Cost of 100 hourly's

[Old Akro]

I've done some research on the cost of 100 hourlys for our Seneca. Fixed price 100 hourly / annuals seems to be taking hold in the US. On the web I've found 10 shops in the US and one in Europe offering fixed price annual / 100 hourly's.

The prices range from $2,500 to $3,000 (converted to Aussie Dollars) + oil & filters. The most common would be about $2,800 based on 32 hours and about $85/hour (rounded figures). This is based on the Piper inspection schedule. The good old Aussie CASA Schedule 5 should have a couple of less labour hours.

The European one was to the UK CAA schedule which is regarded as more arduous that either CASA schedule 5 or the Piper Schedule and was still under $3,000 Aussie.

This is a bit more than half an accepted Australian price for a standard Seneca 100 hourly (with no additional parts, no heater inspections, prop, governor or mag inspections, etc).

Why are we so expensive?

I'm sure outrageous hangar rent at airports like Moorabbin is part of the answer, but it doesn't explain it all. What are the other factors?

[jamsquat]

This fixed cost, for the service and insp only I take it, would not include any rectifications necessary as a result of the inspection? On a new build aircraft fixed price servicing could be possible, just as it is now common place for the first 5 yrs on a new car purchase. I doubt that any responsible Maintenance provider would promise a fixed price on a 30+ year old airframe! at least not without knowing the aircraft intimately.

[onetrack]

Old Akro - When you can find any spanner-wielder in Australia who only charges $85 hr - let me know where he is. He'll be suddenly overwhelmed with work - unless, of course, he produces a toolbox full of nothing but hammers and chisels. :(

Car dealerships are charging $100 hr minimum, and large numbers of repairers charge $120 hr.
With LAME's getting paid around AU$70 hr and AME's getting AU$60 hr, then the hourly rate needed for aircraft repair work would have to be around AU$140 hr, to cover all the business and employee expenses.

[jamsquat]

One track- I'll think you'll find your Lame pay rates are a little excessive. GA lames with basic tickets, as would be needed to certify something like a Seneca, command approx half of what you claim. At least they do in places like Moorabbin. Most shop rates around Melbourne are between $85-$100ph. Avionics shops are more expensive but they are just so much more intelligent!:ugh:

[QFF]

For a start, the fixed price annuals are actually fixed price inspections - they don't actually cover the cost of fixing/rectifying any problems that the inspections show up.

Here in Oz, I suspect most owners simply hand the keys over to the LAME at annual time and say - "fix it".

I think a lot more owners in the USA are more "hands-on" in respect of having a say in what gets done at the annual, especially with the advent of companies (like one beginning with "Sav...") that specialize in helping owners manage the maintenance of aircraft. Could also be that the FAA system of regs does help as well but that's a whole different thread...

Anyway, over there, after the inspection is done, the owner gets a phone call or written quote for the rectification work that needs done and he then says yea or nay to each item, with or without assistance of said organisation...

So really, while the fixed price inspection does sound cheaper, in reality I'd say most of the time folk would pay more than the advertised price, unless of course you took your plane away from the shop and got someone else to fix it (which under the FAA regs you are apparently allowed to do...)

Factor in the tyranny of distance to get a part from Wichita, KS to Perth, WA and you see why it's all so much more expensive...

[Ultralights]

where in OZ are AME's getting $60 an hour? most i know are struggling to get over $35

[Tankengine]

What the AME is paid and what is charged to the customer are two different things (just like pilots!). ;)

[Saratogapp]

No doubt about the going rate for a LAME - it's $85 - $90 per hour as the charge out rate. In round figures, an employer needs to add 35-40% on to his LAME's pay rate to cover the payroll adders, then more to get recovery to pay for his hangar, specialist tools, vehicle etc.

[onetrack]

Well, I guess Sigma Aerospace was absolutely bowled over by applicants in this case, then .... :confused:

Sigma Aerospace is a leading aerospace Maintenance and Repair Organisation (MRO) based in Tamworth, New South Wales. Sigma's clients include QANTASLINK, Jetstar, Cobham, National Jet Systems, QANTAS Defence, Air Niugini and Air Nelson.
Due to significant growth, Sigma Aerospace has exciting, long term contract opportunities for Avionic Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAME's) in Canberra whilst also inviting expressions of interest from Mechanical and Avionic LAME's for future positions in Canberra and Brisbane.

.... For your hard work you will enjoy a competitive hourly rate with Avionics LAMEs $68.50 and Mechanical LAME's $59.00 plus great opportunities for professional development. Enjoy mixed shift work including days, afternoons and night shifts.

SCOUT - Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAME) (http://applynow.net.au/jobs/37927)

Good equipment fitters and wrenchmen here on the left coast can command top-class money virtually anywhere. I would have thought LAME's and AME's would have been on similar income.
I was paying a top-class diesel mechanic $150,000 p.a. as my workshop leading hand, in 1994 - and he could have got similar money elsewhere.
Today, those same people can command $250K p.a. in the heavy equipment industry - and any of them with a little nous have their own contract repair business.

[Jabawocky]

The problem is not of the spanner time. It is all the non productive paper time.

Having said that there is also a lot of pencil whipped annuals and owners or subsequent owners discover later why the earlier annuals were less expensive.

I think all going well and no defects you can do one for that. So long as your sneaker is in good nick.

[jamsquat]

Once again one track you are mistaking a GA lame for one with tickets on dash8/ATR. A group 1/5 LAME's licence doesn't mean much in an environment like that.

[onetrack]

I think you will all find that running any repair operation in Australia is more expensive than running one in the U.S.
Wages are generally lower overall in the U.S., as compared to Oz (do U.S. LAME's get substantial gratuities for an inspection done well? :E) - and business costs in general in Oz would be higher, because the U.S. Govt is more favourably inclined towards businesses.

An employer in Oz has 9% superannuation to pay, workers compensation costs are horrendous, and penalty and holiday rates are higher than in the U.S. (and I'm not begrudging what employees get - wrenchmen earn it, AFAIC).

Saratogapp's estimate of employee costs is exceptionally conservative - it's actually more like 100% of an employees wage. So, for a wrenchman on $35 an hr, the employers total cost is more like $70 an hr for that man.
Then business costs such as workshop operating costs (rent, power, water, miscellaneous taxes and charges) have to be added to that $70 hr.
Then a profit margin, usually aimed at around 12.5%, has to be added to that total.
Thus, the reason why $100 an hr is usually a minimum charge, for anyone who's lifting a spanner in a workshop.

[4 Holer]

Because you don't have mechanics or chuck in his pickup doing work down there he is not "authorised". You have approved facilities, engineers engine airframe, avionics radio etc, lots of systems and paperwork ( do you wipe your bum before or after the toilet better check the procedure and fill in the forms ) blah blah blah. It has been over complicated by your regulator and the result is no better and a lot more expensive. :ugh:

How to make it complicated and hard do it in Australia.

[RatsoreA]

The b&llsh#t paperwork charges my LAME has to do was half the cost/hours of my last 50 hourly... Not grudging my lame, but the paper jockeys in YSCB that require it...

[QFF]

Agreed!!!:D

[Jabawocky]

I am glad i brought that up :}

And as pointed out before, for any business to be viable in terms of actually being a healthy business, you need to take the direct cost of the hourly rate and x 2.2-2.4 depending on the scale and industry type of the operation.

That becomes your TRUE cost, before you add any profit margin. So even at $100/hr + GST the LAME shop is not rolling in it.

Apply this to electrical contractors where the sparkies are charged out for virtually all the working hours a day, and you get $85-95, but in an industry where the staff are often required to do a lot of research, education or other necessary but not necessarily direct customer work, then you can see why it is not hard to get $150+GST. I charge my engineers out at that. If it is a 2-3 hour job on site the rate is $175, because of all the odd jobs surround that that they have to do.

Makes the LAME costs not so bad.

I saw an article in the USA recently and their rates were not much different to ours and in some states of the USA they were the same. In some states it could be the A&P's are all work from their truck guys and have lower costs, so apples and oranges comes to mind.

Have a good week y'all :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

I wouldn't have a problem paying a LAME $150 an hour............if they knew WTF they were doing, it's that learning curve thingo mentioned above that irritates me. I'm not going to pay an AME or LAME to learn on my plane.

I've had one very good experience with a particular avionics shop on the Gold Coast who was upfront with this very thing. The manager said he hadn't installed the gear and set up I wanted so he came up with a very good price that left something in it for him & me. There were issues that related to billable time down the track that we negotiated. I've also had some pretty average 'got you by the balls' stuff, this has far outweighed the good.

It's not the floor AME or LAME's fault particularly. There's something seriously wrong with this box ticking way of training apprentices. Non aviation trades are a joke as well. You need to park your arse under a tradies stewardship for a period of time regardless of the boxes ticked.

[Tinstaafl]

I've been managing a nice Panther Navajo here in Florida for number of years. Its maint. mob charge the owner $65/hr, and often do small things for no charge. They know every rivet on the plane and will come out at any time if needed to get a flight out. Now that its back to being used in 135 ops ('charter') - which is where I first started flying it about 7 years ago - it & its log books have been subject to FAA scheduled & random inspections and always passed with a clean record.

I'm very happy with the maintenance!

[Up-into-the-air]

I don't have a problem with the hourly cost, it is getting the person to actually do the work in anywhere that is an economical method.

The worst charge I had was for a PA31-350, where there was a 3 hour charge, no travel, nose in workshop and supplied battery and paperwork from Aviall [I took old battery away]. I have done the same job, just takes 19 minutes and an endorsement of MR.

Have lots of other examples, so I developed a work list of times by actually timing the L/AME - doesn't compare and am sure people are being charged a guestimate.

[Jabawocky]

The problem with that 19 minute job is;
A. It has to go smoothly....no worn bolts, nuts, clsmps etc.
B. You need to add the time for you to find the LAME, discuss the problem, he clears the space, tows the plane, sources the battery, raises the paperwork, goods receipts it, does the change over, disposes of the packaging, takes the battery to the recycle place(done at a later date), clean up put tools away, push plane out and chin wag with you while you tell warries about the last battery.
C. Fills in the MR and raises your invoice.
D. Pays the credit card fees....or chases you for payment

Yep.....19 minute job. ;)

[D B Cooper]

Then there's also the preparation of the new battery. Read up what you are supposed to do, and if you're fitting a new battery in 19 minutes you are not doing it properly.
You'd be the first one in for a whinge if there was some problem with the new battery, too! And you'd be jumping all over the place if you found that the ginger beer hadn't fitted your new battery properly!!! (Like, if he did it in 19 minutes)

[Jabawocky]

Perhaps that too!....not all are like that though ;)

[jamsquat]

Businesses aren't allowed to put a margin on their parts now? Why should they supply the battery at cost and then charge you 19mins labour ($26.91 on a $85 hourly rate). That type of business model wouldn't allow them to turn the power on so they could print the invoice! Just because aviation is your hobby doesn't mean it's everyone else's:ugh:

[tnuc]

If the battery was a dry charged gill lead acid type the activation and initial charging instructions start in chapter 5.2 of the below linked manual
This would take Substantially longer than 19 mins.

http://www.gillbatteries.com/pdfs/Flooded_Service_Manual.pdf

[thorn bird]

Hmmm....the regulatory burden.
Wonder how long till we see NZ maintenance only workshops in Australia?
Sensible regulations, half the maintenace costs aint rocket science!

[tnuc]

So activating, charging and installing the battery in accordance with the manufacturers instructions to ensure that optimum performance and service life are achieved is due to "regulatory burden"

[Popgun]

Anyone know of any NZ-approved maintenance outfits on the east coast?

[4 Holer]

Serious question

Q) Why is it that the United States is the only country in the world where a mechanic can work on a private aircraft on his/her own WITHOUT an approved maintenance organisation ?

The United States invented the aircraft Boeing/Douglas/Lockheed/Martin also internet, telephone, electricity, lightbulb went to moon and still has by far the largest numbers of aircraft no 121 air carrier crashed for a few years 7100 flights cancelled due ice snow ONE DAY last week.

Did the Europeans bring in all these rules ?

Q2) Why does Australia have a love/hate relationship with USA ?

On one hand bloody yanks are dodgy look at the 1500 United Airlines/Delta Jets not as good as Qantas ( car full of engineers to sign the tech log) , the other oh in the US you can do this this and this ???? :confused:

[Old Akro]

To recap a bit. Our twin 100 hourly's cost generally &5k - $8k with the price of a 100 hourly with no remedial work being around the $5k mark. The LAME we use is the cheapest / best of 4 I have direct experience with. He's at a regional airport where his hangar rent is relatively low.

When I speak with other twin owners they seem to support that $5 k is pretty much as good as it gets.

I became curious and started looking at US costs. This is where I got the figures of 32 hours / $2800 + parts ( or about $3,000 total). I also searched some forums ( notably Beechtalk) where I found some good, authoritative and recent posts where twin owners were reporting actual billed costs in line the prices I found advertised - so they seem real.

So, there seems to be about a $2k ( exchange rate adjusted) gap between US prices and Australian prices.

Why?

One reason is the typical hourly shop rare in the uS is $85 vs the Australian $100. This is I suspect mainly about higher hangar rental, insurance, electricity, etc.

But 32 hours x $100 = $3200 + $300 for oil & filters & music consumables and there is still a fair gap to typical US prices.

Why does it seem to take more labour hours to do the same job in Australia? Bearing in mind we are working on Americam built aircraft with American specified maintenance schedules. In fact we use the CASA schedule 5 which is reputed to be easier / less thorough / cheaper than the manufacturer schedules.

The argument that it takes longer to service these old aircraft because of calendar airframe age us patent nonsense. Except for the commercially used twins ( eg Chieftan) most twins are below 5,000 hours total time and are more commonly hangar end than singles. Our aircraft is a low time, over maintained, babied thing compared with any car, boat, or other similar mechanical device.

If there are CASA imposed work practices that slow down productivity, then we should be trying to push back against it. There is a strong argument that high maintenance costs are detrimental to safety. The higher the cost of a basic inspection, the more likely an owner is likely to not do additional preventative maintenance.

[Andy_RR]

The reason it's expensive isn't just the aviation regulations. It's regulations in general and the box-ticking, paper-war, arse-covering mentality that our society has embraced. All of this stuff has to be paid for somehow and the guys that do this stuff won't wait 90 or 180 days to be paid.

We had a box-ticker come visit our factory unit (strata titled) to do the 3-monthly "fire safety check". He's paid by someone (everyone?) to swan around checking lights, doors, extinguishers, ticking boxes on his special iPad application and collecting signatures, just because some lawyer types decided it was a very necessary thing, irrespective of the cost-benefit.

What happened to personal responsibility? It's the cheapest way of dealing with the problem, usually. Insurance premiums are also a great motivator!

This is just one example of our follow-the-rules-based culture that we have to fund somehow. Of course the government loves it because it's all part of the make-work, full employment mantra. To hell with efficiency and the meaning of life.

[VH-XXX]

Q) Why is it that the United States is the only country in the world where a mechanic can work on a private aircraft on his/her own WITHOUT an approved maintenance organisation ?

4 Holer, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the following CASA publication... Schedule 8 of CAR 1988.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42zc_1.pdf

Here are a few gems from this document detailing what a PILOT can do.

Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft
Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of spark plugs.
Replacement of batteries.
Changing oil filters or air filters.
Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.

[dubbleyew eight]

why do hangars have lockable doors?

so that an owner can do maintenance undisturbed :E

[Old Akro]

I so wish there was a " like" button

[4 Holer]

VH-XXX, so your system allows a pilot to do some maintenance change/adjust spark plugs, change oil and oil filters BUT THE ENGINEER IS NOT ALLOWED to do it. The engineer MUST be working under a companies maintenance approval.

As they say in Texas " YOU CANNOT FIX STUPID" :ok:

[Ethel the Aardvark]

Hi Mr 4 holer,
I understand under the current rules an engineer can fix defects without a company approval, he cannot however issue a maintenance release and fully jack an aircraft off the ground. He can perform an engine change without an approval.
This will probably change when CASA understands the new regs.

[Old Akro]

This will probably change when CASA understands the new regs.

I might be dead by then

[Aussie Bob]

But some of the sh@t boxes that are offered for sale here are quite terrible. Even relatively new stuff is badly presented, poor paint, scuffed and dirty interiors, obvious defects not fixed, dodgy el cheapo Shedule 5 maintenance, scruffy logs, missing paperwork ambiguous records that are difficult to find let alone review, SB's ignored etc etc, even with an asking price of a few hundred thou.

Add to that, an owner who thinks his toy is worth way way more than realistic market value and who can't really be bothered with you when you contact him.

The value of an aeroplane in Australia is the same as it would cost to buy and import a similar model from the US, no more, certainly not double!

[Jabawocky]

Bob :ok:

Post Of The Year contender there mate :D

Simple formula, (((Price in USD x Exchange rate) + Ferry/Freight) + GST) + approx $15k to get it on the register.

[D B Cooper]

Just a bit more on "mark-ups" here.....

Suppose you've just fitted a battery that you sold to your favourite customer. You paid $300 for it, and sold it to your favourite customer for $300 - because he's such a good bloke! And because your such a champion engineer, and such a good bloke too, you charge 19 minutes of your time, for the work.

Next week he's back. There's something wrong with the battery you just sold him. The aircraft wont start! Quick - you must drop whatever you're doing and save the situation.

So you dump your second favourite customer, (whose aircraft you were working on right then) and run off to do what you can to help your mate, who's by then threatening legal action.

You find that the new battery is faulty. You did a great job, but the battery you just sold was a dud when it left the factory. The bloke who sold it to you says "No worries, just bring it back and we'll sell you another one. When we send the one we sold last week back to the bloke we bought it from, and he checks it out and confirms it's a dud, we'll give you a credit for it. That should only take three months or so. You'll have to pick up the tab for the freight, though, and there's some forms to fill out."

So you pull the dud out, get another new one, and fit it. It all took a couple of hours, and cost you another $300. At least your customers aircraft is going again, but he's not happy, and reminds you that he'll expect a fair discount on his next 100 hourly, because he's been jerked around. Well, at least that's better than getting sued, like his lawyer wanted, because he missed that charter. Yeah, he's a real good bloke.

Then you go back to your hangar, and your second favourite customer is waiting around to pick up the aircraft you'd promised an hour ago, and he's not happy......

You did nothing wrong, but didn't make wages for the day, because last week you were a good bloke!

This scenario might not happen all the time, but it does happen. A reasonable mark-up, allows the MRO to smooth out a few bumps so it can provide a better service.

[Old Akro]

The worst charge I had was for a PA31-350, where there was a 3 hour charge, no travel, nose in workshop and supplied battery and paperwork from Aviall [I took old battery away]. I have done the same job, just takes 19 minutes and an endorsement of MR.

DB Cooper, I think you misread UITA's post. He was not complaining about being charged 19 minutes for fitting. Nor was he complaining about a margin on the battery. He was complaining about being charged 3 hours to fit a replacement battery which was fully charged, ready to go in the hangar with the aircraft. At Aussie labour rates, I'm guessing this more than equalled the cost of the battery.

Pretty much the only use for dry charged batteries now is Aviation. They were phased out in automotive use nearly 40 years ago. The main reason they were phased out is that there was a very high warranty rate on them because workshops sold them after filling with acid but not charging before fitting them. Just fill with acid, put them in the car and take the money.

Dry batteries are made by assembling "formed" plates. That is plates that are put in a sulphuric acid bath and charged under the normal regime then dried. They restore a significant amount of charge immediately upon activation and will function immediately. However, alternators never fully charge a battery, so they will never fully restore in service and suffer premature failure.

The recommended retail price of the battery includes acid which is shipped separately in bottles and an allowance for the retailer to fill the acid and bench charge the battery.

In the old days, the most common cause of warranty was broken inter-cell welds. Improved manufacturing equipment eliminated this in the late eighties. That leaves the two major causes of warranty as sulphation from storage of wet batteries too long (lead acid batteries in storage require charging every 10 weeks) or in the case of dry batteries cutting corners in the activation process. Real manufacturing warranty issues on lead-acid batteries is below 1%.

All of this is, of course, being eclipsed by valve regulated lead-acid batteries which are sometimes called sealed lead-acid batteries. These use a very different manufacturing technology which the Japanese & Taiwanese manufacturers led the development to bring them to mass markets in the eighties & nineties. These batteries are much better for aircraft applications.

The third category are the spiral wound batteries (eg Optima & Orbital batteries). The development of these is routed in the old Australian Pulsar batteries developed by Pacific Dunlop. They are wet lead acid batteries (but sealed) and would be really excellent in aircraft, but no-one is interested in the cost of certifying them.

This is a long winded answer, but it illustrates that there is just a lot of nonsense talked to justify excessive labour charges. There should be enough margin in the battery price to cover filling & activation. The labour charged to fit the battery should be the reasonable time it takes to fit it and if you feel the need to add additional costs to cover warranty, then I'd suggest that you might need to take a look in the mirror because 3/4 of "warranty"claims on modern lead-acid batteries lie with the practices of the reseller / fitter.

[dubbleyew eight]

my thoughts are that the casa micromanagement totally skews the environment to the detriment.

if I put my car in for servicing the mechanic will tell me if he discovers anything that needs to be done beyond what the basic service costs. we then work out together what the course of action will be.
Unless the guy is a total shonky the owner will take the car away satisfied.

in aviation this isn't the case. LAME's think that they work for CASA and the owner is a fool. often the owner is told nothing about the problems found and walks into the shop past an aeroplane that looks pretty much the way he left it and gets the bill.
in the case of an aeroplane I flew down for maintenance with the owner as a passenger with a broken foot. the owner was hit with a $12,000 bill for the annual. the LAME made no effort to tell the owner that he had found a problem, a chafed engine mount tube.
the really frustrating thing is that the owner is a far better TIG welder than the guy the LAME used and could have done the job for nothing.

The basic relationship between a LAME doing an annual should be a simple commercial relationship with the owner. CASA doesn't own the aeroplane.
the problem is that CASA is so overbearing that LAME's turn their attention to servicing the regulatory overhead and ignore the customer.

It is not a good healthy environment thanks to CASA.

[Old Akro]

We had a $30,000 annual with bugger all warning. At the same time my daughters car was at the mechanic chasing a problem. I got a phonecall from the mechanic after he found the problem, before he took action because it required an expensive part - a $300 fan.

Why can car mechanics pick up the phone for $300 but LAME's won't for $30k?

[Jack Ranga]

Because they've got you by the balls Akro

[yr right]

Well as an LAME now entering my 35 year in the industry ill tell you all this. The LAME has been suberizing the industry for ever. But know its stopping. People are leaving in droves. You see anyone can become a pilot, have a look around how many people do you know that don't make it. Not everyone wants to work for the airlines. When we sign off we are liable for that aircraft for the next 12months and that means every thing that has taken past prior to that date as well.
I've use this before so have a think about this. Then next have a think about what we do how we do it and why we do it, and then ask why would we do it.


If you have a heart problem and you require surgery. Who you going to get to do it. New guy 70k a year he is on. Next guy really good 150k a year or the professor well he is the best 300k a year. Now when I ask well everyone with out emptions has said well 1st guy no, he not going to be leaning on me. 3rd guy yep but I cant afford him so 2nd fella can afford him and should be good. When I ask but you could use the 1st guy , oh he has my life in his hands. MMM good point, now I say this. tomorrow when you leave here and this engine I've just installed goes buuuuurrrrrbbb bubble brrrrrr and stops and you go oh f%&* and you look beside you and behind you now who is worth more than what you are paying us. Now remember CASA requirements are set by law, in most cases local areas have different ideas strange but true. When an aircraft has an incident every thing is look at from the front to the back. We are presumed guilty and have to prove innocence. Where else is that in Australia.
As for rates well most Toyota, Holden Ford are when worked out $140 an hour. Now look at manuals and keeping them updated. Basic library's $25k plus at a minimum. Now you have to keep it updated another 5k a year for that service. Now for paper work oh gee we just love paper we dream about it NOT, this is part of doing the job we have to do. Now we have CASA audits getting a x against you name cause the sheet of ally hasn't got a grn at both ends of the sheet or the store door is unlocked or your tool box is messy { **** me im working ********} you haven't got a date on that piece of paper you have just printed off the m/m. Or my all time favourite is you haven't put on your work sheet what you done it too, meaning instead of have done iaw C185 M/M you now have to say cause it may be confused that you may have used the a Boeing 747 m/m. C/O IAW C185 M.M chap 32/03/05. Now add that cost into your bill.
The biggest problem is that most private people cannot afford to own and run a private aircraft, sad but true. LAMEs are leaving the industry quicker and more now than ever before and are not being replaced, now the way CASA has been manipulated by a certain airline to change the licencing that is now sending it maintenance of shore the problem is going to get much worse, I don't advise anyone to come into the industry anymore I steer them away.
Aircraft engineering is far more complex than you can ever imagine. Just to keep in touch with rule changes to keep people in jobs threat of fines hanging over you if you make a mistake plus all the other commercial pressures that are also carried by the LAME. At the end of the day an hourly rate that is way to low. Im sorry if you think its to high well tuff, my advise to you start paying more before you will really have to pay more.


Now as why we do it ?

[Aviater]

I love GA, but I left it because of some of the reasons listed above. Got all my LAME tickets for retirement and got out. It's very difficult to make a living being a LAME in GA. This thread is a typical example of why being a GA LAME is a bad idea.

No support. Poor income stream. No training. Very few good mentors left. Couple that with the regulator hiding behind your bedroom door just hoping for a chance to send you to prison and fine you your life savings. No thanks.

I love the fact that there's a thread on the 'Cost of 100 hourly's'. As if any one is comparable to the next.

It's like when you sell a V8 and someone asks 'what kind of fuel economy does it get?'

[Deanna41]

Hi
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.


Now with renting you never see that money again.


I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?


My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it


So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training? :hmm::(

[StickWithTheTruth]

Hi
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.


Now with renting you never see that money again.


I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?


My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it


So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training? :hmm::(

Hmmm is spot on!

Depending on the aircraft type and age, you might be up for $11-12k for the 100 hourly / annual inspection!

[Aussie Bob]

Quite a few flying schools will refuse to train you in your own aircraft. Those that will, will charge you $100 - $250 per hour to do so. Have you spoken to your school about this? This knocks a big hole in what you can save.

My recommendation is that you find a flying school that teaches under the RAA banner. Get an RAA licence then convert it to a CASA RPL, this is only a paperwork exercise plus a bit of instrument flying.

Then consider a GA aircraft and do the required flight review in it to validate your CASA RPL. Again some flying schools will not do flight reviews in aircraft other than theirs. Ask around.

Finally, owning an aircraft requires a lot of research, this will be easier if you have the experience of actually being a pilot. What StickWithThe Truth said re maintenance cost is a common trap that devastates new owners.

[Flying Binghi]

Hi
I would like to complete my flying training. The rates to higher aircraft are very high.
The flight school I am looking at charges $320 an hour (Instructor Included).
Based on 35 hours that is $11200 (Not that all hours will be dual) but lets just say it is.


Now with renting you never see that money again.


I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?


My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it


So the main question is do I waste the $11-12K on the flight school or go all out and buy and aircraft for my training? :hmm::(

If yer gotta ask the question - Don't.

Sound advice: "...owning an aircraft requires a lot of research, this will be easier if you have the experience of actually being a pilot..."






.

[YPJT]

Don't expect much of a welcome at a flying school which already operates under extremely tight margins when you come in with your il conceived proposal to undercut them further.

We've seen a lot of inexperienced and new to aviation individuals try this and similar games in the past. They don't last long and it usually ends in tears....for them.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Owning an aircraft versus hiring is like a bacon and egg sandwich.

The chook is involved, but the pig is committed.

[Old Akro]

My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it

Yeah, No on both counts.

Aircraft used to hold value / increase. But that was mainly in the period when the $A was devaluing. Don't expect an aircraft to hold value / be an asset any more.

You have control over who flies it and what upgrades you do. But the CASA system conspires to rob you of any real control over its maintenance - to the detriment of the asset value of your aircraft and safety.

I should add that I do own and aircraft and would not wish to fly IFR in rented aircraft. But the price of playing in this sandpit is high.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.

Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.

Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not ---- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.

We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.

One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.

By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.

For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.

Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.

With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.

How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".

As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.

Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.

I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.

Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??

We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".

For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.

All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.

[Bend alot]

Folks,
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.

Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.

Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not ---- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.

We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.

One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.

By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.

For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.

Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.

With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.

How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".

As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.

Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.

I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.

Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??

We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".

For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.

All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.



Where do we record the calibrated tooling number and its next due date? what is the torque of that yellow valve cap?

what is the torque if you use a crows foot and not a socket?

[Eddie Dean]

Where do we record the calibrated tooling number and its next due date? what is the torque of that yellow valve cap?

what is the torque if you use a crows foot and not a socket?There is no torque stipulated for the valve cap.

[Sunfish]

somewhere between 15 - 50 inch pounds is the design spec, but that is to hold 5000psi.

[A Squared]

There is no torque stipulated for the valve cap.

Actually, there is. I came across it when I was reading he Cleveland Wheels and Brakes Maintenance instructions manual for changing tires on my 180 (Yeah, I can do that in the US)

[gileraguy]

The reason the automobile mechanic phones you regarding a $300 part is that, if they perform the work WITHOUT consent, the customer does not have to pay for it. That's why dealership Service Advisors have you sign the Repair Order before they begin work on the vehicle.

LAMEs on the other hand, have perhaps not encountered this phenomenon and I have associates who have experienced the LAME quoting a job to get the work, then when it's time to pick up the bird, the quote has blown out. (By several THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)It's the same principal, but the dealers have been burnt doing this, so they get approval... It's hard to stand up to an expert working on your bird though...

[Bend alot]

So some know there is a torque others don't - some write the reference others don't - some check if their data is current others don't - some certify for it others don't.

Now just how long will it take to do a tire pressure check and do the paperwork (inc invoice) listing the reference material inc chapter and calibrated tool reference details and next due dates?

[LeadSled]

There is no torque stipulated for the valve cap. Wrong answer, several CASA AWIs of my acquaintance would be calling you in for a very unfriendly chat. They just love making people's lives miserable with this kind of picking of nits.

On the tubes I use, the answer is 10 inch/pounds. And yes, I do have a 1/4 drive suitable device.

I am not prepared to publicly discuss how often it has ever been used, but the "official answer" is: "Whenever required by the Civil Aviation Act 1988, the CARs, the CASRs, the CAOs, MOS, ADs and Manufacturer's Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness for the part or component.

Bend alot,
The current calibration certificate should be "affixed" (don't you love that word affixed) to the torque device and must be legible, and the paper receipt from the CASA approved certifier must be held on file ---- more or less the quote from our local mob.

That is why most of us have two, the one we actually use, and the pristine pretty one for the audit.

In fact, a good mate of mine has been calibrating torque devices for years.
For the sort of stuff we use, he supplies a metallic self adhesive label (like a bit of speedtape) with the expiry date and ref. number stamped into the label, and the necessary CASA approved "return to service" paper document.

And where would you use a crows foot instead of a socket (including a cutout socket) but if you do, make the appropriate calculation to set the torque wrench, to account for the difference/distance between the center-line of the stud and the "square" hole. In other words, just as you do torquing prop. bolts. You do use a proper tool with a known extension lever dimension, when fitting props, of course?? Don't you??

Tootle Pip!!

[Bend alot]

Or put the crows foot on so it is 90 degrees - or the extension for props.

If the daily calls for checking the correct inflation of the tyres where do you record your special tool used serial number and next due cal date?

[Stationair8]

At least the car dealership can find new ways to extract cash from your hip pocket!

$25.00 environmental levee for disposing of the old oil- next time I will be taking in a 5 litre drum and bypassing this little revenue earner!

[Bend alot]

Stationair,

Supply customer with waste oil in 5lt drum (supplied) as requested - min charge 0.25 hr @ $157.00 = $39.25.

[LeadSled]

Stationair8,
If it is NSW, a substantial proportion of that levy (samesame tyres, $30 min. to use the local tip etc.) goes to Consolidated Revenue, not into the service station's pocket.
Tootle Pip!!

PS: Bend alot: For gaaawwwds sake, don't 'm ideas. They already "require" a minimum size "REMOVE BEFORE FLIGHT" placard INSIDE canopy covers "in clear view of the pilot when seated".

[Metro man]

I am considering buying an aircraft but overwhelmed of the costs involved, can anyone give constructive feedback?

My way of thinking is
1) It is an asset
2) You have control over it

An aircraft is a depreciating high cost liability rather than an asset. Unless you are using it regularly for business or have a way of making money with it, forget it.

Look at purchase cost, insurance (inexperienced pilot), hangarage, maintenance, landing fees, fuel etc. I'm assuming you don't know too much about aircraft at this stage and wouldn't be able to tell what to avoid, a salesman will smell this a mile off. Do you know what an A/D, service bulletin and TBO are ? Don't be embarrassed, I'd be the same if I was looking at a yacht.

Learning to fly, you will probably start out on a simple type such as a C152 and move onto constant speed prop/retractable gear and finish off on a basic twin so 2-3 different types before your CPL is issued.

Having control means if the aircraft goes U/S while you're training you have to get it repaired compared to the school finding you another one.

Purchase appreciating assets such as property, lease depreciating ones.

If it flies, floats or f****, rent it.

[StickWithTheTruth]

I don't earn bucket loads of cash and I've owned half a dozen aircraft over 20 years. The choices you make need to be wise ones though to be able to afford to be as broke as
I am :-)

[Eddie Dean]

Actually, there is. I came across it when I was reading he Cleveland Wheels and Brakes Maintenance instructions manual for changing tires on my 180 (Yeah, I can do that in the US)Just had a look at the Cleveland wheels and brakes on the ATP site, there is no value for torque on the valve cap. I feel the noise about the valve cap is just made up.
I noticed recently some aircraft tyres with the black plastic valve cap - what wrench do you torquee people use for this?

[A Squared]

Just had a look at the Cleveland wheels and brakes on the ATP site, there is no value for torque on the valve cap. I feel the noise about the valve cap is just made up.
I noticed recently some aircraft tyres with the black plastic valve cap - what wrench do you torquee people use for this?

Taking a second look at the instructions, I guess it's a torque value for the inflation stem, not the cap.

[Possum1]

I noticed recently some aircraft tyres with the black plastic valve cap

Could this be because they are using tubes for a boat trailer tyre rather than an aircraft tyre?:E

Or it could be the typically skint aircraft owner having a forage in the area of the servo where he last pumped up the tyres of his car for tyre valve caps lost by previous motorists and using them on his aircraft.

[Eddie Dean]

Taking a second look at the instructions, I guess it's a torque value for the inflation stem, not the cap.It definitely is for the stem, for tubeless tyres, the give away is 60 inch lbs

[Eddie Dean]

Could this because they are using tubes for a boat trailer tyre rather than an aircraft tyre?:E

Or it could be the typically skint aircraft owner having a forage in the area of the servo where he last pumped up the tyres of his car for tyre valve caps lost by previous motorists and using them on his aircraft.No was on yet to be fitted tube.

[A Squared]

Could this be because they are using tubes for a boat trailer tyre rather than an aircraft tyre?:E

Or it could be the typically skint aircraft owner having a forage in the area of the servo where he last pumped up the tyres of his car for tyre valve caps lost by previous motorists and using them on his aircraft.

Meh, so what? For the record, all my valve stems have the yellow painted metal caps which came with the tubes, but can you explain how safety would be compromised if one went missing and I replaced it with a plastic cap from an automobile tire?

[andrewr]

Metal caps are supposed to retain pressure if the valve leaks

[LeadSled]

Eddie Dean,
In my case the 10 inch pounds was in the fine print of the paperwork that came with the tube (not a valve fitting for a tubeless tyre), but I have also seen it in general fitting instructions for more than one brand.
In each case, for the little metal yellow cap, it has been 10 inch pounds.

That it is not in ATP docs. is not definitive, it is the "MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS ----- da da da " that count.

As for "made up" you remind me of a colleague in another state, who, for years, was of the view that some of the horror stories she heard about CASA were "made up" to cover people who "must have been guilty, otherwise why would CASA have taken action".

Then her long standing "airworthiness surveyor" (there is an old term for you) retired and a new full on crusading AWI turned up, and she was comprehensively "done over". Even had to fend off a charge of having "unapproved aviation parts and components on a CASA approved site" ---- they were bits of an outboard motor that one of the guys was working on.

In another case, the AWI decided that whole Experimental Amateur Built aircraft were not "aircraft" (or some such description) in law and should not even be in the same hangar as ICAO Annex 8 C.of A aircraft maintenance, and forced that company to move such aircraft and Recreational Aviation Australia registered aircraft to a separate hangar.

He also got into trouble with his license due recent experience, said CASA AWI claimed that working on non-Annex 8 aircraft did not count for the recent experience requirement for working in the industry -- I forget the precise words in the regulations.

That LAME, one of the most conscientious and thorough aircraft maintenance persons I have ever known (and I have known a few) as a result of the continual debilitating CASA harassment, got out of the aviation business.

Indeed, for a time, we were flying aircraft out of the jurisdiction of that CASA office, because doing an annual or a 100 H inspection was a nightmare of randomly imposed additional requirements. We could not afford the costs and delays, particularly the delays of not being able to close up a job on completion, until this AWI has made his own "condition inspection", which he dd at his leisure.

Given my long experience, I have no trouble believing any horror stories of CASA atrocities.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: A while back, one office went on a purge of registration letters, size, proportion, and especially not vertical. As I am sure you, with your experience, know that incorrect portions of rego. letters is a leading cause of death and destruction in aviation, and probably also causes ingrown toenails and post-natal depression.

[Bend alot]

Seem to recall if the torque is not specified - use the standard torque for the thread size often listed in the chart in the Aircraft Maintenance Manuals or then I think AC43-13 as standard practices (if allowed) by Aircraft Manufacturer.

Note - every thing has a "torque" even if it says finger tight!

Now what is the torque on the Lyco dip stick?

[Connedrod]

Folks,
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.

Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.

Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not--- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.

We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.

One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.

By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.

For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.

Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.

With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.

How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".

As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.

Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.

I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.

Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??

We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".

For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.

All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.


We should change your name to the queen of spin.

There is no tq for a valve cap. There is a tq for the valve its self and this was picked up by an ex raaf personal now a awi.
A m/r is issued for all work to be carried out piour to the release of the m/r and all work that is require in the next service interval to be noted in part 1 of the issued m/r. Once again your wrong. How after an accident in Victoria a jugde said that the issue of an m/r means nothing will go wrong with the aircraft. Even casa said that this was not the intent in the court case.
An owner can jack an aircraft as long as he/she jacks one wheel at a time. The aircraft is not allowed to jacked completely of the ground. Once again read the regs.
As for the quaitly of usa aircraft. Well im sure ive seen more usa aircraft more intermittently than yourself an once again i can safley say you are incorrect.

As for battery charging. This is once again misleading. If your aircraft is ifr YOU cant charge the battery.

[Connedrod]

As for pilot owner maintenance. The biggest problem is they dont take ownership of the maintenance they carry out. Ie the dont make a statement on the M/R. This leads any proplems onto the person that release tne aircraft.

[Sunfish]

No wonder Australian aviation is such a mess

[mostlytossas]

Just for the record. We carry out our own oil and oil filter changes between 100hlys on our aircraft and sign off the MR as required. If you know of owners who don't then enlighten them to the requirement to do so.If they won't then tell them to find another LAME.
I would imagine most aircraft based in the bush get a certain amount of owner maintenance.

[andrewr]

The biggest problem is they dont take ownership of the maintenance they carry out. Ie the dont make a statement on the M/R. This leads any proplems onto the person that release tne aircraft.

Perhaps. Or maybe if you can demonstrate that the owner did maintenance without properly documenting it, it becomes harder to prove who actually last maintained a system? If the owner is meticulous in their records and the last person to perform maintenance was the LAME that is more clear cut.

[LeadSled]

Connedrod,
Everything I have said about yellow metal valve caps means yellow metal valve caps, not valve inserts.

That you haven't read the Manufacturer's Instructions only means that you haven't read them, nothing more.

As for my remarks on CASA's interpretation of Schedule 8 maintenance, it is entirely consistent with CASA "educational" publications (CD and paper) outlining responsibilities and limitations when doing Schedule 8 maintenance, including the CASA presentations at the occasional CASA/Airservices "Aviation Safety" (whatever they are actually called) traveling roadshow, airshows and the like.

As to IFR and batteries, at all times I have been referring to Schedule 8 maintenance, not under any other Schedule. The issue of fully charging a new battery is, again, Manufacturer's Instructions (howsoever described) for every battery maker I have ever used.

More to the point, they are entirely consistent with CASA compliance and enforcement action, and penalties imposed, of which I am all too aware, in at least three states.

And before you make any silly comments, the enforcement actions were not against me, or any company or aircraft in which I might have or had an interest.

Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes, don't start me.

That this has not been your personal experience or within your level of knowledge is of no relevance to the facts.

How after an accident in Victoria a jugde (sic) said that the issue of an m/r means nothing will go wrong with the aircraft

Read Schedule 5 in its entirety.

Re. the Maintenance Release, proper handling and completion of the MR is a different issue, and applies regardless of which class of person is responsible and signing for return to service.

Tootle pip!!

[Connedrod]

[I]More to the point, they are entirely consistent with CASA compliance and enforcement action, and penalties imposed, of which I am all too



Read Schedule 5 in its entirety.

Re. the Maintenance Release, proper handling and completion of the MR is a different issue, and applies regardless of which class of person is responsible and signing for return to service.

Tootle pip!![/QUOTE]

For a start sched 5 is not the the instrument for a M/r

Its now 42h formly 42ze
Shed 5 is tne instrument to provide a maintenance inspection program approved from casa.
The it dose how ever only provide a maximum service interval of 12month and 100 hours.

In the shed 8 for pilots a comment is made.

The aircrcraft SHOULD be serviceable for the preiod og the M /R. This comment is not made in the legislature requirements in 42h. This is a flipent coment and should be removed. Not one person that issues any aircraft can give that and say it not going to have an in service problem.

[Bend alot]

This directly from CAsA Schedule 5



6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.

[Connedrod]

Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes,

Its in black and white in the maintenance shedule 8. In fact its number 1. May jack the aicraft but only 1 wheel at a time. Schedule 8 covered under 42.
But then where is your calibrated tooling and maintenance manual cause you will have them on hand wont you.

As for casa.
As a maintenance shop we have regular aduits. We pass an aduit. Then for an unrelated reason we have another aduit specfic to one thing. We have our process manual we we do our work too. Its approved. Just re approved. These clowns say its wrong. Wtf. When asked why its wrong. We have to go back to the office and tell you after we look at it. I said. Your the regulatorybroad you should know the answer now. Thet could answer. Their only reply was yes we here this all the time. They make up their own regs to suit themselves. So for someone to say that you cant jack a wheel is flase. Read shed 8. Black and white.

[Connedrod]

So leadie as a matter of interest how many poeple have you trained to carry out shed 8 maintenance

[A Squared]

Indeed, what "jacking" meant was a specific question raised by on audience member, the CASA presenter did not agree with your version of "the law". As to the CASA version of the rest of the matter of tyres and tubes,

Its in black and white in the maintenance shedule 8. In fact its number 1. May jack the aicraft but only 1 wheel at a time. Schedule 8 covered under 42.

So, help me follow this "jacking" issue. I've been seeing this for several posts now, and it seems like I'm missing some context, or something.

It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?

[Eddie Dean]

So, help me follow this "jacking" issue. I've been seeing this for several posts now, and it seems like I'm missing some context, or something.

It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?You are allowed to jack one wheel at a time, without a hangar or CofA. Disregard all those that say otherwise.

[Lead Balloon]

So, help me follow this "jacking" issue. I've been seeing this for several posts now, and it seems like I'm missing some context, or something.

It seems like folks here are saying that if I were a private aircraft owner, that CASA has regulations in place which would prohibit me from jacking up more than one wheel at a time on my own personal privately owned and operated aircraft, regardless of my reasons for wishing to do so?That would be dangerously criminal in Australia.

[Eddie Dean]

That would be dangerously criminal in Australia.
WTF ?????!?

[tnuc]

The wording cut and pasted directly out of out of Schedule 8

Schedule 8—Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)

Part 1—Maintenance on Class B aircraft other than balloons

1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
…… etc

[Lead Balloon]

1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
…… etcEddie.

Although Schedule 8 is the usual appallingly bad drafting - the limitation at the end of 1 could be read as implicitly not applying to e.g. 2 or 3, so that its OK to completely jack the aircraft if you’re “servicing landing gear wheel bearings” but not if you’re removing or installing tyres - I think you’ll find that the regulator takes the view that in no circumstances does Schedule 8 authorise the “complete” jacking of an aircraft.

[Eddie Dean]

Eddie.

Although Schedule 8 is the usual appallingly bad drafting - the limitation at the end of 1 could be read as implicitly not applying to e.g. 2 or 3, so that its OK to completely jack the aircraft if you’re “servicing landing gear wheel bearings” but not if you’re removing or installing tyres - I think you’ll find that the regulator takes the view that in no circumstances does Schedule 8 authorise the “complete” jacking of an aircraft.I wrote that you are allowed to jack one wheel. Nothing about jacking complete aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

Indeed. My response, to which you responded “WTF????I?”, was to A Squared’s question.

Complete jacking would be dangerously criminal.

[Eddie Dean]

Indeed. My response, to which you responded “WTF????I?”, was to A Squared’s question.

Complete jacking would be dangerously criminal.Fair enough

[Lead Balloon]

Quite so.

And that’s why I feel so guilty every time I use my Beech Jack, which is a 3-point jack that raises the entire aircraft including all the undercarriage components connected to it.

My behaviour is criminally dangerous, even though using a Beech Jack is objectively less risky to the aircraft and persons nearby than using a single point jack. I’m ashamed with myself. :(

[A Squared]

OK, so apparently, I wasn't missing any context, that CASA really does have regulations prohibiting this.

All I can say is your regulatory agency is completely out of control and has lost all perspective. :ooh: Ho-Leee Crap!!!!!. I'm gonna stop complaining about the FAA!!!!

[Connedrod]

Quite so.

And that’s why I feel so guilty every time I use my Beech Jack, which is a 3-point jack that raises the entire aircraft including all the undercarriage components connected to it.

My behaviour is criminally dangerous, even though using a Beech Jack is objectively less risky to the aircraft and persons nearby than using a single point jack. I’m ashamed with myself. :(


At last we all can agree on something you have said that is correct and true.
Even when faced with what the regs say in black and white you still refuse to except the turth and argue your point of view.
You havent answered a simple question of how many poeple you have examined for shed 8 approved maintenance.
One can emagine with when you pass to the other side god and the devil will be arguing on who will take you. Each will be asking the other to have you. You suffering from the big Q syndrome. Ie we better than everyone else. I do believe that rehap can fix this.
Toot toot

[Lead Balloon]

OK, so apparently, I wasn't missing any context, that CASA really does have regulations prohibiting this.

All I can say is your regulatory agency is completely out of control and has lost all perspective. :ooh: Ho-Leee Crap!!!!!. I'm gonna stop complaining about the FAA!!!!For pilot-performed maintenance CASA’s logic goes something like this:

If you do maintenance on an aircraft and you’re not authorised to do it, you’re a dangerous criminal.

There’s a reg that sets out what maintenance various classes of people are authorised to do.

Pilots of class B aircraft (essentially aircraft that aren’t certified in the Transport category or used in RPT) are authorised to do the maintenance set out in a schedule to the regulations (Schedule 8).

If the maintenance isn’t in Schedule 8, a pilot is not authorised to do it (unless separately authorised as e.g licensed maintenance engineer).

Complete jacking of an aircraft isn’t in Schedule 8.

Therefore, any pilot who carries out a complete jacking of an aircraft is a dangerous criminal. That includes private pilots jacking their own aircraft on their own private premises. (However, I should note: There may be different (more ‘relaxed’) rules for Experimental aircraft.)

The equivalent to Schedule 8 in the FARs is paragraph (c) of Appendix A to FAR 43. I don’t see any prohibition on complete jacking of aircraft. The overarching restriction on the list of maintenance tasks is that the task must not “involve complex assembly operations”.

This is a manifestation of why GA in Australia is so much healthier and safer than in the USA.

[A Squared]

For pilot-performed maintenance CASA’s logic goes something like this:

If you do maintenance on an aircraft and you’re not authorised to do it, you’re a dangerous criminal.

There’s a reg that sets out what maintenance various classes of people are authorised to do.

Pilots of class B aircraft (essentially aircraft that aren’t certified in the Transport category or used in RPT) are authorised to do the maintenance set out in a schedule to the regulations (Schedule 8).

If the maintenance isn’t in Schedule 8, a pilot is not authorised to do it (unless separately authorised as e.g licensed maintenance engineer).

Complete jacking of an aircraft isn’t in Schedule 8.

Therefore, any pilot who carries out a complete jacking of an aircraft is a dangerous criminal. That includes private pilots jacking their own aircraft on their own private premises. (However, I should note: There may be different (more ‘relaxed’) rules for Experimental aircraft.)

The equivalent to Schedule 8 in the FARs is paragraph (c) of Appendix A to FAR 43. I don’t see any prohibition on complete jacking of aircraft. The overarching restriction on the list of maintenance tasks is that the task must not “involve complex assembly operations”.

This is a manifestation of why GA in Australia is so much healthier and safer than in the USA.

Thanks. That's more or less what I understood the situation to be, that we were discussing what Mx a pilot who is not a certificated aircraft mechanic could or could not do to an aircraft which is not operated commercially.


The part I'm having a tough time with is WTF CASA think's it's important that I don't put my plane up on two jacks at the same time. If it falls off, well, that's my own airplane I just damaged, isn't it?


So, if I were changing tires on my 180, and I lifted the entire airplane using an overhead hoist and the airplane's lifting rings, (actually the best way to lift a 180/185, they're kind of squirrly to jack with their long spring steel landing gear legs) would I be a dangerous criminal?

[Lead Balloon]

Of course you’d be a dangerous criminal, as that’s not on the list in Schedule 8.

It makes more sense if you understand that CASA is on a mission to save you and your aircraft from yourself.

[A Squared]

So, if a guy has a retractable gear aircraft, and he wanted to check that the gear doors were closing flush (for example) It would be prohibited for him to put his plane on jacks and do a gear swing, even if he's actually not touching it with a wrench or screwdriver, just a visual inspection.

(still having a tough time getting my mind around this)

[Lead Balloon]

If it’s not on the list in Schedule 8 ....

Your mind isn’t attuned to the Australian ‘safety’ paradigm.

[Connedrod]

Of course you’d be a dangerous criminal, as that’s not on the list in Schedule 8.

It makes more sense if you understand that CASA is on a mission to save you and your aircraft from yourself.

No the mission is to save poeple from the likes of people that like to touch thing that that actually dont no about. Know if my member is correct you where on the board that made all these changes quite some time ago. And stop with the Far,s we not in the usa and as such there regs are toally irrelevant to here. As usually you use smoke and mirrors to confuse the facts.
So once more ill ask you.
How many poeple have you done approved maintenance training so they can carry out shed 8 maintenance and other specfic tasks that are not on shed 8
Back to you
Toot toot

[Eddie Dean]

No the mission is to save poeple from the likes of people that like to touch thing that that actually dont no about. Know if my member is correct you where on the board that made all these changes quite some time ago. And stop with the Far,s we not in the usa and as such there regs are toally irrelevant to here. As usually you use smoke and mirrors to confuse the facts.
So once more ill ask you.
How many poeple have you done approved maintenance training so they can carry out shed 8 maintenance and other specfic tasks that are not on shed 8
Back to you
Toot tootMy recollection, and understand that I am old and senile, is that the restriction on pilot and LAME, without a CofA and appropriate hangar, carrying out complete jacking of aircraft was pushed by AMROBA, to protect their own interests. There is also an exclusion for carrying out track and balance of rotor systems and release to service after schedule maintenance unless the LAME has a CofA.

[Aussie Bob]

Connedrod, it is all a bit irrelevant to us non LAME folk.

I front up to the workshop with my bird
I leave with a fresh MR valid for 12 months stating oil changes as the only "hour/calendar" requirement
I do the oil changes
I enter oil changes into the MR
I don't need a torque wrench, the sump has a quick drain fitted, but I have one anyways
I return after 12 months
I pay me bills on time and never question them
Cept last time there was something about the prop on the red paper, sadly this MR only goes for 11 months without something coming up.

[Bend alot]

Correct on the if I just want to check the doors are closing post - you can not do it without a Certificate of Approval, complete jacking needs to also be in a hangar.

What you can do and have done is jack a 210 so the nose wheel is just touching the ground. Remove both main gear actuators carry out service bulletin inspections and modifications on them and install them ( a visit from CAsA was expected and they did when I was not there - they saw a 210 with no main gears, we had lowered it to a lower position) then get a job number for a job from a CofA holder with a remote location attached to the approval (and all reqd manuals), to fully jack and do retractions.

All 100% legal - you will find most maintenance done under schedule 8 is not legally done, from manuals, tooling required, documentation retention and parts. All CAsA regulations and requirements apply as if they were a LAME working for a company that has a CofA carrying out that list of tasks.

[Bend alot]

What aircraft type Aussie Bob?


If it has a handheld fire extinguisher fitted, to my knowledge all at max have a 6 month inspection with some monthly (never seen a yearly one). Some require calibrated scales and all need next due dates to be re entered on the MR.

[Lead Balloon]

My recollection, and understand that I am old and senile, is that the restriction on pilot and LAME, without a CofA and appropriate hangar, carrying out complete jacking of aircraft was pushed by AMROBA, to protect their own interests. There is also an exclusion for carrying out track and balance of rotor systems and release to service after schedule maintenance unless the LAME has a CofA.I find it hard to believe that AMROBA was responsible for the restriction, given that it’s been in the regs for many years prior to AMROBA being formed.

It would be surprising if your underlying point was correct. Surely the maintenance rules would not be influenced by the commercial interests of the people who make money out of maintenance? Next thing you’ll be suggesting that the ‘safety’ rules are influenced by politics!

[Bend alot]

What type of plane Oz Bob?

[Eddie Dean]

Lead Balloon, I believe you are correct about AMROBA, such is the memory of a senile old man. But I do remember being at a CAA(prior to CASA) conference in Darwine in 1992 ish when the "new" regulations, at that time, were being discussed. Amongst these was the removal of LAME privileges to carry out 100 hour/annual under the auspices of their own licence. It was told at the time this was as a direct input from the maintenance organisations.

Interestingly, it was at this time that the CAA legal department had come up with the concept that an aircraft release to service (Maintenance Release in Australia) would deem an aircraft serviceable for the period of such release, they were told in no uncertain terms that we would no longer release aircraft if that was to be the ruling.

[Bend alot]

Lead Balloon, I believe you are correct about AMROBA, such is the memory of a senile old man. But I do remember being at a CAA(prior to CASA) conference in Darwine in 1992 ish when the "new" regulations, at that time, were being discussed. Amongst these was the removal of LAME privileges to carry out 100 hour/annual under the auspices of their own licence. It was told at the time this was as a direct input from the maintenance organisations.

Interestingly, it was at this time that the CAA legal department had come up with the concept that an aircraft release to service (Maintenance Release in Australia) would deem an aircraft serviceable for the period of such release, they were told in no uncertain terms that we would no longer release aircraft if that was to be the ruling.



Was that at the Atrium hotel?

[Lead Balloon]

That sounds about right for the time: The deaf leading the interest groups leading the blind leading the bureacracy.

[Eddie Dean]

Was that at the Atrium hotel?Yes it was mate, were you there?

[Bend alot]

Yes it was mate, were you there?



Yes, I was and remembered to take caution with the changes with comments made. I was a new but senior LAME at that time in that area.

[Eddie Dean]

Yes, I was and remembered to take caution with the changes with comments made. I was a new but senior LAME at that time in that area.Just about the same here, I was the bloke from Lhanahappy homelands and a new Chief Engineer, some of what they said certainly gave pause for thought. It has become far more convoluted now hey?

[Bend alot]

Think I was chief at Kakadu at the time but not 100%

[LeadSled]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8

Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4) (subregulation 42ZC(4))
Part 1 -- Maintenance on Class B aircraft other than balloons

1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4. Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5. Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed--the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7. Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8. Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non-structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.
23. Connection and disconnection of optional dual control in an aircraft without the use of any tools for the purpose of transitioning the aircraft from single to dual, or dual to single, pilot operation.
24. Inspections or checks set out in the following documents in circumstances where the document clearly states that the maintenance may be carried out by the pilot of the aircraft and the maintenance does not require the use of any tools or equipment:
(a) the aircraft's approved maintenance data;
(b) the aircraft's flight manual or an equivalent document;
(c) any instructions issued by the NAA that approved the type certificate for the aircraft.
25. For an aircraft that is installed with an oxygen system for the exclusive use of ill or injured persons on an aircraft used to perform ambulance functions--replenishing the oxygen system installed on the aircraft.

A Squared,

The above is the complete Schedule 8.
CASA actually publish material (CD or hard copy) and give talks at the occasional traveling road show.
The traveling road shows are the really interesting exercises, because you have a person who is of the same category as those who do your audits, which means those who "make the law" on the run. But, as with all bureaucrats, once they have made a determination, they will fight tooth and nail (and the organisation will circle the wagons to support them) no matter how silly their decisions or demands.

At one of these "safety lectures, most of the talk was explaining how much of Schedule 8 and owner or pilot could not do, even though Schedule 8 appeared to say otherwise.
I have already mentioned the issue of a battery, and the necessity for a fully charged battery, which requires an approved facility, and all the things that require a calibrated torque wrench,but here are plenty more .

For example, Item 2, repair tubes --- means you can't fit a new tube??

Item 3 ---- Does not include an inspection of the bearing, so one should apparently do this blindfold, is inspections are secret LAME business, to inspect a bearing, find it defective (galling or whatever) and replace it would be a terrible crime, call the LAME. Having called the LAME being proof that you have committed the crime of inspection.

Item 4 ---- is interesting, it was explained to us that this meant what it said, only defective safety wire, ergo replacing those oil filters that have safety wiring are out of the question, because your are installing new safety wire, having replaced the filter. Not replacing anything defective.

And so it goes on ---- all these tricky bush lawyer interpretations made by people who have the power to make you life very miserable. Like what does "complete jacking" mean?

Like grounding your aircraft, because all the stencils commonly used to apply rego. letters are inch sizes, or the vinyl letters are likewise, so very slightly undersized compared to the "regulations" that are metric, and we all know how dangerous approx. 0.125 inch undersize rego. is, to life and limb.

The pièce de résistance is washing a windscreen, unless something has changed since last time I looked, no light aircraft manufacturer (FAR 23 piston) has published approved data to wash a windscreen, but we had quite a celebrated case here, a while back. The inspector insisted that you could only wash a windscreen by entering a defect (vision obscured??) in the MR, then proceed via the Manufacturer's Instructions, which don't exist, which means a CASR Part 21M(old CAR 35) approval. with lots more rigmarole ---- and it's not on Schedule 8.

All in the true spirit of making life as difficult and expensive as possible. I have had the occasional spirited discussion with an FAA inspector in years gone by, but with only a couple of exceptions, they have never had an acrimonious "big stick" overtone from the opening words, quite the reverse to the all to common atmosphere here.

The net outcome of all this nonsense is a complete lack of respect for just about anything from CASA, which is a pity, because all the things that are actually important get lost in the piles of garbage.=

And much is done behind locked hangar doors, some of which probably shouldn't be, but will never appear in the aircraft records. The saving grace is the great percentage of owners and pilots are quite sensible, so a real risk arising is always possible, but not all that probable.

May be we should be grateful that CASA at least allows us to refuel our own aircraft, and check the oil??

And I have had multiple occasions, over time, to threaten a LAME with legal proceedings for recovery, for such as signing off an AD that was not done, signing off required maintenance that was not done, and in one case, fitting the wrong model of O-470 to a C-182.

Tootle pip!!


Conned Rod (or whatever) ---- would you like to explain to us all the CASA regulations that require training to do Schedule 8 maintenance, as you have brought the subject up.

[Connedrod]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8

Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4) (subregulation 42ZC(4))
Part 1 -- Maintenance on Class B aircraft other than balloons

1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.
2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.
3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.
4. Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in control systems.
5. Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:
(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved; and
(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed--the aircraft has a flight manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door removed.
6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.
7. Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part of the primary structure of the aircraft.
8. Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.
9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.
10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.
11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.
12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of, spark plugs.
13. Replacement of batteries.
14. Changing oil filters or air filters.
15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.
16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non-structural parts, or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.
17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.
18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.
19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.
20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.
21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.
22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.
23. Connection and disconnection of optional dual control in an aircraft without the use of any tools for the purpose of transitioning the aircraft from single to dual, or dual to single, pilot operation.
24. Inspections or checks set out in the following documents in circumstances where the document clearly states that the maintenance may be carried out by the pilot of the aircraft and the maintenance does not require the use of any tools or equipment:
(a) the aircraft's approved maintenance data;
(b) the aircraft's flight manual or an equivalent document;
(c) any instructions issued by the NAA that approved the type certificate for the aircraft.
25. For an aircraft that is installed with an oxygen system for the exclusive use of ill or injured persons on an aircraft used to perform ambulance functions--replenishing the oxygen system installed on the aircraft.

A Squared,

The above is the complete Schedule 8.
CASA actually publish material (CD or hard copy) and give talks at the occasional traveling road show.
The traveling road shows are the really interesting exercises, because you have a person who is of the same category as those who do your audits, which means those who "make the law" on the run. But, as with all bureaucrats, once they have made a determination, they will fight tooth and nail (and the organisation will circle the wagons to support them) no matter how silly their decisions or demands.

At one of these "safety lectures, most of the talk was explaining how much of Schedule 8 and owner or pilot could not do, even though Schedule 8 appeared to say otherwise.
I have already mentioned the issue of a battery, and the necessity for a fully charged battery, which requires an approved facility, and all the things that require a calibrated torque wrench,but here are plenty more .

For example, Item 2, repair tubes --- means you can't fit a new tube??

Item 3 ---- Does not include an inspection of the bearing, so one should apparently do this blindfold, is inspections are secret LAME business, to inspect a bearing, find it defective (galling or whatever) and replace it would be a terrible crime, call the LAME. Having called the LAME being proof that you have committed the crime of inspection.

Item 4 ---- is interesting, it was explained to us that this meant what it said, only defective safety wire, ergo replacing those oil filters that have safety wiring are out of the question, because your are installing new safety wire, having replaced the filter. Not replacing anything defective.

And so it goes on ---- all these tricky bush lawyer interpretations made by people who have the power to make you life very miserable. Like what does "complete jacking" mean?

Like grounding your aircraft, because all the stencils commonly used to apply rego. letters are inch sizes, or the vinyl letters are likewise, so very slightly undersized compared to the "regulations" that are metric, and we all know how dangerous approx. 0.125 inch undersize rego. is, to life and limb.

The pièce de résistance is washing a windscreen, unless something has changed since last time I looked, no light aircraft manufacturer (FAR 23 piston) has published approved data to wash a windscreen, but we had quite a celebrated case here, a while back. The inspector insisted that you could only wash a windscreen by entering a defect (vision obscured??) in the MR, then proceed via the Manufacturer's Instructions, which don't exist, which means a CASR Part 21M(old CAR 35) approval. with lots more rigmarole ---- and it's not on Schedule 8.

All in the true spirit of making life as difficult and expensive as possible. I have had the occasional spirited discussion with an FAA inspector in years gone by, but with only a couple of exceptions, they have never had an acrimonious "big stick" overtone from the opening words, quite the reverse to the all to common atmosphere here.

The net outcome of all this nonsense is a complete lack of respect for just about anything from CASA, which is a pity, because all the things that are actually important get lost in the piles of garbage.=

And much is done behind locked hangar doors, some of which probably shouldn't be, but will never appear in the aircraft records. The saving grace is the great percentage of owners and pilots are quite sensible, so a real risk arising is always possible, but not all that probable.

May be we should be grateful that CASA at least allows us to refuel our own aircraft, and check the oil??

And I have had multiple occasions, over time, to threaten a LAME with legal proceedings for recovery, for such as signing off an AD that was not done, signing off required maintenance that was not done, and in one case, fitting the wrong model of O-470 to a C-182.

Tootle pip!!


Conned Rod (or whatever) ---- would you like to explain to us all the CASA regulations that require training to do Schedule 8 maintenance, as you have brought the subject up.


Oh leadie
Ypu know the ones that you cant do have never done. What supprises me me the most about your constant casa bashing about the regs some of which is needed i must say is that you where part of all of this before you were removed. One wonders why this was.

As for training as you know all ( readers please look at number 1 of shed 8 and what it says very clear. Not as some have put it maybe leadie you need new glasses )
Im required to prfrom training for pilots so they may carry out shed 8 and other maintenance tasks. Woops prehaps thats made up so we can take unnecessary funds from the likes of your selfs to boost our large financial funds in our business. Cause we not allowed to make a profit are we.

[Bend alot]

LeadSled.


REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"


Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.

[LeadSled]

you where part of all of this before you were removed. One wonders why this was.Conned Rod,
Again, what on earth are you talking about??
I have never been "REMOVED" from anything, aviation-wise.

Neither, you dopey person, have I suggested that no regulation is required, only that Australian aviation is grossly over-regulated, compared to any comparable country, that CASA seeks to micro-manage the whole aviation sector, and this is a very major factor in the parlous, approaching terminal state of GA in Australia, compared to any comparable country.

And no good for aviation safety outcomes, I suppose some of you have noticed that last year was the best ever, in US, for aviation safety outcomes, and embarrassingly better than Australia.

You still haven't answered my question about AOPA and ADs, and what "200% si" is??

Bend a lot,
I am aware of what you refer to, but I have never seen a stipulated training course of any kind, to carry out Schedule 8 maintenance. And I listen to the rumblings of various CASA persons from time to time. I am NOT referring to any aircraft maintained under 42ZC(4)(e) home built, to use an inaccurate term. That particular "training course" is, in my opinion, almost a waste of time, and includes entirely irrelevant material, but it is a "nice little earner".

The current relevant CAAP for Schedule 8 only has general remarks, no reference to mandatory training or certified competency levels.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Schedule 8 as at present (or its predecessors for may years --- in my case, since the early 1960s) has ever represented any elevated risk, compared with not having it, and should, therefor, be made more difficult.

I am not aware of any "CASA Approved" syllabus and process, and, quite frankly, any LAME who signed his name to anything that, in any way, suggests he has determined and approved a satisfactory level of competency for a person whose only formal qualification is he or she is a class person entitled to do Schedule 8 maintenance, that would be putting his head on the chopping block, in terms of potential liability.

And the "jacking" matter and similar have been around far longer than AMROBA.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: I do remember a very impassioned plea, from a ranking executive member of ALAEA, at a CASA Maintenance Standards meeting in Canberra, that no pilot should be allowed to perform any maintenance on any aircraft.
And would probably prefer they not fly them, either, just to be on the safe side, but he didn't actually say the latter.?

One statement he made was:
" I had to do a five year apprenticeship to change a spark plug".
My reply was:
"XXXX, in your case, I can understand that".

[Connedrod]

[QUOTE=LeadSled;9966899]Conned Rod,
Again, what on earth are you talking about??
I have never been "REMOVED" from anything, aviation-wise.

Neither, you dopey person, have I suggested that no regulation is required, only that Australian aviation is grossly over-regulated, compared to any comparable country, that CASA seeks to micro-manage the whole aviation sector, and this is a very major factor in the parlous, approaching terminal state of GA in Australia, compared to any comparable country.

And

Bend a lot,
I am aware of what you refer to, but I have never seen a stipulated training course of any kind, to carry out Schedule 8 maintenance. And I listen to the rumblings of various CASA persons from time to time. I am NOT referring to any aircraft maintained under 42ZC(4)(e) home built, to use an inaccurate term. That particular "training course" is, in my opinion, almost a waste of time, and includes entirely irrelevant material, but it is a "nice little earner".



I am not aware of any "CASA Approved" syllabus and process, and, quite frankly, any LAME who signed his name to anything that, in any way, suggests he has determined and approved a satisfactory level of competency for a person whose only formal qualification is he or she is a class person entitled to do Schedule 8 maintenance, that would be putting his head on the chopping block, in terms of potential

This us because your abillity to listen and learn is one of your many failures. Just because you dont know it dosnt mean it dosnt exist and dosnt happen.
Ive had to sign of many pilots in this regrads. So have many lames.
But im guessing in your mind im lieing and making it up.
I do know at this present stage is moves abound to remove shed 8 and no pilot maintenance will be allowed.
As for your comment about a lame doing a 5 year apprenticeship. 12 months to get a bus driver in the seat from the start to the seat. 10 years to get a kid of the street to a lame that can do just about anything. Your comments are one of the reasons that lames are now considered a rare species. At the end of the day poeple like yourself will loose.
Toot toot

[Connedrod]

LeadSled.


REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"


Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.


Gee what you think that showing him the regs he will believe you. No never. He say to myself i cant help it if you cant read. So leadie how about you actually reading. Or better still as your are so much more intelligent than us lame and your an engineer of sorts cause you have gone to uni. Why dont you go do the lame exams become a lame and then you can do all your own maintenance tell the world how good you are.
Toot toot

[Progressive]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - SCHEDULE 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a Class B aircraft by a person entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC(4)


Item 4 ---- is interesting, it was explained to us that this meant what it said, only defective safety wire, ergo replacing those oil filters that have safety wiring are out of the question, because your are installing new safety wire, having replaced the filter. Not replacing anything defective.

Replacing of oil filters is covered by AD/ENG/4 which authorises a pilot to do so (IAW the manual of course) since the manual calls for lockwire the pilot is authorized to lock the filter.

And so it goes on ---- all these tricky bush lawyer interpretations made by people who have the power to make you life very miserable. Like what does "complete jacking" mean?

Interestingly the C172R manual says jacking of both wheels simultaneously using the built in jack pads is not recommended and that standard practice is to jack one wheel at a time.

The pièce de résistance is washing a windscreen, unless something has changed since last time I looked, no light aircraft manufacturer (FAR 23 piston) has published approved data to wash a windscreen, but we had quite a celebrated case here, a while back. The inspector insisted that you could only wash a windscreen by entering a defect (vision obscured??) in the MR, then proceed via the Manufacturer's Instructions, which don't exist, which means a CASR Part 21M(old CAR 35) approval. with lots more rigmarole ---- and it's not on Schedule 8.

Windshield cleaning is covered in the "care and maintenance" section of the POH/AFM and is also in the servicing section of the Maintenance Manual. It usually includes approved products and detailed instructions. This is true for Cessna, Piper, Beech, Mooney, Cirrus, American Champion, Grumman and Partenavia. I cant confirm the rest.

All in the true spirit of making life as difficult and expensive as possible. I have had the occasional spirited discussion with an FAA inspector in years gone by, but with only a couple of exceptions, they have never had an acrimonious "big stick" overtone from the opening words, quite the reverse to the all to common atmosphere here.

The net outcome of all this nonsense is a complete lack of respect for just about anything from CASA, which is a pity, because all the things that are actually important get lost in the piles of garbage.=

And much is done behind locked hangar doors, some of which probably shouldn't be, but will never appear in the aircraft records. The saving grace is the great percentage of owners and pilots are quite sensible, so a real risk arising is always possible, but not all that probable.

May be we should be grateful that CASA at least allows us to refuel our own aircraft, and check the oil??

And I have had multiple occasions, over time, to threaten a LAME with legal proceedings for recovery, for such as signing off an AD that was not done, signing off required maintenance that was not done, and in one case, fitting the wrong model of O-470 to a C-182.

Tootle pip!!


Conned Rod (or whatever) ---- would you like to explain to us all the CASA regulations that require training to do Schedule 8 maintenance, as you have brought the subject up.

................

[LeadSled]

REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and" Sorry, bush lawyers all, but that doesn’t mean what you obviously think it means. It does not give somebody from CASA or an “authorised person” (authorised to do what?) the authority to make things up on the run.

Conned Rod,
Might I suggest it is your apparent inability to read, and fully comprehend, that is part of the problem --- go back and read what I have actually written.

Just because you believe you have signed off pilots to do Schedule 8 maintenance does not make that proof that what you did has any legal standing.

Do you have a detailed written and lawful direction from CASA, if you do, why not post it here? What legal instrument do you hold to deliver such courses?

No such requirements are mentioned in the CAAP covering Schedule 8 maintenance.

Nowhere in the CASA documents, that I have ever seen, does it lay down a process for delivering a course of training, to achieve prescribed competency standards, how those competency standards will be examined, and what form of “authority to conduct Schedule 8 maintenance” will flow to candidates meeting the prescribed competency standards on completion of the prescribed course.

If you do find one, in a MOS or wherever, please let us all know.

As for moves to remove Schedule 8 entirely, a certain brand of LAME and a union has been on about that for years, fortunately the tide is in the opposite direction.

But it does raise a very interesting issue, the matter of “rule of law” versus “rule by law”, and if you do not understand the difference, please do some homework:< https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/>

Because aviation law in Australia is all too well recognised as prescriptive in the extreme, complex, convoluted and contradictory, “rule by law” is the order of the day, with “an officer of CASA” all too often "laying down the law", when what is forthcoming is his or her version of what the law should be, but isn’t, a view generated by personal prejudices, but dressed up as “the law”, “CASA requires ------“ etc.

Or, even worse, for years CASA initial training of AWIs in Canberra taught material that was completely contrary to what the law actually said, in quite basic ways, in that case a bit hard to blame individual AWIs. How do I know, because I have sat in and looked and listened.

And the poor sod on the receiving end of this treatment often has little option by to comply, they don't know what "the law" is, and because of the “asymmetric power imbalance”, ie; vague or so not so vague threats of what will happen in the event of non-compliance ----- generally a livelihood threatened by an “aggressive audit” or something similar. And, sadly, these threats are very real.

Or there is the one who is all too happy to comply, such is their jaundiced view of "owner or registered operators" who are actually responsible for completion of maintenance, not the LAME. That is where I expect to hear " CASA requires ----" or "CASA does not permit owners to supply their own parts".

Interestingly, it was at this time that the CAA legal department had come up with the concept that an aircraft release to service (Maintenance Release in Australia) would deem an aircraft serviceable for the period of such release, they were told in no uncertain terms that we would no longer release aircraft if that was to be the ruling. Eddie Dean,
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. Para: 2.7 of Schedule 5 is a timebomb, always has been, but LAMEs have worn it, because we have so little tradition of fighting iniquitous regulation --- fighting city hall.

Sadly, there have been some significant prosecutions of LAMEs based on 2.7, the worst (to my knowledge) involving a fatal some 80 hours into the “new” MR.

You will not find anything like that in FAR 43 Appendix D, from which Schedule 5 was copied, that is an added “Australianism”.

Lead Balloon, I believe you are correct about AMROBA, such is the memory of a senile old man. But I do remember being at a CAA(prior to CASA) conference in Darwine in 1992 ish when the "new" regulations, at that time, were being discussed. Amongst these was the removal of LAME privileges to carry out 100 hour/annual under the auspices of their own licence. It was told at the time this was as a direct input from the maintenance organisations. That is certainly how I remember it, the push coming from the larger unionised organisations, and the members of the same union, working in CASA, were only too receptive to the “safety” message, but it was only about safety, you understand, not (perish the thought) naked self interest.

Few things better demonstrate the need for the proper "rules" for regulatory development to be enforced on CASA. These, in brief, require a proper definition of the risk to be mitigated, why a rule, as a last resort is necessary, and proper and genuine benefit/cost justification of the proposed rule.

If you want all the details of how to do it, the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) is the place to start, it just that CASA ignores these guidelines, claiming the Civil Aviation Act effectively prohibits their application.

Tootle pip!!

[Progressive]

LeadSled.


REG 42ZC "(a) CASA or the authorised person, as the case may be, considers are necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation; and"


Is one thing they use - there is another buried in the regs that says some thing like maintenance is only to be carried out by "appropriately trained" persons.

A little known document;
CASA ruling 2/2003 states:
Persons who only carry out maintenance in their capacity as pilots are not
‘maintenance personnel’ within the meaning of CAR 214.
8 Accordingly, CAR 214 does not require an operator to make provision for the instruction of pilots.

So no training is required to conduct pilot maintenance

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A brief addendum to my last, above: It is a complete solution to the cost of 100 hour/annual inspections for may private aircraft.

If I was to forecast, particularly given the new and quite revolutionary FAR 23, I would expect a considerable push in Australia to adopt the Canadian Owner Maintained C.of A system, which was, after all, an Australian CAA proposal in the first place, picked up by Don Spruston (as in the Forsyth Inquiry) when he was still in Transport Canada. And promptly actioned.

It has been notably successful in giving new life to the bottom end of non-sports aviation, with absolutely no adverse safety outcomes at all.

Because of geographical differences, I think it would be far more widely used in Australia than Canada.

Tootle pip!!

[Connedrod]

Conned Rod,
Might I suggest it is your apparent inability to read, and fully comprehend, that is part of the problem --- go back and read what I have actually written.

Just because you believe you have signed off pilots to do Schedule 8 maintenance does not make that proof that what you did has any legal standing.

Do you have a detailed written and lawful direction from CASA, if you do, why not post it here? What legal instrument do you hold to deliver such courses?

No such requirements are mentioned in the CAAP covering Schedule 8 maintenance.

Nowhere in the CASA documents, that I have ever seen, does it lay down a process for delivering a course of training, to achieve prescribed competency standards, how those competency standards will be examined, and what form of “authority to conduct Schedule 8 maintenance” will flow to candidates meeting the prescribed competency standards on completion of the prescribed course.

If you do find one, in a MOS or wherever, please let us all know.

Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?

[Clinton McKenzie]

I can’t answer for previous posters, but in my case I’ve delivered plenty of training for pilots on how to change oil and oil filters and how to change/remove/check/refit spark plugs on aircraft piston engines. (My observation is that many pilots are usually able to change a light bulb, without the benefit of my training.)

Naturally I tell people to use shifting spanners, hammers and multi-grips to do the job. Using the correct sockets and spanners and calibrated torque wrenches is soooo tedious! Tighten until the veins in your forehead pop and that’s about right is my motto! I’ve always found lockwiring to be difficult, so I now suggest that pilots use solder as it’s nice and soft. The paperwork is beyond me, so nothing goes in the maintenance release.

My expensive kit of calibrated torque wrenches, thread chasers, lockwire pliers, rolls of lockwire, anti-seize, plug gap gauge and tool, multimeter, plug gaskets, sockets, spanners and drives, and the smudged and dog-eared pages of approved maintenance data are all just for ‘show’ because I haven’t a clue what they are for. I’ve never mentioned the regulatory requirements for authorisation to carry out maintenance, the use of approved maintenance data, the recording of damage and defects or the certification of completion of maintenance. Rules schmoolz is my motto!

Yet the various aircraft on which I and my ‘trainees’ have frequently inflicted these amateur atrocities - and trust our lives - are still flying, years later.

My address and phone number are in the book, so I’m surprised I haven’t been arrested for delivering ‘unapproved’ training. Should I hand myself in to the authorities, Conned?

[Connedrod]

I can’t answer for previous posters, but in my case I’ve delivered plenty of training for pilots on how to change oil and oil filters and how to change/remove/check/refit spark plugs on aircraft piston engines. (My observation is that many pilots are usually able to change a light bulb, without the benefit of my training.)

Naturally I tell people to use shifting spanners, hammers and multi-grips to do the job. Using the correct sockets and spanners and calibrated torque wrenches is soooo tedious! Tighten until the veins in your forehead pop and that’s about right is my motto! I’ve always found lockwiring to be difficult, so I now suggest that pilots use solder as it’s nice and soft. The paperwork is beyond me, so nothing goes in the maintenance release.

My expensive kit of calibrated torque wrenches, thread chasers, lockwire pliers, rolls of lockwire, anti-seize, plug gap gauge and tool, multimeter, plug gaskets, sockets, spanners and drives, and the smudged and dog-eared pages of approved maintenance data are all just for ‘show’ because I haven’t a clue what they are for. I’ve never mentioned the regulatory requirements for authorisation to carry out maintenance, the use of approved maintenance data, the recording of damage and defects or the certification of completion of maintenance. Rules schmoolz is my motto!

Yet the various aircraft on which I and my ‘trainees’ have frequently inflicted these amateur atrocities - and trust our lives - are still flying, years later.

My address and phone number are in the book, so I’m surprised I haven’t been arrested for delivering ‘unapproved’ training. Should I hand myself in to the authorities, Conned?


Yes and thats why you were removed from your position within casa.
Toot toot

[LeadSled]

Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?

Conned Rod,
What approved forms, give us a reference, what CASA "approval", based on what regulation, and why is it not mentioned in the CAAP for Schedule 8.

De-identify it and post it!!

I didn't say you are "making it up", I am saying: What you are doing has no legal basis, and I am saying you are really sticking your neck out, in terms of legal liability, for purporting to find somebody competent to unstated standards, training delivered under what legal instrument, etc., and what your qualifications are (just being a LAME doesn't cut it) to deliver such training.

Let me put it another way, if I go out tomorrow, and work on my aircraft, something clearly within Schedule 8, and I have never done ANY CASA approved course, which I have not, am I committing and offense, and if so, against what regulation.

Tootle pip!!

PS: And just to remind you again, you have not substantiated your assertions that I was "removed" from something aviation related (or anything else, for that matter)
Or explained your AOPA complaint, or what the heck 200% si is??

[Clinton McKenzie]

OK then, Conned: I’ll front at the AFP HQ here in Canberra and hand myself in.

And there was me thinking that I terminated my contract with CASA, in accordance with the terms of that contract, because I didn’t like the job. For all these years I’ve been in denial about the unsavoury maintenance training controversy. Now, all has been revealed. Well done Conned!

[StickWithTheTruth]

Where do you guys find the spare time for all this posting for this discussion and others, are you posting while at work or something?

[Eddie Dean]

It would appear that a Private Owner Pilot can do what they (the pilot singular or plural, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) likes, within the constraints of Schedule 8.

A pilot working for an organisation that has an AoC would not be able to do the same as the Private pilot, unless an approved/authorised person has deemed them (the pilot singular, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) competent to carry out the task as listed singularly, and by Job Number.

[Aussie Bob]

Wtf. I cant believe you believe your own bs. Really. The fact it written on an approved forms then submitted to casa for approval. What this dose not count in your eyes. But as i said i might be making it all up. NOT. !!
Just because you dont know dose not mean it cant or dose not happen. You worked in a shelted workshop for how long ?

Conned, your hilarious! If it came to the crunch I would take Leadies legal writings over yours any day.

Thank you Leadsled for informative interesting posts.

[Progressive]

It would appear that a Private Owner Pilot can do what they (the pilot singular or plural, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) likes, within the constraints of Schedule 8.

A pilot working for an organisation that has an AoC would not be able to do the same as the Private pilot, unless an approved/authorised person has deemed them (the pilot singular, male, female or other gender(s) as applicable) competent to carry out the task as listed singularly, and by Job Number.

Read the CASA decision in my previous post (#124) it specifically states commercial operators do not need to train staff to do sched 8 maintenance.

[Connedrod]

Clinton
Was humpty dumpty pushed or did he jump. The end was tne same he was removed from the wall. I let you make your own conclusions from that. Some of use know the truth. I did find it amusing you didnt use your ultra ego though.

If the form is approved from casa. Im approved from casa. Then casa approves the from that i have filled in. Then of course its not approved.
This is not a lop course which has no approvals and training by non approved persons.
Big difference.
Toot toot.

[LeadSled]

Where do you guys find the spare time for all this posting for this discussion and others, are you posting while at work or something?
Stickwiththetruth,
In part because I am stuck at home with a bleedingly obstinate cold, and partly because my views on the subject accord with your handle, I much prefer the truth, the facts, to the alternative.
I have found facts, as far as the facts can be determined, a good starting place, and, of course, sticking with the truth means I don't have to have a good memory.
I can't speak for anybody else.
Tootle pip!!

[Connedrod]

Conned, your hilarious! If it came to the crunch I would take Leadies legal writings over yours any day.

Thank you Leadsled for informative interesting posts.

Bob thats fine. You choose whom you like. I have no worries about that. So dont go jacking your aircraft now will you.
The difference is i and others work with these regs on a daily basis. Not in an out as we wish. We not fools even if you like to treat us such.
To the point we are exained on av law in regards to maintenance and other.
Toot toot

[Connedrod]

Bob.
As i recall this is the same person that stated that lames filled out the M/R incorrectly. This was strange by someone that by their own admission had never filled one out or certified any job within a check or any category certifications.
Yet even though i average 2 M/R issues a week i have no idea. Come on. Not only that every time we get a casa adult they look at the work packs an the M/R book. But then again i guess they dont know how to do it as well so dismissed the above.
Toot toot

[LeadSled]

If the form is approved from casa

Conned Rod,
No more assertions, show us where the CASA Approved Form can be found on the CASA web site, or is that your little secret with CASA??

In my opinion, given you reluctance to provide any proof, I can only think you are, indeed, making it up. Prove us wrong, produce the proof.

Tootle Pip!!
PS: Old mate of mine, quite senior now in CASA "airworthiness" , one of the survivors, really, has never heard of any requirement for CASA mandated training and approval for Schedule 8 training, so maybe it's top secret in CASA??

[Connedrod]

[QUOTE=LeadSled;9967545]Conned Rod,
No more assertions, show us where the CASA Approved Form can be found on the CASA web site, or is that your little secret with CASA??

In my opinion, given you reluctance to provide any proof, I can only think you are, indeed, making it up. Prove us wrong, produce the proof.

Tootle Pip!!

As ive said to bob. You believe in what you wish. I dont have a thing to prove to yourself.
Ive just done 4 guys and have another 2 in thext few weeks. However i might have to tell them that its all a waste because you say so. Ill also call the the local office and tell them as well
I suggest your time would be better in understanding what is written in shed 8 in particular how to jack an aircraft and requirements in doing. Clearly you do not understand this its number 1 on the list.
Toot toot ...

[Aussie Bob]

It is curious that I have been told by a LAME, a very good friend of mine that in order to legally do pilot maintenance on my aircraft I need to do it in conjunction with a maintenance organisation where I have done a basic course and have my name on a list stating such.

I wonder if he and Connedrod both have the same AWI? Anyway, my name is not on his or anyone else "list" and I am happy to do the stuff on the "pilots maintenance" list without this fabled course. Private hanger of course! My friend, as always is very helpful if I get stuck.

[Bend alot]

Aussie Bob there are more than 1 AWI with that view, that they pressure persons on to "be trained"

[Connedrod]

It is curious that I have been told by a LAME, a very good friend of mine that in order to legally do pilot maintenance on my aircraft I need to do it in conjunction with a maintenance organisation where I have done a basic course and have my name on a list stating such.

I wonder if he and Connedrod both have the same AWI? Anyway, my name is not on his or anyone else "list" and I am happy to do the stuff on the "pilots maintenance" list without this fabled course. Private hanger of course! My friend, as always is very helpful if I get stuck.

Ummm most definitely not the same awi. Trouble here is poeple that think they know just dont know it all.

[gerry111]

Ummm most definitely not the same awi. Trouble here is poeple that think they know just dont know it all.

That's simply so true of you, Connedrod.

[LeadSled]

Progressive,
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.

AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.

Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.

Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.

This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.

If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.

[Connedrod]

Progressive,
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.

AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.

Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.

Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.

This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.

If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.


The written word is very clear.
The main problem is
Awi a says 1
Awi b says 2
Awi c says 3
Awi d says 1
Awi e says 2

Ive had aduit meeting were this has happened at the same table at the same time in the same room.

Gerry ill give you this.
At least you are consistent. You never place anything on this fourm that is of any value at all. Your like a little yap yap dog that just has a winny bark and never shuts the f#@& up.

As ive said before i live this day in day out. One would think that if i had a problem it would have shown its self up by now.

Pilots are consistent in that you cant tell them anything.
Toot toot

[gerry111]

Gerry ill give you this.
At least you are consistent. You never place anything on this fourm that is of any value at all. Your like a little yap yap dog that just has a winny bark and never shuts the f#@& up.

As ive said before i live this day in day out. One would think that if i had a problem it would have shown its self up by now.

Pilots are consistent in that you cant tell them anything.
Toot toot

I reckon that yr right, Connedrod.. :)

[Progressive]

Progressive,
A comment about "servicing", so helpfully brought to our attention by CASA persons re. Schedule 8.
There is no such thing as "servicing" in Australia, just maintenance.
Doing a daily inspection is "maintenance".
Checking the oil is "maintenance". Adding fuel is "maintenance", and so it goes on.

AND --- all "maintenance" must be conducted to approved data.

Many of us have argued, long and loud, that "servicing" should be as per the FAA, which is what you are quoting, and what we had in draft regulations (Part 91/135 and 43) in 1999.

Thus, as the windscreen washing does not form part of the Manufacturer's Instruction for Continuing Airworthiness (not Servicing) there is no approved data.

This is where the ratbag Australian approach to mindless "compliance" trumps common sense, commons sense being a very uncommon commodity in Australian aviation regulation. But, of course, CASA will not even accept that the AFM, by whatever name, forms part of the certifications of an aircraft, and regularly purports to direct operators to diverge greatly from POH/AFM procedures.

If one or more manufacturer (it has always been in most FAR 25 aircraft MM) has now put said "approved data" in the MM of FAR 23 aircraft, as opposed to servicing, that is good, because it remove one item of harassment.

Tootle Pip!!

PS: Re. Jacking, way back I was only quoting the CASA "interpretation" as per the traveling roadshows, of Schedule 8, to point out the absurdities of CASA interpretations, not my reading of Schedule 8, but Conned Rod seems to have have ongoing problems with the written word.

Actually servicing does form part of the Instructions for continued airworthiness for both FAR 23 and 25 - it is an entire chapter (usually chapter 2) of the Maintenance Manual and contains among other things windscreen cleaning procedures. A quick look through some of my outdated manuals reveals it has been in Cessna MM since at least 1960 and piper since 1964. Not sure how long it is since your read an MM.
In addition as a lawyer I suggest you should bone up on CAR2A:

For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the maintenance data are: (a) requirements in:
(i) regulations 42U, 42W, 42X, 42Y, 42Z and 42ZA or in instruments made under those regulations; and
(ii) directions (however described) made under an airworthiness directive or under regulation 25, 38 or 44;
being requirements that specify how maintenance on aircraft, aircraft components or aircraft materials is to be carried out; and
(b) specifications of how maintenance on an aircraft, aircraft component or aircraft material is to be carried out, in documents or designs approved under another provision of these Regulations; and
(c) instructions, issued by the manufacturers of aircraft, aircraft components or aircraft materials, that specify how maintenance on the aircraft, components or materials is to be carried out; and
(d) instructions, issued by the designers of modifications of aircraft or aircraft components, that specify how maintenance on the aircraft or components is to be carried out; and
(e) any other instructions, approved by CASA under subregulation (4) for the purposes of this paragraph, relating to how maintenance on aircraft, aircraft components or aircraft materials is to be carried out.


You would be hard pressed to argue that servicing or maintenance chapter of the POH/AFM and its associated supplements did not fit under the definition of "approved maintenance data" in (c) and (d).

[LeadSled]

You would be hard pressed to argue that servicing or maintenance chapter of the POH/AFM and its associated supplements did not fit under the definition of "approved maintenance data" in (c) and (d)Progressive,
In a nutshell, re. "servicing",that is what counsel for CASA have argued, and in the same context in the AAT have differentiated between "servicing" in US paperwork, and the fact that, unlike the US, effectively everything that is done here, post manufacture, is "maintenance".

In the same context, in US, maintenance is to acceptable data, plenty of guidance material to A&P, IA etc., whereas, as you can see from CAR 2A, here it is all "approved" data, the difference is not trivial.

Then CASA turns handstands to try and define "approved", leaving lots of anomalies and "grey" areas, because there is not the US style latitude for on the spot flexibility. And there is the CASA "gotcha" enforcement mentality. As a former Head of CASA OLC said: "Pilots and engineers are just criminals who haven't been caught yet" ---- in my presence.

That something like this leads to time and expense in the AAT and Federal Court (which obviously doesn't include the majority of cases where the poor sods on the receiving end, who surrender, cop the points, pay the fine and sign the Voluntary Enforceable Undertaking, because they have no other practical and/or affordable solution) is a great advertisement for the whole US approach, not just the FARs, but the whole FAA philosophical approach.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Just a further clarification re. the "windscreen wars", CASA persons argued that washing windscreens was not specifically listed in Schedule 8, notwithstanding #24. Re. jacking, again, it was not me arguing for ratbag interpretations of Schedule 8, I was only ever repeating what CASA persons have said at traveling roadshow "safety" presentation, where, re. Schedule 8, it was almost all in the negative, what you can't do, despite the document appearing to say otherwise. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Eddie Dean]

There is an AWB defining servicing and maintenance and the difference thereof.

[Connedrod]

There is an AWB defining servicing and maintenance and the difference thereof.

Yep but this dose not exists in some eyes tootie toot

AWB 12-1 Issue 2 - Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks

AWB 12-1 Issue 2, 17 January 2002
Aircraft servicing and ground handling tasks

Effectivity

General information

Purpose

The purpose of this AWB is to provide information on the servicing tasks that may be carried out by, but not limited to, the pilot in command.

Background

Feedback to CASA shows some confusion may exist on the difference between servicing and maintenance. CAR 2 of the 1988 Regulations advises in part, that:

'Maintenance means…the doing of any work (including a modification or repair) on the aircraft that may affect the safety of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to become a danger to person or property…'

'Servicing…means preparing the aircraft for flight, and includes providing the aircraft with fuel and other fluids…but does not include any work that is maintenance.'

Certification for the completion of servicing tasks is not required when preparing the aircraft for flight, unless specifically required as part of an approved system of maintenance.

Certification is required when performing servicing tasks in conjunction with a maintenance activity.

Advice

If the aircraft is used for commercial operations, the operator is to ensure that flight crew are adequately trained to carry out servicing tasks. For private operations, if you do not know how to do these tasks, you should ask an LAME to show you.

When replenishing fluids, you must use only those approved for the particular application.

Servicing Tasks
Refuelling and de-fuelling;Fuel system water drain checks;Replenishment of hydraulic fluid;Replenishment of engine oil;Toilet cleaning;Replenishment of engine coolant;Replenishment of water;Sanitize potable water;Adjustment of tyre pressures;Replenishment of de-icing fluid;Periodic lubrication of components, other than lubrication that is required for the accomplishment of scheduled maintenance, which does not require disassembly of the component, other than removal of non-structural items such as cover plates, cowlings and fairings eg: lubrication of door hinges;Aircraft internal and external cleaning, including windscreen cleaning;Disinfecting of the aircraft;Removal of ice and snow;Application of preservative or protective material to components where no disassembly of any primary structure or operating system is involved and where such coating is not prohibited or is not contrary to good maintenance practices;Checking aircraft battery electrolyte levels and topping up with distilled water but excluding wet cell nickel-cadmium batteries;Servicing tasks required by the aircraft flight manual or maintenance manual;Towing, parking and mooring including tasks to facilitate these functions eg: quick disconnect and re-connection of torque links; andReplacement or repair of signs and markings.

Note: The servicing of liquid and gaseous oxygen systems is to be carried out only by an appropriately rated LAME.

Last updated: 17 February 2016

[LeadSled]

There is an AWB defining servicing and maintenance and the difference thereof.

Eddie,
Exactly, and "servicing" is not maintenance, in fact it specifically precludes "maintenance", and I am not even going to attempt to list the contradictions, beyond S.3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. It is, in fact, another example of how screwed up our whole aviation legislative framework has become.

I would be interested to know if "servicing" crops up in any regulation (except for a definition), as apposed to advisory material, such as an AWB --- I am not aware of it.

Tootle pip!!

Conned Rod, with your apparent delight in "discovering gotchas" you should apply for an AWI job.

[Connedrod]

Eddie,
Exactly, and "servicing" is not maintenance, in fact it specifically precludes "maintenance", and I am not even going to attempt to list the contradictions.

I would be interested to know if "servicing" crops up in any regulation, as apposed to advisory material, such as an AWB --- I am not aware of it.

Tootle pip!!

Conned Rod, with your apparent delight in "discovering gotchas" you should apply for an AWI job.


No F/W i just know the law and how it applies to maintenance. Something that you clearly dont know as i have previously said.
Its not my fault you given two ears and one mouth. Prehaps you should listen more and speak less.
And stop treating me as some sort of fool which clearly i am not