Culture of Fear, Maintenance release entries or lack there of, and MEL's / PUS's

[Always_init]

I am not posting this as an attack against the CASA; far from it. I would like to try and find a solution which will avoid the potential for real accidents occurring. I have noticed over the last 2 – 3 years a real "culture of fear" stemming from the authorities almost fanatical desire to recommend that the DPP prosecute.
Several senior, experienced guys have, over an ale or two, admitted to me that they find the ever present threat of prosecution over minor matters (like pilot paper work) a distraction from managing operations. No Royal Commission required to discover that pilots can't do paperwork, and anyway when was an incorrectly filled out F&D sheet a contributing factor to an accident.
However, this is not, to my mind the real issue. I have noted that many of the newbies (and not so newbies) are not reporting events and incidents due to this fear. Things like heavy landings, over speeds in turbulence, incorrect fuel loading, incorrect load sheets, go around and, terrifyingly, noted instrument and engine malfunction, panel lights out and a whole load of other things, which can, and do stuff up during a days operation.
Wont bore you with details of questions and answers, however, it became clearly apparent during my quest for "informal" information that that there is a real culture of fear out there.
It seem a shame to me. In the old days when young spotty turned up looking slightly green, we would get a reasonable explanation of what occurred, then try to cure the situation. If the kid is too scared to speak for fear of prosecution, it seems to me that we are loosing opportunities to get things sorted out properly and, provide education and the benefits of experience along the way.
I am not advocating that all prosecution stop, just that CASA be aware that there are real issues being kept in darkness because of this real and tangible fear.
Fear has always been a dangerous element, historically, it has created more wars, revolution and general chaos than just about any thing else.
Time for practical common sense to prevail before some gets hurt through it. ???
Init - Reaches for the Flack jacket, and puts feet up.:)

[A37575]

I don't know about fear of CASA but there is a culture of fear among young pilots new to the CPL scene about writing up defects in the maintenance release. This often starts with flying school policies where the CFI is often first consulted before a decision is made (usually by the CFI/chief pilot) to record a snag or merely keep an eye on it and maybe look at it at the next 100 hourly. In other words the defects are swept under the carpet in case it costs time and money. Regional CASA staff are vaguely aware it goes on, but appear to lack the permission from their own supervisors needed to investigate matters closely. Where a prosecution appears unlikely CASA seldom presses the point, preferring to wait for someone to present themselves as an easy target before hammering them.

[Always_init]

A37575 Couple of points for consideration.

Flying schools do snag recording the way you describe in self defense, a) a student writing something like "aircraft won't start" on the MR will not help the grown ups to fix it, b) it is an essential (to my mind) part of your training that you learn to accurately define and record the problem, who better than the CFI to explain what you have wrong and how to set about getting it sorted. The Chief Engineer (grown up), if you can steal some of his time, is the best man to help with troubleshooting.

Most CASA delegates have actualy had flying school experience prior to lobotomy, rest assured if there was any impropriety, they would have it nailed down by now.

A lot of the GA problems exist due to the lack of MEL availability and the cost in time and money to obtain one.

What I am getting at is that should have a minor failure of some description before take off in the bush for landing in the big smoke, if you fly the aircraft without an MEL item covering your arse, you are illegal and will be prosecuted should the authority discover your awful secret, you are legal if the MEL says it's OK, but without one your stuffed.

The thing that concerns me is that guys are operating 'illegally" and not telling anyone that the pump, light or whatever was bust when they departed the bush. The follow on Pilot is in double jeopardy, a) no prior knowledge of a minor problem and b) he faces the same issues as the guy before. One day, two minor problems a dark wet night and another related failure and someone is going to have a really bad day.

[The Messiah]

There is often no training to a new CPL on how to correctly fill in a defect in a MR and often their best attempts are drivel and end up grounding an otherwise completely serviceable aircraft. A relationship between your maintenance shop and at least one of your pilots on staff must be established to get effective communication going and maximise aircraft productivity. This us and them mentality so prevalent in aviation these days is a serious safety hazard.

[Always_init]

I agree, but how to solve the problem. I think it's worth a whole new discussion.

Bit hard to blame the pilots for all of it though. When I was a lad, we all could fix our own cars/ bikes etc, and we knew people who could point in the right direction if we were stuck. The natural place to gravitate to with aircraft was with the grown ups in the hanger. The kids these days can probably tell you how to fix a wireless router and tune the VCR, but would they know how to fix a SU carb.

Airlines are great for training, some of the best ground schools I ever went to where run by engineers. Today, the poor old GA bloke seems to get less and less training by both flight staff and, engineers. He is also hamstrung by legistlation, even if he knows whats wrong and can get a sick beast home, he still has face the inevitable, either the flight was illegal or he is guilty of falsifying a MR. If he grounds it, the operator will have a lump off him. Catch 22. :ugh:

[Hugh Jarse]

A_I wrote: The kids these days can probably tell you how to fix a wireless router and tune the VCR, but would they know how to fix a SU carb.I can do both, and I wasn't bad on the triple SU's either :E

GO the mighty 192 !!;) :} :} :suspect:

[pall]

Off the track I know but can't resist! Remember that magic sound when the jets are correctly centred? THOK, THOK!:ok:

[Always_init]

Thock - Thock - Thock, all engines work in 3/4 time (think my dar'lin Clementine) ; you know this. But can you help HUGh, he has 3 carbs on a 192, I ask you??. Gentlemen; start your engines. :) :) :=

[Hugh Jarse]

Once I drove one of my father's WRX's, THAT showed me the meaning of life:E :} :} Real change your undies stuff, especially with the high flow turbo.

The only time my old HG van with the 192/triple SU's and Aussie 4 speed made me want to change my undies, was juuuust when you entered a corner, then realised it was a commercial vehicle no matter what you do to the suspension.:} :} :uhoh: If you got out the other side in 1 piece - change your undies:8

No smartarse remarks about mattresses in the back, thanks:= := :}

[Tee Emm]

Always init. Most CASA delegates have actualy had flying school experience prior to lobotomy, rest assured if there was any impropriety, they would have it nailed down by now

Truth to tell some - repeat -some CASA FOI and most certainly some ATO's who were originally taught to fly in the flying schools bring with them a lip service only with regard of defect reporting. They may make a verbal report but avoid committing to paper on the proper document. It is a fact that some ATO's will avoid writing up defects because they rely 100% on their examing work to earn a living. No point in killing the flying school goose that lays the golden egg, as it were.

[Centaurus]

The Messiah.
There is often no training to a new CPL on how to correctly fill in a defect in a MR and often their best attempts are drivel and end up grounding an otherwise completely serviceable aircraft

What rubbish. What total offensive generalisation. Pray tell the audience exactly how many flying hours as a minimum would you prefer for a CPL pilot to have before you personally consider him fully competent to record in a maintenance release "Left navigation light inoperative?"

Or how about this, even: "Primer leaking fuel when fully locked - petrol fumes present and wet fuel stain on carpet."

You say "Their best attempts are drivel". I put it to you Messiah that your post is just that - drivel and reflects badly upon your own attitude to new CPL pilots.

[rmcdonal]

exactly how many flying hours as a minimum would you prefer for a CPL pilot to have before you personally consider him fully competent to record in a maintenance release
Not to sure flying hrs have anything to do with it. More so the experience that a more Snr pilot would have at writing things up when compared to a fresh CPL who has never done it before.
It's something that is NOT taught to students at all (At least not at any of the flying schools I have been to). Even a 10min Brief on the subject could solve the problem. Private Pilots included, they fly planes to.

[wdn]

even worse is when you hire an aircraft and the hirer says so and so and so is wrong with the aircraft and please don't write it up but we're happy to charge you full price :mad: :mad:

my reaction - smile politely, take possession of the keys and MR, conduct the pre-flight, write up every single thing i can find and pay them nothing. i especially like it when CAR 47(1) applies and you can include the phrase "aircraft unairworthy".

i would say by far the biggest culprits in poor defect reporting are charter operators rather than flying schools. i have seen one well known BK operator steam up to the point that we were concerned about an aneurysm because one of the pilots had the temerity to endorse an MR. i didn't think it was possible for this guy to swear more than he usually does, but he proved me wrong.:D

[Mainframe]

Always

Your thread:

"Culture of Fear"

suffered a little bit of drift, but it was useful,
perhaps a whole thread on fault reporting, Maintenance release entries or lack there of, and MEL's / PUS's could bring out some interesting anecdotes.

However, back to the initial topic,

Yes Always, there was (and there still is) a culture of fear.

This is why CASA were referred to as the "Gestapo", or were seen to be an unaccountable secret police.

Some also referred to "Mafia" like conduct, this was incorrect, the Mafia has a code of conduct, these CASA misfits had no such moral restraints.

CASA overzealousness, prompted by the bizarre concept that FOI's could measure their effectiveness by the number of "NCN's" raised,
did in fact lead to an unfortunate cultural shift within CASA.

Many regional offices were infected by this inappropriate behaviour, none more so than the soon to be closed Townsville office.

Other regional offices, especially Archerfield and Bankstown joined the competition.

The culture of fear was reinforced by the abuse of power, the granting or with holding of favours concessions and dispensations,
and the very subtle "failure to renew" a vital instrument prior to expiry.

These covert, undocumented methods of co-ercion were the stock in trade of those misfits obsessed with power, and not understanding their own role in contributing to the greater cause, Aviation safety.

Bruce Byron eventually recognised the problem, and has invoked his own high velocity culture change, effectively remedying the problem.

It was a sad reflection that the office with the highest NCN count also had the highest fatal accident count.

An office with a low NCN count obviously is working with their "stakeholders" or industry clients
and has therefore enforced in more effective ways to ensure compliance.

History will tell if BB turned the ship around in time, so far he seems to have succeeded.

Mentoring, educating, communicating, co-operating toward "Safe Skies For All" is far more likely to succeed
than the bullying, harassing, malicious vendettas and deliberate bureaucratic lethargy with approvals. (these errings are what BB is determined to eradicate)

MF

[The Messiah]

Centaurus

What does hours have to do with it? Do you think that hours reflect ability somehow?

As an example a new CPL that may have no aviation background and has been in aviation for 12-18 months, sorry but they would not know much and require further training that they never get before they should start entering defects without some guidance from a senior pilot or engineer.

I am not talking about something as simple as a nav light out.

[Ratshit]

Hey Guys, I am asking you nicely to NOT break the rules.

BUT IF YOU DO I'LL BUST YOUR ARSE !!!!!!!!

[Centaurus]

Messiah.

As an example a new CPL that may have no aviation background and has been in aviation for 12-18 months, sorry but they would not know much and require further training that they never get before they should start entering defects without some guidance from a senior pilot or engineer
Give me a break. If the pilot who does not have the "skill" to write up a defect then how come he has the skill to pass difficult CPL exams and maybe even ATPL exams. He is no fool, despite what you personally may think. For example:
Severe nose wheel shimmy.
300 rev drop with magneto switch on R
Park brake inoperative.
Fuel gauge oscillates between empty and full even though full fuel in tank.
Left tyre bald.
ADF range 5 miles on an NDB that has 60 miles coverage. OK it could be a ground station problem but an avionics LAME could quickly check if it is the instrument or not.
Stall warning works on ground but not in the air.
Left door came open twice in flight and is hard to close and lock on the ground.
Aircraft pulls to left while taxiing on level ground - left brake warmer than right.
Vac pump (suction) below the green arc in cruise.
Power failure flag on turn coordinator intermittent operation on ground and in air.

Are you alleging that any of the above examples of a maintenance release entry is beyond the brain of a new CPL.

Be truthful Messiah. What you really mean is that you prefer to vet an MR entry first just in case the defect is going to delay a flight and cost money.
Of course you could always fall back on a technique that one particular rogue LAME used to do when a pilot snagged one of his aircraft - and that was answer the defect with "Entered in error" and thus sign it off.

[john_tullamarine]

Two points ..

(a) unless things have changed since I last looked at the various words .. the MR snag doesn't necessarily ground the aircraft unless the unairworthy annotation goes along with it ..

(b) re MELs, be aware that CASA has taken the bull by the horns and has an active program underway to develop generic MELs for the GA fraternity .. sure, you have to subscribe to get and use the copy but CASA has done the work for each aircraft via a committee of relevant CASA and Industry people. Having participated for one such aircraft exercise I suggest that this is a very positive CASA initiative and the output should take a lot of the sweat away in the GA sector ...

[TopTup]

From "the hour buillding" days (when do they stop?) I have had the opportunaity to work for and with differing attitudes toward maintenance, MEL's as well as what, when and how to report it. Some were great, but over all I was in the past and seen / heard it happen to others being threatened with dismissal "If you don't take that aeropleane off now...." and "Just shut your mouth and get the job done or I'll find someone who can". We all know the story.

The CASA have a l o n g way to go to repair the rep they have earnt themselves but the culture of fear regarding maintenance, from my experience, is bread and fed from the operators themselves. If a pilot enters an incorrect entry on the maintenance log it is easilly cleared within the 3, 10, 120 days, etc. Granted out in the bush when the LAME isn't at the other end can be a different issue.

[pakeha-boy]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Alaska Airlines,..MD-80.....California Coast....all lives lost....NTSB Report?????...does this ring a bell......if you have ever wanted to know about a "culture or fear"....read this report!!!...I live in a glass house as well,so dont throw rocks.....very disturbing,as it is apparent that the culture is prevalent in many parts of the aviation...

how many times ,have you as the Capt and F/O....have you elected to depart,knowing that at item should be MEL,ed but because it was the last leg(gethomeitus).....gone,item appeared in flight etc etc...just a thought..:( PB

[The Messiah]

Centaurus

I have seen an instructor re-stick a mag compass to the inside windshield after it had come adrift and then enter the repair carried out by himself on the MR. What chance does the CPL trainee he is teaching have with regard to MR knowledge?

It would always be my advice to speak to the engineer who will be signing it off before making any entries on the MR whenever possible, if for no other reason you may just learn something as I know there is very little if any training re the MR by young instructors as they simply don't know anything about it themselves.

I never said it takes "skill" to write on an MR just some training and a little judgement. If an engineer or chief pilot is clearly stretching the friendship when it comes to a/c serviceability I would similarly discuss it with someone more senior before marching off to CASA.

I do not believe in vetting entries as you suggest, just be selective with your wording in case you have technically grounded an a/c which is in fact perfectly safe to fly. Lack of communication just adds to the us/them mentality between engineers and pilots.

Example of a stupid entry- "both engines have major oil leak"- actual reason for all the oil down the cowls was the pilot who made the entry had overfilled both engines with oil and it sprayed out the breathers. Could I take that aeroplane on the next flight legally without it being checked and signed off? No I could not. Did both engines have a major oil leak? No they did not.

[pakeha-boy]

so the entry should have read......"Pilot is an idiot"......engineer sign off should read...."replaced pilot..Ops Checks good"...

[Continental-520]

It amazes me how little awareness there is of the fact that you cannot fly an aircraft if its MR has an open (uncleared) endorsement, whether it concerns an MEL item or not.

I learned this the hard way with others I worked along side as a line pilot. :ouch:


520.

[Awol57]

My understanding is that it's only if its in the Charter category (I realise in most of these examples it is) and if the aircraft doesn't have an MEL. If there is no MEL, and anything does not work, the aircraft is U/S.

If the aircraft has an MEL you are supposed to refer to that and decide whether you are within time limits to fly the aircraft.

Sorry to those that know this already, but Continental 520 raises a good point about the people that may not be aware of this.

Please note my understanding is that it is irrelevant whether the aircraft is being operated as Private or AWK, it is if the MR is marked as Charter. More than Happy to be Corrected.

[Icarus2001]

So you are saying an entry such as " landing light U/S" would ground the aircraft, say a C172, for day operations? Really?

[rmcdonal]

Icarus2001. YES!
Thats exactly what they are saying. Stupid hey? Thats why some companys have an MEL to get around it. And why other companys just tell you not to write on the MR.

[Awol57]

So you are saying an entry such as " landing light U/S" would ground the aircraft, say a C172, for day operations? Really?

Yes, assuming the aircraft is in the Charter category. Anything U/S will ground the aircraft. ANYTHING. Busted VOR/ADF, broken COM2 etc, the aircraft is legally U/S unless it has a MEL which specifies the aircraft my be flown with those Permitted Unserviceabilities.

[Icarus2001]

Interesting. I only fly MEL/DDL equipped aircraft nowadays, is this as a result of the "new" Australian AFM system? Do you have a reference to confirm this interpretation of the Act?

[Trash Hauler]

So where does this fear to write up snags come from? In my view it is commercial pressures in a variety of forms:

The cost of the repair (it's only a shallow cut in the sidewall and the tread is like new.she'll be right for plenty more landings), the location (not damn convenient to fix 'ere son..........write it up back home), the customer who is impatiently standing next to your aircraft (Got to get to Sydney by xx:yy). The newby with the pressure of keeping the job in this cut throat world of building hours and the crusty CP who is trying to make the bottom line for the company.

It is such a marginal business at times that these pressures will always be there. Hell, if we weren't so cut throat maybe we would make a quid and not be so afraid to write things up.

Cheers
TH

[Centaurus]

Example of the rock spiders out there. Grade 3 instructor flies a light single retractable and notices the landing gear circuit breaker is immoveable - jammed solid. Notes that several adjacent circuit breakers - some unmarked - also appear to be completely jammed. Asks a grade one instructor to have a look. Grade one says the circuit breakers are definately jammed and tells grade 3 to write up defect in MR. Grade 3 says no way - will lose job. G1 gets LAME and says please look at these circuit breakers and tell me what you think? LAME looks and says don't fly that plane - definate electrical fire risk as circuit breakers are defective. G1 then writes this in the MR.

The businessman owner who has this aircraft on line with the flying school writes letter to CFI saying sack the G1 for writing up the defect without permission of the owner. Owner writes another letter to CFI saying that if the defects are found not to be defects, the owner will charge the cost of maintenance to the G1 who had originally written up the MR.

G1 writes to CASA who send out an airworthiness bloke to sort the problem. Airworthiness bloke says the whole circuit breaker panel is indeed cactus and agrees big fire risk as circuit breakers would never have actuated if over loaded. The servicing of that aircraft had been carried out by a maintenance organisastion whose engineers had apparently never picked the crook circuit breakers. Of course no feed back from CASA but the owner was invited in for tea and chat by CASA.
This is a typical example prevalent in GA of what someone has termed a culture of fear - and it comes not from CASA personnel - but owners and operators..

[rmcdonal]

Centaurus: And to continue, owner then removes aircraft from flying school. G3 then not needed due to lack of aircraft/work, thus is let go. Next time doesn't write up fault or inform anybody of fault for genuine fear of loosing job.
I know what is right and what is wrong, but somethings in life are just fncked. Welcome to aviation.

[Creampuff]

Icarus2001: CAO 20.18 subsection 10.1 and CAR 207.

But note that CAO 20.18 subsection 10.1 does not prevent an aircraft with an unserviceability from flying, just because the MR happens to have been issued in the charter category. The aircraft can still be operated in the private or aerial work category, provided of course that the requirements of CAO 20.18 applicable to the category are satisfied. And of course one can get a PUS under CAR 37.

As to the circumstances described by Centaurus, I’m appalled. Putting someone under duress or otherwise threatening them not to comply with a statutory obligation is offensive, and an offence.

[pakeha-boy]

....then cream-puff.................you havent lived in the "real" world.....some of us havent been wrapped in cotton wool in our careers...sad.. but true!!!

[Delta_7]

I think everyone should have a look here... :ok:

http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/rulings/2004/ar0104.pdf

[wdn]

i think everyone should read this:

http://www.casa.gov.au/rules/rulings/2004/AR0104.pdf

pretty sure paragraph 9 of the ruling excludes COMs and Navaids from the requirements of CAO 20.18 para 10.1

in fact, anything not referred to (or similar to) in

CAO 20.4 - Oxygen
CAO 20.11 - Emergency Equipment
CAO 20.16.3 - Seat Belts
CAO 20.18 - Generalis not covered by paragraph 10.1 of CAO 20.18

therefore, a busted com2 makes no difference if the aeroplane can still meet the requirements in AIP GEN 1.5.

a busted ADF does not ground the aeroplane for charter ops if it can still meet the requirements of AIP GEN 1.5.

i'd love to read others' interpretations of the ruling.

[wdn]

just beat me to it delta :D

[Icarus2001]

Thank you gents (and ladies if applicable:) ) I thought that I had missed that little "change" somewhere along the line.

Continental -520 shame on you for frightening everyone like that.;)

[Awol57]

Happy to be corrected :)

[Continental-520]

So why do MEL's exist, then, since they cover so many items outside the 20.18 requirements.
Delta and Icarus,
I've heard of that ruling before, but what I was trying to say was that an "open endorsement" on an MR, regardless of what it is, whether there's an MEL for it or not, grounds the aircraft.
With reference to the abovestated ruling, you wouldn't have an open endorsement on the MR because you wouldn't need one; the ruling above covers you, so that's ok. :ok:
My general understanding is that as long as an open endorsement exists, the aircraft stays on the ground until cleared.
I'll come back with a reference, once I get a minute. CAR 48, Subregulation (2), states:

Where a maintenance release in respect of an aircraft ceases to be in force by virtue of an endorsement made under regulation 47, the maintenance release shall again commence to be in force if there is entered on the maintenance release or other document on which the endorsement was made a further endorsement signed by an authorised person cancelling the first-mentioned endorsement


Would anyone like to clarify?
520.

[Centaurus]

Which is why an LAME owning his own aircraft on line with an operator can simply sign off a valid defect with the words "Entered in error" and the aircraft continues to fly and earn money. A few months later when said aircraft reaches the next 100 hourly, the defect can be ignored or rectified. Very convenient and keeps CASA happy if they ever happen to find out - which is doubtful as their accent is on RPT big boys. It has been done and I have seen it done.

[Continental-520]

Which is why an LAME owning his own aircraft on line with an operator can simply sign off a valid defect with the words "Entered in error" and the aircraft continues to fly and earn money. A few months later when said aircraft reaches the next 100 hourly, the defect can be ignored or rectified. Very convenient and keeps CASA happy if they ever happen to find out - which is doubtful as their accent is on RPT big boys. It has been done and I have seen it done.

Likewise.

"No fault found" is another popular one.


520. :oh:

[Creampuff]

Ya gotta love CASA. Instead of amending the CAO, they produce a ‘ruling’ that pretends the CAO does not mean what it says. :D

The ‘ruling’ may give CASA an excuse for its corporate slackness in not enforcing or amending the CAO, but the ruling is not binding on your insurers folks.

I’d get either:

- a PUS under 37; or

- a letter from my insurer that it agrees with CASA’s ‘ruling’, and that the insurance will respond notwithstanding that the aircraft had an unserviceability that fell within the plain words of CAO 20.18 and CAR 207.

[john_tullamarine]

A couple of observations ..

(a) re MEL, the basic philosophy is that the aircraft is certificated for a given operational environment and the kit which is given the blessing during certification is required .. ergo, if not fitted/functional, the aircraft doesn't meet the Type Standard or CofA requirements, as appropriate, and is unairworthy.

This, of course, is a silly situation as the commercial aviation world would shut down as a consequence. Thus, the PUS/MEL etc systems look at the intent of the certification standard and set out to provide short term permissions for continued operation .. but with whatever restrictions etc are considered appropriate for the deficient aircraft to maintain a notionally similar level of risk as for the serviceable aircraft.

(b) re CAOs and the like .. keep in mind that there is an hierarchy of regulatory requirements .. Act, Regs, Orders, etc. and it is entirely appropriate for a relevantly delegated CASA officer to provide the odd concession by whatever Instrument against this requirement or that. Concessions against Orders is not such an unusual thing ?

[wdn]

continental

the fact there is an open endorsement on an MR definitely does not ground the aircraft unless, as you quite rightly point out, it was an endorsement entered by virtue of CAR 47.

CAR 47 covers four items:

requirements or conditions imposed under the regs have not been complied with - someone forgot to do the 100 hrly
aircraft has suffered major damage or a major defect (other than a PUS)
abnormal flight or ground loads have been imposed
maintenance that has been carried out has adversley affected the aircraftif it ain't in that list, then endorsing the MR is covered by CAR 50, not CAR 47. CAR 50 endorsements are not referred to in CAR 48 (the reference you supplied) so do not need to be signed off for the MR to remain in force.

a busted COM is not a major defect and is not major damage and therefore is not covered by CAR 47. CAR 48 does not apply so the MR so endorsed, remains in force.

in other words, an endorsement made under CAR 50 does not cause the MR to cease to be in force. :)

your other question about why MELs cover more than the minimum requirements in the CAOs is easy to answer - safety!
any responsibile operator would seek to have a safety level above the absolute minimum required, wouldn't they? ;)

[Creampuff]

JT: If someone with the power to grant a 'concession' from a rule does so, that's obviously OK. I also note that the 95 series of CAOs are simply standing 'concessions' – the 95 series of CAOs are just CAR 308 conditional exemptions from the requirements of specified CARs.

All: Read the fine print in the ruling:A user of aviation rulings should also be aware that a ruling is only a statement of CASA’s policy. It is not a restatement of the law. Accordingly, while rulings are drafted to be consistent with the law referred to in the ruling as understood by CASA from time to time, they cannot displace any inconsistent legal requirements.Let's read what 20.18 subsection 10.1 actually says:10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:

(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA, subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or

(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation 37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or

(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been complied with; or

(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.Beware: there is a risk that 10.1 could be interpreted by your insurer and a court to mean what it says, not what CASA hopes it means. And why on earth CASA doesn't just amend the CAO so that it clearly says what CASA hopes it currently means, is beyond me. It’s just a stroke of the CEO’s pen, after all.

[The Messiah]

Sadly these days it is all about how your insurance agency interprets your policy. There was a time when the hirer/LAME was considered to be the expert in a court of law but......I am distraught to say that it is no longer the case and sadly.....the only loser is us.......the paying public.:sad:

I do not disagree with other viewpoints........mine is just slightly different sometimes, and discussion used to be considered as healthy......what happened? Please? Please?

[Centaurus]

Messiah.
There was a time when the hirer/LAME was considered to be the expert in a court of law but......I am distraught to say that it is no longer the case

You are probably right on that point. However, I once attended a Coronial inquest into an aircraft accident. The pilot and his only passenger were killed when the aircraft hit a hill in IMC. During the inquest an LAME was questioned on the serviceability of various systems of the aircraft. A witness who had been flying in the same aircraft before the accident gave credible and detailed evidence on clear unserviceabilities observed. The LAME then admitted there may have been a problem although nothing was logged on the MR. naturally...

There was little doubt the LAME had avoided being pinned on a couple of specific defects that he knew were present. In his Findings the Coroner stated he had decided against accepting the evidence of the witness as the witness was not an expert. He stated that in his opinion, an LAME is an expert in his trade and therefore his evidence was to be accepted as correct.

[Creampuff]

Let’s not confuse the questions whether:

- an item of equipment is serviceable (LAMEs are experts)

- the rules require the equipment to be serviceable (LAMEs aren’t experts)

- an unserviceability has been accurately described (LAMEs are experts)

- the rules require an unserviceabilty to be endorsed on the MR (there is no doubt).

[The Messiah]

Ultimately I have always believed and still do that the buck stops with the guy/gal in the left seat. I do not believe in commercial pressure and never have. I have seen operators attempt to exert commercial pressure on me in my days in GA but I always knew they needed me more than I needed them otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, they would just get someone else.

Anyone who says 'I had to or I would lose my job', makes me sick and I have seen plenty of that pathetic excuse.

To depart in an a/c that you do not consider to be safe is simply stupid and nobody has ever put a gun to a pilots head to fly one.

The buck stops with the guy in the left seat.....end of story.

[Trash Hauler]

Messiah

You are correct in that the buck stops with the guy/gal in the left seat however your lack of belief in "commercial pressures" is a little surprising. The reality for a lot of people is that they are introduced early in their career to a culture of letting snags go unwritten until the 100 hourly. I have also seen subtle pressure applied when a pilot wants to write up a snag that in the mind of other 'more experienced' aviators, is not deemed critical.

This creates an uncertainty for the newby pilot as he/she is concerned about the reaction of the owner/operator if they write something up, particularly if it will stop the aircraft from earning revenue.

Personnaly I think it is wrong and we need to get away from this culture but I have seen enough evidence over the years to know it exists.

Cheers

TH

[The Messiah]

Yeah I meant to say I recognise it exists but there is absolutely no excuse for bowing to it.

[Icarus2001]

To depart in an a/c that you do not consider to be safe is simply stupid I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise.:bored:
The point is whether a minor item being U/S and then is entered on the MR actually grounds the aircraft.
There are many, many things that can be broken or as is common intermittent that certainly do not render the aircraft unsafe. For example is an attitude indicator really required in a C172 for a session of circuits? Is a navigation light really required for a Day VFR flight?

[Creampuff]

I2: Given that neither an attitude indicator nor nav lights are mandated for day VFR private or aerial work ops, US’ing them won’t ground the aircraft for those ops. The nav lights would obviously be a problem for night ops.

20.18 subsection 10.1 is expressed to apply only to charter and RPT ops.

[Icarus2001]

Thank you for making my point Creampuff. There seem to be those suggesting otherwise. Or the intriguing variation that if the aircraft is in the CHTR category then all defects ground the aircraft even for PVT operations, when the item in question is not required for PVT operations.

[bushy]

For decades, our regulator has appeared to be "regulating" by giving selective dispensations.
You start with some rules (or an interpretation of those rules) that are not appropriate and just do not work. Then you give dispensations to your favourites.
Law, made by Parliament is hard to change, and it is easy to give dispensations to some, and not to others. Particularly when you are the sole source of services. (a monopoly situation). A complex system of legal gobbledegook exists.
We do not have one set of rules, we have many books of rules, which often seem to contradict.And we have different interpretations from time to time, and from one place to another. Generally, our GA industry does not have the trust in the regulator that is really needed for the system to work properly.
People just do not seem to know what the rules are this week.
If you doubt that, just look at this thread. You will see that people who should know, have greatly differing opinions about just what unserviceabilities an aircraft can carry, if any.
For decades it was considered ok to fly aircraft as long as the equipment required by CAO 20.18 was fitted, and serviceable. Most aircraft carried more equipment than 20.18 required, and often had u/s equipment on board.
Today it appears that you cannot fly the aircraft if the clock stops.
MEL's are great, but difficult to get organised, and it is good to see that CASA are doing something to help. I hope it works.
Our nearest avionics LAME is 1500 km away. Can you understand an operator being annoyed if he has to have a vfr aircraft sit on the tarmac doing nothing for a week because number two VOR does not work? And there are only two VOR ground stations within a 300nm radius.
With the present system, what DO you do. Often the aircraft is safe, but the system is broken!!! Pilots and operators alike are not really sure what the requirements are. Sometimes operators misuse the system, and sometimes pilots do. I have seen a pilot enter about 25 items on the MR,after a flight, all of which became evident on the 40 minute flight home. Seems he had a "bad hair day". The problem really was with the duty roster.
For the system to work properly, it is necessary to operate as a team- operators, pilots, lame's CASA. Each depends on the others. There are a lot of good FOI's in CASA these days, but they can only tick boxes.
I think there are some underarm bowlers at the higher levels.

[pakeha-boy]

Messiah....a very valid point,and agree totally,...some of us learn the hard way....
Back in 1981,taxied out of Anchorage,a C-402,Sschedulred flight to Valdez,...noticed a shimmy in the left main landing gear...it had been written up 2x...refused to take the flight and was informed by the manager that he would get someone else to take the flight and we would talk about my employment in the morning.....they signed it off,.....I took the flight.....on landing (can you believe it) the left main collapsed...no injuries,7 on board....

Turns out they had used the wrong part...at NTSB hearing the company got fined,$5000,the LAME was disqualified for 2 years .aand I got 14 days off to think about my stupidity......pathetic on my part for sure,stupid to say the least.....did I learn a lesson ...for sure.

Real easy boys for you to say youll never do it,the culture doesnt exist,,..Ill always say NO....I have the balls to stand up to the boss......it happens because people get pressured into situations they normally reckon they wont.........the reason they write rules and regulations is so that people can break them....

Messiah ...you say it with such ease.....ie do not bow to their pressures....as a young fella,trying to build time and feed a cloth myself,the presures were intense....it was a means to an ends...very stupid indeed,I have no excuse for that frame of thinking..........now I just walk off the A/C....amazing what many years experience will teach you....PB