LAME Imposter.

[company_spy]

Rumors are circulating of an ame who has fraudulently passed himself off as a LAME at the SIT for the past 12 months. It appears he has faked his credentials and slipped through the QANTAS EQ system. The person has been MIA for the last month probably due to the fact that the AFP(Australian Federal Police) would like to talk to him. Just another embarasment for QF as they will now have to go back through the mountain of records to work out what he has signed for or pehaps they will sweep it under the carpet as usual.:\
One could ask how this could happen, but anyone who has tried to wade through the EQ system this event probably comes as no surprise.:confused:
This revelation may come as no shock to many as there are a number of people masquerading as LAME's in QF at the moment. They're not frauds but their ability leaves alot to be desired.:E

[domo]

This revelation may come as no shock to many as there are a number of people masquerading as LAME's in QF at the moment. They're not frauds but their ability leaves alot to be desired.

some people you refer to dont do anything/work on aircraft
they have to do something to make a mistake
so they are safe due to doing nothing

[NAS1801]

Domo, unfortunately, some people that company_spy refers to DO work on aircraft. Rags on APU's, damaged flight controls, etc etc.

[Cool banana]

some people you refer to dont do anything/work on aircraft
they have to do something to make a mistake
so they are safe due to doing nothing

Then they become mangers, just look around at the standards and moral ethics (or the lack off) of most current Qantas Mangers.

[NAS1801]

Yep. Like dismissing a safety related issue as a "quality" related one. I have heard this from my own manager also. Very worrying if this is the accepted attitude within managment nowdays.

[chemical alli]

was he paying his ALAEA fees? I hope so ! Anyone masquerading as a lame should also be masquerading as a member.

[Apophis]

just like the fitter and turner at avalon who turned out to be cleaner.:ouch:

[Flight Detent]

Ohhh...****e, you mean you've found a clean fitter and turner.

But, come to think of it, "cleaner than what"...it's all relative!!

[Hardworker]

So the ultimate responsibility for this incident rests with the SIT Manager Mr H, time for him to accept the responsibility of not having a training co ordinator and resign!
Eq is an absolute joke of a system, totally un-user friendly and hopeless at keeping correct records.....
It time to leave the Terminal.......

[kiwi chick]

Surely you are taking the piss?? :confused:

Crikey I know what bloody airline I won't be flying with if this is true! :ooh:

[HotDog]

Then they become mangers, just look around at the standards and moral ethics (or the lack off) of most current Qantas Mangers.

Don't knock it, look what became of the child in the "manger" that had a visitation by three wise men.:E

[kiwi chick]

He faked it as well, and worked his way up the ladder? :E :E

[The Mr Fixit]

My info on this topic is all second hand but it is told that none of the charges are proven and at the moment an investigation is taking place.

If it was true it would be the first time in almost a hundred years that someone has had the guile to do so :eek:

I bet it was his workmates that cottoned on too, not management :E

As for taking responsibility perhaps DC can have a word to Today Tonight :ok:

[No SAR No Details]

well the EQ debarkle rests with Dirk Diggler in QA approvals. He thinks the first thing that everyone does when they get to work is spend 40 mins in front of a user unfriendly computer terminal trying to access eq to see if they can actually sign for anything. Murray has had quite a few across the country siitong on the sidelines behind on their read and signs because of the completely fkd system we have to use.

[relay429]

Domo/Company Spy

LAME imposter's, sounds like two part timers at S.I.T who haven't signed a Return To Service, made a log entry or applied a M.E.L in the last eighteen months. One of them when asked by the captain if he could explain an M.E.L to him, left the flight deck so rapidly everybody was nearly bowled over in the rush. All they are good for is wing walking. Maybe, when they make up the new Tow And Stow crews they can re-classify them as TA's.


Kiwi chick unfortunately this is all true.

[Bumpfoh]

All over the media now.:uhoh::O
Looking forward to DC's butt covering, blame shifting excuse for this one. :uhoh:

[squawk6969]

What about the CEO Imposter:E
SQ

[LewC]

A report in The Australian today quotes David Cox as stating
that "QANTAS has checked everything he has worked on and it checked out". "We are comfortable that the work that he did was pretty safe".So "pretty safe" is good enough?

[patkinson]

As a retired engineer who has worked in a number of positions in a large and small companies around the world only once haveI known of a situation where an 'engineer' has been allowed access through the system when his licences were not observed on being given the job! He lasted 5 mins when QA interviewed him!
QF have ex LAEs who become managers within engineering and also those who have responsibilities with QA .Surely they must see new engineers before they ever get near an aircraft!
A licence or approval number must accompany a signoff . If an authority was given on a bogus or a forged licence this is another matter which could be part of a wider problem if a foreign licence can be forged. But it is a brave person who can manage to set themselves up that way then try and pass as an 'engineer' given the international nature of aviation today .What approvals or licence did this guy have?
Usually experience ,history and reputation of individuals can be pretty well known, especially in UK!
The outcome of this will be interesting !

[pohm1]

A QF spokesman was quoted as saying
"It was only after promotion beyond his qualification level that the ruse was discovered. He was far more able to deal with the management issues than his more qualified colleagues, which immediately made him worthy of further checks"

P1 ;) :ok:

[Managers Perspective]

Can you imagine the uproar if this had happened in Singapore.

Can't help but think about those glass houses again.

MP.

[lowerlobe]

Thats right MP this is a shock but I'd be carefull talking about glass houses if I were you.

How many management and board members are serving time in jail for an illegal act.

Another point to consider is that it was management that did not pick up anything was wrong.

[stubby jumbo]

First it was the Today Tonight debacle where DC look like a total GOOSE trying to defend the indefensible .

Now this.

If I was a LAME working for the Rat I would be :yuk::yuk: as it tarnishes everyone's reputations

DC.....Time to pack up your Cuisenaire blocks and Protractor and get a job with Air Zimbabwe......who knows- the President may promote you to his Cabinet with skills like yours???

[chemical alli]

never let the truth get in the way of a good story,daily tele quotes he was going to have a pay jump of 30 g from 60 g to 90 g .last i heard ame didnt get 60 g and first licence wasnt a 30 g increase

[satos]

I wonder what license number he used to certify work documents as most places I have worked for have a record of who is licensed and who is not.Quality at QF must take a long hard look at themselves.

[Twitter n Bisted]

I wonder what license number he used to certify work documents as most places I have worked for have a record of who is licensed and who is not

The character in question had his own license number. You receive your ARN upon your first application to CASA. License numbers now are an "L" in front of your ARN and Bob is you uncle.
Low and belhold you are now a Licensed aircraft engineer.Rumour has it he had been pulling the wool over everyone. He even managed to get a type course without his basics. Which points to management failings again.

I wish I had thought of it instead of doing all those exams.

[HotDog]

Quite frankly, it is a "glass house" situation when you are bitching about out sourced maintenance. The only saving grace is that he apparently knew what he was doing, albeit not licensed.

[chockchucker]

I don't agree hotdog.

It is the responsibilty of the Qantas Quality Assurance deparment and Management of Qantas engineering to control who is allowed to certify for maintenance carried out on their aircraft. They alone are responsible for verifying the credentials of the people that they employ for such purposes.


Quite simply, they dropped the ball whilst trying to cut corners and save a few bucks someplace else.

[Managers Perspective]

I wonder if he did illegally certify for maintenance on Singapore registered aircraft.

If so I doubt their union will go on national television to discredit QANTAS, I think they have higher standards than that.

MP.

[munchausen by proxy]

Can someone shed any light on whether this guy had kahunas big enough to join the ALAEA?

I just figure that while there's talk about internal verification processes failing, it might be worth asking the question.

[Hardworker]

so the bottom line is who is going to be accountable?
Management obviously but which manager is going to accept responsibility?
Cant see anyone owning up that the "system" that management have imposed doesnt work....funny we use to have a training co-ordinator that looked after all this, LAME type course, training, ensuring peoples qualifications were valid etc......not anymore cost cutting time...so they axed the position....
Time for management to accept that decision and be also axed!

[RedTBar]

Thats right MP don't accept any blame that management might have because it's always the employees fault when something is wrong.:yuk:

[RedTBar]

QANTAS has moved to plug loopholes that allowed an aircraft maintenance engineer to work for about a year using forged qualifications.
The engineer has left the airline and is now the subject of an Australian Federal Police investigation.
He was employed by the airline as a fourth-year apprentice in 2002 as part of an intake of ex-Ansett employees following that carrier's crash. He had worked for Ansett regional subsidiary Kendell Airlines.
The man completed his apprenticeship to become an aircraft maintenance engineer, but had not passed the tests required to go to the next grade and become a licensed engineer qualified to check and certify work done on aircraft.
It is understood the issue surfaced during a routine licence check for a pay rise.

QF will be prevent this from happening again by not giving LAMES a pay rise.They have given up on the normal doom and gloom excuse for wage restraint and will now use this.I also like the bit of throwing in the Ex Ansett in a heart beat."Yeah we got him from another airline so it's not completely our fault".'

[chemical alli]

so mp, first find a union in singapore then get them on national tv ,exactly what union covers singaporean workers and do they have free speach in the press? i doubt it

60 lashs of the ratahn for you

[company_spy]

Over the years there have been plenty of barriers in place to prevent this type of occurrance happening. In the past there was a Licensing Records clerk who looked after it, then the training school took over not to mention that everything went through the pay office or the manpower planner and later on the training co-ordinator. Now obvously to save money the responsibility has fallen to the lame themself to input data into Eq ( a bit like putting a fox incharge of a hen house ):E and get the manager to verify its validity. The company instigated these changes so must bear the brunt of any fallout that occurrs. The company has said that they have verified everyone's credentials now, one must ask how they have done this in such a short period of time, hopefully they haven't relied on Eq for this task.:ugh:

[domo]

hopefully they haven't relied on Eq for this task.

I got a company email last week that showed me all my qualifications
and yes it was straight off eq

[B A Lert]

Just goes to prove what so many of us already know: self-regulation is a failure: Never has worked sucessfully, does not work successfully and never will work successfully.

It doesn't matter what the spin-doctors say, Qantas Management is responsible for this so-called loop-hole. Cox says it's now been closed but in my view it's not closed until Cox himself, and anyone else responsible for the loop-hole, is out the door with the impostor. The law of libel prevents further discussion about impostors. :E:E

[Managers Perspective]

In between all the banter, I think the real issue here is the industry protecting itself from fraudulent documentation.
It has been challenged and to a degree addressed in the aircraft parts supply chains, but where is the technology for licencing and certification?
I know when Ansett went bust and the administrators cleaned out the Ansett Training Centre at the Astrojet Centre hundreds and hundreds of blank training certificates were dumped.
Many of the blanks were bundled up by the people working there, but where are those blank certificates now?:rolleyes::rolleyes:
And would you know if you were presented an original?
MP.

[Bumpfoh]

So now MH trots out an "information letter" to the troops which reads like it is more intended as a press release.

"The facts" as MH puts them are a little hard to fathom. One states that he only "certified" for work done on B744 aircraft and not any new generation a/c.
Can you please explain the difference to me MH, or for that matter the lesser, perceived or otherwise, importance of the 744 over new gen a/c?

The FACT remains that these aircraft that this individual "certified for" are indeed NOT legally certified for and no amount of spin will fix that.:=

[Sunfish]

I don't give a flying **** if he certified for a B747, the Space Shuttle or a C152!

I have personally experienced the consequences of an engineering screwup and I have no wish to ever again!

[HotDog]

So have I, courtesy of a prominent Belgian airline's engineering department that cost us 64 tons of fuel dumped into the North Sea.:sad:

[NAS1801]

Nobody claims that he was not competent. Nobody claims that he did substandard work. He fraudulently claimed he had additional qualifications. Staples in wires? how is it related?

[lordofthewings]

Heard today that the feds have been asked to find him, so that they can give him a managerial role at the great QF....lol
Fu.k, wouldnt he fit in....:D

[NAS1801]

a criminal amongst criminals....... only nobody is chasing Dixon & co.

[poacher2gamekeeper]

I suspect there are plenty engineers out there in the industry with documentation gained and exams passed by nefarious means including cheating, lying, misrepresenting, copying, using stolen question banks etc.

AND there may well have been plenty of fraudulent SOE work not done in the 80's and 90's before structured practical training was introduced, with many of your peers possibly involved.

Plenty of you now still cover up for the incompetent and the dangerous regardless of the status of qualifications held because they are 'mates'.

Who checks your competence once you are initially licensed? No one, unlike Pilots who have to prove competence on an ongoing basis.

So get off your smug, fat a:mad:e, stop trying to blame others and self regulate yourselves to get ALL the incompetents, the cheaters and the frauds out of the industry.

THAT is what a professional body should do, say like the AMA do with Doctors or the Law Society with Lawyers (well, on reflection, maybe not!)

P2G

[The Mr Fixit]

one fkg fradulent licence in eighty years of compliance, pffffft, I know who the smug tossers are !!!!!

[company_spy]

Poacher, are you suggesting that engineers should be required to do recurrent traininng similar to what pilots do?
No one would question this idea except QF management. For years the recurrent training notion has been rejected by management as being not required or too expensive, with the exception of the farcicle CTS which was made mandatory by EASA. Even then they struggled to keep everyone up to date on that.
You are correct in saying that the bad apples are hidden by crews themselves as everyone works around them. Perhaps a decent performance review system could expose those not up to scratch but that requires the union and company being able to agree on something and I dont see that happening for a long time.

[Tom Sawyer]

Quote; "Who checks your competence once you are initially licensed? No one, unlike Pilots who have to prove competence on an ongoing basis."

In the company I work for (EASA regulated) I have to;
1. Go in the sim every 18months to maintain EGR approval.
2. Carry out regular recurrent training relating to company technical instructions, TFU's, Mods, SILs and such like. I then I have to complete an online exam and maintain a certain score which is checked every 4 months.
3. Go on Human Factors course every 24mths.
4. Prove certification of each type that I am Licensed on or loose the approval.
5. Aircraft documentation that I have completed is monitored and if incorrect get a lovely trip to the QA department to correct it and get a "friendly chat".
6. Any aircraft that I am working on is liable to a QA inspection to check it, and me and the work I am carrying out.

If you really think we are not monitored P2G you are grossly mistaken.:=

Now I'm off to sit on smug, fat arse as you so put it .

[Capt Wally]

Tom sawyer not all in here feel that engineers are not checked as much as the guys/gals up at the pointy end. I was lucky enough to do a few years in the hands on dep of planes being an ex motor mech & loved every minute of it.Engine O/hauls, airframes etc all under the watchfull eye of a certain Alan Pl......., those who are in the know will know whom i'm talking about here. Had I not bought into a syndicate share for a C150 whilst on the tools & learnt to fly (that's where the rot set in & I was 4ever broke !) I would have gained my 'fix em' licenses & been part of the fantastic dedicated team that keep me coming home of a night time, the engineers for which I love...............term of endearment you understand !:)
Sure there's a few no doubt that are loose within the industry as there would be "parker pen" pilots..........they slipped thru the net 'caseu the 'net' has way too big a holes in it !.......keep the 'nuts' tight boys/girls we appreciate it

Capt Wally :-)

[Managers Perspective]

It would appear that some of the engineers here need to refresh their knowledge of the Civil Aviation Regulations before they shoot off about their employer.

CASA is quite specific in its view of who is responsible to ensure that maintenance is performed by a person that is approved to carry out the maintenance.

It may for some here to actually read CASA Schedule 6 paragraph 3.3(a).

What is the responsibility of a person who co-ordinates maintenance?
3.3 A person who co-ordinates the carrying out of maintenance within a category of maintenance must ensure:
(a) that each stage of maintenance is performed by a person who is permitted by regulation 42ZC to carry out the maintenance; and .......

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/act_regs/1988.pdf (see file page 488 of 616)

MP.

[domo]

and what does the qantas policey manual say
we work under the qantas system of maintenance
which is approved by casa.

[The Mr Fixit]

MP = FW

night all :E

[Managers Perspective]

we work under the qantas system of maintenance
which is approved by casa.

Jeepers, we are short on our knowledge.......

A CASA approved System of Maintenance is applicable to an aircraft, not an organisation.

It deals with "what" maintenance must be performed on the aircraft that it is applicable to, and "when" the maintenance must be performed.

Engineers in world class maintenance providers would be well aware of this......

Remedial reading can be found here: http://www.casa.gov.au/download/CAAPs/Airworth/42M_1.pdf

Come on now, do keep up, some of you are slipping down the ladder again........

MP.

[chockchucker]

MP, I must say that you're ignorance has to be seen to be believed!

[Redstone]

Managers Perspective:

After reading the majority of what i can only assume are your best efforts to "wind up" the punters here on PPrune, I have come to the conclusion that you obviously have not now (nor ever) the slightest idea what you are talking about. If your benal drivel is loosely based on your idea of amusement, you had better brush up on your casting tecnique and break out the top shelf lures.

MP, you have been weighed, measured and found wanting.

Bye bye.

[1746]

Why has their been a directive issued in the last 24 hrs that DMMs physically check all licenses held? The directive states that this must be finalised by 21/09/07.
I thought that DC and MH (?) had issued public statements saying all is rosy now that "the imposter" has been uncovered?:rolleyes:

[domo]

mp when you sign an aircraft you sign as a member of qantas engineering not as a casa licenced lame, that is why we use the fantastic eq system.
the casa regs are for lames who operate as maintenance organisations the qantas regs are for lames who operate under the qantas system of maintenance.

[Managers Perspective]

Now I have heard it all......

QF LAME's don't have to comply with the CAR's because they have their own regs at QF..

(shakes head in disbelief and logs off).

MP.

[inthefluffystuff]

Domo


Best you stop signing if you cannot figure out the regs. mate

[HotDog]

domo
and what does the qantas policey manual say
redstone
If your benal drivel is loosely based on your idea of amusement, you had better brush up on your casting tecnique and break out the top shelf lures.
I would suggest both of you brush up on your spelling and grammar before you post as a LAME.:rolleyes:

[No SAR No Details]

You sign the Qantas paperwork. The Qantas paperwork is part of the system of approved maintenance.
You are approved by QF to sign their paperwork, part of that approval is that you have a valid licence.
You sign the paperwork on behalf of QF, not on your own behalf.

[LME-400]

What is the responsibility of a person who co-ordinates maintenance?
3.3 A person who co-ordinates the carrying out of maintenance within a category of maintenance must ensure:
(a) that each stage of maintenance is performed by a person who is permitted by regulation 42ZC to carry out the maintenance; and .......

There was a time in QF when you could look up a license number and find a name and what ratings they hold.

/for lame

[splashman]

Oop,s big mistake MP,

If you did have knowledge of the CASA approved system of maintenace that applies to Qantas, you would not have posted such stupid wind ups.

If you are infact employed as an M within QFA, then I suggest a phone call to QA and perhaps another one to CASA,

If you ask nicely, they will explain to you how it all works and comes together withregards to QF.

Can you dial internal, or would you like me to provide you with the outside numbers.... That's is you wish to "brush up"

HaHa:O

[splashman]

LME 400, yes, there was a time, long ago and in this world of accountants running Engineering Departments, no longer there.

When I was employed by QF, my EQ and HRI showed I held a 737-200 licence. Never held it, never worked on the aircraft.

/ for lame , can only show what someone has entered..not what is real

[splashman]

Sorry, another post and I know I must be getting boring..

How many QA Managers, seniors, and personnel within the Qantas QA Department hold a CASA licence type rated on Qantas aircraft.

The pay drop is awesome..

An Industrial Manager in charge of Syd Dom ?

I never saw a QA department member, during my +10 years with QF, on the floor, in the hanger, or talking to LAME's etc etc

How would they know the situation, the problem, the whatever?

Most are AME's from the workshop and have never certified for Maintenance on QF aircraft...

Feel free to correct me.... pls........ I really hope my opinon is wrong..

[NAS1801]

(shakes head in disbelief and logs off). Great!!!!! Don't hurry back.

[domo]

MP
qantas engineering procedures manual 3-10-022 para 4a subsection 1

[splashman]

I don't think MP has access to the QF EPM, if he has, he has never read it.

Time for all to ignore this ******

Perhaps a new thread is apt, MP IMPOSTER:yuk:

[Managers Perspective]

qantas engineering procedures manual 3-10-022 para 4a subsection 1

Which reads.......

MP.

[domo]

if you dont have access then you should not debate the facts, I am not authorised to release qantas procedures

[Managers Perspective]

Thanks for that, another monumental contribution to the topic.

Looks as though there are a few that need to refresh their knowledge in Airworthiness Administration, and how it applies to the licenced engineer.

Further remedial reading can be found here: http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/aac/part-1/1-063.HTM

And here: http://www.casa.gov.au/ame/download/aac9-01.pdf

Do come along boys and girls, you are dragging your feet again.....

Please try to keep up, the rest of the aviation community relies upon you lot.

- MP.

[Redstone]

MP, you truly are a waste of bandwidth:zzz:

[company_spy]

Whilst I usually disagree with 99% of what MP says, he is correct in saying that certification is in accordance with the CASA approved system of maintenance. Everything in the PM which tells you what, how and when to do it is CASA approved or should be, you sign with a CASA license not a QANTAS one, QANTAS gives you the authority to sign but you need a CASA license to do so. Even overseas lame's who are authorised by QANTAS still require a CASA OK.

[splashman]

CS, your post is correct,
Everything within the PM is CASA approved, or should I dare to say, rubber stamped, any deviation from the CAR'S are approved internally by CASA approved persons employed by QF.
CASA monitor, and the rest of the industry would have no idea as to the details of the deviation.
CASA monitoring depends on manpower and the politics of the situation.
The purpose of the posts are to show every reader that MP Imposter has no knowledge of how the system works within QF, has no access to the QF policy manual and therefore "throws stones in glass houses" to wind QF LAME'S up.
He/She has an opinion, which he/she has a right to post, however, that opinion is irrelevent with regards to QF's system of maintenance, as I do not believe MP has any idea of how it works.
His/Her comments are uninformed rubbish, from someone who thinks that all things are equal. Guess what, they are not in the real world.
Example
A QFA aircraft is flying with a defect, which has been deferred under the CASA approved MEL, for rectification, within the allowable time frame of Cat A, B or C.
The allowable time frame for recification expires due to lack of spares, lack of manpower, lack of anything.
The questions to you,... MP...., are

1. What happens now ?
The spares are a week away, the CASA approved MEL states, to the effect, that the defect must be rectified within a time frame that has expired.
2. Legally, can the aircraft fly?
If so how ?, who takes the responsability should a incident occur after the MEL has expired, that is directly related to the defect?. Who will be answerable in a court of law?

From your posts I doubt that you even know what MEL stands for.....(a hint, it does not stand for Melbourne).
Let all the readers see how you knowledgeable you are with regards to QF maintenance procedures!
Prove yourself as someone who knows what they are posting about, and should be taken seriously by QF LAMES.

3.Do you hold an CASA AME Licence?

4. Have you ever certified of the competion of maintenace on a group 20 aircraft.

Don't bother about pointing out spelling mistakes, I know the answer to the first 2 questions, and can say yes to the second 2.

Good Luck

[satmstr]

oh splashman you have made my day... good post !:D

[Sunfish]

Excellent post, what is the answer these days at Qantas? Do you have permits to fly etc. etc. as AN did?

[splashman]

To be fair, let's see and give him/her a chance to answer.

I am quite happy to read MP IMPOSTERS posts, to see, and try to understand, a different perspective of events with the industry, especially QF.

Still, the time has come for MP IMPOSTER to prove that he/she actually has a knoweldge of what he/she is writing about.

MP, no rush for your answers, however pls remember that 90% of lame's employed by QF reading this forum, will never listen to you again until you do...and then you have to be right...I will give you the same as CASA and QF gave me..... 75% you pass, 74% you fail..l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers and good luck,

Splash.......

[NAS1801]

Thanks Splashman. Probably the best post I have read here in a long time! Look forward to MP Imposter's reply!

[Sunfish]

Deafening silence! Sounds like MP really is management material - not a clue.

[splashman]

Oh give the man/lady a chance,

He/she might be on one of Mr Harris's, Qantas sponsered, weekends away. Paddleing up the whatever river, feeling good, and having no problems about shafting the people who have worked along side them, and taught them a thing or two about aircraft maintenace.

Before you sign off on the expenditure, Mr David Cox, think about how much all these trips have cost, and what has been achieved. Hope the shareholders agree.

The only one gaining from all this is Fred and Co.

[Managers Perspective]

Splashman,

You raise two separate points within your questions, namely am I licensed and do I understand the MEL system.

No I am not a licenced AME, and of course no I haven’t certified as such.

Do I understand the MEL system, well probably better than you think although I am not privy to the QF MEL.

The MEL forms part of the CASA approved System of Maintenance for a Class A aircraft, it is not mandatory to have an MEL but it offers an immediate Permissible Unserviceability system without further need for delegate approval under CAR37.

An Australian MEL is a derivative of the country of origin MMEL and is considerate of local requirements for which the aircraft will operate under, typical examples being:
- Radio requirements to suit Australia, HF etc
- Emergency egress equipment based upon your CASA evacuation demonstration and how many cabin crew carried etc (one slide out with reduced passenger load and door placarding etc)
- Any Australian AD requirements that are applicable to the aircraft and its defined role

The MEL is applicable to the aircraft and the certificate of registration holder and is not transferable, as mentioned earlier it forms part of the CASA approved System of Maintenance and will be listed on the equivalent of page 1 of the CASA approved Aircraft Log Book.

Now back to your example.

There are a couple of considerations in the scenario that you offer.

In applying the MEL the engineer must consider the current status of the aircraft, not just the defect for which he/she is presented. If the (M) conditions of the MEL can be met then the engineer is permitted to apply the MEL upon completion of the maintenance actions required and once satisfied that no other condition inhibits the application (already having a deferred defect or other inappropriate aircraft condition etc).

Once the engineer has applied the MEL the PIC must ensure that they can meet the (O) conditions for the intended flight. Acceptance of the MEL is discretional for the PIC who must consider all of the circumstances of the intended flight including weather, suitability of alternates etc. Once the PIC has a valid Maintenance Release and a certified application of an MEL then he is permitted to fly within the limitations of the MEL until expiry.

Which brings me to your point, the MEL has expired, can the aircraft fly.

Unless there is further relief available within the MEL Preamble then the MEL expires after the stated period in the applicable MEL item. At this point the Maintenance Release ceases to remain valid and the aircraft is not permitted to fly unless some other PUS or Special Flight Permit is issued under the provisions of the CAR’s.

If the aircraft did fly with an expired MEL then the following would be questioned:
- How and why did the PIC accept an MEL that was expired?
- Why did the CASA approved maintenance control procedures not detect the expiry and prevent further flight?
- If a Maintenance Release had been issued after the MEL expiry, why did the person issuing the MR not detect the expired MEL?

I trust that this answers your questions……… now let me ask you one…..

You are the engineer responsible for final certification and coordination for an aircraft that has undergone a major modification. The mod has been performed under a foreign STC and whilst part way through the modification it was found that a part didn’t fit correctly. A CAR35 approval was granted for the local manufacture and installation of a different part and also a CAR 36A approval was granted for some alternate fasteners (not an uncommon situation).

In reviewing the work that has been completed and just prior to you making the final certification you are asked…

1. At the completion of the modification and upon issue of the Maintenance Release, who is held responsible for ensuring that the aircraft has continued to meet its type design, and how is that assured?

2. Who is held responsible for ensuring that the ongoing airworthiness instructions relative to the modification have been incorporated into the approved data for the aircraft?

Over to you…….

MP.

[Sunfish]

MP, all you've done is read what CASA says, you have obviously never worked in the engineering department of an airline at all......... you still haven't answered the original question............How can the aircraft fly if it doesn't meet the MEL?

At this point the Maintenance Release ceases to remain valid and the aircraft is not permitted to fly unless some other PUS or Special Flight Permit is issued under the provisions of the CAR’s.
You still don't understand the relationship between the CAR's and the airline do you?

Here's another question. Does the Captain have to accept an aircraft with a failed item that's within the MEL?

Does the Captain have to accept an aircraft with anything he thinks is sub standard even if its not even referred to in the MEL?

And another question, have you ever heard the expression: "The light came on just after we took off", what does it mean?

[Managers Perspective]

OK Sunfish,

I was asked and I answered.

Tell me then where you would find what I wrote in CASA documentation or explanatory notes. You will note from my previous posts that wherever that has been available I have quoted the reference for all to benefit.

So come on, find what I wrote......... spend a couple of weeks trying.... I am a patient man.

If you do find something then maybe I should charge them royalties...

MP.

[satos]

Simple,If the captain ain't happy then she ain't flying.

[Clipped]

Ahh ... it's not THAT simple.

The PIC must have an overwhelming reason to reject a permissible unserviceability. That is, when they say no when presented the logbook ... pass them the phone, Duty Captain on the other end of the line. Short conversation later and he will be back in his l/h seat.

Many moons ago, some Qf captains took great delight in not accepting defects covered by the MEL. APU inop .. I'm not going .. yes, of course Captain.

Airlines stand to lose alot of doe when planes are grounded. If she's airworthy, she flies.

[Kiwiconehead]

Many moons ago, some Qf captains took great delight in not accepting defects covered by the MEL. APU inop .. I'm not going .. yes, of course Captain.
Hence the (I think) 610 delay code - "Crew rejection of MEL" - love that one.

[splashman]

MP

Your answers to my questions are legally correct..well done.

Without research, I would initally say that a foreign STC cannot be altered.
If a CAR 36 approved person changes a foreign STC, then LAME should not accept the changes.

If a PIC does not accept an MEL then so be it, legally he/she can, however in the real word, someone else will fy the aircraft and the next months roser for the said PIC?????????????

I would be the first to stand corrected, however this area is out of my domain...Give me a bit of time to research; as I gave you

My problem with your posts are that they do not apply to the real world.

You implied, that QF LAME thinks that they can work outside of the CAR's.
They do all the time.

Examples

The fact that a standby compass can be deemed unserviceable, by virtue of CASA limits, then found internally acceptable (compass swings cost money).

Maintenance by telephone,
How many flights take off after discussion between the PIC and QF Maint watch, no tech log entry, no LAME sign off. What happens if something goes amiss, believe me the maint watch LAME is only responsible for a sign off, yes he could be held responsible for advice given, but very hard to prove.

PIC not happy with MEL
In todays world it is quick chat with the Duty Chief pilot.
In my 11 years with QF, never has the PIC, said, no way I do not agree and I am not flying the aircraft. Should he/she ever do, I guess they will get someone else to fly. And next months roster for the PIC??????????????

Engine boroscope damage found out of limits, but deemed OK (internally, within the company), OK to fly with pax !!!!!!!!

At a remote outstaion, your mobile rings, you answer, and find you are a part of a conference call, the CAR 35/36 holder says " cannot let that go" and you have to say I never asked you to, I did not ring you.

5 examples of internal pressures/stress being thrown at flight crew and engineers. You would think they have never heard of Human Factors yet they teach it to their LAME's .

QF lames do not have to comply with the CAR;s, when they are varied by approved persons, who most likely are empoyed by QF.

Let me know how I did with your question, its not a bitch fight, but I would never pass an opinion on something I know nothing about, you seem to.


Splash

[LAME2]

Seems to me you need to submit a REPCON report to the ATSB. CASA are to close to QF to give you the time of day. Whilst the ATSB have protocols with how they investigate your report (they ask CASA to investigate and report back to ATSB), they are probably the only ones who are showing any interest at the moment to the situations you have found yourself in. Go to the ATSB website for instructions on how to fill one in and submit.

[company_spy]

A lot of people have a lot to say in this thread, and everyone is correct to a degree. I may as well throw my 2 cents worth in and wait to be shot down as well.:\

Can a plane fly with an expired MEL? Not unless there is relief granted by an approved person. Whilst that person may be employed by the airline they are approved by CASA and have been given the authority to do so.
Can a PIC reject an MEL? Certainly they can, but extreme pressure will be placed on them to accept it and most normally do.

Who is reponsible if something goes wrong, the LAME, the approved person or the PIC? In my oppinion it has to be the approved person otherwise we wouldn't need them, as we would only be be working to the limits set by the manufacturer.

In relation to the Maintenance Release, this was changed a while ago so that it remains valid for a set period of time, usually 12 to 18 months and is revalidated at a major check, C or D or unless a major defect has occurred usually structural damage then the MR ceases to be valid. This is in the QF system I don't know if other airlines followed suit.
The RTS (Return to Service) needs to be validated for each flight.( I know there are variations to this. )

In a perfect world no aircraft would fly with defects outside the limits of the MM, SRM or MEL, however it is not perfect and most airlines around the world operate with defects outside the limits with approval from their governing body, FAA, EASA or CASA otherwise no aircraft would be flying and we'd all be out of a job.
Aircraft have flown with expired MEL's, MR's and RTS's due to oversights by engineers and flight crew not intentionally.

By the way this thread has gone off on quite a large tangent from the origonal LAME Imposter, maybe we should get back on track or start a new one dealing with CASA regs and maintenance issues.

Will sit back and wait for the attack.:E

[Clipped]

CS you're right - this thread has gone off on a wayward tangent.

But I do believe the 'Imposter' has been found and interviewed by the Feds, do not know anymore though.

[domo]

I belive he has been terminated as he has abandoned his employment

[splashman]

Sorry, I have not helped in keeping this thread on it's original topic, you are right and I apoligise

Splash

[No SAR No Details]

Anybody have their SOE books signed by the alleged non qualified engineer?