fbpx

 

Does this 912 ULS  s/n 6775206 have the updated case with the upper case bolts to prevent case fretting? Thank you

10299_1_IMG_0277.jpeg (You do not have access to download this file.)
  • Re: Roger Lee 912uls

    by » 3 months ago


    Hi Danny,

    Isn't this Todd's plane?

    That Flight Design CTLS plane was Mfg'd in Aug. 2008. It is the better case. The case upgrade was in 2006. The first two numbers in your serial number is the year and the second two numbers are the month. The last two numbers are an arbitrary serial number assigned by the MFG.


    Roger Lee
    LSRM-A & Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
    Tucson, AZ Ryan Airfield (KRYN)
    520-349-7056 Cell


  • Re: Roger Lee 912uls

    by » 3 months ago


    Yes, I believe he is purchasing a new engine. Thanks for the info. 


  • Re: Roger Lee 912uls

    by » 3 months ago


    Hello Danny

    Other than surprise that Roger congratulated himself for he label he put in the logbook (I hope you have lots of pages) I have only one comment.  The serial for the engine shows as a 1500 hour TBO.  That said it was the first gen of the new style and there are bullitians you can do to get the engine to 2000 hour.  The problem is that this is now also at 15 years old so technically if you are flying as an SLSA you should overhaul.  If you fly as an ELSA then it is on you if you wish to start some type of on condition plan for your annuals. 

    Cheers


  • Re: Roger Lee 912uls

    by » 3 months ago


    SLSA are allowed to go on condition too. There are two FAA legal documents from the FAA legal dept. in 2011 and 2013 that quote sections of the USA FAR's that allow it. 

    You said should replace and didn't say it was mandatory.

    p.s.

    RW,

    That's a standard logbook label for me and they are two pages with a rubber change. Extra pages are cheap and worth their weight in gold with an FAA investigation, a libel suit in court or an insurance claim. It's far better than the three liners that many lazy people use for an inspection. It shows what was done vs the three liner that shows nothing and when a person uses the term IAW (in accordance with) it means you did EVEYTHING on the aircraft and fuselage inspection checklist which few ever even use. With a three liner entry liability now is through the roof in court, the FAA and insurance. Bottom line the court says if you didn't write it you didn't do it. I got that education from 27 years testifying in court and doing depositions. My medical reports were like this and I never once got burned like many did for failing to document. The other big plus is when it comes time to sell. Do you want a plane you have no idea what was done or one with good documentation so you have some idea how it was maintained.

    p.s.s.

    Todd did replace his engine and it was in good operational health.

     

    https://www.rotax-owner.com/en/rotax-blog/item/22-good-documentation-its-everything


    Roger Lee
    LSRM-A & Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
    Tucson, AZ Ryan Airfield (KRYN)
    520-349-7056 Cell


    Thank you said by: Darryl Willshire

  • Re: Roger Lee 912uls

    by » 3 months ago


    Roger...yup, the FAA legal waffled all over the place on the rules for maintenance.  (overhaul is considered maintenance under the FAA definitions)   For SLSA they mandated that the OEM had to provide all the guidance and requirements for continued airworthiness.  Almost to the last man all the OEM said follow the Rotax documents when it comes to the engine.  Rotax published the times and requirements and then about as fast as you can say "butt hurt" everyone complained as they wanted to do nothing and make up their own guidelines by individual owners.  (BS like so called on-condition) FAA legal then decided to follow certified guidelines and ignore the OEM (who all just pointed to Rotax for guidance) and said do the same as certified.  In my view it was a big sham after the original concept was not intended that way.  And it really puts the OEM in jeopardy when something goes wrong as they are legally the manufacturer.    

    We need to consider that if you have no approved on-condition process, no procedures based on actual scientific testing or facts, then it is just a guess.  I have lots of experience looking at failed engines that were unnecessary and not prevented.  I am fully in agreement with Roger on the legal problems.  In the event of a failure you dont get sued by the FAA or the FAA legal.  You get sued by the wife, the family, and a list of lawyers who are going to find blame anyway they can and it normally is in civil court where the burden is almost always in favor of the plaintive.   The only thing you as a service provider has to hide behind is that set of manuals, bullitians and your reputation.  I am a big believer is doing it all by the book.  When we take it on ourselves to set up special conditions, variations, and modifications that were never approved, now it is on you to defend yourself.  

    Just my opinion.  Glad he changed the engine. And good to see a fully filled in logbook, bonus points for that one. 

    Cheers

     


You do not have permissions to reply to this topic.