RAAus Price gouging - what next??

[docjell]

I took proud ownership of my Evektor Sportstar in 2011, and happily carried out all the required regular maintenance as permitted by my level 1/owner status IAW the Evektor Sportstar Manual. I suppose I would qualify as a reasonably intelligent bloke- built two aircraft myself, always done my own maintenance as required, 250 hrs P1, Senior Lecturer and Senior Staff Specialist at the Townsville Hospital and JCU .

 

I became unwell in 2014 and grounded myself- I mothballed the aircraft, and when I had been cleared ( I cleared myself with the blessing of my own GP) I went to re- register the aircraft , that had two years no-fly on her logbook. Of course we had carried out an appropriate 100hrly inspection, and a mandated 5 yearly ROTAX complete rubber replacement ( lines, mounts etc) the latter being carried out by an Independant qualified ROTAX engineer.

 

Well- ----------------------gobsmacked

 

I have to pay someone to provide an RAAus "aircraft condition certificate" which is a big ask in FNQ so I can register the aircraft - in other words to CONTINUE TO USE AND FLY THE AIRCAFT I HAVE BEEN MAITAINING FOR

 

THE PAST FIVE YEARS

 

This is fundamentally wrong and costs members money . This is CASA type bullshit- I thought RAAus was all about affordable flying for all. So RAAus, PLEASE "show good cause why you are charging this punitive and uneccessary fee for an aircraft already owned by the registeree and which has no undergone no fundamental changes whatsoever since initial registration .

 

This may extend to a legal challenge RAAus ! Depending on your response. I do not think a resort to "the rules" under these circumstances will be sufficient.

 

Cheers

 

Docjell

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Seems to me like getting a roadworthy for a car that you have not registered for two years, perfectly reasonable.

 

 

[terryc]

Seems to me like getting a roadworthy for a car that you have not registered for two years, perfectly reasonable.

your got to be kidding. Reread docjell's post

 

 

[kasper]

Call Darren B in the RAAus officr and speak to him or Jarad.

 

Your airframe is an LSA 95.55 registered aircraft up for renewal so you are under Tech Manual 7.5.2 - pg 169 of the current Tech Manual.

 

You appear to be falling foul of the section that states that any changes to the airframe must show compliance with the requirements of 7.5.1 which is the LSA standard.

 

An ACR would be ONE way to show compliance but producing copies of the logbook showing maintenance in line with the manufacturers schedule and reciepts for parts incorporated would be another that does not require an ACR.

 

So call Darren and ask what the alternates are to an ACR to show complaince with 7.5.2 and you will probably be a happier person.

 

Great sympathy with you on the default position on renewal of 'get an ACR' which is very pseudo GA without consideration of the costs to the member that this may involve.

 

 

[docjell]

Thanks Kasper- I"ll do that- thanks for the advice.

 

And pmccarthy has spectacularly missed the point entirely. You can drive an old bomb around Queensland for years with no mandated maintenance ever - you therefore reasonably have to prove its road worthiness when selling. Aircraft cannot be legally flown without maintenance and inspections carried out in accordance with the manufacturers schedules, and my pristine aircraft is completely up to date with these in all respects. There are no other Sportstars in Far North Queensland, yet I may have to pay our nearest qualified level 2 maintainer to drive 400kms to carry out an inspection on an aircraft he has not seen before. Seems crazy

 

 

[Bats]

The problem is; you know that, we have your assurance that this is the case, whereas RA Aus apparently have neither, so on the face of it the situation IS analogous to registering a car that has been off the road. The rules are a little inflexible, but are intended to cover the majority of situations - in general if an aircraft hasn't been registered and by implication not flown, it suggests that there has been something wrong and I agree it is on the face of it reasonable to require an aircraft condition certificate. For all anyone knows it has been sitting in the weather for 2 years deteriorating. Annoying in your case, but as suggested, an approach direct to the man is the way to go - a public rant such as this is more likely to damage your cause imo.

 

 

[docjell]

Again Kasper- thanks. Have just had a very productive chat with Jared at RAAus, and it will be possible to effect er- registration without an ACR once I have provided the documentary evidence of the required mandated maintenance. Great news!

 

 

[kasper]

Again Kasper- thanks. Have just had a very productive chat with Jared at RAAus, and it will be possible to effect er- registration without an ACR once I have provided the documentary evidence of the required mandated maintenance. Great news!

good to hear. The ACR is a fall back position available under the Tech Manual and its a shame that the renewal did not offer or suggest talking to Tech to see what alternates are available. if in doubt read the tech manual

 

 

[Nobody]

In the GA world in this situation you can get a special flight permit to allow the aircraft to be flown to where it can get the maintenance. That way you could fly it 2 hours south to the L2 to get the paperwork done. Does such a thing exist for RAAus?

 

I wonder if that could be a solution in this instance if the alternative paperwork reviews take too long to do?..

 

 

[onetrack]

"Mothballing" is a process that is wide open to various forms of storage - some of which are just plain detrimental to mechanised items.

 

Done correctly, mothballing requires steps to prevent corrosion from becoming a problem whilst in storage.

 

The U.S. military regularly mothballs a lot of equipment, and specific procedures for mothballing have to be carried out, when an item is being mothballed.

 

Personally, I have seen brand new reconditioned engines seize solid with cylinder bore corrosion, merely by being stored in a workshop storage area for 2 years, whilst awaiting installation - without proper steps being taken to prevent that corrosion.

 

Condensation exists in every environment where regular, substantial temperature changes take place. This is the reason for temperature-controlled environments, to prevent storage damage.

 

Oil drains off oil-coated surfaces within a couple of months, where an item of mechanised is not moved. This immediately leads to corrosion commencing on the formerly oil-coated-but-now-poorly protected, surfaces. Even in a hot and dry inland environment, this is still a problem.

 

If you store a mechanised item - ideally, it needs to be started and moved every 3 mths at least - or substantial protective measures need to be taken if it is going to be immobilised for periods of time that exceed, say, 6 mths.

 

Just my .02c worth - not specifically criticising the OP.

 

 

[facthunter]

Storing things aero is not simple as a lot of engines (for example) are more critical than others in their needs. The Rotax 912 stores pretty well and the only parts that might be suss are the exhaust valve stems as they can rust. Best way to check that is remove the exhaust pipes and look. The bores are Nikasil and if the motor has had a fresh oil change and the last time it was shut down it was fully up to temperature, the rest pretty much stands up well.

 

Other steel bore equipped motors require treating with inhibitors as prescribed by the maker or the authority and sealed with dessicator plugs in each cylinder. Running a motor for 10 minutes or so is not recommended. It takes often nearly a full hour for the motor to get hot right through and be sure of it and eliminate the moisture that has formed. Never leave old oil in a motor that is going to be left idle for a few weeks or more. Far better to circulate some new stuff through it. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

In the GA world in this situation you can get a special flight permit to allow the aircraft to be flown to where it can get the maintenance. That way you could fly it 2 hours south to the L2 to get the paperwork done. Does such a thing exist for RAAus?I wonder if that could be a solution in this instance if the alternative paperwork reviews take too long to do?..

Nobody - nope.

The Tech manual does not allow for ferry permits or flights outside of permit to get inspection.

 

These may exist in the new tech manual but we are still waiting for that to be released.

 

 

[docjell]

Thanks all for your informative and interesting contributions! My term "mothballing" was probably innacurate as I am very aware of all the problems associated with long term storage - hence my "mothballed" Rotax was actually started every three weeks and run up to normal operating temperatures and pressures for five minutes at least. Perhaps that's why when we had finished the 100hlry and the mandatory 5 yearly 'rubber everything' change she started first pop (as always) without a murmer. Do love the Rotax!

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The moral of the story is - don't let the rego lapse, even if you are not flying it.

 

 

 

A friend of ours is in the same boat. He became medically unfit, so stopped paying the rego. Now he is OK he has to find a Level 2 to inspect. We had our 95-10 grounded due to the CASA audits. Had discussions with RAA Tech regarding the most difficult part - submitting plans (it only had written construction instructions) & data set - and now have everything except the L2 report. Our local L2 only maintains 2 aircraft. Due to the lack of willing local L2s we both missed the Amnesty. But that's life in the bush. We happily trade the difficulty and extra cost of getting anything done with the lower cost and freedom of small airstrips and uncongested airspace.

 

 

 

Obviously there is work for anyone wanting to be an L2. Another mobile multiskilled L2 like Maj Millard would be good.

 

 

[SSCBD]

WHY NOT - has the RAA have the power to issue a "Dispensation" to fly RAA aircraft to get serviced or cleared etc. This is madness. We did everything well a lot of things under dispensation in GA. And had many issued by CASA when doing airshows in the AUF days FLYING ULTRALIGHTS including operating in controlled airspace back then with two stroke engines.

 

Please enlighten me.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it's called a "permit to Fly". Issued separately for each individual case . We were always led to believe RAAus would not be more restrictive than GA. This is starting to sound like BS. Stick to Principles, or we are all over the place. (as distinct from having some idea where we are going.)

 

The condition report I'm sure was intended when changing owners,PRIMARILY or maybe EXCLUSIVELY. Perusal of the records or a copy plus a declaration should be enough. The Condition Report is not a certificate of airworthiness. The existing owner has a record of maintenance done satisfactorily. Who better to continue it? especially if it's 19 reg. Just my view. Nev

 

 

[kasper]

WHY NOT - has the RAA have the power to issue a "Dispensation" to fly RAA aircraft to get serviced or cleared etc. This is madness. We did everything well a lot of things under dispensation in GA. And had many issued by CASA when doing airshows in the AUF days FLYING ULTRALIGHTS including operating in controlled airspace back then with two stroke engines.Please enlighten me.

Because neither the CAO's or the Tech Manual give RAAus Tech the authority to treat an aircraft as being registered when it is not current.

Flight not in accordance with the CAO's can be authorised by CASA but not by RAAus.

 

 

[facthunter]

What you say is true but that's not an argument for keeping it unavailable. I personally wouldn't want to be authorising some of this stuff to fly if it's been sitting for ages. There would be high risk with a lot of it, and possible little risk with other examples. It would be very variable.

 

Most of the "permit" stuff involves configuration issues, ie Gear locked down, Unpressurised, One engine not operating etc designed to get it safely (without payload) to a maintenance facility. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

So what exactly is the Aircraft condition report/certificate and what is it's purpose? from my limited understanding its less than a Airworthiness certificate. Why does it exist?

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a "condition" report... To a degree that's self explanatory. It's an examination of the whole aircraft by a "competent" person so should give some assurance to a purchaser, of the aircraft's integrity as do the properly kept log books and as would an inspection by a type familiar person independent of the vendor. Would you want more oversight or less "required" at the time of transfer? Most purchasers would like "something relevant" to be part of the process. The body administrating would be somewhat remiss if some process of scrutiny didn't happen, when a flyable plane (potentially) changes hands.

 

If you question something explain why and what better process should happen to replace it (if anything). It's a fair thing to do. IF you want a lot more be prepared for angst and cost, possibly without any real improvement in protection of the purchaser or safety. Your best protection is when YOU to have an expert on that type of plane look over it PRIOR to intending purchase. If there was a body of data on that aircraft model/type on file with listed faults that have happened that would be very helpful to be able to refer to. Nev

 

 

[docjell]

Because neither the CAO's or the Tech Manual give RAAus Tech the authority to treat an aircraft as being registered when it is not current.Flight not in accordance with the CAO's can be authorised by CASA but not by RAAus.

That interesting Kasper. Is there therefore an option to apply to CASA for such authorisation for an RAAus aircraft - for example to fly an unregistered aircraft to a place that has facilities for required maintenenance/ avionics checks et ?

 

 

[Nobody]

Here is the CASA form.

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjUoMDMgZjOAhVKjpQKHXz4Do0QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Ffile%2F138806%2Fdownload%3Ftoken%3DfKKfWri6&usg=AFQjCNFBVc1Qfhps67Byc0xRPimOYmvv2A&sig2=bAjtnF-vWPAIQXW9j7szqQ&bvm=bv.128617741,d.dGo

 

 

[docjell]

What you say is true but that's not an argument for keeping it unavailable. I personally wouldn't want to be authorising some of this stuff to fly if it's been sitting for ages. There would be high risk with a lot of it, and possible little risk with other examples. It would be very variable.Most of the "permit" stuff involves configuration issues, ie Gear locked down, Unpressurised, One engine not operating etc designed to get it safely (without payload) to a maintenance facility. Nev

Absolutely Nev- I concur 200%- but this is not about "stuff that's been sitting around for ages" - it's about machinery that has all the necessary mandated maintenance issues complied with ,carried out by a person or persons legally deems competent so to do, and yet not 'legally' flyable because the rego is out of date. This is fundamentally different from a road vehicle - the rego fee if basically a tax to pay for the upkeep of gazetted roads and bears no relationship whatever to,the vehicles fitness for purpose in terms of maintenance. Indeed it is interesting that in QLD there is no requirement to maintain a vehicle in safe condition in practical terms - it only requires a "roadworthy" when it is up for sale.

I have yet to fully understand what the RAAus annual fees for registration for the aircraft and pilot are actually for- other than providing money for the RAAus. I am not sure I am getting bang for my buck! My PPL remains current in perpetuity dependant on a biennial flight review and a medical, not registration fees.

 

 

[docjell]

Here is the CASA form.https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjUoMDMgZjOAhVKjpQKHXz4Do0QFggbMAA&url=https://www.casa.gov.au/file/138806/download?token=fKKfWri6&usg=AFQjCNFBVc1Qfhps67Byc0xRPimOYmvv2A&sig2=bAjtnF-vWPAIQXW9j7szqQ&bvm=bv.128617741,d.dGo

Thanks Nobody- but the form specifically requires a VH registration as far as I can see- is this negotiable (surely not - it's CASA )

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I don't really understand why it needs to be inspected if the maintenance is up to date on it.