Players in the pprune stable
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Players in the pprune stable
A re-introduction to some of the players in the aviation comments market in Australia [with lots of apologies to the original authors]:
Kharon - Ferryman of the Dead
The Screaming Skull [aka Big John mac]
The Hoodoo Voodoo [aka j alleck]
and Woger Rabbit [or the roger chamber-pot report] in PelAir
and to point the real finger at the real perpetrator [casa]:
Thanks - It is the weekend of course and the 4:58 FAX time has gone!!
Kharon - Ferryman of the Dead
The Screaming Skull [aka Big John mac]
The Hoodoo Voodoo [aka j alleck]
and Woger Rabbit [or the roger chamber-pot report] in PelAir
and to point the real finger at the real perpetrator [casa]:
Thanks - It is the weekend of course and the 4:58 FAX time has gone!!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose if you are locked in an imposition of wills argument eventually you ridicule the opponent to break the deadlock.
I don't see it that way.
they are all intelligent people who have backgrounds that make them experts in other areas.
trouble is they aren't working in those other areas, they are working in civil aviation, something they have little to no experience in and they are clueless.
section 20a of the universal declaration of human rights says the entire structure of australian legislation is wrong.
being ex military would blind you totally to that.
the canadian owner maintenance regulations created a lot of peace in that country. if you were hell bent on mandating a LAME environment "like it was in the RAAF" you'd be totally blind to that.
aeronautical engineering should be core to all the legislation. I doubt that CAsA actually employs any but if they do they don't listen to them.
there is no point to trying to make CAsA more competent, they will never ever throw off their pasts. they are irrelevant. ignore them.
I don't see it that way.
they are all intelligent people who have backgrounds that make them experts in other areas.
trouble is they aren't working in those other areas, they are working in civil aviation, something they have little to no experience in and they are clueless.
section 20a of the universal declaration of human rights says the entire structure of australian legislation is wrong.
being ex military would blind you totally to that.
the canadian owner maintenance regulations created a lot of peace in that country. if you were hell bent on mandating a LAME environment "like it was in the RAAF" you'd be totally blind to that.
aeronautical engineering should be core to all the legislation. I doubt that CAsA actually employs any but if they do they don't listen to them.
there is no point to trying to make CAsA more competent, they will never ever throw off their pasts. they are irrelevant. ignore them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking responsibility is often hard
DU8 - The issue here is for RESPONSIBILITY to be taken by casa, not:
The end-game is taking responsibility for mistakes and finding a way forward.
- Avoidance;
- Obtusification;
- Misleading statements;
- False evidence etc etc
The end-game is taking responsibility for mistakes and finding a way forward.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are very few lame in the military and I've have seen when they operated VH rego aircraft and the SGT was not a lame and his junior was he had the say. The Sgt had no say and I ribbed him about that. He wasn't happy abt it. Pmsl. We'll with attitudes like that it is why we in the position we are in know. There are f all lame about and every day we loosing them.
I am happy for owners to do there own maintenance I just won't to know who is so I have no dealings with them.
If it's so easy to do your own go do the exams and training and then do it.
Cheers
I am happy for owners to do there own maintenance I just won't to know who is so I have no dealings with them.
If it's so easy to do your own go do the exams and training and then do it.
Cheers
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yr right you are missing my point.
in the RAAF the aircraft are owned by the government and maintained for government purposes. so the government supplies as much money as is needed to do this.
they aren't called LAME's in the RAAF they are Hydraulics technicians, airframe fitters, avionics fitters, electrical fitters etc.
The RAAF is an environment where the pilots don't own aircraft and don't ever work on them so when the ex-raaf were called on to regulate civilian aviation they had absolutely no experience with ownership, no experience with maintenance and you can see this reflected in the australian legislation.
in fact it is evident in the regulations of all countries where the ex military aviators were employed to create the regulations for civilian aviation.
in this country we have the concept of private ownership.
if you steal something privately owned by someone else you will be fined or go to prison for the misdeed.
we allow aircraft to be privately owned in this country.
an INALIENABLE right of private ownership is the right to use, to enjoy and to maintain the items privately owned.
why isn't this reflected in australian aviation law?
simple.
the people who drafted the laws have no experience with private ownership.
private ownership in aviation is a totally unknown experience for most of them.
canadian owner maintenance regulations if introduced here in australia wouldn't mean the end of LAME's.
what it would end though is secrecy surrounding all the owner maintenance that goes on now and will continue to go on.
you say that I should sit all the exams and become a LAME.
why?
all I want to do is maintain my own aeroplanes.
I have no use for the detailed knowledge of systems not in my aircraft.
I can assure you that I can maintain my own aeroplane. I've been doing it for over 10 years now.
the malaise in the aviation is not caused by private owners.
it is caused by stupidly framed legislation gradually making everything impossible.
in the RAAF the aircraft are owned by the government and maintained for government purposes. so the government supplies as much money as is needed to do this.
they aren't called LAME's in the RAAF they are Hydraulics technicians, airframe fitters, avionics fitters, electrical fitters etc.
The RAAF is an environment where the pilots don't own aircraft and don't ever work on them so when the ex-raaf were called on to regulate civilian aviation they had absolutely no experience with ownership, no experience with maintenance and you can see this reflected in the australian legislation.
in fact it is evident in the regulations of all countries where the ex military aviators were employed to create the regulations for civilian aviation.
in this country we have the concept of private ownership.
if you steal something privately owned by someone else you will be fined or go to prison for the misdeed.
we allow aircraft to be privately owned in this country.
an INALIENABLE right of private ownership is the right to use, to enjoy and to maintain the items privately owned.
why isn't this reflected in australian aviation law?
simple.
the people who drafted the laws have no experience with private ownership.
private ownership in aviation is a totally unknown experience for most of them.
canadian owner maintenance regulations if introduced here in australia wouldn't mean the end of LAME's.
what it would end though is secrecy surrounding all the owner maintenance that goes on now and will continue to go on.
you say that I should sit all the exams and become a LAME.
why?
all I want to do is maintain my own aeroplanes.
I have no use for the detailed knowledge of systems not in my aircraft.
I can assure you that I can maintain my own aeroplane. I've been doing it for over 10 years now.
the malaise in the aviation is not caused by private owners.
it is caused by stupidly framed legislation gradually making everything impossible.
If I own and operate a car, it is my responsibility tomaintain it. I can do all the work myself, or take it to a qualified mechanic.Nothing is recorded. If I own and operate a speedboat, it is my responsibility tomaintain it. I can do all the work myself, or take it to a qualified mechanic.Nothing is recorded. If I own and operate a motor bike, it is my responsibilityto maintain it. I can do all the work myself, or take it to a qualified mechanic.Nothing is recorded. None of these get an annual inspection - they are maintained continuously on condition.
I just can’t see what’s different with aircraft. They’ll say……if I have a mechanical failure in flight, I might crash into some body or something.
Well if a wheel comes off my car, or the steering fails onmy boat, or the throttle jams on my motorbike – because of my sloppy work (thatI’m legally allowed to do - with zero qualifications) – aren’t I going to crash into the same some body orsome thing?
So why are aircraft SO different? (Private operations only we're talking)
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
private ops only....
the aviation paperwork mania can be traced back to a maintenance incident in england in WW1.
an aircraft was in for a repair. this involved making or repairing a new mainspar.
in the gluing of the ply webs one slipped and glued out of position.
the crew assembled it in the aircraft, completed the repairs and returned the aircraft to service.
one of the young upper class chappies took it out flying and was killed in a midair structural failure.
the english establishment was incensed that one of their lords had been killed "in what was so obviously a sabotage". despite an intensive investigation they could pin the blame on no one. So in response the english created an elaborate system of signing for work so that it could never occur again unpunished.
as far as I can tell aviation paperwork spiralled off from there.
when I was building my Turbulent I gained an interesting insight as to what may really have occurred.
Turbulent fuselages are built as two flat sides which are then erected with cross members into the curved sided fuselage.
The curve of the front is notoriously hard to bend into place.
So I built the framework as an easier to construct 3D frame then glued on the ply.
I jigged the first fuselage side horizontal and glued on a large side panel.
this was all weighted down and I sat and watched that it didn't move until the glue in the pot was well and truly setting off. I then walked up to the house for a cup of tea.
on return I was horrified to see that the panel had slid off the glue area as per the english WW1 experience. I was able to break the glue bond and rescued the job.
why did it move when for the 2 hours previously it had shown no inclination to do?
I came to the conclusion that my footsteps out of the workshop set up a vibration that upset the positioning of the weighted panel.
....and I would conclude that that was what happened in the original WW1 incident. i.e. the poms got it wrong. no one actually sabotaged anything.
the guys probably just had a tea break in the middle of the work and the panel vibrated off position.
in any case we now have an insane system of paperwork that some see as more important than the actual aircraft.
an aircraft was in for a repair. this involved making or repairing a new mainspar.
in the gluing of the ply webs one slipped and glued out of position.
the crew assembled it in the aircraft, completed the repairs and returned the aircraft to service.
one of the young upper class chappies took it out flying and was killed in a midair structural failure.
the english establishment was incensed that one of their lords had been killed "in what was so obviously a sabotage". despite an intensive investigation they could pin the blame on no one. So in response the english created an elaborate system of signing for work so that it could never occur again unpunished.
as far as I can tell aviation paperwork spiralled off from there.
when I was building my Turbulent I gained an interesting insight as to what may really have occurred.
Turbulent fuselages are built as two flat sides which are then erected with cross members into the curved sided fuselage.
The curve of the front is notoriously hard to bend into place.
So I built the framework as an easier to construct 3D frame then glued on the ply.
I jigged the first fuselage side horizontal and glued on a large side panel.
this was all weighted down and I sat and watched that it didn't move until the glue in the pot was well and truly setting off. I then walked up to the house for a cup of tea.
on return I was horrified to see that the panel had slid off the glue area as per the english WW1 experience. I was able to break the glue bond and rescued the job.
why did it move when for the 2 hours previously it had shown no inclination to do?
I came to the conclusion that my footsteps out of the workshop set up a vibration that upset the positioning of the weighted panel.
....and I would conclude that that was what happened in the original WW1 incident. i.e. the poms got it wrong. no one actually sabotaged anything.
the guys probably just had a tea break in the middle of the work and the panel vibrated off position.
in any case we now have an insane system of paperwork that some see as more important than the actual aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if a wheel comes off my car, or the steering fails onmy boat, or the throttle jams on my motorbike – because of my sloppy work (thatI’m legally allowed to do - with zero qualifications) – aren’t I going to crash into the same some body orsome thing?
So why are aircraft SO different? (Private operations only we're talking)
So why are aircraft SO different? (Private operations only we're talking)
Having seen what some people consider an acceptable vehicle standards, I shudder to think what would be the result if some cost conscience 'I-can-do-it-myself' yahoos without training or skills started maintaining their own aircraft. You can guarantee they won't be the ones hurt/killed when their dodgy work fails.
I won't comment on the rightness/wrongness of the legislation as I am far from qualified to do so, but I would think there ought to be at least a minimum standard for those authorised to work on aircraft. How onerous or structured that should be is up to someone who understands it in depth.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I shudder to think what would be the result if some cost conscience 'I-can-do-it-myself' yahoos without training or skills started maintaining their own aircraft."
Sarge,
I think you just insulted half the private aircraft owners in the USA and Canada. Given that their safety record is so much better than ours, maybe we should insist on owner maintenance.
Sarge,
I think you just insulted half the private aircraft owners in the USA and Canada. Given that their safety record is so much better than ours, maybe we should insist on owner maintenance.
The life critical components in a car (suspension brakes steering) are built way overstrength to allow for Forty plus years of corrosion and zero or totallly ham fisted maintenance plus consequential and incidental damage along the way.
Aicraft components are not.
Aicraft components are not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McComick strikes again
This morning's missive, which takes us away from schedule 5 and what a LAME/ owner should or should not do
CASA wishes to advise the opening of:
- Project CS 14/09 - Post-implementation review of CASR Part 90
- Project CS 14/10 - Update of AC 21-46(1)
- Project MS 14/11 - Knowledge retainment through CAO to ATSO conversion
- Project OS 14/12 - Performance Based Navigation and Reduced Vertical Separation Minima regulatory review
1. How can the industry deal with changes to the depth as these are? and:
2. Are there enough properly qualified people who can deal with these matters? and:
3. Is this being paid for via the industries $89.9m?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UITA, some of the changed wording looks like it has been put through the hands of the Witchdoctor and Co! Get out the large cauldron, add a little fine tuning and sprinkle in some changes, add a little extra legal flavour for extra zing as well as create a base made from 'intent', spin and incompetence and hey presto; Another Delightful CAsA feast!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fsa claims that it is: industry-leading safety publication!!! and trustworthy info!!
This what you had in mind??
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Explore the world of Flight Safety Australia ...
Free app and news site available now
CASA’s industry-leading safety publication, Flight Safety Australia continues to evolve. The magazine’s credible, informative and comprehensive content can now be downloaded as an app* (both iOS and Android). Our news site will feature not only the same trustworthy information, but also timely and exclusive aviation safety updates.
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Explore the world of Flight Safety Australia ...
Free app and news site available now
CASA’s industry-leading safety publication, Flight Safety Australia continues to evolve. The magazine’s credible, informative and comprehensive content can now be downloaded as an app* (both iOS and Android). Our news site will feature not only the same trustworthy information, but also timely and exclusive aviation safety updates.
Last edited by Up-into-the-air; 5th May 2014 at 02:00. Reason: A litttle inclusion
The self-perpetuating regulatory Frankenstein in action:
Spend time and money making some rules. Spend time and money making Exemptions to deal with the ‘unintended consequences’ of those rules. Spend time and money conducting a post-implementation review.
Make some new rules with unintended consequences, make some exemptions…
CASA is aware of some omissions and unintended consequences associated with the implementation of Part 90 of CASR, both in the regulations and the associated Part 90 Manual of Standards (MOS). Two general Exemptions have been raised against these regulations. …
Make some new rules with unintended consequences, make some exemptions…
I shudder to think what would be the result if some cost conscience 'I-can-do-it-myself' yahoos without training or skills started maintaining their own aircraft. You can guarantee they won't be the ones hurt/killed when their dodgy work fails.
There speaks a person who obviously hasn't a clue about what is going on in the real world around them.
The Canadian owner/pilot maintenance rules have been very successful. Based on my on the spot experience, the general and detailed condition of most US and Canadian aircraft I have dealt with are far superior to here.
Sgt, are you even aware of the number of aircraft in Australia that are legally maintained by other than LAMEs, ---- with absolutely no record of greater maintenance related accidents, compared to LAME maintained aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Of course, many of the above aircraft were built by their owners in the first place ---- I trust you are not suggesting the cessation of amateur building. Isn't it logical that the builder of an aircraft knows that aircraft best?
I fall about laughing every time a LAME --- with a straight face, says that amateur builders should not be able to maintain their aircraft, the illogical nature of such statements are lost on the average LAME.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is a technology to aviation....but it isn't rocket science. 
if I counted correctly there are now 1,453 amateur built aircraft on the australian VH register.
if I counted correctly there are now 1,453 amateur built aircraft on the australian VH register.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and more, and moore
From:CASA mailing lists <[email protected]>(Add as Preferred Sender) Date:Wed, May 07, 2014 2:47 pmTo:
CASA wishes to advise the opening of:
This is today's lot
CASA wishes to advise the opening of:
This is today's lot
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sgt, are you even aware of the number of aircraft in Australia that are legally maintained by other than LAMEs
I have no doubt there are people who do a better job looking after their pride and joy, and their own necks, than someone who would be hired for the job. Despite how my post seems to have been read I am not making sweeping statements about all self maintained aircraft and I don't make any claim to be knowledgeable about such matters.
I am simply saying I have seen what passes for amateur in other industries, and how cost minimisation works in some organisations and I believe some minimum standard of training and qualification is warranted for safety's sake.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Sarge,
to a certain extent I agree with you, but some people imagine that private owner operators are a bunch of homicidal lunatics which is a long way from reality.
Go to some of the discussions on this sight on engine handling for example, sure there are the usual egomaniacs trying the, my dick is bigger than yours stuff, but the majority are informed, well researched enthusiasts who have accumulated knowledge way beyond what your average LAME would know.
My experience in the US and Canada is their aircraft, overall, leave ours for dead in terms of maintenance, and the vast majority of them are maintained by enthusiastic amateurs.
to a certain extent I agree with you, but some people imagine that private owner operators are a bunch of homicidal lunatics which is a long way from reality.
Go to some of the discussions on this sight on engine handling for example, sure there are the usual egomaniacs trying the, my dick is bigger than yours stuff, but the majority are informed, well researched enthusiasts who have accumulated knowledge way beyond what your average LAME would know.
My experience in the US and Canada is their aircraft, overall, leave ours for dead in terms of maintenance, and the vast majority of them are maintained by enthusiastic amateurs.
