Engine on Condition. A rort???

[facthunter]

They are a toothless tiger, beholden to CASA.  Nev

[BrendAn]

18 minutes ago, johnm said:

I'll assume a couple of the following things - purely in the interest of thread chatter

 

- 24 registered planes and their engines - what happens when the engine becomes time expired

                  * its becoming relevant if you entertain buying a 24 registered plane

                  * or perhaps some other type No registered plane

- the MARAP process creates paperwork and a fee - (apart from the cost) ............ the intent is then recorded & probably is a good thing in that everyone can see what the 'go' is - a paperwork trail

- MARAP is at least doing the job currently (and I hope in  future) 

- in the case of the 912 - if Rotax are saying 'no going past engine life' .............. then that must clear Rotax of liability

- because of MARAP ..........................who is then now seen as taking this liability

- if it's RAA - how can they accept that liability - RAA are not engine manufacturers (or is MARAP comparable to GA 'on condition' and therefore acceptable) 

 

................ And

 

- I don't understand why RAA does not clear the air on this subject - its straight rule interpretation - best to hear it from the horses mouth (irrespective of what the rules may say ......... or not say or whoever says it)

- RAA to clarify for all to hear - clearly - loud and clear

I think the rules pretty clear but they do get bent.

What I posted about the 3600 hr engine is 100 percent true but I don't want to go into too much detail  about someone else's business.

 

[FlyBoy1960]

On 16/02/2026 at 2:46 PM, clouddancer said:

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)!

I don't think you are correct with the Woodcomp props, they are  manufactured in the Czech Republic and I doubt they were ever fitted to the original gazelle aircraft in the 1980's.

Woodcomp are still in business, so there should be no issues in getting them but I am 100% sure they were not fitted as standard equipment to the gazelle aircraft.


WOODCOMP came into existence at the end of the year 2000 as a result of the merger of the two largest producers of aircraft propellers in Czech Republic having the rich and long-term tradition.

Edited 18 hours ago by FlyBoy1960

[onetrack]

54 minutes ago, johnm said:

I'll assume a couple of the following things - purely in the interest of thread chatter

 

- 24 registered planes and their engines - what happens when the engine becomes time expired

                  * its becoming relevant if you entertain buying a 24 registered plane

                  * or perhaps some other type No registered plane

- the MARAP process creates paperwork and a fee - (apart from the cost) ............ the intent is then recorded & probably is a good thing in that everyone can see what the 'go' is - a paperwork trail

- MARAP is at least doing the job currently (and I hope in the future) 

- in the case of the 912 - if Rotax are saying 'no going past engine life' .............. then that must clear Rotax of liability

- because of MARAP ..........................who is then now seen as taking this liability

- if it's RAA - how can they accept that liability - RAA are not engine manufacturers (or is MARAP comparable to GA 'on condition' and therefore acceptable) 

 

................ And

 

- I don't understand why RAA does not clear the air on this subject - its straight rule interpretation - best to hear it from the horses mouth (irrespective of what the rules may say ......... or not say or whoever says it)

- RAA to clarify for all to hear - clearly - loud and clear

What's to clear? The engine manufacturers state a maximum TBO, and that's it. Anything over that period, you're on-condition, on your own, and the risk is all yours.

 

RA-Aus management is not going to accept responsibility for every engine out there that is running on-condition, they have no day-to-day control over how they're maintained.

 

Engine life is a major variable, so much depends on how they're run and maintained, and the conditions they operate under. I see no reason why a carefully maintained and well-treated engine wouldn't run to 4000 hrs - but the risk of engine failure increases steadily, as the hours advance over the listed TBO.

 

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/longest-after-tbo.144535/

[BrendAn]

15 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

I don't think you are correct with the Woodcomp props, they are  manufactured in the Czech Republic and I doubt they were ever fitted to the original gazelle aircraft in the 1980's.

Woodcomp are still in business, so there should be no issues in getting them but I am 100% sure they were not fitted as standard equipment to the gazelle aircraft.


WOODCOMP came into existence at the end of the year 2000 as a result of the merger of the two largest producers of aircraft propellers in Czech Republic having the rich and long-term tradition.

the original prop brand is allsize

[clouddancer]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

no . but i trained in the aircraft in question.  it was owned by a lame and used for raaus training. he was allowed to run on condition because the aircraft had a type certificate.

apparently there is a loophole that allows it.  the insructor owned the aircraft and is a lame / l4, he is pretty switched on and he is not a liar.

Type certified is very different to LSA

[facthunter]

Not in an aeroplane. No one has ever aimed for that. 2.000 is about where that is. Remember race cars are stripped and checked between race days. Jet engines can go to 10.000 but have Hot end checks regularly and visual checks on every turnaround. and debris checked in filters. Anything there and she's pulled and stripped.  That's why aviation is safe. Nev

[clouddancer]

1 hour ago, johnm said:

- I don't understand why RAA does not clear the air on this subject - its straight rule interpretation - best to hear it from the horses mouth (irrespective of what the rules may say ......... or not say or whoever says it)

- RAA to clarify for all to hear - clearly - loud and clear

They don’t need to clear the air, the Tech Manual has already been quoted and is very clear.

[clouddancer]

4 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

the original prop brand is allsize

Thank you, I couldn’t for the life of me remember the name of the wooden prop on the Gazelle and Skyfox aircraft 

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I think the rules pretty clear but they do get bent.

What I posted about the 3600 hr engine is 100 percent true but I don't want to go into too much detail  about someone else's business.

 

 

I may be missing something but I do doubt that this apparent contradiction is a case of rules being bent. 

Actually, I can't see where in SECTION 12.6 it actually says that "on condition" - as defined therein - is not available to Training ops just as it is for private users. Yes, the concession is generally unavailable where LSA aircraft are involved, and/or where "the manufacturer specifically excludes it."  

And the manual does emphasise that an aircraft that's been used in private ops with an "on condition" engine must not later be used for Hire/Training until that engine is swapped-out for new. Which suggests to me that if that's not the case then it is acceptable.  Though if my reading is correct, I'm left wondering why more flying schools don't take advantage of (properly maintained) "on condition" engines (as is commonly the case in GA).  In some cases it may be to do with the LSA exception or it might come down just to economic and/or safety-culture related business decisions.  But I reckon the heart of the confusion involves a grey area related to Rotax: whether "the manufacturer specifically excludes it" at least in so many words. When all's said and done, though, it's a grey area that helps keep recreational aviating affordable (just) and at the same time, acceptably safe.

Still and all, I don't believe that just 'reading the manual' is all that's needed to get clarity on these issues. 

 

Excerpt from:  

SECTION 12.6 PISTON ENGINE CONTINUING AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS

RAAus Technical Manual Issue 4.3 - 2 December 2024

 

12.6.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR AIRCRAFT USED FOR HIRE AND/OR FLYING TRAINING

Maintenance on aircraft identified in this Subsection must conducted by an appropriately accredited RAAus L2 and the aircraft weighed in accordance with the requirements of Section 10 Weight and Balance before being released to service for flight training or private hire.

 

Moving an aircraft from “Privately Operated” to “For Hire and/or Flying Training”: Any Factory Built 95.32 or 95.55 Aircraft which has been operating privately with an “on condition” engine, must have that engine overhauled or replaced prior to that aircraft being used for hire and/or flying training. The replacement engine must be either:

a) A factory new engine

b) A factory (or factory accredited over-hauler) overhauled engine and has a completed RACR (Recreational RAAus Technical Manual Issue 4.3 - 2 December 2024 83 Aircraft Condition Report - Tech Form 13) inspection done by an RAAus L2.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Garfly