So why don't we have something like this for the older 'classic' type aircraft like Champs, J-4, Taylorcrafts, etc. I can tell you the Rotex engine is a lot more complex than a A65/C85/0200. Inspection for these older aircraft is not that complex either .http://eaa.org/news/2014/2014-04-02_...airventure.asp
If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!
Originally Posted by Mike Berg
Rotex engines are not more complex then something like an a-65 or something. Less moving parts in a rotex engine unless you start counting every needle bearing then the part count goes up. The thing about two strokes, the smallest air leak will ruin a two stroke because of running it lean. Nothing complex about a two stroke. No valves or cam or a lot of other things like mags, impulse couplers, and a host of other things in a 4 stroke. A 4 stroke is way more compex then a two stroke. It just takes a lot less to kill a two stroke engine, a 4 stroke shrugs it off or just shakes it off and keeps on purring.
Tony
I think he's referring to the Rotax 4-strokes, the 912 and 914, which are definitely more complicated than the small 4-cyl. Continentals.
When someone says Rotax I think two strokes. I have no idea why. But you are so correct. The 912, 914 are some very complicated engines. I do like them but one reason I would prefer an a-65,75,85 over a 912. The cost of running a 912,914 compared to a 65-85 is so high per hr. I would never own a 912,914. Its so much easier to find someone who knows how to work on a continental compared to a rotax 4 stroke. So the cons out weigh the pros when it comes to owning a rotax 4 stroke, for me anyway.
But this is another story, back to regular programing....
Tony
Hi Mike
That is what we are trying to do here. The ANV rec would apply to the all the airplanes you listed and would allow you to do all your MX (except for the annual) by taking a class similar to the LSA mechanic class.
I was speaking of the 912/914 Rotex. I have a friend who owns a RV12 and that is a fairly complex aircraft.....airframe and engine. On the other hand, Champ, Chiefs, Taylorcrafts, "J series Pipers" with the A65/C85/0200A etc. are very simple. I've rebuilt three Champs and am presently rebuilding a Chief. I simply don't understand why I need a A&P to do the yearly condition inspection when I likely have a lot more experience with tube and fabric and wooden spars. At my age I don't have a problem putting the plane into the experimental category as it's probably the last one I'll own anyway. Let me take a course and let me sign it off. After all...I own it. Maybe if it was a Bonanza or Baron it might be different.
If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!
Ray
This is same as the experimental yearly condition inspection i.e. inspected per the scope and detail of 43 appendix d and found to be in condition for safe operation.
The only unique additions to the logbook requirements is the need for the owner to document all alterations that are not FAA approved, the status of all ADs and a list of all non-approved parts installed. This is obviously to facilitate the conversion back to normal category should the owner choose to do so.
scott
I like Ted K, work the Hill in my day job (or is it moonlight as I am a pilot who lobbies for my union). I hope I can help shed some light on where to work on this issue.
As Ted K and Scott F have pointed out the FAA is not pleased with the findings of this ARC and are giving hints they aren't going to move on this ANV proposal. Forums are great for banter and venting but not really great at finding solutions and directing actions. Let's see if we can direct the energy of the keyboard in front of you to move this proposal forward.
We all need to find out where our alphabet groups are on this. If EAA and AOPA make this a priority it can start moving forward. Mac's column was great but does the Governmental Affairs team have any idea this is a priority and that the members want a legislative solution to this problem? You need to write, email, and call your organizations and ask where they are and what they are doing regarding this proposal legislatively? If the answer is nothing; ask them to draft legislation as it is a priority to you to have the ARC's findings enacted.
We have intent in the SARA and existing legislation but it needs to be refined to drive this outcome. That is a very good place to start and we are miles ahead with this in place. EAA or AOPA lobbyists should be able to find a sympathetic ear on the Hill. My guess is Sam Graves (R-MO) would be a good fit and is a huge supporter of GA. Collin Peterson (D-MN) is another likely supporter (Bonanza owner). If their offices can introduce the legislation it will then get kicked to the House Aviation sub-committee. Graves is there so he can speak to it and the Chair LoBiondo is a GA backer also (400 Cessna guy I think). If it gets through committee it then goes to the floor for a vote and on to the Senate.
The Senate is a bit of a chocolate mess (insert your political views and frustrations here) and finding sympathetic offices to run with this might be tough. I would look to the Small Aircraft Revitalization leadership for this. Your alphabet guys should get this and will drive it along.
EAA and AOPA have good people on the Hill, I just wish there were more of them. I think both groups spend too much time and effort being a bank and a insurance company and not enough on legislative affairs, but that is my opinion as a long standing member of both groups. What they need is grassroots support and active and involved members that can call and write in support of the work they do. I am making a call to both tomorrow and asking where they are on this issue as I am an owner of an aircraft that would take advantage of this program. I hope you do the same.
EAA Governmental Affairs
AOPA Regulatory Policy 800/872-2672
Last edited by Paul@Flightline.tv; 04-09-2014 at 09:59 PM.
Paul
Well said - like anything else, if people want this they are going to have to make it known. Has anyone contacted EAA / AOPA yet and willing to share the conversation?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote