Uniform standards

ken watson · 13-02-2007, 06:34 PM

Have looked at a couple (3) imported gyros lately and have noticed that if they had to comply with the standards of our home grown products, they would fail. Should we have overseas acceptance as meeting our standards? Might we finish up with two distinct calibres of aircraft but both being legal?
I am not judging the airworthiness of these craft, they may perform fantastically.We have a specific demand for AN bolts in our homegrown, but some imports are not so equipped. Maybe ours need relaxing a little?Interested to hear a variety of comments. Ken

bones · 13-02-2007, 07:16 PM

Ken,
I for one would be very sad if we allowed our standards to lower to the over seas maker level, even the apperently very expersive Magni, needs some changes to comply to OUR standards, this is why i stated in the little bit that i got attacked for, that the heads of this such machine just dont LOOK strong, i would love to be able to say that our OZ makers set the standards......

Whats your ideas on this PB ??

Aussie_Paul · 13-02-2007, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bones

Ken,
I for one would be very sad if we allowed our standards to lower to the over seas maker level, even the apperently very expersive Magni, needs some changes to comply to OUR standards, this is why i stated in the little bit that i got attacked for, that the heads of this such machine just dont LOOK strong, i would love to be able to say that our OZ makers set the standards......

Whats your ideas on this PB ??

What changes are required Bones

Aussie Paul.

Adrian S · 14-02-2007, 09:49 AM

Guys,

The requirement is for AN hardware or the equivalent. On the MT03 and the Magni they use the Metric equiv of AN. The standard is the standard and all must comply.
Recently we have identified some noncompliance issues with new models of imported gyro's and have advised the factorys that if they dont comply then we will remove the type cert.

Adrian

Adrian Stoffels

russ · 14-02-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian S

Guys,

Recently we have identified some noncompliance issues with new models of imported gyro's and have advised the factorys that if they dont comply then we will remove the type cert.

Adrian

Adrian Stoffels

Adrian.............seeing they are yet to "comply" how is it they are legally flying here.......and with passengers.

Side note..........Sparrow hawks are in use as trainers here................do they right now "comply"

ken watson · 14-02-2007, 06:34 PM

G'day Adrian, Whats or equivalent? I've never heard a tech adviser describe this. Are grade 5 equivalent? Stainless? Ken

bones · 14-02-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian S

Guys,

The requirement is for AN hardware or the equivalent. On the MT03 and the Magni they use the Metric equiv of AN. The standard is the standard and all must comply.
Adrian Stoffels

Possibly a couple of other things also, still finding out about it PB

Aussie_Paul · 14-02-2007, 10:53 PM

IMHO if an aircraft meets the history of safe operation around the world then it should be acceptable.

In Australia, and possibly the rest of the world, the definition of a "history of safe operation" is one aircraft having completed 600 hours without major problems, and another 5 aircraft that have completed 100 hours each also without major problems.

Aussie Paul.

bones · 15-02-2007, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussie_Paul

IMHO if an aircraft meets the history of safe operation around the world then it should be acceptable.

In Australia, and possibly the rest of the world, the definition of a "history of safe operation" is one aircraft having completed 600 hours without major problems, and another 5 aircraft that have completed 100 hours each also without major problems.

Aussie Paul.

OOOOOO and i wonder what machine you got in mind

that is the biggest piece of crap i have read in a long time, so your saying if i build 6 machine and get 1000 hrs out of them combined they should be deemed safe

you are not making yourself look good here PB, so are you saying that the flame chook is only good for 500 hrs and after that it not going to be considered one of your machines as far as safety goes..
Dont bother replying im not interested, i just thought i would ask you your ideas but not i feel i should have just shut me mouth

Mitch · 15-02-2007, 06:45 PM

Paul,

Where did you get you definition from?

600 hrs on the first???

Also, whilst we are talking Standards....lets broaden the 'beast' and look at design configurations not just parts or hardware.

Butterfly took a hammering when I bought it in to this country....Magni, MT3 and even local product with hardware and possible dangerous design configurations.............

Takes all the fun out of EXPERIMENTAL.........do my T and Tall tails get deemed safe but only after 600 hrs are flown off the first and 100 hrs on 4 other gyros..........you can stick that up your nose with a rubber hose. If my tail is solid after 25-40 hrs there good to go. The tall tail is solid as a rock and stiff. How should the entry into the market take place....ask someone to fly 600 hrs off on it for me.......

What about my new cables I swagged up, the new front strut, the holes in the mast, the instrument pod and faceplates?

So Paul, you have to get one FlameChook with 600 hrs on it and another four out there with 100 hrs on them for your aircraft to carry the Tag of having a History of Safe Operations. And each one needs to be identical kit craft, not customised turn key craft, that are all different.??????

Please enlighten me.

Just my two bob!

Mitch