Sport Pilot Talk

https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N72TE

https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... 13511&if=1

Seems like this has been up there on controller.com for years.

Not sure if this 912ULS's TBO is 1500 or 2000, - thought that it was either 2000 or can be extended with some "minor" work?

The ad you posted says 2000.

This one looks ok but 2008 is the best looking high-wing out there - It looks like it is going fast just sitting on the ground...

The TBO of only some earlier Rotax 912 ULS engines can be upgraded to 2000 hours. The eligibility is not obvious from the engine s/n, but is actually a function of the crankcase s/n. This will be covered in my upcoming EAA Webinar "What TBO Really Means," airing the evening of 14 March 2018. You can register at http://eaa.org.webinars

Additionally, there is a calendar year life limit on Rotax engines. All of the 912s from 2005 and earlier (and some early 2006s) had a 12 year limit - which means they are now beyond TBO, regardless of Hobbs hours. You can't run them legally beyond the 12 year limit in an SLSA. Your options would be to install a newer engine with the updated crankcase design, or convert to ELSA.

drseti wrote:Additionally, there is a calendar year life limit on Rotax engines. All of the 912s from 2005 and earlier (and some early 2006s) had a 12 year limit - which means they are now beyond TBO, regardless of Hobbs hours. You can't run them legally beyond the 12 year limit in an SLSA. Your options would be to install a newer engine with the updated crankcase design, or convert to ELSA.

Whether you can run past TBO or not seems to be a debatable topic. There have been 2 conflicting legal rulings, and you can't even get a answer on the subject from the Light Sport Division. My guess is there will have to be an enforcement action and legal battle before this is all settled. Just like the early days of light sport when they said you needed to have factory training to work on Rotax engines I think this will be resolved favorably.

Personally unless they can justify an airworthiness reason for adhering to TBO I think they should be treated just like the rest of the GA world.

If I were not in commercial service, Tom, I would agree with you. But my potential legal exposure is just too great to risk running my engines on condition. I'll explore this question in depth in my March webinar.

As for the OP's implied question. If I were a noncommercial owner with an existing aircraft, I would probably operate a well-functioning engine beyond TBO. But I think it would be imprudent to purchase an aircraft with an engine already known to be beyond TBO, until the question is resolved favorably.

Interestingly, I trained on this remos https://www.facebook.com/iSimplyFLY/pho ... 33/?type=3 which they just upgraded with a new engine - the old one was just under 3000 h ....

It is a pretty well known school around Chicago area with multiple LS aircraft etc .... I guess there is no consensus on what is legal or even prudent in terms of running commercial ops with engines on condition ...

I agree about being a commercial operation. I would not want to be in the witness seat when the lawyer ask, "so is it fair to say that you don't follow the manufacturers recomendations".

The only safe answer is "Yes, it's true. I don't buy a new airplane every year just because the manufacturer recommends it."

drseti wrote:The only safe answer is "Yes, it's true. I don't buy a new airplane every year just because the manufacturer recommends it."

That was excellent.

I was thinking for a club or group ownership. If it were 2000 hours and no 12 year limit then another 500 hours would be a decent amount of time to get an engine fund going.

So are LSA rules not the same as in privately operated certificated aircraft in that you can go over TBO as long as everything else is in good working order? Or was the question only for commercial operations?

pjcampbell wrote: So are LSA rules not the same as in privately operated certificated aircraft in that you can go over TBO as long as everything else is in good working order?

As written, SLSA Maintenance rules are indeed very different from those for certified aircraft. They state that the manufacturer sets the maintenance requirements (in accordance to ASTM consensus standards) and they must be followed exactly. There have been two separate letters of interpretation issued by two different folks at FAA Legal, and they are mutually contradictory. So, our friend Mike Busch filed a petition for clarification with FAA about a year or so back. They've not yet responded.

drseti wrote: As written, SLSA Maintenance rules are indeed very different from those for certified aircraft. They state that the manufacturer sets the maintenance requirements (in accordance to ASTM consensus standards) and they must be followed exactly. There have been two separate letters of interpretation issued by two different folks at FAA Legal, and they are mutually contradictory. So, our friend Mike Busch filed a petition for clarification with FAA about a year or so back. They've not yet responded.

That is what you get when you have lawyers who have no common sense or understanding of the aviation industry making these decisions.

It is the aircraft manufacture that defines maintenance requirements not Rotax. The aircraft manufacturer has the ability to allow the engine to be inspected on condition. It is also my opinion for TBO to be mandatory would require a safety directive, or an airworthiness section in the maintenance manual. This subject has been talked about in great detail over on ctflier.com.

I think it could be an excellent purchase. The average use of a privately owned airplane seems to be around 100 hours. I have owned my P92 for just over a year and flew it about 100 hours. Given that, you would have 5 years left. The 5 year rubber replace costs around $3500 anyway, so you could plan on just replacing the engine then,$18,000-20,000. Beat them down on price, convert it to Elsa, take the 2 day class, do your own annuals, fly your own plane.