Mr F.Wit from CASA

[helibiz]

Aus CASA at it again, adhereance to the letter of the law, means that it is illegal for pilots to remove and replace dual controls in helicopters including the Robi. I timed it and in the Robi they can be changed over in less than 60sec. A maintainence (LAME)type has to sign off the release every time they go in and out. So if a school on a Saturday want to do three 1 hr trainning sorties and between these flights three 5 min scenic flights come in a LAME will have to be there for each removal of the duals. Unless Mr F Wit from CASA wants to leave the duals in while the scenic flight pax is in the aircraft. Now that would be safer wouldn't it ??? LAME would have to sit round between each flight . Minimal call out fees etc. OK some types like the 500 are a bit tricky to remove but surely a pilot could be shown how to do it properly and be signed off on the maintenence release as having the skill and the pilot do it from then on. The credability of CASA just goes out the door when they do this type of thing

[belly tank]

Your Joking right!!!

The Robi has got to be the easiest of them all...i know that for the EC120 there is a requirement for the LAME to remove and replace but ive not heard of the other types being a requirement.

[rotaryman]

..Helibiz,

I sympathise with you, CASA are not easy to deal with due in part because each F.O.I at each Area Office can and many times do have a different interpretation of the rules & Regs.

What is allowed by one FOI can be disallowed by another!

I just love taking casa on and have done so many times, I always win!!! the problem for most of them is they dont know rules and regs well enough to enforce them or how to apply the rules & regs.

I can't see any logic with having an engineer fit the duals for a robbi,,,

Whats the requirement around the world ??:ok:

[Ascend Charlie]

Best way around all the horsefeathers is to get yourself certified by a LAME as being capable of: removing duals, fitting and removing cargo hook, doing a 25 hourly, etc etc to cover all the SLJs. (5hitty little jobs). This certification goes to CASA, and they will issue a maintenance approval to you.

It will cost money, maybe $40 per sign-up, but is worth it when you are away from a maintenance base.

But it is merely tinplating from CASA and a huge waste of time and effort.:ugh:

[Red Wine]

Its interesting to observe that CASA is to blame for such "Rules"...I can only hope that the critics of the existing legislation have written many responses for consideration in CASR 91, 61 and 133????
If not then stop crowing foul!!!

FOI's have no authority to allow or disallow variations to existing legislation, and any pilot that asks an FOI of the "intent" of an item of legislation, can be sure that the requester will only get a personal understanding of the legislation....FOI's have no great insight of the rules, however most have read them unlike most pilots.

What you need, and yes your LAME can arrange it, is a Maintenance Approval [MA for short]....its good for life, but renewed every 2 years. [No cost]

Get one, and make your life easy and legal.

[RDRickster]

After reading this and the non-sense in Ireland (navigation fees through airspace), I'm going to stop complaining about the FAA.

[that chinese fella]

Helibiz,

We took a pro-active step and applied for and received Maintenance Authority's for all our pilots to put duals in and out on the 206 and 47. Bases now covered.

Most reasonable CASA Airworthiness blokes are happy with this if in your supportuing documentation for an MA (Form #350) you include a statement from your LAME that Capt. X has been instructed in and found competent to carry out the task.

Good luck.

TCF

[MaxNg]

Hilibiz

On the face of it I can see why you have flown off at the deep end,
However as usual there are reasons as to why these regs come around.

Not all pilots are as sensable as we would like, if they were then PPRUNE would be only a fraction of its size!, and so the regulators have to regulate for the lowest common denominator.

Several years ago a pilot replaced the duals in a R22 after Self Fly hireing the A/C. Later when this a/c was being used for instruction to a very low houred student the LHS collective lever separated from it's attachment, now you can imagine the look of surprise on the instructor face when the collective came off in his hand during the approach to land. :confused:

CASA as regulators have a duty of care and if they find that an event like that above is plausable/ possible then they have the right to put steps in place to eliminate or at the very least reduce the risk of re-occurence.

The Chinease fella and many others have done the right thing and Checked out the pilots that THEY want to perform this Mainainance task and got them authorized. Thus ensuring safety, CASA's prime objective.

Red Wine makes a good point to all of us that continually whinge when what seems to be a stupid reg gets enforced, get involved when asked and then you will be better able to understand why.

Be Proactive not reactive.



:ok:

[greyway]

At first glance rules are made, it would appear, to make things hard and secure ones job. However when situations are analized you find that rules have been put in place,generally. as a result of an incident / accident
The issue is not how hard or easy the task is, it is who is RESPONSIBLE for that task. So duals generally are easy to fit so why make it hard by adding paperwork.
An example. Earlier this year a pilot was having a check ride in a AS350 and was requested to fit the duals. In they went, easy. Except the cyclic was around the wrong way. True story. It resulted in restricted movement etc and a damaged aircraft. It cant be done, I hear. It can, if the murphyproof rivet has been at some time removed.
Responsibility here is now far reaching. Who did or how was the murphyproofing removed? Would another set of eyes noticed the error? Would someone else (an engineer) not under the pressure of the check ride fall into the same trap?
Who really now is responsible?
There is no doubt that when you have "to sign" for something there is always that extra bit of effort made.
Look at it this way, maybe the authority is trying to help you.
Not all is lost and as has already been mentioned get a Maintenance Authority if there is provision for it. After all you have one already for the AD's you sign off as a part of your preflight, dont you???

[John Eacott]

Helibiz,

If you look at CAAP 42ZC-1(0), Approved Pilot Maintenance for Class B aircraft, all will be revealed. Available from CASA online here, (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/42zc.PDF) as a small .pdf file. It's quite clear cut, and fitting and removal of dual controls is not approved. Unless, of course, you follow previous advice and have an MA issued.

For Class A aircraft (helicopters >2750kg) an MA is even required to do a pre flight to sign the Maintenance Release, so we are quite used to this procedure ;)

Since CAAP 42 allows the changing of wheels and tyres, I sometimes wonder, though, as to the sense of some of these mandates! I did once do a duplicate on the BK117 cyclic and found it back to front, and also had a LAME put the pedal cover on with the pedals fully aft..........

Oh and Red Wine, MA's aren't free, unfortunately. General cost is about $250-300, but since CASA have just doubled their hourly charge rate, expect these prices to also double :(

[RobboRider]

The reason pilots in Oz gets so annoyed is that that it doesn’t stop at one stupid rule. They come up with them time after time after time.

If it were one stupid rule people would cope and get on with it. But no sooner is one rule promulgated, complained about, sorted out than another appears.
And some of the rule changes are so obviously brain-dead that they should never have seen the light of day.

Non-Oz list members may not be aware but about a year or so back it became illegal for pilots to clean dirty windscreens. Only LAME’s could do it. This came about because they changed the rules to one where pilots could only perform tasks which appeared on a list of allowed tasks. And you guessed it cleaning dirty windscreens was not on the list.

One CASA official in the NT actually said to a journalist from Autralian Flying magazine that he considered an aircraft with a dirty windscreen was unairworthy and that the pilot was not allowed to clean it. He had to get a LAME out to do it, even if he was out on some dirt strip in the middle of the NT. He further stated he was prepared to enforce that rule in his area.

I think that it got sorted out but only after a lot of complaining.

MaxNG - Duty of Care is a bandied around term that doesn’t apply to CASA – the courts have deemed that it applies to the pilot!

Red Wine - The problem of acquiescing and getting an MA rather than complain is the every MA costs time and money (not just the $40 or whatever to CASA – my LAME’s time costs money too so to get the "required training" etc will end up costing a lot more) and further encourages the nit-picking and “I make the rules”ethos that seems to pervade CASA.

Last year it was an MA to clean windscreens, this year an MA to put the duals in a Robbie what next year?

[rotaryman]

..REDWINE:
Its interesting to observe that CASA is to blame for such "Rules"...I can only hope that the critics of the existing legislation have written many responses for consideration in CASR 91, 61 and 133????

I can assure you i have had many many dealings with CASA and for the most part they arent worth Pissing on!!

I once had a FOI tell me that he was on his way to a spot of fishing in a R44 Clipper, and that he intended to land on a lake to do so, after ramp checking me, Only after i pointed out the section in the POH that he realised he couldnt do that with out breaking various rules etc..

I Had a FOI do a flight check with me for my Chief Pilot approval. what a joke, I made a mistake in letting him fly us back to base and in doing so he neally killed the both of us..
Ive met some great FOI's please dont get me wrong, BUT they are far and few between and far to many that are completly incompetant.

So far there has been only one example on this forum were there was a problem with duals fitted incorrectly.

I once had the command side Collective come out of its fitting after the Engineer had just signed the A/C as Airworthy after perfoming repairs!!! I wont say what i did to him after i finally landed..




:mad: :mad:
CASA are a JOKE...

ROBBORIDER,

I'm with you big fella:E :ok:

[Aussie Mate]

Perhaps your preflight should have been completed.?????

[rotaryman]

...AussieMate:
Perhaps your preflight should have been completed.?????

You assume am awfull lot AussieMate!!

I can F#%^$ assure you i did do a preflight, but after an engineer has spent a number of hours working on your A/C and he Tells you all is fine and wants you test fly the machine!!

Oh and the bolt that holds the Collective in position is behind a Panel and so not able to be checked by the pilot!
During the Preflight raising and lowering the Collective revealed no problems it was only after lowering the collective on approach to land that the bolt then fell out!!!!

Instead of CASA trying to Justify its own excistance, by coming up with these stupid rules..Can't wash the windscreen Jesus what next!!Maybe they could spend some time and money on
ridding the industy of the Shonks!!!

CASA claims its Credo is safety! but is only concentrating on the Big carriers..while some peanut comes up with some hair brain ideas and rules for G.A

[Red Wine]

Your vulgarity is obvious……personally I would work from within the system to change it [if warranted], rather than throw stones from the periphery.

Please send me all your submissions to the various CASR review committees , regarding the adoption of the new CASR’s, and I will ensure that they are followed through with.

Use the PM system….if your submission is more than one paragraph…….I will provide you with an e-mail address.

John….my MA was $40 years ago. and renewed free……??

[rotaryman]

REDWINE:
Your vulgarity is obvious……personally I would work from within the system to change it [if warranted], rather than throw stones from the periphery.

Do you work for CASA ? Redwine?

Redwine i dont need to pm you old chap! i am more than happy to debate the issue of CASA on an open forum..LETS ALL HAVE A LAUGH..

Like the time i reported an operator to my local casa FOI as i had wittnesed a number of " shall we say indiscretions" oh and certain operator had shall we say KILLED a pax but thats another story, was being watched by BASI who considered the operation dangerous, buts that also another story, anyway CASA say to me
" we can't do anything unless we have Proof!

PROOF,, all he had to do was speak with Airservices and obtain the tape from the Tower! the Maint Rel from Operator ! and Pax manifest and do a weight and bal and he would have had the operator STONE COLD!
But no he was allowed to continue to operate..

CASA once asked me to Join its ranks..LMFAO

God i do have morals and standards..
:ok: :ok:

Oh and anytime CASA want to do a Poll on whether we as operators and pilots think they are doing a good job!..I would love to see the results..:E

But CASA are to busy making up Dumb regs like the few we have seen discussed here on this forum and attempting to justify their existance rather than get to the real issues of the industry..

REDWINE! you think i am vulgar? thats fine.. because you ! like me are entitled to an oppinion.. i'm expressing mine.;)

[John Eacott]

As Shakespeare once said, Much Ado About Nothing :rolleyes:

These are not new regs, nor a new CASA interpretation of them. CAAP 42ZC was first published in March 1992, and is but an advisory publication letting us know the limitations of our licence. As with most pilots & operators, we all have our run ins and differences with Authority, but the maintenance permitted by pilots is quite clear cut. Anyone holding a licence should be well aware of what they can & can't do legally - if it doesn't suit the operation, apply for an MA that will only be issued when the pilot is checked out on the action needed.

With the proposed CAR changes coming in, and Class A & B becoming more alike in requirements, be prepared for Class A type issues. Pilots must be approved by the Maintenance Controller to do pre flights, almost no maintenance whatsoever can be approved (even via an MA) by pilots, and remote area ops become a support nightmare :(

[Ascend Charlie]

Red Wine, you sound as if you have a direct channel into CASA, and that submissions will be followed through. Interesting.

While I was a committee member of the HAA, and afterwards as well, I fired many submissions into the bowels of the Authority regarding rules thought up by an administrator with no thought for the implications on the industry. Rarely did i get a reply, even more rarely did anything result in a change to the draft legislation, and here we are stuck with the draconian Classification of Operations, and "Charter" has disappeared.

Tell the world how to get a result from CASA from a submission, we are squirming in our pants, waiting to hear.:rolleyes:

[deeper]

In CASA only section head MPS and Team Leaders, Airworthiness can issue a Maintenance Approval to a non LAME. That's the law.

You cannot get an MA from a LAME.

:( :confused:

Even though Pilots in Australia have been removing and replacing controls for years without a maintenance approval they have been in conravention of the CAR's.

CASA has known about this for a long time but are now covering their proverbial after a recent event. The controls in this event were fitted by an engineer but that doen't matter.

There was some legislation written a few years ago to cover Robbies but it seems no-one can find it. :{ :{

[SICKorSKI]

paperwork strikes again!

I was once in the same perdicament with a bolkow. For years installing the duals was no problem. Im fact, did it in front of the rule makers.
Then the rules changed.
Commercial helicopter- pilot can do it with E.M.T. (maintenace task training)
Private helicopter single engine. Pilot can do it in accordance with the regs.

"Wait a minute" I am told one day. "your Bolkow has two engines and is privetly registered,"
"yaa so what" I says
"well you dont fit into either catagory" "so you cant do it"

"so you mean to tell me cause this aircraft has two engines I cant put the duals in"
"yes sir"

I am still confused to this day:confused:

[helibiz]

Thanks for the advice from That chinese fella and others re MA.

However my position is this if we can train a pilot to be effecient enough to fly the helicopter why can't as part of the flight test or endorsement on type incorprate something like changing the duals. Maybe some types are too tricky but the robbi is not in that category. CASA makes rule breakers out of those who try to do their best but have conflicting needs. If I have duals in and away from base and unexpectantly have a pax am I to put up with the threat to safety of his fat arse sliding over the throttle or take it out. I know there will be instances where a pilot stuffs up but so do engineers. Why does it have always to be dictictorial rulings instead of looking for a safe way to do things.

[RDRickster]

helibiz has an interesting point. In the field, do you think anyone is going to get a mechanic to change out the left side in a Robbie? Okay, so now the field pilot starts a bad habit of breaking the rules, telling himself "this is stupid anyway - no big deal - no harm done." What does that attitude lead to in the future?

[John Eacott]

RDR,

You may just as well argue that a pilot may feel inclined to ignore VFR minima and depart in low vis, or take off overweight, or.....

This issue of dual control fitting is not recent, nor is the interpretation by CASA. The link that I gave to CAAP 42ZC was a summation of the regs, which have been around since Pontius was a pilot. They even allow a pilot to carry out fabric repairs, for gosh sake! The link is here, (http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/ops/42zc.PDF) in case you missed it. It can easily be circumvented (legally) by getting an Maintenance Authority, and at the same time get the MA issued to cover all the miriad other little pilot things which come in useful in the bush, such as Authority to carry out 50 hour inspections, fit/remove cargo hooks, fit/remove camera mounts, etc.

And with the proper instruction and Authority, who can argue that the pilot wouldn't benefit from the excercise?

[belly tank]

Mr Selfish,

I received an MA about 12 months ago for our 206. This allows me to:

* Be able to carry out a comp wash by removing and reinstalling the PC line.
* also to remove and install the cargo hook assembly, which we all agree is quite simple on a 206 setup.

I know sometimes we think "Oh come on youve got to be JOKING" but it keep the current system and rulemakers happy.

and i agree the Robi is very easy to change as you know. looks like now ive goto apply again for this sequence.

But what i was going to say is that it never cost me a cent (i know, unbeleivable). I got a letter from my engineer and faxed it to casa with a covering company letterhead and within 2 weeks i had my ticket for the 206

Cheers

[helibiz]

John Eacott
John I have checked out CAAP 42zc-1, as you suggested, makes me think they are even more stupid than I did before

2.1 says the approved mainteneance does not include the use of specalised tooling,

2.2 says if you are using tooling that requires calibration, that it is your responsibility(the pilot) to ensure it is ok
Calibrated tooling would be somewhat specailised would it not?

10 its Ok to replace seat belts. Is this easy and safe compared to removal R22 duals ?

13 Clean and gap spark plugs Gap Plugs ?? sounds safe -- yeah sure -- someone must show you how, but not a MA in sight

23 ii re-termination of radio system plugs, sockets, disconnects
Yep no safety issues there compared to those tricky duals!!

23 iv replace radio system switches, relays etc

there are more examples but you get my drift.

I would just like to ask one thing

Why couldn't duals be part of the pilots license / endorsement training as it is such a fundamental part of his everyday work?

[John Eacott]

Selfish,

We have the MA's mentioned, plus more, and as refered to earlier they generally cost about $A250, but with the current doubling of hourly rates for CASA charges, I expect the MA charges will also increase. The fun bit is when the pilot has to show the LAME how to fit a camera mount, so the LAME can then certify the pilot knows what he's doing....:rolleyes: and write to CASA to say so!!!

BT,

Amazed yours was free, but was your company invoiced for the MA? I always get the bills for MA's for my pilots, regardless of how complicated they are. And the LAME's bill for their contribution :rolleyes:

Helibiz,

What you are asking is always sensible, but CASA now have as many lawyers as FOIs, or so it seems. Note that the CAAP allows you to carry out fabric repairs, then you'd get an idea how out of date it is.

My only thought is that dual controls are considered part of the flying controls, which are usually required to have a duplicate inspection when disturbed. Following that line of reasoning, CASA and the Airworthiness section would have to jump through hoops to allow it to be incorporated in a type endorsement without somehow bringing a LAME into the equation. How would they seperate the simple (R22 cyclic) from the complicated (Bell 206 pedals)? An incident with pedals fitted incorrectly by a pilot to a 206 about 20 years ago caused much grief at the time, and is probably not forgotten.

With the move toward all Transport Class B and Class A coming under the same system, the Class A method of approvals issued at company level by the Maintenance Controller may/should/will overcome many of these issues, but only with the oversight of Airworthiness Division. Don't forget, they (Airworthiness) are even a referral agent for the issue of AOC's, and are the ratbags responsible for the farcical division of turbine types, such that the Bell 206 now requires about 8-10 different sub classifications :mad: And you can't have a Class A type unless you have a Maintenance System, but you can't have a Maintenance System unless you have the aircraft in the hangar: according to Airworthiness!!!!

The possibility of changing all this is in our hands: what are you doing to make your ideas known to CASA, because this is the only chance you'll get, through the current CASR committees.

[rotaryman]

Seems REDWINE has nothing further to add ?

:*

[Red Wine]

I have my MA's and getting on with earning a quid.

Let others argue the toss....you can only but lead a horse to water!!!

[rotaryman]

REDWINE:

Yes so true, But a pitty you havent been bothered to answer the questions directed to you by myself and other board members.

Now i know you work CASA! :*

[gadgetguru]

as a newby (& someone who hasn't completed the Air Law module yet -it's next though, so) I'll ask the obvious

What exactly is the process (is there one) for apporaching CASA with regard to addressing new directives (that create such division & heated debate).

Surely there is a means by which CASA can keep themselves legally safe, whilst not incuring untenable conditions on operators (who are doing the right thing) to continue without winding themselves up in red-tape

additionally is there any public forum available (provided by CASA) in a similar scenario as PPRUNE, where P, C & A Pilots can all submit their opinions/viewpoints on a rule & it's workability (or not) in a view to having it amendended/changed. :O

or is that just wishful thinking on my part (to assume that some form of logic might be applied) :rolleyes:

is there a public forum (other than PPRUNE) where Australian Pilots can co-operatively work to action a submission to have such directives changed (i openly admit the only place i have been really paying attention to is the Rotorheads forum)

also for those who have commented on the FOI's whom are good, what is the availablility of a 'little black book' of people at CASA whom are worth talking to?

:ok:

[Ascend Charlie]

Well, not actually a public forum, but the Helicopter Association of Australia (HAA) tries its best to fight overly-rigid legislation. Unfortunately it is run by unpaid volunteers, who usually have their own jobs to perform and cannot devote the time needed to hit CASA as hard as is needed.

Those HAA execs work their backsides off but are limited by a couple of factors: membership money, and the lack of people willing to put up their hands to have a go.

If you are keen enough, go to the HAA website, get some contact info, and get in touch with your nearest member. It is our best chance of getting something done.:)

[Red Wine]

Not that it is any of your business in the first instance, but no, I am a hard working ATPL Pilot working in our Industry outside the CASA umbrella.

The point that I am making, is that if you have not got off your tail and positively contributed to the many and varied requests for submissions and comment regarding the NEW CASR's, then why sprook on here?

I have made the effort and responded to a number of these requests, together with providing a solution rather than just criticism, and subsequently have received good feedback, and furthermore, I can actually see some of my initiatives in a CASR draft….so someone is listening.

I just offered to provide a conduit for those that wanted to submit data, but didn’t know how.

And John, I just renewed my seven [7] MA’s at no cost!!!.....obviously you have to much money!!

[skidbita]

Give it a rest RM, It seems you never have anything worthwhile contributing, you only ever abuse other users......
Who cares if RW is an employee of the dreaded CASA, if he was he would be one of many..
Dont take out your problems on people in this forum (It seems like you have a few, A bit of a chip on your shoulder), If you have problems with CASA take them up with the whole organisation, not just a poor bloke that puts in some useful information, unlike your posts. :ok:

[rotaryman]

SKIDBITER:

Coming from someone who has contributed a wopping (3) posts thats saying something.. :mad:
It is a public forum and i am entitled to my oppinions like you! My experiences with CASA are shared by many in the Aviation Industry.. Now back on your Bike!!!:*

[skidbita]

Its not the amount of posts you have its how you use them!!!
As you say I am entitled to my opinions and I have voiced them.
Stop your whinging and bitching, Be pro active in trying to change the regs to suit the industry and dont just abuse the innocent that frequent this forum...

[SASless]

Rickster....


I waited for the end before posting....and in light of all that I have read...and knowing of a personal on-going struggle with the FAA bureaucracy....I suggest you get on the band wagon and criticize the FAA every single chance you get....lest they morph into what we are discussing here. Overall, our guys do pretty good...but it is a young bureaucracy and given time to mature...."Watch Out!"!

Go to the Inspector's handbook...and read the part about obtaining a Management Waiver for a 135 operation. The part I enjoyed was where it said something to the effect that all PIC time spent in Longlining, external load work, rappelling, spraying, and fertilizing...did not count towards the experience needed to be a Chief Pilot or Director of Operations for a Part 135 Helicopter Operation.

Now I ask you....just how many helicopter operations in this country....do only passenger hauls to the complete and utter exclusion of all other helicopter work? That defies the definition of "Utility Helicopter Company" in my mind. And....the last time I checked....most helicopter companies have but one Chief Pilot and one Director of Operations....which oversee the myriad of tasks their operations perform.

No...Rickster....get yer catapault out and keep those stones flying!:ok:

Reference: FAA 8400.10 CHG 25 Page 3-42 Paragraph D.2.iii

"All acceptable, comparable experiences added together must equal the required 3 years. However, experience as a military fighter pilot flying in combat scenarios, a flight instructor, a crop duster, or a helicopter external load operator, would not be considered comparable experience. A college education or educational experience in aviation or writing manuals does not substitute for actual work experience."

But then what do I know about the helicopter business, right? 37 years and counting...oops...the Army time does not count....errrr.....33 accident/incident free years and counting.

[RDRickster]

Point well taken!

[rotaryman]

SKIDBITER:

Your a Laugh a minute son!
You come on here as a member since March04 with 3 posts and tell me i shouldnt critisise!!! so what would you call what you are doing? Expressing an Oppinion Maybe?

Cause i thought that was what i was doing!!

If you have anything else to contribute to the discussion please by all means ! Would love to read about it..as for being proactive with regards to CASA, I have done plenty i assure you:

1) Media - Current affairs
2) Newspapers
3) local pollie
4) CASA!

You assume an awefull lot SKIDBITER! so before you come on here and critsise me or my comments i might suggest you at least do your home work first!

[Red Wine]

Do your words suggest that the older one gets then the wiser one becomes???

I bow to your vastly superior intellect....:O

[John Abersynth]

Any truth to the rumour that something BIG is about to go down in a certain QLD CASA Regional Office?

[rotaryman]

...John Abersynth:

Rumour! Oooh Please do tell,,:E :E

[bigruss]

I guess the CASA boys are probably just covering their a@#se but it does seem to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I dont know if CASA engineering is still enforcing this but a couple of years ago we were all made to put EXIT placards above the doorframes of the R22 for doors off operation. The removable doors have a factory installed placard on them. Also a SOLO Flight from right seat only Placard had to be installed. The removable dual cyclic has this factory installed placard on it. On a tangent I hope these MA bizo's don't apply to doors as well.

[John Abersynth]

Rotaryman. No, you can just wait.

[rotaryman]

.....Thats not playing fair John.....:E

After all this is the Rumour network ..LOL:ok: :sad: