During a training flight at ‘alliance’ ‘base’ X, the aircraft being utilised has nosewheel shimmy during the landing roll. The person running the ‘business’ at ‘alliance’ ‘base’ X tells the instructor and the student that nosewheel shimmy on landing on that aircraft is perfectly normal. What happens next in the APTA FSM? If APTA finds out about the nosewheel shimmy and forms the view that it could be a problem, what actually happens next?
The pilot would enter it onto the maintenance release.
On returning and signing in, he would also enter that detail onto the FSM, which would render the aircraft unavailable for further bookings until assessed.
An email would also be automatically sent to the Maintenance Administration Officer, who would take on the responsibility of managing that situation and ensuring the aircraft was airworthy.
Once satisfied that the problem had been rectified, either the MAO, HAAMC, GSM, GHOO, could reactivate that aircraft into the FSM system, allowing that aircraft to be despatched. Bookings could be made during the unserviceability, although the aircraft could not be despatched.
I assume the “person running the business” would be a Member of the Aero Club Committee.
The Committee had most likely joined APTA because.
· They did not have an AOC
· Were unwilling or unable to obtain an AOC.
If someone held there own AOC, it is unlikely that they would have joined APTA. My experience was that in fact the Committee specifically did not want operational control, had little knowledge of how to run a flight training operation, and I never experienced any of that “interference” that you suggest.
Quite simply, the APTA determination was the only determination, because at any time, any base, any instructor, or any aircraft could be immediately locked out of the system, and completely unable to be despatched.
An option not available to flying schools reliant on a paper based, manual sign out system.
A different aircraft being operated at ‘alliance’ ‘base’ X has no gizmo to record the aircraft’s TIS. What does APTA actually do to make sure that recorded TIS is actual TIS, noting that the instructor’s and student’s ‘flight time’ are not the same as the aircraft’s TIS.
All aircraft were required to have time monitored by either
· VDO
· Tacho
· Flight switch
There was a requirement for any two of these methods to be entered into FSM. Generally, this was the VDO and flight switch.
The flight switch times populated into the maintenance section of the FSM system, whereas the VDO time populated immediately through to the Staff members flight and duty times, and through to the Students Logbook.
On occasions where an aircraft owner did not have a flight switch, we would require the Owner to install one, and that did happen on one occasion. The owner was very much on board, as previously he had been doing his maintenance from the VDO. My recollection was that the cost was approximately $700.
I hope that addresses that query adequately.
At ‘alliance’ ‘base’ X, the aircraft used for retractible undercarriage training lands and the instructor enters in the MR: “Left Mainwheel undercarriage downlight unserviceable”. Does APTA know about that entry, as soon as it’s entered in the MR and, if yes, what does APTA actually do about it?
The response to this would be the same procedure as in Step One.
I would add that we had daily meetings with each base, and fortnightly we would have a Group Safety Meeting and a Group Management meeting. One of the topics was maintenance. These issues would all have been bought up at the meeting, as all maintenance issues were addressed and discussed.
If an opportunity for improvement resulted, a Continuous Improvement Process would be initiated with a notification to CASA via our Continuous improvement process and that may result in a change to procedures which would be communicated through the system requiring a pilot acknowledgement via the FSM system, before being able to sign out.
Cheers. Glen.
About to head into a run of thirteen-hour shifts, so if I don’t respond for a few days, please understand that its not me having a “dummy spit”.
Any available time I have will be focussed on my formal allegation of misfeasance in public office against two senior CASA execs. Another substantial document coming to finalisation. I know all the doomsayers will say it’s a waste of time, and it may well be, but at least I can say that I went down swinging. The same philosophy i use in my day job now.
The Flight School system as mentioned was a very comprehensive system designed by the Developer especially for our system. A link to the product can be found here. CASA personnel attended the training sessions in the Melbourne CBD with the APTA member bases. This occurred approximately 2 years before Mr. Aleck "first became aware of the structure in October 2018
Smart (smartaviation.net)
I would also add that in an industry first, CASA was given full access to the system, and every aspect of the operation two years before CASA "first became aware" of the APTA structure. CASA could at any time and in real time check flight and duty, aircraft maintenance and unserviceability's, safety information, pilot recency, training records, etc etc etc etc