RAA MEMBER AND SUBSCRIBER NEWSLETTER 2 July 2026

[skippydiesel]

It would seem that Cody Calder, Chief of Aviation (RAA) is supporting the alarmist propaganda being used by the Rotax marketing strategists

 

"Rotax-approved oil

............... Owners and operators are reminded that it is essential to use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage....."

 

😈

[facthunter]

What advice would you consider to be more appropriate and responsible if you were in that job? Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

It would seem that Cody Calder, Chief of Aviation (RAA) is supporting the alarmist propaganda being used by the Rotax marketing strategists

 

"Rotax-approved oil

............... Owners and operators are reminded that it is essential to use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage....."

 

😈

When the manufacturer uses active words "like essential" and backs it up with :"to avoid engine damage" that's a clear message to most people. It means there is some issue with the design that required a solution and the solution was resolved by this action. I've been involved in quite a few of them and seen the carnage when old Dad decides he'snot changing his ways.

[FlyBoy1960]

Did anyone have the opportunity to watch the video?

 

I don't want to single out any of the individuals involved, as they are clearly employees/managers rather than professional media presenters.

 

However, as an association, I felt it was one of the least effective presentations I have seen.

 

The presenters appeared uncomfortable and lacked confidence, and it was obvious they were reading from prepared material rather than speaking naturally. That isn't a criticism of them personally—it simply highlights that public speaking and media presentations require a different skill set.

 

I believe it would be a worthwhile investment for the association to provide a few hours of media and presentation training to anyone who may represent us publicly in the future. Even half a day of professional coaching could make a significant difference to the confidence, delivery and overall impression our representatives create.

 

As representatives of our association, they help shape how the wider industry perceives our professionalism, credibility and integrity. Investing in their presentation skills would, in my view, strengthen the reputation of the association as a whole.

[facthunter]

The Message is the Important feature. Put the other on a "wish" list. I don't know why anyone would want to be on the RAAus Management team. It would be a risky and thankless task.   Nev

[BurnieM]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

When the manufacturer uses active words "like essential" and backs it up with :"to avoid engine damage" that's a clear message to most people. It means there is some issue with the design that required a solution and the solution was resolved by this action. I've been involved in quite a few of them and seen the carnage when old Dad decides he'snot changing his ways.

It is widely acknowledged that the 916 benefits from a full synthetic oil due to higher than expected temperatures.

 

The other engines including the 915 not so much.

A lot of people are still using Aeroshell.

Why not say this ?

They would of course have to acknowledge that in spite of adding half a litre of oil to the larger 916 sump they appear to have miscalculated the heat generation requirements.

 

Also Rotax do not make any profit on Aeroshell oil but do on XPS.

I am sure this is not a consideration in their service statements.

 

Edited Friday at 04:00 AM by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

Its one thing for RAA to publish advertisements , even ADs, from manufactures (Rotax) its quite another to spout the same rhetoric, in a staff members (Mr Calder) publication ie giving direct support to what is  a falsehood,  by quoting Rotax scare marketing ".....use only Rotax-approved oil to avoid engine damage...."

 

When Rotax 912's were first launched onto the aircraft engine market (1989)  the  lubrication advise for the engine(s) was to use automotive engine oils, meeting their detailed specifications (mainly motorcycle engine oils).

 

Rotax no longer give detailed specifications, preferring to recommend Aeroshell Sport Plu4 and their in house XPS. Wont be long before Aeroshell is dropped.

 

Its my understanding that many of the earlier 912's are still doing their job and using whatever motorcycle engine oil was originally advised, - NO DAMAGE!

 

Rotax have, for some time now, been attempting to scare owners into just using OM supplied products - this is a marketing/profit driven initiative.

 

Mr Calder, as an RAA employee, should retract that part of his statement, which appears to support the Rotax scare marketing.

 

😈

[BurnieM]

I could dig up some KTM statements quoting Rotax (who made some of their mc engines) about problems and remedies.

A few of those were also essential but not covered by warranty.
To think Rotax are only concerned about the customer to the exclusion of their profit is unwise.

 

Edited Friday at 04:04 AM by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

6 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

It is widely acknowledged that the 916 benefits from a full synthetic oil due to higher than expected temperatures.

 

The other engines including the 915 not so much.

A lot of people are still using Aeroshell.

Why not say this ?

They would of course have to acknowledge that in spite of adding half a litre of oil to the larger 916 sump they appear to have miscalculated the heat generation requirements.

 

One option is Rotax do not make any profit on Aeroshell oil.

I am sure this is not a consideration in their marketing service statements.

 

Your generous interpretation of Mr Calders /Rotax statement is not what was stated.

 

I have no problem with Rotax recommending a specific oil for their engines.

 

Rotax, in the advertisement in the RAA publication, do not discriminate between engine types ie 912 , 916, etc neither does Mr Calder

 

The scare message is obvious  - use Aeroshell Plus Sport 4 or XPS  OR YOUR ENGINE WILL BE DAMAGED Mr Calder has endorsed this.

 

"Rotax do not make any profit on Aeroshell oil."

 

Your absolutly sure of this.

 

Shell develop an oil specifically for Rotax 912's and Rotax derive no benefit whatsoever ?????

😈

[BurnieM]

I prefer to listen to (mainly US based) engineers who work on these engines.

I look at the background of the person offering advise and file that advise accordingly.

So no I am not really concerned what an RAAus officer says (unless he/she has the aforementioned background).

 

I do not see dropping Aeroshell as a Rotax recommend oil will effect much.

People are still using NGK sparkplugs on all engines that previously came with them (all except the 916) without any maintenance or regulatory problems.

 

[skippydiesel]

Ye gads! - You seem to be off on some odd  tangent.

 

My post is about the impropriate of an RAA official, appearing to support a commercial (Rotax) marketing ploy (scaring its engine owners) to the point of quoting from the entitles advertising.

 

Nothing about engineering, servicing advice or materials.😈

[facthunter]

You are in dangerous territory, Skip.   Is there any oil company that states their oil Meets and/Or exceeds Rotax's specifications. This is a critical Lube oil Motor NOW. Nev

[Blueadventures]

5 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are in dangerous territory, Skip.   Is there any oil company that states their oil Meets and/Or exceeds Rotax's specifications. This is a critical Lube oil Motor NOW. Nev

Agree absolutely, Rotax oil is not just for the engine; it also for the gearbox and as such has certain blend requirements; everyone operating a Rotax 9XX series should not listen to this authors rant. 

 

Raa is correct in advice as it reaffirms Rotax instructions and the aircraft oil can is to be labelled with the oil in use and not mix oils.

[BurnieM]

34 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are in dangerous territory, Skip.   Is there any oil company that states their oil Meets and/Or exceeds Rotax's specifications. This is a critical Lube oil Motor NOW. Nev

I am reluctant to be seen to be supporting Skip but he has a point.

 

The reason no oil company "states their oil Meets and/Or exceeds Rotax's specifications" is because Rotax will not publish their XPS oil specs and has not provided it when requested.

 

When Rotax asked an oil company (believed to be Castrol US but not confirmed) to develop a full synthetic oil to handle the unplanned heat generated by the 916 they knew they would have problems suspending the lead (from 100LL). A number of additive packages were developed and tested and took a while to be finalised. This full synthetic oil with custom additive package was then tested across the range of Rotax Aviation engines.

 

It is believed one of the reasons the specs have not been released is because this XPS oil does not comply with any of the current oil standards and Rotax are doing a 'commercial in confidence' push.

 

All Rotax aviation engines (except the 916) already had a recommended and technically capable oil available prior to XPS. 

Note that Rotax was previously recommending AeroShell for the 916 even tho it had technical shortcomings.

 

Edited Friday at 06:42 AM by BurnieM

[Reynard]

My interpretation of the RA-AUS note was that it was ackowledging the global shortage of specialty oils due to the Strait of Hormuz crisis. Trying to actually find a local supply of AeroShell Sportplus 4 oil has been the issue over the past few months and it may be tempting to use something else other than Rotax approved fluids. The Rotax approved fluids are clearly listed in the attachment on the RAAus note - AeroShell Sportplus 4 being one of the approved fluids……as well as Rotax branded products.

 

i couldn’t detect a specific bias by RAaus other than to state the manufacturers requirements.

[T510]

I'm with Skip on this one. I don't think it is appropriate behavior from RAAus.

 

 Regarding oil standards, they are well established and have been around for over 100 years.

 

Rotax originally specified a high-quality 4-stroke motorcycle or aviation oil with an API classification of "SG" or higher because the engine features an integrated gearbox. They also stated gear additives are required, but no friction modifiers should be used. Plenty of Rotax's are around that have been running oil that meets that requirement without destroying themselves.

 

While SG is now obsolete, any modern API SP, SN, SM, SL, or SJ motor oil is a direct equivalent to the obsolete API SG rating. Current API classifications are fully backwards compatible with earlier classifications.

 

[skippydiesel]

Those that are going off on some oil appropriate tangent, are wilfully missing my now stated, at least twice, point.

 

Once Again:

 

Its not appropriate for an RAA official (as such speaking for RAA) to be endorsing the product & marketing strategies of a commercial company (Rotax in this  instance).

 

😈

 

 

[clouddancer]

Rotax recently published a Service Advisory about appropriate fluids for use in their engines, so I don’t really think this is inappropriate by RAAus.

They have been tightening up on many areas of servicing, including an SB on lock wire use. The world is a very different place from the “good old days” of using non-specified fluids in engines.

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, Blueadventures said:

Agree absolutely, Rotax oil is not just for the engine; it also for the gearbox and as such has certain blend requirements; everyone operating a Rotax 9XX series should not listen to this authors rant. 

 

Raa is correct in advice as it reaffirms Rotax instructions and the aircraft oil can is to be labelled with the oil in use and not mix oils.

Read my last post.

 

This is not about the oil  as such.  Can I make it any simpler for you?

 

Your vaguely offensive comments, are so far of the subject as to be laughable.

 

FYI: - I use & have always used Aeroshell Spot Plus 4, in my last & current Rotax 912.

 

😈

[skippydiesel]

In the final analysis, if the transmitter (me) is not getting the desired message to the receiver (you) the blame must rest with the transmitter (me).

 

I am sorry if I have failed to communicate my concerns about the impropriety of an RAA official appearing to spout the marketing words of a commercial entity.

 

Either the above or I have struck a rich vain of illiterate receivers.

 

Got to be one or the other.

😈

 

 

[facthunter]

 I wonder where you get your Oil expertise? .  I can't see one sign of you taking onboard what anyone here has said and Now as usual , you get into insults.  Advising what the Manufacturer says is  doing the optimum safe action. Near enough is good enough is not the  DEAL with oil type these days, particularly with this series of engines. You are also defaming the RAAus Person . He's acting responsibly . YOU are NOT acting responsibly and if someone acts on your advice and comes to grief YOU might be considered responsible at Law. Think on that.  Nev

[turboplanner]

On 03/07/2026 at 1:49 PM, BurnieM said:

It is widely acknowledged that the 916 benefits from a full synthetic oil due to higher than expected temperatures.

 

The other engines including the 915 not so much.

A lot of people are still using Aeroshell.

Why not say this ?

They would of course have to acknowledge that in spite of adding half a litre of oil to the larger 916 sump they appear to have miscalculated the heat generation requirements.

 

Also Rotax do not make any profit on Aeroshell oil but do on XPS.

I am sure this is not a consideration in their service statements.

 

All of that is speculation or anecdotal. I'm not saying none of it is true; I'm saying the statement is standard operating procedure for engine manufacturers, and is usually a last resort, because competitors usually have enough employees common to both companies who know the inside story, and the competitor can attack the product. You can't make people follow manufacturers' advice but it doesn't matter because the person who thought he knew better will be wearing it.

[Thruster88]

A storm in a teacup is an idiom that describes a situation where people get excessively angry, worried, or dramatic about a trivial or unimportant matter. It means a minor issue has been severely exaggerated out of proportion

[BurnieM]

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

All of that is speculation or anecdotal. I'm not saying none of it is true; I'm saying the statement is standard operating procedure for engine manufacturers, and is usually a last resort, because competitors usually have enough employees common to both companies who know the inside story, and the competitor can attack the product. You can't make people follow manufacturers' advice but it doesn't matter because the person who thought he knew better will be wearing it.

 

In every other area (cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, watercraft etc) people challenge statements from engine (and other) manufacturers.

Some of these challenges are mis-informed but some are not.

 

Yet in aviation we should follow the manufacturers advise 100% ?

Is this wise or even safe ?

 

Personal experience;

I have replaced 40-50 sets of sparkplugs on motorcycles and cars. I have had only two sparkplugs fail completely.

One was a Bosch sparkplug 20 years ago and the other was a Bosch sparkplug 3 years ago.

 

This does not prove that the current Bosch manufacturered Rotax sparkplugs are low quality 

but are you prepared to bet your life on it because Rotax says you must use them ?

 

[turboplanner]

19 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

In every other area (cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, watercraft etc) people challenge statements from engine (and other) manufacturers.

Some of these challenges are mis-informed but some are not.

Yes they do, and we sit there reading it and wonder why they can't  handle the critical advice we've just offered.

19 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

Yet in aviation we should follow the manufacturers advise 100% ?

Is this wise or even safe ?

The manufacturer is legally responsible for the safety of his product and advice. If he didn't give the advice he'd be paying for any failures.  If he makes a statement like this one and someone decides he know better, he pays.

19 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

Personal experience;

I have replaced 40-50 sets of sparkplugs on motorcycles and cars. I have had only two sparkplugs fail completely.

One was a Bosch sparkplug 20 years ago and the other was a Bosch sparkplug 3 years ago.

I use Bosch on race engines. We have both had good experience, but let's say a manufacturer has screwed up when he decided the locations of the spark plug holes and the plugs are masked/not allowing full chamber performance. The manufacturer searches for months and finally finds a Temu X22 which has a very long nose allowing full power, he'll say Temu X22 MUST be used. He knows the rreason; we don't. It would be nice if the manufacturer said "Because we stuffed up the design and got the oil gallery positions wrong, the only oil that didn't result in a blowup was xxxxxxx."

19 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

 

This does not prove that the current Bosch manufacturered Rotax sparkplugs are low quality 

but are you prepared to bet your life on it because Rotax says you must use them ?