Condition Report Time!

[F10]

Some recent experiences with a condition report. Recently had an L2/3 do a condition report on my Gazelle. Previous owner was not the greatest log book maintainer.....so, some sticking points were:

Main gear bungees struts had been replaced, this was recorded, but details of the weight change were not. This caused issues with the W&B and aircraft had to be re-weighed.

Expensive gearbox overhaul was done, but log entry needed to be more detailed, like torquing of bolts and what was done exactly.

removal of wheel spats not mentioned. Had just the nose spat on. We’ve removed that now too and cleaned your rims to look new. For me, it’s either all on, or all off. The weight change here is probably around 4kg.
Part of getting her in the air again, was a 5 year rubber and an annual 

servicing. These have been well recorded!

If you’ve put on a nice shiny new Bolly or other prop....make sure you give details through or check first with RAA, so the registration details can be changed to reflect the new prop fitted. For example, if your aircraft was fitted with a 80Hp Rotax, you can’t just install a 100Hp Rotax. It may be feasible no doubt, but it will require re-registration I am told. 
Basically, record everything in the logbook and no such thing as too much detail!

[jackc]

8 hours ago, F10 said:

Some recent experiences with a condition report. Recently had an L2/3 do a condition report on my Gazelle. Previous owner was not the greatest log book maintainer.....so, some sticking points were:

Main gear bungees struts had been replaced, this was recorded, but details of the weight change were not. This caused issues with the W&B and aircraft had to be re-weighed.

Expensive gearbox overhaul was done, but log entry needed to be more detailed, like torquing of bolts and what was done exactly.

removal of wheel spats not mentioned. Had just the nose spat on. We’ve removed that now too and cleaned your rims to look new. For me, it’s either all on, or all off. The weight change here is probably around 4kg.
Part of getting her in the air again, was a 5 year rubber and an annual 

servicing. These have been well recorded!

If you’ve put on a nice shiny new Bolly or other prop....make sure you give details through or check first with RAA, so the registration details can be changed to reflect the new prop fitted. For example, if your aircraft was fitted with a 80Hp Rotax, you can’t just install a 100Hp Rotax. It may be feasible no doubt, but it will require re-registration I am told. 
Basically, record everything in the logbook and no such thing as too much detail!

Well you don’t want to look in my log book......work done is a shambles, original builder was not real flash either, not really sure what to do about it,  condition report.......I thought should have been better but maybe the standard is acceptable.

IF someone else sees my book, my aircraft may be condemned.

A pidgeon crapping all over it could have done a better job.......

 

[Yenn]

I don't know for sure if replacing an 80 hp Rotax with a 100 hp Rotax would need re registration.

If it was GA there would be a requirement to do test flying of the new engine for a prescribed number of hours, also a re weighing for W & B.

[jackc]

20 minutes ago, Yenn said:

I don't know for sure if replacing an 80 hp Rotax with a 100 hp Rotax would need re registration.

If it was GA there would be a requirement to do test flying of the new engine for a prescribed number of hours, also a re weighing for W & B.

Just fit a hot up kit to the 80hp and call it done, IF you want more power.  Personally I would never bother, next problem maybe availability of Rotax 80hp in the future?  For those wanting new zero timed engine?

[kasper]

If it came out of a factory and has an 80hp 912 then it can only be replaced by an 80hp 912. 

 

If you are going to make changes to

• the ratio in the gearbox or
• the engine to 100hp or 
• the prop (type or even pitch on a variable pitch one)

You are required in Australia under RAAus reg to

1. have the clearance and documentation for the mod from the manufacturer or

2. have done ALL the engineering clearance yourself (including all flight tests etc) or

3. have followed the MARAP process through RAAus

 

If you have a homebuilt airframe with RAAus reg then you are under Tech Manual processes and you work out what you can/cannot do based on who built the airframe to start with and whether the mod is minor or major (under the Tech Manual) and you have to follow those.

 

I would guess that for homebuilt RAAus that changing from 80 to 100hp on the engine will end up classed as a major mod and even if you designed and built the airframe to start with you are grounded until cleared by RAAus tech.

 

I fear that there is a real risk with ALL the new RAAus Tech requires is that they are so poorly understood we are setting ourselves up for a whole new round of groundings on CASA audit if after a rash of CASA flight line inspections take note of airframes that are not as per the RAAus documentation ...  

 

 

 

 

[jackc]

The future will rely on the number of failed ramp checks CASA find.  IF there is a high percentage of non compliance then they will come down like tonne of bricks.  RAA will cop flak for not keeping rec aviation in line......

What comes after that who knows?  Many aircraft never see a non towered tarred airport.

Will CASA rock up to an owners house and request an audit?  That, would be a big cost on their part?

Would RAA try the same?   I would say that advertised fly ins would get hammered?   Many aircraft in one place.

I am not so sure that they could detect many mods easily and what do they do IF they find something?

Ground the aircraft?  Probably.  Write owner up for a breach of regs, on the spot fine or court appearance?

None of this looks good for the future, but do we all sit by and do nothing?

I think we need to put RAA on the spot to make compliance easier and in some cases less restrictive, or people will simply throw caution to the wind and keep a low profile in their flying activities.

 

[kasper]

It will all depend on where it falls apart.  Currently:

 

CAOs requires you to maintain in accordance with the RAAus Tech Manual to be an airframe within the RAAus control 

IF you do not maintain is accordance with the RAAus Tech Manual the structure of the drafting in the CAO takes you outside the RAAus airframes 

Once you are outside the RAAus airframes RAAus cannot discipline you - they only control airframes within the CAO ... and by not following RAAus tecj Manual you are immediately outside it ...

 

So the legal logic is that RAAus is legally completely toothless if you ignore the RAAus Tech Manual and the enforcement is HUGE BIG STICK from CASA for flying unlicensed in an unregistered aircraft if they find anything on a ramp check.

 

Badly drafted CAO + Badly structured RAAus Tech Manual = massive risk to RAAus members because its CASA enforcement only baby!

[jackc]

At then end of the day, can anyone get taken to the cleaners IF they run foul of RAA or CASA?

With such an intertwined mess of rules and the RAA being our peak body and a limited liability company they can’t issue fines or take court action on anyone for a breach of rules?  Enter CASA who have discharged some of their responsibility to RAA,

what then if a breach rules that RAA could also be mixed up in.

My knowledge of aviation itself is pretty poor, so I only make my comments based on logic as I see it.

Maybe it needs some ‘test cases’ to really see how/if the regulations are really enforceable to the extent our regulators expect?

 

[facthunter]

Jack they HAVE given some a really hard time. Some never get their ticket back. I'm not going to be specific as things can be " Linked.". Nev

[F10]

3 hours ago, kasper said:

If it came out of a factory and has an 80hp 912 then it can only be replaced by an 80hp 912. 

 

If you are going to make changes to

• the ratio in the gearbox or
• the engine to 100hp or 
• the prop (type or even pitch on a variable pitch one)

You are required in Australia under RAAus reg to

1. have the clearance and documentation for the mod from the manufacturer or

2. have done ALL the engineering clearance yourself (including all flight tests etc) or

3. have followed the MARAP process through RAAus

 

If you have a homebuilt airframe with RAAus reg then you are under Tech Manual processes and you work out what you can/cannot do based on who built the airframe to start with and whether the mod is minor or major (under the Tech Manual) and you have to follow those.

 

I would guess that for homebuilt RAAus that changing from 80 to 100hp on the engine will end up classed as a major mod and even if you designed and built the airframe to start with you are grounded until cleared by RAAus tech.

 

I fear that there is a real risk with ALL the new RAAus Tech requires is that they are so poorly understood we are setting ourselves up for a whole new round of groundings on CASA audit if after a rash of CASA flight line inspections take note of airframes that are not as per the RAAus documentation ...  

 

 

 

 

Correct. 80 to 100Hp, is considered a major mod. You will need to jump through all those burning hoops. What then does “experimental” mean? I thought that was built modded or redesigned by owner, within certain guidelines, with the all important plaque on the dash warning any pax “fly in this aircraft at your peril”.

[facthunter]

That placard applies to all of them "numbered " ones with "certificated " pilots. You are still just as LEGAL to fly as anyone else is. Nev

[F10]

A further “gotcha” with condition checks are aircraft weight, or when last it was weighed. In the Skyfox Gazelle, the aircraft manual or pilot notes clearly state the aircraft weight is “perpetual”. This may not cut ice with some L2’s. A lot of Gazelles have the new Costal Aviation landing gear struts fitted, in place of the original struts. I understand due to a better bungee chord setup. The issue is, if you have the old ones removed, weigh them...then weigh the new ones, record this “weight off/ weight on”, in the aircraft logbook. Any significant equipment change, should go through this procedure. Yes, you can not worry and merely have the aircraft weighed and a new basic weight and moment arm form drawn up...but I’m told it will cost you around $1000....

[facthunter]

The general procedure on this type of plane is to  re do the whole process. I'd agree with that unless you can absolutely guarantee the W&B you are working from is accurate  enough to start from...AND you can't in most cases.. Looking rearward at the elevator position in flight should indicate any practical concerns with Balance from a safety aspect.  Nev

[F10]

On 31/05/2021 at 12:26 PM, facthunter said:

The general procedure on this type of plane is to  re do the whole process. I'd agree with that unless you can absolutely guarantee the W&B you are working from is accurate  enough to start from...AND you can't in most cases.. Looking rearward at the elevator position in flight should indicate any practical concerns with Balance from a safety aspect.  Nev

Yes, if you find you are flying S&L with your trim far out from its neutral or cruise setting, this would indicate a C of G problem. Yes, this would also show up if you had a large elevator deflection to maintain level flight. One thing to consider is, changing weight with new avionics or such like, in the cockpit area, probably won’t have a large effect, but putting in kit or an item near the tail, can have a surprisingly large affect on aircraftCofG. For example, I was told that  one of the dangers of damage to a 206 Jetranger helicopter tail rotor, is this can cause a severe imbalance vibration, which can cause the tail rotor gearbox to depart the aircraft. Now a 206 tail rotor gearbox is actually quite small. However, should this occur, despite its small size, it can cause the aircraft CofG to go totally out of forward limits leading to loss of control, because the tail rotor gearbox is located at the very end of the tail boom.

[facthunter]

F10 when I preflight any Gazelle I always inspect the elevator control horn with a bit of load on it. (someone holds the stick) It's all you have  for pitch control.  . Nev

[F10]

On 04/06/2021 at 9:17 AM, facthunter said:

F10 when I preflight any Gazelle I always inspect the elevator control horn with a bit of load on it. (someone holds the stick) It's all you have  for pitch control.  . Nev

Yes...One thing I’ve always liked about trim tabs, they give you some form of main control failure redundancy...but in the Gazelle the trim just biases the control stick neutral position...so no secondary control possible with that. For my own peace of mind, I removed the one panel under the tail plane so I could inspect the elevator pushrod tie rod end and rose joint, gave it a lube too. Looked ok, but I think I might cut a section of the panel away and replace it with a piece of Lexan, so I can visually check it on a pre flight.