from its world?

 

If you all want this unsatisfactory situation to not recur in the future, IMHO the best way to achieve that would be to insist that RAA, when it gets to the end of the present registration muddle, issues a certificate of airworthiness for each registered aircraft? Then you will have a record the you can produce at need. Similarly, the pilot certificate should specify all your endorsements. This whole problem has arisen because RAA has been more interested in using aircraft registration and pilot certificate renewals as a source of income, rather than as records of the safety status of the aircraft and the pilot.

 

Gliders have Certificates of Airworthiness. They are a one-time issue; what you pay for is the paperwork for the mandatory annual inspection. The inspection results in a Maintenance Release. The record of that goes back to GFA, who keep it on the aircraft file. If GFA can do this, RAA has no excuse. I'm overhauling a 40 year old glider;

 

all its paperwork is in order, as it should be. Roll on, the RPL; it will force proper record-keeping.

 

The situation for aircraft "accepted" under CAO 95.25 is rather murky; they were not certificated, but were "accepted" on the basis of a comprehensive report from a CAR 35 engineer (who thereby took on an open-ended liability). That acceptance basis implies that a modification to such an aircraft can in principle, also be approved by a CAR 35 engineer - if he's willing to accept the liability (which is much greater than what he accepted in approving a mod. for a certificated aircraft; all he has to do for that is to ensure it complies with the original design standard). When I was an active CAR 35 engineer, I did several such approvals - so some owners did do it correctly. There is at present, to my knowledge, no legal basis under which CAO 95.25 aircraft could be issued with a C of A; so for them an alternative piece of paper needs to be created. CAR 35 engineers no longer exist; they are now CASR 21.M engineers, and they operate under more restrictive constraints; so it's a bit late to be trying to catch-up with approvals that should have been made decades ago - but perhaps not yet impossible. However CASR 21M Authorised Persons must become CASR 21.J Approved Design Organisations within the next four years, and I doubt any of those will touch a 95.25 aircraft, so don't sit around sucking your thumbs. The overall message is that those aircraft have really seen their day, and as far as the system is concerned, are overdue to be scrapped. Sorry, but them's the facts.

 

 

[Teckair]

Ozzie... I have exactly that problem with endorsements. I designed and built a Robin 440 powered 95:10 taildragger, then flew it from 87 to 2003 , about 140 hours. My tailwheel endorsement diasappeared from my certificate a couple of years ago. Didnt worry about it until I started actively flying last year. In short tryed to get it back with logbook evidence etc. I now have to find a school with a 2-stroke LEGAL Lightwing and redo the the endorsement if I want to fly it again. Bah humbug!

The thing is people are their own worse enemy, sooner or later pilot certificates most likely will get audited, I know of a situation where a CFI is doing BFRs for pilots that I am fairly sure he is not qualified to do eg not tail wheel or 2 stroke endorsed. When this all goes wrong these guys will blame everybody but themselves.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ok, being a hard **** but, just like every other purchase we make, the responsibility to keep it compliant with changing laws is our problem.RAA no doubt should have flagged it but that would mean a well qualified person with in-depth knowledge of type reviewing EVERY renewal, EVERY year. Reckon that might add plenty to renewal fee and its why RAA has had all the registration problems over last 2 yrs, basically werent doing it well enough.

Getting a renewal isnt an approval that its all legal, thats the owners/pilots problem.

 

I do understand and feel sorry for you and it isnt very fair, but Im not really OK with talk that RAA, being funded by members on this forum, should fund reparations to your aircraft cause it doesnt meet spec. Which as far as I can tell, are actually long standing regulations missed or ignored by previous owners.

 

Just because RAA overlooked the modification missed the problem doenst make it legal or safe, similarly just because its been flying for 20 yrs doesnt either. Thats the problem with certification and GA have always had exactly the same issue. Even commonsense upgrades cant be done without strict procedure.

 

Yep the previous owner suffered a big problem not being able to source a correct engine/prop so at that point the certs needed upgrading to maintain current airworthiness and use status. Subsequent sales were misleading and probably illegal.

 

I agree there should be an easy path to alter registration class which would allow the AC to keep flying but no longer in its original "privileges". 19 reg is probably the right place for it as the key restriction is not being able to train in it and you can alter and modify as a result. A factory built with modification surely similar to 51% factory assist in terms or risk and safety?

 

Wasnt aware this is just for owner builds, plenty there with second onwards owners who didnt build.

 

"Experimental" is a GA category but needs PPL and if you didn't build it full LAME maintenance so it isnt a great option.

Then what the hell is the position of tech manager for? It is his job to ensure that all aircraft and the associated paperwork complies before HE signs it off and renews or approves the aircraft as legal. The AUF RAA are liable for all this.

 

 

[flyerme]

Alls looking promising , seems the new tech manager is very well informed on the situation and I applaude his efforts to help us owners. Defiantly a new breed of techy . Thanks for info techy I appreciate it emencly :cheers:Any one with issues we now have a very capable tech manger call him he actually doesn't bite.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Then what the hell is the position of tech manager for? It is his job to ensure that all aircraft and the associated paperwork complies before HE signs it off and renews or approves the aircraft as legal. The AUF RAA are liable for all this.

Good question. However, divide the number of RAA registered aircraft by 250 and you have roughly the number of renewals the TM has to get through in a day. That may explain, in part, why the job was not done as thoroughly as it should have been, in the past. In effect, RAA has been using the TM and registration renewals to make money, NOT for what it needs to do to serve the members. It's still trying to do so, as far as I can see. So the RAA system is wrong, and needs to be fixed. You're the members, get on your hind legs and do summat about it.

 

 

[Doug Evans]

 

Alls looking promising , seems the new tech manager is very well informed on the situation and I applaude his efforts to help us owners. Defiantly a new breed of techy . Thanks for info techy I appreciate it emencly :cheers:Any one with issues we now have a very capable tech manger call him he actually doesn't bite.

Alls looking promising , seems the new tech manager is very well informed on the situation and I applaude his efforts to help us owners. Defiantly a new breed of techy . Thanks for info techy I appreciate it emencly :cheers:Any one with issues we now have a very capable tech manger call him he actually doesn't bite.

Great result Tim

 

Glad it working out for ya

 

The system is going to get better but we all have to give the system a chance to work I'm shore there will be the odd bug or too as we go but if we learn to communicate with each other I'm shore thing can be worked out !

 

Cheers Doug Evans

 

 

[jetjr]

Then what the hell is the position of tech manager for? It is his job to ensure that all aircraft and the associated paperwork complies before HE signs it off and renews or approves the aircraft as legal. The AUF RAA are liable for all this.

I get what your saying and they have done a poor job but in absence of annual inspections how can he approve and aircraft is compliant/legal ie airworthy? Best he can do is review information submitted.

In this particular case an engine change should have been picked up and the owner told he had to get certs in order. Unless theres a process I dont know about you basically amend your aircraft details and return form, would be a sharp man to spot that last years said 532 and this years says 582. Each year mine has more typo errors than that.

 

Bottom line here is owner knowingly did a significant modification to a certified AC and didnt get advice or documents to back it up. This is abuse of the self monitor/maintenance system and why it no doubt be reviewed.

 

Not sure its RAA job to say things are "legal" or not, same as its the owner and pilots final say that and aircraft is safe to fly and documents in order.

 

Really glad theres a solution for Tim as he didnt ask for these problems and no doubt acted in good faith. Make sure its a permanent fix.

 

 

[dodo]

I get what your saying and they have done a poor job but in absence of annual inspections how can he approve and aircraft is compliant/legal ie airworthy? Best he can do is review information submitted.In this particular case an engine change should have been picked up and the owner told he had to get certs in order. Unless theres a process I dont know about you basically amend your aircraft details and return form, would be a sharp man to spot that last years said 532 and this years says 582. Each year mine has more typo errors than that.

Bottom line here is owner knowingly did a significant modification to a certified AC and didnt get advice or documents to back it up. This is abuse of the self monitor/maintenance system and why it no doubt be reviewed.

 

Not sure its RAA job to say things are "legal" or not, same as its the owner and pilots final say that and aircraft is safe to fly and documents in order.

 

Really glad theres a solution for Tim as he didnt ask for these problems and no doubt acted in good faith. Make sure its a permanent fix.

Jetjr,

 

it is inconceivable that at least one of the owners did not ask both Lightwing and RA what approvals was necessary. There are a reasonable number of aircraft concerned, and anecdotally I have been told ALL GR532>582s are affected - which implies RA said it was OK. Or did they miss every plane that changed at registration, and not one owner asked what the rules were? There is nothing in writing because if no approval is required, nothing needs to be recorded. I know a number of the aircraft files have a notification of engine change on them, and there are no comments on the file to query this or suggest that this was an issue.

 

Or are you suggesting individual owners should have a level of air legislation knowledge equal to Dafyydd's, which would make the technical manager's position rather redundant?

 

The point is, individual owners did ask, and did do reasonable due diligence.

 

They were given incorrect advice, and are now being called to account - for the errors of people who were paid to know better.

 

Note flyerme's new prop last year for an engine for the aircraft, while he is now told is the incorrect engine for the aircraft.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Must be missing something here.

 

We four built our original 230 and trained in same. Perhaps the rules have changed?

 

Don't think so.

 

Phil

 

 

[Downunder]

If it is upto the owner to make sure his aircraft is compliant, what is the RAA for?

 

Why do I pay for registration and membership?

 

Why is a tech manager employed?

 

If the RAA is simply a "rubber stamp" mechanism, then that is fine, cut my membership to $3.99 (the cost of the ink on the stamp).

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Tim

 

I feel for you with your predicament, perhaps a LETTER to the GM and local rep pointing out your experiences would be better than a phone call.

 

It maybe tabled at a board meeting, at least they will know where they have made errors in the past and perhaps address your situation.

 

Just a thought, probably what I would try.

 

Telling this forum will get you plenty of sympathy but no action.

 

Give. It a go

 

Phil