PPRuNe Forums

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th Jan 2017, 11:05   #21 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Victoria, Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 3,640
Even more brutal is the CASA alignment of CARs to EASA instead of Dick Smith's intent of FAA FARs. We have some of the most restrictive regulations as a result, influenced by the nonsense decisions out of Europe.
John Eacott is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2017, 13:52   #22 (permalink)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 68
Posts: 665
Hard to break the chains linking you to the Old World, eh?
SASless is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2017, 16:25   #23 (permalink)
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 37
The consensus may be that EASA is more out of touch than the FAA but I can assure that the FAA is also full of people who, for lack of a better term, haven't a clue. When I started in the business almost 40 years ago, field approved modifications were way more common than STC'ed approvals. I'm not aware of whether or not that is or has ever been an option under EASA, where a local FSDO inspector could approve a proposed modification and often times even would allow a previous field approval to substantiate the same repair/alteration on another airframe of the same type. You could actually go to their office and explain/argue your case. They had the option to reject or put you off while they researched it or stamp it on the spot. Were there approvals that never should have been approved? Yup, however not as many as one might think. Maybe I'm lucky nothing I did ever came back to bite me and there were a few oddball things I did on fixed wing machines that would never be approved in any way today. One that comes to mind is bolting 2 over-engineered pieces of steel on a Hamilton Standard propeller hub on a P & W 985 to allow for placement of balance weights for dynamic balancing (other than the hollow Welch bolts that hold the hub halves together). I had a Chadwick and made a handful of those engines run as so smoothly that the ag operator thought I was a god. The FAA field approved it but eventually came to their senses and said "no more". As far as I know they are still flying. Too many of the FAA inspectors have been brought up through the ranks being told "why take the risk"? Now field approvals are not nearly as easy to obtain. I'm waiting for external load devices to eventually fall under the FAA purview so that Bambi buckets, helitorches, hydraulic chainsaws, SAR equipment not to mention long lines themselves will to have their stamp of approval. It is all complicated by the fact that in IMO the FAA lacks having many people who are helicopter savvy and are willing to allow that many operators are quite capable of knowing what is safe and works for what they do. Too bad , too sad.
roscoe1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Jan 2017, 17:08   #24 (permalink)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,371
Although I agree with everything said I have seen the other side of EASA. 2 years ago i was to be the 2nd helicopter to have an Aspen PFD put into it ( 500D ) we applied to EASA to have it as a minor mod as there was no STC. They came back within 1 week and said yes. Couldn't believe it !!! until they said they were going to ask Gatwick to do the paperwork, 6 months later with lots of e mails, shouting , swearing threatening legal action it was finally passed !!
So UK CAA still has the last laugh
Hughes500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Jan 2017, 02:40   #25 (permalink)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Out there
Posts: 159
Just what is it about the people in these collective agencies that makes them so intent on holding pointless, pedantic, anti-aviation attitudes? I just don't understand what motivates these people. What possible job satisfaction can you get knowing that a significant portion of the industry you serve hates you? Why make decisions that fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary? What on earth makes people that have no aviation experience think that they know better? It just doesn't make any sense at all.
Evil Twin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Jan 2017, 06:49   #26 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Hard to break the chains linking you to the Old World, eh?
Steady on there SAS, we implemented the metric system more than 50 years ago.....
Freewheel is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32.

1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1