Rotax TBO

[PaulN]

Hi,

 

 

 

My 912ULS is 13 y/o with 933 hours. Am I correct in understanding from the Rotax site that it has exceeded TBO? Also, who apart from Bert Flood can carry out this work?

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

Paul

 

 

[rankamateur]

Is that the Rotax site or another version of Bob's friendly aircraft maintenance inc.

 

 

[kasper]

Well as you found on the rotax site no 912ULS has a TBO in excess of 12 years so you are past TBO based on years not hours so your engine is no longer available within TBO.

 

No idea if there are other than Bert Flood for overhaul in OZ but unless you can legit run your engine past TBO you have a big bill coming

 

 

[facthunter]

The last info I had was there is no way to get over the time expiry. There is no specific procedure. This might as well be fully clarified if it can be, because it will have some relevance to many people. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

Does a bulk strip by a Rotax authorised overhaul facility (replacing ANY necessary parts) then bring the engine back inside calendar time with remaining engine hours to run to TBO?

 

This is what happens in GA.

 

 

[SDQDI]

How much depends on rego type? I mean a 24 registered would be held to the time expired fairly rigidly no doubt but couldn't a 19 registered be run over if the owner was happy?

 

 

[pylon500]

I could be wrong, but if an engine in a 25-, 55-, 24- aircraft is at TBO (either calendar or hours), and NOT being used for hire and reward, the engine can be run 'on condition'?

 

 

[jetjr]

19 etc still have to follow manufacturer directions if they exist

 

Builder maybe can approve it??

 

Gues you could class ot a modification and run throigh MARAP

 

Not convinced tech dept or engineer would support it

 

Good question on what needs to be done to return to zero?

 

Gunna hurt

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Suggest you read the technical manual and then contact the Technical Manager for guidance. There is provision for continuing operation in the technical manual. See below.

 

http://www.raa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Section-4.2.5-Piston-Engine-continuing-airworthiness-requirements.pdf

 

 

[Camel]

Certified aircraft can be run on condition and used for training ! This was stated by tech using MARAP. Can not be done on LSA. I believe any certified aircraft can be run on condition if not used for training, LSA may be different as you are meant to follow manufacturers instructions.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well as you found on the rotax site no 912ULS has a TBO in excess of 12 years so you are past TBO based on years not hours so your engine is no longer available within TBO.No idea if there are other than Bert Flood for overhaul in OZ but unless you can legit run your engine past TBO you have a big bill coming

The TBO for private use is a recommendation only. You can operate the engine beyond that if you so chose. Not for training or hire though.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Isnt it interesting, the number of interpretations on a simple regulation.

 

 

[kasper]

well ...

 

the initial question was easy - yes, the engine is past TBO

 

is there anyone other than Bert Flood in OZ that can overhaul and reset the TBO - no idea but I do know how much it costs to TBO overhaul a 912 in the UK and its bascially financially better to replace than overhaul because ou can sell your past TBO engine to someone who doe not need the TBO for more than the difference in cost between overhaul and new engine.

 

As for ops in OZ I did not step in as the answer of can i operate past TBO is so mine filled because it can depend on what ops you fly - private vs for reward/hire on SOME regn, on others there is no option to fly beyond TBO unless the manufacturer allows it (LSA) and the new MARAP could change the situation for some.

 

All in a very confusing decision tree to work out if you need it and what is required is possible to change from no to yes.

 

 

[Downunder]

Being this old, it will have the old crankcase style, have a 1200 or 1500 hour limit anyway......really not viable for rebuild......(but someone may take your money...)

 

If you really want it or need it to be "in spec" then as Kasper said, sell it "as is" at the best price you can get.......and get a new one.....

 

 

[Downunder]

From https://www.raa.asn.au/documents/airworthiness/Rotax%20SB-912-057UL.pdf

 

 

 

[Admin]

Hi Paul, long time no hear. For those newbies Paul is one of the early members of this site. How is the CT going apart from the engine issue which I can only suggest contacting the RAAus office for a formal clarification...good luck mate

 

 

[PaulN]

Thanks for the welcome Ian. Notice how my first option for advice/opinions was your forum ... says something, doesn't it.

 

 

 

In the past couple of weeks I've had the pleasure of flying to Dubbo and Ballina for family visits and am in the process of thinking through the possibility of a round Oz trip soon.

 

 

 

The CT is still going great and gives much pleasure, more than I can say for CASA's intervention with their new "letter-of-the-law" application of the Type Certificate data and the two years plus drawn out negotiations to have common sense see some light.

 

 

 

For those not aware and perhaps vaguely interested, the story goes like this.

 

 

 

My aircraft (CT2K) was imported from Flight Design (Germany) in 2003 by the newly appointed Australian Flight Design (FD) agent. Apparently the agent was aware that the CT2K carried with it a Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) issued by the European CAA in June 2001. At the turn of the century aircraft designers were advancing in leaps and bounds with new technologies allowing them to design faster, stronger, lighter machines. However, at the time the CAA was not keeping pace with the industry and had not yet developed categories that accommodated the newer, faster, safer aircraft, but did provide a Microlight category with a restricted 450kg MTOW. Hence the CT2K, although designed, built and tested with a 600kg MTOW was categorized Microlight with the 450kg limit.

 

 

 

Now, here in Oz the FD agent negotiated (all documented) with the then Tech Manager of the then AUF to see common sense and arrange to have the aircraft, which is designed for 600kg, registered for Australian air space at their then limit of 544kg. The Tech Manager liaised with CASA (also documented) who gave the nod for this to go ahead.

 

 

 

Fast forward a couple of years to when I came along in December 2004 to buy from this agent our CT which was then registered and operating at 544kg. Thinking it irrelevant (I guess) no mention was made of the European TCDS, and of course, being green at the time I had no idea there would be such a thing ... all I could see was a delightful airplane that would admirably suit the needs for my wife and I to air tour this beautiful country of ours. So we confidently made the purchase and merrily set about touring as intended for the next 8 years.

 

 

 

Fast forward again to 2012. A certain ex RA-Aus Ops Manager turned CASA agent (who we'll leave unnamed) decided to throw a cat among the pigeons and inflict unnecessary burdens on our aircraft owner community. I suppose he thought that an audit of the RA-Aus aircraft register would be a neat way to impress his CASA colleagues (my opinion only) and rule that any/all prior arrangements that were contra to the letter of aircraft TCs be revoked, that is, renege on previous agreements and force RA-Aus to impose stupid restrictions on aircraft like mine, "because that's what that piece of paper states". I say unnecessary above because (1) my CT has been flying safely in Oz airspace since 2003 at 544kg, (2) the manufacturer has provided written confirmation to RA-Aus and CASA that the aircraft is good for 600kg, (3) in the US the FAA happily provides Airworthiness Certificates for the same CT2K at 600kg and (4) anyone with reasonable logic and common sense will agree that the 2001 European Certificate is inadequate for the aircraft type and ought not apply to Australian conditions more than a decade later anyway.

 

 

 

Fast forward again to 2015. Many months have passed and still nothing is resolved. Why, why, why does sorting something apparently so logical take our RA-Aus employees so long to clean up? Why, why, why do these CASA agents feel justified in their actions/attitudes?

 

 

 

Here ends my rant ... now, back to topic.

 

 

 

Thanks for the feed back people. Yes, it is interesting how many interpretations abound. Yes, I have read up on the "On Condition" data and written to our Tech Manager for clarification. Stand by people, there may soon be a pre-loved and well cared for 912ULS coming onto the market. If anyone's interested I'd be happy to hear your EOI. The best time to check our the engine will be while it's in the aircraft. I'm not decided yet, just putting out feelers.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Paul

 

 

[facthunter]

Thanks Paul for your information

 

. On the expiration due time passing thing, I would want something from the maker in writing If there is a way to start the clock running again for the 10 or12 years etc IF they don't have a stipulated process I reckon there isn't one. Some items have a shelf life where they haven't even done any service.'

 

If you have certain situations like a prop strike etc you can strip and inspect. I know where a crankcase "O" ring was omitted in original assembly and it was just rectified by strip and fit.

 

Other information I have seen makes the cost prohibitive to recondition the motor. Often with quite a bit of time up they check out quite good, and you might do new seals gaskets valves and piston rings and end up with a good running motor.

 

Everything is quite expensive compared with Jabiru. The crank is pressed together so a bit of a specialised operation to inspect condition of bearings, compared with the usual bolted up conrod on a single piece crank. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Ne

 

Thanks Paul for your information. On the expiration due time passing thing, I would want something from the maker in writing If there is a way to start the clock running again for the 10 or12 years etc IF they don't have a stipulated process I reckon there isn't one. Some items have a shelf life where they haven't even done any service.'

If you have certain situations like a prop strike etc you can strip and inspect. I know where a crankcase "O" ring was omitted in original assembly and it was just rectified by strip and fit.

 

Other information I have seen makes the cost prohibitive to recondition the motor. Often with quite a bit of time up they check out quite good, and you might do new seals gaskets valves and piston rings and end up with a good running motor.

 

Everything is quite expensive compared with Jabiru. The crank is pressed together so a bit of a specialised operation to inspect condition of bearings, compared with the usual bolted up conrod on a single piece crank. Nev

Nev, Rotax have always used pressed cranks even on their two strokes, as you probabily know, and the many hours of reliable service on both two and four strokes proves that they are a sound thing. The correct approval and equipment is available to disassemble and reassemble these cranks if necessary, it's not that big a deal. Additionally there are many Rotax engines out there globally right now, operating soundly and reliably well above stated TBO hours in private use. Indeed it is common knowledge amoungst users that most Rotax stated TBOs are very conservative.

 

 

[Downunder]

Hello Paul, are you saying your aircraft is grounded or it is still limited to 544kg?

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes Ross, I understand that as I have been doing big ends on motorcycles since 1955, and manufacturing some of the parts used. Disassembling the 912 crank should not be undertaken lightly as the press fits have to be maintained and they don't run replaceable pins like two strokes do where you can make a slightly oversize pin.

 

The Rotax is best not fiddled with and that is one reason it stays reliable. I agree they can do high hours with very little wear. The "TIME (years) in service limit, rather than the hours run still needs to be clarified. Nev

 

 

[PaulN]

G'day Downunder. Not grounded but restricted to a legal limit of 450kg ... until those in authority get their acts together.

 

 

[storchy neil]

good day paul the same idiot told me that rotax 912 motors don't have to have return line to tank

 

so how in the hell is exces fuel going get back to tank oh sheeeet just flows out the overflow on to the exhaust

 

since 1997 rotax 912 motors will have rturn line to left hand tank as stated in the installation manual neil

 

 

[slb]

Certified aircraft can be run on condition and used for training !

I thought all our engines were 'uncertified'?

 

 

[slb]

NeAdditionally there are many Rotax engines out there globally right now, operating soundly and reliably well above stated TBO hours in private use.

but have they all completed the 600hr (or 1000hrs) gearbox service? If not, then they have not complied with all the servicing requirements, which I thought was a condition to being allowed to run 'on condition'.

 

Some of those already running on condition do not have the tools necessary to complete the normal Rotax servicing schedule, so how are they complying?