skippydiesel

Yes - I read that Danny. I commiserate with you, in that I too had an aircraft where the battery was mounted cabine side of firewall. I accept/understand, that in certain aircraft this is the logical (only?) location and you have to live with it. Your isolator (not sure what it looks like behind the aesthetic red nob) seems to be one where the battery leads extend for some distance to the isolating mechanism. While this is better than no isolator, it seems to me to be a compromise, in that the optimum position for an isolator is as close to the battery as possible. I am not suggesting in any way, that what you have, is not the best that can be engineered - merely expanding on what I see as being the most desirable configuration for a safety device of this kind.

OooooH! we are a tad sensitive Danny - I rechecked- the only pics I could find, that you posted - Instrument panel with red knob purporting to be a "mechanical isolator" switch - no detail, no photo/drawing of the set up. My crime, for which I offer unreserved craven apologies 😈 - I have provided visual images of a simple mechanical isolator/switch, that could easily be adapted to almost any small aircraft and is particularly adaptable (using extension rod) to batteries located engine side of firewall . PS I still don't like the idea of "lil jigger " - unnecessary additional electrical joins & weight, all to save a few extra minutes to disconnect the negative terminal - it a free Word! (for some)

My understanding: the main concern, for Rotax, was the ability of the synthetic oil to handle AvGas ( scavenge lead). Straight synthetic oils being notoriously poor performers in this area. My guess: this concern is principally (not exclusively) for N American users of their (iS) engines - the use of AvGas, in Rotax engines, is still a hot topic in the N American Forums. The rest of the World seem to be reasonably happy with using ULP. The main benefit with AvGas is its availability at airfields - nothing to do with its suitability for use in Rotax engines.

WOW!!!!!! Its supposed to be a Rotax in house secret. I take it all back/apologise - if Rotax has in fact made this information available to the public. Dont know much about comparing oils with oils - usually just try to match the manufacture's' code numbers & letter with what's on offer and stick with the better known (reputable?) brands. So far (about 50 years) so good. If in doubt (often) consult with the brand technician. So anyone like to compare, the above Rotax XPS, with the reputable brands out there and see if they can come up with a match (likely to be a motorcycle oil)?

Hi Danny, Not sure that your "lil jigger " is what I imagined a mechanical battery isolation switch to look like . Below is what I imagined but with an extension rod, through firewall to instrument panel

You persist with the idea, that someone is going out of their way to use an inferior product (oil?) therebye, in this comment "Not Warranty" - voiding warranty. Who has suggested this???? Quotes please. This idea is either an unfortunate figment of your imagination OR a deliberate attempt to create an argument where there is none. I will state again (will persistence pay off?) - my comments relate to what I see as Rotax forcing their 912iS (& some other engines) to purchase an in house product (XPS oil) that they refuse to publish the specification for (Note: I believe this is a first for Rotax, previous recommended oil/coolant/etc having published specifications). I see this as unethical marketing - similar attempts by automotive/machinery manufactures, have been so found. Court instructions issued, to make proprietary information, available to independent mechanics and ultimately the public. Just for you Turbs - IF Rotax make the specification on XPS public, this will enable owners of affected engines , if they wish, able to research other oil manufactures offerings, to see if there ia an oil meeting (exceeding even) the standard set by Rotax for oil to be used in the nominated engines. At no time have I inferred/suggested/advocating using an inferior oil. Using product (oil) that meets the manufacturer's specifications can not be a cause to void warranty.

For a quick/ easy job I agree however if you are delving into the electrical entrails of your aircraft, there is no security quite like removing the (-) Neg lead from the battery.

I am sorry for you Turbs - no one so much as hinted at using "sub-standard oil" in fact the the problem with Rotax not publishing the specifications for XPS prevents using any other oil, simple because without the aforementioned specifications the engine owner is unable to find an oil of the same (or even better) standard. If you want to pursue your contention/ change the debat "Manufacturers will specify a specific oil where they consider it necessary. That is for the benefit of the customer, not some pathetic Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Rotax theory." by all means do so but please don't infer that this directly addresses my argument. To your change in the debate: In my limited, non mechanic, experince (lifetime servicing/repairing own vehicles/equipment) it is rare that a manufacturer will specify a particular brand of oil,. Rather they will recomend (usually one of the major brands) with specifications . The specifications can then be applied to other brands, if the customer so wishes, thus meeting the engine/vehicle /equipment manufacturers standards. Sure! if the engine/vehicle manufacturer recommends an liquid/oil with very specific qualities, that no other oil producer can match, there may be an argument to stick with that - personally never seen this. As for "Manufacturer was trying to hekp them" - you jest? Manufactures are about profit and risk minimisation/mitigation. The bigger they are, the less interest in the customers satisfaction, they are likely to be. Of course customer satisfaction is important but only so far as keeping a lid on dissatisfaction. If the manufacturer appears to be trying to "help them" this is only in so far as they help their bottom line - "Brand Loyalty" being a big marketing aim.

It would seem my communication is wanting - is not about price as such , it's about choice. By not stating the standard/specification for the XPS oil Rotax is binding the customer (for this oil) to their distribution network and to their price$/L. As I understand the matte, this is of little consequence to most of the heritage 9 range BUT for the 912iS and some other engines, this is the only oil Rotax recomend. Owners of these engines are unable to shop around because they don't have the necessary oil standard/specification with which to assess other oils. I feel this is an unethical act by Rotax, in line with what some automotive and machinery manufacturers have tried to implement (& failed due to court action). Manufactures must not force the customer to purchase only from themselves. True! - for certified (at any level) aircraft, continued certification/airworthiness is dependent on using manufacturer's approved/certified service/repair components however this is by law not manufactures marketing ploy.

You have just proved my previous observation - I am sad that you feel the need to assert yourself in this way - take a breath and reread what I have said. At no time have I suggested you are wrong/contradicted you or used a hostile tone/language as you have. I would be pleased if you did not miss or out of context quote me or add words that I have never used. Thank you

No offence intended Nev - you seem quick "to dish it out" and very reluctant to receive/accept even the slightest comment, no matter how mild/inoffensive, that you can construe as being negative to whatever argument you are prosecuting eg my "Ditto" to your "Obviously you haven't taken on board anything I've already posted. Nev" There is an apt saying - "Those in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones" - happy to explain 🙂

Ditto

"If you want to continually run an industry down, don't stay in it." It seems to me, that most if not all, are lamenting what they see as a steady down trend, in interest in aviation - no one is running it down.

Sorry Nev - so what? The point is, that neither you , I or the next 912iS owner, will be able to source, using Rotax recommended specifications, an oil from an alternative supplier.

Last time I checked meat was/is an organic substance - Organic, in my book, is any substance that has been grown/is growing/can be grown/product of an animal/plant. Clearly wool/cotton/silk/etc & other fabrics are organic so some rational would have to be brought to the situation, however anything that can be considered to be a food stuff (for human /animal consumption) was or is alive, is the product of a plant/animal eg wood/manure has the potential to do terrible damage to not only our agriculture industry but also to our environment. In my humble opinion, Australia should have: Large signs at every departure air & ship port,for incoming passengers, spelling out in multiple languages, severe penalties for the importation of any organic substance without a license/permit. Multi language leaflets to be issued with every ticket & boarding pass to Australia, containing the above message. Final chance bins, at every gateway/dock before Customs/Immigration for the disposal of organic materials. Very severe penalties for any person caught attempting the importation of the above. Penalties for non citizens - automatic, immediate no appeal, return to to place of origin/country of citizenship and 20 year ban from entry to Australia (no exception for non citizen residents). Citizens attempting import - immediate arrest, no bail and if found guilty, minimum 10 year jail sentence. If found to have profited from earlier import -State seizure of all associated/resulting assets/profit plus costs. Importers found to have deliberatly/negligently imported any substance, without a permit and or containing a foreign animal/plant/pathogen, to potentially receive even harsher penalties including seizure of all assets, depending on level of criminality/negligence. Our unique environment has already been damaged by foreign organics - why continue to allow the invasion?

Not having any experince in oil analysis - what might the cost be? "...prevent someone making a suitable oil" --- true! however it is very likely alternative oils are already available on the open market ie I doubt very much that Rotax would delve into the realms of engine oil manufacture, rather they would approach an existing supplier, seeking to have a suitable oil, rebranded as their in house product.

Sure! - bring a case myself ? As an retired public (I prefer pubic) servant I doubt I have the cash reserves to instigate the start, let alone go through with a case. My position is weakened by not using the oil (like most current users, my aircraft is on a diet of AeroShell Sport +/4) ie I have no vested interest. Note sure that Rotax market share, no matter how unethical, would gain much interest in the wide open World - ACCC likely focused on bigger fish. I just find it odd, that my friends on this Forum, not for the first time, seem quite unphased by, what I see as, clearly unethical behaviour - an Australian characteristic?.

Perchance you miss my point? If you happen to be operating a Rotax 912iS you will have no choice in the your engine oil. That is if you want to use an an oil meeting the recommended specifications because Rotax will not release the specs, making it impossible to compare, their specifications, with alternative suppliers oils. With the available supplier limited to Rotax you will also have to pay their asking price (likely to be very expensive). This sort of marketing philosophy has become quite pervasive in recent times - I believe that John Deere (& some other large manufacturers)was taken to court over an extreme variation on this marketing ploy. They lost the case. This is an attempt to bind the customer to the supplier/seller. The captive customer can then become an assured revenue stream. This is a prime example of unethical marketing - I am surprised (not) that the Brains Trust is so relaxed about it.

Extraordinarily generous of you Nev - I make a lot of "slips"☹️

Don't know where I got the "Hyman" from???😜

It seems that the Brains Trust is quite content, to be tied to Rotax for the supply of crankcase oil and will happily pay whatever price for the privilege.

Overrated! The hyman eye is not adapted to seeing other flying objects in the sky. That's why communication giving distance from a known point, altitude and direction of travel is so important - it gives the listener (pilot) a clue where to look, greatly assisting our poor eyesight. Aircraft lights work well in low light or against a dark sky but are otherwise almost invisible - for the VFR pilot, great fun but that's about the start/end of it. . Ground observers catch sight of an aircraft much better than when airborne. For a start they can confine their optical serch to above the horizon, then there is the noise of the aircraft engine/prop giving a general direction in which to look, if it's in the circuit, the search can be further narrowed. A VFR aircraft on the ground, may benefit from taxi lights, informing both ground and airborne observers, that the aircraft is or about to move.

After "skimming" through this topic, it seems to be that the first question has been well and truly answered: Master solenoid- legal requirement in 19 reg aircraft? The answer - a master solenoid is not a legal requirement on 19 regoed aircraft but is a very good safety idea. The concept of an emergency mechanical battery isolator is excellent. Can be as simple as a panel mounted knob, connecting through a lightweight rod/cable (through the bulkhead) to a suitably sized switch mechanism (preferably on the battery(-) cable but could be on (+). The emergency activation of the isolator, will cut all battery/generator power in the aircraft, leaving the engine ignition system to continue the flight to a safe landing.

My Sonex has wing tanks and a central header tank, located just behind the instrument panel. To drain the gascolator, bottom right firewall, I must have the central header tank valve ON