What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Legal, FAA meaning of "mandatory" in the carb float SB

E

Ex Bonanza Bucko

Well Known Member
I am not aware of the word "mandatory" being used in any SB in the USA for certified or experimental airplanes other than from Rotax. Have I missed something?

Also, what is the percentage of failed carb floats in Rotax 912 engines? I understand from someone that most the failures have been in the pressurized carbs in 914s and that 912 failures have been few and far between.

Also, are there better ways to measure the buoyancy of the carb floats than those in the "mandatory" SB? For instance, if you remove the carb bowl and observe the floats floating above a certain level is there a problem with them?

Also, if the SB will continue for a long time and if a better float is not produced to replace the defective ones should we not expect to have a supply of the old floats made available as replacements and to have that supply be plentiful and cheap?

Please do not post any rants or comparisons with Cessna, Piper or Beach about this. All I want is the facts with no BS added.

Thanks,
EBB :)
 
Ex Bonanza Bucko said:
I am not aware of the word "mandatory" being used in any SB in the USA for certified or experimental airplanes other than from Rotax. Have I missed something?

-- snip ---

Please do not post any rants or comparisons with Cessna, Piper or Beach about this. All I want is the facts with no BS added.

Thanks,
EBB :)
Click to expand...

Mandatory is a word added by most manufacturers when they issue a Service Bulletin. All of the Lycoming Service Bulletins have the word Mandatory on them yet most have NO AD associated with it.
 
Last edited:
Service Bulletins

Service Bulletins are not FAA mandatory, only AD's and they will specify what is affected. OEM's put mandatory to try to keep them from being sued. Insurance coverage if not doing the SB is a whole different matter!
 
True.

But with S-LSA it is different than what everyone is used to in the normal category certificated world.
With S-LSA, the certification requirements are based on a consensus standard, which in simple terms means the regs are not being written specifically by the FAA. Instead they are accepting them once they are written via an ASTM process.
One of the specifics of the ASTM written consensus standards is that the manufacturers are issued the responsibility to oversee continued airworthiness, and along with that, given the power to require a specifc process be followed on an aircraft to maintain its continued airworthiness.

In simple terms... if a manufacturer issues some type of notification (regardless of what they call it), and say it is mandatory, then it is (if you intend to keep your aircraft "officially" airworthy).

Because of all this, we are not likely to ever see the FAA issue an AD or any other type of notification on an S-LSA other than very unusual circumstances (such as a major safety issue that a manufacture is either ignoring or maybe gone out of business).
This applies only to certified S-LSA's. Rules are different for all other certification categories.
 
EBB,

To me it's not FAA mandatory but if I don't comply to Rotax's mandatory SB then my warranty may be void if there are further issues.

I have 78 hours on my 2014 SLSA. Several hours ago we found one float sunk to the bottom of the bowl on the left side carb. We replaced it.
I had experienced fuel smell but no other symptoms and the engine runs perfectly. Fuel was dripping in very small amounts from the overflow tube onto the splash guard resulting in odor and fuel stains underneath the plane.

A couple of weeks ago I bought 4 'new' floats (but not the redesigned ones) from Lockwood along with gaskets.

Today I caught a whiff of fuel from the right side carb. The overflow tube is fuel stained with a drip on the lower cowling.

Looks like the same issue and my mechanic and I will check it right away. Glad I bought the extra floats.

My biggest complaint is that this mandatory SB requires owners comply but they don't supply the equipment they suggest we use or the fix/replacement parts (which could be literally months away).

My mechanic had been looking for replacement floats and there were none in stock, and I'm talking about the 'faulty' kind. I was lucky that Lockwood apparently got a shipment in right before I called.
 
If you watch the video at Rotax Owner .com you will see that good floats floating in the tray in gas have little pins that should be at the surface of the gasoline.
 
Yep...that is true. Then why in heck didn't the "official" Rotax SB doc and video mention that useful little fact?

This is going to cause a **** storm but I am starting to think that Rotax is a bush league outfit or one that doesn't know or care much about customers.

EBB:-(
 
Ex Bonanza Bucko said:
Yep...that is true. Then why in heck didn't the "official" Rotax SB doc and video mention that useful little fact?
EBB:-(
Click to expand...

Rotax have apparently agreed that the simpler procedure proposed by Skydrive in the UK can be used for the 912 UL series engines, but not for the certified S engines. I'm not sure how this relates to the S-LSA rules. I assume the original Rotax SB will have to apply unless Rotax amends the SB or unless Vans formally agrees that the alternative procedure can be used.

http://www.bmaa.org/files/skydrive_cover_332___334.pdf
 
This AC may be of some help.
http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac 65-32a.pdf

Note:
z.
Safety Directive ASTM Designation F2483. A directive issued by a manufacturer of a special LSA intended to correct an existing unsafe condition. Compliance with safety directives is addressed in 14 CFR part 91, § 91.327 and the recording is required in § 91.417. Safety directives are addressed in applicable consensus standards which include provisions for maintaining the continued airworthiness of an aircraft and correcting safety-of-flight issues. Safety directives are considered mandatory on SLSA.
(1)
Safety Alert. For notifications that require immediate action, see ASTM F2295.
(2)
Service Bulletin (SB). For notifications that do not require immediate action but do recommend future action, see ASTM F2295.
(3)
Notification. For notifications that do not necessarily recommend future action but are primarily for promulgation of continued airworthiness information, see ASTM F2295.
 
Ex Bonanza Bucko said:
Also, are there better ways to measure the buoyancy of the carb floats than those in the "mandatory" SB? For instance, if you remove the carb bowl and observe the floats floating above a certain level is there a problem with them?
Click to expand...
i gotta tell ya, if you've gone through the effort of dropping the bowl, you're 99% done. The actual removing and weighing of the floats is trivial by comparison. It's the drip trays that are the problem. Personally, if there was a set of trays that didn't require removing the carb in order to remove the trays, I'd be first in line to buy them.
 
Drip tray mod

For E-LSA RV-12s I thought I saw another posting about trimming the lower outer sides of the drip trays enough that would allow the float bowls to be lowered without having to remove the whole carb from the engine. The note mentioned that the change would not affect the intended functionality of the drip tray but I'm not sure that was fully evaluated.

Given the likely need to continue monitoring and eventually replace the floats in many of our 912s, I'm thinking this change is worth investigating.
 
PilotBrent said:
For E-LSA RV-12s I thought I saw another posting about trimming the lower outer sides of the drip trays enough that would allow the float bowls to be lowered without having to remove the whole carb from the engine. The note mentioned that the change would not affect the intended functionality of the drip tray but I'm not sure that was fully evaluated.

Given the likely need to continue monitoring and eventually replace the floats in many of our 912s, I'm thinking this change is worth investigating.
Click to expand...

Not what I would recommend

The drip tray design was updated a couple years ago because of time in service experience.
If you start changing them, you could induce a new longevity problem.

I am not really understanding why everyone is thinking it is such a big deal to drop the float bowl for inspection.
It really isn't that hard and with the right tool takes no more time than it does to remove the top cowl.

Purchase a cheap screwdriver with a #3 tip that is at least 6" long (not including the handle). 8 - 10 inches preferred.
Loosen the carb. mounting screw and pop the carb out of the mount.
Pop the bowl retention bale loose and while making sure you are holding the carb level, remove the bowl.

A Rotax rep told me that he considered this the most accurate way of inspecting the floats. He said the syringe method was developed because some aircraft have installations where it would be much more work to drop the float bowls than it is on an RV-12 (they use the Rotax induction airbox that ties the two carbs together, etc.)
 
We carried out the float SB this week on a new (25 hour old) Tecnam P2008JC which uses the single Rotax airbox (edit to add, floats were fine).

Tecnam drip trays are held to the airbox by two screw and removed and refitted in a couple of minutes. :)

Annual time on our RV and although we don't have to (by engine serial number), we did as we normally do at Annual time and removed the float bowls to weigh the floats (one pair 5.80g the other 5.74g). Good chance to look for any crud in the float bowl and check the idle jet pick up tube is clear.

Hey, EBB - perhaps you'll get lucky at Christmas and get a Bonanza as a present and you'll be happy ever after. :rolleyes: Rotax do care about their customers, as I'm sure Bing do who make the carbs and whoever make the floats.....
 
Last edited:
I have a mechanic friend that has found 4 bad floats on RV12's and one set on a Flight Design. Popping the carb out backwards from the rubber flange and lifting it up high enough to remove the bowl is the easiest way. If the floats are bad 90% of the time you can see them starting to sink. If they are just starting to have an issue it may not be as noticeable. Weighing them is by far the easiest. Most of the bad float sets he found weighed between 8-11 grams. If they are at 11 grams both floats are under the fuel level from the pins sticking out the sides of the floats.

My friend said to make sure you fill out a Rotax CSIR and send that and the bad floats to your Rotax distributor. Rotax is working on a solution.
Don't panic with sinking floats as there are symptoms. Fuel in the drip try, fuel odor in the cockpit, rough running engine. It would fly this way not not cause an engine out issue. It will fly better at WOT because it would be flooding with fuel and WOT would use this where throttling back would cause more fuel venting.

p.s.
FAA legal says mandatory on an SB is not enforceable. Only on an AD. That said it would be wise to comply with all the Rotax SB's. FAA legal not some FSDO. This has been published on a couple other flying websites.
 
Loki said:
p.s.
FAA legal says mandatory on an SB is not enforceable. Only on an AD. That said it would be wise to comply with all the Rotax SB's. FAA legal not some FSDO. This has been published on a couple other flying websites.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. Would you please post the fAA document citation?
 
You must remember that on SLSA, your operating limitations state that you MUST comply with pretty much anything the manufacturer says.
 
Mel said:
You must remember that on SLSA, your operating limitations state that you MUST comply with pretty much anything the manufacturer says.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to finally say that. I believe somewhere, possibly in the ASTM standards, it states that you must comply with manufacturer recommendations, which means if Rotax recommends something, it technically just be complied with. They don't even have to call it mandatory.
 
Loki said:
p.s.
FAA legal says mandatory on an SB is not enforceable. Only on an AD. That said it would be wise to comply with all the Rotax SB's. FAA legal not some FSDO. This has been published on a couple other flying websites.
Click to expand...

Not correct.
Have a look at THIS domument I linked to in post #8 of this thread.
Page 3 and 4 are particularly relevant.

And as Mel already mentioned, one of the standard issue operating limitations says....

No person may operate this aircraft in the light-sport category unless it is
continuously maintained in compliance with 14 CFR § 91.327(b).

The pertinent part of 91.327 says.....

(b) No person may operate an aircraft
that has a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport category unless—

(3) The owner or operator complies
with all applicable airworthiness directives;

(4) The owner or operator complies
with each safety directive applicable to
the aircraft that corrects an existing
unsafe condition. In lieu of complying
with a safety directive an owner or operator
may—

The FAA issues AD
The manufacturers issue Safety Directives
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
Not correct.
Have a look at THIS domument I linked to in post #8 of this thread.
Page 3 and 4 are particularly relevant.

The FAA issues AD
The manufacturers issue Safety Directives
Click to expand...

Scott, is there somewhere on VANs web site a clear way to identify "Safety Directives" applying to the RV-12? What I see is "Safety Alerts" and "Safety Bulletins". May I suggest that VANs use the same terminology as FAA to avoid any confusion? While I am at it, listing the FAA's ADs applying to the RV-12 would not hurt either. :confused:
 
My Rotax mechanic checked my float bowls from my 912 ULS. There's a serial number check (believe it's actually the serial numbers on the carbs), and the visual inspection of the floats. Probably most helpful is weighing the floats on a very accurate small scale.
 
Last edited:
WingedFrog said:
Scott, is there somewhere on VANs web site a clear way to identify "Safety Directives" applying to the RV-12? What I see is "Safety Alerts" and "Safety Bulletins". May I suggest that VANs use the same terminology as FAA to avoid any confusion? While I am at it, listing the FAA's ADs applying to the RV-12 would not hurt either. :confused:
Click to expand...

This is where it gets a bit complicated...

As I mentioned previously, all of the primary requirements pertinent to S-LSA certification and continued airworthiness are ddeveloped under a consensus standard through an ASTM process.
The FAA writes rules in the FAR's requiring compliance with the consensus standard, but they don't actually write the standard (at least not exclusively... they do have input as members of the committee).

I am pretty sure (I will check to confirm) that the names used on the Van's web site are what the ASTM requires them to be called, and the FAA chooses to refer to them by another name (I think they are actually just using a generic term to cover all the different levels of notifications).

There is a requirement for a manufacturer to cross publish any notification for any product manufactured by someone else, but used on their aircraft.
That is why on the Van's web site you see SB 14-10-14, which is just a document that refers owners to the one issued by Rotax regarding the carb. floats.

The reason you don't see any FAA A.D.'s listed is because as far as I am aware, there has not been one issued by the FAA that would apply to the RV-12.
 
I stand to be corrected but FAA ADs are for certified aircraft and equipment only.

That equipment might be avionics, engine or propeller.

As an example, there are some 912 FAA ADs but not for the uncertified 'ULS' variant, only the 'S'. Listed under Bombardier-Rotax GmbH.
 
In all the comments and opinions about the carb floats I have not seen any data about what percentage of carb floats in 912 UL(S) engines have failed.....nor have I seen any numbers.

I would think that those data would be important to Rotax and to us.

EBB
 
Nope, you've got me again, EBB.

There's a problem and we know Rotax (Bing, etc) are well aware of it and working out a fix.

The actual numbers of failure are, quite honestly, immaterial. Given that Rotax have issued affected engine serial numbers (and they'll know of spares sold from that batch of floats), I would hazard a guess that they have a pretty good idea of the number of possibly duff floats.

Maybe that's not ideal for you or many others but life's like that sometime.

Could be worse, you could have a ruck of ECi cylinders attached to your TCM heritage engine.... ;)
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Not correct.
Have a look at THIS domument I linked to in post #8 of this thread.
Page 3 and 4 are particularly relevant.

And as Mel already mentioned, one of the standard issue operating limitations says....

No person may operate this aircraft in the light-sport category unless it is
continuously maintained in compliance with 14 CFR § 91.327(b).

The pertinent part of 91.327 says.....

(b) No person may operate an aircraft
that has a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport category unless—

(3) The owner or operator complies
with all applicable airworthiness directives;

(4) The owner or operator complies
with each safety directive applicable to
the aircraft that corrects an existing
unsafe condition. In lieu of complying
with a safety directive an owner or operator
may—

The FAA issues AD
The manufacturers issue Safety Directives
Click to expand...

This is true up to a point. Several SLSA MFG have tried to add more than the FAR regulates and have tried to give away some of the FAR regulations. The MFG must publish their requirements so they fit into and within the FAR limitations. If you as an MFG fall outside of this then it isn't enforcable. The owner is only required to follow the FAR regulations and not just whatever an MFG wants to write. Unfortunately too many rules published have and do fall outside of the FARs and that is why FAA legal has enterd the foray on several occasions. Then owners try to apply certified aircraft terminology and or certified regulations to LSA. This has what has made the last ten years hard for many.
If this wasn't true then it wouldn't be clear as mud and we wouldn't have had to get the FAA legal involved.
 
Loki said:
The MFG must publish their requirements so they fit into and within the FAR limitations. If you as an MFG fall outside of this then it isn't enforcable.
Click to expand...

I am not entirely clear on what you mean by this, when in 91.327 of the FAR's
it says

(b) No person may operate an aircraft
that has a special airworthiness certificate
in the light-sport category unless?

(3) The owner or operator complies
with all applicable airworthiness directives;

(4) The owner or operator complies
with each safety directive applicable to
the aircraft that corrects an existing
unsafe condition.

Seems to imply (to me anyway) that if a mfr issues a safety directive indicating that it was done for a safety of flight issue, it has to be complied with.

Can you cite any examples where the FAA ruled against a manufacturer issued notification?
 
Safety Directives and or and AD (certified aircraft) if one ever got published is mandatory, but Service Bulletins according to FAA legal department are not. Even if an MFG says mandatory and publishes it as only a SB then it isn't mandatory in the FAA's eyes. Only Service Directives are because they are supposed to be a flight Safety issue. If an SLSA MFG believes they have a flight safety issue then it should be published under an SD.
When the US supplier for Rotax found out about this legal ruling from the FAA they went straight to Rotax in Austria to try and get SD's, but Rotax believes their languge is strong enough and didn't want to comply with publishing SD's.
FAA believes that all should comply with a Rotax SB that says mandatory, but can't enforce it. This was an issue years back and I talked to the top people in the FAA for LSA and Rainbow Aviation also got the same ruling.
This has all been hashed out on several forums and many calls to the FAA have resulted all with the same outcome.
All that said I believe anyone who doesn't comply with an SB that says mandatory may be in the foolish camp one day.
Mandatory stated SB's are published for a good reason.
 
Closing the loop.....

I provide the following info in an attempt to answer some of the questions regarding seeming contradictions within the FAA regs, advisory circulars, manufacturers documentation, etc.

There is currently a disconnect between the requirements within the ASTM's and all of the FAA's documents.
Particularly in the case of Safety Directives / Alerts.
As it stands at the moment, there is no regulatory basis to require an S-LSA owner to comply with a safety alert (which is what the ASTM's currently require them to be called) as discussed previously in this thread. It technically is not legal for a manufacturer to call something a Safety Directive. The ASTM's require them to be call Safety Notifications.
The reason for that is an error in the ASTM's
The ASTM advisory committee has been working on this since OSH 2014 and will likely vote on a final version early in 2015. It will become active about 6 months later (so late summer 2015)
A major change will be renaming what is currently called a Safety Alert, to Safety Directive (what the FAA originally wanted it to be, and what all of their regulatory documents refer to them as).
Once this takes place, anything labeled as a Safety Directive will be binding and regulatory controlled (about the same as an A.D.).
Until that time, I suppose you are technically legal to ignore them (though you may find your self in a difficult situation of an incident or accident happened that could be linked to the issue in question). Even if you ignore it, once the new ASTM becomes active, you would have to go back and comply with any you hadn't.

So, the Van's Aircraft web site current posting of Safety Alerts, Service Bulletins, and Notifications, is in compliance with the currently active ASTM requirements.
After the release of the updated ASTM document, Service Alerts will be referred to as Service Directives, and will be mandatory (in the FAA's eyes) for an S-LSA RV-12

Hope this clears up some of the questions.
 
Last edited:
Scott, thanks for posting here. I know you don't really have to do it and you sometimes get "heck" for posting unpopular information, but I find your participation invaluable. I just wanted to say thank you.

There are still quite a few of us who started building kits before forums like this were up and running. It was truly the "Wild West" on the Internet and getting good information quickly was very hard to come by. Typically, it meant staying on hold waiting for someone to get to you. I thought it worth mentioning that it is easy to take for granted the wealth of info at our fingertips today, and not just by Scott, but Dynon, Garmin, and all the other vendors who support Doug.
 
Last edited:
Yes

Yes, I agree entirely, I have learned an amazing amount & avoided many mistakes & problems from the info & help on this site.. Thanks very much to all, - have a great Holiday Break, Cheers, DEAN
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
After the release of the updated ASTM document, Service Alerts will be referred to as Service Directives, and will be mandatory (in the FAA's eyes) for an S-LSA RV-12
Click to expand...

Scott, I assume you meant "Safety Alerts will be referred to as Safety Directives".
I'd also like to say thanks for your dogged persistence in trying to keep everybody here on the right track. It must feel like herding cats at times. Merry Christmas.
 
rgmwa said:
Scott, I assume you meant "Safety Alerts will be referred to as Safety Directives".
I'd also like to say thanks for your dogged persistence in trying to keep everybody here on the right track. It must feel like herding cats at times. Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

Sigh....
Yes, after all that, I still couldn't type it correctly....????
 
f1rocket said:
Scott, thanks for posting here. I know you don't really have to do it and you sometimes get "heck" for posting unpopular information, but I find your participation invaluable. I just wanted to say thank you.
Click to expand...
I second that.
Thanks Scott. . . . :)
 
I completed the Service Bulletin for the carb floats (along with the SB for temp probe and the Dynon fuel pressure sender) and it was pretty easy. Left side was like, 5 minutes. Right side was a little tougher and required the removal of the oil tank. One float flunked, which I suspected, since I could smell fuel on takeoff. Replaced the gaskets and updated the logs.

I also got hit on the Dynon sender so I am awaiting a RMA to get that sent in and replaced. I also downloaded and installed the updated sender parameters from the Dynon site.

The paperwork is worse than the actual fixes.
 
I did not find it necessary to remove the oil tank when I did my carb float SB. I did find it easier to remove the right-side air filter to make the right-side carb bowl more easily accessible. Overall, this SB is not all that difficult or time-intensive to comply with. Be careful that you properly refasten/reseat the carb bowl bale wire -- the replacement bowl gasket appears to be a bit thicker than the wimpy factory cork gasket making the proper reseating of the bale wire a bit of a challenge. One wouldn't want the bale wire to vibrate out of position!

ps -- My floats passed at: L = 3.1/3.1 and R = 3.3/3.3
 
Is there a reason why you guys are not using the Syringe method by measuring volume? It was quick and easy to do the test compared to taking the floats out and weighing them. Weighing them was just required if the volume method failed for a confirmation of the bad float.
 
The factory-supplied syringe kit is apparently not yet available in the USA. Rather than cobble-up a medical syringe and "adapter tip", it seems easier to just weigh the floats -- plus it gives one the opportunity to inspect the carb bowls for debris, rubbing, etc. I'll admit that if the factory syringe kit was readily availble, the syringe method would likely be my prefered choice.
 
Another factor is that the weighing method is much more accurate. When I opened the float bowl on the right side, I could immediately see one float just slightly lower in the fuel than the other. I suspect the amount of fuel displaced would have been very small to detect. I probably would have not caught it. The bad float weighed in just a tad over 4 grams.

With just one screw and a flip of the bale wire, the carb bowl is off. Pretty easy. I took the oil tank off just because I dislike working around a bunch of stuff in my way. I probably could have done it by leaving it on, but it was quick to remove as well. Just my preference.
 
f1rocket said:
. . . " I took the oil tank off just because I dislike working around a bunch of stuff in my way." . . .
Click to expand...
Randy,

When you removed the oil tank, did you make sure the oil line from the crankcase was elevated, so as NOT to lose any oil from the engine?

I mean no offense at all . . . just checking. . . . :)
 
No offense taken. There's no oil in these lines, just a little residual oil left over from the flow. I also burped the engine to ensure all the oil was back in the canister.
 
All we do is remove the two oil hoses on the oil tank and stand them up in the air. No oil loss and no oil purge necessary. We just push the carb back out of the socket and we don't remove the air filter. Weighing the floats is a much faster and less combersomer way to check the floats verses the syringe method. Using the weighing method you can do both carbs in about 25 min. After the top cowl is out of the way.
My mechanic friend has now found 6 bad sets and 4 were RV's. He says to make sure you fill out the CSIR from Rotax and log it in the logbook because many times they will want a logbook copy of the entry and they will pay 3/4 hr. For each 25 hr. Check, but you must keep good records and send the report in for documentation and or any bad floats.
 
This may sound like (another) dumb question but what happens when you find a bad float? It doesn't sound like there is a replacement yet. Are you just grounded?

I ask because I'm getting ready to order my engine (and panel) and would sure hate to end having a bad float and not getting to fly very long.

Thanks,

Bob
 
Bob - order your engine, take out the floats, weigh them, put them in a mason jar half full of gasoline and seal it up while you build on. You can see if they are good before your first start.
 
bhassel said:
This may sound like (another) dumb question but what happens when you find a bad float? It doesn't sound like there is a replacement yet. Are you just grounded?
Click to expand...

You replace the float with another similar one (which may go bad later). That is why the check is repetitive every 25 hours until new floats are manufactured. Then there hopefully will be a one-time replacement for the new ones when issued.
 
Lockwood had the old, bad, floats available last week for $50 each. We have not gotten any info from Rotax about when new good ones will be available.

Van's says that Rotax is being cautious, and understandably so, given the litigious nature of the U.S. aviation world and that that may be a problem in
Europe too.....probably is.

IMHO the Rotax is a wonderful engine. But there certainly have been a lot of SBs lately. The most notable have been the carb float SB and the latest one for the throttle return springs which we got last Friday.

There has also been a need to move the voltage regulator in RV12 S-LSAs.
But it appears there is not much sympathy for us no E-LSA guys on this web page.

EBB
 
Ex Bonanza Bucko said:
Lockwood had the old, bad, floats available last week for $50 each. We have not gotten any info from Rotax about when new good ones will be available.

Van's says that Rotax is being cautious, and understandably so, given the litigious nature of the U.S. aviation world and that that may be a problem in
Europe too.....probably is.

IMHO the Rotax is a wonderful engine. But there certainly have been a lot of SBs lately. The most notable have been the carb float SB and the latest one for the throttle return springs which we got last Friday.

There has also been a need to move the voltage regulator in RV12 S-LSAs.
But it appears there is not much sympathy for us no E-LSA guys on this web page.

EBB
Click to expand...

I wonder, is Lockwood charging SLSA more for these than they would charge ELSA?

I think the problem here is that most of us, myself included, build ELSA or EAB because we don't like the overhead and slowness and what some consider overly expensive nature of the certified world, and this is why, despite having been in aviation for my living for over 25 years, I have never owned a certified airplane.

Now, an airplane that I can build, with modern avionics, that burns 5 gph @ 2.29/gal?! And modify as necessary in accordance with my limitations? What a deal! Frankly I love my RV-12 - I think it is a great idea, great execution, great value all wrapped up with a 2-year bow that even a dumb non-engineer/non-AP pilot like me can build and fly!

But as an SLSA owner, you are in a more difficult place. A lot of the advice on here you cannot follow, you have to have certified changes from Van's and a certified Rotax mechanic. That said, I think if you were like a buddy of mine who just got a $5000 bill for his latest Mooney annual, or another buddy of mine who got a bill for $7000 from his mercedes dealer, life could be a lot worse depending on the toys you choose to play with!

Of course the advantage to SLSA is that I assume you have more warranty coverage that E-LSA builders do - I think that my bad floats cost me $173 for 4 floats, 2 newer style gaskets and shipping - and I assume Rotax will reimburse me eventually for that, as I assume they will reimburse you for your material and labor costs.
 
Last edited:
The reasons I bought my S-LSA from Van's were:
1.)I'm old and was losing my medical; needed an LSA to keep flying after 45 years and 5000 hours in small planes.
2.)I don't have time to build an Experimental bird...too old.
3.)The RV12 S-LSA has a form of certification and can be used in training so it has a resale value that is higher than and experimental bird.
4.)Van's price for the RV12 S-LSA is very, very reasonable IMHO -- a lot less than any other or similar LSA that I could find. Besides I have confidence in Vans as a company and I was impressed with Van himself when we talked.

I am very happy I bought my RV12.

I have learned a lot recently about navigating through the posts on these pages; some are pure and complete BS and others are kinda the truth but stated by people with too much testosterone and/or self esteem:)

EBB:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top