Originally Posted by
LeadSled
Folks,
Just a few comments on the US/Australia thing.
Our Schedule 5 is almost the same as the US equivalent, Part 43 Appendix D, indeed Schedule 5 was copied from Appendix D, but with a couple of "Australianisms" added --- surprise, surprise.
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with Schedule 5 as an inspection schedule, but a "System of Maintenance" it is not--- even when we "copy" the US, we still screw up, usually because those in DCA/DoT/CAA/CASA/whatever, do not have enough experience and knowledge to understand the whole US system.
We ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel, and wind up with one with sharp corners.
One of those Schedule 5 "Australianisms" requires the LAME to sign that the aircraft will remain serviceable until the next scheduled inspection, and LAMEs have been very harshly treated when an apparent un-serviceability down the line has resulted in death of injury. I understand that this results in Hangar Keepers insurance (by whatever name) being far more expensive in Australia than US.
By contrast, the US A&P/IAs have a "hangar door' responsibility, as the aeroplane rolls out the hangar door, it is airworthy (in the legal sense) and meets the TCDS, including any Airworthiness Directives, ie: the type design.
After is flies away, all best are off, unless fraud negligence is involved --- which means, effectively, that the return to service document was falsely completed. A bit of a simplification, but you get the drift.
For the great majority of US GA type aircraft, the "Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions", by whatever name, supplement Appendix D, (and that is how they are written), not the other way around, as is assumed here.
Our Schedule 8 is very similar to the US equivalent, in both cases, listed items have to be carried out using appropriate ( short US description) or "approved" (Australia) maintenance data.
With a Schedule 8 battery change, how do you do it legally without CASA approved battery charging facilities in a CASA approved workshop.
How do you repair a tyre or tube if you can't (legally) jack the aircraft to remove the wheel --- jacking being "secret LAME's business".
As one poster says, you can't fix stupid, the scope of what is now known as Schedule 8 has been whittled down over the years as a result of pressure (all based on concern for safety, you understand) by both the LAMEs union and proprietors of aircraft maintenance facilities.
Strangely, members of said union working for CASA in Airworthiness (whatever it is called this week) have always been very accommodating of their comrade's "safety" concerns.
Likewise, maintenance business's "safety concerns" about private owners or pilots doing any work on their aircraft is never tinged with any thought of loss of potential revenue.
I do hope you all have your approved calibrated device to reinstall valve caps if you daringly venture to check tyre pressures, correctly torquing those valve caps is a really major safety issue --- NOT!! But a potentially very expensive strict liability criminal offense it is.
Whoever said lockable hangars are so you can "do things" safe from prying eyes is saying something more true than he/she even thinks. That is the place to wash you windscreen, rather than commit such a blatant crime in public --- unless, of course, you have Manufacturer's Maintenance Instructions (to the satisfaction of CASA) to carry out this critical safety task. Do you?? LAMEs?? Pilots?? Owners??
We would do well to adopt the whole US approach to Continuing Airworthiness (not "maintenance" - continuing airworthiness) of aircraft, but not only will it not happen, but in recent years we have taken great leaps backwards. And I do mean "the whole approach", not just "the law".
For airlines, the answer is easy, they do not, by and large, do major maintenance in Australia any longer (and it is NOT cheap Asian labor) --- just a little bit to keep politicians quiet.
All very sad, and all part of the picture of the collapse of GA, particularly private and business GA, in Australia.
Tootle Pip!!
PS: In my experience, the average US privately owned light aircraft is in far better state of repair and presentation, and airworthiness, than is common with what little is left here.