Creamy it says it is an "approval" - but it has conditions attached to it - its a conditional approval.
Exemption: implies freedom from a penalty or from some liability, especially one that is disagreeable or threatening.
Given CASA behaviour, that means that the onus is on the maintainer to prove that they complied with all the conditions of the approval - a neat reversal of the onus of proof and yet more money for the lawyers.
I'm skinning the ailerons today IAW the Sunfish system, some plans, some DVD Video, and not much else.
Blackhand, Please read both documents in their entirety, and then ask CASA (what used to be Bankstown) what they think it means, if you are an industry LAME you might be in for a bit of a shock ---- including sticker shock from CASA's swinging new charges.
I have seen it in action, have you??
Mach. E, Avelli, Great idea re. NZ, but guess what, CASA has almost completely emasculated the original intentions of the TTMRA, as far as Australian aviation is concerned.
Very sad when the people with such a huge responsibility such as basic maintenance cannot work out the rules
Someone said earlier, in another thread, that we are not going to win, even with inundating the politcians with 'love letters'
I tend to agree. Letters can be 'filed' appropriately.
It seems to me, that no individual group misses out on being adversely affected by the 'regulator'
From Trainee pilots, to the major operators, we are all affected, even the ATC gods are feeling the pinch of over-regulation.
The only way you are going to have the needed effect, is to shut down air operations in the whole country for a week.
Pilots, Air Operators ATC Maintainers.......
The whole shebang. nobody works for a week. Country virtually grinds to a halt...MAYBE then the press will start reporting it as a matter of public interest, but then the risk exists the press will initially side with the guvmint.
You wouldn't even need to apply to FWA for protected industrial action if the AOC holders agreed to shut down.
You might even get some of the banks on side, as some of this crap being passed as legislation appears to threaten some of the banks investments in the industry...and we all know how lumpy banks can get.
Blackhand, So you are happy with the reverse onus of proof, are you. Because you believe you can read?? But can you comprehend?? And yet you haven't really read and comprehended. Anybody contemplating "doing what they always did" will last to the first CASA audit, or the first incident of an insurance company refusing to pay, claiming maintenance and repairs not carried out in accord with the regulations. How much industry experience do you really have??? Tootle pip!!
It appears Ken Cannane has forgotten some earlier CASA rulings and misinterpereted the intent of CASR 21 himself.
Approval of replacement parts is covered under a separate CASR and will continue as normal.
STC's will continue to be accepted form the Type certifying country as they always have under AWB 00-16 and CASR 21.114:
"CASR 21.114 Foreign STCs states: A certificate (however described) for an aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller that is issued by or for the NAA of a recognised country and is equivalent to a STC that could have been issued by CASA (a foreign STC) is taken to have been issued by CASA for these regulations."
The vast majority of GA aircraft which do not include a specific structural repair manual include a statement "structural repairs may be completed in accordance with AC43.13 ..." A similar statement allowing standard wiring repairs is also generally incuded in the appropriate manual chapter.
In addition to this CASA do have an approved list of standard practices manuals (including AC43) which are considered acceptable data. (I will try to find this and include it next edit). Corrosion repair is likewise covered by the FAA corrosion control manual.
So of the examples given in this article NONE will require an additional EO under part M.
Before I am villified on this site as a CASA and CASR loving individual I should add that I am not: I am however an aircraft owner, LAME, and spend a good portion of time teaching our new generation of LAME's the maintenance regulations for a Part 147 MTO.
CASA are not an easy regulator to deal with. Situation normal it seems, lots of opinions being generated by the new regs. I find EASA clear and if you do have to ask then you get a clear answer. Glad to be away from CASA's interference.
Oh, and a legal entity change or change of ownership is not charged as a NEW approval as some regulators try to do. Made much more sense to set up a business in Europe. I just felt casa were a drain, although individuals in there often do their best. But the system lets them down.
The vast majority of GA aircraft which do not include a specific structural repair manual include a statement "structural repairs may be completed in accordance with AC43.13 ..." A similar statement allowing standard wiring repairs is also generally incuded in the appropriate manual chapter.
In addition to this CASA do have an approved list of standard practices manuals (including AC43) which are considered acceptable data. (I will try to find this and include it next edit). Corrosion repair is likewise covered by the FAA corrosion control manual.
Progressive if you have any more information regarding . . .
the FAA corrosion control manual
the approved list of standard practice manuals
using AC 43.13 in lieu of a Structural Repair Manual
. . . could you please post the appropriate links thank you.
Over here in the Pacific an inspector went nuts .i.e. was shouting and red in the face that our LAME was keeping the aircraft flying with common sense practices gathered from 30 plus years of hands on experience rather than by religiously following a non-existent SRM for our GA aircraft. He seemed unable to comprehend that the manuals for GA aircraft and airline aircraft are so different. He kept saying you must show me in writing in a SRM specific for your aircraft how the LAME can treat that corrosion. We had no SRM and so could only reply that well as you provided him with the licence to work on the aircraft and he has many decades of experience we are relying on his experience and qualifications to maintain our aircraft rather than following an SRM which aren't produced for our aircraft.
This situation was never fully resolved and in the context of a number of strange dictates by the inspector which took months to comply and which after many tens of thousands of dollars of work, 40 plus missed flights, a complete ignoring of the world expert being flown in to inspect and certify the aircraft as not needing the bizarre list of work the inspector ordered, meetings missed by the inspector at the last moment, calls not returned etc and much pain and confusion he never even came in to check and see how the parts he wanted removed and replaced were still serviceable - just as three experienced engineers said they were before he grounded us and launched this huge attack on us for flying and maintaining without an aircraft specific SRM.
It left a very strange taste in ones mouth and an understanding that for inspectors SRMs have a place higher than the bible and bring out a religious fervor in bureaucrats . . . .
Progress - I am however an aircraft owner, LAME, and spend a good portion of time teaching our new generation of LAME's the maintenance regulations for a Part 147 MTO.
Thanks for the post, I for one would value a couple more on the subject. It's a pleasant change to have a 'professional', cogent explanation. The sad thing is, that it was needed for any other reason other than 'educational'.
That's the bit gets my goat; the regs are just not (give or take) able to be 'properly' translated into a working (even modern) language.
The way the regs are presented and the language does not assist. There is always that lingering uncertainty, particularly about matters related maintenance. Be interesting to know how many calls the boys at CASA field asking for a 'translation' or clarification. The regs must put them in a strange position, especially if the 'opinion' offered was judged incorrect after an accident.
The regulations make it as difficult for CASA to 'help' or administer as they do for the industry to comply; it's potentially a hellish situation for everyone, except of course the legal profession.
A rule may be disliked or clumsy and opinions of the 'rule's' value may vary but; by and large, most folk should be able to read and 'properly' understand the thing, seems to me this would make compliance so much easier for both sides.
weloveseaplanes No problem, the approved list of repair documents has been removed from the CAR's and is now contained in a temporary instrument found here:
presumably this will soon be incorporated into the CASR's as is the current CASA process for developing new rules - remove old rules and the bulk of new ones using instruments (or CAAP) to fill any gaps until all can be incorporated into the new suite.
This take stime and can lead to comfusion with rules and regulations spread amongst CAR, CASR, CAAP and Instruments until it all gets consolidated.
As for using AC 43 in lieu of SRM it depends on what the aircraft manual say. Mine states:
Minor repairs such as patching the fabric, welding, wing rib repair, etc. may be made in accordance with regulations set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1( ). No major structural repairs are recommended without consulting the manufacturer.
You will find a similar statement in the structures section of the Maintenance manual for most GA aircraft (Beech are the exception I can think of). And although my aircraft states fabric it is actually a 2002 build so this is not just for old aircraft!
----- and is now contained in a temporary instrument found here:
Progressive, An interesting choice of non-de-plume, those of a "progressive" approach generally means advocating more regulation and higher taxes.
Back to the subject, if you are so up on regulatory matters ---- "is now contained etc" is hardly accurate is it.
Instrument 515/12 replaced Instrument 12/09, signed by Mark Sinclair, which was anther part of a string of Instruments going back quite a while, probably six or seven years, which, for the first time, generally allowed advisory publications, howsoever titled, from an NAA, to be used by anybody, without CASA specific approval of organisation and purpose.
Until 515/12, this string of instruments were all more or less the same, just re-issued, and it is instructive to put 12/09 and 515/15 side by side, and go through them, word for word.
Only by doing that, with an open mind, not per-conceived conclusions on what is being said, will you start to understand what a serious change this actually is!!
As this is now in place, along with Part 21 M, this has a serious impact on other sections of Part 21, and, indeed, attempts to negate and probably legally succeeds, in emasculating other provisions of Part 21, and the Australia-US Bi-Lateral Airworthiness Agreement.
In fact, it undermines the whole philosophy of Parts 21-35, takes us back to before 1998, and in some respects, takes us back before 1992.
Knowing the personalities involved in 515/12, I have absolutely no doubt that this is entirely the intention ---- to inject CASA back into "approval" areas that, post 1992 or 1998, deliberately, by legislative change, excluded CASA.
Truly "Progressive"
Read it carefully, sure STCs are accepted, by you now need an EO to carry out the modification that any STC entails.
Likewise use of PMA parts ---- using PMA parts, as opposed to OEM parts, is a "modification", therefor an EO is now required.
That some regional offices of CASA don't understand the ramifications of these changes comes as no surprise.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Those of you with any actual familiarity wit EASA Part 66, 145 etc., will know that the CASA "EASA like" engineering and maintenance suite is unrecognizable in EASA terms. Indeed, unrecognizable compared to any other major aviation country's continuing airworthiness regulations.
Once again, with quite a deal of international harmonization taking place, particularly on airworthiness and maintenance area, Australia is heading off into the sunset on its own little frolic, to the very great cost of jobs and business in Australian aviation, and what little is left of the MRO sector.
Indeed, little New Zealand, on latest figures, has a substantially greater MRO export income than Australia, as well as the foreign exchange saving of ANZ not having to go offshore with MRO requirements to remain internationally competitive.
It has been obvious for many years that Aviation regulation in Australia is simply perverse.
It is designed to further the interests of the staff of the regulator and their cronies - and no one else.
The regulatory reform program and the very regulations themselves are evidence of this.
The matter at the heart of this thread - the use of AC43-13B and similar could have been simply handled by a Plain English sentence inserted in the regulations themselves:
"In the absence of an aircraft specific SRM and the absence of a repair scheme for the specific repair approved by a national regulator, approved maintenance data, for example FAA AC43-13B, may be used to effect minor repairs."
A further rider is needed that if there is conflict in the approved data (ie not in the SRM or repair scheme) it is to be referred to CASA.
The definitions section does the rest.
I happen to know the former leader of the project to rewrite Victorias laws in plain English which was completed around 1997. He was formerly from PM and Cabinet, then Vic. Premiers department, then a commissioner for small claims and is now a magistrate.
If I run into him in the next few months, I will ask him to look at the regs and give his opinion - it will no doubt be both colorful and accurate. He could also suggest a fix as he was a master of bureaucratic infighting at one stage.
Absent that, it will take Three smoking holes in quick succession with great loss of life and a royal commission before any change is possible.
Nope Sunfish. AC43... was intended for major alterations in the USA.
When that minor/major terminology was introduced into the regs here they were adamant that the US interpretation would apply. I've been out of it for a few years but I understand that they, without changing the regs or the dictionary meaning of words, have moved to the different EASA definitions - perhaps some-one could expand on that point ... i.e. more significant mods could be classified as minor. So a minor mod could be quite substantial and so require some serious engineering hence an appropriate process needs to be followed. That would leave room for a lesser category of mod, perhaps call it trivial which CASA should take little interest in altogether.
In the USA, the FAA takes an interest in major mods. As for minors, the only control is to specify who can approve minor mods (and that would be a LAME type) and the usual system of audits.
So Sunfish, I disagree with what you believe to be the heart of the problem.
As for conflict in approved data - that's why we need the engineering types in industry to sort stuff out.
While looking for the Lawyers prose, found this at $300 ph.
The Engineer's Hymn
(Sung to the tune of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic")
Chorus:
We are, we are, we are, we are the Engineers,
We can, we can, we can, we can demolish forty beers.
Drink rum, drink rum, drink rum, drink rum and come along with us,
for we don't give a damn for any damn one who don't give a damn for us.
Godiva was a lady who through the Coventry did ride,
to show all the villagers her pretty bare white hide.
The most observant man, an Engineer, of course,
was the only one to notice that Godiva rode a horse.
Chorus
An artsie and an Engineer once found a gallon can.
Said the artsie, match me drink for drink and prove that you're a man.
They drank three drinks, the artsie died, his face was turning green,
But the Engineer drank on and said, "It's only gasoline."
Chorus
Now Venus is a statue made entirely of stone,
There's not a fig leaf on her, she's as naked as a bone.
On noticing her arms were broke, an Engineer discoursed,
"Of course, the damn thing's broken, it should be reinforced."
Chorus
Elvis was a legend, he's the King of Rock 'n' Roll,
But the life he was leading - well, it finally took it's toll.
He realized too late, he'd chosen the wrong career.
So he faked his death and came to school, now he's an Engineer!
Chorus
The modern Engineer must be politically correct.
No more motors lubricating, no more buildings rise erect.
No electrical capacitors whose plates are high and fair.
Instead of problem solving, let's just sit around and care.
Chorus
She said, "I've come a long, long way and I will go as far,
With the man who takes me off this horse and leads me to a bar."
The men who took her off her steed and stood her to a beer,
were a blurry-eyed surveyor and a drunken Engineer.
Chorus
A maiden and an Engineer were sitting in a park.
The Engineer was busy doing research after dark.
His scientific method was a marvel to observe.
While his right hand wrote the figures down, his left hand traced the curves.
Chorus
When it comes to math and science, Engineers-- we kick ass.
There isn't a course or subject Engineers cannot pass.
If presented with a problem we can solve it with great ease.
All we do is reach into our bag and pull out our HP's
Chorus
The Army and the Navy were out to have some fun.
Looking for a tavern where the fiery liquids run.
But all they found were empties, for the Engineers had come,
And traded all their instruments for gallon jugs of rum.
Chorus
My mother peddles opium, my father's on the dole.
My sister used to walk the streets, but now she's on parole.
My brother runs a restaurant with bedrooms in the rear,
But they won't even speak to me 'cause I'm an Engineer!
Chorus
Now you've heard our story and you know we're Engineers,
and like all jolly people we can down our whiskey clear.
We drink to every other sport who comes from far and near,
Cause we know damn sure that we are all a hell of an Engineer!
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 5th Aug 2012 at 10:51.
Thing is RAE build things and blow them up as it suits their purpose. (Dave knows what I'm talking about),. I know. I was awarded a medal upon return from hospital at Singleton with achievements written on dunny paper with an RAE badge after suffering the indignity of a "confidence charge".
Blacky a question for you?. What exactly is the difference, other than the warehouse full of paperwork, between class A and class B maintenance? Is Class A any safer? if so why?
Bankstown office feels you are confusing requirements for Class A aircraft maintenance with requirements for Class B aircraft maintenance. Chalk and cheese
CAR 30 organisations continue maintenance as before, new Part 145 maintenance orgs operate as you describe.
So, Blackhand, as a charter operator I will be required to maintain aircraft as Class A or B in this brave new world?
Isn't the objective to remove the distinction between RPT and CHTR?
...so all CHTR aircraft will be "Air Transport" category?
Thing is RAE build things and blow them up as it suits their purpose. (Dave knows what I'm talking about),. I know. I was awarded a medal upon return from hospital at Singleton with achievements written on dunny paper with an RAE badge after suffering the indignity of a "confidence charge".
"Confidence charge"? One pound block? Time a boot length of fuse? etc.
These questions are best directed to your CASA AWI. I can advise you on your maintenance requirements but will come at a cost to you.
Cheers
I agree with sunny - The complexity not only helps casa, but helps you as well Blackie.
Come on - Easy and clear regs is the answer, no need for clarifying instruments either and allowing the car 35 engineer to get on with the important parts.
Your turn Blackie:
How about you put forward some real information where we all can say:
The sad thing is, that it was needed for any other reason other than 'educational'.
