Question for you 912is owners

[Bill3558]

Did you guys need to have a BUDS engine data download at annual?  I can’t find a definitive answer in the Rotax or FD inspection documents. I find no specific log entries in my 2013 CTLSi log books about it.
Thanks for any info. 

[Roger Lee]

It says it is supposed to be done right on the checklist and it's supposed to be done every annual.

[Tom Baker]

I have done the downloads, and they are still sitting on my computer. Unless you have a problem, they are pretty much useless. IMO

 

[Bill3558]

1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

It says it is supposed to be done right on the checklist and it's supposed to be done every annual.

Where? 

9 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

I have done the downloads, and they are still sitting on my computer. Unless you have a problem, they are pretty much useless. IMO

 

 

[Roger Lee]

912iS maint. manual under the inspections checklist which everyone should use. Section 05-20-00 pg. 15 section 12

Most 912iS owners and mechanics don't even know there is an FD supplemental maint. checklist for the CTLSi. I never see anyone using it.

You always generate fault codes and logs even when you are doing a mag check. You can't just let these continue to build up. They need to be removed and you need a clean slate so to speak to find real faults if you have them. You don't want to look for codes through hundreds of faults. faults happen a lot, you just don't know it. 

[airhound]

Does the SV system show faults? 

[FlyingMonkey]

9 minutes ago, airhound said:

Does the SV system show faults? 

Not the ones that the BUDS dongle shows. 

[airhound]

Is there even a limited/useful correlation between the systems for the average bear?

[Bill3558]

Contacted FD about this. They said that since most mechanics don’t have the $1700 dongle it just doesn’t get done. They use theirs just for trouble shooting the EMS. Don’t use it at annual. 
So, I guess it’s acceptable practice to not comply with that part of the inspection. 

 

[Anticept]

It definitely isn't acceptable practice, and please don't read into Flight Design saying it is. They're just saying what they see in the field.

FD only writes the maintenance instructions and checklist and provides support. They're not the FAA, and they can't actually enforce compliance.

It is a checklist item, so it by all intents and purposes, it is supposed to be done. So if you choose not to have this part of the engine inspection done, that's between you and your mechanic signing it off.

But until an ASI comes knocking, it is basically unenforceable.

Though I doubt a single person on this forum agrees with the OUTRAGEOUS price of those dongles, and basically the John Deere level of attitude by Rotax regarding who may service and repair their eengines

Anyways, I just wanted to head off the idea that FD was somehow saying it was acceptable. I really don't want a misunderstanding blowing back on them. They're much more forthcoming than other manufacturers about ideas for getting you flying again. A lot of manufacturers won't even give you the time of day without a lawyer present.

[FlyingMonkey]

12 hours ago, Anticept said:

Though I doubt a single person on this forum agrees with the OUTRAGEOUS price of those dongles, and basically the John Deere level of attitude by Rotax regarding who may service and repair their engines.

That's a problem seen in a lot of industries, manufacturers are trying to adopt maintenance rules and practices similar to software licensing.  They are trying to move toward a model where "owners" don't own anything at all, they really just license the use of an engine.

I can't remember which manufacturer, but I saw an article about a major auto manufacturer involved in a suit where they argued that the contents of an engine's ECU was essentially proprietary company information, and looking at it or modifying it was a violation of the terms of sale and considered a data breach of the company.  This is why the whole "right to repair" movement is taking hold, people are getting really tired of spending huge amounts of money for equipment and then being told it's essentially not really theirs to do with as they see fit.