I know that the estimates hansard (12/01/2013) is probably put well in the shade from this morning's impromptu act from a contingent of Albo's circus troop. However there are passages in the hansard that will perk the interest of some on here (besides the Bill and Ben flowerpot men episode!).
Here's an example from the horses mouth, although I'm not sure if it will give many a checkie, ATO, instructor or operator piece of mind
:
Senator FAWCETT: My last question goes to flight tests by FOIs whereby they put pressure on the subject, whether it be a student, but more commonly an ATO who is up for approval, to conduct a test or a manoeuvre that is not in line with the manufacturer's recommendations but is what the FOI deems to be appropriate. There are a couple of examples that have been cited to me. One is the requirement to fly light twins at the blue line, as opposed to Vref, which is normally a stall plus 1.3 which gives a lot of float and therefore the chance of overruns of runways, but that is being pushed by some apparently. Also, some aircraft where, for example, a double failure such as a failure of a control system and then a stall is not recommended by the manufacturer, but an FOI requires to see that. In situations like that are there guidelines within CASA that say that if the ATO or whoever is being tested can demonstrate that there is clearly from the manufacturer, or in the operation's manual, guidance that says that this is not appropriate, that it will be accepted at that level without having to go back to actually get letters from the manufacturer?
Mr J McCormick: I would need to see the examples and I could give you an answer on notice. Those examples that you give are the first that it has come to my attention, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not out there. We certainly, as an organisation, do not instruct our FOIs or our flight training examiners, our FTEs, to carry out a manoeuvre that is not prescribed in the AFM or in the pilot-handling notes, depending on the category of aeroplane.
Senator FAWCETT: I guess my concern is not so much that you would instruct them to do that. I would not suggest that.
Mr J McCormick: I know where you are going.
Senator FAWCETT: I am more concerned that they are allowed to essentially have their own agenda as opposed to being constrained to operate within what either an operations manual or the AFM for the particular aircraft specifies is normal practice for that aircraft.
Mr J McCormick: We spend a lot of time with standardisation and we are still working on that. That is an ongoing aim of the organisation for this year. As far as the organisation of FOIs and whatever, they are now in certificate management teams where they have a team leader who responds then to the regional manager who is the office manager as well, and our whole aim is to stop any sort of behaviour that is outside of the norms for flight tests because it will be in the manual standards. It is currently in the CAOs. The standards and the manoeuvres that have to be carried out and to the degree of accuracy that is required is laid out there. We certainly do not condone anything outside those limits.
Senator FAWCETT: What if the AFM prohibits something that is currently in the manual standards as a manoeuvre that should be conducted, but for this particular aircraft it cannot be? How is that resolved?
Mr J McCormick: The AFM would have overriding authority.
Senator FAWCETT: Your expectation would be that if the ATO or if the student and the test could show that, that should be accepted without question by the testing officer?
Mr J McCormick: Absolutely, and except for the small aeroplanes in the one general category, if we talking of a more specific aircraft where the AFM may prohibit a particular manoeuvre or particular, as you say, flight control sequence or whatever or a symmetric configuration to the stall or such, we have our flight training examiners qualified on type, so they should be aware of the AFM limitations. By the same token, anybody under test should be aware of their aircraft and what the AFM limitations are or the TCDS limitations and not allow themselves to go on that. We certainly do not condone anything like that.
Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...pplication/pdf
Read it and weep...
Oh an excellent follow up to Ben's earlier article:
Nailed to the wall, the fixer files and CASA's cover-up | Plane Talking