Pilot told his aircraft was not airworthy and then....

What caused what? That article lacks so much information I have no idea what happened.
 
Seemed oddly worded.

After all ROTAX makes more aircraft engines than anyone, and the 912 Owner's Manual also contains the caveat:

"You should be aware that any engine may seize or stall at any time. This could lead to a crash landing and possible severe injury or death. For this reason, we recommend strict compliance with the maintenance and operation and any additional information which may be given to you by your dealer."
 
Last edited:
Can't vouch for Canada, but in the US, ultralights are NEVER airworthy.
 
The 912 ROTAX is very reliable provided one follows prescribed maintenance, ie: balance the carbs, use av gas only as directed, etc. However it does not specify the engine in the article.
 
Just testing out his nine lives ,he's two for two so far.
 
The "sudden stoppage" verbage sounds like what's in the Rotax two-stroke manuals. They basically warn you not to fly over anything you can't land on, day/VFR only.
 
And like I mentioned above, the 912 ROTAX is every bit as reliable as any cont. Or Lycoming engine provided one follows the factory protocol regarding maintenance which is not difficult, mostly common sense.
 
flyingron said:
Can't vouch for Canada, but in the US, ultralights are NEVER airworthy.
Click to expand...

Don't understand "but in the US, ultralights are NEVER airworthy". Are there restrictions on when and were you can fly ultralights?
 
Last edited:
AKBill said:
Don't understand "but in the US, ultralights are NEVER airworthy".
Click to expand...

It's in the language of Experimentals and Light Sports and, I suppose, ultralights.

Since they are not conventionally certified, when they are annualed or returned to service, the language is simply "in condition for safe flight". In fact, they are called "Annual Condition Inspections".

Seem like silly technicalities, but there you have it.

And no practical restrictions as to where they can be flown.

And Jimmy, I meant in no way to imply ROTAX engines are unreliable. Just quoting the Owner's Handbook. In my experience they are at least as reliable as Continentals and Lycomings.
 
AKBill said:
Don't understand "but in the US, ultralights are NEVER airworthy". Are there restrictions on when and were you can fly ultralights?
Click to expand...

Well, yes there are. However, I was pointing out that the FAA doesn't view any ultralight as airworthy as there's no compliance with type design established.

To answer your question: Part 103 precludes flying ultralights over congested areas or open air assemblies of people, or within class A (ha!), B, C, D, or surface areas of class E airspace designated for an airport without ATC authorization. You also can't fly an ultralight at night. Plus obviously the same rules apply to restricted, prohibited, and areas affected by TFR as regular aircraft.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
And like I mentioned above, the 912 ROTAX is every bit as reliable as any cont. Or Lycoming engine provided one follows the factory protocol regarding maintenance which is not difficult, mostly common sense.
Click to expand...
In my 15-year homebuilt accident database, I track the number of accidents each engine type has, as well as the percentage of those accidents that were due to engine issues.

The Rotax 912, Lycoming, and Continental have roughly the same results, about 12%. In fact, the 912 is the lowest of the three, but only by about half a percentage point.

In contrast, about a third of accidents involving aircraft mounting Rotax 582s were due to engine issues. Auto engine conversions were about 30%.

(Remember, this is NOT saying that 30% of the homebuilts with auto engines had an accident. *If* a homebuilt had an accident, and *if* it had an auto engine, the engine was at fault 30% of the time.)

Ron Wanttaja
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top