CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations

[blackhand]

Here is a defect to fight over, was written up in part two and left open.

"Park Brake Innop"
Not considered an airworthiness item.

[Fission]

Creampuff. How about the example of a Nav light failing on a day VFR helicopter operated under a class B schedule. Should that ground the helicopter ?

Is a marine radio a 'Passenger Convenience Item'?

If either fail, they have to be written up in part 2 and then transferred to part 1...

Nav lights "Not needed for Day VFR operations"
Marine radio "Not required for flight"

I'm loving this discussion - I hope CASA are reading it too.......

[Trent 972]

blackhand,
"Park Brake Innop"
Should have been grounded on the basis of - there is only 1 n, in 'Inop'. :E

[blackhand]

Should have been grounded on the basis of - there is only 1 n, in 'Inop' Yes indeed:ok:

[Defenestrator]

Re the park brake. Three questions:

1. Was the aircraft operating RPT flights?
2. Does the checklist call for use of the park brake in any part?
3. What does the MEL say about an INOP park brake?

D

[Obidiah]

Park Brake Inop.

Not an airworthiness issue??

Perhaps, but if the failure has secondary issues that could cause the broken part to interfere with the brakes or other systems and compromise them, then it is an airworthiness issue.

You would need to understand how it has failed, if you can't source an engineer for advice then perhaps it is best to ground it.

[engmech22]

A defect is a condition that deviates from the the first of type airworthiness certificate, in other words any alteration from when the aircraft left the manufacturers and was granted a C of A, UNLESS it is a concession, (MEL, one of concession, modification etc)

[engmech22]

The "dust cap" is in fact a pressure seal and on most aircraft is a "no go" item

[Clare Prop]

I (company HAAMC) had lots of fun last year with CASA in this scenario...tail strobe u/s on a Day VFR aircraft in Aerial Work catagory.

The hangar weren't able to issue a new maintenance release after the periodic until it was fixed, according to their CASA audit. MY CASA guy went on and on to myself about MELs, PUS etc etc seemingly unable to comprehend that this aircraft was NOT in charter catagory and this item is NOT required for Day VFR aerial work operations. I won in the end :ugh: when they eventually conceded that all I need is an "inop" sticker next to the switch but it would help and save a huge amount of time if CASA knew their own rules. :ugh::ugh:

[blackhand]

Clare,
that is a tricky issue, on one hand an aircraft cannot be release to service after a Maintenance Release Inspection ( or equivelant) unless it complies with it's type data sheet, but then you were allowed to release to service in a category that allows a specific item to be US.
You may wish to check with your insurance agent( Hangar Liability) for their thoughts

[Creampuff]

Sorry Fission, I may not have made my point clear.

I will try to make it clearer.

You left out details of some of the 9 variables. For example, in what classification of operation is the helicopter proposed to be engaged?

If, for example, the answer is charter and one of the exceptions does not apply, a blown nav light will 'ground' the helicopter.

If the answer is charter, and one the exceptions does not apply, a U/S marine radio fitted to the helicopter will 'ground' the helicopter.

The answer? Change the bulb and repair the marine radio.

Or....

If your point is that a U/S nav light or marine radio "should not" 'ground' a helicopter for day VFR charter, my point is that it does not "have to" to ground the helicopter. However, the operator first has to have the smarts of people like 404 Titan and Defenestrator. Unfortunately, many operators obviously don't have that benefit. Indeed, there are people who will obstinately refuse to heed the suggestions of people who have first-hand experience on the financial and regulatory benefits of using the available rules to advantage. Go figure ....

[Creampuff]

[A]n aircraft cannot be release to service after a Maintenance Release Inspection ( or equivelant) unless it complies with it's type data sheet ...What rule says that, BH?

PS: Clare:

You were correct. The CASA person with whom you were arguing was incorrect.

[blackhand]

Creampuff,
For light aircraft, would seem to be ipso facto, or else what are you using to state that the aircraft is serviceable??

[Creampuff]

Are you saying the rules prevent you from issuing an M/R with this endorsement: "Right hand nav light bulb blown"? I'm interested in knowing what rule.

CAR 43(7) seems closest, but even it has exceptions.

[tail wheel]

This thread topic is:

CASA Suspends Barrier Aviation Operations

I'm happy for you to continue the existing debate on defects and Maintenance Releases, but in a separate, new thread.

[Frank Arouet]

The "dust cap" is in fact a pressure seal and on most aircraft is a "no go" item

The dust cap is a device that helps prevent dust from accumulating near the pressure seal. If it is missing the pressure seal is still operative. Therefor depending on who's bible you read, it is "not" a "no go item". A bit like a worn rubber luggage compartment door seal. Exactly who's opinion makes the "wearometer" have a red line written after the inspection of said seal.

Do you know anything about gas BBQ's?

I do, I've no eyebrows to prove it.

EDIT: Can we get back to the thread topic before I get canned for thread drift.

[Creampuff]

Errrrmmmm, so remind me of what allegation has been made, by CASA, against Barrier. Isn't it that Barrier was not recording defects in the MR as well as flying aircraft with defects with which they should not have been flying? That seems to be the effect of the quote at post #3 in this thread.

I would have thought that a discussion about what constitutes a 'defect', when 'defects' must be recorded, and where, the circumstances in which an aircraft may be flown with 'open' defects, and the circumstances in which an MR ceases to be in force, recommences in force, and may be issued, are directly relevant to the Barrier suspension.

But it's your sandpit, mods ....

[Mach E Avelli]

Many people in aviation, including CASA FOIs, are prone to pet hates. If the FOI assigned to Barrier had a 'thing' about missing dustcaps to the extent that he had earned the nickname Captain Dustcap, surely it would have paid to humour him by seeing that all aircraft had these 50 cent items fitted at all times. If the locals had a habit of souveniring them for their pushbikes, why not carry a few spares?
My 'thing' has always been fuel drains and yes, pilots have failed checkrides before we even got airborne for neglecting these. I have come across pilots who did not even know where the fuel drains were! That would then lead me to go after whoever signed off their endorsement. That sometimes led to uncovering falsified or non-existent training records. So from such a seemingly minor issue a lot of dirt was uncovered. And hey, it is not as if any pilot above basic PPL does not know about why we do fuel drains, so neither the hapless checkee nor trainer had an excuse. By making an example of them they were in part being punished for a lack of adherance to requirements and in part for their laziness.
Not saying for one minute that Barrier was grounded for missing dust caps. It would be a brave CASA Team Leader to authorise such drastic action for something seemingly as trivial - knowing that any lawyer would howl 'harassment' if CASA did pull such a stunt. But easily-visible minor issues and indicators of sloppy practices would have to lead inspectors to sniff out more major ones.
Hopefully soon we will know what the issues were.

[Frank Arouet]

Errrrmmmm, so remind me of what allegation has been made, by CASA, against Barrier. Isn't it that Barrier was not recording defects in the MR as well as flying aircraft with defects with which they should not have been flying?

That appears to be the bone of contention.

That, plus something about "snag sheets" which featured in the Gregadoo crash, but we are still to determine whether a flight log/minor incident report/ engineering request en route is a simple and effective way of determining the future airworthiness of an aircraft after it's landed.

Oh, and whatever those "defects" were whether or not they were a threat to the safe operation of that particular aerial vehicle.

My bet is still on the conspiracy theory.:)

[Oracle1]

In higher pressure tyres the metal dustcaps act as a defence against valve failure in a hard landing preventing sudden deflation.

[404 Titan]

tail wheel

I and many others have deliberately stayed away from directly talking about Barrier Aviation as it is still an ongoing process before the courts. As has been made perfectly clear to everyone on Prune, our anonymity isn’t guaranteed here and any direct reference to Barrier Aviation could expose not only us but the owners of Prune to defamation. This is clearly a situation which isn’t acceptable to anyone including Barrier Aviation which is entitled to a fair hearing before the Federal Court.

A general discussion about MR’s, Snag Logs etc is, in my opinion, the most appropriate way of talking about this subject without exposing any of us to any liability. If you disagree with my opinion I guess you have the final call as it is your train set. Maybe you could help us be separating the relevant posts into a new thread??:ok:

[Sunfish]

404 Titan please, clarification required.

If my day VFR aircraft which is fitted witth an autopilot and the autopilot goes tits up:

The Pilot must write it up in the MR agreed.

Can the pilot then placard the autopilot as inop and proceed on his travels?


Coming back to the autopilot, Say I'm going away for a weekend, total flying time maybe Four Hours. No need for an autopilot at all, and in fact its the luck of the draw that I get an aircraft with one fitted. To make the situation more realistic, we know how to use it and the autopilot tests fine on the ground. In the air half an hour outbound, you engage it and discover it to be difficult or impossible to get it to even hold wings level - in fact so unreliable that you conclude its dangerous to try and use it at all.

Do you immediately return to base, park it and cancel your weekend, or do you mentally flag the autopilot as inoperable proceed on your weekend and write it up at your destination or before returning the aircraft?

.I ask this because on most hired aircraft there is almost always something that doesn't work, but that is not a primary flight instrument or control which would neither be relied on nor employed in day VFR flight - the classic example is Piper electric trim

Then there are aftermarket gadgets and junk of all sorts eg: stormscopes, EGT's, fancy fuel flow clock totalisators, etc. etc please don't tell me they have to be serviceable, if that is the case, then no hired aircraft can ever leave the ground.

[Creampuff]

Can the pilot then placard the autopilot as inop and proceed on his travels?Of course s/he can, at least if it's a private, day VFR flight. (I'm not aware of any 'light' aircraft in which the A/P is required equipment for private, day VFR. There may be very rare exceptions. The POH will say.)

If you are a PPL, not knowing the answer to this fundamental question is a sad indictment on your training.[On most hired aircraft there is almost always something that doesn't work.That's why I'm very suspicious of any aircraft that has a perfectly clean MR.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Sunfish,

Don't waste your bandwidth, what in abundantly is they either don't get it or their egos won't allow it. In the case of Creampuff, I'm not surprised.

Tail wagging the dog, sure that is consistent with my interpretation of the legislation and all the other administrative diarrhea that some numpty has proclaimed to be "policy" or taken the time to put on paper.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

Of course sh/e can, at least if it's a private, day VFR flight. (I'm not aware of any 'light' aircraft in which the A/P is required equipment for private, day VFR. There may be very rare exceptions. The POH will say.)

If you are a PPL, not knowing the answer to this fundamental question is a sad indictment on your training.

Creamy, what I proposed is common sense. However the reason I asked the question is that common sense and aviation don't seem to go hand in hand these days, as this thread sometimes seems to demonstrate, hence my genuine question..

And no, it isn't covered in training. The syllabus is all "competency based" these days and placarding inoperable systems is not a competency included.

[Creampuff]

As I say, Sunfish, a sad indictment on your training, but it's probably typical of the general degradation in standards.

Hopefully the content of this thread will help others do what Clare did. SDT is obviously a lost cause.

[Defenestrator]

Sunfish,

Auto-pilot not required for private IFR unless the AFM/POH states differently. If it fails in flight either proceed VFR or assess your own ability to manage the flight without it. Write it up. An unserviceable auto-pilot will not ground the aircraft. Ref CAO 20.18. Common sense not required on this one. EDIT: Also ref CAAP 43-1(1) para 'Endorsements'.
As I've not operated an aircraft without an approved MEL for 15 years my knowledge on when the defect has to be repaired is sketchy. I'd suggest, if the aircraft is on a generic class B system of maintenance with a MR that's valid for 100 hours (schedule 5?) then the defect would be 'required' to be repaired at the expiration of the maintenance release (unless CAO 20.18 states differently....also reference 20.18 para 10.1). But as I said my knowledge on non MEL approved systems of maintenance isn't flash.

D

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

As I say, Sunfish, a sad indictment on your training, but it's probably typical of the general degradation in standards.

Yes I know, that is why I asked the question. My entire aviation existence revolves around the question "what don't I know?"

[Defenestrator]

Sunfish,

If the aircraft had a system of maintenance with an approved MEL you wouldn't have to 'know' it. The MEL, if written well, will provide all the guidance required. If written poorly it'll reference the CAR, CAO, CASR or AIP. Whilst most pilots carry the AIP with them I don't know any that have the rest of the documents 'handy' in the cockpit. Pointless having a MEL that provides operational considerations with reference to the Regs, ie. "proceed in accordance with CAO 20.18 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c", in the example you gave with the auto-pilot. A well written MEL will provide all guidance necessary in detail without the need to consult any of the aforementioned documents.

D

[edsbar]

A very interesting thread, a few comments

1. We are talking about commercial operations here in relation to Barrier, the rules for defects differ from Private Category Operations.

2. Common sense does not prevail with CASA and yes if your in charter category and have something fitted it must work (20.18). eg; nav light for day operation, something broken that was optional anyway (marine radio).
The new generation of CASA AWI's have a Police mentality that is screwing GA.

3. As weighman pointed out Arcas Airways (Air Facilities) was hung over illegal defect logs, worth a read https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees%3Furl%3Drrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/arcas/report/report.pdf&sa=U&ei=qVfrUMzYNMH9lAXm9YHYDA&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE82DcheMvViVUMyxpH-MItRoBovw
This was the result of a disgruntled ex pilot dobbing them into CASA, sounds very familiar to Barriers alleged wrong doings.
Shed Dog Tosser I question your wisdom of Option 3 in post 168.

4. MEL approvals in this country are extremely difficult, time consuming and expensive. Simplified approval process based on the FAA master (MMEL) would be a good start.

5. Most HAAMC's are also line pilots, usually Junior ones with limited knowledge in relation to aircraft maintenance. Like SMS in GA lip service is ops normal.

6. Max oil consumption for a Lycoming is .006 x BHP x 4/7.4 = Qt./Hr. however if you went suddenly from say 250 ml an hour to 1 litre and hour obviously this would warrant further investigation.
For a 300 hp Lycoming the max would be .972 US Qts/ Hr.

CASA is no longer a regulator but a dictator! GA is screwed... :ugh:

[Creampuff]

For those of you that keep using the U/S Nav light bulb as an example, have you tested your assumption that nav lights have absolutely no potential safety function or benefit during day VFR ops? There is a thread on the issue...

[edsbar]

Cream puff, I do not debate the potential safety function or benefit. Why however if you had 3 point strobes and dual landing lights should common sense not prevail?
Nav lights could be an option or removed by EO.

[Creampuff]

Not all aircraft have 3 point strobes and dual landing lights. If we build an exception in 20.18 for nav lights on aircraft with 3 point strobes and dual landing lights, someone will put up their hand and say: "But our aircraft has 2 point strobes, 2 rotating beacons and a pulsing landing light."

For operators of aircraft with 3 point strobes and dual landing lights, the common sense approach (from my perspective) is to get a MEL/PUS approved.

My observation is that operators who understand the continuing airworthiness and maintenance rules generally understand the cost/benefit of getting a MEL/PUS approved, and have little difficulty in gaining approval.

[Creampuff]

Sunfish's question was about a private operation.

The same principles apply to aerial work (a commercial operation) - see Clare's post.

The same principles may apply to charter and RPT. Those who have been paying attention will see how.

Until you're a mod, Trent, you'll just have to put up with me. Or you could go away. :p

PS: Gosh Trent, where did your post go?

[blackhand]

The same principles apply to aerial work (a commercial operation) - see Clare's post.
Discussions with two AWIs in different area offices have advised that a maintenance release cannot be issued unless the aircraft complies with it's type data sheet or equivelant.
The certifying LAME in Clare's case had better make sure he can justify releasing the aircraft with a known defect.

[Creampuff]

And did those AWI's quote a regulation? I'm guessing not, but would love to stand corrected.

Trent: PPLs, CPLs, ATPLs, commercial operators (including Barrier - happy now?), FOIs, AWIs and butch kalithumpions should all be starting in the same place: CAO 20.18 and CARs 43, 47, 50 and 133. Perhaps if PPLs were (again) required to have a proper understanding these rules, some of the others wouldn't labour under some of the misconceptions manifest on this thread ....

Anyway, a useful and challenging discussion from my perspective. :ok:

[blackhand]

Creampuff, advised by AWI to stop looking in CARs and start looking in CASRs.
CASR 42 is your new friend.

[Creampuff]

CASR "42" is a little imprecise. CASR 42 covers many, many pages of (new, 'simplified') rules. To which specific provision are your tame AWIs referring?

PS: Your tame AWIs probably need to read CASR 42.010. Twice. :ok:

[blackhand]

To which specific provision are your tame AWIs referring?I wouldn't call either of them tame, wild boys to be sure.
And they advise me in a direction, but I have to work out exactly where the answer is.
At this time busy with HAAMC stuff, but will research further.

Cheers

Editted: Ah I see what you mean Creampuff, RPT.

[404 Titan]

blackhand

I hope this helps you out with your AWI's.

CASR Part42

SUBPART 42.A: PRELIMINARY

GM 42.010 - Applicability of Part

This regulation states that CASR Part 42 applies to a registered aircraft and any aeronautical product for a registered aircraft. A registered aircraft, according to the CASR Dictionary, means an aircraft registered under CASR Part 47.

However, transitional regulation 202.180 further affects the applicability of CASR Part 42. From 27 June 2011 until the end of 26 June 2013, CASR Part 42 applies to:
• a registered aircraft if the aircraft is authorised to operate, under an AOC, for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (c) of CAR and the registered operator of the aircraft has been approved as continuing airworthiness management organisation for the type and model of aircraft;
• aeronautical products for such aircraft;
• a Part 145 organisation that is carrying out maintenance on such an aircraft or aeronautical products; and
• a pilot and or a flight engineer who carries out maintenance on such an aircraft.

On and after 27 June 2013, CASR Part 42 applies to:
• a registered aircraft if the aircraft is authorised to operate, under an AOC, for a purpose mentioned in paragraph 206 (1) (c) of CAR; and
• aeronautical products for such aircraft; and
• a Part 145 organisation that is carrying out maintenance on such an aircraft or aeronautical products; and
• a pilot and or a flight engineer who carries out maintenance on such aircraft.



CAR 206 Commercial purposes (Act, s 27 (9))

(1) (c) the purpose of transporting persons generally, or transporting cargo for persons generally, for hire or reward in accordance with fixed schedules to and from fixed terminals over specific routes with or without intermediate stopping places between terminals.

[tail wheel]

404 Titan

It is patently obvious that many who have commented in this thread debate, who I assume are commercial pilots, have absolutely no idea what a defect is, what purpose a Maintenance Release serves, or their obligations as the pilot of an aircraft.

"Snag sheets" and "defect diaries" my assss! In all fairness, some of the CASA FOIs I've had the misfortune to meet are also no wiser on the definition of a defect or correct use of the Maintenance Release.

It is for that reason I believe a thread decicated solely to debate of defects, correct use of the Maintenance Release, MELs, and when an aircraft can and can't be flown, would be totally appropriate.

When I get time I will transfer this debate to a dedicated thread, leaving the Barrier Aviation thread for matters relating to that issue only.

[Mach E Avelli]

Hear! Hear!

[Trent 972]

ABC FNQ (http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/01/08/3666000.htm) 8 January, 2013 2:57PM AEST
Maintenance issues 'across the board' for grounded airline.
The Civil Aviation and Safety Authority [CASA] say they are investigating the maintenance of aircraft at all four bases grounded airline Barrier Aviation fly from.

The Queensland charter service ran around 30 flights a day out of Cairns, Darwin, Gove and Horn Island before being taken out of the sky just before Christmas.
Last month Barrier Aviation's lawyer David Perkins said the company's Horn Island operation was "the major concern of CASA".
But CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson says all of Barrier Aviation's bases will be looked at.
"The Civil Aviation Safety Authority's concerns about Barrier's maintenance practices affect all the operations," he says.
"That's Cairns, Horn Island, Gove and Darwin. It goes right across the board."
Barrier Aviation are currently suspended from flying until February 15.
A team of maintenace experts, airworthiness inspectors and safety systems specialists are in Cairns investigating the airline Mr Gibson says.
"They've got a lot of material to look at," he says.
"They're proceeding with that as quickly as possible. How long that will take is hard to say at this stage.
"We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that. If we can finalise things before that it would be good."

So WTF were those casa blowhards doing during the Barrier audit?
Are they just making it up as they go along?

[Mach E Avelli]

CASA audits vary widely in intensity and scope. At the entry meeting they love to use the word 'snapshot' as it covers them if they miss things.
Also, the operator is notified well in advance of the scope of the audit, so has ample time to get their housekeeping done.
One of the major shortcomings of the audit process as it has been practised in the past is that it looks closely at paperwork to the detriment of old fashioned surveillance of actual work being done. And with an audit pre-announced, any work that is observed is of course going to be done properly on the day.
It is quite conceivable that what they saw when they issued a six month extension to the AOC was acceptable in the short term, pending further investigation. Otherwise they would have got the standard three year renewal.

[Trent 972]

Mach, That's the point. If the paperwork was ok in the audit, what will be different now, or is this more about casa's Gibsons statement,
We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that.
Got to stretch it out to the 15th Feb, just to drive home the financial rogering of Barrier.
With ref to the Darwin and Gove bases, from what I can find out, Barrier leased/hired aircraft from the Darwin based owner who is himself a LAME and did the maintenance work on his own aircraft.
If so how would any further investigation in those bases differ from what would have been discovered in the audit process?

[LeadSled]

As weighman pointed out Arcas Airways (Air Facilities) was hung over illegal defect logs, worth a read https://www.google.com/url?q=http://...yxpH-MItRoBovw (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees%3Furl%3Drrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/arcas/report/report.pdf&sa=U&ei=qVfrUMzYNMH9lAXm9YHYDA&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNE82DcheMvViVUMyxpH-MItRoBovw)

edsbar,
It is certainly worth a read:
A major issue was that a maintenance recording system, approved for use by Hazeltons, came with the aircraft, and was carried through by Arcas, but Arcas never had the Hazelton system approved by CASA, for use by Arcas.
Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Remeber all, the P Gibson esq is CASA's Spin Doctor of long standing so he really does know all the appropriate CYA phraseology and how to shovel it.:mad::mad::mad:

[Creampuff]

[A] maintenance recording system, approved for use by Hazeltons, came with the aircraft, and was carried through by Arcas, but Arcas never had the Hazelton system approved by CASA, for use by Arcas. Remind everyone about how a maintenance recording system "comes with an aircraft" old bean. Quote the regulation under which Arcas was entitled to use the same maintenance recording system used by Hazeltons.

[Two_dogs]

We have a deadline of February 15 set by the Federal Court and we're working towards that.Just wondering how the deadline in the federal court is decided. Was it requested by CASA, or is eight weeks, a negotiated time frame deemed appropriate to the task.

"CASA's administrative action is a form of economic regulation - or financial strangulation. Ground the b@stards without trial long enough to break them financially!" CASA made the application to the Court because investigations into Barrier Aviation will not be completed by the end of the initial five working day suspension period. Got to stretch it out to the 15th Feb, just to drive home the financial rogering of Barrier.Can CASA on Thursday 14th February appeal to the federal court for an extension to complete their 'on-going, but yet incomplete' investigation?

[airfix01]

Observing the attitude and aptitude up the hill from cairns might make some of you guys change your minds about casa's reason for investigating the engineering side of the operation.

[Two_dogs]

Airfix01,

Long time listener, first post, welcome to the discussion ...

I think it's more about the lack of, rather than the quality of the engineering ...

[Trent 972]

Just wondering how the deadline in the federal court is decided. Was it requested by CASA, or is eight weeks, a negotiated time frame deemed appropriate to the task.
casa Enforcement Manual (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91291)
Section 7.77.7
Application to the Federal Court
Under section 30DE of the Act, CASA has only five business days after the holder has been notified of the decision to suspend under section 30DC, to apply to the Federal Court for an Order. If the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the holder has engaged, is engaging in, or is likely to engage in conduct that contravenes section 30DB, the court must make an order prohibiting the holder from doing anything that is authorised by the authorisation, but that without the authorisation would be unlawful. The court must have regard to sections 3A and 9A (1) in making that decision.
Because the time for application is so limited it is important that the ALC remain involved with immediate suspension action so that they can expedite action on the application.
The Manager, Enforcement Policy and Practice (EPP) must be kept advised so that an investigator can be made available to undertake the investigation required under section 30DG of the Act, if it is thought necessary for the investigation to be conducted by a Part IIIA Investigator.
It is intended that applications will be made in the Federal Court in Canberra by the LSD. Only the Executive Manager of LSD and the Manager Legal Branch have delegations to make application to the Federal Court under section 30DE.
It is also important to understand and be ready to deal with the implications of the definition of “business day” for the purposes of section 30DE: “business day” means a day that is not a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory—see section 3(1) of the Act. Thus a public holiday in the State or Territory in which the holder is located may still be a “business day” for the purposes of section 30DE.
Subject to a variation order under section 30DF, an order made by the Federal Court under section 30DE lasts for no more than 40 days to allow CASA to complete its investigation. The Federal Court will determine how long an order will remain in force.

Can CASA on Thursday 14th February appeal to the federal court for an extension to complete their 'on-going, but yet incomplete' investigation?

Section 7.8
Court May Vary Period of Order
Under section 30DF the court may extend (by no more than 28 days) or shorten the original period of the order on the application of either party.
The application must be made before the end of the original period and CASA can apply only once to extend the period of the order.......

[Two_dogs]

Thanks Trent,

I see the application to the court must be made within five business days.

On face value it would seem the first period of 40 days would equate to eight "business day weeks?" Public Holidays notwithstanding.

Conversely, the subsequent extension period of 28 eight days appears to be four complete weeks including non-business days?

No wonder lawyers are needed ...

[edsbar]

Re Arcas defect books ...........

Yeah came with the aircraft, 500 books with Air Facilities and logo already printed on them! Thanks Max!

[weighman]

I was one of the first maintenance controllers in Oz back in the 80's. this discussion has all the elements of the problems then and there is not a simple solution other than to conform to the regs, which I agree can be insurmountable.

It took 2.5 years for my day of reckoning to happen due to the investigator becoming ill and almost dying. That was in in the late nineties, so the rules of timing actions may have changed.

It changed my life in ways that I can't describe here. Driving a truck was a very sobering experience. The wheels of machinery of justice can be very slow.

[Torres]

Can CASA on Thursday 14th February appeal to the federal court for an extension to complete their 'on-going, but yet incomplete' investigation?

Probably. But their modus operandi is, or was, to issue a new suspension based on the previous reasons, plus a few new ones, and start the process all over again. Do that two or three times and the operator either goes broke or loses the will to live.

Problem solved without all that messy Court stuff!

[rutan around]

LEADSLED
A major issue was that a maintenance recording system, approved for use by Hazeltons, came with the aircraft, and was carried through by Arcas, but Arcas never had the Hazelton system approved by CASA, for use by Arcas.
Tootle pip!!
Now let me see if I've got this right. The Hazeltons maintenance recording system was perfectly safe when used by Hazeltons but was so dangerous it grounded an airline when used by Arcas. Que????
RA

[edsbar]

It was the approved system at Hazelton's and not a hidden system as it was at Arcas, that is the difference. Arcas approved system for recording defects was the CASA Maintenance release.

Regarding defects, MEL's and PUS's the Young / Monarch investigation is also well worth a read. Should be compulsory reading for HAAMC's, Maintenance Controllers, Chief Pilots, Engineers and CEO's. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25055/aair199301743_001.pdf

Seaview, Monarch, Arcas ........ Ancient history but seems many operators do not learn from the past. :ugh:

[404 Titan]

rutan around

Oh boy. If this thread is any indication of the number of ignorant/confrontational pilots/operators there are out there, no wonder they are getting scr*wed over by CASA.

Creampuff has already answered this question in #307. Whether you like it or not, there is a legal process that MUST be followed. If you try and f**k with this system the system WILL f**k with you. And who said it had anything to do with safety? There are ways and means of trying to getting the reg’s changed. Breaking them ISN’T one of them.

[Creampuff]

If you'd actually read the ARCAS report rutan around, you'd know the facts. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. :=

[rutan around]

404 TITAN
You've opened up a biggie now. I'm busy today doing non aviation things today. Less frustrating and more profitable.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif I'll attempt a full answer in the near future.
Cheers RA

[Sunfish]

Lets get back to an original question - we agree that the rules must be followed.

Why has it taken CASA Thirty years to discover Barriers non compliance?


It also seems obvious, at least to me, that Barrier has not a snowballs chance in hell of ever flying again. no matter what its alleged state of guilt or innocence.

The CASA audit will be aimed at discovering every undotted "i" and every uncrosssed "t" on every document ever associated with Barrier and this process will produce a mountain of evidence that no one can jump over.

It's called "file stacking" in the public service and it is a lethally effective tactic against anyone or anything that, rightly or wrongly, becomes a target. Even BHP would not have enough money to afford QCs arguing for days over the hundreds, if not thousands, of alleged transgressions a detailed CASA audit will no doubt detect.

The question then becomes, given that Barrier is to be put out of business, whether CASA wishes to jail the operators, if possible, to encourage the others?

[Creampuff]

Let me assist you, rutan.

From the Arcas ReportEach defect book pertained to one of the three aircraft operated by ARCAS for the period 1996 to 1999, with the ARCAS name and logo, and the words “Defect Record” printed on the top of each page. In his summary of their content, [the CASA investigator] stated:
In general, some of the defects entered on the Maintenance Release correspond to defects entered in the defect record book, in other cases there are entries on the Maintenance Release that do not appear in the defect books and more often there are defects entered in the defect books that do not appear on the maintenance release. In some cases, those defects that appear on both the maintenance release and defect book have different dates, specifically that the defect appears to have been presented some days of even weeks before it actually appears on the maintenance release.[bolding added]

So Leaddie and rutan around, were Hazeltons running 'defect records' in parallel with Maintenance Releases, in which the same defect was recorded in one document as having arisen on one date but on a different date in the other? It's also worth reading how the "Defect Record" documents were obtained by CASA (that is, if you're interested in facts).

Also from the Report:In addition [to the allegations about defects], the informant also alledged that he was placed under pressure to falsify his flight and duty log so that his flight and duty times complied with regulatory requirements. In this regard, [the informant provided to CASA] photcopies of pages from his logbook.

The informant subsequently signed a formal written statement of these allegations in the presence of ... a CASA investigator ....Did anyone from Hazeltons ever give written, signed statements to CASA, to the effect that Hazeltons put pressure on pilots to falsify logbooks, old bean?

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

First, we don't know if Barrier has been doing the same thing for 30 years. I have no knowledge of the specifics, but my guess is not.

Secondly, as you know, all these defect issues usually only affect tiny probabilities. A few blown bulbs, second AH dodgy, second VHF weak and distorted transmissions, transponder intermittent etc, etc. It's been that way for months and everyone still gets from A to B and no one complains. Therefore, there's no safety issue, is there?

You know the answer. Would you like your loved ones to be on board? I wouldn't.

And when someone lobs into the regulator's office and puts photcopies and signed statements on the table, the regulator doesn't have much of a choice.

[Sunfish]

Creamy, I know not what Barrier may have done.

What concerns me is that CASA, if PPrune is to be believed, is judge, jury and executioner and it's punishment appears to be very bloody.

Furthermore, the regulations appear to be so complicated and confusing that even honest folk may have trouble complying through no fault of their own.

[blackhand]

Slam-click
but does anyone think if there were dodgy SB190 inspections being done on the BN2's? Mmm sounds like you are getting close to specifics here, CASA may be considering time out of service against "normal" time to carry out the full intent of SB190, rather than "pencil whip" that sucker.

About 10 years ago during an audit of a particular company operating in FNQ, found maintenance entry for SB190 that had been carried out in three days. Had not been noticed by the Maintenance controller nor by CASA.

Sunfish,
It is not an issue that you do not understand the maintenance regs, apart from your obvious misunderstanding of what constitutes a defect. The issue is that companies carrying out commercial ops MUST understand the regs and the accountable manager's responsibilities. The CASA audit will be aimed at discovering every undotted "i" and every
uncrosssed "t" on every document From this statement I can assume you have never been subject to a compliance audit by CASA or anyone else??

[Mach E Avelli]

If anyone "pencil whipped" a mandatory corrosion inspection they should have their tickets pulled and do some time in the slammer. That is the sort of sh!t that does get people killed.

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

In my opinion, industry participants who are confused by the rules about the recording of defects, the consequences of recording defects, or the circumstances in which an aircraft may or may not be flown with 'open' endorsements on its MR or approved equivalent, should not be let loose on, or left loose on, innocent fare paying pax.

In my opinion, FOIs and AWIs who are confused by the rules about the recording of defects, the consequences of recording defects, or the circumstances in which an aircraft may or may not be flown with 'open' endorsements on its MR or approved equivalent, should not be let loose on, or left loose on, innocent industry participants.

Fortunately, the vast majority of industry participants and CASA FOIs and AWIs seem not to be confused.

[Tomahawk38]

Would repeatedly flying a charter aircraft with a u/s landing light represent a "serious and iminent risk to air safety"...

Two questions, Would and (2) should CASA ground an operator purely based on the above deviation from the rules?

If the operator did it once would it be overlooked?.. what about twice... or does 10 occassions warrant enough of a threat to air safety?

How does CASA quantify risk based on repeated infringments and in the case of Barrier is the grounding due to the type of infringments or the frequency?

[Sunfish]

Yes creamy, but my nightmare is that a person as confused as I may meet a CASA person similarly confused.

[Creampuff]

You worry too much, probably because you listen too much to people who tell only one half of a story.

Just fly and enjoy it.

If ever you're tempted to do the kinds of things that attract enforcement action by CASA, you'll have a strong, uneasy feeling somewhere in your nether regions. :ok:

[Trent 972]

If ever you're tempted to do the kinds of things that attract enforcement action by CASA, you'll have a strong, uneasy feeling somewhere in your nether regions
What a cheap throwaway line, that is.
The whole reason for this thread is that casa have the power to put any person in OZ aviation out of business for up to 73 days without having to provide any proof of misdeed.
For 73 days the ball never leaves their side of the court, the umpire is appointed by their team and all their fees are paid from the public purse.
Meanwhile 55 people are not earning a living and a 20 year old business is being strangled to death while casa goes on a fishing trip.
Keep the wisdom coming Creampuff, you are so insightful.

[Square Bear]

Trent 972

Is it a 20 year business or is it 20 years in the business.

FNQ is a hard place to operate in the GA industry, does anyone remember Wingz North.....

[anothertwit]

square bear,

Nice left jab sir! :D

[justinga]

Im sure the owners know the difference between a defect and a geniune fault despite what the regs say as for the Barriers pilots they have been around long enough to know "whats right and whats wrong". I never used to like CASA but im starting to warm to them. Maybe they are trying to ground a "old school culture" and they are doing that by the only way they know how. Come on everbody, GA is infested with old plane and old minds.And if you think CASA is over regulating the industry, go compete in the mining industry in a 1967 D9 Dozer.

[T28D]

Trent 972 Thanks for the walk into reality, no matter howyou cut it CASA has the whip hand, Creampuff or not.

[airfix01]

Rather than hate Casa blindly for the misdeeds against an operator it seems most of its defendants don't seem to know , why not research the 30 year history of the "company" and the engineers. As others have stated its all out there if you look. MacArthur job , atsb , aopa , wheelahan investigation , even a book written by a passenger. As for the rampant unchecked power of Casa against the little GA guy , seemed ok when the boot was on the other foot of a once FOI.

[Trent 972]

Some of you guys are too cryptic for me!

Square Bear. - Barrier Aviation incorporated in 1992 (internet search), is that not correct?

anothertwit. - It might have been a nice jab, but I felt nothing???? sorry, I just didn't 'get it'

justinga. - 1967 D9. - That would be a D9G with the 385hp engine. Best model Cat ever built, and most popular too. The model ran unchanged for 13 years, though it didn't have the later models Elevated Drive Sprocket, which gives it that aesthetically serious horn appeal.

airfix01. - registered a new handle and waited for 3 years to break your silence just to have a couple of shots at Barrier. Hope it's making you feel better dude.

edit for VNAV_PTH 2 posts below.
Well done mate, you know how to use google and Wikipedia
Thank-you. :ok: My agenda is if the problem is indeed about the maintenance of some BN2's at Horn Is., then was it right to ground all 4 of the Barrier bases rather than just Horn Is.
casa seems to think a grand 'paperwork fishing tour' of FNQ & NT will justify their actions. I think it's bastardry of the worst kind to put them out of business in the meantime.

..I also know the difference between 'quiet' and 'quite'.
You should google it. :p

[anothertwit]

trent, my comment wasn't aimed at you. unless you had a hand in what went on with wingz north?

As i know someone affected by this I feel for them and all that have been affected.

airfix01 said it better than I could

As for the rampant unchecked power of Casa against the little GA guy , seemed ok when the boot was on the other foot of a once FOI

[VNAV_PTH]

Trent,

Well done mate, you know how to use google and Wikipedia. It is quiet apparent from your posts that you have no knowledge of the situation, but proceed to talk through your a$$ anyway. Got an agenda much?

[justinga]

Oh so true Trent, and there is so many similiar aircraft, motorbikes, cars, subs, pushbikes, skateboards and people of a similiar vintage that deserve the status of classic or legend. It dosnt mean they belong operating in the modern world. Lets use this as a great example..........How many D9s where built? How many AC500s (for example)where built? Do you know the answer, i dont but im thinking there arnt too many D9s operating in the commerical vs how many ACs are operating off Cairns airport for example or spotting fish in South Australia

[Two_dogs]

Justin,

I am not sure of any difference between a defect and a genuine fault; they are the same to me. However you are correct, GA is GA. I have myself (time to change my IP address) flown with known defects to get an aircraft either back to base or to the next scheduled maintenance. The type of flight, (VFR/IFR/PAX/DEADLEG) would determine my acceptance of the level of defect. Sure this is not within CAR 50, but in the light of commercial pressure, level of safety etc., I feel I am able to make a reasonable judgement based on my level of experience. This is done on a case by case basis; I am no way accepting it is a culture in any organisation I have worked for. Simply, if I am able to save the boss a $5000 repair for a $1000 repair with no effect on safety, I can live with that. The profit margins in GA are that tight. (This requires a thread of its own.)

Before some start commenting, “You’re not a licensed engineer, and not able to make that determination”, let’s put it into perspective. I have departed with a known non-functioning auto-pilot, and determined the component failed en-route to home base, but ONLY DAY VRF. I have flown for weeks with the left hand NAV light inoperative, when in a remote area without a replacement available. If I am not sure, I will phone a friend. (Read LAME)

Regarding a blown NAV light, don’t get me started about Schedule 8 maintenance approved under CAR 42ZC, and CAAP 42ZC, which advises an acceptable means of compliance, advises, “CASA strongly recommends guidance should be sought by pilots from a relevant Part 66 licence holder on the correct aircraft maintenance practices and procedures.” Now I find CASA “policy” requires signed training records which authorize schedule 8 maintenance. WTF, it’s a bulb change, my 11 year old could do it unsupervised.


You may find a big disparity between Barrier pilot experience levels at different bases. I know the Cairns crew are mostly very experienced, mature, high time pilots able to tell the boss, “Get stuffed, you fly it”. The Horn Island pilots are somewhat less experienced, an average may be around 1000TT, 300ME, possibly more likely to say, “No worries Base Boss”. Whilst knowing the difference between right and wrong, they are there for a reason; hour building/500ME Command etc. which may have an effect on their judgement.

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
As to what Hazeltons did, how they used the book, what was approved by CAA/CASA, I have no idea, beyond what is said in the Arcas report linked to this thread.
Tootle pip!!

[justinga]

Two Dogs...........well said, im sure we are on a similiar wavelength on this issue. And yes i was referring to the Cairns pilots and there owner. They are fantastic people with a wealth of experince and i would hop in a plane with them tomorrow and fly anywhere with them. However they need to change, they and i (and you) have flaunted too much for too long.

Ive been in GA a long time, ive fought change but now accept it.Im currently flying a private op for a small mine operation in a new King Air.And ive got to say, after 20 years im bloody happy to fly and more important FIX an aircraft as an when required without a $$$$ being an issue.Why does GA think its special, ever reason any item is not written up revolves around $$$$ (the bosses) or pilot comfort (i dont wont to stay at a community). If GA in general isnt making a $$ then shut it down, reform it, bring new people in, business people, business plans, new machinery. People will still fly, CASA will reform.

[Creampuff]

“CASA strongly recommends guidance should be sought by pilots from a relevant Part 66 licence holder on the correct aircraft maintenance practices and procedures.” Now I find CASA “policy” requires signed training records which authorize schedule 8 maintenance. WTF, it’s a bulb change, my 11 year old could do it unsupervised.Schedule 8 also permits oil/oil filter changes and spark plug changes.

Would you fly in an aircraft whose engine had just had the oil, oil filter and spark plug change carried out by an untrained, unsupervised 11 year old? (No need to answer that: it was a rhetorical question.)I have myself (time to change my IP address) flown with known defects to get an aircraft either back to base or to the next scheduled maintenance. The type of flight, (VFR/IFR/PAX/DEADLEG) would determine my acceptance of the level of defect. Sure this is not within CAR 50, but in the light of commercial pressure, level of safety etc., I feel I am able to make a reasonable judgement based on my level of experience.It's not CAR 50 that prohibits you from flying with certain kinds of defects or damage.

You might find that, had you had a better understanding of the rules, flights back to base or to the next scheduled maintenance, with defects (whether recorded on the MR or not) could have been conducted legally. For example, an aircraft with an MR authorising ops in charter may still be operated in the private category...

But if you were carrying paying fare paying pax, brave call!

Leaddie: You are correct. You 'have no idea'.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Creampuff,

If as you say one poster 'has no idea' and you seen critical of others understanding. How should casa going about ensuring people and companies are kept current and understand rules?

Clearly there appears to be a problem with lack of knowledge when casa have found a number of situations presenting 'an immediate safety risk'. That suggests the system is failing?

[Two_dogs]

Creamie,

I nearly included in my previous post that, "I probably wouldn't let my 11 year old change the spark plugs or grease the wheel bearings" but it was getting late and my post was already long enough. I am fortunate enough to have a mechanical aptitude that enables me to carry out all Schedule 8 maintenance to an acceptable standard. If there is any doubt in my mind I will seek assistance from a LAME, I know quite a few. I have however spoken to pilots who had NFI. My point is that CASA "policy" requires training and record keeping outside of legislation. I am all for the training side of things but I have seen cases where people and companies have been NCNd for incomplete or out of date records not required by legislation, but forming part of the COM because CASA "would like to see" or "feel it a good idea."

I know it is not CAR 50 that prevents me from flying with certain defects, but if I know of a defect and fail to enter it on the MR I am liable, correct? I am sure that in the case of an unserviceable autopilot being written up on a Monday and the aircraft flown back to base 1 POB in the private category on the Tuesday could cause me all sorts of problems with my local AWI.

CAO 20.18.
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
10.1A A private or aerial work aircraft must not be operated:

I have had AWIs tell me that if the MR indicates the aircraft is maintained and certified as IFR/Charter category, then CAO 20.18 applies despite it being a private flight.

[Trent 972]

justin, I am intrigued by your last 2 posts, when you sayAnd yes i was referring to the Cairns pilots and there [sic] owner. They are fantastic people with a wealth of experince and i would hop in a plane with them tomorrow and fly anywhere with them. However they need to change...
Why is it, they need to change?
Surely not because they are "fantastic people with a wealth of experience".
Ive been in GA a long time, ive fought change but now accept it
Is that because now you are "..flying a private op for a small mine operation in a new King Air".
Isn't that a way of saying, "NOW, I'm alright Jack, so fark you"
If GA in general isnt making a $$ then shut it down, reform it, bring new people in, business people, business plans, new machinery
Just ditch anyone who has worked their a$$ off to get ahead, spent all their savings to build something for themselves and their families?
What comparable "new machinery" is there to replace all those twins etc. that haven't been built for so long.

I think you are in need of a serious reality check.
I recommend 'Liquid Viagra Eye Droplets', so you can have a good long hard look at yourself.
Good luck with your "new KingAir'.
I'm sure there are 37 other pilots who would like to be in your shoes.

[Creampuff]

I have had AWIs tell me that if the MR indicates the aircraft is maintained and certified as IFR/Charter category, then CAO 20.18 applies despite it being a private flight.CAO 20.18 indeed "applies" to private operations as well as other classifications of operation. But it does not have the effect you suggest the AWIs to whom you referred suggested. (Perhaps they were the AWIs who suggested to blackhand that CASR 42 applies to aerial work?)

Next time it happens, write to their boss and ask him to confirm that the views of the hired help are those of the management. But double check that you haven't misunderstood them, first.

(PS: I am just teasing Leaddie. It's a game we play.)

[megle2]

Justinga A new King Air! Flying a 2012 King Air must be nice. I didn't realise any 12 models had arrived in Aus yet

[justinga]

Why oh why do some people fight change so much. Wouldnt everbody like see GA reformed, new prices to reflect new machinery. And for all the uses of wikipedia and the dictionary out there, my reference to new does mean brand spanking, fresh off the factory floor. This is a forum, full explanation of every word and subject is a little to much. I realise there is 100s of pilots wanting a newish (is that a better term for the wordsmiths) aircraft. Well guess what, thats what we should be trying to push, not knocking and slandering others. Far from saying "im all right", im saying lets push for a change, check back on a few of my posts regarding updating fleets, people and business pratices.

[tail wheel]

Why would anyone in their right mind invest millions of dollars in fleet modernisation, when there is no security of tenure and a Friday night fax at the sole discretion and determination of a public servant, can end the dream? :confused:

And any honest operator that does invest in quality, modern aircraft, is forced to cut his hire rate due to competition from Fred the Spiv next door with his cross hired, under maintained cr*p and unpaid, inexperienced, "work experience" pilots.

And buy and operate Cessna 208 or Pilatus PC12 and the operator gets put through the wringer by CASA putting the aircraft on an AOC, amending the Operations and Maintenance manuals and gaining IFR approval.

A DUI driver gets to drive until the Court suspends his/her license. A criminal gets his immediate bail and committal hearings in a properly constituted Court. Even an illegal immigrant gets free travel, board, meals and a sympathetic ear.

But the arch deviant of the skies gets grounded for a month or two .... or three ... with no immediate, reasonable Judicial recourse, on the whim and determination of a totally unaccountable public servant.

And you wonder why the industry has attracted more than its share of shonks and spivs, with most operators grossly under capitalised with under or un paid pilots, and is full of decrepit tired, clapped out aircraft that have passed their use by date and are mostly older than the pilots that fly them?

[Frank Arouet]

Most that washed out of the industry now "work" for CAsA.

Gives one great confidence dealing with people who, by nature, have a "chip on their shoulder".

I won't invest a cent into the industry until the rules are understandable, simple, are based on The Rule of Law, with due recourse to redressing wrongs, the AAT in its current form is is shut down, and the rug pulled out from underneath CAsA and its petty employees, (if one can call them that), are treated like the criminal element that some aptly display, serve time, and are "Rogered" by their new peers in The Grey Stone College.

[Creampuff]

A DUI driver gets to drive until the Court suspends his/her license. Errrrmmm, are you sure about that? In NSW, for example, the list of circumstances in which police may suspend licences is quite long, and includes drink driving. You can google it.A criminal gets his immediate bail and committal hearings in a properly constituted Court. Are the Barrier proprietors in gaol?Even an illegal immigrant gets free travel, board, meals and a sympathetic ear.Actually, they get a bill.And buy and operate Cessna 208 or Pilatus PC12 and the operator gets put through the wringer by CASA putting the aircraft on an AOC, amending the Operations and Maintenance manuals and gaining IFR approval.So to what do you attribute the success of successful operators of C208s and PC12s in Australia?

[Mach E Avelli]

Taillie, much of what you say makes sense. But old mates Barrier appear to be on the carpet precisely for having as you so succinctly put it "under maintained cr@p".
From what we garner they have been sufficiently naughty to warrant being executed by firing squad.
If it transpires that they have not done anything too serious, they will most certainly have grounds for an almighty settlement.
As for the old under maintained cr@p, the sooner it is ALL recycled into saucepans the better for all. Then those operators who have made an effort with decent turbines might just have a chance, CASA obstructionism notwithstanding.

The bloody GA fleet in PNG - supposed third world country - is light years ahead of our pathetic collection of the world's most tired airframes. Operating in PNG is somewhat aided by reasonable regulations that are easily understood.
CASA PNG needs fixing, but they are still better to deal with than our lot.

[blackhand]

Tailwheel -
And buy and operate Cessna 208 or Pilatus PC12 and the operator gets put through the wringer by CASA putting the aircraft on an AOC, amending the Operations and Maintenance manuals and gaining IFR approval.
Can agree in part, CASA is saying 90 days minimum to put C208 on existing AOC - and make sure the ops manual and FCOM are perfect. Plus $8000.00 up front for assesment. Operating in PNG is somewhat aided by reasonable regulations that are easily
understood. Mach, yupla gamon manki, noken save displa tok save belong Balus belong PNG

[tail wheel]

Creamie

In this state a DUI drivers license is automatically suspended for 24 hours, then the recalcitrant may drive until the Courts dictate otherwise. And no, I have no personal experience with the system.

An arrested person has access to a bail hearing and, at the Court's pleasure, may be released to return to work.

Pay attention! No where in my post did I refer to Barrier or it's principals, nor do I have the evidence to ever give an opinion on Barrier.

They may get a bill but how many get paid?

So to what do you attribute the success of successful operators of C208s and PC12s in Australia?

Deep pockets.

[jas24zzk]

A criminal gets his immediate bail and committal hearings in a properly constituted Court.
Are the Barrier proprietors in gaol?

No but if you think about it, Barrier Aviation is in jail....can't function....

[weloveseaplanes]

Why would anyone in their right mind invest millions of dollars in fleet modernisation, when there is no security of tenure and a Friday night fax at the sole discretion and determination of a public servant, can end the dream?

And any honest operator that does invest in quality, modern aircraft, is forced to cut his hire rate due to competition from Fred the Spiv next door with his cross hired, under maintained cr*p and unpaid, inexperienced, "work experience" pilots.

And buy and operate Cessna 208 or Pilatus PC12 and the operator gets put through the wringer by CASA putting the aircraft on an AOC, amending the Operations and Maintenance manuals and gaining IFR approval.

A DUI driver gets to drive until the Court suspends his/her license. A criminal gets his immediate bail and committal hearings in a properly constituted Court. Even an illegal immigrant gets free travel, board, meals and a sympathetic ear.

But the arch deviant of the skies gets grounded for a month or two .... or three ... with no immediate, reasonable Judicial recourse, on the whim and determination of a totally unaccountable public servant.

Exactly.

Why does CASA have powers to destroy businesses who are acountable for their activities yet at the same time CASA is not held accountable for their activities?

For those of us long enough in the game to have seen power wielded abitarily by the unaccountable it is truly an eye opener.

Investigator, Administrator, Judge, Educator, Jury, Advisor, Executionor all in one tyrannacial organisation.

Does CASA have an Internal Affairs department hunting out incompetent and corrupt officers in its ranks? If not why not? Countless business lives ride on their whims ... how many times have CASA officials been found guiltily of illegal conduct?

Delay is death for business.

Innocent until proved guiltily - if no one has been proved guiltily why are all being punished?

Unaccountable Power is TYRANY.

[Two_dogs]

EXACTLY..........

[airfix01]

Anyone actually read this? "Unchecked Bureaucratic Power In Action" 1997 airsafety.

[Sunfish]

Where are the pitchforks? To the barricades!

"Les Miserables" could really be about Australian GA.

Casting anyone?

Major Characters:


Jean Valjean - (also known as Monsieur Madeleine, Ultime Fauchelevent, Monsieur Leblanc, and Urbain Fabre) – Main Protagonist, convicted for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s seven starving children and sent to prison for five years,


Javert – A fanatic police inspector. The main antagonist of the novel. Born in the prisons to a convict father and a gypsy mother, he renounces both of them and starts working as a guard in the prison, including one stint as the overseer for the chain gang of which Valjean is part (and here witnesses firsthand Valjean's enormous strength and just what he looks like). Eventually he joins the police force in the small village of Montreuil-sur-Mer. He arrests Fantine and butts heads with Valjean (as M. Madeleine, the mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer), who orders him to release Fantine. Valjean dismisses Javert in front of his squad and Javert, seeking revenge, reports to the Police Inspector that he has discovered Jean Valjean.


Fantine – A beautiful Parisian grisette abandoned with a small child by her lover Félix Tholomyès. Fantine leaves her daughter Cosette in the care of the Thénardiers, innkeepers in the village of Montfermeil.

Cosette (a nickname, formally Euphrasie, also known as "the Lark", Mademoiselle Lanoire, Ursula) – The illegitimate daughter of Fantine and Tholomyès. From approximately the age of three to the age of eight, she is beaten and forced to work as a drudge for the Thénardiers.

Enjolras – The leader of Les Amis de l'ABC (Friends of the ABC) in the Paris uprising. His followers admire and believe in him. A charming and intimidating man with angelic beauty, he is passionately devoted to democracy, equality and justice.

Gavroche – The unloved middle child and eldest son of the Thénardiers. He lives on his own as a street urchin and sleeps inside an elephant statue outside the Bastille. He briefly takes care of his two younger brothers, unaware they are related to him. He takes part in the barricades and is killed while collecting bullets from dead National Guardsmen.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Careful Sunfish. Still time for a Friday afternoon fax !!

[Mach E Avelli]

CASA's powers are not exclusive. If a health inspector visits a restaurant and finds rats in the rafters or cats on the cutting board, he can close the business without notice. Prosecution follows in due course and even if the defendant can prove that the rats were rabies-free and the cats were sourced from the finest organic/halal/kosher purveyors he is still out of business. There was just such a case in Perth a few years ago. Only the cats and rats did not come with a clean bill of health, so I don't know if any defence was offered.
Retirement care homes have been closed and the patients removed overnight to safer premises. Prosecution followed at a much later date.
A school bus has been put off the road because it was unsafe and the children sent home by alternative means. As the bus operator was a one man-one vehicle business, he lost the contract to the opposition.
If the bus had been an aircraft found to have bogus parts fitted, the same thing would happen, and if that was the operator's main income, end of his aviation ambitions. Even if he had acquired the aircraft second hand and had no knowledge of the bogus parts, he is still stuffed. Caveat emptor.
A whole fleet of aircraft have been grounded because it was found that inspections had been overlooked, not by a few hours or days, but by a very long over-run. No question of waiting for the courts to decide whether the cover-up was deliberate or accidental. Anyone associated with aviation who does not understand that?
We set these authorities up to protect us from ourselves.
I do not like the way CASA do many things, and positively hate their mess of regulations. But aviation businesses should not think that they are somehow to be treated differently from other safety critical endeavours.
The balance is in ensuring that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.

[Trent 972]

Mach, you post a lot of good relevant stuff here. :ok:
Another restaurant analogy may go like this.
A recently dismissed employee of a restaurant chain says that he once saw a rat at one of the restaurants. The health department (on a 'Non Business' day) informs the restaurant chain that all of their outlets are to be closed for several months while the health department looks over their paperwork. :eek:
That paperwork is available for checking even while the restaurants that did not have any rats, remain open.
The health department though, likes to wield a big stick and insists on closing all the restaurant outlets so that they look decisive at the senate hearings, that are looking into the departments p!ss poor past history.

[Mach E Avelli]

Trent, point taken. Though in my short experience at CASA we did take the allegations of disgruntled ex-employees with a pinch of salt.
And before shutting an operator down, there was considerable debate between FOIs, AWIs, Team Leaders, the Area Manager and the Legal Counsel mob.
I guess we will have to wait for the specifics because we all appear to be guessing and working on rumour. Which is what a lot of this site is about.

Blackhand, rather than allow thread drift, I sent you a PM.
Are the relative merits of our jurisdiction and rules versus PNG worthy of a separate thread? Think I will start one.

[engmech22]

any defect, no matter how trivial should be recorded AND Insp/ assessed by a professional Licenced engineer, and certified in the M/R. this is part of the history of the aircraft, and is recorded in triplicate, in an accident the SNAG BOOK may be destroyed and the M/R will show no defects (not much help if it was a technical defect that caused the accident), Why is it that pilots expect to be treated with respect because of the experience and knowledge they have but do not accord the same standard to maintenance staff?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Sorry, Mr MEA, I see you are no longer there, so, nothing personal, but the 'system', or 'modus operandi'.....(excuse spelling if needs be...)

'there was considerable debate between FOIs, AWIs, Team Leaders, the Area Manager and the Legal Counsel'

How come there was no mention of 'checking out' the allegations / facts..??
Or did I miss something here?

[Mach E Avelli]

Nah, I couldn't stand the Public Service. It was straight out of 'Yes Minister'. But believe it, they really only used the big stick of a total shutdown after issuing repeated warnings, or on operators who simply never got around to fixing stuff found at audit. It was not unusual for stuff found at one audit to be outstanding a year later at the next audit.
The little stick was used constantly in the issuance of NCNs, Show Cause Notices and the rare EVA (enforceable voluntary undertaking). Some of the stuff CASA people dished out was unreasonable, just done so that petty auditors could justify their existence.
BUT, in more serious cases, I believe that a stern reading of the riot act on the spot - while politically incorrect - would have been more effective, given some of the hard-nosed personalities that we had to deal with. However, these days you can't talk like they do in an American Cop Show: imagine the noise someone would make if an Inspector said "I will give you seven days to come up with the goods. Otherwise I will send the hit squad in and we will turn this place upside down, and if we find the slightest thing wrong we will put your licences through the shredder - capiche?" Jesus, the lawyers would go nuts, CASA would be dragged on 'A Current Affair' and every other name-and-shame program, Allan Jones and John Laws would take up the cudgels, the Inspector who made the threat would be gone for a duck etc.
The mealy-mouthed legal touchy-feely language that is used these days is lost on these hard cases. Even the term for what is now a NCN, "Request for Corrective Action" sent a totally wrong signal that it was only something that CASA would 'like' you to do, not something you 'had' to do. It was frustrating getting the message across. The American term 'Violation' has much more impact.
Lest you think that I was on a power trip at CASA, any ops manual amendment or check pilot approvals that came my way got dealt with very quickly and I always sought to minimise costs to the operator. I hated audits because I knew how slow the corrective action processes were and how unlikely any 'fixes' were to be permanent.

But getting back to the question. IS there evidence or is there not?
So far no-one who has contributed to this thread has come up with FACTS.
All we get is the Italian suppository.

[Sunfish]

Mea I agree with you. Take the social workers. They remove a kid from an abusive family and get called " jackbooted nazi thugs".

They leave the kid and it's " why was little Daniel Valerio allowed to die?"

However the social workers are not judge jury and executioner.

It would be better, and more efficient in my opinion, if the enforcer didn't get to write the regs they enforce.

[SgtBundy]

Is that not the lesson learned time and time again that leads to the separation of powers with the government, police and judiciary? One creates the laws, one enforces the laws and one validates the justness of the laws.

The part that seems to be missing from what I read here is the issue of redress. Without a doubt CASA should have the power to shut someone down should they have sufficient evidence that they believe there is a risk to safety. However those affected should have the right to challenge that and present their case. It seems in the case of Barrier, CASA dropped the notice then immediately asked a judge to drag it out for another 3 months. I am assuming that all moved too quickly for Barrier to challenge or question it properly in front of a judge. Maybe it is too complex an issue to be settled so quickly, but surely if CASA has enough to back their judgement it should be enough for a learned judge to weigh up the risks vs the impact and decide the course of action.

That said, a lot on here sounds like when people get upset at the cops for pulling them over for doing 120 in an 80 zone. Honestly they were not speeding, it wasnt that bad, I do it all the time, the cop is just on a power trip.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Is THAT really really your thinking process...??

:ugh:

[PLovett]

SgtBundy,

There is no CASA enforcement that cannot be appealed legally. That applies to this matter as well. Barrier could have tested the legality of the CASA decision and because of the implications of being shut down, a court will move rapidly to conduct at least an interim hearing to determine whether or not the initial CASA action should stand until a full hearing can be undertaken.

A company that I once worked for was deemed to be conducting RPT operations and had their AOC suspended. The same day the company lodged a notice of appeal that invoked an automatic stay. A hearing was conducted about a month later to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be made. In the meantime the company was able to continue trading.

Caper P/L v CASA (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2011/181.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Caper%20Pty%20Ltd)

Now I have some serious doubts about the AAT as the appropriate forum to test aviation matters but that is another argument. Suffice to say that there are avenues that an aggrieved operator has but it costs and it may be phyrric victory.

[LeadSled]

Now I have some serious doubts about the AAT as the appropriate forum to test aviation matters but that is another argument

Boy!! ain't that the truth, with no rules of evidence, all sorts of claims are made before the AAT, that wouldn't be made before a court.

As the AAT is no longer a cheap avenue of appeal, I am surprised that, where possible, the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act is not used more often, proceedings before a Federal Court are far more rigorous than in the AAT.

Tootle pip!!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Mach E Avelli:
Even the term for what is now a NCN, "Request for Corrective Action" sent a totally wrong signal that it was only something that CASA would 'like' you to do, not something you 'had' to do. It was frustrating getting the message across. The American term 'Violation' has much more impact.

Absolutely agree with the above statement. using words like 'violation' would have made you unpopular under the small 'r' regulator.

[Sunfish]

However, if you wish to use the word "violation" you had better be able to prove it.

It appears that the NCN and show cause process is easier for CASA to employ because it's "sloppy".

When I spent some time in the Victorian public service as a specialist in the engineering industry, no "slop" was allowed. Facts had to be verified and woe betide you if you confused fact and opinion.

[new direction]

Some posters above seem to have complicated a very simple procedure.
I personally think regulations pertaining to maintenance on Aircraft within Australia are extraordinarily simple. If you take the time to break down the rules and regs surrounding commercial aircraft maintenance in Australia you will come up with the following.

If it’s broken, fix it or buy a new one. If it looks asthough it is suffering from wear and tear repair it or replace it before it gets worse.
If you do repair, fix and or renew defective parts before they become defective or as soon as you are aware they are defective you will not ever have CASA or anyone else accusing you of running around in broken down machines. You will not make a lot ofmoney either. But you will be operating an aircraft which is as safe as that aircraft can be. How easy is that ?.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I have some serious doubts about the AAT as the appropriate forum to test aviation matters

So did the Federal Court - so much so that they overturned the AAT's ruling in that case :suspect: :ugh:

[Frank Arouet]

PLovett;

could have tested the legality of the CASA decision and because of the implications of being shut down, a court will move rapidly to conduct at least an interim hearing to determine whether or not the initial CASA action should stand until a full hearing can be undertaken.


Can you give me any point of contact for enabling me, (for example), to do this at 4:55 PM on any Friday or Christmas Eve'. Most Lawyers are in the Pub after 12 Noon on Friday's.

The matter of extending the grounding only exacerbates the financial losses and generally a Company goes under not being able to service it's debts. Not to mention Employee entitlements.

[PLovett]

Frank,

All courts have an emergency system in place for such occasions. How do you think the criminal system can find a magistrate at ungodly hours in the morning when required?

I have applied for emergency orders in the Family Court where it was suspected that a parent was about to remove their child from the state. The court heard the matter by telephone and made interim orders within 5 minutes.

I can't give you a point of contact now as I haven't worked as a lawyer for over 15 years but the legal system is well aware of the need for urgent intervention and it can be done.

The matter of extending the grounding only exacerbates the financial losses and generally a Company goes under not being able to service it's debts. Not to mention Employee entitlements.

Agreed. The legal system requires deep pockets unfortunately but then so should aviation otherwise you are a problem waiting to happen.

[Creampuff]

... I am surprised that, where possible, the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act is not used more often, proceedings before a Federal Court are far more rigorous than in the AAT.I'm not.

The Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of administrative decisions.

The Federal Court can award costs. (You'd better know WTF you're doing. Do you really want to be in debt to pay CASA's costs?)

All recent wars fought in the Federal Court against CASA have been won by CASA. (A few interlocutory and first-instance battles were won by applicants along the way, but CASA won the substantive wars in the Full Court.)

But I could be giving an inaccurate or incomplete picture. I'd suggest aggrieved industry participants contact Leaddie for advice. :ok:

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Creampuff,

I'm not sure whether to take your post as words of advice or a threat?

Certainly true, dealing with casa is well documented.

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Have had a chat with a very well informed individual.

Some asked about the "informant":

Apparently ex NZ ATC, Dash 8 FO with a PNG operator, they suggested he / she leave the company and gain some command experience elsewhere ( we all know what that means ).

The fable I was told, this person was employed by one of Barriers competitors, the bigger Torres operator, they apparently sacked this individual after a month.

Sometime later was employed by Barrier, in a very short time had multiple issues, this person had a bit of a hard on for the bigger company and went out of his/her way to cause grief for the competition.

Apparently did not play well with others ( including his own company ) and was non compliant with the COM ( because he/she knew better ), apparently pulled out in front of two aircraft that were on finals on separate occasions, I believe one was at MBG, then the second one at CCT or WBR.

He / she blamed everyone else for these events, after the events were investigated by the company, he /she was sacked, this was circa July
2012.

Apparently this pilot has scampered back to NZ for a jet job.

Individuals name is now well known in Torres / FNQ ( not by my actions ).

[my oleo is extended]

Come on everbody, GA is infested with old plane and old minds.And if you think CASA is over regulating the industry, go compete in the mining industry in a 1967 D9 Dozer.
No mention here of 35 year old Dash 8 100's operating RPT in Australia.....

[OpsNormal]

That is probably because there are no 35 year old Dash 8 airframes in existence. They were introduced and entered service in 1984 making them at the oldest in their late 20s (like I still wish I was)....

Regards,

OpsN.;)

[Horatio Leafblower]

I still wish I was...

Oh Come on. If that were the case you'd still be a callow youth and not in the high and mighty exalted position you are in today :D

[PLovett]

So did the Federal Court - so much so that they overturned the AAT's ruling in that case

Yes, in one of the worst argued decisions I have had the misfortune to read. :mad:

Incidentally, the result of which should send shivers down the spine of any FIFO operator who does not have RPT on their AOC because, despite the ramblings of the judge in question about such operations, they could just as easily come under the same logic as he applied to the Directair flights.

[Al Fentanyl]

VH QQB
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Turboprop engines
Manufacturer: DE HAVILLAND CANADA
Model: DHC-8-102
Serial number: 004
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 29 December 1988
Year of manufacture: 1983

[Sunfish]

New Direction:

Some posters above seem to have complicated a very simple procedure.
I personally think regulations pertaining to maintenance on Aircraft within Australia are extraordinarily simple. If you take the time to break down the rules and regs surrounding commercial aircraft maintenance in Australia you will come up with the following.

If it’s broken, fix it or buy a new one. If it looks asthough it is suffering from wear and tear repair it or replace it before it gets worse.
If you do repair, fix and or renew defective parts before they become defective or as soon as you are aware they are defective you will not ever have CASA or anyone else accusing you of running around in broken down machines. You will not make a lot ofmoney either. But you will be operating an aircraft which is as safe as that aircraft can be. How easy is that ?.

Actually not always that easy - which is why there are LAMES..

Unless thing s have changed, on larger aircraft parts are classified as "Hard time" - meaning they have a definite life in cycles or hours. "On condition" - meaning that when the fail you replace them. The last category is "condition monitored" - meaning that you examine their condition from time to time and decide if they are within tolerances or not.

It might surprise some people to discover that the nozzle guide vanes and turbine blades of some engines can look like half sucked icecreams and the engine is still acceptable.

Similarly all sorts of parts can be worn, cracked, corroded and yet the aircraft is still serviceable (well at least that is what the MR says).

The PBO (poor bloody operator) is simply trying to maximise the economic life of their equipment and sometimes the difference between serviceable and unserviceable is in the eye of the beholder.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

The PBO (poor bloody operator) is simply trying to maximise the economic life of their equipment and sometimes the difference between serviceable and unserviceable is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, is the glass half empty or half full. This is where things can be very subjective. I reckon small 'r' regulator and big 'R' regulator falls into this area. In the Pel Air inquiry there is an email stating foi's were split on DJ's decision being right or wrong.

[Sunfish]

Take tyres for example; if today you only expect dry runways you don't need much tread. If you expect wet runways, then the tyre needs to be changed.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Exactly. They could then be a contributing factor to an accident.

One stark reminder of the dilemma is the Alaska Airlines MD83
Alaska Airlines Flight 261 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261#section_4)

[Creampuff]

[O]ne of the worst argued decisions I have had the misfortune to read.Me too. Egon Fice's analysis and reasoning in the AAT decision was, as usual, rigorous and convincing. The Federal Court's; not so.

The worst part is that, but for CASA's abject and scandalous failure to fix 206, the regulatory action and litigation would not have been necessary.

[new direction]

Sunfish , If the tyre lacks tread.
Change it.
Change the damm tyre.
Who cares if the runway is wet or dry.
N.D

[LeadSled]

Sunfish and others,
Tread wear and tread depth are not measured/evaluated in the same way as for a motor car tyre, visible tread or otherwise has little meaning.
How the serviceability of a aircraft tyre is determined re. wear remaining depends on the manufacturer, there are several different indicators used. even bare canvas being visible does not necessarily mean an aircraft tyre is worn beyond limits.
Sadly, many GA tyres are thrown away with life remaining, at great expense, at an annual/100h inspection, because of a stupidity in Schedule 5.
Serviceability of an aircraft tyre does not depend on the weather forecast for a flight.
Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Sadly, many GA tyres are thrown away with life remaining, at great expense, at an annual/100h inspection, because of a stupidity in Schedule 5.To what, precisely, in Schedule 5 are you referring?

[MACH082]

75 cm of bare canvas can be exposed before an airliner tyre is considered unserviceable.

They wear them down as much as they can as it costs them money to remove tread prior to being recapped.

[Sunfish]

New Direction, plenty of heavy operators care how many landings they get out of a tyre! From memory the figure was about 40 or was it 70? I can't remember.

Undamaged heavy tyres are retreaded up to about Seven times according to my memory - ultrasonically tested each time of course.

I bow to Leady and Mach as my knowledge of this subject is a bit rusty these days. In my day the drivers would be concerned to have good rubber if they were heading for a few wet runway landings. Dry weather ops? Not so much.

[Two_dogs]

It is for that reason I believe a thread decicated solely to debate of defects, correct use of the Maintenance Release, MELs, and when an aircraft can and can't be flown, would be totally appropriate.

When I get time I will transfer this debate to a dedicated thread, leaving the Barrier Aviation thread for matters relating to that issue only. __________________
Tail Wheel
Dunnunda Forum Moderator
...........

[engmech22]

most aircraft tyre/wheel "dust caps" when fitted by the manufacturer have a hexagonal head and a part number to be found in the I.P.C. A torque figure is stated in the maintanance/overhaul manual, that is why they are a pressure seal and not a dust cap. the inflation/deflation valve is just that, a valve.

[baron_beeza]

I would like to say that some of the guys here are close to the mark but not quite.

That is not the case though. I have been flying and certifying aircraft from GA, airline and military disciplines in many countries, and for decades. Some of what is being stated here is nonsense. Many of us can see that.

What we are seeing here is a series of generalisations and naturally many are not really accurate.

We do have parameters, we also have standards, publications, experience and knowledge. The aircraft are maintained iaw a variety of publications and I don't know if I have ever seen anything close to black and white.

I can say that the GA fleet of 1980 was different to the fleet of 2010. Yes, the aircraft are for the most part the very same ones but the publications and procedures have been modified to accommodate them.
I personally don't have an issue with aging aircraft, indeed I am much happier sitting behind a Lycoming engine operated 100 hours beyond the manufacturers recommended TBO than one that has been newly minted or reborn.

Just like we have a wide range of pilot proficiency we have a similar standard with the way aircraft are maintained.

A worn but maintained and serviced machine may not be necessarily any more at risk than a brand new machine. It is the pilots that crash machines all said and done anyway.
Even the military don't throw brand new items at an aircraft, no aircraft I have ever worked on has ever been maintained in that manner.
I have never, ever measured tyre tread or torqued a valve cap. I cannot ever recall seeing such a requirement.
It will be what is written in the records that trips guys up. I would imagine that it is the holes where tasks have been missed rather than the manner in which they were done that would be the issue.

If a job has been certified as being done in an acceptable fashion then chances are it has. If there is a problem at this point then of course further questions should be asked.
Being picky and pedantic does not necessarily make for a safer aircraft... often it just shows up the jerks.

The regulators are aware of that also.

[Sunfish]

2525 VALVE CAP MS20813-1B

$2.95 at Aircraft Spruce

Max Torque Ten inch pounds according to a Schraeder catalogue

[Creampuff]

Leaddie

You said:Sadly, many GA tyres are thrown away with life remaining, at great expense, at an annual/100h inspection, because of a stupidity in Schedule 5.Could you please tell us to what, precisely, in Schedule 5 are you referring?

[baron_beeza]

Sunny probably inadvertently gave a very good example of what the regulator would pick up on and then start on some very serious questions.

Something as simple as fitting a valve cap would soon expose some irregularities if any of that was mentioned on the worksheets.
I have never torqued anything to 10 inch pounds and not sure it is even possible. If a guy reckoned he had, and wrote the entry up accordingly, the regulator would be wanting to know how he did it and what equipment he used.
Mention of Aircraft Spruce as a supplier would have the alarm bells ringing very loudly. The regulator would be wanting to see the Form 1 or FAA 8130. Spruce would not normally be a supplier for RPT operations. The regulator would also want to know if the catalogue has been approved as acceptable data for the operation, (Torque figure), - that would be opening another can of worms.

So in just a few simple steps of procuring and fitting a tyre valve cap you may have left yourself open to some real serious interrogation... depending of course on how it was all written up.

This goes back to what I said the other day about it is what is written up that often causes the grief.

In this case a brand new valve cap just appearing would attract much less attention.

I agree that operating wheels with caps missing is not a good look. I have actually handed some caps to Bouraq engineers in Indonesia to fit to the front of their 737. Pretty obvious to some passengers when you are standing at the bottom of the entry stairs.

GA aircraft have a low pressure dust cap which is a little different again.

[jas24zzk]

This is a basic example....the digital ones are much nicer to use.


Park Tool Torque Wrench 1/4" | 0 - 60 Inch Pounds Reading (http://www.google.com.au/products/catalog?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHKB_en-GBAU437AU437&q='Torque+wrench+inch+pounds&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=8807423804990134431&sa=X&ei=ANLzUK7pGqbMmgXIl4G4DA&ved=0CEoQ8wIwAQ)

[baron_beeza]

Yep, they are available but our torque wrenches have to have calbration certificates and be recertified regularly. We then have to take drag resistance into consideration when using them.
These are screwdriver torque figures, very difficult to measure in reality.

The tyres are checked for inflation every night on airliners, you don't see the engineers torqueing the valve caps on... they would be laughed off the flight line. I have routinely checked inflation of 30 to 40 tyres every night, - just a small part of putting the aircraft to bed.

It is the same as the rocker cover screws on the piston engines where what they want is a calibrated 'tweek' of the wrist. The trick is that the procedure has to have a 'figure' that can be recognised. To the LAME that is translated as a feel... just as screwing on a valve cap is. Using any tool is asking for trouble as overtightening is obviously much worse.

The same applies to the spark plug HT lead nuts, they are just tweaked to a little more than finger tight. We still have pilots that seem to think it is criminal when they manage to undo one during their pre-flight. The reality is that anyone overtightening the nut should be shot...
Again while we torque the spark plugs it is extremely important the caps are not overtightened. They are never torqued using a tool, well not that I have ever seen.

There was mention of tread depth on the tyres also.... I have worked with airlines where would allow wear to go through so many plies, on the last retread you could even allow it to go beyond the retread limit.
The tyres are marked with the number of retreads, if you let the wear go too far then you would lose out on any further retreads.

Talk of measuring tread depth is a little off the mark.

If any mechanic I supervise tried telling me that he had torqued a tyre valve cap I would be very suspicious. I would most certainly be obliged to go and recheck and see just what had been done.
Perhaps some guys do have special little tools that make it impossible to overtorque them, I can't remember seeing them in my time.

When you work in the Islands or Africa you have to be wary of guys marching out with a 1/2 " drive wrench and trying to tweak them to 10 ft lbs, that happens much more often than it should also.

With the modern 'metric' educated youth you also find that they have trouble equating things in real terms. One US gallon is about 4 jugs of beer.
Twenty pounds pull on an arm of 12 inches means nothing at all to these guys. The LAME or supervisors need to be on the ball.

[Sunfish]

Beeza, Now I checked my wheels yesterday and they have plastic caps on the valves. What happens if I "upgraded" these to MS 20813-3B? I guess Aviaquip will have the same part as Aircraft Spruce, but with a release note - at Five times the price.

But hey, I'm building in Experimental category anyway, buttoning up the left wing today in preparation for the start of the fuselage. There are one or Two things I've "upgraded" here and there. I know its not a Boeing, but I don't do hose clamps and rubber for primary fuel lines.

I guess it all comes down to the observation that any fool can ask a question that a wise man cannot answer and a close inspection of any and every aircraft will always produce a non conformance.

Has anyone ever seen the mythical safety net for baggage in a hired aircraft? My best Bunnings ratchet straps obviously don't conform.

How about producing your torque wrench calibration certificate?

....and the certificate of the test equipment that calibrated it?

.....and the certificate of the test equipment that calibrated that test equiment?

...and, Aaaaargh!

[Creampuff]

Leaddie

You said:Sadly, many GA tyres are thrown away with life remaining, at great expense, at an annual/100h inspection, because of a stupidity in Schedule 5.Could you please tell us to what, precisely, in Schedule 5 are you referring?

[Unusual-Attitude]

I'm sorry, but how did we get from discussing Barriers grounding to pages of crap about torque tightening dust caps? :ugh:

[Ixixly]

Barrier being grounded
TO CASA Being evil for doing it on day before Christmas
TO Which base is it?
TO All of the bases are grounded
TO Blaming it on a disgruntled ex-employee
TO Nope, its actually Horn Island which is the major problem
TO Media release saying its due maintenance
TO Allegations of a little black book
TO Snag Sheets being inappropriate
TO Maintenance requirements of a GA Fleet
TO Is CASA overbearing in their reading of MRs and "Open Items"
TO Is there a difference between a minor and major defect?
TO Example of tyre treads
TO Tyre Cap Valves
TO Torque tightening and catalogue requirements
TO Dust Caps

I probably missed some subplots in there somewhere...but that seems the progression so far?

[Unusual-Attitude]

We've clearly arrived at the crux of the matter then! :}

[Josh Cox]

Jeezus,

2525 VALVE CAP MS20813-1B

$2.95 at Aircraft Spruce

Max Torque Ten inch pounds according to a Schraeder catalogue

I think you'll find that Schraeder is telling you that the valve cap is physically capable of being TQ'd to 10 inch pounds, if you're so inclined................

It is not a statement that they are required to be TQ'd to 10 inch pounds to be correctly installed on a VH aircraft, and hence you can then roll up in your comfy "I'm compliant" safety blanket.

Back to Barrier, hopefully they'll take to the skies again soon.

[blackhand]

The importance of the valve cap seal and other issues relating to the aforementioned seal is covered in this thread
http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/440309-valve-cap-missing.html

Back to Barrier Aviation, what is the latest??

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
Re. Schedule 5.
2.7 Unless otherwise indicated in the table, where the table requires a thing to be inspected, the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.

Also frequently used as justification for replacing part worn brakes -- only if the tyres are replaced/ brakes are overhauled at the inspection, is the LAME fireproofed against being second guessed in an audit.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I do have other things to do, from time to time, pprune is not very high on the schedule of "musts". I even get to be where the internet is little more than a rumour.

[blackhand]

Also frequently used as justification for replacing part worn brakes -- only if the tyres are replaced/ brakes are overhauled at the inspection, is the LAME fireproofed against being second guessed in an audit.
Your syntax leaves me non plussed, what are you trying to say?

[Creampuff]

Leaddie

Are you suggesting that a consequence of the definition of ‘inspection’ for the purposes of Schedule 5 means that a maintenance org has no choice but to replace a tyre that, on inspection, appears will only last, say, another dozen landings? If so, that is a stupidity in the interpretation of Schedule 5, not a stupidity in Schedule 5.

The definition tells you the depth and purpose of the activity of “inspection” required by Schedule 5.

The definition does not tell you what you have to do about what you discover.

Maintenance orgs can and do issue MRs that include entries for maintenance that may have to be carried out before the next annual/100 hourly.

For example, just the other day I saw an MR, for an aircraft fresh out of an annual/100 hourly, that included an entry in Part 1 that said “Engine oil change to be carried out no later than xxxx hours TTIS”. xxxx happened to be 50 hours after the TTIS when the MR was issued. The maintenance org didn’t know whether the aircraft is going to be flown 19 hours or 99 hours before the next periodic inspection.

What rule prevents a maintenance org from issuing an MR with an entry in Part 1 that says: “Nose wheel tyre to be replaced no later than 12 landings carried out after [date of issue of MR]”?

Any maintenance org that replaces a tyre on the grounds that it has fewer landings left in it than might be carried out in the next 12 months/100 hours TIS, evidently considers itself able to estimate how many landings are left in the tyre. If the maintenance org is able to estimate how many landings are left in the tyre …

[LeadSled]

Creamie,
TAFE aeroskills teachers, apprentices and the resulting LAMEs --- reinforced by the demands/requirement/description of your choice of AWIs ---- are taught a very literal and prescriptive interpretation of this paragraph. Have you ever seen a CASA AWI training package on the subject. I have seen the PowerPoint presentation -- not all that long ago, as it was at the Glasshouse.

If you cast your mind back, you will recall at least one court decision where a problem with a throttle cable on (I think) a C206, and the resulting fatalities were visited on the LAME who had signed off the MR about 85 hours and many months previous. This despite some evidence that somebody had worked on the aircraft -- unapproved maintenance -- in the between the time the MR was signed and the fatal occurred.

To a significant degree, Schedule 5, para 2.7, is a major problem when it comes to hangar Keepers insurance premiums --- just ask AMROBA.

I would go further, and suggest that para. 2.7 is the major factor that differentiates (as well as calling Schedule 5 a Maintenance System, which it is not, it's an inspection schedule) the run of light aircraft maintenance in AU, versus FAR 43, Appendix D ---- which is the source of Schedule 5.

Para 2.7 t is a major contributor to light aircraft maintenance costs in Australia.

Tootle pip!!

[blackhand]

Wrong again, LAME was not blamed
Investigation: 199100511 - Cessna 207A, VH-MNN, 33 km south-south-east of Jabiru NT, 7 January 1991 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1991/aair/aair199100511.aspx)

are taught a very literal and prescriptive interpretation of this paragraph. Not in my workshop fella, they get to use their initiative.
Again you need to be reminded about giving supercilious advice to others, although ....
Para 2.7 t is a major contributor to light aircraft maintenance costs in Australia. Pilot/Owners lying about hours flown then having to have worn out components replaced "early" is a major cause of maintenance costs on light aircraft in Australia

[Jock p]

i think he means the C206 at aurukun and it was the mixture

ASN Aircraft accident 09-JAN-1993 Cessna U206G VH-FMP (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=394)

[Jock p]

Interesting part of the report on VH-FMP considering the current Barrier saga


Information was obtained which indicated that in the past the aircraft operator had listed
defects on a separate sheet of paper rather than on the maintenance release document. One
such list examined appeared to indicate that, prior to the most recent periodic maintenance
check, rectification work had been carried out by persons outside the maintenance
organisation. Examples of this work included retensioning of the alternator belt and tightening
the throttle linkage ‘at the butterfly’. No record was found, however, of any work having been
performed on the aircraft since the periodic maintenance check, either by the maintenance
organisation or any other person.

[Creampuff]

Leaddie, are you able to provide a link to the court judgment to which you referred?

If, in fact, there was ‘evidence that somebody had worked on the aircraft -- unapproved maintenance -- in the between the time the MR was signed and the fatal occurred’, but the court found the LAME liable, the court evidently rejected the evidence of the post-MR unapproved maintenance, or at least rejected that it was the proximate cause of the failure.

If the accident to which you refer is the one dealt with in the BASI report at the link posted by BH rather than the one mentioned by Jock p, I note that BASI, at least, took the view that the wear to failure took more than 85 hours TIS, and the washer that should have been under the bolt head was missing when the periodic inspection was conducted:The throttle cable was found to have separated from the cast bronze throttle control lever at the fuel/air metering unit on the intake manifold. The serrated steel bush in the throttle control lever at the cable attachment had become loose, causing the hole to wear elongated which reduced the edge distance from the hole to the end of the control lever sufficiently for it to fail when the throttle was opened. Further inspection found that the assembly of the cable to the lever was incorrect, with the washer from under the bolt head being omitted. This reduced the bearing area at the bolt head to the control lever, with the possibility that the bolt may have only been clamped to the bush assisting any movement of the bush in the lever. Once the steel bush started moving in the softer bronze material the rate of wear would have been rapid. The aircraft had flown 85 hours since the last periodic inspection, at which time it may have been possible to detect the first signs of wear between the bush and the control lever if information advising of this type of fault had been available.I take “at which time” to be a reference to “the last periodic inspection”, because the “first signs of wear” evidently occurred long before the separation from the lever.TAFE aeroskills teachers, apprentices and the resulting LAMEs --- reinforced by the demands/requirement/description of your choice of AWIs ---- are taught a very literal and prescriptive interpretation of this paragraph.Obviously they aren’t, if the interpretation is as you assert.

There are no words – literally none – in the paragraph you quoted, that require anything to be fixed. The paragraph says – literally – “the inspection is to be a thorough check made to determine whether the thing will continue to be airworthy until the next periodic inspection.” It’s literally about the depth and purpose of the required inspection.

The persons to whom you referred need to take the next step and get a very literal and prescriptive understanding of the rules about what a LAME is obliged and permitted to do once s/he has made the required determination. :ok:

[blackhand]

i think he means the C206 at aurukun and it was the mixtureIn this case it was the responsibility of the supervising LAME. Best guess, his supervision was lax. In other countries, an engine control is subject to duplicate inspection as well, not mandated in Aust.

[LeadSled]

JockP,

That sounds like the one. It was quite a while ago.

As for what is taught in individual hangars, I am certain that is quite variable, I did refer specifically to TAFE (certainly in NSW and Victoria) and the CASA AWI training courses, last time I observed.

Creamie,
No, I can't, and I don't have time to go searching, but if you refer to AMROBA, they will probably know, because it was quite a controversial issue at the time.

Rather than being a picker of nits, perhaps you should get out more, and find out what is happening in the real world.

On the other hand, if you and your cheer squad think all is well with aviation in Australia, and General Aviation in particular, nothing I say is going to change your mind.

Blackhand,
Again as I recall, somebody had actually cut off part of the mixture or throttle thread, that certainly wasn't done in the workshop that produced the MR. Never proven was that the thread was cut to remove and/or reinstall the mentioned alternator, during the course of unapproved maintenance.

Tootle pip!!

[Shed Dog Tosser]

Rather than being a picker of nits, perhaps you should get out more, and find out what is happening in the real world.

On the other hand, if you and your cheer squad think all is well with aviation in Australia, and General Aviation in particular, nothing I say is going to change your mind.

Ditto.

Tail wagging the dog.

[T28D]

Yup, the old if I sign it out it has to be good for 100 hours , I have had this story a number of times followed by if you don't like it , no maintenance release.

No point arguing the shell backs won't back down and if you don't accede the aircraft don't fly.

In fact I got so pissed over the Cessna Sids argument I donated my C340 to TAFE.

[Creampuff]

No, I can't, and I don't have time to go searching, but if you refer to AMROBA, they will probably know, because it was quite a controversial issue at the time.I see. So you think it’s appropriate to make the following statement, and not be able to back it up with the primary material: If you cast your mind back, you will recall at least one court decision where a problem with a throttle cable on (I think) a C206, and the resulting fatalities were visited on the LAME who had signed off the MR about 85 hours and many months previous. This despite some evidence that somebody had worked on the aircraft -- unapproved maintenance -- in the between the time the MR was signed and the fatal occurred.It's a pretty big statement to make.Rather than being a picker of nits, perhaps you should get out more, and find out what is happening in the real world.I see. So the people who take a supposedly ‘very literal and prescriptive interpretation’ of a paragraph in Schedule 5 aren’t picking nits, but I am, if I make the (fairly obvious) point that the paragraph doesn’t actually say what you and all the people you presume to speak for reckon it means? I hope they don’t take the same ‘very literal and prescriptive’ approach to the interpretation of maintenance manuals.

'Real world'? What worries me about your version of the ‘real world’ is that it seems to be populated almost entirely by downtrodden, confused, prosecuted innocents who are immediately set upon by the regulator whenever they try to wade through the confusing morass of rules and fix an aircraft or fly in it. Of course, it’s never you. It’s always some other bloke you heard about, like the one who was held liable by a court for some unapproved maintenance in some case that is too hard to spend 6 seconds googling ‘cause it’s easier for you to just say it happened that way.

In the ‘real world’, these people are everywhere, apparently.On the other hand, if you and your cheer squad think all is well with aviation in Australia, and General Aviation in particular, nothing I say is going to change your mind.My “cheer squad”? To what persons do you refer?

I think all is well with aviation in Australia? Who said this, in this thread: “The worst part is that, but for CASA's abject and scandalous failure to fix 206, the regulatory action and litigation would not have been necessary.” Have you not read the ‘regulatory reform program will drift along forever’ thread or the Norfolk Island/Pelair threads?

Finally, for the record, my view is that everything is far from well in General Aviation in Australia. The only difference between you and me is that I attribute many of those ills – not all of them, but many of them - to the kinds of self-perpetuating folklore that is sprouted by “experts” and “spokespersons” for GA in Australia, whether from industry or on behalf of the regulator. If, indeed as you suggest, “TAFE aeroskills teachers, apprentices and the resulting LAMEs --- reinforced by the demands/requirement/description of your choice of AWIs” are unable to interpret a simple sentence to mean what it says, they are part problem old bean. They are part of the problem.

[tail wheel]

This thread has drifted so far off topic it is now beyond redemption. :=