CAO 100.5 Amendment 13
You may want to look at your engine overhauls, commercial ops that is although no one can say if and/or when may happen.
Last edited by Creampuff; 9th Aug 2013 at 01:12.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
That was the best I could get out of them.
Reading between the lines I would say that On Condition engines for commercial operations of all kinds will disappear under 119/135/136/137.
As for the private operations, no one really cares if you kill yourself and your family, no implications for CASA, ATSB nor for the CAR30 Workshop that signs you out with your OC heap of poo.
Sunfish
I have passed your claims about CASA onto John Mac for comment.
Be ready to provide evidence please.
Cheers
That was the best I could get out of them.
Reading between the lines I would say that On Condition engines for commercial operations of all kinds will disappear under 119/135/136/137.
As for the private operations, no one really cares if you kill yourself and your family, no implications for CASA, ATSB nor for the CAR30 Workshop that signs you out with your OC heap of poo.
Sunfish
I have passed your claims about CASA onto John Mac for comment.
Be ready to provide evidence please.
Cheers
Last edited by owen meaney; 9th Aug 2013 at 01:50.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA,
Read and digest the new regs mate, if you can't see the writing on the wall, hopefully you aren't involved in real aviation. Or are you part of Kharons so called cricket team that won't come out and play.
And no. I eat AWIs for breakfast, and FOIs are beyond my remit.
Read and digest the new regs mate, if you can't see the writing on the wall, hopefully you aren't involved in real aviation. Or are you part of Kharons so called cricket team that won't come out and play.
And no. I eat AWIs for breakfast, and FOIs are beyond my remit.
owen,
Can you point to me where, in AD/ENG/4 you can use engines on condition, now, for Charter or RPT.
I don't see "commercial operations" under 119/135/136 being any different to the present situation, Part 137, Ag, is a different matter.
As far as I know, the long and successful history of life extension programs for Charter and RPT piston engines have been ignored and have all been extinguished.
Tootle pip!!
Can you point to me where, in AD/ENG/4 you can use engines on condition, now, for Charter or RPT.
I don't see "commercial operations" under 119/135/136 being any different to the present situation, Part 137, Ag, is a different matter.
As far as I know, the long and successful history of life extension programs for Charter and RPT piston engines have been ignored and have all been extinguished.
Tootle pip!!
Owen, take it from me that there was a strong recommendation that members are not to criticise CASA because it would "prejudice the relationship". Someone else may decide to give you a quote. I won't.
And furthermore Owen, are you incensed because you believe CASA is above criticism, or are you incensed because of a sense of shame that someone would feel it necessary to caution their members because they are personally afraid of the regulators reaction?
Go ask AMROBA about their meeting. Do you think anyone else wants a repeat?
And furthermore, as far as I can tell, the common factor in some removals of AOC's ( Polar, Barrier and maybe others) is a pre existing complaint about the conduct of individual CASA staff.
Can we be forgiven for thinking that the conduct of your staff, including, allegedly, that of your CEO at the AMROBA meeting, suggests you are bullies?
And how dare you make a personal threat aimed at me?
And furthermore Owen, are you incensed because you believe CASA is above criticism, or are you incensed because of a sense of shame that someone would feel it necessary to caution their members because they are personally afraid of the regulators reaction?
Go ask AMROBA about their meeting. Do you think anyone else wants a repeat?
And furthermore, as far as I can tell, the common factor in some removals of AOC's ( Polar, Barrier and maybe others) is a pre existing complaint about the conduct of individual CASA staff.
Can we be forgiven for thinking that the conduct of your staff, including, allegedly, that of your CEO at the AMROBA meeting, suggests you are bullies?
And how dare you make a personal threat aimed at me?
I have passed your claims about CASA onto John Mac for comment.
Be ready to provide evidence
Be ready to provide evidence
Last edited by Sunfish; 9th Aug 2013 at 05:10.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop being so precious Sunfish.
I made no threats to you, simply asked if you can provide evidence.
FFS, even my manager wants to go softly softly, sometimes that does not work.
Know the regulations and pick your fights
You and your circle group have beaten to death your view that every organisation shut down were the good guys.
Move on mate, the modern world beckons you
Cheers
I made no threats to you, simply asked if you can provide evidence.
FFS, even my manager wants to go softly softly, sometimes that does not work.
Know the regulations and pick your fights
You and your circle group have beaten to death your view that every organisation shut down were the good guys.
Move on mate, the modern world beckons you
Cheers
There are commercial operations other than charter and RPT as you well know.
As previously suggested to you, one again I suggest you develop a more nuanced understanding of our present and draft future regulations. Then, an only then, might you develop some understanding of the limitations of a generic expression such as "commercial" operations.
I must say I agree with T28D, there is something very Freudian about your choice of handles.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
Sunfish,
Follow the money, there is more than simple old fashioned bullying that helps keep the various alphabet soup organisations quiet.
In Dick and Boyd's time, part of the AOPA statement of principles was:" Pay your own way and have your own say". AOPA was entirely financed by members' funds and profit from the magazine.
Back in the '90s, AOPA got things done by talking a political path, not unsuccessfully brown-nosing the bureaucrats. A number of successful campaigns to have dis-allowance motions pushed through had a salutary effect in CASA. The successful campaign against fixed ELT (with their 95% proven failure rate) legislation saved owners (in then dollars) around $16M. Just two examples.
Last edited by LeadSled; 9th Aug 2013 at 07:31.
Be that as it may, owen, you said that “no one can say if and/or when [changes to commercial aircraft engine overhaul regulatory requirements] may happen”. So, what strategic decisions should commercial operators make?
Your narrow mind arising from your narrow experience (I’m guessing the same year or two, twenty times over) is showing here:
But what if that “OC heap of poo” operated by the “private” pilot spears into a school full of disabled kiddies, owen? And what if that “OC heap of poo” explodes in Victor 1, under the A380 on approach to 34L at YSSY?
They’ll all be killed!
It will be all the regulator’s fault!
The regulator must require someone to fiddle with aircraft bits, constantly, to improve their reliability! No aircraft component could possibly be reliable unless the likes of owen are f*cking around with them, constantly, and someone from the regulator is constantly checking that the likes of owen have been f*cking around with them, constantly.
Your narrow mind arising from your narrow experience (I’m guessing the same year or two, twenty times over) is showing here:
As for the private operations, no one really cares if you kill yourself and your family, no implications for CASA, ATSB nor for the CAR30 Workshop that signs you out with your OC heap of poo.
They’ll all be killed!
It will be all the regulator’s fault!
The regulator must require someone to fiddle with aircraft bits, constantly, to improve their reliability! No aircraft component could possibly be reliable unless the likes of owen are f*cking around with them, constantly, and someone from the regulator is constantly checking that the likes of owen have been f*cking around with them, constantly.
“Never confuse faith, or belief—of any kind—with something even remotely intellectual.”
Just what does the above statement have to do with the price of fish on Fridays, or anything in this thread.
I am really getting quite concerned about you, are you actually channeling John Irving and his "Prayer for Owen Meany". You didn't even get the spelling correct, when you adopted the persona?? That being the case, now I am not so surprised at you "understanding" of basic aviation regulations.
<http://www.corpus-delicti.com/barb/owenmean.html>
I certainly hope you do not actually have anything to do with matters operational and/or continuing airworthiness with actual aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see again and again criticism of CASA's performance at the AMROBA meeting, I have heard through various attendees that what was said before CASA arrived and after is not quite what is reported here. I think someone mentioned that a transcript would be posted, where is it?
Know the regulations
CAO 100.5 - 2013 has been repealed/ceased as of 2 August.
AD/RAD/43 cancelled
AD/INST/8 cancelled
AD/INST/9 cancelled
CAO 108.56 repealed (cancelled)
AD/INST/8 cancelled
AD/INST/9 cancelled
CAO 108.56 repealed (cancelled)
or maybe yesterday?
Last edited by Arnold E; 9th Aug 2013 at 10:42.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dark side of the moon
Age: 61
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one's today or the one's tomorrow?? or maybe yesterday?
or maybe yesterday?
"If you care about something, you have to protect it – If you’re lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it.”
Cheers
Last edited by owen meaney; 11th Aug 2013 at 00:17. Reason: A comma makes a difference
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
casa and atsb just do not get it!!!!!!!!!
Here is casa's NFRM for parts of 100.5. Note the changes where casa blames the industry. Where was casa in this, if the matter is so bad. There is no evidence I have seen which shows near misses in regulated airspace.
Oh, by the way, the last time that I looked, all aircraft have a pitot system!!
This just points to a regulator that does not even have an awi system that works. There are lots of examples of this causing issues that casa just chooses to sweep under the carpet.
Oh, by the way, the last time that I looked, all aircraft have a pitot system!!
Final Rule Making
1. Background
1.1 The primary method used by pilots to monitor and maintain a desired altitude is with a barometric altimeter. It works by measuring ambient air pressure (static pressure) and providing a display to the pilot in units of height. These instruments, whether they are aneroid based or solid state, need to be checked on a regular basis to ensure that what is being presented to the pilot is accurate. This is particularly critical during approach and departures that have terrain obstacles in close proximity.
1.2 AD/INST/8 Amdt 4 and AD/INST/9 Amdt 6 formerly required either:
1.4 Conflicting maintenance standards that are defined for aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) effectively allowed aircraft with altimeters maintained to different standards to operate in the same airspace which, in the worst case scenario, could result in a loss of separation between the two aircraft.
1.5 With the introduction of Wide Area Multilateration systems into the Sydney metropolitan area as well as large areas of Tasmania it is essential that accurate altitude information is broadcast, via the Mode C transponder, for Air Traffic Control purposes. This would apply to any aircraft transmitting Mode C information regardless of operation under either the VFR or IFR.
1.6 An unintended consequence of allowing a choice of actions within the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) had been the interpretation that, with opting to do the pressure altimeter check, other aircraft instruments and instrument systems did not have to be maintained. This may have resulted in the accuracy of critical aircraft instruments degrading.
1. Background
1.1 The primary method used by pilots to monitor and maintain a desired altitude is with a barometric altimeter. It works by measuring ambient air pressure (static pressure) and providing a display to the pilot in units of height. These instruments, whether they are aneroid based or solid state, need to be checked on a regular basis to ensure that what is being presented to the pilot is accurate. This is particularly critical during approach and departures that have terrain obstacles in close proximity.
1.2 AD/INST/8 Amdt 4 and AD/INST/9 Amdt 6 formerly required either:
- the pressure altimeter/s fitted to an aircraft are tested every two years in accordance with the nominated altimeter maintenance standard; or
- all aircraft instruments and instrument systems are tested in accordance with specified requirements every three years.
1.4 Conflicting maintenance standards that are defined for aircraft operating under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) effectively allowed aircraft with altimeters maintained to different standards to operate in the same airspace which, in the worst case scenario, could result in a loss of separation between the two aircraft.
1.5 With the introduction of Wide Area Multilateration systems into the Sydney metropolitan area as well as large areas of Tasmania it is essential that accurate altitude information is broadcast, via the Mode C transponder, for Air Traffic Control purposes. This would apply to any aircraft transmitting Mode C information regardless of operation under either the VFR or IFR.
1.6 An unintended consequence of allowing a choice of actions within the Airworthiness Directives (ADs) had been the interpretation that, with opting to do the pressure altimeter check, other aircraft instruments and instrument systems did not have to be maintained. This may have resulted in the accuracy of critical aircraft instruments degrading.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 22nd Aug 2013 at 23:04. Reason: More info
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, by the way, the last time that I looked, all aircraft have a pitot system!!
REALLY, all Tiger Moths have pitot ??? The Tipsy Nipper ???? Camel ???
Smarter statement might be , All commercial aircraft have pitot systems.
REALLY, all Tiger Moths have pitot ??? The Tipsy Nipper ???? Camel ???
Smarter statement might be , All commercial aircraft have pitot systems.