bilby54

Done - Bilby

Hey Maj, next time you have a bad/busy/frustrating day, please take a Bex and have a good lie down. If you are going to be judge, jury and executioner in these forums then please sum up all of the evidence before swinging the axe will ya! You got upset with me disagreeing with your opinion in post 8 and you still have not ackowledged that I was fitting a new engine complete with a new fuel pump and the Caution note 4.4 in the Rotax buletin - you know the one that YOU accused me of not reading - clearly states to have contact with the aircraft manufacturer. Apparently you must have had a momentary blind eye on that one. You also stated that it was not a drain line for fuel in the case of pump failure and refuse to acknowledge that. I personally would like to publicly congratulate you on your work with the RAA board but if you are going to give advice of any kind, you had better make sure it is correct and if you are having a busy day, don't take you frustrations out on me or anyone else because it is just not professional. I feel certain that a lot of people are going to disagree with some of your decisions as a board member so you might be in for a bunch of bad days here Maj! I have never had an issue with you before and I do not know why you decided to go down this track now. You should've been happy that a lowly isolated L2 asked for clarification on this and not assume anything else. Now, can we get back to the things that matter please? Note - No "cool" sunglasses!

I have no idea what you are on about. I will put this as plainly as I can. You made assumptions and ascertations about me that were untrue. You gave out false information and completely misidentified why the manufacturer changed their product. I am not happy with you and I am requesting a formal appology - if you have the courage to do so. I for one am concerned that this forum has grown into a boys club and those of us in the isolated regions that ask for some guidance from our so called more knowledgable aviator 'mates' get castigated. As far as I am concerned except for a small handful of people who genuinely have something to contribute the rest is what comes out of the back end of a bull. Genuinely dissappointed

Purely a typo...... made that contribution to RFDS yet??

Thanks for that information Daffyd and that was the reason for me asking questions regarding this

I have no idea what got under your bonnet but let me reassure you that I have read SI-912-022R7 issued 15th May 2013 and it says inter alia- 4.4 In case of an engine replacement or retrofitting.......... Proof of certification to the latest requirements such as FAR has to be supplied by the aircraft manufacturer. For more information and related instruction contact the aircraft and/or airframe manufacturer Option 2 CAUTION Drainage line have to routed into ram air and vacuum free zone according to the requirements and release of BRP-Powertrain. The drainage line must not be routed into the slipstream. The drainage line has to installed in such a way that excessive fuel/oil flows off Fig 5 clearly illustrates this and is part number 12 if you care to look The reason for the drainage is not as you have suggested to put static pressure onto the diaphragm but to vent the fuel outside of the crankcase to prevent a crankcase explosion in the event of a ruptured diaphragm. Your second post about watching me go to court was completely un-called for and childish as if you visited my first it states a NEW engine in my Gazelle which was the reason that I asked. I will accept an appology in this instance but a donation to the RFDS would be more preferable. Why does everyone get so worked up on these forums ffs?

I have a lot of respect for your views and knowledge Maj but I full on object to you saying that I am crying because I am trying to get a better understanding of the subject!!! Where do I put this bottle that now changes the cerification of the aircraft?? Where is the "safe" area? How big is the bottle to catch the fuel? Where is the engineering order to change this?

Thanks Daffyd, it makes you wonder how the Gazelle got through certification especially the part refering to controls being easily identified. It is very easy for students to miss identify the carb heat knob and pull on the choke or cockpit heater. I will read the rest in depth. I don't want to take up all of your time here but I am curious as to how the european aircraft can be certified - be it GA or RAA - in Australia without having a carburettor heat system? If the carb heat system is replaced does it have to be exactly as the original or substantially the same? As parts are dropped by manufacturers or improvements made or redesigned but that is what is available to use now, how does that change the certification? If the cabin heater is removed from the Gazelle because the airbox is no longer made as an example, does that make it non compliant with certification?

I don't agree with you here Maj as this is a change to the original aircraft certification and should have a document from the aircraft manufacturer stating exactly how and where to install. The engine manufacturer does not care about how a change in their product will affect the certification on the aircraft. This change to the fuel system has a direct safety issue that could ground this and possibly other aircraft as engines or fuel pumps are changed. This not the 'it does not comply because there is not a liability sticker on the panel', this is a change where there is a real possibility of dumping fuel in vapour form directly into the hot exhaust gasses and causing an inflight fire. I am not comfortable as an L2 in signing off mine or anyone else aircraft with such a modification. As an L2 I believe that I am not legally allowed to do it which is why I have asked Daffyd to clarify the certification process.

Thanks fella's. Maj, I know that the aircraft is certified as I use it a trainer and I know about servicing the fuel pump. My concern is that the fuel drain on the new pump now protrudes into the airstream between the two exhaust pipes and was not on the aircraft when certified. I also realise that this outlet only flows fuel in the event of a diaphragm rupture. I want to know exactly how I document that this is a modification from original and does it require an engineering sign off. Daffyd, could you clarify where it is a requirement for the carby heat system to be manually operated so as I can understand the certification system please? I have spoken to a lot of people who were involved in the original development of the Gazelle and the concept of making more like a GA trainer with carby heat. The Gazelle is a great little aircraft but the engine installation and set up is applling compared to the european set ups. Essentially, the 912A certified engine has to be modified to fit the Gazelle installation so isn't this already a contradicition?

I have just fitted a new 912A engine into my Gazelle and the new engine has a different mechanical fuel pump to the one that it was certified with. The new pump has a drain port that must be vented to outside of the engine bay so does this require a sign off by a Reg 35 (or whatever number these days) engineer for it to be legal as a factory built? The original pump is no longer available now from Rotax and could potentially affect many certified aircraft. The aircraft was originally certified with a transponder that was removed by an L2 some years ago so does this make it now 'not certified? If I were to remove the airbox and very complicated (read high maintenance and prone to failure) Scat hoses and carby heat system and replace it with a water heated ring system, does this make the aircraft non compliant? It still has a carburettor heat system but not one where the pilot has to pull a little knob to get it to work. Just asking of course

The Gazelle stall warning is quite advanced in its concept and more complicated than it needs to be. The big thing that they forgot was to reference it to static pressure which is the commom cause of intermittent triggers of the alarm. A simple pressure switch with a small delay circuit would be more reliable.

The springs on both the rudder and the ailerons are adjustable and apply a pre-load to both circuits, especially the rudder. I have found that the rudder springs lose their tension over time and may need replacing if they are at the end of the stops. The other problem that occurs is the horn on the rudder becomes bent due to big feet putting pressure on the pedals so check that this is straight. I have seen one where one side was bent more than the other and the aircraft flew in a slight side slip all the time and will cause the fuel to drain one tank before the other.

Iggy, I really enjoyed that and the music was awsome! Ezpressed exactly how you felt after the day and we are all privelledged to share it with you.

I don't agree with directing blame away from CASA as they are a federal body in a unique position with only one skill set to handle and they still have not got it right. States co-operating on road rules do a better job than this lot. CASA had a good as it gets system with the restricted licence and the RPL could easily have been managed by having one passenger the same as the driving rules for new drivers. Why does everything have to be made so complicated? I'm pleased to know that I am "one of the stupidest people on the planet" - really did not need that in this discussion