Engine on Condition. A rort???

[F10]

This started when I had tried to do the right thing by putting in a Modification Approval Request Application  MARAP form to RAAus  to fit a new Bolly prop to my Skyfox Gazelle despite the aircraft having had one for years and despite one if not two previous condition reports stating it had a Bolly prop.  So after $$$ for that, I was also advised to put in a MARAP   on my engine, because it was running on condition. Looking at the RAAus tech regs, as I understand it, it says running on condition requires the usual bleed down compression checks, oil filter element checks and monitoring for any unusual temps and pressure changes. It says the on condition form should be filled in and attached to the maintenance log. So, no probs and it was the last I heard of it. Since then I have done two annuals and re-newed the rego'. No mention or query on the engine condition MARAP.

 

I have now sadly sold my Gazelle. A condition report was submitted. The new owner phoned a few weeks later me as to both himself and myself, he has been told by RAAus that his permit to fly is being withheld because his engine on condition "MARAP" has expired, and he needs to submit one noe EVERY YEAR....for  cost of $330......!!     So lets sum it up. Ever increasing membership costs, aircraft rego costs and now, all members running engines on condition....an additional $330.....so you are in for around $700 in just admin costs. Now the other issue is the unfairness. Because many engines are being run on condition and are not on the so called "MARAP Register". The Gazelle has come onto the radar, because it was sold. Needless to say....CASA has perpetual registration and NO COSTS to an engine running on condition. If this is RAAus encouraging aviation, then they have lost me.

 

I have sold Gazelle because the now compulsory two year pitot static check, all the above mentioned costs and hangar fees (nothing to do with RAAus) and the fact that suddenly Recreational aircraft had their immunity from landing fees in Gippsland withdrawn, (to silence from RAAus, AOPA I think tried or will try to address this) had me looking at around $3500 in essentially admin costs, before I have even got her out the hangar.......

 

So after around 30 years in the game and 6500Hrs in military and civil flying....I have bought myself a CFMoto 800MT and am enjoying the motorcycle very much. Costs...once a year rego of $550.

 

So, bottom line, I think the annual engine on condition MARAP charge is a money grab, and not in the spirit of promoting recreational aviation.  

[facthunter]

Simple Affordable Flying. Wherefore Art Thou?  On condition is Not well founded in science either, especially with 2 strokes .  Stick to the TBO. It's NOT there for Nuthin.  Running them over TBO makes the engines More expensive to rebuild than Otherwise would be the Case . That's a Proven Fact.  IF you operate from the right Place you could cope with engine failures  and fly with a real Rotary with really Low hours between repair. Fit and Forget is Nerd thinking.  You make your own Luck. Nev

[johnm]

originally (I don't know how far back) RAA gleefully accepted all those aircraft registrations and fees ................. guessing engine life was never really considered BUT now its been placed out front and is an issue for aircraft owners

 

MARAP is the mechanism and am not to sure who collects that fee. $ 330 for the MARAP fee seems disproportionate compared to an annual rego fee of say $ 235 ........... 

?

 

[facthunter]

It went downhill after RAAus said "WE are the NEW GA".  They lost Focus and became Empire Builders.  Nev

[Thruster88]

2 hours ago, johnm said:

originally (I don't know how far back) RAA gleefully accepted all those aircraft registrations and fees ................. guessing engine life was never really considered BUT now its been placed out front and is an issue for aircraft owners

 

MARAP is the mechanism and am not to sure who collects that fee. $ 330 for the MARAP fee seems disproportionate compared to an annual rego fee of say $ 235 ........... 

?

 

 

MARAP is what is called an Engineering Order in casa land. I am guessing people who do Engineering Orders for GA aircraft modifications have insurance in case they are sued. Most of the cost is probably legal liabilty insurance.

[facthunter]

You are certainly getting nothing Material out of the extension.  Nev

[BrendAn]

4 hours ago, F10 said:

This started when I had tried to do the right thing by putting in a Modification Approval Request Application  MARAP form to RAAus  to fit a new Bolly prop to my Skyfox Gazelle despite the aircraft having had one for years and despite one if not two previous condition reports stating it had a Bolly prop.  So after $$$ for that, I was also advised to put in a MARAP   on my engine, because it was running on condition. Looking at the RAAus tech regs, as I understand it, it says running on condition requires the usual bleed down compression checks, oil filter element checks and monitoring for any unusual temps and pressure changes. It says the on condition form should be filled in and attached to the maintenance log. So, no probs and it was the last I heard of it. Since then I have done two annuals and re-newed the rego'. No mention or query on the engine condition MARAP.

 

I have now sadly sold my Gazelle. A condition report was submitted. The new owner phoned a few weeks later me as to both himself and myself, he has been told by RAAus that his permit to fly is being withheld because his engine on condition "MARAP" has expired, and he needs to submit one noe EVERY YEAR....for  cost of $330......!!     So lets sum it up. Ever increasing membership costs, aircraft rego costs and now, all members running engines on condition....an additional $330.....so you are in for around $700 in just admin costs. Now the other issue is the unfairness. Because many engines are being run on condition and are not on the so called "MARAP Register". The Gazelle has come onto the radar, because it was sold. Needless to say....CASA has perpetual registration and NO COSTS to an engine running on condition. If this is RAAus encouraging aviation, then they have lost me.

 

I have sold Gazelle because the now compulsory two year pitot static check, all the above mentioned costs and hangar fees (nothing to do with RAAus) and the fact that suddenly Recreational aircraft had their immunity from landing fees in Gippsland withdrawn, (to silence from RAAus, AOPA I think tried or will try to address this) had me looking at around $3500 in essentially admin costs, before I have even got her out the hangar.......

 

So after around 30 years in the game and 6500Hrs in military and civil flying....I have bought myself a CFMoto 800MT and am enjoying the motorcycle very much. Costs...once a year rego of $550.

 

So, bottom line, I think the annual engine on condition MARAP charge is a money grab, and not in the spirit of promoting recreational aviation.  

a friend sold a gazelle a few weeks back. i was considering it but stuck with the xair. anyway the other day the buyer phoned the seller and said he had submitted the transfer and acr

and raaus stopped it because the engine is running on condition. he purchased a newer engine and is having it fitted. A lot of expense considering the original motor is at 2300 hours and passes every test.    thats why i like 19 reg . No one cares about that stuff. not at the moment anyway.

 

i have to agree about the cost versus reward of flying as a hobby. $3000 p/a hangar fee. $40 p/h fuel, $6 every time my wheels touch the runway, 500 in reg and membership.

hardly affordable flying like they used to promote. and as alf jessup said , at west sale we can only fly 2 days a week in the raaf airspace.

those rc models with the cockpit view are looking pretty good.

Edited 19 hours ago by BrendAn

[facthunter]

It IS a bit of a Mugs Game now, but a Lot of us are addicted. After WW2, there was a lot of surplus Planes around and Plenty of wartime pilots who wanted to fly for free at students expense and were always on the controls. Your weeks wages got you about 2 Hours in the air. At Least DCA was full of Pilots who knew how to fly and the Minister for Civil Aviation  D.G.Anderson would turn up for PPL's award night and was an ex Bomber Pilot. RNAC had a lot of connections in DCA and we were able to fly into Mascot with a special Procedure and Leave Our Bug Smashers Near the Control Tower. Woe Betide any Pilot who stuffed it up.. Nev

[Marty_d]

This may be a silly question - apologies if so.

 

If I'm understanding correctly, if a 24- reg aircraft is sold with the engine on condition, the new owner can't fly until they do this annual $330 MARAP?

 

So - what's to stop you changing the reg to 19?  It's not like you can use the plane for training / commercially anyway because the engine is on condition, so what's the advantage of staying with 24?

 

[clouddancer]

Rotax engines have a calendar life as well as hours for TBO. As it was a factory built aircraft, the 912A in the Gazelle was only approved for use with a Woodcomp prop.
Trying to change the factory approved prop on a Cessna requires a Supplemental Type Certificate, which is CASA speak for a RAAus MARAP.

Staff at RAAus didn’t review the condition reports for compliance until a CASA audit which resulted in greater attention to this area.

Gazelle aircraft are no longer factory supported, so MARAP is the only way to get legal changes made.

it is not a RAAus problem, but they are trying to assist members to remain compliant using MARAP.

if it wasn’t for MARAP, the aircraft would be grounded due to lack of Woodcomp props and Rotax 912A engines.

Buyer beware (or seller, be aware)!

[facthunter]

I can't see any. but I don't trust the current situation at all. The "experts' say, Go GA exp. (Reply to Marty d.) Nev

Edited 17 hours ago by facthunter

[facthunter]

I understand many of the Warbirds are on that. THEY would have more Issues than Most. Nev

[BrendAn]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I understand many of the Warbirds are on that. THEY would have more Issues than Most. Nev

a bit of exaggeration here. warbirds are not raaus

[BrendAn]

22 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

This may be a silly question - apologies if so.

 

If I'm understanding correctly, if a 24- reg aircraft is sold with the engine on condition, the new owner can't fly until they do this annual $330 MARAP?

 

So - what's to stop you changing the reg to 19?  It's not like you can use the plane for training / commercially anyway because the engine is on condition, so what's the advantage of staying with 24?

 

$1200 to shift to 24E.    pretty much the same as 19.  can be flown but not for hire or reward. its the way to unless its in a club or school.

[facthunter]

I thought the Information Might be Helpful. I was going to Mention 24 exp . Nev

Edited 17 hours ago by facthunter

[BrendAn]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Simple Affordable Flying. Wherefore Art Thou?  On condition is Not well founded in science either, especially with 2 strokes .  Stick to the TBO. It's NOT there for Nuthin.  Running them over TBO makes the engines More expensive to rebuild than Otherwise would be the Case . That's a Proven Fact.  IF you operate from the right Place you could cope with engine failures  and fly with a real Rotary with really Low hours between repair. Fit and Forget is Nerd thinking.  You make your own Luck. Nev

it does not have to be tbo either. there are plenty of raaus aircraft with pretty low hours but out of calendar time.

[facthunter]

Callender time is Pretty exclusive to Rotax but even some assemblies have a shelf life which can usually Be addressed.. Seals and rubber Parts  degrade.  Nev

[Thruster88]

36 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

This may be a silly question - apologies if so.

 

If I'm understanding correctly, if a 24- reg aircraft is sold with the engine on condition, the new owner can't fly until they do this annual $330 MARAP?

 

So - what's to stop you changing the reg to 19?  It's not like you can use the plane for training / commercially anyway because the engine is on condition, so what's the advantage of staying with 24?

 

In Australia factory built aircraft, cessna 172 or Brumby or Tecnam cannot become experimental VH or 19-xxxx raaaus aircraft. CASA is the regulator of  aircraft in Australia. A 19-xxxx can become an experiment VH or the other way if mtow is ok.

[Thruster88]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Callender time is Pretty exclusive to Rotax but even some assemblies have a shelf life which can usually Be addressed.. Seals and rubber Parts  degrade.  Nev

Lycoming have 12 year calender tbo. On condition is alowed by CASA for for private or airwork (flying trainig).

[facthunter]

But you CAN zero time it by a rebuild to a decked height and tunnel oversize Limit.  Despite that I would not rebuild a Continental or Lycoming with more that 2 x TBO There's NO Non  Destructive Test for fatigue, and everything that is stressed, fatigues with Cyclic loads Also some metals age Harden.  Nev

[facthunter]

Don't spend Money on Junk with aeroplanes.  You end up with Nothing worth having and no money left. Nev

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

But you CAN zero time it by a rebuild to a decked height and tunnel oversize Limit.  Despite that I would not rebuild a Continental or Lycoming with more that 2 x TBO There's NO Non  Destructive Test for fatigue, and everything that is stressed, fatigues with Cyclic loads Also some metals age Harden.  Nev

you can't zero time a rotax in a certified aircraft.  if it does not have a certificate from bert floods it is not considered rebuilt.  i deal in facts

[facthunter]

I was not talking about the Rotax's . About  6 posts back I mentioned Callender  time for Rotaxs as Pretty exclusive. Back Off will you? FFS. Nev

[Arron25]

10 hours ago, BrendAn said:

$1200 to shift to 24E.    pretty much the same as 19.  can be flown but not for hire or reward. its the way to unless its in a club or school.

It can't be hired etc. with an 'on condition' either. can it?

So the reason for not going 24E is?

[skippydiesel]

16 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

In Australia factory built aircraft, cessna 172 or Brumby or Tecnam cannot become experimental VH or 19-xxxx raaaus aircraft. CASA is the regulator of  aircraft in Australia. A 19-xxxx can become an experiment VH or the other way if mtow is ok.

I stand to be corrected - A factory build can become experimental, subject to CASA/RAA approval. The approved aircraft is likly to be subject to operational limitations eg not for hire/reward😈